In my language we have a saying that roughly translates to "to weave a whip that you'll get beaten with". English equivalent would be "dig holes under yourself" I guess.

Men regularly partake in supporting agendas that end up being used to harm them both systematically and on everyday social level (and are actually used almost exclusively to bash on men), and in fact other than trying to gain status these are the only things a lot of them put any time and energy into.

In this post I'll outline some of them.

1. Homophobia:

Why is it anti-male: one thing is that it only goes one way. Same retards that rave about gays salivate over lesbians and have no problem with them, at best they'll do some 'durr durr these are mentally ill pink haired cat ladies, they were brainwashed' lip service, instead of harassing and slandering them the same way they do to male homosexuals.

Another thing is that even if you're a straight man you will most likely still get bashed as homosexual at some point in your life, as funny as that sounds.

There is myriad of things that can get a man accused of being homosexual, clothing, interests, haircut, way he talks, moves or looks like etc.

When confronted with that men like to pull out the usual 'it's not me, it's all the other guys' cope, 'no no, me? I'm so masculine, nobody would ever say I'm gay to demean me!' meanwhile for example you have even the most masculine presenting redpill copers/conservatives regularly getting accused of being closeted.

This has a morbidly funny consequence - due to sheer amount of constant homosexuality accusations men face, and because of actual number of straight men vs gay men, if you just went with sheer flat number then there are more instances of straight men experiencing homophobia then honest to god gays.

On the other hand a woman can dress and act however she wants, nobody will say that she's a lesbian based just off of that (and even if, like I already wrote, that doesn't really do anything to women) - if anything, a lot of guys are happy about women taking up male interests or clothing/presentation.

Simply put, homophobia is an issue that's almost exclusively faced by men, if you're homophobic man you're screwing yourself over.

2. Racism:

Why is it anti-male: gender bias/preferences triumph racial preferences by miles, it's not even comparable.

Almost all racist rhetoric is aimed exclusively at men of any given race, and even on rare occasions when not - just like with lesbians, it's just a lip service. Men support all manner of bizarre claims and demonization of their gender when it's about men of another race, most recent example would be supposed UK grooming gangs.

Over the years I've observed people from circles that are most ardent about race theory...shack up with ethnic women and even have multiple children with them.

I'm sorry, how can you rave about racial differences, superiority/inferiority and talk like we're different species for years, and then go shack up and reproduce with a woman who is member of supposedly inferior race? What does this say about your actual beliefs and motivations?

Most right wingers are bitchmade and just wave it away as some "haha, hehe, I'm such silly billy, shacking up with ethnic women when I'm so racist" joke, so I'll tell you what it says - all their beliefs are smokes and mirrors, everything they do is trying to get status by bashing other men so that women will shack up with them.

Much more could be said but that's for another thread.

Point is - if you're racist man, you're supporting male bashing and screwing yourself over.

3. Transphobia

Why is it anti-male: I'm not a big fan myself of trans circles due to rampant misandrist behavior I've seen from them over the years, but that's besides the point - trans issue has got to be the biggest smokes and mirrors that men have got duped into being invested in.

Men have myriad of issues, yet right wing/conservative men obsess over what is probably far, far less than a percentile (percentile, not a percent!) of population. Not to mention that the whole thing has somewhat got men who claim to be against feminists side with some of the most radical offshoots of feminism (and that's saying something considering how hateful and radical feminism is in the first place).

Over the years time and time again I've seen the trans discourse prompt even self-proclaimed misogynists into quasi-religious women worshiping behavior - "bla bla bla femininity is divine and you can't fake it" etc.

Needless to say, this has been perhaps one of greatest maneuvers of duping men into sucking off their own enemies, ignoring their own actual issues and propping up female oppression myths that I've witnessed in my life. I'm almost in awe.

4. Pedo smearing

Little clarification before some redditor screenshots this and does that thing where they pretend to be socially stunted in order to misinterpret your point on purpose - by "pedo smearing" I mean accusing men of pedophilia without any evidence.

Why is it anti-male: people only throw pedophilia accusations around like candy when it comes to men. Nobody accused women of being pedophiles as a gag reflex, even though they're capable of it and partake in it as well.

It's also a go-to way to smear low status men - if you're ugly looking male and you're low status, 100% you've been called a pedo or suggested to be a pedo, either to your face or behind your back. Sometimes I joke that it's almost rite of passage.

Why is it this way? Cause people hate men in the first place, and they're looking for any way to justify that hate. They actually WISH you were a pedo so that they could feel justified in their sadism.

It's particularly insidious too - it's obvious that people hate pedophiles with passion, so by smearing you like this people basically are hoping that they'll indirectly get someone to harm/kill you. 

Another thing - morbid but needs to be talked about - why pedo hunters only hunt male pedos? Can you name a single pedo hunting group that had male decoys/hunted female preds? 

Do you think that if you made fake account of a handsome underage boy, there wouldn't be women interested? There would be, dozens upon dozens, avalanche of cases where female teacher slept with male students shows that.

So why is nobody interesting in catching female predators? Cause it's another thing that got co-opted into punishing and demonizing men, FFS it's so bad that a lot of people out there think that only men can be pedophiles.

My point is, there is something profoundly ironic about group that's most likely to be accused of pedophilia without any evidence (men) virtue signaling about how much they hate pedophiles. Again, tying noose around your own neck.

5. Being against "sexual degeneracy"

Why is it anti-male: people only rave about male masturbation habits, because only male sexuality is seen as inherently harmful. 

Almost nobody talks about rape smut women consume, or the fact that a lot of sex toys for women are shaped like animal genitalia. Recently I've discovered that there are communities of women that are into gore hentai/light smut.

Point is, no matter what you think about any of that - only men are shamed and demonized for their sexual habits in any real capacity.

A lot of men who rave about 'sexual degeneracy' don't see any issue when those acts are performed with a woman, in fact over the years I've seen the exact same types of men proudly boast about sexual acts that by all means would be considered degenerate by their own definition.

Which brings me to another point, partially tied to homophobia I guess - when you look at porn site stats, some of the most popular straight porn categories are blowjobs and anal. 

Can someone explain to me difference in putting your dick in male or female anus? Better yet, how are blowjobs any different from anal sex? You're putting your penis in hole where it doesn't belong purely for the sake of sexual pleasure. Yet almost nobody who raves about 'sexual degeneracy' sees any problem with blowjobs - I could tell you what all that implies but I don't like repeating same things ad nauseam so just look at the end of section on racism again.

My point is, rhetoric about sexual degeneracy is so one sided against one gender that it gets to the point where a woman just partaking in an act magically makes it un-degenerate.

Final thoughts:

These are just obvious few things that came to my mind, when you think about it, in his extreme self hatred almost everything a man puts energy into is against his actual self interest.

Men also suffer from extreme "it's not me, it's all these other guys!" syndrome, that's a topic for another thread in on itself.

They all think that by supporting aforementioned things they'll put other men down and gain status, they have trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that a) almost every single other man thinks the same, sometimes including the very same ones that he's bashing b) they can end up on the chopping block that they've been setting up themselves (it would never be me, I'm a special boy! -again, they don't understand that most other men think the same way).

Thanks for reading!

In right wing circles you’ve probably ran into talk about “securing ones bloodline” at one point or another.

It’s one of many things that are used to whip men into pointless hypercompetition and justify it – this bizarre idea that you’ll somehow keep on living through your DNA/your children being your clones. But more on that later.

Even from purely practical standpoint, it doesn’t make sense – just for the sake of simplicity, lets say that there’s 50/50 split between your and womans DNA in a child (personally I’m frankly convinced children get most of their traits from mother, but I couldn’t find any research on that).

Your child = 50% of your DNA.

Your grandchild = 25% of your DNA.

Your great grandchild = 13% of your DNA rounding up.

Three generations and there’s barely any of you there. That’s less than 100 years. And it doesn’t even factor in things like epigenetics, changes in your DNA from things like background radiation, your diet, lifestyle etc.

Even before that, your child, the very first in your “line” after you being a clone of yourself even in half is out of the window right off the bat - genetic recombination is a mischievous bitch. In reality they’ll be more akin to a jumbled bag of features from your and woman’s families multiple generations back.

Then there’s another thing – men (because god knows women don’t give a fuck about things like these, they just care about enjoying their time on earth) who obsess over bloodline are extremely hypercompetitive like I mentioned, after all you gotta punch other men down to get a woman to shack up with you – as a result they don’t make effort to build anything that lasts, they're incapable of being part of any long standing community, make no long lasting contributions to humanity, after all why waste time doing things that don’t bring you closer to shacking up with a woman?

Their children inherit that.

I don’t even mean necessarily on genetic level, I mean it more in a sense that this lizard brained behavior is rubbing off on one another over the generations in general – boomer parent throws his son out of the house, later son throws his ashes into trash can. Behold, the great “bloodline” in motion.

Which brings another point – men like these usually make for shit parents. Rarely if ever do I see “bloodline” types actually give a flying fuck about their children to any extend other than providing basic necessities, especially their sons.

They’re like that bug that laid eggs on withered tomato plant on my balcony last year during cold months – just shit out your eggs, mission passed, another “life accomplishment” to tick off. Which begs a question – do they actually even care about their “bloodline”, or do they just care about heebie jeebies that you get to feel from a woman validating you enough to carry your child but are too bitchmade to admit it?

Finally, there’s certain irony to the fact that I keep seeing “continuing your bloodline” justifications for hostility/hypercompetitiveness towards other men in right wing circles which are largely religious, christian to be precise – christianity or not, I don’t know of any single religion that says that you’ll somehow live through your children after death.

Christian or atheist, anyone who’s sensible can agree that after you kick the bucket, this is it for your current life, no matter how much of your DNA floats around out there – well, apparently anyone aside from “christian” right wingers that I’ve seen - they're very adamant about trying to magically continue existing on earth after death. Tad bizarre behavior for a christian if you ask me, but then again, what about right wingers saying one thing and doing another isn't?

I’ve experienced something equal parts disconcerting and morbidly funny over the years when picking at certain narratives (eg. “men dominate society”) – I’ve seen people who expressed unpopular opinions on the topic (for example the fact that no, men do not dominate society, in fact they probably never did) get called “misogynists/incels/yada yada” in leftist circles while people ignored every point and refused to logically engage - now that alone wouldn’t be surprising, but the thing is - I’ve seen people in far right circles react in exactly same manner to exactly same opinions, just with different set of buzzwords, “leftist/feminist/yada yada...”.

Now, when people who are supposed polar opposites on very ideological/philosophical level react the same way to same opinions...you gotta wonder what the fuck is actually going on here.

What if I told you on core level, what these people actually care about and how they think, the things that actually affect your everyday decision making - they are exactly the same no matter their stated political stances?

Yes, you heard that right – even most outspoken leftists and hardcore neo-nazis believe in same shit. Conveniently all of these shared beliefs are things that diminish men and elevate women. Funny coincidence, huh? Makes you wonder what politics are actually about.

In this thread I’ll list off just some of examples I’ve observed over my years of foolishly obsessing over politics:

a) Peddling "men are dominant"/obscuring how women dominate society

“It’s a man’s world!”

Leftist stance: pretty much what I wrote, they claim men run everything in society, therefore they dominate society. This is obviously so fallacious that it’s childish, being responsible for something/doing something does NOT equal to being the one getting fruits of your labor. Construction workers, miners, men in transport/logistics, you name it don’t run the society lmao, they merely maintain it under yoke of tiny group of higher status men, who themselves oversee the operation for the sake of women. Majority of men are modern day slaves, but that’s topic for another thread. Women make up to 80% of customer spending despite often being a tax drain on economy of a given country, and they’re so privileged that they don’t even need to be the ones bringing down the boot on peons working for their benefit, other men do it for them.

Right wing stance: right wingers happily agree that “men dominate society”, just more for coping/ego driven reasons. Again, that’s like saying slaves dominated plantations because they were responsible for carrying out the work. Amazing logic. The reason for this is that they don’t want to see themselves as members of oppressed group, it’s a dishonor to them, they’d rather keep eating shit while repeating lies than stand on their feet even if it hurts their ego. Kinda ironic considering supposed right wing ethos, no?

Effect on men: sweeping victimization of men under the rug, male hyperagency/blaming exclusively men as a group for all male problems, putting responsibility on men as a group even though most don’t have any real authority

b) Overexxegerating sexual dimorphism

“Men are powerful brutish beasts and women are hapless fragile flowers”

Leftist stance: leftists tend to flip flop on this depending on whether they want to humiliate men or demonize men and elevate women – sometimes they claim that women are 100% as capable and actually better than men in every single way, even physically. Other times they claim that women are helpless, there’s x/y/z naturally holding them back – they do this when it comes to, for example, pushing things such as additional benefits/handouts/favors for women in any given area of society, lower sentencing in court (or even exemption from prison) etd. etc.

At the same time they also push narrative that men are these unfeeling, impervious beasts that are incapable of having any real problems they can’t deal with, and as such you can dish out any punishment onto them and the brutes will just pull through.

Right wing stance: ...right wingers absolutely agree with the latter case, just for different reasons. When getting dehumanized this way, the ever dimwitted morons on the right puff up their chests and go “YES! YES IT’S ALL TRUE, LOOK AT ME, LOOK HOW AWESOME I AM!”. They eat shit and ask for desserts. I’ve seen these people argue that men are literally more resistant to injury/disease/trauma than women due to slightly higher muscle density. Reason is once more ego. It’s also a sort of sexual posturing – they hope that by peddling these myths on how powerful men are compared to women, it will increase their social status and make women want them – newsflash you fucking idiots, women know exactly what you’re doing and laugh at you behind your backs for falling for the meme.

Effect on men: harsher sentencing and punishments in society, less or straight up no social support

c) Peddling female oppression myths

“In the past, women couldn’t own anything, and they were raped, and chained to a fence like a goat, and…”

Leftist stance: a lot could be said here and a lot was said by people far well versed in the topic than I am – to put it shortly, apparently all of history was an orgy of violence and cruelty towards women, and then it magically changed somehow few decades ago because...reasons. Of course all of it is fallacious – misinterpreted or straight up made up data, biased studies, lies by omission, I could keep going whole day and wouldn’t have enough time, all these claims of women being historically oppressed fall apart under any closer scrutiny. Like I said, a lot of good writeups were done on the topic, browse the sub if you’re interested ;)

Right wing stance: ...they all believe same things lmao. I’ve seen people in far right circles say shit like “you’re a product of thousand of rapes”. They see all these vile claims about men in the past and eat that shit up like how a pelican gobbles up fish, then puff up again and go “YES! IT’S ALL TRUE, THIS IS HOW IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF IT WASN’T FOR FEMINISM!”. Aside from validating false claims in the first place, can you see what else they do here? They basically say that if it wasn’t for feminism (a hate movement against men), women would be oppressed. Again, reasons for this bizarre behavior are the same – ego, posturing, trying to look “cool” to women.

I don’t like playing armchair psychologist, but I can’t help but feel like another reason for this behavior is that deep down these men know that they are oppressed and, as things currently stand, fairly powerless group, so this is sort of “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” cope – “things just magically changed few decades ago”. Again, supposedly opposing groups, same beliefs for different reasons.

Effect on men: lack of sympathy towards men, justification of society’s mistreatment of men

d) Peddling that male penis is a magically corrupting force

Yes you read that right. No it’s not a joke (even though I wish it was).

Leftist stance: I’ve seen claims that every instance of straight sex is rape. I’ve seen claims that male sexuality is predatory by nature. Recently narrative that man seducing a woman in any way shape or form is coercion and therefore rape is being peddled. Sorry but I’ve seen enough bizarre claims and narratives to safely say that this header isn’t an exaggeration.

Right wing stance: right wingers believe same things, they just focus on different aspect – they believe women are “pure”, and every time they have sex with a man it corrupts them somehow. This brings out a sort of self hatred and obsession with who other men fuck or don’t fuck – after all, you gotta be worthy of corrupting fair maiden with your evil penis - and leads to a psychotic hatred of other men to the point some of these people advocate for killing other groups of men so that they don’t “corrupt” women that they could be having sex with themselves.

“The gun is good, the penis is evil”.

Effect on men: demonization of male sexuality and men in general

e) Taking away any responsibility from women

“You can’t hold women accountable because x/y/z…”

Leftist stance: women are oppressed, traumatized, weak, powerless and under danger from insanely strong and powerful men, ergo they shouldn’t be held as accountable as men are.

Right wing stance: women are weak, stupid, useless, “they’re like children”, ergo they shouldn’t be held as accountable as men are + as a bonus in right wing view women shouldn’t have any responsibilities either.

Effect on men: helplessness towards women (someone who can’t be held accountable can do anything to you and get away with it), bigger burden of responsibility put onto men as a whole

Conclusions:

Women don’t even need to partake in politics to utterly dominate society, “culture wars” are essentially just a gladiatorial arena where men argue on what is best way of providing for/pleasing women.

“How do we make things better for women and why our way is better for women” < behold, entirety of politics all across the spectrum. I’m sorry but if you’ve been obsessing over politics/culture wars/whatever like I used to do, you’ve been bamboozled.

I feel like utter fool for getting duped like this but you know, hindsight is 20/20, I had to interact with average people who are into politics closely to realize how nuts they are and how duplicitous their supposed beliefs are.

My recommendation? Stop caring about irrelevant bullshit and focus and things that actually affect you directly, such as your rights as a man or how society treats you, if you haven’t already.

Thanks for reading.

This will be a rather short post - appealing to nature, you've probably ran into it somewhere in the wild during various online arguments - most likely while seeing people justify why men should be treated like biological waste. So, lets get into it:

In order to argue that sometimes is good because it's natural or vice versa, you have to actually make a decision/set hard rules as to what is natural and what is not. You can probably already see problem with that. Humans always used tools, manipulated their environment and lived clustered in almost hive-like populations. Where do you draw the line?

When a beaver makes a dam, is that natural? If a seagull figures out that there's food inside potato chip bags, which parts of that is natural and which isn't? I deliberately set an object in the the path of ants, is that still natural?

When you try drawing a line somewhere in the middle it becomes silly and completely arbitrary, you have to go into absolutism. From there you arrive into either of these conclusions:

a) humans and all things they do have somehow diverted/are somehow removed from nature - in which case appealing to nature is pointless, why should I give a shit about what's natural when I can circumvent it?

b) everything humans do is natural - in which case, calling something "natural" is a moot point, if it exists then it's natural, me writing on a computer that I don't like how men are treated is natural.

Either way, appealing to nature basically defeats itself.

Remember it next time someone pulls out some "survival of the fittest" mumbo jumbo out of their ass, selectively applied every single time depending on whether they want to bash men or justify something women do.

While reading this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/CityCrusherYT/comments/1v0ixxt/a_little_review_of_the_film_obsession_feminists/

Certain part - In real-world domestic abuse studies, the abuse or killing of a partner's pet is recognized as a primary tool of extreme psychological domination and terror. - reminded me of this Mike Tyson tidbit:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/17167565/mike-tyson-dumped-girlfriend-killed-ate-pigeon/

Long story short, Tyson's girlfriend at the time killed and cooked and ate one of his pigeons.

We can probably agree that Tyson is a pretty strong guy, no? Probably up there in category of most physically formidable men in history.

Yet a woman still ended pulling off this shit on him - think about it, she must have had zero fear of him to do that.

How people still fall for childish strength doctrine is beyond me.

Another Tyson tidbit, what actually set him on path of boxing:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/mike-tyson-boxing-fight-news-27394242

Again, long story short - when Tyson was ten years old neighbouring bully tore off head of his pigeon right in front of him, and otherwise timid Tyson beat his ass up in rage.

Now, most people see this story as inspiring, overcoming adversity and whatnot - I see it as tragic. I see it as a story of a man having to hone his body into a weapon over the years to protect himself from abuse.

While Tyson taking up boxing eventually actually paid off for him and he became a champion, no doubt thanks to having good genetics for it - how many men take up training for no other benefit than to just protect themselves physically and psychologically, just to feel a modicum of safety out there? No doubt a lot.

But that only protects you from other men chimping out at you - like Tyson's example shows, no matter how strong you are, you're still free game to women.

Another thing in that theme - you remember "Angry German Kid"?

https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/where-are-they-now-heres-what-the-angry-german-kid-has-been-up-to-since-his-keyboard-crasher-video-went-viral

I implore you to read this article, it's very brutal.

During era when OG clip was made Norman used to parody various behaviors, he was quite good at acting. Perhaps too good for his own good.

Thing is, his clip where he pretended to rage at computer was taken by people as a real thing - what followed was ubiquitous bullying and total social death for Norman.

What followed after that was decade of gym and trying to rebuild social status, Norman of today is barely recognizable with who he was.

Again, people spin it as inspirational story - it's tragic, young boy was tormented for his sense of humor and had to go on penance until he turned into something that's socially acceptable. Makes me retch.

There's a pattern to these examples - this is what society does to you as a man, they force you to become something useful/approvable to women or else they'll torment you.

But the struggle never ends, you're never in the clear - you've merely bribed yourself temporary easing off on yourself.

It's why I have hard time feeling jealous of other men these days - most men who managed to climb up social ladder did so being coerced, under threat of isolation, hostility and bullying from women and their cronies who worship them.

Finally, back to Tyson's example and "strength doctrine" - it's one of reasons why I hate evopsych and appealing to biology.

"Men are dangerous because they are stronger than women" how about I flip this argument on its head and argue that men evolved more resilient and stronger because they were always abused?