u/Successful_Roof_979

Is this sub actually anti feminist or is it a pro male larp sub like mens lib which claims to be pro males but is actually anti male and misandrist?

For example some people here think having children here is what males should do.

I disagree I think that being expected to give up resources to have a family is misandrist so I have a full bullet proof solution simply don't have a family and don't date.

Because dating despite being financial exploitation of males same as marriage for the most part often leads to reproduction and reproduction.

The system is rigged against males from day one as males pay for females for existing and I don't mean dates or call girls I mean that the government uses tax dollars paid by males to found programs for females such as female only scholarships, grants, help programs, shelters so even males who have never even married or dates a female are still forced to pay for females legally proving that females are truly the the gender bourgeoise where as males are the gender proletariat.

Hence why reproduction is anti male because if a male has a female child he creates another bourgeoise he is a proletariat who is responsible for the birth of a bourgeoise, in what world does that make sense.

Another reason is because the system is inheritably founded on male oppression by creating a male child he creates another slave of the system like him to be exploited and used by the state for the sake of the gender Bourgeoisie especially in nations with military service.

You might think that if no one reproduces the nation dies but here is the think if the nation and society is inherently anti male a self respecting man would think to himself maybe the nation does not deserve to exist.

Seriously don't do it fellas don't have kids and I recommend never marrying or dating females either.

And dating or marriage often comes with the expectation that you will eventually have children so I advise not doing it all to prevent ever getting to that stage.

Seriously children completely drain your bank account and free time and once done they are the one thing in life you can never do.

No seriously having children is slavery for males don't do it!!

Also in this era of constant inflation having children is a way to ensure both you and them suffer you because you will have to cloth and feed them and them because even if they get a high paying job by then the inflation will be so bad they won't be able to enjoy life.

Relationships between males and females are just male slavery that is what they are.

That is what they have been since the beginning of time.

There is an expectation that the male should finically provide for the female and most females would leave you if you even ask to split the bill at the restaurant.

Do you know who else worked for some one else's financial interests? Slaves literal slaves that is who since time immemorial and just an example slaves in the us would pick up the cotton but it was their masters that bought it and made money off it.

Males have been so brainwashed by society they are willing to seek their own slavery by approaching females to seek their own slavery.

No more men I say we stop approaching females altogether and instead we break the chains of male slavery.

The male 5No movement needs to start

No dating, no marriage, no relationship, no children with and no approaching females.

If you ever thought to do anything that is against any of the 5Nos for any reason remember the wise words of Admiral Ackbar "It's a trap"

Watching harem or romance anime and you just can't help but notice how madly in love the girls are with the MC despite him not being rich usually and loving him for how he is as a person.

That is called the Male fantasy for a reason girls like that don't actually exist and the viewer or reader of these stories when they come in manga or light novel format women who love men like don't exist.

women see men as a way to get resources and nothing else.

Men have been historically to put with it willing to trade away their hard earned resources, approach women and propose on one knee treating them like they are goddess or royalty because they bough into the lie that women loved them.

Because men love women but with now with the internet making it incredibly obvious to see that women don't love us back.

It is great that the internet was created women used to get away with so much emotional manipulation before.

Approaching women is a humiliation ritual.

It unironically is.

Going to a woman of the change that she might be interested and then asking her to become your girl is in fact one of the worst things that make you fell awful.

I think I always wondered is why exactly women never approach men (I found out they do but very rarely and if they ever get rejected they absolutely do everything in their power to ruin the guy, I heard several stories about guys rejecting advances from female bosses who did everything to make their life miserable because women absolutely hate rejection)

Thankfully the vast majority of young gen z men no longer approaches women.

(I should clarify this post is not meant to be anti abortion but simply a highlight of double standards)

Hey everyone,

I wanted to explore a classic thought experiment through a left-wing male advocacy lens: If men were the ones who got pregnant, would there even be a debate about whether abortion should be allowed?

Gloria Steinem famously argued that if men could get pregnant, abortion would become an institutionalized, celebrated right. (I don't think that is accurate)

I wanted to throw a classic pro-choice thought experiment out to this community to see it filtered through a left-There is a powerful parallel here regarding state control and the violation of bodily autonomy:

• Denial of abortion forces a person to use their physical body to sustain life against their will, treating them as reproductive instruments for the state.
• Compulsory military service (the draft) forces men to put their physical bodies in harm's way, treating them as disposable instruments for geopolitical or state interests.

Both systems rely on the idea that the state owns your physical body when it decides it needs you—whether for labor, warfare, or population growth. If men were the ones getting pregnant, the state might just view pregnancy the same way it views the draft: another burden citizens can be forced to bear for the "collective good."

• The Human Right Argument: On the flip side, the argument for abortion rights is that the state has no right to force a person to use their physical organs to sustain life against their will. This is exactly the same as the anti-conscription argument: the state has no right to weaponise a man’s body or force him into lethal combat against his will.
• The "Duty to the Collective" Logic: Pro-life arguments often claim that a pregnant person has a moral obligation to sacrifice their body, health, and future for the "greater good" of a new life. This is identical to the justification for the draft: that a young man has a civic obligation to sacrifice his body, health, and potentially his life for the "greater good" and survival of the nation.

The Lethal Risk Factor: It is vital to note that a lack of abortion access can be fatal in many medical cases, meaning the state is actively forcing a person to risk their life. Similarly, the state forces a man to risk his life through the draft. Even before reaching an active combat zone, standard military training itself carries a documented probability of being fatal due to extreme physical stress, accidents, and negligence. In both scenarios, the state is fully willing to accept the death of its citizens as "acceptable collateral damage."

• The Modern Human Rights Double Standard: We see a fascinating divergence in how global politics handles these issues today. Abortion access is increasingly being recognized and protected as a fundamental human right in many modern, progressive nations. Meanwhile, protection from compulsory military service is almost never treated as a human right. Men are still legally tied to conscription and selective service in vast parts of the world, with zero international protection if their state decides to use their bodies for war.

In fact, there is a powerful parallel here regarding state control. Denial of abortion and compulsory military service (the draft) are both fundamental violations of bodily autonomy. What is fascinating—and deeply hypocritical—is that the arguments used for and against these practices rely on the exact same utilitarian logic. They both view the individual not as a person with rights, but as a demographic resource for the state.

On the flip side, the human rights argument for both should be exactly the same: the state has no right to force a person to use their physical organs to sustain life against their will, just as it has no right to weaponise a man’s body or force him into lethal combat against his will.

Both systems rely on the authoritarian idea that the state ultimately owns your physical body when it decides it needs you—whether for population growth or warfare.

Basically if men were the ones that got pregnant then I don't think abortion would be allowed at all considering the current lack of effort to ban the draft despite the similarities of the violation of body autonomy of both banning abortion and the draft

Hypothetically speaking if Men got pregnant then society would often just tell them that it's their duty for society the same as the draft currently

I myself gave this theory some credibility at first but then I realised that this argument does not make sense when you think about it

female privilege is because women put children into the world (Do they do it on their own or with the help of a man)?

Also birth rates have decreasing all across the world yet somehow female privilege remain untouched

If "putting children into the world" were the true source of women's "privilege," then a global decline in birth rates would logically cause this supposed privilege to vanish. The fact that women's social status is independent of birth rates proves that their position in society was never built on a "privilege" granted for having children.

The Birth Rate Contradiction: If the traditional "social contract" was that women are granted societal protection and specific exemptions because they bear the heavy burden of continuing the human race, that contract seems completely broken today. Birth rates are plummeting globally, yet the social expectations, legal protections, and exemptions (like from the draft) remain completely intact. From this viewpoint, it looks like one side is opting out of their historical role while keeping all the benefits.

The Conscription Double Standard: In places like Ukraine, the disparity becomes impossible to ignore. When a nation faces an existential crisis, men are legally barred from leaving the country and are forced onto the frontlines by law, while women have the freedom to seek safety abroad or remain in civilian life. If a society truly valued equal responsibility, a low birth rate would mean everyone—regardless of gender—should be equally liable for physical defense. (Ukrainian woman have some of the lowest birth rates in a continent known for low birth rates)

Some of the most misandrist nations in the world such as Signapore and Ukraine have some of the lowest birth rates in the world as well

The demographic collapse in nations like Singapore and Ukraine exposes a fundamental contradiction in how modern societies distribute rights and responsibilities.

From a men's rights perspective, the narrative that women enjoy unique societal protections or "privileges" as a reward for their essential role in childbirth completely falls apart when looking at these ultra-low fertility states. If women's privileges were truly conditional on reproduction, a total collapse in birth rates would logically trigger a roll-back of those privileges. Instead, the opposite is happening.

The reality of this dynamic is defined by several core factors:

• The Entitlement is Decoupled from Duty: In Singapore (with a fertility rate near 0.78) and Ukraine (where the wartime birth rate has plummeted to roughly 1.00), women retain full access to legal protections, state resources, and specialized legislation like Singapore's Women's Charter, despite largely opting out of childbearing. This proves that these advantages are not a transactional reward for sustaining the population; they have become permanent, unconditional entitlements.
• Men Bear the Risk with Zero Return: While the state demands nothing from women in exchange for their legal status, it continues to extract immense, non-negotiable sacrifices from men. Singaporean men face mandatory two-year conscription and decades of military reserves. Ukrainian men are legally barred from fleeing the country and forced onto the front lines. Men are treated as highly disposable resources to secure and fund the state, while the laws governing family courts and divorce continue to favor the very demographic that is no longer reproducing.
• The "Birth Strike" Meets State Cowardice: Governments in these nations are hyper-aware that their populations are facing an extinction curve. Yet, rather than addressing men's grievances regarding punitive family courts, legal bias, or the sheer imbalance of civic duties, they refuse to touch female privilege because it is politically radioactive. The state would rather try to "bribe" the population with financial subsidies—or simply watch its demographics wither away—than rebalance the social contract to make it fair for men.

Ideology Over National Survival: Governments in Singapore and Ukraine are fully aware they are facing an "existential challenge" and a demographic catastrophe. Yet, they choose to watch their fertility rates plunge to historic lows—0.87 in Singapore and plummeting massively in Ukraine—rather than rolling back female-centric legal protections or addressing systemic male grievances. They are, in effect, prioritizing the preservation of a gynocentric legal status quo over the very continuation of their lineage.

The Unilateral Sacrificial Deal: The state fiercely enforces the sacrificial duties of men, legally demanding their time, financial ruin, or their lives through conscription and travel bans. Simultaneously, it protects the complete autonomy and unconditional legal privileges of women. By choosing population decline over systemic legal equality for men, the state communicates a clear message: it is preferable for a nation to phase itself out of existence than to dismantle the legal and social entitlements afforded to women

To summarise: The argument that women are privileged because the bring children into the world does not work as some of the most misandrist nations in the world have some of the lowest birth rates and these women have not lost their privileges despite the extremely low birth rate

I saw a video on x today

It was in China I believe and the words describing said video were:

" woman claimed that while working at a milk tea shop, she encountered an extremely cold male colleague with absolutely no human warmth. Watching the video, it's indeed rare"

The video shows a women hitting her head and then falling and her male co worker just ignoring her

Many people have critised the man in the video for not doing anything to help her

The vast majority of comments that I read translated in Chinese were about him not helping because of being scared of a potential fake allegation

However I did not get that vibe at all from the video

He just seemed like he did not care

However criticism of him for not helping a woman seems morally wrong

Also why should he be criticized ? asking in a serious manner he has done nothing that is illegal, he has no legal nor work contract related duty to help or check up on her

He is also working for what I presume to be not good money considering the sector it is so what is wrong about him caring about himself?

Are people just so stuck in traditional gender roles they get offended when a man does not take care off or check up or help a woman who got hurt?

I believe anyone criticism him for that is misandrist

Right wingers such as Republicans in the United states and other conservative politicians and individuals are very anti male

They view males as disposable and canon fodder for their wars all while protecting females

They raise their sons to be abused slaves all while spoiling their daughter which is literal gender discrimination

All they criticise left wingers for soft on crime policies but forget to mention that women in tough on crime nations and places such as us states actually receive less prison time than men in soft on crime nations and us states

They just want to see men in Jail

Also the reason for being tough on crime is "Protecting women and girls" yes they literally call for male over punishment for female safety that is literal textbook misandry

Their blatant transphobia

I should start by saying that since most transitions are male to female transphobia is misandry

When a boy says I want to be a girl what he is really saying although probably not aware of it is I realise how unfairly treated I am being and treated as a second class citizen simply due to my gender something I had no control over as infants can obviously not control what gender they are born with. I want to be a girl to be viewed and treated as a human being.

And of course most transphobes are feminist or tradcons who want boys to remain second class citizens

They want boys to remain in their slave roles and not become girls to be treated equally to girls

They hate boys and don't want them ever to become equal the same way the nobilty did not want peasant to become nobility and the self hating peasants did not want that either

All of the nations that overly anti male are all right wing conservative nations

So yes right wing conservatism is in fact anti male

Right wingers such as Republicans in the United states and other conservative politicians and individuals are very anti male

They view males as disposable and canon fodder for their wars all while protecting females

They raise their sons to be abused slaves all while spoiling their daughter which is literal gender discrimination

All they criticise left wingers for soft on crime policies but forget to mention that women in tough on crime nations and places such as us states actually receive less prison time than men in soft on crime nations and us states

They just want to see men in Jail

Also the reason for being tough on crime is "Protecting women and girls" yes they literally call for male over punishment for female safety that is literal textbook misandry

Their blatant transphobia

I should start by saying that since most transitions are male to female transphobia is misandry

When a boy says I want to be a girl what he is really saying although probably not aware of it is I realise how unfairly treated I am being and treated as a second class citizen simply due to my gender something I had no control over as infants can obviously not control what gender they are born with. I want to be a girl to be viewed and treated as a human being.

And of course most transphobes are feminist or tradcons who want boys to remain second class citizens

They want boys to remain in their slave roles and not become girls to be treated equally to girls

They hate boys and don't want them ever to become equal the same way the nobilty did not want peasant to become nobility and the self hating peasants did not want that either

All of the nations that overly anti male are all right wing conservative nations

So yes right wing conservatism is in fact anti male

Feminists discard the classic phrase "boys will be boys" has been rightfully discarded. In its place, a new slogan has emerged: "Boys should be held accountable for their actions just like girls are."

Before we look at the data, we need to correct the language surrounding this phrase. This statement does not imply anything. To imply means to express something indirectly. This statement is not indirect; it makes a bold, explicit, and direct assertion. It explicitly states that boys are universally excused for their bad behavior, while girls are held to a much higher standard of accountability and institutional discipline.

The core problem with this statement is simple: it is a complete and utter inversion of reality.

When we look at the actual data we find that girls are the ones that very rarely if ever held accountable for their actions

the claim that girls are held to a higher standard completely falls apart the moment you examine the criminal justice system. The reality is that the institutional shielding of female offenders occurs at every single stage of the legal apparatus, beginning long before a case ever reaches a courtroom.

The arrest disparity as women are far less likely to be arrested entirely even in cases where a man would be arrested unless it's a major offense a police officer would usually just look the other way or give a verbal warning even if the act was done by a female instead

If a woman is arrested, she remains far more likely to avoid prison time entirely even in cases where a man would be jailed a woman is far more likely to just be let go

The lower prison time if a woman is arrested and charged than the she receive a far lower prison time than a man for the same crime or even a worst crime with the same record

A common argument to make is that there are more men than women in jail which suggests that men commit more crime but that is only looking at the matter on a surface level and not digging deeper into why things are the way they are

For example the high incarceration rate of Black people in the USA is not seen as because they commit more crime but because they are unfairly blamed and over demonised by society Ie the reason there are more black people in jail is usually attributed to racism rather than a correlation between black people and crime

To further emphasise my point

Take for example Cardi B

She used to drug and rob men

If she was born male she would have went to jail

She was however charged with 3rd degree assault following a brawl in 2018 she was charged in 2022 and sentenced to 15 days of community service

Notably a male who partook in it with her Jeffrery Brush was sentenced to 6 months in jail

Another woman who would be in Jail if she was male:

Collen Ballinger

She is a child predator

She send her underwear to a 13 year old boy

Along side a history of creepy behaviour

If she behaved in the same manner while being born male she would most likely be in jail

Ghislaine Maxwell

Probably one of the names that needs no introduction we all know what she did by now

You might be think "But she was sentenced to 20 years" but it's important to state where she was jailed to

A low security prison and then transferred to a minimum security prison

A man who did even half of what she did would have never been send to even a low security prison let alone be transferred to a minimum security one

Feminists discard the classic phrase "boys will be boys" has been rightfully discarded. In its place, a new slogan has emerged: "Boys should be held accountable for their actions just like girls are."

Before we look at the data, we need to correct the language surrounding this phrase. This statement does not imply anything. To imply means to express something indirectly. This statement is not indirect; it makes a bold, explicit, and direct assertion. It explicitly states that boys are universally excused for their bad behavior, while girls are held to a much higher standard of accountability and institutional discipline.

The core problem with this statement is simple: it is a complete and utter inversion of reality.

When we look at the actual data we find that girls are the ones that very rarely if ever held accountable for their actions

the claim that girls are held to a higher standard completely falls apart the moment you examine the criminal justice system. The reality is that the institutional shielding of female offenders occurs at every single stage of the legal apparatus, beginning long before a case ever reaches a courtroom.

The arrest disparity as women are far less likely to be arrested entirely even in cases where a man would be arrested unless it's a major offense a police officer would usually just look the other way or give a verbal warning even if the act was done by a female instead

If a woman is arrested, she remains far more likely to avoid prison time entirely even in cases where a man would be jailed a woman is far more likely to just be let go

The lower prison time if a woman is arrested and charged than the she receive a far lower prison time than a man for the same crime or even a worst crime with the same record

A common argument to make is that there are more men than women in jail which suggests that men commit more crime but that is only looking at the matter on a surface level and not digging deeper into why things are the way they are

For example the high incineration rate of Black people in the USA is not seen as because they commit more crime but because they are unfairly blamed and over demonised by society Ie the reason there are more black people in jail is usually attributed to racism rather than a correlation between black people and crime

To further emphasise my point

Take for example Cardi B

She used to drug and rob men

If she was born male she would have went to jail

She was however charged with 3rd degree assault following a brawl in 2018 she was charged in 2022 and sentenced to 15 days of community service

Notably a male who partook in it with her Jeffrery Brush was sentenced to 6 months in jail

Another woman who would be in Jail if she was male:

Collen Ballinger

She is a child predator

She send her underwear to a 13 year old boy

Along side a history of creepy behaviour

If she behaved in the same manner while being born male she would most likely be in jail

Ghislaine Maxwell

Probably one of the names that needs no introduction we all know what she did by now

You might be think "But she was sentenced to 20 years" but it's important to state where she was jailed to

A low security prison and then transferred to a minimum security prison

A man who did even half of what she did would have never been send to even a low security prison let alone be transferred to a minimum security one

I will begin this post by saying that it has been scientifically proven that people have more sympathy for females then males and this applies to both genders

In other words both males and females have inherently more sympathy for women than man in the exact same predicament

Which is why there has been countless news about how oppressed women are in Iran because the laws makes them mandatory for them to cover up

Women are being forced to wear something they don't want to wear and the media literally treats this like a second holocaust

But lets look at how the law treats men there

1. Mandatory Military Conscription (Sarbazi)

The most blatant form of state-sanctioned gender discrimination in Iran is mandatory military service, which applies exclusively to men.

• The Burden: Upon turning 18, all healthy men must serve roughly up to two years in the military.
• The Penalties: Men who refuse or cannot serve are stripped of basic civil rights. They cannot legally obtain a passport, leave the country, secure official employment, or apply for business licences.
• The Risk: Young men are regularly deployed to volatile border regions to fight drug cartels and insurgent groups, resulting in high casualties that exclusively impact males.

Full Financial Liability (Mehrieh and Nafaqeh)

Iran’s family law places crushing financial obligations strictly on men, backed by the threat of imprisonment.

• Mehrieh (Dowry): Under Iranian law, a man must promise a specific amount of property or gold coins to his wife upon marriage. Legally, she can demand this at any time, not just during a divorce.
• Debt Imprisonment: If a man cannot pay the Mehrieh upon request, he faces immediate imprisonment

Judicial Disposability and the Death Penalty

The penal system in Iran impacts men disproportionately when it comes to the ultimate punishment.

• Execution Rates: The vast majority of executions carried out by the Iranian state are against men, primarily for drug offenses, financial crimes, or violent crimes.
• Legal Accountability: Boys are held fully criminally responsible as adults at a young age, leading to systemic institutional violence that heavily targets the male demographic.

1. Workplace Casualties and Economic Pressure

Because men are legally mandated to be the sole providers, they dominate high-risk industries.

• Workplace Fatalities: Due to poor safety regulations, thousands of Iranians die in workplace accidents annually (construction, mining, heavy industry). Over 95% of these workplace fatalities are men.
• Street Vendors and Manual Labour: The hyper-inflation and economic collapse of Iran have forced millions of men into grueling, informal manual labour and street-vending, where they face frequent municipal crackdowns and police harassment.

Conclusion

When we look past Western media talking points, the reality is that the Iranian state treats men as disposable financial and military assets. A system that forces one gender into military servitude under threat of exile, imprisons them over marital debts, and sends them to die in unsafe work conditions or border conflicts cannot be accurately described as a simple patriarchy that only privileges men. It is a system built on systemic misandry.

So in conclusion Men are forced to become soldiers and ATM machines while Women simply have to wear something they don't want to and the media treats the latter as inheritably oppressed and the former as privileged

The fact that that people on something so small for on gender but ignore the big elephants in the room for the other proved that yes the studies are correct and people really do just have inheritably more sympathy for females than males

Hi everyone,

I wanted to open up a discussion on an issue where radical feminist orthodoxy and traditional state authoritarianism often overlap to the detriment of working-class people: the criminalisation of third-party involvement in sex work (often blanket-labeled as "pimping").

While mainstream discourse treats any third-party management as inherently exploitative, a consistent left-wing framework—combined with a male advocate lens—suggests that complete decriminalisation (including third parties) is the only way to actually protect workers and dismantle systemic harms.

Rejecting the "Default Male Abuser" Narrative

A major reason third-party laws remain so punitive is the heavily gendered narrative pushed by radical feminists: the assumption that any man involved in the sex industry is a default, systemic abuser, and any woman is an inherently helpless victim incapable of agency.

• fight against the institutional bias that treats men as uniquely predatory.
• The criminalisation of third parties relies heavily on this misandric trope, ignoring the reality that many third-party managers or digital platform creators are simply providing a business service or safety infrastructure.
• Furthermore, it completely erases the existence of male sex workers, who also rely on third-party security and management but are sidelined by gender-essentialist laws

If we’re being completely honest about why third-party management is so deeply illegal compared to other industries, a huge part of it comes down to pure optics and feminist resentment.

The mainstream narrative is obsessed with this specific image: a lazy man making an "easy living" off a woman’s hard work. It completely offends their worldview to see a man profiting from female emotional or physical labor, so they lobbied to make the whole setup a felony.

But if you look at it objectively, it makes zero sense:

• Double standards on "passive" income: In literally any other industry, we call this management, agency work, or business operations. A booking agent for a musician, a manager for an influencer, or a CEO of a company all make a living off other people's direct labor. Nobody tries to throw them in prison for it because we understand they provide infrastructure, marketing, and administration.
• Morality over safety: By banning men (or anyone) from taking a cut for management services, policy-makers prioritised their own emotional distaste for a specific gender dynamic over the actual, physical safety of the workers. They'd literally rather a sex worker be isolated and vulnerable in a dark alley than have a man legally make a percentage off helping her run her business safely.

The real reason pimps are illegal in many parts of the western world most of which secular nations and why prostitution is illegal in general except in some nations is because Feminists are offended of the idea of a man making money off woman's labour which is why they keep pushing to have both banned even in nations where prostitution is legal pimping is usually not

Legalise pimping

I need to make this post because I am seeing a big pattern

Usually the men who believe in gender roles and chivalry or other such things like hold doors for women, violence against women, men have a duty to protect and provide for women and give them their seats in public transport are older men like Boomers

I should also say it has been scientifically proven that that females have in group bias where as males have the opposite they have outgroup bias towards females

I should also this male outgroup bias towards females has in fact a big key factor as to why females are privileged over males

It was and is often male politicians and judges who push for pro female laws and give females far more lenient sentences than males for the same crime

This is because of male outgroup bias towards females

However I keep noticing that Males out group bias gets lowered by generation (not age group big difference)

For example Boomers might think that males have a duty to protect and provide for women and that violence against women is never acceptable but younger generations might disagree

I have the data to back up my argument

Although there has been debate about the exact timeline of gen z

I will say Gen Z (1995-2009) Gen Alpha (2010-2024) and Gen Beta (2025-present)

For example where as boomers and older generations might believe men have a duty to provide for women and pay for dates etc

Only 36% of Gen Z believe that a man should automatically pay for a date. This is a sharp drop compared to older generations like Gen X.

where as older generations men might believe that women should not be drafted in the military and should be protected from harm

In South Korea "According to an August 2026 poll by the Reform Institute, a staggering 71.7% of South Korean men in their 20s and 30s now actively support mandatory military conscription for women—a massive demographic block that pushes towards a near-total cross-generational consensus among young men.

So yes many young men might believe that yes women should have their special privileges like protection from the draft removed

Ultimately, this generational decline in male out-group bias is a profoundly positive development.

For generations, men have been trapped by a form of benevolent sexism that demanded absolute sacrifice, physical endangerment, and financial liability in exchange for superficial social praise. Older generations of men happily legislated against their own sex's demographic interests because their out-group bias blinded them to male suffering.

Beyond sociology and economics, I would also theorize that we are witnessing a rapid behavioral evolution where males are slowly shedding the out-group bias of older generations.

evolution tracks environmental utility Because of this, young men are undergoing a rapid behavioral evolution. Males need to lose their out-group bias and develop a strong, cohesive in-group bias—similar to the one females already possess—just to survive, let alone thrive, in the coming years. Without an in-group bias, men have no collective bargaining power, no mutual safety net, and no way to advocate against institutional double standards. Developing this internal solidarity is a literal requirement for long-term demographic survival.

I should also note males are evolving to slowly lose the out-group bias of older generations.

To be absolutely clear, this is determined by the generation a male is born into, not his current age group. This is a vital distinction. Critics might try to argue that young men are just going through a "phase" and will grow into traditional chivalry as they age. But that ignores history. A Baby Boomer was once a 17-year-old boy, and even at 17, he already possessed a powerful out-group bias because he was socialised in an era that rewarded male disposability. Conversely, a boy born recently or in the future is entering a completely different world; he is highly likely to have his out-group bias removed entirely and instead develop a defensive in-group bias that stays with him his entire life.

To further summarise the lose of out group bias and potential development of in group bias among males of current and future generations I have theorised is a biological evolution for survival as males need to naturally lose their outgroup bias and perhaps develop in group bias to survive let alone thrive in the coming years

this case happened in Utah

In March 2026, Shannon Marie Tufuga, a 40-year-old woman from Provo, Utah, was charged with child kidnapping and aggravated child abuse after forcing an 11-year-old boy into her car to make him apologize to her daughter.

The incident stemmed from a dispute where the boy's mother, Amberlee Collazo, stated that Tufuga's daughter had a crush on her son and had been bothering him for two years. When the boy finally rejected the girl with an "unkind" comment, Tufuga allegedly tracked the boy down, intercepted his bicycle with her vehicle, and forced him inside

Key Details of the Incident

• The Kidnapping: According to the Utah County Attorney's criminal complaint, Tufuga drove around looking for the boy, blocked his bike, grabbed him, and forced him into her vehicle
• The Forced Apology: She drove the child to her house without his parents' permission. Once inside, she made him sit on a couch and force-apologize to her daughter for the rejection and alleged bullying.
• Threats Made: Court documents note that Tufuga told the boy he was "lucky" she did not run over his bike. She also allegedly threatened to have her husband "beat up" the boy. The boy's mother later stated the husband was wearing a gun on his hip during the ordeal.
• The Release: After the forced apology, the boy was ordered out of the house and ran all the way back to his home.

Legal and Community Aftermath

• Criminal Charges: Tufuga faces severe second-degree felony charges for child kidnapping and child abuse. Authorities emphasized that regardless of whether a child is being bullied, the law does not permit parents to kidnap another minor.
• Loss of Employment: Local reports indicated that Tufuga was removed from her job as a school crossing guard following the incident.
• Defense Statement: Tufuga's defense attorney denied the allegations, calling the legal charges a "symptom of our society's failings" where children are no longer held accountable by their own parents. (Something tells me this boy is not the one never held accountable considering the way she rejected to her daughter getting rejected)

How come this severe case of child abuse is not talked about?

Judges are known to have a bias

A lot of them seem to hate black people

And also a lot of them are older white men so they are likely to believe in outdated misandrist ideas like women being less dangerous which is why they give women less prison time then men for the same crime

And replacing them with female judges would not do anything for men because women for the most part have an in group bias not all but several do

So what can be done to give oppressed groups in the legal system like males and black people not biased judges

well we could make a non discrimination test for judges before they allowed to take their position and also keep track of the people they judge and to see and if there is strong evidence they prefer one group over the other they should lose their position

That is one way but I have a better idea

Abolish human judges entirely and replace them with robots

The robots should be programmed to not have a bias and only view male and female as terms but have no opinions on gender but just view the crime and the sentence for it

Also they should also be programmed too see how guilty how someone is both by looking at the case and and also at the person they are sentencing's body language and overall emotions

The current war in Ukraine is a prime example of female privilege

Since Women don't get drafted and and are allowed to leave the nation unlike Men who are forced to join the military or at the very least not allowed to leave under normal circumstances

Ukrainian woman on the other hand leave the nation and their life is usually involves partying and dating rich western guys despite being usually married or already having a boyfriend

So in short while Ukrainian men go every day not knowing if they will die tomorrow Ukrainian women are currently busy living in the west cheating on their husband and being 304s

Also people think they will actually come back once the war is over

They won't (expect maybe to visit family members occasionally )