​I need to vent about what is happening right now in West Bengal, India, because it perfectly captures how the global conversation around "equality" has turned into institutional discrimination against men.

​The state government just dropped its 2026 budget, and it reads like a dystopian joke if you happen to be a young man trying to survive. Here is exactly what the government is handing out based purely on gender:

​Free Public Transit: As of this month, women travel 100% free on all state-run buses. Men pay full price for the exact same seat, the exact same fuel, and the exact same infrastructure.

​The $600 (₹50,000) College Cash Drop: A brand-new scheme gives a massive one-time cash grant of ₹50,000 directly to any unmarried woman who enrolls in an undergraduate college. Young men entering the exact same colleges get absolutely zero.

​Monthly Cash Handouts: The government is rolling out the Annapurna scheme, giving ₹3,000 ($36) every single month directly to women aged 25–60. Again, nothing for men in the same economic bracket.

​33% Forced Reservations: A strict legal quota system ensuring 33% of all new government department hiring and massive chunks of corporate roles are locked exclusively for women.

​The Math: Same Taxes, Zero Benefits

​Let’s look at how the system treats two citizens from the exact same lower-income family:

​College Entry Fund: A female student gets a ₹50,000 cash grant to start her degree. A male student gets ₹0 and has to figure it out himself.

​Daily Commute Cost: A female student travels completely free ($0) across state buses. A male student pays full price out of his own pocket just to get to classes.

​Monthly Welfare Cash: Women aged 25-60 get a predictable ₹3,000/month direct cash transfer. Men in the exact same low-income brackets get ₹0.

​Legal & Job Quotas: Women get a 33% reserved pool in jobs alongside heavy diversity hiring initiatives. Men are left to fight each other in a rapidly shrinking, brutal unreserved open pool.

​Why Do We Pretend This Is "Equality"?

​When you challenge this online, people give you the standard textbook answers: "It’s for women’s empowerment" or "It protects them." But let's look at the actual reality:

​Men are the primary taxpayers: The vast majority of income tax and economic revenue is generated by men, who are then forced to subsidize systems they are legally excluded from using for free. Why am I paying full price for a bus ticket to fund a free ride for someone else based entirely on what's between their legs?

​Why the hell do women still need reservations? If the government is already paying for their transit, giving them massive lump-sum cash drops to go to college, and funding them monthly, why do they also need a 33% legal safety net to bypass open competition? Either the welfare schemes work and level the playing field, or they don't. You shouldn't get to stack both.

​The invisible struggle of young men: If a young guy cannot afford bus fare to get to his college classes or his entry-level job, he drops out. He slips through the cracks. Society expects men to be the financial providers, the rocks of their families, and to handle 100% of the cut-throat competition without complaining—while actively removing the ladder from underneath them.

​The Men's Rights Movement is constantly villainized by international media as a bunch of angry guys on the internet. But this isn't a theoretical debate; it's basic arithmetic. We are building a society that treats young men as utility mules—good for tax revenue and heavy labor, but entirely unworthy of institutional support.

​If a government scheme explicitly excluded women from free transit or education grants, it would be an international human rights scandal. When it happens to men, it's called progress.

Shoutout to u/1SandyBay1 and their post for inspiring me to make this. In particular, this conclusion quote:

>Men have no party that genuinely serves their interests.

>Republicans celebrate male disposability — "man up" is their cultural brand. They have controlled the government multiple times and never touched Selective Service, never reformed child support debtor's prison, never addressed the male suicide gap as a policy priority.

>Democrats control mental health policy, education policy, and DV funding — all of which systematically exclude or deprioritize men. The left has had decades to fix the Duluth Model, VAWA's gendered exclusions, and the male homelessness crisis. It hasn't.

>Men's rights is not a conservative cause. But it isn't a Democratic cause either. The first step is refusing to pretend either party is an ally when the evidence says otherwise.

Both parties are "controlling" the institutions that control men into being oppressed in ways that don't affect women as much. Both systems of misandry are authoritarian in nature.

Republicans are supporting our prison system that mainly targets men and makes them suffer for years instead of rehabilitating them. This is not even just for violent crimes; the war on drugs also affects men disproportionally, since men are more likely to get high to cope with their woes in life.

Democrats are controlling all of the feministic institutions, designed to favor women over men, including DEI programs, VAWA funding, domestic violence shelters, social workers who manipulate women into falsely reporting sexual crimes, and the feministic academia that spreads misandric doctrines.

A Right-winger could argue that we should work on sentencing more women; but that doesn't address the overall inhumanity of the prison system, nor does that really make men's lives any better. It just makes more women's lives worse while increasing the chances of crime recidivism.

A Left-winger could argue that we should double our funding directed towards social services, so that the services can benefit men equally. However, this may sound a little Right-wing, but the Democrats are stealing men's taxes for all of this, sometimes even at the direct expense of men's freedoms.

I've never heard libertarians advocate for anything nearly as misandric. Sometimes they have an excessive bootstraps mentality like conservatives do, but they seem to apply that thinking more consistently, and often towards men and women equally. Libertarian individualism is truly about personal freedom, whereas the Right wants men's individualism to be channeled strictly towards nuclear family goals (the Left's individualism is identity politics which obviously exclude men).

The only likely way in which libertarianism would conflict with masculism is if men's programs, along with women's programs, receive less funding. Many on this sub might disagree with me on this due to the admittedly radical economic theories surrounding anarchism, but personally, I believe that these gender-based programs should run without the government, on either private funding (as in anarcho-capitalism) or some system of mutual volunteering (as in anarcho-communism). Nonetheless, I think that the actively anti-male authoritarianism being supported by the feminists and conservatives is much worse than simply neglecting to fund men's programs or using the government to fund them either way.

Granted, libertarians are not explicitly pro-male; but this can be said of many other ideologies, many of which are not strictly pro-female either. What matters is that libertarians make for a good ally, even if their alignment with men's rights is coincidental and unintentional.

We all want more blocks to come in stairs, slabs, pillars, and walls, since more shape options for builders for any given block is never really a bad thing (unless perhaps it seriously conflicts with the usual functions of a block). What should particularly come to mind is Quartz Bricks, Calcite, Packed Mud, End Stone, cracked variants, terracotta, and concrete. We're also missing wall variants for Polished stone variants, the whole quartz family, purpur, and prismarine variants. I digress.

Of course, it's already unusual that sulfur and cinnabar are being marketed as building blocks in Chaos Cubed. We also got resin as a building block not too long ago. Now with woolen stairs & slabs Mojang is really thinking outside the block more than ever for stairs & slabs.

My ideas

• Glass, including all colors of stained glass
  • Obviously for glass roofs and other diagonal glass features
  • Should also come in doors and trapdoors
  • Would be even more useful as a sideways slab
• Moss and Pale Moss
  • Perfect not only for terraforming but also for stairs & slabs in an old, overgrown building
• Skulk
  • Like Moss and Pale Moss, Skulk can be used to make a build look overgrown in it
• Dirt Paths
  • Sloped paths could look better this way
• Snow and all types of ice
  • Good for igloos and other ice-themed stuff
• Honeycomb blocks
  • This can be used for bee-themed fantasy builds
• Obsidian
  • For unbreakable staircases, and also because obsidian looks cool
  • Should be usable for nether portals
• Soul Sand
  • This will allow for slow staircases
  • This will have to come with Soul Soil just for consistency
• Crimson & Warped Nether Wart Blocks
  • Similar to wool, this will allow the wart blocks to be used as a fabric that can be made into upholstery

In English and other Germanic languages, the "-en" suffix is used to denote that the material is an adjective describing what the following noun is made of.

We see this suffix more often in "wooden" and "golden". Not every material word follows this rule, but it sounds better and clears ambiguity. For example, if I'm talking about a wood chest, it would mean a chest used for wood, whereas a wooden chest is a chest made of wood.

Less commonly but grammatically preferably, this suffix is used for other materials of Germanic word origin: oaken, birchen, and leathern. This would be less likely for Mojang to change.

Fun fact: Terraria has this problem because it has both Gold Chandeliers and pirate-themed Golden Chandeliers from unrelated furniture sets. The latter should've gotten a more distinct name while "gold" could just become "golden".

Jerry Z seems to be a male feminist, who still believes the codswallop numbers from CNN's "online rape academy" headline. This video tries to explain women's distrust of men, not by blaming men directly, but by blaming the patriarchy mainly for men's behavior.

He's not considering the main reason for "why good men do nothing". It's not that we're afraid of social bakklash. It's not the us versus them mentality. It's not the bystander effect, nor the banality of evil. Good men do nothing because, quite selflessly, they understand that a false accusation, which is very likely, is usually far worse than the alleged crime in question. The MeToo movement has seriously damaged the credibility of sexual violence accusations. Even a top comment mentioned how sensational headlines like "62 million men" are not credible.

Jerry Z uses Zootopia as a parable for demographic-based criminality and even mentions how the violent demographic (the "predators" in Zootopia) is socially conditioned by an elite (the "preys") to commit more crime, to divide people. However, it feels like he's missing the bigger picture both in the movie and IRL. The predators in Zootopia were not just manipulated into committing crime; of about equal significance, the preys were manipulated into fearing the predators too much.

Likewise, IRL, women are afraid of men, mainly because of mainstream feministic media combined with sexist traditional beliefs. A woman will then have a few bad experiences with men, frame them as evidence confirming said misandric prejudices, and exaggerate their severity. He forgets that the banality of evil could really be better applied to explain widespread misandry than to explain rape culture.

YK, to be a good American, paying taxes, voting, and flying your God-blessed nation's flag are not enough; as it's also an American's civic duty to bust commies, Satanists, pedophiles, and terrorists for threatening our freedom and national security (/s). By many feminists, being a good man is described mainly as a zero-sum game of siding against other men who must be bad, and not just improving oneself or others by learning how women wanna be treated and romantically pursued.

To Jerry Z's credit, from this video, I learned about Peggy Sanday Reeves' cross-cultural study which proved that rape-free societies can exist given the right kind of culture, without authoritarianism. I agree with the feminists that a rape-free society is possible as this study confirms; just not with their current solutions that drive men underground and ignore rehabilitation.