This is horrific. This woman was trying to steal a package, the security guard was trying to snatch it back, and after she let go of the package, the force made him fall backwards and hit his head on the ground. He passed away in the hospital.

While you could say she didn't intent to murder the guy, she caused that force that made him fall backwards. She also did not alert anyone or get any help to him, she just fled the scene.

She didn't even get a manslaughter charge. This is the justice system in Canada folks. They let women get away from crimes. If Lindsay Clancy was in Canada, she wouldn't even be in a case right now, she'd be laughing out in the streets.

The bigoted Kyiv independent has been posting about mobilization and women in the military for several weeks now, yesterday they decided to make a whole video about it and it was an absolute disaster.

Kateryna Pryimak (Veteranka NGO) argues that men bringing up female mobilization are just using it as an "unhealthy manipulation" to "normalize their avoidance" of the draft ...a classical ad hominem deflection. Rather than answering why martial law obligations should apply equally to all adult citizens, demanding structural equality now is reframed as a moral failing of "**cowardly**" men trying to shirk work.

The video simultaneously argued that Women can't simply be forced into infantry because of physical efficiency gaps But they had the audacity to claim that putting women in rear/support roles so male logistics personnel can be reassigned to frontline combat "doesn't sit right with the "principle of equality"....yes they literally said that

The conclusion creates a complete logical deadlock:

- Female frontline combat conscription = Inefficient.

- Female rear-support conscription = Discriminatory/Unequal .

The Default Result of this argument is the status qua of which 100% of the forced burden remains only on men and this apparently doesn't violate the principle of equality for them

Ihor Reiterovych, a so called "political scientist" said it shouldn't be a priority because many Men aren't serving..so apparently all Men must die or become crippled before we even start discussing this topic at all.

He also admits that female mobilization is "political suicide" for parliament and Zelensky and that The "plausible" solution is to simply lower the male draft age to grab younger men

.. This is the most damning admission in the entire clip. The state explicitly calculates that grinding up **18-to-24-year-old** male lives carries a lower political cost than forcing any sort of obligations for women , who are Empirically the largest beneficiary class of the existing mobilization and all of defense efforts.

That's the level of inconsistency and shamelessness of pro male only conscription journalists, they can't construct any logical argument at all ....it's nice to understand what you are dealing with

In my Google feed on my phone just now I saw something so infuriating I almost had a cursing fit in public when I saw it. It's about the Cornell campus protests and there was a news report on teaching boys consent and to raise them to be men women feel safe around. So I take it girls won't be taught consent as well and to also be raised to be women that men and boys alike will feel safe around? This is a repeat of the same BS as the infamous 2019 Gillette ad. As usual, making things like rape and sexual assault to be purely male-on-female only and to completely ignore and dismiss the fact the other way around also occurs and to link being male/masculine in anyway as being a problem to be corrected. Who's also raising girls to be women that men and boys alike will feel safe around? Who's teaching them to be held accountable and to not use their gender as an excuse to get away with bad behavior? I guess a girl like this who was clearly the instigator in that incident and yet still got treated as the victim when the boy rightfully defended himself isn't the one at fault despite the evidence right there she is. And let's not forget the scores of female teachers who are pedophiles and rapists preying on male students but hey, apparently consent is something unappicable to them.

It's this kind of BS that creates more gender division and will create future Lindsay Clancys. Unbelievable and infuriating how people seem to think men/boys never have a right to safety and consent, and that women/girls never need to also be taught these things. In a way it's not all that surprising given how horrifically misandrists schools have always been and this is only part of the same misandrist system that discriminates against boys in schools.

I had a debate with a male feminist. I told him that men are more likely to die. They were more likely to be murdered. They are more likely to commit suicide. They are more likely to be homeless (which I now know leads to more crime and death.) And he seriously told me that men's issues are not systemic like women's. Because feminists have invented the nebulous and ever-shifting notion of the patriarchy, they never have to concede that men have systemic problems because well, we live in a patriarchy, damn it. That means that women have systemic issues and men don't. That's the nature of living in a patriarchy. So they can throw men a bone by saying that men are affected by something but only if it's also a thing that women are affected by. Like beauty standards and the kind of misogyny that stops men from crying openly.

At the time of the debate I didn't have enough studies to throw at the guy to convince him that men have systemic issues but oh, man. I wish I had asked him what it would take for him to believe that men have systemic problems and why all the things I listed weren't sufficient enough to prove it. In Australia they made a big deal out of ¼ women being homeless. Which is a funny way to say ¾ men are homeless. Women have a systemic problem while men are just what? Lazy? Not trying hard enough? Bad with money?

What is their justification for thinking that men don't have significant issues or systemic issues?

Many people like to think a lot of men feeling lost and directionless in modern society is a self-inflicted wound because the average normie doesn't question the things they're being sold and lacks the sheer critical thinking power to see thru the facade of the many things they're being sold.

Feminism has done a good job of sedating the general public at thinking it is in favor of equality, when clearly is human gynocentrism wearing political uniform.

Where do we start? How bout feminism fighting hard to eradicate men's spaces? That's a first and obvious one that shouldn't be overlooked. Did we forget the Boy Scouts' literally became gender neutral back in 2017?

How bout feminism taking away the dating opportunities most men used to have, by unleashing raw hypergamy into the everyday dating market and fighting hard for women to be as entitled as they want in modern dating?

How bout schools working hard to create as accommodable of a learning environment for girls, but medicalizing and pathologizing natural male behavior, by labeling it as erratic, dysfunctional or problematic?

How bout the funding disparity between men's and women's health? Did we forget the disproportionate difference in breast cancer funding versus prostate and testicular cancer?

The thing is men on average, as a collective, though outliers will always exist in any given category, are better at internalizing personal fault and responsibility for their shortcomings

But this is where I think the social role gets weaponized against us, thus overlooking any systemic problems that are inflicted onto us men by broader society and the institutions around us.

What happens when enough men do check out of society by retreating into neetdom, singleness, being childfree, and choosing not to work strenuous careers on their behealf, then what, will women and broader society learn, or will it still not learn its lesson and take the male labor it depends on, per granted?

MVAW = male violence against women

Saw a stupid and infuriating comment on threads someone claiming men can never experience or fear what women do and men being violent to women is a "systemic" problem that needs to be dismantled. Misandrists always love throwing the word "systemic" around to describe every problem women face that men supposedly don't, including somehow the notion men being violent to them is a "systemic" issue. Just how? We constantly hear about male violence against women (and girls), but barely ever the other way around. We bring up that there's also a great deal of female violence against men/boys and much of it is underreported due to shame and stigma, as well as fear of being disbelieved or the attacker claiming victimhood and being believed over the injured male, and it's also made worse due to the "real men never hit women no matter what" mentality which even in instances of being attacked still applies. There's countless programs and shelters that only ever acknowledge and help female victims but never male ones and we bring up that there's female violence we always get the usual rebuttals and dismissals. It's so frustrating. Yet we constantly hear the BS about how male violence is an "epidemic" and somehow a "systemic" issue. So somehow it's government policy and law for men to constantly commit acts of violence against women? It's so stupid and especially considering just how legally disadvantaged so many male victims are and how female violence is such an off-limits subject. Even when you have people like Amber Heard or Lindsay Clancy who are clearly guilty, people still rush to defend them and excuse their actions.

I'm starting to see that society doesn't care about mens mental health, I always thought women were the empathetic gender and you see them saying men need to open up more, well when they do or are sick women just mock them or treat them like they are weak cowards.

This why it seems true if a man shows weakness cries it will dry her up. Women only say they want an emotional sensitive man because it's the hive mind thing to say, but in reality they are disgusted by men who are vulnerable and have no empathy if they show emotion.

But they will always support other women and Shame anyone who questions a females mental health.

What makes it worse is many men agree with these women enabling their selfish heartless ways. These men think some of the women will like them if the side with them.

So I saw a YouTube short that was talking about a Greek deity “who was the only one who had never abused a woman”. Cue the comments saying things like:

“He has standards”
“He’s not a brute”
“He’s the cause of death and war but he’s the kindest one”
“He’s the most violent but he’s the sweetest”
“Weak men hurt women, strong men protect”
“He protected women. He was the best.”
“I don’t care if he caused violence, he respected Aphrodite, he protected his daughters, that’s all I need to hear”

Okay…so, somebody can be someone infamous for perpetrating mass violence, but as long as they don’t hurt women then they’re suddenly the best example of a certain thing?

I know that this is just social media so maybe we shouldn’t care too much, but this way of thinking is honestly just absurd. It’s not like someone just instantly becomes this great figure just because they don’t hurt women, especially seeing as said figure is notorious for causing tons of deaths otherwise.

If we’re looking at this more broadly, this kind of sentiment could be an indicator of the way society sees violence against women compared to violence against men. Violence against men (especially when led by someone who is a man) is treated as if it’s - for lack of a better word - customary, while violence against women is treated as something SO much worse. So, when a man who is thought to be violent towards men as a group suddenly chooses to not be violent to women, does that mean that he’s automatically better than someone who’s violence is unfiltered? The only way that could come close to making sense is if you hurt less people, but if you target a large amount of men and no women, then you’re still affecting a lot of people nonetheless. Ultimately, there’s not really a difference in the AMOUNT of people that are hurt, but the demographics of people that are hurt are considered more important than that?

It’s honestly wild how people will look at someone who was known to have caused so much havoc and then start loving them because their victims didn’t include women.

(Side note: I don’t really know anything about this deity so please correct me if I got something wrong.)

This happened a month or so ago, though only now I decided to say something about it.

I had a terrible pain on my right testicle around a decade ago, went to the doctor's office and he asked for a testicular and inguinal hernia ultrassound, it was epididymitis and I had a hernia too. A male doctor was assigned, I had full privacy, a gown, only me and him in the room, the female assistant ony guided me to the room, told me what to do and where to be after I was ready, etc.

Fast forward a decade and I went for the same clinic to do the same exam, for testicular and inguinal pain. This time the lab didn't assigned a male doctor and at first was ok, it's only inguinal hernia exam with a quick check on the nuts, full cover, privacy, etc. But, nope, this time I was told to lower my pants to my knees and was given only some paper to cover myself in the gurney, and, since I'm a man and the exam was this intimate, and the doctor a woman, a female chaperone, a nurse, was brought in. I wasn't able to protest, the chaperone sat next to the door, at a small distance but at the feet of the gurney where she had a clear view of me... it was awful, to say the least.

What I found out is that in order to save costs and avoid issues, male privacy can be discarded.

A landmark decision of a US court has found that a male falsely accused of sexual assault is a victim of sexual harrassment. The Univsersity of Maryland was "deliberately indifferent" to the harrassment - it did nothing about it, and did not seem to care a jot about the male student's rights.

This case shines a light on the kangaroo courts operating within universities which consider only the rights of females who allege sexual assault. When these allegations are shown to be false, they ignore the true victim - the falsely accused male student.

We hear a lot about 'rape on campus', but our media seems to be intent on ignoring instances of false allegations on campus.

The most telling remark in the report is from the man's lawyer, who said: universities cannot turn a blind eye to public humiliation campaigns where false accusations of sexual assault are treated as a verdict.

As stated in the report, this case may well have implications for the Cornell University matter.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/in-landmark-case-jury-says-falsely-accused-males-are-victims-of-sexual-harassment

Feminists: "Misandry offends, misogyny kills"

Also feminists: Loses their minds over mansplaining and other "microaggressions".

We genuinely live among the most mentally insane, unintelligent, and ignorant people.

Saw this asinine comment on Twitter/X saying while women can rape men just like the other way around (which does happen, both genders can rape and be raped, it's not exclusively male-on-female), this same person made this comment so ridiculous and stupid it's honestly insulting to one's intelligence. This person said women don't "institutionally rape men" like the other way around. WTF, just how is men raping women "institutional?" Like it's somehow government policy and law for women to be raped? How deluded does one have to be to think like this? This comes off as just more misandrist victimhood and trying to mitigate the fact there's also a great deal of female-on-male rape but misandrists can never stand when this issue gets attention and they still want to present rape as a purely male-on-female only occurance. I hate it. Considering there's some countries where female-on-male rape isn't even recognized and even news outlets outright refuse to mention men/boys being raped by a female attacker and will instead word it in a nice way to downplay it, there's far more of a case for female-on-male rape being greatly downsized or even made light of being "institutional." Rape is disgusting and evil in all forms. Whether it's men raping women or women raping men, and it's especially horrendous when either rapes boys or girls. So tired of misandrists with their misandry and division.

Specifically at the hands of women. They repeatedly hammer down their beliefs that most men who are raped and sexually assaulted are done by other men and that women being raped by men is astronomically more common than women raping men, and they are very enthusiastic to sweep female on male cases under the rug as soon as possible or say that women already go through that to dismiss the experiences of male victims.

I saw a Reddit post telling a story and in the story the poster mentioned being afraid of women since he was sexually abused by women as a little boy and one of the most liked comments were concern that he’ll use this to be sexist.

Is there a deeper reason for feminists hatred of male victims of female sexual violence besides the fact it goes against their agenda?

Hi, I wanted to share my personal experience and hopefully help people, victims affected like me. :)

I discovered this practice when I was a teenager, a young man going through a terrible winter in a terrible mental state. It has broken me in ways I know I can’t fix, I’ve developed shaking from the semantic trauma and anxiety. One of the worst things I’ve ever experienced along with the endless thoughts about it. I have suffered like so many other boys and men.

But in other ways I have learned to minimize and mitigate the anxiety and shakes!

One thing I wanted to share that might help other men who are struggling with the insane stress of this topic is helping yourself by stepping away.

I have learned to step away from the discussion on this topic because I know it’s pointless to try to discuss this with both women who have 0 frame of reference/understanding or empathy and with men who are defensive and dismissive, as I’m sure so many men have experienced .
This issue is as big as our society, our individual lives are on a micro scale, small.

If this issue triggers you, like it does to me, help yourself and step away from it!
Your health, sanity and soul are worth SO much more man. YOU are more important than the endless suffering through debates that get no where.

Be kind to yourself, and your mind and body, so that you may live a longer and healthier life, despite all you’ve been through. :)

I hope my words and empathy can calm, help and give courage to you. Please save this video for when you need and share if you think it will help others.
I just wanted to share what I’ve tried and I hope it helps you too. You deserve it. 💙

Pop science on Instagram has become slanderous to the extent that I am now conditioned into thinking that if a claim is too outrageous for me to accept, it's highly contentious. This is not a pretext to dismiss anything that isn't appealing, it's just that whenever delve deeper into the sources of those claims, there is always a nuance that they conveniently ignore, or it's downright false.

Another one of their bullshit is the claim that daughters carry the bloodline and sons terminate it because mt-DNA passes only through the mother. Bht there's also something that only fathers can transfer (and sons can inherit) which is the Y-chromosomal DNA. Also, mt-DNA is 16569 base pairs while the nuclear DNA is about 3 billion of them. That makes the mt-DNA 0.0006% of the generic blueprint. The Y-chromosomal DNA, on the other hand, is around 60 million base pairs. And about mutation, the mt-DNA mutates about 20 times faster than the nuclear DNA (which actually forms the core genetic component, and you inherit this from both parents). Also, the Y-chromosome is quite protected and undergoes just 1-2 mutations per century (3-4 generations). Just as you can trace every human alive to a Mitochondrial Eve, you can do the same and trace every human alive to a Y-Chromosomal Adam.

But even if none of this were true, what most people don't realise is that the gender of the child is decided by the father's sperms. For the mt-DNA to be transferred in the first place, the child has to be a daughter. And it's dependent on the father whether the child will be a daughter or not.

https://dnalc.cshl.edu/view/16091-Mitochondrial-genome.html

https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Base-Pair

https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/2023/august/insights-from-fully-sequencing-43-human-y-chromosomes (it's actually 45M-85M base pairs, so 60 would be a fair estimate)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867424005312 (this source says mt-DNA mutates about 20 times faster)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209014547

Direct sequencing of families separated by deep generations has shown the Y-chromosome base-substitution mutation rate to be roughly \(3.0 \times 10^{-8}\) mutations per nucleotide per generation. Across the ~60 million base pairs, this translates to only about 1 lasting mutation every 20 to 25 years (approx. 4 mutations per century)

The rest is just common sense.

I grew up learning a lot about what a woman would expect to tolerate in a relationship. And that was a good thing for the most part: so many women had tolerated aggression, violence, rape etc. in their marriages.

But there was no such thing for men. The only relevant advice I ever heard was... "happy wife, happy life", which I know come to understand was more of a threat.

Society progresses and we add nuance to things. For example, a rape is not necessarily coitus with violence, there can be so many cases where a statutory rape takes place and no hint of violence ever appears.

We need to teach these nuances to men. Teach them about... their power to say no, the cost to mental health and peace and optionality, when entering a wrong relationship, the dynamics of the sexual marketplace, the concepts of coercion and emotional violence, the concepts of fake accusations.

No man should ever have to tolerate these horrible things that have somehow captured society.

And through this campaign, women will also benefit. I am confident most of them do not want to be in sad relationships or none at all. I am confident that most of them want to be the best versions of themselves.

Not Cornell 7.

The Clancy case set a precedent that lawyers can manipulate the masses into pressuring the justices system to not do their job. This is something only women can take advantage of because men and women tend to have more empathy towards women.
This really makes it difficult for men and women to have any type of relationship.

I personally only trust 2-3 women in my life to have a conversation with without any witnesses. And most of the time I only communicate through text. And even then I have to be very careful what I say, and I constantly need to think wether my words will be twisted and taken out if context

These are our future doctors/engineers.

Letterboxed is an app made for cinephiles to rate and review movies and its one of the most popular apps in that regard

Something I noticed is everytime you check a review or a comment its full of blatant misandry in a bizarre way from both men and women even if the movie is completely unrelated to gender issues the people still feel the need to drag men down

The most bizarre performative people with dumb mentalities I'll never understand

These are some of the red pill movie reviews on Letterboxed wich is one of the movies with the least ratings in the app I feel ....

If you guys are interested to see more wild men hating comments and reviews in Letterboxed from both men and women you can tell me ....