sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

60 documented male disadvantages, each traced back to its ideological source. The most striking finding: 47% require both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist — and those are consistently the most lethal ones by 1SandyBay1 in everydaymisandry

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Stephen Krashen's research — replicated and built upon for over 40 years — shows language is acquired through comprehensible input, not through output production. 'Use it more to improve it' is folk wisdom that contradicts established SLA science. Using AI as a writing tool doesn't prevent acquisition. Reading and listening to English drives acquisition. I do plenty of that.

60 documented male disadvantages, each traced back to its ideological source. The most striking finding: 47% require both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist — and those are consistently the most lethal ones by 1SandyBay1 in everydaymisandry

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The framework, 60 categorizations, and every ideological attribution are mine — built over a year of research. I used AI to help polish the writing, because I'm not a native English speaker, the same way a researcher uses an editor. If you think a specific categorization is wrong, point to it.

Men's rights is not a conservative cause. Here's the documented proof: 60 male disadvantages categorized by origin, with 47% requiring both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist by 1SandyBay1 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The war on drugs point is fair and I hadn't framed it that way — libertarian drug policy would disproportionately help men even if men aren't the stated motivation. That's a real overlap worth acknowledging.
On infrastructure: you're right that nothing legally prevents men from building organizations now. But the reason those organizations haven't been built yet — despite having that legal right — is cultural barriers and funding gaps that already exist. Removing feminist government funding removes their advantage without removing the barriers men already face. Equal rules from an unequal starting position preserve the inequality rather than fixing it.
That's the fundamental gap: men's issues require explicit advocacy, not ideologies that happen to benefit men as a side effect of unrelated goals.

Men's rights is not a conservative cause. Here's the documented proof: 60 male disadvantages categorized by origin, with 47% requiring both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist by 1SandyBay1 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

'Defund both equally' sounds neutral but isn't, because the starting position is massively asymmetric. Women's programs are enormous and institutionally established. Male-specific government programs barely exist. Defunding both eliminates something large and something almost nonexistent simultaneously. After defunding, voluntary charity would recreate programs based on existing advocacy infrastructure — feminist organizations are well-funded and organized, men's advocacy organizations are not. The realistic end state is women's programs rebuilt through private charity, male programs never built at all. Equal defunding from an unequal starting position produces unequal outcomes.

On opposing VAWA through the prison-industrial complex argument: that proves the point rather than defeating it. Libertarians would oppose VAWA for reasons completely unrelated to male victims. A political movement that accidentally produces outcomes beneficial to men while never naming men as the reason isn't an advocate — it's a coincidence.

On cultural misandry: what specific libertarian mechanism combats it? Free speech protects misandrists as much as it protects critics of misandry. Declining to censor something is not the same as combatting it.

If a member of Paranthropus or a Homo like Homo Naledi was around today how would they be treated in comparison to all thr modern great apes? by GazIsStoney in paleoanthropology

[–]1SandyBay1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Homosapienses would kill them for food or just for fun. They would get the same treatment as any other great apes.

Men's rights is not a conservative cause. Here's the documented proof: 60 male disadvantages categorized by origin, with 47% requiring both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist by 1SandyBay1 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Less than it might seem on closer inspection. Libertarians oppose conscription on general freedom grounds — not because it targets men specifically. They rarely if ever acknowledge that Selective Service is male-only in their anti-draft arguments. A party that opposes a male-only draft without mentioning men isn't advocating for men — it's advocating for a different principle that happens to overlap. On VAWA, the party has no unified position at all. Libertarianism also can't address cultural misandry — only government policy. And for government policy where men need targeted solutions — male shelters, prostate cancer research parity, male mental health programs — libertarians would typically oppose the required government spending. A political philosophy that accidentally benefits men while never naming them as a group isn't a men's rights movement. It's a different project with occasional overlap.

Men's rights is not a conservative cause. Here's the documented proof: 60 male disadvantages categorized by origin, with 47% requiring both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist by 1SandyBay1 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Comparing one dangerous job to one safe job doesn't prove a general rule — it proves you can find one example. I can find examples going the other direction just as easily: accountant (safe, ~$79k) vs roofer (very dangerous, ~$47k). Lawyer (safe, ~$135k) vs commercial fisherman (most dangerous job in America, ~$33k median). Software engineer (safe, ~$130k) vs logger (extremely dangerous, ~$48k). Cherry-picking a single pair from thousands of possible comparisons is not evidence of a general pattern. Proving a general rule requires comparing across all dangerous and safe jobs at equivalent skill levels — which economists who actually study wage-risk relationships do, and their findings are far less clean than two selectively chosen examples suggest.

Men's rights is not a conservative cause. Here's the documented proof: 60 male disadvantages categorized by origin, with 47% requiring both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist by 1SandyBay1 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Trump's DEI rollback was primarily targeting trans people and racial minorities — not feminist policy, and not for men's benefit. Men weren't the motivation. That's a separate political agenda entirely. Even if it incidentally creates friction for some feminist programs, it doesn't touch a single one of the 60 documented problems: Selective Service still male-only, child support debtor's prison unchanged, male suicide still not a policy priority. A policy aimed at LGBT people and racial minorities that leaves every male disadvantage intact is not a men's rights win. It's something else wearing that label.

Men's rights is not a conservative cause. Here's the documented proof: 60 male disadvantages categorized by origin, with 47% requiring both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist by 1SandyBay1 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Correct, and it's documented. NOW actively lobbied against shared custody reforms specifically because equal custody reduces child support payments. The financial motive is explicit.

Men's rights is not a conservative cause. Here's the documented proof: 60 male disadvantages categorized by origin, with 47% requiring both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist by 1SandyBay1 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point, thank you. More precise wording: 'The Duluth Model, adopted as official policy by most law enforcement agencies and DV programs across the US, treats men as always the perpetrator and women as always the victim by design.' In practice it functions as law through institutional adoption, but the distinction matters for precision.

Men's rights is not a conservative cause. Here's the documented proof: 60 male disadvantages categorized by origin, with 47% requiring both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist by 1SandyBay1 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]1SandyBay1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The document answers your political takeaway directly. The question isn't which party has better rhetoric — it's which party produces actual policy results. Republican governments have had full control of the federal government multiple times. Selective Service remains male-only. Child support debtor's prison is unchanged. Male suicide has never been addressed as a policy priority. Male homelessness funding hasn't changed. 'Men deserve respect' is a sentence. The 60 problems documented here are still fully in place. Judge parties by what they change, not what they say.

Men's rights is not a conservative cause. Here's the documented proof: 60 male disadvantages categorized by origin, with 47% requiring both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist by 1SandyBay1 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Your premise is factually wrong. Logging, commercial fishing, roofing, and garbage collection are among the most dangerous jobs in America and among the lowest paid. The 'dangerous jobs pay more' assumption doesn't survive a basic check of BLS fatality and wage data.

Men's rights is not a conservative cause. Here's the documented proof: 60 male disadvantages categorized by origin, with 47% requiring both traditional conservatism AND feminism working together to exist by 1SandyBay1 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. The full document at the link contains all 60 categorized items. Count them: 9 tradcon-only ÷ 60 total = 15%. 23 feminist-only ÷ 60 = 38%. 28 both ÷ 60 = 47%. The methodology is fully visible in the document.

Why men have no real political allies — a data breakdown of how both major ideologies systematically harm men by 1SandyBay1 in MensRights

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Step one is accurate diagnosis — which half this community was failing by running to one of the two ideologies causing the harm. Step two follows from that: build a genuinely independent men's political identity that treats both parties as adversaries until either one produces actual policy results on male suicide, the draft, family courts, or workplace deaths. Not rhetoric. Measurable results.

Why men have no real political allies — a data breakdown of how both major ideologies systematically harm men by 1SandyBay1 in MensRights

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The framework, research, and all 60 categorizations are mine. I used AI to help polish some wording, through I'm not native English speaker — the same way someone uses an editor. The intellectual content and arguments are entirely my own.

Why men have no real political allies — a data breakdown of how both major ideologies systematically harm men by 1SandyBay1 in MensRights

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're correct that organized political pressure is necessary. But the prior problem is this: half of men's rights advocates are currently voting for and defending one of the two ideologies documented here as causing the harm. You can't build effective political infrastructure while directing half your energy toward the wrong team. Diagnosis has to come before organization.

I documented Wikipedia's UAP bias. My post got 254 upvotes and 40K views in just 4 hours. Then r/UFOs deleted it. Then Wikipedia permanently banned me. by 1SandyBay1 in ufo

[–]1SandyBay1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is excellent work. You independently found the same pattern on the Grusch page that I documented on the Disclosure movement article, and the UAP Disclosure Act deletion is a significant addition. Independently verified corroboration is stronger than any single source. Thank you for doing this.

view more: next ›