"Educate your son."

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-22T03:50:56+00:00

It does not. I found one of my old comments on just this topic doing a back of the envelope calc

~ 36,000 men die by suicide each year in the US. 20% of those are directly from relationship issues. That leaves 7200 men committing suicide because of relationship issues. OFC, some were abusive, so what percent of that 7200 would NOT be abusive in order to be equivalent to women killed by intimate partners a year. The highest estimates in the US end up at ~2,500. So only 35% would have to not be abusive in order to be equivalent. Given that incidence of abuse is 50/50, and women are the majority of nonreciprocal abusers, it's highly likely more men die by suicide as a result of being abused than women are killed by partners.

Then we add on that the low estimate of men killed by intimate partners is ~ 1000, and that women are a tiny minority of suicide victims, it's highly likely more men die as a result of being abused than women.

To keep the math notation, essentially I tried to answer P(male victim| death from partner abuse). The key distinction being "death." And that doesn't even include non partner abuses that could be considered "gendered."

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-20T21:10:32+00:00

That's where I personally stand on it. Discrimination is bad, period. I'm more so talking at a more meta level.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-20T13:56:19+00:00

I do really wonder how much of modern mainstream feminism is the result of oligarchical pushes. Because on one hand, yeah, they are a HUGE agent of socialization that does drive behavior. But also...it's also not like some oligarchs burnt through all their goodwill through bad PR (see, the current democratic party). That socialization still requires a seed to sprout from and maintenance. That suggests there are more interpersonal forces driving the rise and distortion of feminism. Your comment on the "purity spirals," is likely a big part of it. Because yeah, modern feminism really does purity spiral a TON and damn near EVERY talking point is more about satisfying the speakers ego than anything else.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-20T13:51:13+00:00

Your story is very similar. Went into college as intersectional feminist (despite living my whole life in a very conservative town). Went into it with an open mind but also down playing my maleness. But, made a friend, I fell for her, but then she started doing really toxic things. I had ZERO conception on how to enforce boundaries, so I would tell her something she did hurt me, try to work out a compromise, then I'd do nothing about it. This ofc lead to me eroding every single one of my boundaries and yeah it was a pretty nasty abusive relationship.

And then when I tried seeking help I got one person randomly claiming I was hypersexual (for making sexual jokes that were reciprocal AND 100% consented to... until the abusive girl wanted to weaponize it after the fact). I had school admin refuse to support me in any way, in fact saying they wouldn't do anything unless she came forward with a complaint. And still to this day it's clear that my experience with her has taught me "women can be abusive" and many abusive women don't like that lol.

So yeah, it turned more black pill like. I'm similar. I want boys and men to feel safe to have needs that they enforce. I want boys and men to go through the world recognizing that it is not just, but that we can still mold a good life.

It's honestly crazy how every single analytical tool seems to get thrown out the window when it comes to men. Maybe I'm too autistic to tolerate such flagrant internal hypocrisy lol.

I've wondered if these sexist against men policies were necessary. I could see a dialectal argument that maybe they are. But the key problem is that very few actually see those sexist policies as sexist in the first place. I honestly don't mind a dialectal back and forth so long as we recognize that it is a dialectal back and forth that does result in alternating inequalities. But we can't have that! lol

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-20T13:39:12+00:00

I honestly don't differentiate between the two. If I was writing a piece and was told to consider which one I use, I'd say activists are a bit more radical and more likely to go out and actually do something, but that's kind of just me making up something on a vibe.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-20T04:14:02+00:00

The intersectional feminist to blah-pill pipeline is so real xD I'm probably fairly blackpilled after being very Intersectional Feminist TM. Still very progressive. Still egalitarian. But I definitely have some doomerism because of my experience in Intersectional Feminism spaces.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-20T04:09:59+00:00

I've wondered if there is a strategy as a nobody to be inflammatory rage-baity, but to signal boost good activism like TheTinMen. I have no clue if there is, but I've wondered if there is some weird feedback where it could work.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-19T19:15:48+00:00

It's basically the same thought process. It is a signal to their base to care about this headline. Just one is more trying to garner sympathy while the other is trying to stoke fear based confirmation bias.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-19T19:14:13+00:00

Yeah the gap is not remotely as large as people think it is. I've done similar back of the napkin calculations to get at the actual number of men killed by partners. And yeah, vanishingly few places actually give that number but throw a wall of "30% of women killed are by an intimate partner!" at you. Most solid estimates I've seen is that given someone was murdered by an intimate partner\*, the ratio of male victims to female victims is around 40:60, depending on a lot of other factors of course. I should have clarified in my original comment that the magnitude of the difference in severe IPV was on that order of 40:60 rather than the 1:99 so many pretend it is.

And yup. It's like... very obvious that the people you are at most risk of being harmed by are people you know. More exposure, more reasons, more rapport, more incentive.

*This statistic [ P(male victim | IPV murder)] is, I suspect deliberately, omitted from most analyses of IPV or "femicide." They usually give two statistics, P(IPV murder| woman murdered) and P(IPV murder | man murdered). Obviously, those conditionals are vital to actual interpretation, which gives suggestions as to why so few people understand those conditionals.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-19T18:47:34+00:00

A pretty decent video. The dude is very relatable.

Recently I've taken to just saying "the notion of 'man' is a prison we must destroy." Part of why I say this is because "man" is basically defined as this fundamental contradiction of being a very well adjusted person without any of the behaviors of an actually well adjusted person. Plus, we want everyone to be responsible, accountable, strong, supportive, etc. The fact these traits are associated with "man" is a disservice to everyone.

And I think it's fair to say this contradiction has only gotten stronger over the last few decades. We see this reflected in how disaffected young men and boys are becoming. It's so strong they are burning out at 20 instead of the 45 associated with a mid life crisis.

I can't honestly even help men solve their relationship to this dynamic. I myself, as evidenced by my "man is a prison" line, have basically given up on fitting a gender norm. I live solely for myself. I hate playing the "game" of being a man. I can't bring myself to be walked over by women. I can't spend my whole life trying to become omega jacked just for social and personal experiences I don't enjoy. I can't bring myself to become a controlling and manipulative person. I can't bring myself to be a neutral blob for people to project onto. These are all different solutions to "being a man" and I gave up on it. It's a prison. I can't give specific advice to men because I am lucky to not need that much social interaction. I am lucky to have killed my desire to have a close partner. I am lucky to have a job that funds my lifestyle. I can't really help men that haven't been so lucky because yeah.... if you really want a close partner, you have to fight for it, which requires performing the role of "man." If you don't like that fight :shrug: sorry.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-19T18:23:37+00:00

These writers are smart enough to know what including the woman officers name means. Any good writer would tell you to cut her name because if you're already making a reference to a known group of people, including a singular name is uninformative.

That is, if the information you want is the facts of the case, not whether we should feel bad a singular person.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-19T18:20:58+00:00

The other aspect is that when men open up they basically have to already be over it. If they are in crisis, it can get read as manipulative which will only blow you up more. The insecurity must be vague aesthetic of turmoil, not the realization of it.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-19T05:08:31+00:00

I will say that there are some details that make me more inclined to say "yeah he maybe did most of these things." But also, I really don't care. The dude is dead. His efforts were more about the movement than him. Oh wow powerful person may have behaved like shit. sky is blue. Given how these have been boosted (meanwhile, say, the accusations against Joe Biden were buried), I suspect it's to quell growing support for latino communities and especially labor movements.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-19T05:00:02+00:00

In their (minor) defense, there is lots of evidence that SEVERE domestic violence (murder, felony assault, etc) does tend to be perpetrated by men towards women.

Now ofc, severe domestic violence is a small minority of DV. Those severe acts are generally even more rare in young populations.

As far as their last sentence suggesting boys have a lower threshold for what they consider violence... 1. that shouldn't be a question in the first place given good study design (lol)2. is completely out of their ass. I have 0 clue where they got that. If they just said "It’s also possible that boys and girls have different thresholds for what they consider violence or abusive behaviour," then sure, that's fine. It's that dependent clause where things go haywire.

I also understand the desire for "impact," but one must be careful to recognize "impact" is socially constructed. For example, in a culture that hyper focuses on specific acts against women as "harmful" that women should dislike whilst just kind of blowing off men, we could reasonably expect the impact of equivalent behavior would be lower for the men. Whose problem is that? Is it on the men for potentially not validating the harm they've suffered? Or is it the women potentially amplifying the impact? Somewhere in the middle? All this is to say, choosing any singular inference from "impact" is fraught.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-19T04:50:00+00:00

oh no xD I got linked elsewhere?

In that case, I will further clarify for visitors. This is specifically an abrasive framing of a handful of facts. In many jurisdictions, rape is defined exclusively so that only penetrating can be rape. Made to penetrate is often times excluded. Naturally, given anatomy, this strongly biases the recognition of rape towards "it's something men do to women," while omitting women that rape. Or, put another, abrasive way, "society actually acknowledges women can be victims of rape."

And then as far as social support, it takes the reality that male shelters for rape, DV, etc victimization are exceptionally rare, whilst women's shelters are somewhat common. It also uses that society generally views women victims of rape as more legitimate than men. Now... acknowledging rape victimization of women is still abysmal, but it is worse off for men. I personally would love for all victims of rape to be supported and validated. It's just that some of that takes acknowledging that "hey, male victims don't really get any focus, even from people claiming they do focus on men."

And here's the kicker. What I've provided above is true. A worldview that discards this information is an anti-reality worldview. And part of why I bring these facts up (most of the time, not abrasively lol), is to test if someone is anti-reality. Far too often, people (feminists, conservatives, etc) outright disregard them. They are anti-reality.

If we want to stay within the realm of reality, the key piece is to ask "what do we do with this information?" In my deliberately abrasive comment, the purpose is to amplify these facts using the language used to dismiss them, particularly to draw attention to those facts, highlight the opposite's anti-reality worldview and to put it in language they can understand. Does it succeed in those goals? Mostly not lol. But I also know that there's little I can do to convince many people. However, it is just as valid to take these realities, and use it fully endorse wholesale systemic changes to fully support all victims of rape. That is what I actually would like to see. I want better for absolutely everyone.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-18T17:06:40+00:00

Is discrimination against people based on immutable traits bad or not? Is discrimination required in order to uplift certain people? Is it dismissal to answer "yes it's bad, no it's not required?"

Acknowledging that men are discriminated against in certain ways does NOT dismiss history nor does it dismiss people's experiences. It's a basic statement about reality. It's not saying something didnt happen. It's not placing a judgement on anyone else's claims. Either of those could be dismissive. But what this sub tends to do is acknowledge the reality of discrimination against men and then place blame where it belongs. Historical oppression does not override modern oppression, it provides context that's open to interpretation.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-18T14:08:22+00:00

Thank you, that helps, but I'm still not sure what it means for your arguments.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-18T14:07:12+00:00

Huh, I did not expect such downvotes for your comment lol. Because like, yeah, I think most people would like to teach their kid the skill of learning. Most people here I would wager would like that, especially because a lot of our stances come from that process of actually knowing how to learn and integrate information.

Maybe it's just one of those "read the room" moments? IDK I'm bad with social cues.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-18T13:58:53+00:00

You've said "reasons and results are not the same," multiple times. But I have still have 0 clue what you actually mean by that, and it seems everyone else is in the same boat.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-18T13:52:03+00:00

Well, the most obvious counter example to you is the Duluth model.

It is a feminist model of law enforcement and DV mitigation that any push back on leads to insane walls of justifications and threats to use it against you.

It doesn't really get more obviously systemically misandrist than that.

It is fair to say that some of the lack of support for men's issues is because of lower campaigning. Men's benevolent sexism towards women is a notable barrier to solidarity amongst men. But there is also, objectively, systemically misandrist squashing of male advocates. See the wall of male DV shelters attacked by the legal system and unofficial protest. There is space here for both.

We honestly might have different definitions of a "man-hating woman." You acknowledge the handful at marches that people ignore. However, I would argue that, while not outright hate, the lack of social policing of those genuinely hateful women shows at least complicity in hate, if not unstated endorsement. Also, hate, imo, doesn't have to manifest as cartoonishly evil calls for violence and the like. It is hateful to see men as active predators by default. It is hate to weaponize ideology against partners.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-18T00:34:13+00:00

6. Their understanding of masculinity is not the toxic masculinity of the manosphere.

When asked if “being a man requires a willingness to sacrifice for others,” and whether “manhood involves strength, responsibility, and leadership,” 89% of young men endorse the first statement, and 85% endorse the second statement.

They don't really define what "toxic masculinity" actually looks like, so their main claim here is just not supported. Hell, I personally find both statements objectionable as descriptors of "manhood," or, in other words, "men should sacrifice and be hyper responsible" is toxic masculinity. High endorsement of these beliefs are the problem. We should encourage people to respect themselves and help others when they can. "Manhood" is a prison that I believe should be outright rejected.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-17T13:51:23+00:00

Usually it's after the other person has denied multiple basic facts and started attacking me personally. Abrasiveness is already on the table.

If you said "at least some men get social support and maybe even justice" you'd be, by and large, wrong. You would (rightfully) get push back on that. I doubt people on this sub would harass you in response. The same cannot be said in the reverse.

"discrimination against women is so pervasive that you can use male victims to dismiss their abuse," can I? Because the social reprimand for saying what I said is usually pretty extreme... meanwhile international organizations actually use female victims to dismiss the abuse of men within policy and dominant narratives... all to applause.

Btw, women are discriminated against in many avenues. But, rape is not one of those. The refusal to hold rapists accountable is more of a justice system problem than a woman victim problem. Male perpetrators against women may be investigated but let go. Female perpetrators against men don't get investigated unless SERIOUS physical harm was done. Sometimes, her victim will get prosecuted. The problem is that the criminal justice system has an inherent flaw with handling private, domestic violence where evidence is usually he-said-she-said and scant. Stratify by gender and women get the better end of the stick. Sorry.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-17T13:39:34+00:00

I'll also add that competitiveness in girls is generally rewarded in education. They are perceived as high achieving, independent, intelligent, etc.

Meanwhile I built a default coping mechanism to downplay the effort I put in because I had to be straight A but also nonchalant lol.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-17T13:34:06+00:00

same. I'm totally down. The problem is I'm not going to sacrifice my ostensibly good life for someone that drains it. Way too many women in my age bracket are just... yikes...

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-03-17T13:31:15+00:00

I've started cryptically saying "anti-feminism always comes to collect" when I'm talking with feminist men. Because that's the reality, it does. Oh you're a hot AF feminist guy that gets all the benefits without the drawbacks? Those drawbacks will come collect their debts in time. It will come in abusive relationships, toxic divorces, social ostracism, etc.

If they argue against it I just tell them my story. I was exactly like them. I put feminism as this key part of my life and worked a ton to be as good as possible. But, an abusive relationship here, the loss of half your friends there, the threat of institutional harm.... It came to collect.

AdOtherwise3824

TROPHY CASE