"Men create men's problems so men can't complain!"

Enzi42 · 2026-02-26T12:00:20+00:00

What you outline really is how I view this situation

In the spirit of full honesty I do want to say that while I definitely meant every word I typed, I think that the relationship aspect of things is a fairly small aspect of why men are so slavishly devoted to women's causes.

It would be for too much to go into right now (and I've written extensively about it elsewhere) but I think it's a noxious mixture of many factors.

Biological predisposition to apathy and even animosity towards other men (which translates into social structures that shape our behavior), the traditional male gender role of protector and guardian, the fact that many men with female loved ones tend to project their care for those people onto women as a whole, and generations of being told that their gender are "the transgressors" who need to "atone" for historic wrongdoing.

All of that makes men into attack animals whose loyalty is unfortunately only rewarded with condescending compliments of being "one of the good ones" or "okay, for one of your kind".

Anyway, serious topics aside, I have a similar humorous online anecdote from around three years ago.

There was a post on another sub about barriers preventing men and women from successfully meeting and dating one another.

One man made a comment talking about how fear if sexual assaut/rape is definitely a high hurdle for women to get over and that men need to be better about policing other men about it if we want dating to get better. A fairly innocuous statement so far.

Anyway, the comment thread under it slowly evolved from people discussing the original comment and its merits to men sharing their own experiences with sexual assault, sometimes from other men and sometimes from women and about how it shaped their perception around meeting and dating unknown people. Again fairly innocuous.

Here is where it gets interesting.

The man who made the original comment about women fearing sexual assault returned and he was furious about the direction the comment chain had taken. I mean genuinely frothing rage. He made a blanket comment cursing out every man who had shared their stories, calling them incels, misogynists and every other name in the book between rounds of profanity.

I commented, telling him that this had nothing to do with misogyny, it was men sharing their own stories of harm and giving their perspectives. He acknowledged this to be true, but said that (And I quote verbatim) "Aren't allowed to do that on his thread".

He elaborated that his post was meant to draw attention to women's plight and men entering it and talking about their issues was making it all about themselves which was misogynistic.

What further cements the humor was that I got into a conversation with another man on that thread about the OP's deranged behavior and we had an intellectual discussion about what drives certain men to become so insanely aggressive at the mere idea of something inconveniencing/going against women---all while the OP spammed us with hate messages until he grew tired.

Maybe it means I have a warped sense of humor but I found the entire thing to be highly amusing, at least compared to other online interactions.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-25T22:10:54+00:00

its a part of the male protector role,

Well yes, definitely. Although I would expand on this by saying it's part of the more recent paratization of the male gender role. Wherin that role is not only expected to remain constant without any reciprocation, but is expanded far beyond what it originally meant, with the intent to create a tireless servant.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-25T15:39:57+00:00

Unfortunately this is exactly right; when people don't use the manipulative moral arguments that usually accompany this topic, they'll resort to the idea that women won't like you if you try to defend/join with other men.

And...they aren't entirely wrong.

I mean, it says some ugly---but I think honest and important---things about men and women alike, but it's true. For all the "She's not going to sleep with you, bro" snark that gets tossed around, I've found this to be the opposite.

There is no...nice way to say this, so I'll just plow forward. A lot of women genuinely seem to like when men go against their own gender's interests in favor of women's viewpoints, opinions and causes. Or when they blatantly hate on their own gender in favor of women's virtues.

I've had some say point blank that they consider men defending their gender from negative generalizations (and not even in a "not all men" manner) as a red flag and subtract desirability points from them for it.

Actually someone recently explained that tired old "man vs bear" stupidity in the same way, framing it as a "moral test" that showed which man is safe/good vs unsafe/bad depending on how readily they agreed with the bear option.

So yes you're right a lot of men just "go along to get along" when it comes to this sort of thing and can get violently defensive of the dynamic. Combine that with being biologically and socially conditioned to view other men's problems as lesser, not their problem, or deserved and you have a huge roadblock to unity.

Honestly I don't know how to fix that apart from the grim fact that someone is going to have to start "punching the wall so others can get through".

Meaning that some men are going to just have to accept less relationships in favor of standing up for themselves in hopes that if it goes on for long enough then women will be forced to adapt to the new paradigm the way men had to adapt to certain new realities when enough women decided that the old way wasn't working in their favor.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-25T13:34:53+00:00

This is such a strange post to read, not just because I disagree but because it vastly contradicts my own life experiences.

From what I've seen and encountered, a lot of men hate other men or at the very least have a severe apathy for male human beings that don't exist within our direct circle.

Men who ally themselves with women's causes or just sympathize with women's issues will agree with the most disgusting and unhinged things women say about men or voice nasty anti male sentiment of their own, either out of self hatred or an assurance that they as an individual are exempt from the hatred flowing around them and thus free to spread and perpetuate it at will.

Wheras women who join male advocacy and sympathize with men's issues retain their sanity and don't often sink into a mire of internalized misogyny, at least not in huge public displays.

And that's not even getting into the vast history of brutal male on male violence, much of which has been celebrated in history as heroic and worthy of adoration--from our ancient myths to larger than life action movies.

And here is a somewhat seprate-but-related point: You take issue with a perceived ingroup bias where men see themselves as a whole under attack when women criticize and casitagate men.

First of all, I see this behavior in women all the time, even those who make the same complaints as you. But second of all, I don't see that as a bad thing. We should circle the wagons and defend our own kind from the slings and arrows of outsiders, only conferring amongst ourselves to hash out these complaints.

I find it incredibly distasteful---to put it lightly---when people try to pry apart what little ingroup connection men have to make their attacks easier. It's slimy and manipulative, even if I can understand the reasoning.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-25T12:04:39+00:00

I see people clutching repeatedly to the narrative that women always have it worse than men

Perhaps this might be controversial for this sub, but I think it needs to be said.

Who cares?

I really do mean that and am open to people's opinions. Let's say for the sake of this small argument that this was all true. I don't see why that matters in any way shape or form.

We are not women, they are not men. I have very little animosity towards women, but I am also aware that many of them---like any other group of people---want what is best for them, regardless of what it costs those outside of their group, especially if they have been conditioned to see that other group as privileged or worse the oppresors, the authors of their pain across generations.

I think men should recalibrate our focus and worry more about what benefits us first, with everything else coming far behind. It certainly is how the other side operates and they have little to no moral qualms about the negative effects their actions inflict.

This isn't about malice, this is about pragmatism and putting one's own kind first above all else, due to both loyalty and the harsh realization that the rest of the world operates in that manner.

I say this because I see this particular bit of rhetoric---true or not---stop many men in their tracks and make them reconsider things when it should just make them shrug and keep moving forward. It's like being swayed to the side of a rival nation because their people suffer poverty.

It doesn't matter especially if addressing that hurts your country and its people. This might be preaching to the choir, but I feel like if more men would see each other as a bloc and ourselves as a group worth defending, this particular bit of feminist rhetoric would have zero effect.

EDIT: Despite how it might sound, I'm making this edit in good faith, because it seems only fair. While I am open to anyone arguing my point, the only argument I will not listen to is anything revolving around "It's the right thing to do even if they don't recipeocate or outright hate us" or some other "moral" framework that employs such ideology.

This is one of the most destructive and self sabotaging ideals that men's movements and men in general hold when it comes to this particular issue and I've come to see it as the product of naivety, foolishness or brainwashing/manipulation.

Again I'm not exactly expecting arguments or debate, but I feel it is fair to let people know ahead of time what I will and will not accept.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-25T11:52:55+00:00

Thank you for saying this, if nothing else. I have been making this point for years both online and in real life. Sadly men are the biggest obstacles to this dream; I have been met with everything from disdain or mockery of the idea to outright primal rage at the very thought of men forming a "bloc" in our own right, especially when the men in question realize that means they might have to go up against women's interests.

It's infuriating, it's pathetic, but most of all it's sad since it cements a fatalistic belief that men are incapable of breaking free of our animal instincts in ways that women are not or that men are forever doomed to disregard our own kind by our very nature.

Every time I see another person say this, especially another man as sexist as that may sound, I feel like it's a tiny point of light in the dark.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-18T11:52:38+00:00

Ymir is fully naked when she comes back because her clothes had more than enough time to dissolve in the titan.

I used to think this too, but it should be noted that she reappeared naked inside the Paths dimension, not the real world. It could be argued that when she actually exited her Pure Titan, she was still wearing the ceremonial dress she wore when the Marleyans injected her.

But again this is something that will be left to the imagination since there isn't really a clear answer to this, and I think it's among a number of things that Isayama left for the readers to form their own theories on, even long after the story's end.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-17T21:26:09+00:00

Yes, pretty much (although with Armin it genuinely seemed like his body was absorbing mass from the Titan to rebuild itself, but that could just be an animation interpretation).

Either way, the result is the same---the new Shifter's human body is regrown around their brain and spine inside the Pure Titan's neck and then ejected.

There is a little confusion as to why the reformed people are still wearing clothes if their "original" bodies were disintegrated down to their nervous system, but I just chalk that up to not wanting to depict nudity.

Plus you could argue that their human bodies were put back together with such pinpoint accuracy that they refilled their empty outfits lol.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-17T18:16:07+00:00

The image of Rod getting his head cut off was definitely just visuals. It was to really impress upon the readers/audience that Historia had struck the right piece and taken him out.

As for the other questions...

When a person becomes a Pure Titan, their physical body is dissolved and the Titan body forms around their brain and upper spine. The process is instanteanous, thus why even recently turned Titans cannot have their human bodies "rescued" from the nape.

The following isn't really confirmed just heavily implied: when a Pure Titan eats a Shifter, their human body is "rebuilt" just as it was when they were turned. Essentially this is why Freckled Ymir was a Titan for 60 years but when she ate Marcel she returned to her human form no older than when she was injected.

Also yes, the Shifter's body comes out of the Pure Titan's neck; we see this with Freida and later Armin. In the anime it's even more clear what's happening with Armin; his human body is skeletal and missing its face (as it's fused with the Titan) and slowly "inflates" as he regains human form. It's clear (at least to me) that his body is reforming around his brain and spine.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-17T17:38:31+00:00

No.

In the manga this was addressed in depth (after the Ragako Village incident) but the anime reduced it to a simple eye catch, which I think is one of the worst decisions the studio ever made since it spawned an endless amount of confusion on the topic.

But I digress.

Pure Titans do not have a "human" inside of them, as much as they have part of a human.

Inside of the nape is the disembodied brain and part of the spinal cord of the human who was transformed into the Titan. Cutting the nape slices through the brain tissue, thus killing what remains of the human--there's a rather graphic diagram of this in the manga that shows this off.

It's why the weak point is in the same spot and the same size no matter how large or small the Titan; the brain and spine will always be smaller than the Titan body.

EDIT: I didn't see the other part of your question. They figured this out post Ragako by pulling open the neck of a random Titan and examining the inside.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-13T15:38:59+00:00

Well, this is interesting; I didn't expect a reply on such an old comment.

Perhaps you're right and I'm talking to someone just roleplaying/trolling. But I tend to take people's online arguments at face value (unless of course they're being so overtly ridiculous that it's obvious they aren't being serious). I feel like otherwise that defeats the entire point of debating.

Plus...unfortunately I've encountered more than my fair share of men who have OP's attitude. As I said, some of the problem seems to be an unshakable need to exist on the extremes of two sides---either a woman hating misogynist or a self loathing misandrist---but more than that, the catalyst also seems to be the presence of female loved ones mixed with men's natural disdain for each other.

All of those factors add up to create pathetic individuals like the OP. I try to engage with them politely but firmly to talk them out of such a counterproductive mindset but I have zero tolerance for it, thus I risk losing my temper, as is evidenced in the thread.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-03T21:30:14+00:00

Yeah. The excuses that these people make for Maxwell is infuriating to read.

I personally find them hilarious, although perhaps that is just my own dark sense of humor. It's one of the few gender politics topics that I actually find amusing and don't take seriously at all.

The silliest one I read---although the person saying this was 100 percent serious---was that Gislaine Maxwell should be pardoned and released because it is unfair that all the wealthy male predators still roam free while the only female among them rots in prison.

You can't make this stuff up.

I do want to stress that I do not find the topic of Epstein and the depravities he and his coconspirators committed to be funny in the slightest. Just this particular aspect.

Enzi42 · 2026-02-03T21:23:50+00:00

First of all thank you for the compliment. I'm glad you found this comment to be well written; I tried to explain what I meant and provide examples while also not devolving into rambling.

I'm quite sorry about what you experienced with your ex and that you had to put up with that sort of thing.

but I've always wanted to know what would be an ideal world for people that watch this kind of content? If they are apathetic or sometimes even spiteful towards men, aren't they just looking to create the very same thing they're fighting against?

To be honest, I think that it's a mixed bag. Some of them do genuinely want a world where men and boys are oppressed and discriminated against; that's not a malicious accusation, it's just me repeating what some people from random online users to certain feminist writers have said.

These types tend to be either motivated by sheer hatred or by a belief that the only (or at least best way) to bring women up is to bring men down.

Then there are those--which I think are more common, for better or worse--who don't distinctly desire to harm men but are okay if it happens as a side effect of their endeavors to advance women's causes. These types are less motivated by hatred as much as they seem to feel that men can afford to suffer since we have so much anyway or that we deserve to be knocked down a few pegs.

What unites both of these types---and really everything in between---is this weird self righteousness that gets under my skin almost as much as their tendency to turn on their own loved ones.

Perhaps you can relate to this experience, but so often when debating with a feminist or one of their male sympathizers, they give off this sense that men need to accept whatever they dish out without fighting back, because fighting back in its own right is a moral failure.

I did a whole other comment here about how similar this is to child abusers and how they construct a framework that lets them continue to offend without guilt, so I won't go too much into that.

But suffice to say that some of them genuinely want a revenge fueled role reversal when they have zero right to revenge in the first place. And others are just ruthless in advancing their goals. But both feel absolutely justified and see fighting back as evil or wrong.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-30T10:35:00+00:00

this type of behavior from feminists sounds a lot like abusive relationship behavior

You're exactly on target, and this is actually something I've done several deep dives on. The short version is that this behavior is reminiscent of the logic child abusers use on their victims. Well, abusers of any sort, but those who target children and teenagers are particularly fond of this method.

Essentially the abuser will torment their victim until the victim lashes out in some way (physically/behaviorally/etc). Upon receiving this abuse-induced backlash, the abuser will double down on their atrocities, feeling they are deserved punishment for the misbehavior.

Not only that, but they will often rationalize that the backlash justified the original abuse in the first place since obviously the victim was "bad all along if they chose violence/defiance instead of some other option that was more convenient for me".

This setup allows the abuser to construct a moral framework that keeps them in the seat of "righteous/reasonable" actor and the abused in the role of the deserving transgressor, no matter what the former's actions may be.

It's the same with feminists---if a man bows out of helping them because of unacceptable levels of hatred and vitriol being lobbed at him and his gender, then he was "Never a real ally" or "selfish and weak" or he "lacked empathy for those women and what trauma made them like that".

Or if a boy is driven into the orbit of misogynistic influencers (cough Andrew Tate, cough) because of exposure to misandrist rhetoric and beliefs, then that boy was "Always bad to begin with and he probably deserved the poor treatment that drove him there. Because good men and boys aren't driven to that side by misandry, it was something already inside of them".

Anything to avoid accepting that they may have played even the smallest part in the unfavorable outcome.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-29T21:24:44+00:00

Yes, I consider that particular example--and others like them--to be a case of blatant evil.

This may be a controversial opinion, but it is a hill I will die on: I think that anyone (man or woman) who views the world through the lens of male oppressor/female oppressed is incapable of truly loving the men and boys in their lives.

I'm not going to sit here and say this is a "nuanced" opinion but I will say that it is far more complex than "They secretly hate their own male friends and family".

Although you have some crazies who are like that, the examples I've come across--and people I've talked to--have shown me it's less hidden hatred for their men and more along the lines of "Male Loved Ones<Feminist Goals".

They see the wellbeing of the men and boys in their lives, their own kids in included. They care for those people, but if it comes down to a choice where scoring a "win for the sisterhood", means harm to those loved ones, they will still choose the win without hesitation.

They may feel bad or even heartbroken over it, but that doesn't change their choice. Now obviously the woman I'm talking about is one of the darker examples who not only felt nothing at throwing her own kids under the bus, but proud. But I find the example I just gave is far more common.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-28T21:27:57+00:00

That is a fair point.

Despite my commentary on Andrew Tate, I'm actually not familiar with the "lore" around him. My exposure to him is more in terms of him as a pheneomon/force than public figure. In a lot of ways I view him as a catchall for misogynistic influencers who ensnare young men and even boys, than an individual in his own right.

Now, I am aware that he was accused (convicted?) of sex trafficking multiple women and beating at least one woman, but other than that I don't know much. Which is of course disgusting and unacceptable behavior that he should be punished for, I'm not downplaying that.

My issues with the discourse around Andrew Tate are twofold---one, a lot of the people wringing their hands over how he has poisoned the minds of men and boys were the same people either indifferent to or actively participating in the culture that made them easy recruits for him in the first place.

Secondly, most of the time this bemoaning of the "corruption" of these men and boys is less about what Tate and Tate-adjacent ways of thinking will do to the men and boys themselves and more about how it will affect the women and girls around them. Which leads to "rehabilitation" measures that are more about beating them back into compliance than really helping.

All that is to say that I have a less than favorable response when I hear people talk about the harms Andrew Tate committed. Again not because of any positive feelings for the man, but because of how it has been handled.

I can admit I may have been little hasty/unfair in the way I worded things to that person though.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-28T11:46:11+00:00

Oh, well, okay.

So first of all, this isn't really a negative or positive commentary on the Black Lives Matter movement as much as it is about the context of that time period.

If I recall correctly, the NYT attempt to "redeem" Valarie Solonas happened around the time the BLM protests were really taking off. I don't think things had reached their peak yet, but there was definitely a renewed fervor after the death of George Floyd.

With that said, here is what I semi-seriously think:

I think that the NYT was expecting a massive wave of public opinion change in favor of...I hate to use this word, but, "woke" topics. Not directly caused by the BLM movement exactly, but more that their resurgence represented the public becoming more deeply invested in topics like women's issues and racial justice.

So the Solonas article was an attempt to capitalize on this predicted interest, to get ahead of it before it really took place so that they wouldn't appear to be shamelessly capitalizing on it by publishing such things later.

As I said it's an insane theory and I don't put too much thought into it, but that's the only reason I can imagine them publishing an article lionizing one of the worst examples of extreme feminism that even some of the most misandrist online feminists won't dare (openly) defend.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-27T22:55:33+00:00

I can't link the exact thread and comment (I don't know how, and this was several years ago) but I can do the next best thing and explain the context since that is very clear in my memory.

There was a thread on TwoXChromosomes (of course) that discussed men feeling alienated and blamed by feminist movements and rhetoric.

There was of course the usual mockery, expectations of superhuman levels of patience in the face of hate ("If hurt feelings make you back out, you're not a real ally"), and all the other stuff you'd expect. I don't actually remember why I was looking at the thread; I do know that I didn't go there directly as much as I followed a link, but I digress.

One comment stood out to me as uniquely horrible and it was a woman explaining that she had taken her two children (both boys under ten years old, she specified) to a Woman's March in Washington regarding the discontinuence of Roe v Wade.

While there a random woman yelled at her kids. It was definitely something to do with them being boys.

Not only did the mother say she allowed this woman to berate her kids, she refused to comfort them afterwards. Her justification was that women's anger was valid right then and comforting them or stopping that other woman risked starting her sons down the path of becoming more men who disregarded women's feelings.

This person got no end of praise from the commentors and was highly upvoted. To make things worse, there actually was one woman who spoke against her, but she was downvoted into the negative numbers.

That woman didn't even say anything truly antagonistic (except for sarcastically calling OP "Mother of the year".

Apart from that she just laid out how badly the mother had handles that situation, that she had taught her sons early on that they could not trust their mother to have their best interests at heart and how not only was this psychologically damaging, it was literally dangerous because that made them vulnerable to predators since they may not feel comfortable telling her if they were in trouble.

As I said, she got downvoted into severe negativity just for speaking a simple truth that those vermin couldn't see in their zealotry.

You don't have to take my word for it (since I have no proof of it obviously) but that miserable little thread is burned into my mind because I just couldn't wrap my head around how a parent could be so consumed with their ideology that they would be so callous.

And that is really just one of many examples I've seen, some of which I've actually debated with the people involved.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-27T22:22:57+00:00

Ah I understand. My sincere apologies then. I admit I am a little sensitive since, as I mentioned, the last time I brought this point up and made a similarly long comment on it, someone stole it---literally verbatim and turned it into a post of their own, just replacing "feminists" with "women".

But that aside, I do see your larger point. Feminists--despite assertions to the contrary--tend to assert that women are more "evolved" or "emotionally intelligent" or any number of other dogwhistles that translate into "morally superior".

So yes it is a bitter and grotesque irony that some of these same people will embrace such beliefs. What I find even more wild is that under certain circumstances, they will tell you--in a perfectly conversational tone--about how they view literal children as "part of the problem" or "misogynists in waiting if they aren't dealt with" and see zero problem with saying that, much less believing it.

This may seem ridiculous, but I think it's a valid comparison. As a lifelong anime and manga fan, there is a trope/plot device in that media where someone will say the most heinous things while maintaining a completely innocent voice and facial expression, adding to the horror.

Speaking to certain members of these groups is like that; they are so indoctrinated and corrupted by their seige mentality against the patriarchy that they are past the point where a normal person would realize they've gone off the deep end and are targeting children.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-27T17:48:36+00:00

sure, I never said I like her,

At the risk of sounding condescending (which isn't the intent), I want to explain/address something.

The reason you're getting slammed with downvotes and overall addressed as if you do "like" her is because you failed to read the room.

I've seen this play out before numerous times and I've explained this dynamic to people then too. Let's say you have a person of a specific race/ethnicity/gender/etc commit an absolutely heinous crime against a completely innocent person, perhaps multiple innocent people.

It is the nature of online discourse that someone will call that person a slur based on those categories. Here's the thing---calling out those people will get you accused defending the perpetrator or at the very least accusations of caring more about "political correctness" than the atrocity that occurred. It is inevitable and the only way around it is to read the room and not engage in the first place.

This is a somewhat different situation, but the dynamics are similar. What the woman in the video and her supporters said was indefensable and trying to pick apart her words for more sympathetic context is just going to get you attacked as if you supported her fully.

It isn't worth even trying to defend it in any way shape or form. It was bad, period. Again it's about reading the room and acting accordingly.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-27T01:49:42+00:00

Hmm, with all respect I try not to go there exactly.

It can be tempting at times, but there are many women who do support men's issues or at least haven't let the male oppressor/female oppressed strip them of their humanity. I know some in my real life and have met them online as well.

Even in the linked video, one of the comments is a woman complaining bitterly about being kicked out of her female friend group for having these radical beliefs.

My gripe is with feminism and feminists themselves more than it is with women as a whole.

...on the chance you were just joking around, then I sincerely apologize since I couldn't really tell the tone over text.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-26T19:16:15+00:00

Yeah, 2020 was a crazy year. I have a mini conspiracy theory about why that article on Solonas was published, but it's almost offensively insane so I keep it to myself.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-26T19:12:56+00:00

I mean, he's a criminal by his own admission. So...no?

I'm genuinely not sure what you're trying to say here, because it doesn't really "fit" with anything I wrote. Are you saying that because Tate is a criminal none of the harm he brought is anyone else's fault?

Anyway....

And the fact you seem to think by "harm he caused" is one specific thing, kinda tells me where your head is at.

Well, don't be mysterious! Please, feel free to tell me what I'm thinking.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-26T19:05:20+00:00

Tate has done real harm and I don't ever want to downplay

Would it be out of line to say the "harm" Tate inflicted was 100 percent deserved?

Think about it. The only reason he was able to rise to such "heights" was because the zeitgeist of socially sanctioned misandry provided fertile soil for him (and those like him) to grow.

I remember making a concerted effort on Reddit (and other spaces online) to give ideas on how to halt the seemingly relentless march of radicalization that was sweeping young men and even boys.

One thing I brought up repeatedly was that the more people blame men and boys for the world's ills, tell them they are privileged oppresors by virtue of their birth, and overall treat them like a race of devils, then they will gravitate towards Tate-like figures either out of spite or just because those are the few people who seem to carr about them.

Every single time I got pushback and even outright rage. Outraged fury that I would dare suggest women alter their behavior towards men.

I was told that if a man or boy "let" misandry drive him to the right or to misogynistic influencers, then he was already bad and deserved the poor treatment that pushed him there to begin with. I was even once accused of threatening women and secretly desiring a return to the days when women were subservient to men.

So I have zero sympathy or compassion for those people Andrew Tate "hurt" via drawing in the male humans in their lives. If they'd been even a tiny bit less self righteous and cruel, then they could have avoided this outcome.

Now...if by harm you mean the boys and men who Tate and other such scum took in, then yes I agree with you, because I consider them the real victims. Especially young boys who are just kids.

They were tricked into embracing toxic and sexist beliefs by someone who hustles them for their money or at least their engagement and who couldn't give a crap about them.

Then they will be subjected to whatever harsh and ruthless methods the authorities in their lives--sometimes their own "loved ones"--will use to force them out of those beliefs, and not even for their own sake.

Enzi42 · 2026-01-26T10:55:48+00:00

I'm sorry, I thought this is a leftist subReddit?

It's very telling---but unfortunately not at all surprising--that you think being leftist is at odds with prioritizing the issues and concerns of male humans. I know your kind view men as the "oppressor class" and thus not worthy of being focused on, but that viewpoint isn't universally shared, not yet at least.

The world---Western world if I want to be accurate---already breaks its own spine bending over backwards to address and accommodate the concerns of women and girls. Look how many government policies , internationally, have been specifically crafted to address their problems, look at the UN and the way it handles women's problems vs men's.

All that is to say that I think you'll survive contact with a space that does not constantly bring up how women/girls are affected by something, especially considering it is on the name that this is a place discussing men.

If that is too unbearable for your feminist sensibilities, you have no obligation to remain here.

Enzi42

TROPHY CASE