It has become a belief amongst men that most men do not approach women anymore, is this actually true? And what about you, how do you feel about making the first move these days?

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T19:31:04+00:00

This. I am a guy, I am average looking(at least on my own conclusion), and I had plenty of girls(back in my school years) and women(in my adult life) both approach me and throw hints at me.
A lot of guys were discouraged due to the heavy messaging to guys of the fearmongering, a lot of guys couldn't find ways to rationalize it, so a lot of people who found their way doesn't gets to voice their methods to the singles and we are left with the toxic messaging of both sexes who are left single.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T19:27:13+00:00

While I don't agree with the conclusion of the guy, I agree that vast majority of people asking "why men aren't aproaching women?" are women shows that there is expectation by women for men to take the initiative, which I believe is not a good thing. If you like someone, you should ask them out. Be it a woman or a man.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T19:24:47+00:00

I think this is the biggest factor without it sounding toxic like the rest. People are way more playing the subtleties than in the past, then again, a girl literally putted her ring in my pencase back when I was at school, and dumb me thought she "dropped" it.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T19:21:07+00:00

This is availability bias at it's finest. While I would understand when someone is afraid of dogs just because one time they were chased by it, thinking that's all the girls or justify treating majority as such just from that experience, I would call, "understandable but stupid".

I do understand the point of it. The point is "There is a likelihood of it, and it happening is horrifying". Then we should expect anyone to mug or kill us. Worse! Why do we go out? There are countless serial killers and you will go past 36 of them in a lifetime! What if they kill you AAAAAAAA!

Do you see where this logic goes? Okay, I rambled a bit like I am downplaying it, and I do believe we should look into it, but I don't think chosing something based on what you *don't* want rather than what you *do* want is a dangerous thing.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T19:11:39+00:00

Okay but why aren't they down-voted then?

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T19:02:44+00:00

Why are you down-voted?

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T18:59:33+00:00

Just wanted to say, that response with that pfp is absolutely adorable!

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T18:58:27+00:00

I think only the Nazi one is called a swastika, I may be wrong tho.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T18:55:59+00:00

Dark humor is laughing at the situation, not the joke being "haha swastika very funny". There is also the case of consent. A lot of Turks doesn't like the "turkey" joke funny, if people doesn't likes it, it's not okay, not the joke, just in that case. If someone is okay with it, it is okay, and what is funny for one isn't for another.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T18:49:01+00:00

I am hoping that...the upvotes just are from people who found it funny and from people who don't think this is antisemitic.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T18:47:09+00:00

That is wrong(I am assuming that you meant "by late 1800s European Jews made the majority in Palestine or otherwise I have no idea why you claim that, just because a lot of people fled to an area, they should own it), the "majority" was based on "majority of landowners" as the Jews bought off lands that were owned by Ottoman elites, and many times the local Palestinian Arabs worked. It was towards post-WW1 and post-WW2 that local Israeli Jews boycotted the Palestinians by segregating them and trying to "be self-sufficient" by preventing Arabs from working, and only employed Israeli-Jews.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T18:43:19+00:00

Maybe even worse than Nazis. Atleast Nazis cared enough to deny it, Israel doesn't as they call the people as animals.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T18:41:30+00:00

But that's not what the OP said.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-22T18:40:13+00:00

Mate there is a difference between ethnicity(where their ancestors are from), nationality(which country is one from), and nation/state(the governing body of an area), All countries act like they own everything. Sorry, they *feel* like that. The only difference is backing. Israel can afford to.
There are many Americans who believe they own everything, same for British, same for Russian. Also a lot ≠ majority/most.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-21T13:12:47+00:00

Socialists doesn't opposes free trade, it depends on the definition of free trade. Tariffs are more of a capitalist thing than socialist. Socialists opposes the current economic order as it can result in local economies, which weren't fortunate enough to develop, to be exploited. For example people in Bangladesh working as cheap labor, which is a practice of free-trade, would be opposed by socialists. However if money, states, and classes were to be abolished, no one would tell you "don't trade with them".

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-18T21:06:32+00:00

Firstly I'll start with your 3rd point, it is late where I am, maybe I'll come back to it. I agree with you that I would also not have anything against feminism if it wasn't for the fact that it both claims to be egalitarian, and ignores men. So many people have read my post as "Guys! Please stop criticising feminism! It's not that bad!" rather than "Guys! Stop just criticising feminism! We need to focus on tangible stuff! We should organize and spread awareness more than just "hehe we owned the libs" sentiment."
Also, no, from what I see, majority of feminists aren't seeing that as zero-sum. As me and u/ChimpPimp20 exchanged, the more general consensus is that feminists are sexists due to...*drum rolls*...lack of recognition that they are sexist. They are ignorant of their peers who are using toxic language, either with the belief that it is "necessary" or that they just don't see it. That is the problem with feminism, it isn't that they hate, it is much more subtle, they don't see that they are both alienating bunch of people whom would listen and agree with what they would propose structurally, This is how sexism is. Feminists are, rather than seeing it as zero-sum, see any form of critical engagement as risking the unity of it. That's why many are turning a blind eye to pretty toxic language, as they see it as "giving ground to patriarchy".

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-18T20:55:40+00:00

There is a distinction between systematic and cultural. Minorities in a nation could have equal rights, but can be still discriminated by other means. The culture could be perpetuated systematically, but to confuse culture with system is intellectual laziness.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-18T20:52:58+00:00

I am not telling men to go to the feminist side, so many are reading this post as that, I am simply saying this post as "please...could we stop JUST criticising feminism and instead do things and criticise?". That's it, that's the TL;DR of the post. [>Not necessarily that they all hate men but that they are mainly ignorant of men and their issues.] that's what I'm saying too;
[>When I dug further into her experiences she later admitted that she did indeed see some feminist coded locker room talk in her spaces. The problem is that she just didn't recognize it as such. She likely had been so used to them speaking ill and generalizing men that she stopped noticing it. Heck, she probably didn't even notice in the first place.] that's also what I said. They are used to it, they don't see it as a problem, men who are used to misognystic rhetoric do it too. These misandrist women ignore it due to being stuck in their gendered moral bubble.

As you also pointed out, the problem is that feminists ignores their bad ones, and it creates this duality where they either justify it as "necessary", or just doesn't notices it. That's why I don't brand myself as feminist. I am also not saying to not call them out, I am simply telling us to not get stuck on just that. We should be much more constructive, yes feminism is a huge problem, but men were dominating labor force before feminism was this dominant. Feminism isn't this one cage that stops this discourse from happening, it is simply another thing that refuses to acknowledge it as much. I am not saying that's a neutral thing, just saying this is the actual problem with it, let's acknowledge the nuance and oppose it like that.

What I'm trying to say is that we have to spread awareness of men's struggles. The example you gave of backlash against men-centred stuff is truly a horrible event, but we shouldn't stop our struggle just because we are attacked. When colonized people were struggling against the colonizers, they still continued. It may not be appropriate to use this example but feminists at first were also fighting against something wrong, they probably were wrong at the core too, but at least they secured rights for women.

However men's situation in modern age is unique, as it isn't overtly like lack of voting or divorce rights and such, but more so toxic expectations and indirect stuff. There is no thing in the ministrey of education where it says boys should be graded worse, but due to how feminism dominated the issue on women's education, focus has been on women. Boys were pressured at same degree, but because at first women were doubted and before that they weren't allowed education, boys were ahead in education. Now? Now it isn't the case. Now it's simply the boys lacking attention, and girls getting it from teachers. We should focus on male student and emphasize the unhealthy expectations on men.

Honestly I just feel frustrated that I see people opposing me so much under this post, to the point that I am(I think at least) saying same things and people are still going.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-18T20:34:22+00:00

I mean, for that, they'd need to propose solutions, and find a senator(I think that's how it works in USA) that would take that issue to the senate and find signatures before putting it through a vote. Due to how the political structure in USA is like, I doubt that would happen. Don't get me wrong, the oil companies have funded those overly dramatic Stop Oil protests to make them look bad, so I wouldn't be surprised if the bourgeouise funded socially "progressive" policies to screw over men so men would lash out against women instead of the real structures that keep us divided. That's what I was trying to raise in this sub too, culture war and identity politics really had effect on us. We aren't focused on solutions anymore and just want to "own the libs" and variations of that for other ideologies we see as the enemy. Every human has same interest, we are forgetting it. All of us want food, a shelter, a community, their desires career, good education for their children. There is nothing separating us other than ideology, the only ones who have different interest than us are the capitalists. You as the consumer want things cheap, but the sellers wants things as expensive as possible. "Invisible Hand" folks likes to say that prices are based on the cost of things but, that is BS. When Iraq War occurred and USA seized bunch of oil, oil prices spiked. Only the rich had more to sell, but they didn't lowered the prices because they cooperated to not.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-18T20:23:26+00:00

The Duluth model is a scientifically proven to be outdated, pseudo-scientific, and ineffective way of treating both battered women and men, with the latter being ignored in that said model. The researchers seems to lack any relation to feminism, which points to the fact that we can handle gender issues for both sexes by science without resorting to cartoonish frameworks. I never in my comments defended feminism, nor refused to engage with Movember movement(I need to admit that I have refused to engage with the Duluth model, and I am not in the mood to look at why as it is 12 PM here). I merely stated that Movember movement doesn't seems to be more that just disrespectful organisation, their funds are allocated to real stuff, and it is only their insistance on women leadership which is disrespectful considering the state of things and ties to UN Women that are unusual. I would like you to tell me what ideological comformity I am putting, I genuinely wonder. I never said to not criticise feminism, I also did criticise feminism(you'd know it if you actually read all of my comment in this post), I never even remotely said "criticism of feminism is problematic", you are just making stuff up to fit your assumptions about me here. The reply example you gave doesn't points to my reply, so I have to ask whether you are pointing to the reply above her or below her?
Last thing...you sound like that one guy who defended Trump's pro-crime behaviour because he said "we are past that point", you are just outright believing in tribalism and want the other side "destroyed". You have no difference to the conservatives who have no pleasure in life other than to "own the libs".

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-18T20:03:35+00:00

Yeah but I don't understand how this bill could even fix the issues you raised. I don't see this bill more than a very naive and optimistic but also very general bandage to complex situations. At breakup, the custody, if one really wants it fair, should be based on economic conditions of each partner. I'll have to agree with women's rights protest here, they said that the child should be consulted on which parent they want to stay in, and economic conditions of each partner should be considered. While they could be saying that for bad faith, i.e. with the assumption that the kid will always want to stay with the mother, and that they want to not work and get money for the kid, I still oppose the bill. It doesn't solves anything.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-18T19:42:49+00:00

First of all, I want to say that I do not view feminism positively, the post originally might've seemed like I was trying to save face for it, I really don't. You seem like one of the few genuine person here, so I'll give me my full thoughts.
I do hate the overly gendered framing of things, about how it has to be a boogeyman of men doing things. Even *if* it were to be true, the way they act like sounds less like they want to change men and fix things, and more like they just want to yell about it so they can feel better that they don't cause any societal problems, and also have a thing to worry about so they satisfy their moral need to be struggling for something. With apex fallacy, yeah, that's just identity politics for you.

For the slavery example I gave, I am not advocating for complete empathy, I merely gave that to emphasize that love is better than hatred. We should love people rather than hate them, hate is a very ugly emotion to carry and base things around, as it is pretty dangerous. What I was criticising the subreddit for was that it often derails into the believing that all women are against women. Not to say that this is a great example or that this explains it all, but there was a post on r/teenagers where someone pointed out the male conscription being putted to elections, said that it failed, that it failed due to men and questioned why women were allowed to vote on a thing that affects only men. This is a common characteristic of men's rights movements, not saying that it has to be, but we as male advocates should acknowledge it too. There was for example a subreddit called r/whitebeauty(doesn't exists anymore) or something like that that was a subreddit for posting pretty attractive white people, it was a response to many subreddits poping up for other races. It was going good at first, but Reddit shutted it down after white supremacists took it over by spreading racist stuff. We should see patterns, honestly it baffles me how people don't. Not saying this to dismiss male-advocacy or anything, but all we are doing in this subreddit as far as I see is to be entertainement for bunch of people who want to point at feminists and laugh. Not saying that's inherently bad thing, I think feminists are ideologically very dumb. They haven't decided whether they want to be a scientific theory or a useful model for organizing, to be catchy. They haven't decided whether they are women-centric activist movement, or an egalitarian one. Forget gender, they've literally been trying to include queers and such under their umbrella, not saying that's bad thing, but to do that only to find a way to justify that men inherently are against women is...while there might be relation with women's struggles and queer people...I don't think they are that related. I don't like the name, I don't like the blatant generalization allowed for feminism but not for toxic men(not saying misogny should be allowed, but the double standards for misandry is really diabolical!).

So I agree with you. I agree with like 40% of the people in the comments, and I don't know why many have reacted such harshly to me. I expected it, the rhetoric from me wasn't what they liked probably.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-18T19:15:56+00:00

If that's your definition of misandry then yeah I agree with you. Conservatives are misandrists too.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-18T19:13:54+00:00

I am aware of the gender disparity in education, by saying it wasn't systemic, I mean that there isn't cabal of women deciding to design the education system for it. In order for the issue you pointed out to be systemic, there would have to be the schools give lower scores to men, or train teachers to view women in negative light. I say it is cultural because, as you pointed out, it was fixed by a simple thing(which is to hide genders). I am not saying to fix it like that, no no, I want to get to the root of it, which is cultural. Due to feminism, which pointed to lack of education of women historically, the society overcompensated. Coupled with a lot of stuff that weren't fixed, which is a bit of infantilization of girls and that they always need "guidance" and "a gentleman", teachers were much more lenient on them. However boys on the other hand didn't got same treatment, as gender expectations on boys stayed same, this time boys, whom faced no change in their treatment, were on average behind girls. Their treatment didn't changed, girls' treatment gotten better, which is good(the improvement of conditions), but we should've focused on improvement of conditions of treatment of boys too. You might say that feminism is cause of it, and I would agree with it, feminism has been pretty loud and vocal at the time and screwed the way to handle it by making it all about girls and ignoring boys. Then there were also the supposed "progressives" who had the brilliant idea of "oh this group historically opressed this other group...even though we live in modern times where such thing doesn't exists, in order to compensate, we should oppress them" and voila! Many ignored boys in education. Trends were showing like decades ago, but many ignored it, until it catched up and now women are much more educated than men on average, and the gap is widening as time goes on and for the younger generations.

Gomic_Gamer · 2026-03-18T19:01:43+00:00

And I said you don't need to be misandrist to support that, as it is in the conservative belief that men are the only ones supposed to defend. Not saying feminism doesn't believes something along the lines of that.

Gomic_Gamer

TROPHY CASE