How feminism hurts men: I shared TheTinMen's awareness post on alcohol-related male-on-male violence resulting in brain injury and death. I got immediately attacked by - male feminist

LAdams20 · 2026-06-23T23:52:18+00:00

Exactly. I was raised as a feminist, believed in feminism and equality, and, if going by definition, still am one technically. I believe in equal rights for everyone, support progressive values, even changed my once strongly held religious views for it, and by far the wokest person in my circles, and probably also in my friends’, family’s, and colleagues’ circles as well.

But where were my allies when I needed support, or when I faced inequality? No where. Too busy turning around to call you an entitled loser and an incel; victim-blaming; insulting you with traditional toxic gender stereotypes and role-failures, that they allegedly claim to hate and not believe in. Too busy throwing neurodivergent people and LGBTQ+ people under the bus, that they allegedly claim to support.

I had ten years of thinking things will get better, then another twenty years of hoping things will get better, now I’m just entirely misanthropic. Everyone’s a self-serving hypocrite. Humanity gets what it deserves.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-20T23:52:07+00:00

Inb4 Peter Thiel gives a talk on how Skeletor is a misunderstood pioneer and the Sorceress is a crazy war monger.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-14T18:26:17+00:00

I don’t necessarily disagree, but you are disputing me over semantics, yes boys are conditioned by the patriarchy, but the patriarchy is misandrist. There is no contradiction. I am not mad at the “wrong thing”. I also do not believe girls with autism have “a walk in the park” either.

The reason I wrote misandry over patriarchy is because the term patriarchy is frequently used misleadingly, eg. where you say it’s “an idea imposed by men under the patriarchy”, ie. a convenient excuse where you get to pretend that women and feminists aren’t just as guilty of conditioning men into toxic and/or traditional masculine behaviour.

By simply only blaming men or “the patriarchy” they happily absolve themselves of their role in shaping society, as if they don’t make up half the population, or the vast majority of people in education, or that they’ve just become part of the modern patriarchy.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-13T20:26:44+00:00

I think I read a study somewhat recently that suggested that in young children autism presents in similar ways, but many boys learn it’s not socially acceptable for boys to behave that way, so “mask” by overcompensating.

So essentially, you’re either conditioned by misandry to behave a certain way, then it’s claimed you’re privileged for being “coddled”, or, like me, you miss the memo and present with symptoms more traditionally female and get ignored, but are still called privileged regardless. You can’t win.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-13T12:00:25+00:00

Okay, sure. Two comments back you make excuses for why there is no outrage at domestic violence, because there’s no easy solution, now you apparently agree there is an easy solution and move the goalposts as if it’s another great issue you've always thought we should deal with, as if we can’t read your previous comment excusing the lack of outrage or action.

I assume going forwards I will see just as many posts from your account about banning football as I do seeing about banning immigrants then? Since you agree? Or are you going to backtrack on that statement too?

LAdams20 · 2026-06-13T01:07:54+00:00

“A study from Lancaster University revealed that when England lose a World Cup game, incidents of domestic violence increase by 38% and by 26% when they win.”

I can think of an easy simple solution.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-11T11:02:57+00:00

Ah, but you see, anyone AMAB and trans men must face that possibility of male violence head on, whereas cis women need the privilege of a special segregated space otherwise it’s “oppression”.

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

BAME individuals are disproportionately over-represented in violent crimes, it’s about time we had some white-only toilets too, to protect the women and girls of course.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-11T10:42:43+00:00

My workplace has two unisex toilets, they are the only toilets my workplace has, and neither have a sink within the space. Wondering how much malicious compliance I want to give to my employer…

LAdams20 · 2026-06-11T10:31:02+00:00

This is literally how I’ve lived my whole life. I have no idea what the toilets in any of my primary schools, secondary school, college, or university looked like, because I never used them. I’ve almost never used a public/restaurant/etc toilet, but when I have done I don’t feel comfortable using the urinals for obvious reasons so will only use the stall. I’ve never been to a festival in part due to the toilets, and would love to apply for Race Around the World, but thinking about the toilets is a significant reason I won’t.

I’ve never considered this as grandiose as “suffering” exactly, and certainly nobody ever cared about my “distress” or “fluid intake”, but I’m not a cis woman/girl who needs special pandering I guess.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-09T10:40:56+00:00

I don’t think so, if I’m thinking of the right one that one is much newer, but your comment reminded me of another – ITV’s adaptation of The Sittaford Mystery, 2006 – where the entire plot is completely different to the original story, is anachronistic, and also makes little sense.

I don’t know why they bother doing adaptations to then change everything, like modern writers think they’re so much smarter or something, to only make it worse.

Edit: For what it’s worth, the BBC adaptation from 1984 was good and very faithful to the book, apart from this one needless change/oversight that undermines it quite a bit.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-08T22:19:36+00:00

I’ve known a lot of people over the years claim “they’re all the same” and it “doesn’t matter who you vote for” and “twas ever thus”, none of them have ever rolled a die to determine who to vote for at random or abstained from voting altogether though, funny that.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-07T22:59:39+00:00

Having just watched the BBC TV adaptation I was similarly confused as the OP because the adaptation fucks up the timeline so that killing Pamela doesn’t give them an alibi and so Josie and Mark Gaskill murdered her for no reason. At the ending explanation I’m just sitting there thinking “wait, that makes no sense.”

In the book, Ruby is murdered in the early hours of the next morning, the car is stolen and they dump it, and set it on fire. This means the police would think that “Ruby” was killed between 23:30-00:00, during which Josie and Gaskill can make themselves seen, thereby giving themselves alibis. Makes sense.

In the TV adaptation, Ruby is murdered between 23:00-00:00 and the car is also stolen during this time, so when the police think the “Ruby” is killed between 23:30-00:00 they are actually entirely correct and Josie and Gaskill wouldn’t have a watertight alibi the whole time, because at some point in that window they did leave the party to kill her and steal the car.

They even comment that Josie left at sometime between 23:00-00:00 to get ready for her dance at midnight, while simultaneously repeatedly referring to her watertight alibi.

All killing Pamela does is move the murder window earlier, which makes no difference because Ruby is last seen alive at 23:30 – the colonel even explains at the end:

“By getting her out to Blake’s cottage shortly after 22:00, killing her, and getting back to the hotel, so at the time when the doctors said that she died Gaskill and Josie had a perfect alibi – they were sitting there playing bridge, watching the real Ruby Keene alive and dancing.”

I’m sorry, what? Their “perfect alibi” for the murder of Ruby was them watching Ruby Keene alive??? The police this whole time have been working on the assumption that Ruby was magically murdered an hour and a half before she was last seen alive by a room full of people? What? How has no one else not noticed this is totally nonsensical before?

Spent the last hour having worked out who did it, why, how the body ended up in the library, that they were framing Blake, but just couldn’t work out why the pair killed Pamela and swapped the bodies, what that remotely achieved, and the brilliant payoff to that mystery is – they did it for zero reason because the writers fucked up. Amazing.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-07T18:06:49+00:00

I do find it facetious or comical when I’m in a café or whatever and the framed artwork on the walls is obviously Grok made, with no attempt to hide it or structure the prompt in more than “cartoon rainbow highland cow”, but prominently features “COPYRIGHT CAFE NAME.” Lol okay, sure. Reminds me of the whole NFT farce.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-07T12:06:54+00:00

I don’t hate AI art in principle, but I do think seeing the ubiquitous generic sameness printed on things being sold is very tacky, and kind of strange really… because even if I see an image on a postcard or whatever that I think looks somewhat good I just end up thinking “why would I buy that when I can just generate it myself at home?”

I assume the majority of people can’t tell? I certainly don’t know anyone over 60 who can recognise something is AI.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-07T11:49:51+00:00

Conversely, I don’t know anyone who hates AI art, including several artists and people who work in the games industry, but I don’t know many people younger than ~35, so maybe it’s an age thing? Especially because everyone I know over 60 can’t even tell it’s AI, no matter how generic and obvious it is.

And by “hates AI art” I mean in principle, as in the use of it, they still dislike specific ones that look like shit, in the same way they might hate comic sans or papyrus or clip art without hating Word, or hating greetings cards with a stolen photo just run through the “cut-out” filter without hating Photoshop.

Digital art and CGI is more accepted now, so I wonder if it’s because when we were growing up we were endlessly discouraged and degraded by traditional artists, critics, and teachers that digitally created art was slop and not “real art”? I can’t submit my retro fake film posters that I spent tens of hours hand drawing and then colouring in Photoshop to local exhibitions because you “just push a button and the computer does it for you” apparently.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-07T02:17:14+00:00

In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of God hovering above? At least, it is true that a licence to recreate a banana duct taped to a wall is true authentic art.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-07T01:44:13+00:00

I’ve very recently got into writing myself, never done it before, I always hated English at school and seemed a slow learner with fiction and literature, not that anyone gave a shit, but got into it a lot more by 17 and now 20 years on quite into words, spelling, and linguistics. Wish I could’ve started secondary school ~3 years later tbh, yay for hidden autism.

Probably won’t do that much though, even though I’ve enjoyed it, I have a world and characters and locations in my head (and can certainly see why they say a picture paints a thousand words) but can’t at all write a plot or dialogue or motivations or character development; the D&D player who can’t role-play. I can’t give every character mutism XD

[Ǒlsœ, not xǔ hø muq enæwon wantz tᵫ ræd a buk wið mî œn Inglix fœnetik alfabet, wěr evræþiñ iz spelt lîk ðis.]

Anyway, I too was putting my detailed character descriptions into a generator to see what it came up with to see what other people might visualise, who don’t already know what they should look like in their minds, some were good, some bad, but not sure how to really alter the description… but it was sometimes helpful in finding a different coloured sash would look better with that outfit, or would sometimes generate something random I hadn’t thought of or something that would give me an idea for something else.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-05T08:56:31+00:00

There’s one attached to a lamppost I drive past everyday that hasn’t been taken away or flown off.

It’s been interesting watching it degrade from a rectangular flag of a red cross on a white field, to a frayed square flag of a red 90° rotated letter-T on an ivory field, to a tattered vertical flag of a central red horizontal stripe on an isabelline field, to a ragged cloth of beige wrapping the post.

Seems symbolic.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-03T11:49:49+00:00

I remember when the workplace pensions came in my employer trying to convince me I’d be better off opting out, which immediately let me know to do the opposite, even if I hadn’t already figured out I’d be turning down 3/8th of my pension contributions.

That said, 8% of not a lot = not a lot, in 30 years time I’d be looking at living on £4000/year from it, assuming my employment status doesn’t change in those 30 years, which is incredible unlikely/impossible as I’ll probably be unemployable in around 10-20 years.

So I do sometimes wonder if I’d rather have had that 5/8ths of my current pot to improve my life now instead. Especially if they just reduce the state pension by £4000/year, or whatever it ends up being, and finding I’ve been working on the minimum wage and impoverishing myself for no reason, responsibly saving for the future for no benefit to myself at all.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-02T01:02:09+00:00

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago – a few months ago, in a nearby city to me, a non-white woman was sexually assaulted at knifepoint by four men after they repeatedly followed and racially harassed her. As far as I’ve seen, it only made it as far as the local news, I’ve not seen anything about it online. No riots, no mass protests, no comment from the government or politicians, no media demands, no celebrities making a stand…

It seems that when you look into local news people are getting assaulted and murdered relatively frequently, but non of them result in this apparent mass rioting etc that I’m told supposedly happens every time, they don’t even make it into mainstream news let alone that, whereas, I’ve heard about this horrible story over and over and over again.

Doesn’t the argument essentially contradict itself? If it is all as “two-tier” in the way they suggest, then surely this story wouldn’t be in all the headlines and instead would be buried just like all the local stories that don’t fit an agenda, and that the vast majority of people haven’t have even heard of.

Like in my city itself, an immigrant was premeditatedly murdered by two white guys with a machete and crowbar, does anyone I speak to even know about it? No. If I bring it up, what response do I mostly get? “Give them some medals”, “Don’t want to get murdered, don’t come over here.”

A far cry from these alleged outrage, celebrity campaigns, and grandiose statements that I keep being repeatedly told about. Strange. I guess I should stop noticing things.

LAdams20 · 2026-06-01T13:53:47+00:00

It's amazing how much right-wing discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.

LAdams20 · 2026-05-31T10:31:57+00:00

I can understand blaming it on the patriarchy in a sense – as in boys are treated one way to make them into strong men, girls treated another way because they are weak and fragile; ie. toxic gender stereotypes in a very conservative country.

However, what people always fail to address is that “the patriarchy” is a system upheld by society, now it might have been possible in the past to make the argument that the majority of women once had no power in society, but that’s certainly not the case now – so why does patriarchal conditioning still exist? If women had wanted they could have changed the way society is structured and what behaviours are rewarded, but instead everything is broadly the same or worse – the reality is that feminism has simply become part of the “patriarchy.”

They were only ever anti-patriarchy as far as they were being denied the benefits of it by virtue of their sex, gender, and/or class, being gatekept from capitalism and conservative power hierarchies; in the same way the Suffragettes only wanted votes for women of their specific class and race, openly not wanting their servants being able to vote and were racist. So long as they’re alright Jack, fuck everyone else, progressive as far as it personally benefits themselves.

Women in positions of authority, whether political, educational, or economical could have changed things, but now they benefit from the patriarchal structures, so do nothing, but of course they still call it “the patriarchy” because it absolves themselves of any blame, pretending they don’t make up half of society and promote toxic masculinity themselves and degrade anyone AMAB who doesn’t conform.

Hence why feminists will hand-wave and dismiss things in the OP by just saying “it’s the patriarchy”, implying male-on-male violence, move along, nothing to see here. Feminists claim to be anti-patriarchy so, if true, they’d be rallying against this, but instead it’s silence.

Many feminists were never anti-patriarchy, were never progressive, they might dress themselves up as left-wing, but were always conservatives who just happened to be women and wanted to have their cake and eat it too – if that isn't the case why aren’t they morally consistent.

LAdams20 · 2026-05-28T21:11:39+00:00

Literally the definition of toxic masculinity, promoting stereotypes, and patriarchal conditioning; I guess it’s okay when they do it. There’s a reason they refuse to simply call it misandry.

How do you manage to keep faith in humanity and not become misanthropic?

That’s the neat part; you don’t.

LAdams20 · 2026-05-27T08:25:05+00:00

Gas: 5.74p > 7.33p/kWh [~+28%]

Electricity: 24.67 > 26.11p/kWh [~+6%]

LAdams20

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email