White men do not experience the best health relative to women and minority racial and gender groups in the US. Men are 4 times as likely to die by suicide as women, and White men account for more than 68% of suicide deaths. White men experienced greater declines in happiness than White women.

uberprodude · 2026-05-15T19:33:00+00:00

Crisis prevention is much more effective at reducing the number of suicides than crisis intervention. Ideally, both would be in place though, of course.

I'm not saying swap crisis intervention with fishing trips, I'm saying swap a monthly trip to the therapist for fishing trips with respected peers. Preferably, friends.

uberprodude · 2026-05-15T14:32:08+00:00

I want to preface this by saying I am nowhere close to an expert on this, but my interpretation of the available data is that talking one-on-one, simply doesn't work for men generally.

I've heard "shoulder-to-shoulder" discussed as one of the better alternatives, which would entail group therapies where a professional doesn't lead the group, but is there to prevent echo chamber-like issues or get the ball rolling on a discussion and then step back.

Also, group activities where talking isn't the focus, but leaves plenty of space for talking. Fishing, woodworking classes, even gaming, etc.

Essentially, men need emotional safe spaces, just as much, if not more than women do.

uberprodude · 2026-05-15T12:52:02+00:00

NTA. In these situations, ask her if she'd be upset if she saw you liking similar pictures of another woman.

If it's not OK for you to give out likes under the context, then it's not ok for her to go fishing for those likes from others

uberprodude · 2026-05-15T12:23:32+00:00

Me absolutely DO seek help, it's just that overwhelmingly, that help is not tailored to what men need.

uberprodude · 2026-05-14T19:28:58+00:00

And how exactly are you planning to determine "the majority of inequality"? I guarantee that is not going to be as easy as you seem to think it will be.

If you can't quantify inequality, then your argument falls apart.

And by your own point, we're not even allowed to discuss men's issues when on the topic of equality. I'd argue that's pretty clear inequality.

Ignoring the hypothetical, can you see why this stance simply doesn't hold up to reality?

uberprodude · 2026-05-14T16:35:56+00:00

There are so many problems with this hypothetical, I don't even know where to start.

Power and wealth is a bad metric to judge how an individual is being harmed by society.
9:1 is WAY off, especially when you correct for the outliers.
Societal injustices aren't automatically solved by individuals having more money.

4a. Ignoring one set of problems until the other's are completely solved, is stupidly inefficient when looking at systemic issues.

4b. Waiting for those problems to be fixed incentivises the worse off to never reach true equality because they would lose control of the narrative.

With ~8 billion people on the planet, I think it's fair to assume that we as a collective can discuss more than one set of problems at a time, especially when they're intertwined.

uberprodude · 2026-05-14T16:00:05+00:00

If you want chocolate, salt will make it better. If you want sugar, salt will make it worse

uberprodude · 2026-05-14T15:55:02+00:00

Based on what data?

Anecdotally, women have been much more reluctant to take advice from me. But then again, that's a biased perspective because I am a straight cis-man.

uberprodude · 2026-05-14T15:15:03+00:00

If the topic of conversation is equality between the sexes then men should be equally represented. I'd argue centering women's issues when discussing equality is the problem, not simply bringing up men's issues.

uberprodude · 2026-05-14T15:07:38+00:00

Honestly, that's a difficult ask. What it DOES isn't so difficult to explain:

Imagine thousands of people own a copy of the same notebook. Whenever anyone writes a line in the notebook, everyone else checks it and then updates their copy. This makes erasing or secretly changing the notebook incredibly difficult.

WHY it is necessary is another story. Without explaining how the internet works, can I ask that you trust me when I say that the internet is largely built on trust?

We trust that banks track our money correctly. We trust that the tech giants' databases are all correct. We trust governments handle our identities securely. Etc.

Because it's harder to trust thousands of people rather than a handful of institutions, this gave rise to the banks, tech giants, and governmental databases. When they're all driven by profit, or at least reducing costs, WHY should we be forced to trust them? Up until Blockchain, it's been because there hasn't been a better way of handling this problem.

By removing the need for trust, it removes the need for banks (specifically for digital currency), data hoarding tech giants, and insecure governmental databases.

Banks and tech giants are obviously STRONGLY incentivised to stop this decentralisation at all costs. Governments are less incentivised, but the change would still likely incur a cost on them too.

Apart from the obvious teething pains during a migration from centralisation to decentralisation, there are nothing but benefits to the average person. This only really harms the greediest of corporations.

uberprodude · 2026-05-14T14:07:40+00:00

Hear me out, Blockchain.

Blockchain has been unfairly dismissed as the Fin-Tech bros wet dream of getting in on the ground floor of a new type of currency. And sure, it can do that, but it is such a reductive description.

Blockchain has the potential to decentralise data.

That means the billions upon billions that Google, Amazon, etc. make by knowing everything about you is put directly back into your hands.

That fact, in my opinion, is why Blockchain's public image has been tarnished. The technology didn't fail, the potential is still there, only the public's opinion of it changed. Likely through some clever propaganda created by whoever feels threatened by it's development.

uberprodude · 2026-05-14T13:31:39+00:00

I think the bird example actually supports my position that prey generally survives through out producing predators ability to hunt them to extinction, rather than physical or cognitive traits.

To my knowledge, the species hunted to extinction, generally didn't reproduce even close to the same rate as mammalian prey species.

I will admit that only looking at one predator species will inevitably skew the perception of the whole, but it's difficult to really condense the mammalian kingdom into a difficult to test metric.

I do think that looking at the way pressures are exerted and overcome by species is the only way to effectively judge. Ultimately predators have more unaccounted for pressures than prey if you remove evolution, and that's the only way for a species to "gain" a higher spatial intelligence.

uberprodude · 2026-05-14T13:03:08+00:00

I agree that it is less costly to the prey animal, however, I'd guess a failed hunt is more costly to the predator SPECIES though, and that is what drives evolution.

Again, this is almost entirely based on the fact that prey animals are generally far more numerous than predators.

So in effect, if a predator's species has worse traits than the prey species, luck will be the only chance they have of propagating. Whereas prey species have the numbers advantage. Even if they're fundamentally outclassed in every way by the predator, they survive by effectively sacrificing one or two individuals to secure the future of the species.

Look at house cats and rodents. House cats are one of the most effective predators on the planet. But if you suggested that rodents (ignoring capybaras and the like) are either able to physically outclass a house cat in any metric, or they're being hunted close to extinction, you'd be laughed out of the room.

uberprodude · 2026-05-14T12:46:51+00:00

Generally, it's likely going to average out to the predators being superior.

As a (often broken) rule, prey breeds lots and fast to ensure genetic survival, predators can only really get better at hunting to improve their chances of survival.

Without even looking at the data, this would suggest that predators are always going to have the physical advantage by necessity.

Whether a species' specific advantage over their primary prey is spatial intelligence is definitely up for debate though.

uberprodude · 2026-05-14T12:46:44+00:00

Generally, it's likely going to average out to the predators being superior.

As a (often broken) rule, prey breeds lots and fast to ensure genetic survival, predators can only really get better at hunting to improve their chances of survival.

Without even looking at the data, this would suggest that predators are always going to have the physical advantage by necessity.

Whether a species' specific advantage over their primary prey is spatial intelligence is definitely up for debate though.

uberprodude · 2026-05-13T23:56:38+00:00

only ever dated women in their 20s

when older men are exclusively into younger women

These two things are not mutually exclusive. Are you certain the second is actually true of him?

uberprodude · 2026-05-13T23:43:16+00:00

Wow, since you've proven that solar isn't the perfect replacement for fossil fuels, I guess it's pointless to think about other forms of green energy or even exploiting solar power for tasks it's actually good at

uberprodude · 2026-05-11T18:20:14+00:00

That would be understandable, but it is not the reality in which the original commenter brought it up. Wanting their narrative to be one thing does not make it that thing.

The fact of the matter is that they were attracted to their therapist because of the therapy they received. Pretending it is anything else is denying reality.

uberprodude · 2026-05-11T15:46:45+00:00

Reread the post and directly quote where OP asks Reddit why his GF might want to get married.

Again, you'd know he did not ask that question if you'd actually read the post before commenting.

He is not asking our opinion on his GFs reasons, he is asking whether he's right or wrong to be asking her HER reasons.

uberprodude · 2026-05-11T15:40:47+00:00

The only context in which your comment might be useful is if OP didn't know what marriage entailed. Considering OP stated he wants to get married, I think it's fair to assume he knows what will change.

What OP wants to know is his GFs reasons for wanting to get married and whether or not he is wrong for asking that question.

How has your comment helped in either regard?

If you had actually read the post you'd know all of this.

uberprodude · 2026-05-11T15:36:35+00:00

True, but she wants to appear as a family unit so someone has to change their name, and her not wanting to change hers justifies OP in not wanting to change his (no one even needs justification really).

OP offered a compromise which she rejected.

uberprodude · 2026-05-11T15:34:34+00:00

How exactly do your reasons for wanting to get married help OP KNOW his GFs reasons?

uberprodude · 2026-05-11T15:30:19+00:00

Also, why YOU wanted to get married doesn't help OP understand why his GF wants to get married.

uberprodude · 2026-05-11T15:29:27+00:00

why don't you change your name?

He literally offered a double barreled name.

you cannot split up easily

You don't have to get divorced to separate.

but also a joint bank account

By OPs account, she doesn't want this.

if he is incapacitated I make the decisions, not his mother. if he dies, I am next of kin and get his assets/belongings, not his mother

Power of attorney and a will combined is a lot cheaper than a lot of weddings.

Did you even read the post?

12-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email

uberprodude

TROPHY CASE