In Australia, and probably much of the western world, universities have become captives of feminist ideology. This is perfectly illustrated by examples where, if you are female and want to study certain subjects (such as engineering or technology related), your High School results (in Australia, the ATAR) are artificially increased to give you an advantage over male applicants.

This discrminiation is done out in the open, ostensibly to 'encourage' females to enter these fields. Who cares about the male student who misses out to a female who got lower marks?

https://www.uts.edu.au/for-students/admissions-entry/entry-schemes/women-in-engineering-and-information-technology-construction

It’s not just Reddit, either. Even irl, conversations about age gaps are almost always about men being a “predator”. But we all know the same mindset magically doesn’t apply if the woman is older.

Personally, I think there’s no issue with age gap relationships, no matter which gender is older. There is a slight power imbalance, but I think we overreact in these situations by assuming that the man is always abusing that power. My stance is always to judge each relationship individually and only get involved if there is real evidence of abuse. But otherwise, it’s not our job to work out the issues in other people’s relationships when nobody asked.

Either way, we need to stop exaggerating the severity of the power imbalance, and we certainly need to stop misusing the word pedophile. That is a heinous act and reserved for people who target actual children, not just to vilify men for wanting someone younger than them.

Whats your thought on this subject? I know tavern and some bars used to be men only before but now women have infiltrated those places according to many. Do you think its ok as it is now or do we really need more of our place?

Introduction

I've seen very little awareness about this, but to say that males are at an increased risk of heart disease would be an understatement; heart disease is a completely disease in males itself.

We often hear that men and women die from cardiovascular diseases in similar numbers. According to CDC Wonder in 2024, there were 436,736 female deaths from Circulatory diseases as compared to 485,640 male deaths, that makes females 47.35% of the deaths.

In some years, there are more female deaths, and people will often talk about how women are at a higher risk of heart disease, as they might feel so considering how publicised it is by organizations such as the American Heart Association (AHA).

However, a quick glance at actual statistics will show you that is a highly nefarious misinterpretation of data.

The Truth

This data is from the U.S., but as you can see in 2024, more than twice as many men as compared to women die from cardiovascular diseases starting from the 15-19 years age group to the 65-69 years age group.

It seems that the male-to-female ratio declines, and by the late 70's and early 80's they end up equalizing. Well, a look at the second graph which looks at the actual rates per population will show you this is just the artifact of the fact that there are not as many men as women alive there in first place! Also, men who had heart disease are already dead long before the women start dying!

Additionally the rate lowering from ~2 times as much to about ~1.5 times as much by the early 80's is also probably due to the fact that these men are a highly selective group, considering there are barely any men left by then.

Heart Attacks

Men are almost three times as likely to die from heart attacks with the risk starting in the mid 20s. The actual risk starts from the 15-19 category itself, but there were no female deaths there so I didn't add them there.

The risk appears to lower by ~65-69 to about "twice" as likely to, but that is because there are not enough men alive by then, and they have probably died by then.

Coronary Heart Disease

Males are also much more likely to die from coronary heart disease with rates being 3-4 times as high, declining to about ~2 times 70 onwards, because there aren't that many men alive by then.

Potential Causes

An article by Board-Certified Cardiologist Anish Koka covered this open secret in medicine in great detail. He also stated that this gap has been consistent over time, and I quote: "controlling for traditional cardiac risk factors like serum lipid levels, blood pressure and smoking seem to have no impact on the poorer outcomes seen in men." The quoted study found the greater male risk was even present when women went through menopause, indicating that factors other than hormones might have been play. He also went through the general argument that women tend to have "different symptoms", pointing out that a similar percentage of men also exhibit those symptoms.

Apart from that, The Framingham Risk Score (FRS) is a validated tool used to estimate an individual’s 10-year risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) based on factors such as age, sex, blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking status, and diabetes. Studies consistently show that men have higher FRS scores than women, even when controlling for all traditional risk factors.

At times, the male risk is 3-10 times as high for the exact same score.

Cross-Cultural Data

The greater male risk is trend emerging after the ages 15-24 is seen even in countries with lower rates of drinking and smoking amongst males such as Iceland and Sweden. So, lifestyle factors are probably not the only thing.

Though males have a greater mortality rates as compared to females across all countries, there is also a general variation in the male mortality rate.

Conclusion

It is quite obvious that heart disease is in males, a completely different phenomenon. The male risk is astronomically high, even when completely healthy, and unless we do some research and come up with some sort of medical innovation, it is going to be really difficult for us to increase the male life expectancy.

Another factor is also of course the amount of young men dying off 20s-50s and there being littel to no awareness about this

This of course should no means undermine the effots being raised regarding cardiovascular disease in females, but it is quite obvious that for males, there is a much special risk factor, and thanks to data manipulation and misinformation, so few

Since society does not really care about males, I wish there could be a group of other male advocates so we can try to do some research on how we can try to resolve this and reduce the male life expectancy gap as well as prevent all the chronic health issues disproportionately faced by males.

My Personal Inferences

What we do know is that the risk seems to start following puberty, so hormones are definitely involved, though from the meta-analysis from Sweden, it seems hormones alone don't explain the difference. But, I believe through studies we now know there are differences in male and female hearts even at birth. Through investigation we can probably find out what is wrong with the male heart and possibly fix it.

Other potential factors could also include the male body fat distribution, with males being more likely to store visceral fat as compared to women who tend to store subcutaneous fat starting in puberty. Here is a post about it, this further increases their risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 disease, hypertension as well as many other disease. Male body fat distribution puts them at a higher risk of diseaases even at lower BMI and body-fat percentage.

Due to this, males need to require more physical activity as well as a more strict. Keeping a measure of your waist, and trying to have it less than half of your height is probably the best. Just being lean or having muscles is probably not enough. This fat also has a huge correlation with a lot of cancers like prostate cancer.

There is also another study which found that Loss of Male (Y) Sex Chromosome Leads to Earlier Death for Men. In a study done on mice, it was found that it made it more prone to heart scarring and led it to an early death. Y chromosome loss in an analysis was also associated with cardiovascular diseasse and heart failure, so this could be a possible cause as well. The article talked about a potential treatment that can help men live longer and healthier lives.

I believe many of the gender norms that dominate modern society are far less natural than people assume and are instead the result of cultural, political, economic, religious, and historical developments, particularly those that emerged during the Victorian, industrial, and Temperance eras. While men and women obviously possess real biological differences, I think modern society often exaggerates those differences and then builds entire systems of expectations around them. In practice, men are still frequently viewed primarily as workers, providers, taxpayers, laborers, protectors, and soldiers, while their emotional well-being, bodily autonomy, individuality, and quality of life receive far less attention. Because of this, I believe many men's issues cannot be solved through legal reform alone and instead require a large-scale cultural movement comparable to what feminism became for women. Women were encouraged to challenge restrictive gender roles, seek greater autonomy, redefine themselves, and question expectations imposed upon them. I believe men deserve the same opportunity. The goal should not be taking freedom away from women but extending similar concern, freedom, dignity, and self-determination to men and boys.

One of the strongest reasons I came to these conclusions is the issue of war. Modern societies constantly speak about equality, yet it remains overwhelmingly young men who are expected to fight, suffer, and die in military conflicts. Many of these men were boys only a few years earlier. Throughout history, governments have repeatedly relied upon male sacrifice as if it were an unlimited resource. Whether one examines older European wars, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or more recent conflicts, it is often ordinary men who pay the greatest price while political leaders, institutions, and economic interests remain distant from the consequences. War destroys lives, families, communities, and futures. Soldiers return with trauma, disability, and psychological scars that can remain for decades. Others never return at all. The damage extends beyond the battlefield to families, children, spouses, and communities. I am deeply skeptical of unnecessary wars because their costs are carried by ordinary people rather than those with power. I also believe that if modern societies genuinely support equality, then they should stop assuming that military sacrifice is primarily a male responsibility. Expectations regarding risk, service, and sacrifice should be based upon the individual rather than broad assumptions about sex.

Another issue that heavily shaped my views is circumcision. Personally, I oppose non-consensual genital alteration for children. One reason I feel so strongly about it is because I see it as a clear example of society applying different standards to boys and girls. Male and female anatomy are different, but both sexes possess corresponding preputial or foreskin-derived structures that develop from common embryological origins. Because of this, I struggle to understand why many people consider one standard acceptable for boys while insisting on a different standard for girls. My preferred position is simple: neither boys nor girls should undergo unnecessary non-consensual genital alteration. More broadly, I think the issue reveals a cultural tendency to take male bodily autonomy less seriously than female bodily autonomy. Whether people agree with my conclusions or not, I believe circumcision raises important questions about consistency, equality, consent, and how seriously society values boys. To me, it is not merely a medical issue. It is part of a larger pattern in which male suffering, male risk, and male sacrifice are often viewed as more acceptable than comparable harms affecting females.

I also believe mass incarceration deserves far more attention than it receives. The United States has imprisoned enormous numbers of people over the last several decades, and the prison population has been overwhelmingly male. Entire communities have lost fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, and husbands to incarceration. Many children grew up without fathers because of imprisonment just as previous generations grew up without fathers because of wars. Whether discussing prisons, dangerous labor, homelessness, military service, or suicide, the common thread is that society often treats male suffering as normal rather than exceptional. The question is not whether every imprisoned person is innocent. The question is why so little attention is devoted to the long-term social consequences of removing so many men from families and communities.

I am also concerned by the way society raises boys. Boys are often expected to tolerate greater levels of rejection, loneliness, ridicule, danger, and emotional neglect than girls. Many boys grow up receiving fewer messages that they are valuable simply because they exist. Instead, they are taught that their worth depends upon performance, achievement, productivity, and usefulness. When boys reach adolescence and adulthood, these pressures often become even more intense. Many struggle with isolation, confusion, social rejection, mental-health problems, and a feeling that they are valued only for what they can provide. Male suicide rates, loneliness, and despair deserve much more attention than they currently receive. A healthy society should actively help boys develop self-respect, resilience, community, and a positive sense of self-worth rather than assuming they will simply endure whatever difficulties come their way.

Another reason I question modern gender norms is the treatment of transgender, nonbinary, transvestite, and other gender-nonconforming people. To me, the intense hostility often directed toward these groups reveals how strongly society remains invested in enforcing established ideas about masculinity and femininity. Opposition to gender nonconformity comes from many different directions, yet often seems rooted in the same desire to preserve traditional categories and expectations. In my view, part of the reason transgender people generate such strong reactions is because they challenge the assumption that social roles are fixed and unchangeable. Their existence highlights the degree to which many aspects of gender are cultural rather than purely biological. This does not mean sex differences are imaginary, but it does suggest that many gender expectations are maintained through social pressure rather than emerging automatically from nature.

For that reason, I support a broader range of acceptable ways to be male. I do not think men should be confined to a narrow industrial-era model built around work, sacrifice, conformity, and emotional suppression. I also think many transgender people, nonbinary people, transvestites, and other gender-nonconforming individuals have a strong interest in challenging restrictive gender expectations. In many ways, men, boys, and gender-nonconforming people are confronting different aspects of the same problem. Society often attempts to force individuals into categories that serve institutions better than they serve human beings.

I have also become interested in the idea that modern masculinity is not the only historical model available. When people look at parts of seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and early nineteenth-century Europe, as well as colonial and early American society, they often discover forms of male fashion, aesthetics, self-expression, and personal presentation that differ dramatically from the modern industrial ideal. Men could be more decorative, expressive, artistic, colorful, and individualistic than modern stereotypes would suggest. While those societies were far from perfect, they challenge the idea that today's narrow model of masculinity is timeless. In some ways, I think society would benefit from redistributing culture, beauty, fashion, creativity, and self-expression back to ordinary men rather than treating such things as feminine or as luxuries reserved for elites. This is one reason I have always been drawn to certain countercultural movements including aspects of glam rock, glam metal, goth culture, New Romantic culture, and other movements that encouraged men to express themselves more freely.

Ultimately, I believe the future should not belong to rigid traditionalism or rigid ideological conformity. It should belong to a broader movement for genuine human dignity. Such a movement would oppose unnecessary war, challenge male disposability, promote bodily autonomy, reduce social pressures that harm boys and men, support transgender and gender-nonforming people, encourage greater freedom of self-expression, and question cultural assumptions that no longer serve a useful purpose. Women spent decades building cultural movements that expanded their freedom and transformed social expectations. I believe men now need a similarly ambitious cultural movement focused on improving the lives of men and boys while remaining supportive of women and gender-nonconforming people. If equality is truly the goal, then concern, dignity, bodily autonomy, compassion, self-expression, and freedom should belong to everyone rather than being distributed unevenly according to sex, tradition, or social expectations.

A main founding principle in a democracy is that the benefit of doubt belongs to the accused, not the accuser in court. There are good reasons for this. Mainly it is the power of the state, often with unlimited budgets to prosecute. And one rancid ideological movement is leading the charge in destroying the underpinnings of the greatest achievement in the west.

Like, i always thought of gender issues and cultural wars as just two loud movements (MRAs vs feminists) with very little number of actual members yelling against each other.

While the image remains true for men, as men's advocacy remains a niche movement, even the broader manosphere remains subscribed-to by a minority of men despite being loud and everywhere on the internet.

I find it hard to find a woman who is going with 0% feminism or misandry leaking from the way she goes in life.

Like

You think women are group A, and feminists and misandrists are a subgroup inside A or something like that.

But so far, i am unable to find a woman who isn't a misandrist or feminist somehow, even if they don't think of themselves as "proud misandrists" or "feminist queen" as feminists and misandrists do.

They will have internalized some misandry or feminism-related idea or behavior or mentality or perspective or whatever, one way or another

male body shaming insults like small dick energy or fat neckbeard weirdo

Or sexual life shaming insults like virgin or incel

Or female supremacy insults like "you will never feel the touch of a woman" or "that's why women don't want to talk to you" or "looks like someone has never talked to or been near a woman before" (and I have always felt that these kinds of insults are misandrist because they paint women as high and holy beings that a man has to prove himself worthy of by getting chosen by them, hence elevating his status from a "nothing" to a "something")

Or feminist rhetoric and mentalities like "the patriarchy did this" or "toxic masculinity did that" or "women need support" (not wrong on its own, but it usually comes with a vibe of "women have 0 privilege and 0 safety and 0 freedom and rights and men have life on super easy mode")

Or self centrism and solipsism and in-group bias where they don't care to disown their privileges compared to how men are obligated by mainstream culture to shame themselves for "being so privileged" (biggest lie of the century), nor do they care about men's issues where the only thing they could ever see is the woman in the story (like if a breakup happens and a man gets ruined and sucked dry in family courts and/or commits suicide, the only thing they care for is how the woman is such an autonomous queen who chose better for herself with 0 empathy or care for the man, if they even notice he exists)

Or victimhood complex where it is always a man's fault that you did something or you have been failed by society or your family or your partner or "the system" if anything goes wrong with you

Or a god complex where they always get angry at any attempt to criticize women under the slogan of "LEAVE WOMEN ALONE!!!!! ARE WOMEN EVEN ALLOWED TO BREATHE??" and aiming all criticism and schooling and finger wagging at men as if women are already evolved, civilized enligthened beings waiting for men to evolve and reach their level (like how being childish and immature and emotionally dysfunctional and impulsive and being a toxic partner or being a stupid repellent loser are largely seen as "men's things" in lots of women's spaces and even mainstream culture at large)

And many other similar things. Especially with cases like Lindsey Clancy and Cornell 7 revealing that there are lots of feminism-adjacent women living among us despite only a few women in comparison labeling themselves as feminists

By widening the definition of feminism and misandry from "whoever loudly identifies as those" to "whoever exhibits related ideas/behaviors/mentalities/perspectives/biases/etc", I realized i am yet to see a woman, except those who explicitly subscribe to men's advocacy, escape feminist/misandrist social conditioning.

What do you think? Am I having a skewed perception of reality or are things THIS BAD? What's your perspective on today's women?

I know I shouldn't be upset by what idiots on social media say, but I saw this really asinine comment on Twitter/X where someone said that if men were dying at the hands of women the way women do by men it'd be called an "epidemic" and that nothing is done to prevent violence against women and women's deaths. WTF. We always hear constantly about violence against women and male violence, whereas violence against men/boys (especially when it's women doing it) still gets very little to no attention or action taken, and when it's brought up misandrists have every stupid excuse and defense imaginable (with the claims it isn't an epidemic, nowhere near as severe, usually in self-defense, men aren't afraid to be out alone at night, etc). Almost no abuse shelters even recognize let alone help male victims and things like domestic violence/abuse are still made to largely be a gendered issue. Furthermore, there's plenty of female killers just like male ones and they have plenty of male victims, but as usual, misandrists are purposefully dismissive of this fact.

I hate it so much, anything to deflect from the fact there's violent, deadly women just like men and there's also male victims just like female ones. Misandrists never want this fact to get attention. These are no doubt the same people who defend Lindsay Clancy. Also the same people with the BS of "Not all men but always a man" and "listen to women," while purposefully ignoring men and refusing to listen to them and help them.

I would like all of our Jewish brothers and sisters to shout out about this.

I think the current social role expected of men in dating is outdated and increasingly unhealthy. Men are often expected to chase, pursue, initiate, impress, and constantly prove their worth, while much of their value is measured by whether they can attract a partner. Over time, this can create a dynamic where men become dependent on approval from others and begin to see rejection as a reflection of their worth as human beings.

My argument is not that relationships are bad or that men should avoid women. My argument is that men should stop making the pursuit of women the center of their lives. Instead, they should focus on improving themselves, building confidence, developing skills, advancing their goals, improving their health, and creating meaningful lives that have value regardless of their relationship status.

Part of what inspired this idea is that I have always been interested in archetypes, whether from literature, mythology, wrestling, or popular culture. I am not sure whether my previous post was removed because I mentioned Dracula, but I think Dracula represents an interesting example of a successful and desirable male archetype. Not because he is a villain or because people should imitate everything about him, but because he is portrayed as attractive, confident, cultured, independent, and powerful. He has a distinctive personal style, impressive properties, status, presence, and a life that does not revolve around chasing approval from others.

I think men can learn from many different archetypes, including some female archetypes as well. One thing that stands out is that many admired characters are not defined by desperation. They are defined by confidence, purpose, competence, and self-possession. They are not constantly seeking validation. They have their own identity and direction.

One of the biggest problems I see, both within parts of the men's rights movement and in society generally, is a lack of imagination. Many people are stuck repeating the same ideas, assumptions, and social scripts without questioning whether they still work. The dating role expected of men today often seems like one of those outdated scripts. Society has changed in many ways, expectations for women have changed significantly, technology has changed, and dating culture has changed, yet many expectations placed on men remain largely the same.

I think this matters because the male role affects millions of men and influences how they see themselves, how they spend their time, how they approach relationships, and how they define success. When a social role consistently encourages men to seek validation from people who may not be interested in them, it can contribute to discouragement, low self-esteem, resentment, and a sense of worthlessness.

My alternative is not withdrawal, bitterness, or hostility. My alternative is self-development. Build a life you are proud of. Become healthier, more capable, more confident, more interesting, and more fulfilled. Let relationships be an addition to a meaningful life rather than the sole purpose of it.

Whether people agree with me or disagree with me, I believe this is a legitimate topic for discussion because it concerns a major social expectation placed on men. If those running a community disagree with my conclusions, I would at least hope they would explain why they believe the topic is not appropriate rather than simply removing it without explanation.

(This is going to ne a highly conceptual, highly theoretical rant. There's no clean flair gor it... Because the main crux is about regulatory capture, "legal rights" seem like the best fit. Even then it's genre busting for this subreddit.)

What does the term Crony Capitalism refers to?

It refers to an economics landscape where commercial success depends on having the government's favor.

What does the gov't get out of giving it's favor away?

Kickback, campaign funding, bribes... Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours deal.

What are the tell-tale signs of a crony capitalism dominated economic landscape?

Government favouritism, in the form of subsidy focus, tax favoured status and regulatory exemptions.

Frequent corruption scandals. Bribery, embezzlement, insider trading.

Regulatory capture, with the government agencies supposed to regulate them serving tgeir interests instead.

Media and academic bias, with them justifying corrupt practices due to funding from crony interests.

Lack of transparency. Expect information flow around regulations, subsidies, bailouts to be restrictee.

What is the typical behavioural pattern of a crony business?

Reduced incentives to improve. They can get away with bad business practices that lose them their customer base by coasting on subsidies.

Entitlement and complacency. If you're "too big to fail", it's easy to develop an arrogant, dismissive attitude towards the customer. Why treat uour customer well when there's no consequence for power and ego tripping all over them?

Reckless, short term profit driven practices. Overcharging, misleading marketing and outright scams, based on the assumption that the customer lacks any altrrnatives.

What happens to customer focused business under a crony capitalism landscape?

Because they rely on providing value to the customer, they attract a loyal customer base willing to pay a premium. They enjoy a paradoxally strong market position.

Why are they so rare?

The cost of doing that business is checking your (borrowed) ego at the door.

Because crony businesses, sensing an upstart, will launch into harassment campaigns. Reputational attacks, sabotage, regulatory traps...

What happens when crony businesses are targetted by large scale boycotts?

The government steps in to stabilize the market. Pressures boycotters into reconciliation talks. Cracks down on boycotters. Deploys state propaganda tarring and feathering their names. Bails out the boycott targets over and over again.

What happens when the boycotters are actually the economic backbone? The ones producing the most?

Interstingly, this radicalises the boycotters, accelerating the exodus. So the government targets them with higher taxes. Losing the benefit for being productive, they withdraw. Which craters the tax rates. Seizing assets of boycotters does not work for long, as it's killing the golden goose for a short term windfall. A case study of what happens when you crack down on your productive class was the redistribution of land in Zimbabwe in the early 2000s. Yeah, turns out that when your economy relies on the farms, seizing the farms and what the farmers own causes them to FUCK OFF since they get no benefit from working the farms, and then the farms collapse. And the economy alongside it.

Does any of it sound familiar to any of you here?

Have a great day!

In their view, "equality" means fighting against what they define as the structure of the oppressors: the infamous "patriarchy", a vague, catch-all concept that is especially useful for blaming all men for the actions of a few.

Consequently, these ultra-feminist groups spend their time targeting the few remaining spaces where boys and young men can gather, build connections, and develop their own identities.

From the perspective of radical feminist, all men are essentially "biologically defective" and "toxic"; therefore, any space reserved for them is deemed unacceptable, as it would supposedly foster further toxic behavior, since, in their view, masculinity is inherently toxic by definition.

Following this logic, they have targeted sports clubs. they targeted school organizations and club, demanding that any group with a higher number of boys than girls reach at least a 50/50 gender balance or face closure. They also came after organizations like the Boy Scouts, and now, it is the turn with fraternities. They won’t stop there.

In every instance, they take problems caused by a few individuals, generalize them and blow the situation out of proportion, often relying on patriarchy/toxic masculinity and other shallow collectivist concepts, to justify shutting down these entire structures. Two years ago, following whatever happened at Cornell, they shut down the specific fraternity where it occurred, as if anyone who was not even present should be held responsible. Now, they have forced the temporary closure of all fraternities. And, of course, they are now pushing the idea that fraternities should be made like mixed space, all while leaving sororities and other organization for specific minority groups completely unquestioned.

Clearly, this has nothing to do with any sort of "double standard", it is structural and by design.

see an interesting post about why men spaces are needed

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheTinMen/comments/1xar09e/why_we_need_mens_spaces/

The mistake we made was not giving women power. Our biggest mistake was not teaching them responsibility. See the dating scene: young attractive women hold all the cards, yet never approach, never take risks in a meaningful way, never pay, never plan, and never take responsibility for their bad choices.

It also hurts them. They are more dissatisfied than ever. Anti-depression pill abuse is at an all time high. They don't know where to find a good mate. That is because we've given them the keys for the car, but the, never took the driver's test. They are completely unsure of what to do, how to improve themselves and society. They can't create a world where people are more satisfied.

Why? Because despite men having almost zero power, men are still the responsible party. Without responsibility, power is absolutely useless. Imagine a monarchy where the king is unaccountable. Guaranteed that kingdom will go through recession, tyranny, and many unexpected crises that not even the wisest advisors can solve.
Power works the best if it's benevolent, and well coordinated. That's is why in the age of girlbosses, nothing is improving. They might improve things for themselves - but that is a zero-sum (or maybe even a negative-sum) game, that reeks of malthusian impotence.

Hi. i am a teenage girl who tends to get hated on for my support of mens rights.

I grew up in a very liberal household where men were always seen as the problem. I grew up on the idea that because someone is a man, I should pay more attention or be anxious in the presence of men. And I am no stranger to dealing with catcalling or abuse. And as a kid that’s what I thought all men were like. As I’ve gotten older and become aware of reality and recognized my own beliefs, my mind and world view has changed.

In my own experience, I lot of man hating comes from the left and so I'm coming from a conservative perspective.

I go to a very liberal public school where "love everyone" is plastered everywhere. But then when it comes to my perspectives as a conservative, or an anti-feminist, then all of the sudden I am a horrible person. The hypocrisy I face on the regular is insane. I am all for women's rights as I am for men's rights. No more than the other. But I have noticed, and even after reading a comment earlier, that what feminists call "equality" is just a cover for them wanting to support everyone while actually not wanting to take accountability or do anything about it.

I will admit, I do want to have a family where the man is the breadwinner and I get to stay home with my kids. It comes from a place of conservatism and not expectation of my husband. I more have an expectation of myself to serve him.

I recently asked a question on a conservative subreddit because I have struggled with this dive I took into conservatism and I feeling like it was the norm for conservative women to push down anything that happened to them that was caused by a man. Because most of the time we come from the side of mens rights. I have now learned that the answer is to take the gender out of it. Asking the question of "was it because they're a man or just because they're an asshat?" It's always just because they were an asshat. I've dealt with asshat women before too. And I've realized I was unconsciously holding onto the expectation that I should be careful around all men that I held onto as a kid. Sometimes we hold judgements that we didn't even know we had. That definitely has given me a new perspective on gender that I didn't have before and letting go of this prejudice I was holding on to.

I may not be in a man's shoes but I try to understand and be thoughtful as much as I can be. I'm an anti-feminist in a world full of angry feminists and brainwashed men that think because they're a man they are bad. And sometimes I'm seen as a pick me or a girl trying to be "one of the guys," but in reality I truly want to be aware of everyone and their struggles and I have this passion for men's rights because I don't believe whatever is on the other side. And being pro men doesn't mean I'm anti women.

This was a bit of a rant but I felt compelled to share after seeing some horrible things online recently. I hope that the men here know that they have people who respect them and don't see them as the enemy.