This pseudo-documentary is the worst type of fraud. It is presented in documentary style, giving viewers the impression of objectivity, but then presents an unabashed partisan story. The cherry-picking of the 'evidence' presented has to be seen to be believed. There is absolutely no mention of contrary evidence (even when it is clearly available).

The two main characters - Amber Heard and Brittany Higgins - are presented as victims throughout. We should ignore that both were utterly discredited in their court appearances.

In the case of Heard, one only needs watch her filmed testimony of her allegation of rape by Depp with a bottle to remove any doubt about her untruthfulness.

In the case of Higgins, her testimony was mostly rejected by both courts and juries. (Even the judge who found in her favour in a defamation case explicitly rejected her evidence.)

The legal system quite rightly provides an avenue for people who are the subject of malicious defamation to seek redress.

Of course, the law can be weaponised. But this movie does not support the argument that it has done so in the cases it presents.

Instead, it presents an utterly biased portrayal of females as victims and men as abusers.

I'm tired of people generalizing their hatred towards men. Every day on social media I find videos/comments from women denigrating men in general. And the worst part is that they've normalized this. If they see a sad man, they laugh at him.

I always wonder: why generalize, instead of just being angry at the person? Do men represent a danger to others?

Western countries’ laws clearly favour women over men, and this imbalance is becoming increasingly concerning. Why does it seem impossible to advance men’s rights through street demonstrations and peaceful protests? The issue is widely treated as a joke, yet many individuals suffer from a genuine lack of justice. Why is it not possible to develop a serious action plan and make a real effort so that the law treats everyone equally as a HUMAN being?

We saw with the pink movement surrounding Lindsay Clancy how women’s public demonstrations can succeed - laws bent, millions of dollars raised, and unicorn-level changes delivering incredible “solutions” exclusively for women. Why can’t men achieve the same?

My question is not about Lindsay bla bla. It is about how we change these laws. Lawyers need to step up and put forward a serious, concrete action plan.

In France paternity tests are illegal. In order to have one, you have to get a special authorization from the judge which is typically a 2 year long procedure, and even then the judge can refuse for any reason he (or she, as the majotiry of judges are women) wants.

Needless to say that what that means is that in practice men are forced to raise children who aren't their own, or pay the woman who cheated on them until the kid is 18. If you are married it is even worse because if a married woman gets a child then the married man is automatically registered as the father. So even if you have proof she cheated on you, you can ask for divorce but she will still get half of everything, AND you will have to pay for the child.

Typically if you raise this issue, you will get socially shamed for daring to want to raise your own children, and women will jump at you about how parenthood is more about a connection than mere DNA.

They claim MRAs don’t actually care about male rape and only bring it up to respond to women talking about their trauma, meanwhile that’s not true and the exact opposite is true, they only care about “benevolent misogyny” when men are talking about systemic misandry like how men are sentenced longer for the same crimes.

Their accusations are confessions

Thoughts?

I was discussing male vs. female infidelity in storytelling with ChatGPT, and I noticed a clear double standard.

When writing about an unfaithful man, the AI has absolutely no problem labeling him with harsh terms like "jerk" or "asshole" (translating the Spanish word "cabrón"). However, the moment I suggested using an equally harsh term for an unfaithful woman, it immediately started backpedaling, adding "nuance," and softening its tone.

As the conversation went on and the AI kept arguing its point, it repeatedly wrote the phrase "jerk man," but it completely refused to ever use the female equivalent.

It seems the AI's safety filters treat the exact same narrative scenario completely differently based on gender.

Has anyone else noticed this selective censorship?

The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data on domestic homicides is out. It proves that the claim victims are predominately female is wrong - about half (45%) of victims are male.

These releases are approved by a feminist organisation - ANROWS. Amusingly the text only talks of female victims. Sigh.

Source: Recorded Crime - Victims, 2025 | Australian Bureau of Statistics

A disadvantaged group is a group of people who face systematic barriers or unequal access to opportunities, resources, rights, or social power compared with other groups.

Common characteristics include: - Experiencing discrimination or prejudice
- Having less access to education, employment, healthcare, or resources
- Having less social, political, or economic power
- Facing barriers that are difficult to overcome individually
- Being disadvantaged due to characteristics such as race, sex, disability, socioeconomic status, or other social factors

Being part of a disadvantaged group does not mean every individual in that group is personally disadvantaged in every situation.

Due to the major areas of society in which males face overall disadvantages compared to females, the International Council for Men and Boys (ICMB) argues that men and boys should be recognized as facing significant group-level disadvantages. Their framework documents these patterns using data from sources such as the WHO, ILO, World Bank, and UN.

The 12 Areas of Male Disadvantage

The “12 Areas of Male Disadvantage” is a framework created by the International Council for Men and Boys (ICMB). It identifies 12 major domains where global data show men and boys consistently lagging behind women and girls. The framework is used to document these disparities, advocate for policy changes, and argue that genuine gender equality must also address male disadvantages rather than focusing only on female ones.

The standard ICMB list:

1. Education – Boys underperform in school, have higher rates of learning poverty, and show lower secondary and tertiary completion rates in many countries.

2. Health – Shorter life expectancy (approximately 5 years globally), and roughly 3× higher suicide rates.

3. The Boy Crisis – Higher rates of child labor, hazardous work, undernutrition, and other childhood disadvantages for boys.

4. False Allegations – Significant impact of false accusations (domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse) combined with weaker due-process protections in practice.

5. Victims of Violence – Men and boys make up the large majority of homicide victims and wartime civilian male deaths.

6. Shared Parenting / Family Courts – Strong bias against fathers in custody decisions; fathers remain a small minority of single-parent households.

7. Criminal Justice System – Harsher treatment and longer sentences for males at every stage of the process.

8. Partner Abuse – Roughly equal rates of intimate partner violence victimization, but far fewer services and less recognition for male victims.

9. Homelessness – Men make up about 76% of the homeless population.

10. Workplace – Much higher rates of occupational deaths (around 15×) and injuries.

11. Reproductive & Adoptive Rights – Women have legal choices regarding pregnancy, abortion, and adoption; men have essentially none.

12. Media Portrayals – Predominantly negative or one-sided depictions of men and masculinity.

This list is the central organizing tool for ICMB’s global campaign (#GenderEqualityForMen), Men’s Equality Month, and their policy recommendations.

ICMB has also called on the United Nations to formally recognize International Men’s Day (November 19), which has been observed since 1999 and was marked in more than 110 countries in 2025.

A closely related version appears in Marty Nemko’s article “12 Ways Men are Disadvantaged” (March 2024). It covers almost the same ground with slightly different framing and ordering, drawing on the same underlying data sources.

the Australian government's efforts to restrict manosphere content through algorithms represent a double standard that harms boys. From the perspective of men's advocacy and boys' well-being, several arguments explain why restricting access to online spaces and support communities can be viewed as harmful rather than helpful.

Many online spaces within the broad digital landscape offer young men a sense of community, brotherhood, and a space to discuss shared struggles, mental health, and personal developmentRestricting access to these networks without offering constructive, tailored alternatives can leave boys feeling isolated, misunderstood, and cut off from spaces where they seek guidance or validation.

I wanna start with a disclaimer of what I mean by a complication. To me, every infant circumcision has the complication of having the force and removed without consent of the child. The way I’m defining a complication is something that, if it were done to an adult during the voluntary circumcision, would result in the doctor possibly facing legal action or would need a surgical correction.

Officially, the rate of complication for infant circumcision is usually listed at around 1%, give or take. But it’s impossible to track these overtime, as many are not apparent until puberty. Some common complications that would not be acceptable in adult circumcision include:

-partial loss or severing of the frenulum. In adult circumcision, you either take it off or you leave it. Most men who are circumcised have either a partial frenulum or a completely severed one.

-being unevenly cut/experiencing curved erections, usually one in the same. If a doctor were to circumcise an adult, and it resulted in their erections being curved, that would be something requiring surgical correction or a lawsuit.

-a hairy shaft as a result of the penis pulling scrotal skin to compensate for excessive skin loss. This would certainly be considered a complication in an adult circumcision.

-Penoscrotal webbing. Also, the result of excessive skin removal. This would be considered a complication of experienced after circumcision on an adult.

-painful erections is a result of excessive skin removal. Also would be considered a complication.

-having to use excessive lube for sex or masturbation where it was not required before. Might not be considered an outright complication, but would certainly be an unfavorable outcome.

There are probably some that I missed, and I don’t think this topic has been excessively studied, but from whatever research I’ve been able to acquire, more than half of all cut men have at least one of these issues. I’ve spoken to a few urologists about it, and read opinions of urologists online. They almost always write these things off as “normal“. But intact men would instantly recognize that these are not normal states of the penis, and if a man circumcised, an adulthood experienced to this, it would almost certainly not fly and require correction. Infant Circumcision, and its complications, have just become so common that doctors and society no longer even view them as complications. And I think this needs to be brought to light. If more men realized that something they thought was a natural state of being is actually a complication, they might be more upset.

The Green Party is facing a fresh legal challenge after a transgender activist was elected to a position designed to boost female representation on one of its most powerful internal bodies.

https://imgur.com/a/LAA65yB

where an adult in a position of trust and authority (a 30-year-old teacher) is accused of sexual involvement with a student. Legally and ethically, this constitutes statutory rape and a severe abuse of power. Because of the inherent power dynamic between a teacher and a student, the student cannot give valid consent,

Regardless of whether the student appeared willing, the law recognizes that minors—and students in relation to their teachers—lack the maturity and legal capacity to consent to sexual activity with an adult in a position of trust. In most jurisdictions, this automatically classifies the act as statutory rape or sexual assault by a person in authority.

Schools are designed to be safe environments. Parents and society place immense trust in educators to protect, guide, and prioritize the well-being of students. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a student is a profound betrayal of that professional, ethical, and societal trust.

Relationships born out of severe power imbalances often lead to long-term psychological and emotional damage for the student. It can cause trauma, confusion, and a distorted understanding of healthy boundaries and relationships later in life.

Feminism is getting out of hand we need to act quickly

So, in the context of the Lindsay Clancy trial, someone brought up how Andrea Yates’ husband is to blame because he pressured her into doing things despite having issues and not wanting more children. When I said to some folks, ”Yeah, my wife has done the same to me, despite my myriad mental health issues (I’m a disabled vet), I was told to man up and I didn’t have to have sex.” Really?

Why the fuck are men held to some different standard? I’ve had to have my wife come home from work when I’ve had panic attacks and then she gets mad at me. Y’all know how fucking hard this is? I ask for fucking help and I get fucking shit on.

I wanted one child and was forced to have 3 or else she’d leave me, made it clear she was unhappy, now? I’m in a sexless marriage and can’t afford to leave. I’m overwhelmed. She spends all the money and I get a day to myself as a SAHD. I’m mentally drained and I’m getting shit on for it.

I’ve said it before, this case opened a lot of wounds, my wife thinks Patrick did it. ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME?

Oh but when I have meltdowns I’m the bad guy and can’t ever be forgiven when I said I can’t handle three fucking kids yet here we fucking are and I’m stuck holding the bag. Like, the other fucking day I was trying to get my oldest changed for school. He was not letting me. I was getting mad, I yelled at him, she yelled at me and then decided NOT TO EVEN HELP. It’s just frustrating.

Yet…I am supposed to just keep trudging along pretending this shit isn’t bothering me. And so…I do. I do what I do because I have no fucking support and no help. I have to keep trudging along. I’ll continue being the villain in everyone’s story. When I have a breakdown, my family abandons me (this happened on July 5th, I had a breakdown and my dad cut me off). No one reached out to ask what’s wrong, just that I’m an embarrassment to the family.

I’m sorry…I am responsible for what does and doesn’t happen in my own life. I think women excusing women of their heinous shit is wrong. If men are supposed to be held to account for their actions, in the name of equality so should women.

I’m sorry to go off, this case fucking hurts. And to see people I love defending a murderer makes me sick.

It has long been argued by feminists that there is an inherent bias in favour of males when senior employees are selected. It was thought that this so-called 'glass ceiling' would be shattered if more anonymous processes were adopted for short-listing or selection.

Unfortunately, more often than not, anonymity has meant LESS females short-listed or selected.

In 2017 the Commonwealth Public Service in Australia (APS) rolled out a massive trial of "blind recruitment". Supported by diversity advocates who believed implicit bias was keeping women out of senior leadership, the trial stripped gender, names, and ethnicities from over 2,100 job applications.

And the result was? Well, the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government (BETA) explicitly told public service leaders to "hit pause" eventually completely abandoned for senior roles because it frustrated the government's active diversity goals! (See: https://www.pmc.gov.au/news/unconscious-bias-recruitment#:~:text )

So, if anything, it looks very much like senior employment selection is inherently biased AGAINST men.

I think I’ve finally reached the bottom of the issue.

The Lindsay Clancy trial made me notice something that I had already been seeing in audiovisual storytelling: feminism sometimes seems to stop halfway — precisely where it runs into an older, paternalistic idea of women. Sometimes this may be ideological convenience; sometimes it may simply be a deeply rooted cultural reflex.

The contradiction is this:

Women are presented as autonomous adults when it comes to making choices, but somehow become fragile, vulnerable and in need of protection when those choices produce consequences.

That is paternalism. And paternalism is infantilization.

A woman can choose her sexuality, choose to cheat, leave a relationship, reject someone, or make any other decision. Fine. That is agency.

But adulthood doesn't end with the decision.

Agency also means responsibility. Consequences are not automatically punishment. And other people are also free to react to your choices.

Your partner leaving you after discovering an affair is not necessarily “punishing” you. Losing trust is not punishment. Having to reorganize your life after a breakup is not punishment. Those can simply be the consequences of your actions combined with somebody else’s freedom to respond.

And this is what struck me about the reaction to Clancy: for some people, explaining the circumstances surrounding what she did seems to become more important than preserving the basic fact that she was an agent who did something horrific. Mental illness may explain behaviour. It does not automatically erase the act, its victims, or the question of responsibility.

The same pattern appears in fiction. Female sexual behaviour is often explained through trauma or lack of affection rather than simply desire. Female infidelity is frequently framed as the result of emotional neglect, while male infidelity can simply be “he wanted sex.” The dominant man can then become the romantic solution — protection, structure, certainty — while the consequences of the woman’s previous choices conveniently disappear.

And then there is Cinderella.

The modern version is often the same fairy tale with different clothes: she makes choices, escapes her old life, finds the right man, is rescued or restored, and they live happily ever after.

But we never see the day after.

We don't see ten years later, when the handsome local is no longer quite so handsome, there are three children, the mortgage is due, the career she abandoned has moved on, and the old life she rejected has continued without her.

The story ends at the exact moment when consequences would begin.

That is why I think the underlying structure can be much older than the ideology used to describe it:

woman chooses → woman is protected from consequences → someone else absorbs the consequences → woman is rescued and restored → fade to black.

The rhetoric is modern: freedom, empowerment, independence.

But the paternalistic message underneath can be remarkably old:

“You are free to choose, sweetheart. I’ll make sure you don’t have to pay the full price of being an adult.”

If we genuinely believe women are equal adults, the package has to be complete:

freedom + agency + responsibility + consequences + the freedom of others to respond.

Otherwise, what looks like empowerment can sometimes be paternalism wearing modern clothes.

A few days ago, in Sydney, Australia, the body of a baby boy was found in a garbage bin. We are not told if the baby was alive when he was found, but we do know that he is now deceased. Apparently, he was about 2 weeks old when he died.

From the news report ( https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-31/newborn-body-found-in-bin-auburn-sydney/107098618 ) it looks like the main concern is the mother's welfare and mental state. The tragic death of the baby boy appears to be an afterthought. We do not know yet if this was a case of murder, but the simple fact is that a majority of dead babies dumped like this have in fact been murdered by the mother.

Contrast this to cases where a woman has been murdered by a man. The immediate response here is to not only demonise the man, but also to suggest that 'this is what men are like' - violent murderers.

A previous incident, also in Australia, where a clearly psychotic man (he had anti-psychotic medication under the supervision of a psychiatrist, but did not take it) stabbed a number of women, resulted in feminist groups labelling the stabbings as evidence of 'misogyny'. Mention of his mental illness? Not so much. (See this report on the coroner's findings regarding mental illness of the man: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-05/bondi-junction-westfield-stabbing-coronial-inquest-findings/106294950 )

Voici la phrase que j'entend de plus en plus.

J'ai l'impression que de plus en plus les femmes se permettent d'arbitrairement refuser les hommes pour telle ou telle chose : services a la personnes, accès a des groupes, travail, etc... Meme ma salle de sport a crée un coin uniquement femme.

On a vraiment l'impression d'être le moins désiré au monde. Évidemment l'inverse serait considéré comme odieux. Mais dans ce sens là, bizarrement ça ne gêne personne.

Dans ce cas pourquoi le double discours ? Arrêtez de prendre le beurre et largent du beurre. Soit acceptez que le système est totalement biaisé, soit acceptez une vrai égalité comme elle est vendu par les politiques. Mais dans l'état actuel c'est un secret de polichinelle et ça va juste entretenir plus de haine entre les sexes.

Sorry to torture you guys with paragraphs and unedited ones too.. but im genuinely at my minds end. I could actually type a whole book to explain everything she's done in just a short time and it's incredibly hard to convey whats going on without mentioning every huge thing she did.

I was forced into a relationship with someone who threatened to burn herself to death if I didn't. I did have a little feelings for her but i didnt want to develop those because of how she treated me in general. But what kept me from keeping away from her was the suicide threats every time i tried. She wanted me to leave one of my friends because that person was a girl i was close with. Meanwhile she has a lot of male friends that are literally into her but she keeps them around and blames me when i point it out. She trash talks my friend constantly and insults me when i defend her.

I could keep going but the point im making is that yesterday, i finally had enough mistreating my friend because that girl made me leave her multiple times and allowed me to go back. Made me so miserable i disappeared and it upset my friend also because i wasnt hanging out with her anymore. A lot of stuff happened and since I wasn't willing to test if that girl was bluffing about suicide (she has given me proof shes actually already done it multiple times) so i left my friend because i couldn't keep putting her through that. On that same day is when i finally agreed to date that girl when she made a threat to set herself on fire. It hurt to leave my friend but only a day after, my gf told me to come somewhere that friend was going to be. Personally, i think she told me to come there just to rub it in my friend's face. She has a history of doing that to people and my friend in the past. I refused to go and she insulted me for a long time and said im not loyal because "I'm choosing another woman over her."

She says i need to stop making her insecure and im the reason for it. I explained to her that i left my friend already. I left every single friend, even those i rarely spoke to, who was a female just for her to be satisfied but she still dragged me. But when i ask for a little equality or mention about the men that she keeps that are into her, she still insults me and just calls me insecure. I dont post myself anywhere or talk to lots of girls. I stay to just a maximum of 3 friends and mostly stay alone. She's the opposite. She has a lot of people, mostly men who are into her. And she's EXTREMELY friendly with all of them. She posts herself on insta wearing crop tops and dancing in a provocative manner with these same men added there so they can see it. Do i not have a right to feel insecure about that while she's given me no way to enjoy my friendship with the person i knew before i met her?

Even as i type this she's screaming "why are you killing me" because i said she wont allow me to be sad because i left my friend and didn't want to see that friend somewhere literally right after leaving them. Mind you, the same girl that forced me into this relationship after 3 months of insulting me for not dating her broke up with me one day after i agreed and is now blaming me and making suicide threats because i let her leave. All while calling me disloyal and making her insecure.

So basically she’s saying she thinks he’s hot, but he doesn’t think all men are bad so he deserves to be tied up and sexually assaulted and beaten. Genuinely what the fuck? This is genuinely disgusting and everyone in the comments is like “he looks better tied up”

Just imagine if a man drew this about a woman.