Why the world hates us?

[wat3rfall]

it's some men WITH issues

No, that's lazy framing. That's like saying only "some" women face sexual violence so it's not a women's issue. broad social patterns are still real even if not every single person fits them. Men's issues are systemic. Rising suicides, family courts, declining fatherhood, dating market collapse aren't random personal quirks. This is culture-wide decay. Nice try minimizing it though.

The pain is caused because many men refuse to educate themselves, to break out of the circle they are in telling them they are special and deserve special treatment. As for no emotional outlets, there has been enough of a change in western culture that men can now choose to find the numerous outlets that DO exist, the problem is that would mean they would first have to change how they think and no see it as weak and second choose not to care about a handful of strangers who would ridicule them for doing it, strangers who think much like they do.

There are outlets, many of them and there is NOTHING physical stopping men from using them.

Again, fake optimism. There are barriers to those outlets - stigma, lack of support, and constant mockery when men try. And don’t act like men created that stigma all alone. Women and society ridicule male weakness too. Acting like therapy being technically available means the problem's solved is peak cope. It’s like saying poverty’s fine because food exists somewhere.

Men need to change because they are the root and cause of those problems

NO! They’re part of the system, just like women are. Blaming only men for modern society’s rot is ahistorical and dishonest. You think 18-year-old boys dying in WW1 trenches created patriarchy? They were victims of the same machine. Systems outlive individuals. Blaming the current generation of men for historical sins they never committed is just weaponized guilt.

men disproportionately reaped the rewards

And also paid the costs. You can’t keep using past elite male power as an excuse to ignore modern male decline. Most men were never kings. They were peasants, soldiers, and workers. It was always a trade: protection and provision for value and respect. Now, that trade’s gone. There are no purpose and respect, but just shame.

A prime example of you ignoring important distinctions, that doc covers work related fatal injuries as well as Nonfatal injuries and illnesses, private industry in 2023

fatal injuries - 5,283

You must be registered to see the links

Women accounted for 8.5 percent (447) of all fatalities

nonfatal injuries - 2,569,000

You must be registered to see the links

You'll note they aren't mentioned in the nonfatal report, you'll also note that it clearly says :
"Women had the highest number of fatalities in the private health care and social assistance industry sector (63)
followed by the retail trade sector (59). "

Now you are going to find these kinds of numbers when women are kept out of many work places / sectors for so long and even now are struggling to break into many of them. You data is also off because the workplaces / sectors do NOT have a balanced representation of both male and female workers. Of course more men die in male dominated / male only jobs.

LOL, the BLS stat shows over 90% of workplace deaths are male. You’re nitpicking sectors and pretending that makes it equal. It doesn’t. Women are disproportionately in safer, cleaner, service-based roles. Men still do the deadly grunt work. Coal, construction, trucking, powerlines - all are male dominated. Of course they die more. That’s the whole point. Here’s the actual 2022 data:

You must be registered to see the links

and if you had bothered to read ANY of the links I posted you would have seen it has been that way for a VERY long time, so using it as a crutch to try support your argument is ridiculous.

The "crisis' as you put it has actually been going on for a very long time and you can NOT and should NOT try to attribute it to the changes and your argument. Not only are you doing those people a very real disservice but you also muddy the waters and spread misinformation.

Bad take. The consistency of male suicide dominance proves it's not a wartime blip, but a chronic issue that modern society refuses to solve. And recently, rates are rising, not falling:

• You must be registered to see the links
• You must be registered to see the links

So when you say it’s always been this way, that’s not a flex. It’s a societal failure we’ve normalized.

If a man finds purpose in treating women as property, as objects, as lower than himself then his purpose should be lost and replaced. Trying to paint extremes as the norm or the standard only makes it worse. Men can easily find love, work, enjoyment in life while treating women as actual people.

No one's saying that. Again, strawman. We’re talking about purpose collapse in the real sense - no rites of passage, no earned respect, no communal structure that values men beyond what they can provide. Frankl wasn’t talking about owning people. He was talking about meaning in suffering: Viktor Frankl, "Man’s Search for Meaning"
Also check the growing data on male loneliness:

You must be registered to see the links

&

You must be registered to see the links

and women wanting to be equal and treated as humans has caused this HOW?

You asked that unironically? No-fault divorce, biased family courts, cultural normalization of single motherhood - all of these heavily incentivized fatherlessness:

You must be registered to see the links

&

You must be registered to see the links

Seriously what is up with your links?????

Because you didn't bother checking the proper ones:

You must be registered to see the links

&

You must be registered to see the links

Well if this is an example of "expressing emotions" then can you blame them? You've exaggerated to absurd degrees, you blamed everything short of leaking sinks on them and you have not provided a single shred of data or facts to back up any of your accusations. You'll note also that no one here has told you to shut up or man up so even here it disproves your points.

Yes, things are changing, yes, you and SOME like you don't like it but there are others that are ok with it and others that support it. This isn't a "men" problem, this is a problem for some men.

You're a funny guy. The whole tone of your replies is mockery. You just did the sanitized version. "Stop whining," "Stop exaggerating," "Some men are fine" - that is the modern version of "Man up." You're proving the point without realizing.

 

[WillBennett]

Another day, another fascist bait on F95 lmao

 

[Icarus Media]

Another day, another fascist bait on F95 lmao

 

[Fzeren]

Imo the source of many unwholesome habits is the meaninglessness of modern life

As opposed to when?

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

No one's saying that. Again, strawman. We’re talking about purpose collapse in the real sense - no rites of passage, no earned respect, no communal structure that values men beyond what they can provide. Frankl wasn’t talking about owning people. He was talking about meaning in suffering: Viktor Frankl, "Man’s Search for Meaning"

You got all that from a song you are not the target audience of? If you go out of your way looking for things to be outraged against you will find them.

You want to know the BIGGEST issue, it is people wandering into places that others enjoy and then complaining they don't like it. Its something I bet you feel happens too much in men's spaces, and yet here you are doing the EXACT SAME THING.

 

[wat3rfall]

Another day, another fascist bait on F95 lmao

Here comes the pseudo-feminists doing mental gymnastics again. Cries 'Fascist' the second someone talks about male issues.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Ah This is a fucking history lesson now.

You should go back to it, and read it fully this time, because you clearly need it...

Also 800000 soviet women served in military of which 250000 on the front lines. 34 million men served in the soviet military 20-25 million on the front lines. 50k to 100k of those women died. In comparison 11 million men died.

This particular point was addressing your claim that I supposedly wasn't aware that women too can be fighters. That you then turned into a "women weren't authorized to fight", and now try to turn into a "they weren't the ones who died the most".
All this while still not addressing the main point, therefore the fact that you misread what I initially said...

you could argue that atleast half of the deaths should have been women i mean it was the battle for their survival after all.

Fighting back because your survival depend on it, what you're now saying, isn't the same than starting a war because your survival depend on it, what was your point in your previous post.
I really hope that you can understand this...

War didn’t begin with kings.
War didn’t begin with agriculture.

Then it's a good thing that I didn't said that, nor even implied it...

War began when the first human realized another human could take what he had and chose not to run.

Punctual fully localized conflicts aren't wars. But this apart, not only I explicitly said what you just wrote, but this also absolutely disprove your previous claim that wars are started for survival reasons.

If humanity had always been ruled by women, history suggests the outcomes would have been much the same.

And, once again, I never said the opposite...

Power dynamics, territorial disputes, competition for resources, and the biological and social drivers behind conflict

Funny how the cause that you claimed as being the only reason behind wars, therefore "survival", didn't made it in that list you wrote...

don’t inherently change because of gender, that was the point i was trying to make.

A point that no one opposed too, not even me. As I said, "it wasn't about going to war, but about starting it".

I kinda skipped over a lot of what you wrote but I picked up whatever I thought was important to this debate we have been having.

Well, next time read everything.
I mean, it's a good way to not looks like an idiots who read the opposite of what was actually said...

 

[morphnet]

No, that's lazy framing. That's like saying only "some" women face sexual violence so it's not a women's issue. broad social patterns are still real even if not every single person fits them. Men's issues are systemic. Rising suicides, family courts, declining fatherhood, dating market collapse aren't random personal quirks. This is culture-wide decay. Nice try minimizing it though.

Do you honestly believe if you repeat something enough it will magically become true?

Again, fake optimism. There are barriers to those outlets - stigma, lack of support, and constant mockery when men try.

Stigma? do you want help or do you want to care what complete strangers think about you?
lack of support, the outlets are the support, do you want an escort and cheering section too? make an appointment, go to appointment if that's not your thing go see a priest, go join a community outreach and support group, join a online support group, find out where there is good counseling centers.
constant mockery? from who? from where?

And don’t act like men created that stigma all alone.

Of course they created it alone, there wasn't some workshop where they got everyone together... what you meant to say is "men don't maintain it alone" again you gloss over very important distinctions so you can play the blame game and the victim card.

NO! They’re part of the system, just like women are.

You talk about system as if it's some self created entity, the system was created by men.

Blaming only men for modern society’s rot is ahistorical and dishonest.

Then feel free to point to the other group/gender/entity/force that had the power to influence humanity over millennia...

You think 18-year-old boys dying in WW1 trenches created patriarchy?

The men who came before them did...

You must be registered to see the links

They were victims of the same machine. Systems outlive individuals.

Machines, systems, call them whatever you like, all were created by men....

And also paid the costs. You can’t keep using past elite male power as an excuse to ignore modern male decline.

Men broke things, now some men and some women are trying to fix them, you can keep trying to avoid and ignore the facts but men created a broken system, men had over a thousand years to change and fix it and didn't, this is the eventual outcome.

You’re nitpicking sectors and pretending that makes it equal. It doesn’t. Women are disproportionately in safer, cleaner, service-based roles.

Because they chose not to enter those other sectors? Because women decided it was better for men to take all the risks? or because they were kept out of those sectors? because men used religion and laws to forcibly keep women in sectors men chose for them?

Men still do the deadly grunt work. Coal, construction, trucking, powerlines - all are male dominated.

Again, are you trying to imply this was anything but men's decisions?

Bad take. The consistency of male suicide dominance proves it's not a wartime blip, but a .

Of course if you refuse to apply reality, logic and math you would think that.
Also "chronic issue that modern society refuses to solve" really? Who is in the position to begin tackling this problem and make efforts to solve it? take your time....

So when you say it’s always been this way, that’s not a flex. It’s a societal failure we’ve normalized.

Again, who has and is in the position to address this problem....

No-fault divorce, biased family courts, cultural normalization of single motherhood - all of these heavily incentivized fatherlessness

No-fault divorce - brought about in part by a broken religious and social systems heavily bias in favor of men.

You must be registered to see the links

biased family courts - brought about and in answer to a broken system, although in fairness they have been broken for a very long time, long before your claims too.

cultural normalization of single motherhood - the sheer amount of context and information you purposefully leave out is mind blowing...

Because you didn't bother checking the proper ones:

if you can't figure out how to post links that's on you, those new links are not the origanal ones you botched....
Always someone else's fault

You're a funny guy. The whole tone of your replies is mockery. You just did the sanitized version. "Stop whining," "Stop exaggerating," "Some men are fine" - that is the modern version of "Man up." You're proving the point without realizing.

You rely on exaggerations because the facts disprove you point, you rely on misinformation because the data disproves your point, you rely on glossing over / ignoring distinctions because if you used the correct distinctions and context it would disprove you point. If your point can't stand on facts and data then it is not a valid point.

 

[MWPA78]

As opposed to when?

Depends on place. Compared to today, the average person perceived more meaning through genuine faith, alive traditions/community, and having a family around you which you prevented from dying through your work.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Men broke things, now some men and some women are trying to fix them, you can keep trying to avoid and ignore the facts but men created a broken system, men had over a thousand years to change and fix it and didn't, this is the eventual outcome.

I think this is a little extreme, overall I understand and agree in part with what you are saying with the rest of your points, but in the past thousand years western society went from feudalism to democracy women can contribute equally in. It has been in evolution for a thousand years, not a status quo sitting there waiting to be 'fixed'.

 

[morphnet]

Bro woke up with a PhD in Man Hating Logic lmao. Just walks in and discredits all historical evidences out of the door with that third paragraph like nah didn't happen. You know your claim that “we don’t know what would happen if women had built the system from the beginning” is kinda valid but arguing from absence of evidence is not a reliable method of prediction. While it’s true that most historical systems were built and dominated by men, there are examples of female-led societies and rulers, and they did not abandon conflict as a tool of governance.

Those female-led societies and rulers still had to work, govern, rule within political, social and religious systems created by men. They were not given the opportunities to create their own versions of those systems, to include or exclude those systems or to create completely new systems.

Queen Elizabeth I of England: someone I mentioned before iirc navigated a male-dominated court, yes, but she also launched the war against Spain, supported piracy, and crushed rebellions I mean she was hardly innocent.

Again, working, ruling within a established system created by men. It should also be noted that even when some men tried to change the system created by men they faced huge hurdles and only managed to change them in very few cases.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

If men found it hard to change systems created by men, how hard would it have been for women?

All your other examples all fall into the same category.

I don't know this obsession you guys have with projecting women with perfection but I know it's tempting to imagine that a matriarchal past would have led to a more peaceful world, such a belief lacks empirical grounding.

It has nothing to do with "projecting women with perfection", it's about correcting factually inaccurate, incorrect statements and points being used to create versions of history that do not match reality.

Also In post-war periods, women gained economic or political leverage when men died or were absent (ex :- after WWI and WWII, women gained more roles in industry and suffrage movements) I am not claiming they didn't suffer from war but did work out in their favour in some cases.

You might want to go re-read some history books if that is your take away....

Wars aren't just tools to fix or solve problems by men. If the military of your nation suddenly disappears what do you think is gonna happen?

The same thing that would happen if the military was still in place... nothing.

Or if let's say all nations in the world are ruled by women do you think it would end all wars?

No idea, it's never happen and never will.

Easy enough to say men die in wars men made but when those men show up at your doors who will be the first to be sent to fight them?

Those men decide should?

 

[morphnet]

I think this is a little extreme, overall I understand and agree in part with what you are saying with the rest of your points, but in the past thousand years western society went from feudalism to democracy women can contribute equally in.

That is only partially true, western society has some versions of democracy as well as other forms of government and women in some of those can contribute in a limited way but certainly not equally and certainly not in all.

It has been in evolution for a thousand years, not a status quo sitting there waiting to be 'fixed'.

For a thousand five hundred years there was no progress towards women being equal to men, slow progress over 500 years doesn't really reach evolution status, it's more along the lines of civil progress.

 

[Icarus Media]

Depends on place. Compared to today, the average person perceived more meaning through genuine faith, alive traditions/community, and having a family around you which you prevented from dying through your work.

Like attracts like, whilst total homogeneity is itself boring and ultimately even nature down to the genetic level abhors it and seeks difference in terms of genes, in terms of the macrocosm that is people and community, if you have people of similar class background, similar appearance, similar intelligence, similar language, similar religion, similar culture etc you have a far easier time in getting them to mesh and be harmonious, there is almost a quid pro quo in terms of aiding each other since it benefits yourself as well as the group.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

That is only partially true, western society has some versions of democracy as well as other forms of government and women in some of those can contribute in a limited way but certainly not equally and certainly not in all.

For a thousand five hundred years there was no progress towards women being equal to men, slow progress over 500 years doesn't really reach evolution status, it's more along the lines of civil progress.

Men have gained things before women, and that is an unfair truth. Men were not born equal etc. but that fight took a long time, voting took a long time, and the application of these new 'rights' lagged in being applied to women, but they also didn't exist for the majority of the population throughout history, man or woman.

But in today's world, women absolutely can contribute equally in most developed western societies. Trends in what roles people gravitate towards do exist, but that is now by choice rather than design.

 

[fyl3toys]

But in today's world, women absolutely can contribute equally in most developed western societies.

They can equally contribute on deez nuts.

 

[morphnet]

Men have gained things before women, and that is an unfair truth. Men were not born equal etc. but that fight took a long time, voting took a long time, and the application of these new 'rights' lagged in being applied to women, but they also didn't exist for the majority of the population throughout history, man or woman.

That's not true at all, there have always throughout history been ways for men to gain those and more rights.
Just one example

You must be registered to see the links

Also note that at the best of times women were considered second class citizens and in worse cases property.

But in today's world, women absolutely can contribute equally in most developed western societies. Trends in what roles people gravitate towards do exist, but that is now by choice rather than design.

In order to contribute equally women would need to have equal opportunities which due to discrimination and other bias they do not. That is not to say things have not improved but the reality is without equal opportunities their contributions can never be equal.

 

[Fzeren]

Depends on place. Compared to today, the average person perceived more meaning through genuine faith, alive traditions/community, and having a family around you which you prevented from dying through your work.

I'm scandinavian which means that my ancestors found meaning in raiding, pillaging, raping and enslaving. Are these the traditions you're talking about? or maybe you're referring to when the ottomans were going from village to village and killing all the 'combat-aged' males?

I don't mean to be too snarky, but it is a pet peeve of mine when people talk about some imagined past, as if people weren't having serious problems before the latter half of the 20th century.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

That's not true at all, there have always throughout history been ways for men to gain those and more rights.
Just one example

Also note that at the best of times women were considered second class citizens and in worse cases property.

Using your ancient Roman example both men and women WERE literal property. Yes, men were at the top of the pecking order, but just below the noble men were the noble women. People like to forget that throughout most of history many women were above the vast majority of the population. So what was more important to address in that scenario, making the top % of the population 50/50 men & women, or the abolition of slavery.

In order to contribute equally women would need to have equal opportunities which due to discrimination and other bias they do not. That is not to say things have not improved but the reality is without equal opportunities their contributions can never be equal.

Women have equal opportunities (at least in the world I live in), so I don't really see the discrimination or bias you are referring too (if anything there is now a slight bias towards woman at the moment with a push for 'equality'). If two people go for a job, the only factor should be their ability, nothing else. That is equality, any other factors are discrimination (and that cuts both ways).

 

[TheMagicalGurl]

OP needs an Espresso.

 

[Icarus Media]

I'm scandinavian which means that my ancestors found meaning in raiding, pillaging, raping and enslaving. Are these the traditions you're talking about? or maybe you're referring to when the ottomans were going from village to village and killing all the 'combat-aged' males?

I don't mean to be too snarky, but it is a pet peeve of mine when people talk about some imagined past, as if people weren't having serious problems before the latter half of the 20th century.

Old world blues...

You must be registered to see the links