Who do you think has it harder in life?

Women definitely and I'm saying this as a man.

Few reasons
- Giving birth
- Periods
- Harder to get respect in male dominant companies
- Lot of sexual harassment everywhere
- Double standards for active sex life

Damn, you reeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaally want that victim status don't you?

I’d bet to say that the “violent crimes” men experience are from men. And are also more gang related that anything.

You really wanna die on this hill. Lol. Do your finger hurt yet?

Women, easily. Periods, hymens, the substantial inconvenience of being physically weaker, the stigma of people thinking you're worse at just about everything, and the extra criticism you face when doing just about anything, especially by other women.

There's also the weird self-sexualization push, and I don't mean sexual harassment. As a guy, I've never felt the need or pressure to sell my body on the internet or elsewhere, but it seems like a go-to for women if things get bad financially just because it's available and works. It's harder for guys to do, so it rarely comes up, so the dark sides of it also rarely come up.

Multiple orgasms might be worth it, though, I don't know.

The disabled.

Lol what a cope, it's pretty clear Bandeez has the W. 🤷‍♀️ You're trying though, so respect. I haven't seen a discussion this spergy in a while

Me. I have it the hardest. All y'all can suck my dick.

*Far less social safety nets*
- Abuse shelters will turn men away because of their sex.
---Due to the statistics that men are far more likely to be the offenders.

- Some abuse lines will only refer to men as perpetrators and not victims.
---Anecdotal, and refer to the first answer.

- Far more funding put towards women's health issues.
---Who do you think organized that funding?

- Far more funding put towards women's well-being.
---Same as above, but likely has to do with the fact that men don't visit doctors as much as women do.

- Despite being the minority of those in education men don't, nor will, ever get things like affirmative actions or quotas like women did and still do get.
---Affirmative action is for socially marginalized groups, of which men are not (refer to history, which does indeed have lasting effects beyond your limited worldview).

*Standards in male/female dynamic*
- Men have a far larger expectation to financially support a woman which gives women less expectation in general when it comes to things like work and earnings. Men won't get the safety net of finding a woman to provide for him like a woman has of a man providing for her.
---Again, anecdotal. And overall this dynamic is changing, due to feminism.

- Abuse is acceptable against men by women, for example, slapping.
---Slapping is hardly abuse, and I'm sure an equal or more amount of men slap women.

- Rejection. Due to dating norms it's an expectation for men to make the first move and this results in far more men dealing with a larger trend of consistent rejection than a woman would have to face.
---Boo hoo. Try sticking to your own league and not being so desperate. I bet those rejection rates would go down drastically.

*Reproduction*
- Men cannot carry a child and therefor can't choose to opt out of parenthood like a woman can.
---Men's choice to opt out of parenthood occurs when they choose who to carelessly nut inside of.

- Men can be forced to provide for a child they never wanted simply because a woman wanted to have the child, and if they don't, they can face prison time.
---Ah, the consequences of your own actions.

- Paternity fraud.
---Don't know how tf you could let this occur, but try not being such a chump.

*Genital integrity*
- It's acceptable to mutilate a male baby's genitals but not acceptable to do the female equivalent (Neither should have it forced upon them). This can and does cause health issues.
---This argument is always hilarious, comparing cutting a tiny bit of skin off of a newborn (inb4 boo hoo, my weewee isn't as sensitive now!! but i still cum to porn everyday!!), with flat ironing a prepubsescent's breasts continually for years, slicing off her clitoris and labia in order to sew the vagina shut, to piss and bleed through a crusty pinhole, waiting for a man to rip it back open for his own pleasure. Both are bad, but the fact you think they're comparable just shows how weak your arguments are.

*Societal lack of care for men*
- Majority of suicides.
---Yep, as the sex responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes, it also extends to themselves.

- Majority of the homeless.
---Yeah, not many dudes willing to suck questionable dick in order not to get raped every night and/or bleed all over themselves every month, I suppose.

- Majority of addictions.
---The logical gender amiright.

- Majority suffering mental health issues.
---Damn those women and their emotional brains!!

- Majority of violent crime victims.
---By which sex, I wonder..?

- Despite these and more, women's issues and wellbeing are always at the forefront of what we are made to take issue with, sometimes even on the topics that men primarily suffer from and are disregarded from.
---The perks of being considered "the weaker sex" by society through all of history; condescenscion.

*Female crimes aren't punished*
- If a woman falsely accuses a man and that man is imprisoned for a period of time, even years, that woman most likely won't spend a day in prison as a consequence despite it ruining the life of the man proven innocent, despite admitting to knowingly false accusing that man.
---Another funny one. Compare statistics of false accusations, with proven cases where the guy doesn't spend a day in prison as a consequence.

- Paternity fraud. A man can spend his life paying for a child that wasn't his under the assumption the child was his and if not he can face prison time, and if he spends time in prison and it is later revealed that the woman lied that the child was his, she will not face punishment for the lie that led to that man being in prison nor will that man see a dime of the money she essentially stole from him with false pretences.
---You already said this one above. If you're stupid enough to fuck around with this type of women you're going to be a father figure to her child, what you choose to do with that fact determines your character since the child is innocent in all this.

- A woman can traumatize a man by cheating on him and still be afforded compensation in the form of alimony upon separation for the cheating.
---Ah, the consequences of your own actions.

*Obligation to country*
- In America men were given the ability to vote with the trade-off of societal obligation such as signing up for the selective service. This means a man must sign up to be on call to fight, kill, and die against his will for his country in order to fully operate in that country in the same legal manner a woman gets simply for being a citizen of that country.
---Wonder which sex decided that one?

*Strength*
- Men are physically stronger and therefor as a consequence it is acceptable for a woman to assault a man in a way that is not acceptable for a man to assault a woman, even if the force of the assault is on the same scale. Men's strength, in this manner, is used against him.
---Again, compare statistics of men physically injuring women vs. women physically injuring men.

- More expectation in regard to physical strength.
---It's called Biology.

- More physical strength carries more expectation to not become physical than those with lower physical strength.
---Yes.

*Sex work*
- This is an option a woman can take to get easy access to money, especially with things such as OnlyFans. Yes, with these things come stigmas however to characterize having this option in your back pocket as an example of women having it worse is not accurate as it affords women an additional financial opportunity that is far less available to men in need of money.
---Uhh, I'm sure there's plenty of equally disgusting women and men that will fuck you if you're as desperate and sleazy as those women you jerk off to.

*Social issues*
- As soon as there is a mainstream social issue in the works, women seem to always be at the forefront even if the social issue doesn't primarily affect them. An example of this would be BLM. Regardless of your views on BLM the purpose was to highlight Black men being murdered by police officers. Despite this, it's black women are the forefront of the movement that doesn't affect them directly and the men that the movement is about are pretty much erased from being at the forefront.
---Lol, wow. I guarantee you're an ''all lives matter'' kinda guy but I like how you used BLM just to fit your narrative.

*Appealing to men is not allowed*
- Our culture makes a point of making women's perspective on cultural issues the default and proper way to view topics. This means that when there are male figures that talk from the male perspective that aren't complimentary to women, he will be shunned regardless of the content of that perspective yet the female-led perspective that aren't complimentary to men are the default and considered acceptable by the mainstream.
---Anecdotal.

*Men can't talk about any of the things I've listed*
- Because of the things I've mentioned I will probably be deemed a misogynist, bitter, sexist, and the rest. Men are expected to not speak on things that affect them if it strays from the view you are expected to have which is that women are better and yet have a harder time operating in society. To speak on these things is to denounce the view that women universally have it worse on every topic and therefor you shouldn't speak of it less you be deemed a villain.
---You just did. Just like everyone in the manosphere that you're mirroring.

Just because you can't comprehend what's being said, doesn't mean someones arguing in bad faith. See ya next time!

I think people are (perhaps rightly) more dismissive of violence when the people involved are consenting, vs when you have a completely innocent victim. For example, a man walking down the street is beaten and robbed, vs 2 gang members fighting each other. I mean, the latter 2 signed up for the violence, the former was just existing. And so with women, it statistically happens to be that for the most part, they're just merely existing and receiving more violence, and more severe violence, vs men who are engaging in more "consenting" violence, and the whole fact that female on male violence is much rarer, and orders of magnitude less severe when it does happen.

Nobody is saying violence is ok, but violence, and importantly SEVERITY of the effects of violence, is clearly a male issue primarily and should be dealt with more from the male angle.

I think it depends more on the individual than their gender. Some people are much less fortunate than others due to life circumstances that are out of their control, such as disability or tragedy.

*Return investment*
- If these refuges are already being granted tax payer funding then adding more residents to them would not deduct from that funding, unless you're suggesting that abused men being granted access to these spaces would reduce the likelihood of funding, which would again play more in to my point.
---I'm saying that there would not be enough male victims to make men's shelters worthwhile, and there would not likely be any valid reason for men to co-opt shelters meant for women.

*Who organizes tax payer funding*
- That's not the right question, to which the answer is women's groups.
- The problem is that issues pertaining to men's abuse won't get the required funding. Erin Pizzley, the woman to create the first domestic violence shelter, also tried to champion this cause and it left her ostracized and vilified from the scene simply for attempting to involve male victims in obtaining help.
- When men try to organize around these matters they are often times vilified in the process which makes it far harder to get funding because of the stigma often pushed by women's groups, a lot of the time by the groups that get the funding you speak of. So obtaining that funding isn't as easy for men seeking to help men as it is for women seeking to help women due to cultural elements.
---Yeah, cultural elements such as women making up the vast majority of abuse victims, thus needing more funding.

*Social marginalization*
- It either works that way or wouldn't apply to women. Women weren't granted affirmative action because they didn't have access to education, they were granted it because there wasn't enough representation in portions of education.
- You can either expand on this or we can close this portion, I don't do blanket dismissals.
---Women are considered a marginalized group due to historical opression and it's ongoing effects. there was never a time when men were significantly opressed, so they wouldn't fit the purpose of affirmative action.

*Changing of norms*
- This was a massive pivot and didn't even address what I said.
- An anecdote is the antithesis of reality. You can't claim that what I said is both anecdotal and a reality that is "changing", these two things are directly opposed to one another. Either it's anecdotal or a reality that's "changing" but not yet "changed".
- Contributing more to the household does not refute my point that women prefer men that earn more. Women can contribute more to the household and still prefer men that contribute more than them financially.
---Correction: "Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner."
---Nor was it meant to. My point about men earning more on average is what refuted it.

*Men earning more*
- Wrong. You completely ignored the element where I mentioned that women prefer men that make more than them regardless of their own financial success, which makes men earning more on average (which varies depending on age) irrelevant because even if a woman is making similar amounts to the highest earners they still prefer men that earn more than them over the majority of men that do not. You intentionally ignored this portion of my comment to facilitate your response that is already addressed in hopes I would forget my very own point that already addressed your response.
- Women working more is in part due to feminism, but that wasn't the what was being discussed on this point.
---How is earning more a disadvantage to men? "Women want to take my money!!" Again, that can be avoided by not being a dumbass.

*Slapping isn't abuse*
- Well, that's where we differ. Just because there's isn't permanent damage does not negate that slapping is a form of abuse, that includes when a man slaps a woman.
- The studies vary. Some say that so much as 40% of domestic abuse victims are male. Granted, the more severe forms of abuse more often comes from men to women but I don't believe that forms of abuse are considered free from the abuse category just because they don't meet the upper severity cases. Maybe you do, but I don't like it when domestic abuse happens in any case, nor would I try to justify it by eliminating any form of abuse that does not fit a specific narrative, such as dismissing a woman slapped by their partner as not facing abuse simply because there are women punched in the face by their abusive partners.
---This is a debate on who has it worse. You kinda admit women have it worse here.

*Nice try*
- I mean, you got me. You think a man slapping a woman isn't abuse. I certainly wasn't expecting that...I guess you take the...Win there? (Just for the record I do think it's abuse)
---That's decent of you, I suppose. Honestly, I don't even find punching a woman to be abuse depending on the context, if for example she is genuinely equivalent in strength to the man, and it was deserved.

*Dating apps*
- That's the point. Women don't believe the average man attractive enough to consider partner material, where as the average man does find the average woman attractive enough to consider partner material, therefor making it easier for women.
- I don't know if you've just forgotten that my point is during this debate that men have a harder time in life.
--- Seems you're the one who forgot. "Easier" is subjective since you're comparing sexual attractiveness which is more often preferred by men, to emotional attractiveness which is more often preferred by women. You are comparing quantity over quality.

*Should of kept it in your pants*
- No, that isn't a strawman, it's just been rephrased but reaches the same end. You believe that if a man does the deed then he shouldn't have a choice after the fact, which is what "should of kept it in your pants" refers to.
- If you disagree with that sentiment then feel free to express it and I'll eat my words but if you do agree with that sentiment then don't throw out terms to pretend that isn't what you believe.
---Where did I say that?

*Justifying the lack of choice*
- This is only speculation if you aren't pro-choice. If you're pro-life then yes, I am mistaken and made a wrong assumption. Are you pro-choice?
---Well, I am pro-abortion in cases of rape or possibility of killing the mother, so I don't know if you want to count that as pro-choice. But it wouldn't help your argument. Unless you're willing to compare rape/death to losing money.

*It's your fault!/Paternity fraud*
- Again, justifying an improper act that can have authorities force a man to pay for a child or go to prison for not paying for a child that is not his without punishing the woman regardless of if her lies resulted in a man's human rights being revoked.
- You're okay with men having authorities revoke their human rights and don't believe men should be entitled to justice when that occurs due to a woman. Being a dumbass does not entitle another to revoke that "dumbass'" human rights.
- This one we can close down. If you think that's acceptable then there's not much that can be added.
---Not what I said, but whatever.

*How well is this going for you*
- I'll clear it up. You're demonstrating the attitudes towards men I highlighted that men face in life rather than disproving them, further validating my initial comment. I'm just curious if you thought that by validating my initial comment if you thought you were somehow disproving them. It's okay, we can close this one down too, it was a posture and needless gloating on my part.
---Not really, I'm demonstrating them towards "anti-feminist" type of men only. I love normal men who don't feel threatened by women and don't play the victim constantly.

*Circumcision*
- Fair point. I overlooked you claiming "Both were bad" while you were ridiculing the fact that I was even bringing it up in the majority of that portion of your comment.
- I did not make any false equivalency. I never said both procedures or consequences were the same. What I was highlighting was the fundamental point that both share, which is that to commit it on anybody is to take away their right to genital integrity.
- The point here, which again you seem to be missing, is that one of them is illegal and one of them is legal, therefor the seriousness between the two should go primarily to the one that is still legal but you opted to belittle the point by comparing it to the female equivalent which we both agree is also bad but is also...Already Illegal.
---Then there was no need for you to compare them.
---One of them is illegal because it is far worse.

*I burst out laughing/male suicide*
- You're not stating facts and your points are emotion based. This is why even on the points we agree on you need to pivot it in to making women the primary victims of something that doesn't happen legally.
- You said men commit suicide because they're violent, which implies you think men commit suicide not out of any particular issue other than wanting to commit violence they have extended to themselves. If you can say that and then follow it up by claiming you're "fact based" and "not emotional", then yeah I'm gonna laugh.
---That is your personal interpretation. I'm not the one trying to strengthen my points by repeatedly inserting "You're evil, you don't care!!" etc.
---I said the reason men's suicide rates are higher is because they are predisposed to use more violent methods which more likely guarantee death. Female suicide *attempts* are higher. So if you want to go with the "particular issue" thing, that should be significant to you.

*Homeless/you can't appeal to pity*
- Again, you're saying this right after the previous point where you claimed men commit suicide because they want to commit violence so much that they extend that behaviour to themselves, I don't think you can make that claim of being willing to afford pity here, chief.
---Not what "appeal to pity" means, but nice try.

- You're not mirroring me at all, I'm not like you, dude. You're the sexist one here with contempt for men who makes excuses for the suffering put upon them. If a woman was dealing with any of the things I've listed and there was male centres to account for any of them, I wouldn't be sitting here like, "Well who funds them, huh? Yeah! Get your own funding!" I'd be saying, "No, she's suffering the same and needs the support men's centres can provide, bring her in"...Don't sit there with this absurd claim that you're batsh*t insane comments thus far are shared sentiments between us, they're not, they're yours and you can take them back if you like which would actually be pretty wholesome but don't try to fling that hot potato on my lap, you baked it so stand by it or throw it away.
---Lol. Cool virtue signalling.

*Lack of emotional restraint in a logical debate*
- Your comment was dismissive with an attempt at humour towards a serious topic that affects not only people with addictions but their families, and upon me representing that behaviour as a lack of care you then attribute emotional responses to me while claiming you're being logical by dismissing an important topic with humour at the expense of those that suffer under the topic referenced? Like, okay chief.
- This is anything but a logical debate thus far, nor do I believe one can be facilitated with you.
---Literally no one else is reading this so, it's not really at the expense of anyone but you.
---Whatever you gotta tell yourself there, chief.

*Male on male violence*
- I never made this claim implying there was a male/female dynamic involved, you assumed that to be the case because you seen a point in regards to men suffering and rather than treat it as something men suffer from most you defaulted from how it effects women.
---So you admit that men are the problem?

*How is being treated as inferior a privilege*
- Again, the very comment you responded to claiming women are considered the weaker sex explains this. I'll copy and paste.
- Despite these and more, women's issues and wellbeing are always at the forefront of what we are made to take issue with, sometimes even on the topics that men primarily suffer from and are disregarded from.
- When you are perceived as being the weaker group you are given protections, even if you're not the primary group affected by a particular matter.
---Yeah, people tend to help those with greater disadvantages first.

*Using your logic against you*
- But I never said men that r*pe should get away with r*pe just because a woman gets away with a false allegation.
- You're literally just making things up on the spot now over what you assume I believe rather than what is put in front of you.
---No. I literally copied and pasted your wording in the last part of that sentence. "Compare statistics of false accusations, with proven cases where the guy doesn't spend a day in prison as a consequence." Meaning, that false accusations happen far less than actual verifiable rapes, and very often guys walk away from those rapes without any consequence, even when they are caught.

- This also means that while you're making false comparisons to my positions in an attempt to falsely "mirror" me that you're obfuscating from actually addressing the points I brought up because you're too busy making false assumptions of my positions to mirror.
---Sure.

*It's your fault for them cheating and taking alimony*
- Okay, then what about when a woman cheats AFTER you marry them? You can't make the decisions not to marry someone that's a cheater until they do the actual act of cheating, which is why it's wrong for authorities to force you to further pay the woman who cheats on a man who couldn't possibly of known they were going to cheat. What even is this line of argument?
- Okay...I...Aw, man. How old are you? So you're comparing someone saying, "Hey, I don't think if a woman cheats in a relationship that they should be entitled to alimony from the person they cheated on" with "Hey, it's okay to r*pe a woman because she's stupid and didn't pick a nice guy"? How in any way are these two things "the same thing"?
- Also, just for the record, of course a woman shouldn't be blamed for being r*ped.
---I'm saying, calling a guy stupid for picking a manipulative, psycho, golddigger wife, is no different than all the guys on your side who see an abused woman and say "she should have picked a nice guy!!!" or see report of a woman getting raped and say "she shouldn't have been doing / wearing that!!!" or perhaps more your speed: "Are you SUUURE she was raped? The man could be the victim here!"

*Men being slapped*
- Okay, so we agree. It shouldn't be culturally acceptable for a woman to slap a man.
---Correct.
- I'd like to say we're getting somewhere but my God your response has reached levels of depravity I didn't expect.
---Cool.

*Biological function*
- At this point I don't even know what you're talking about. I don't know how your response to men having more expectations of strength based on their biology and that does not make someone entitled to that biological function somehow relates to emotional outbursts. Seems like you're just throwing things at the wall now to see what sticks.
---No one is entitled to it. It's your responsibility to control your rage. Your argument was "More physical strength carries more expectation to not become physical than those with lower physical strength." I am assuming "become physical" means 'fighting' here, no? And what causes people to fight? Anger is an emotion.

*Everyone is expected to do what they can, so men's expectation of strength is justified*
- Okay, then we agree that there is an expectation of men women don't have to live up to.
---Sure, just like all the expections of women that men don't have to live up to.

*Sex work*
- When that sex work can be a choice made as an extra avenue to make income, in some cases large income for a low amount of work due to the nature of that work, then yes it is definitely a benefit to have. We know this because many women have taken that choice and live luxurious lives as a result with things such as OnlyFans, even leaving valuable jobs to society to enter sex-work. This is not an avenue afforded to men so easily in comparison which thus gives women a benefit.
---No. You just value wealth more than your self-respect.

*BLM*
- I used it as an example that women are given far more credence culturally that they can usurp the intended group a movement is for and make themselves the representatives of an issue that affects them very little in comparison to the group the movement was intended for.
---K.

*Name three men*
- It's not on me to provide the burden of proof of something non-existent, not existing. You made the claim that what I said was "anecdotal", implying that what I said isn't true. In order to make that claim with certainty you must have proof of the thing existing that I said does not exist. So that burden is on you, I'm afraid.
---Again, your definitions are wrong. May want to study basic logic as well - you made the first claim, you're responsible for providing examples.

*We live in a society*
- Another example of simply dismissing the complaint. You mock the idea of men not being able to speak of these things in the mainstream, further demonstrating the attitude my argument is highlighting.
---Actually, I'm advising you take the hint. There's a reason no one in reality is interested in what you're peddling, and it's not because it's "too revolutionary" or whatever you’re thinking.

what would you do if a moth flew at you at 3 am

- Your rebuttal that there are more male offenders does not justify not affording safe refuge to men that are victims. You are using negative generalizations to justify good men who fall victim to abuse a lack of care.
---Yes, it logically does justify it. The return on investment would be far too low.

- You claim this is anecdotal yet just supported this being the norm in the above comment.
---No, I said that business ventures are going to cater to their demographic.

- Tax payer funding.
---And who organized that?

- Like men who are at a lower percentage of upper education. Women received this option when their percentage of attendance in certain field were lacking but that same treatment is not afforded to men now that they're lacking in education.
---Not what affirmative action is, sorry. Unless you're talking about poor people, but they are offered the same assistance regardless of gender.

- You claim this is anecdotal and yet refer to this norm "changing". You can't claim this is not a reality but then claim this reality is changing, otherwise there would be no change to be had in the direction you attribute to feminism.
---Yes, I am saying that relationship dynamics vary greatly, and women work and contribute to the household far more nowadays.

- This is not changing due to feminism, women still overall prefer a man that earns more than them regardless of their own financial status and despite women being in the workforce for an entire generation, women are still not willing to take on stay at home husbands to the extent men are willing to take on stay at home wives.
---Men earn more on average so that doesn't indicate a female preference. Women having more presence in the workplace is absolutely a result of feminism, sorry to break it to you.

- I don't need to add anything further, you just demonstrated my point that is acceptable with your own words.
---Yeah, slapping is negligible for either gender in my opinion. If you want to talk real abuse, you know who is statistically far higher to perpetrate it which I'm guessing is why you copped out.

- You then try to turn this on men by saying you're sure men slap women just as much but I will bet upon asking you if it's "hardly abuse" if a man slaps a woman your answer would be "of course not! It is abuse!" yet when it comes to a woman slapping a man it's, "Hardly abuse".
---Nice try.

- A dating app study showed that men were 50% likely to accept a "match", where as women were only 20% likely. In fact studies from those dating apps showed that women viewed the average man to be below average in terms of physical attraction. This means that your claims of men not "sticking to their league" is far more demonstrated behaviour from women than men because the average woman doesn't believe the average man to be average on the scale of attractiveness and therefor believes herself to be above the average man in attractiveness.
--- Would you like to set your dating app to male, and tell me how many of them you would also turn down? "But I don't find those men attractive!!" ...neither do the women who turned them down. Females are going to be "above average" by default due the average males' desperation for sex.

- Your response to men not having the option to opt out of parenthood is, "should of kept it in your pants" but when responding to women's choice to opt out of parenthood you would not accept "keep it in your pants" as a justified response to their ability to choose.
---Cool strawman.

Again, simply justifying the lack of choice that you would not accept being put towards a woman's right to choose even if she fell pregnant by her own actions.
---More speculation here.

- "It's your fault!" Yup.
---It's your fault for being a dumbass, yes.

- Realistically, how well do you think this is going from your end when you're simply validating everything I've said so far?
---Don't know what you're asking here but probably more emotional incontinence / posturing

- Again, just simply justifying it. You don't care if a male's right to choose over his own body is infringed even with the risks to health involved, you just think it's "funny".
--- Justifying what? I literally said that circumcision is bad. What's funny is how much of a false equivalence comparing it to FGM is, and the fact I've heard it used over and over.

- I actually burst out laughing at this point. Again, a complete lack of care of good men dying and immediately pivoted as a way to demean them.
---I'm here to state facts not get emotional.

- "It's your fault you're homeless 'cus you ain't gay, cuz".
- You're starting to become a meme. Like, I know there's a complete lack of care for men in our culture but I don't even think it's normal to have a complete lack of care in men to the degree you do, you actually seem to genuinely hate men.
---Again, sorry you can't appeal to pity since I'm being objective here.
---Btw I'm only mirroring your level of care towards women lol.

- Lack of care, complete dismissal, mockery.
---Lack of emotional restraint in a logical debate.

- Dismissal of male victims simply for sharing the same sex as their offenders.
---When you are making it out to be a male vs female issue, I am going to remind you that it's largely a male issue, yeah.

- Seems being the "weaker sex" has privileges I'm speaking of, huh?
---How is being seen as inferior a privilege?

- Women shouldn't get punished for debauching a man's human rights because another man somewhere else may fall through the cracks of the justice system? If I said that men getting away with r*pe was justified because women get away with false allegations you would recoil, as you should.
---Uhh, I was literally using your "logic" against you there lol. You almost got it.

- So it's the man's fault that he can be traumatized by their partner cheating on them and the authorities can force the man to further be traumatized by having to pay for the woman that cheated on him?
- Did I also mention dismissal and lack of care for men? 'Cus yeah, that.
---It's your fault for marrying a scumbag, yes. Let me use your speculation tactics here and say, I bet you're the type of guy who blames women for getting raped or abused for "not being careful" or not picking "nice guys". Same thing.

- Just because men can and do harm women does not mean that it should be culturally acceptable for a woman to assault a man just because he is stronger.
---Yeah, but the occurrence is negligible in comparison.

- Biological function does not justify expectations to have access to that biological function. I'd be careful with where you take this one, chief.
---Nice try, but the implication was it's more embarrassing for you if you can't control your emotional outbursts as an adult.

- Glad you agree there's more expectation put on men.
---Everyone is expected to do what they can, so yeah men are going to be expected to have greater physical strength due to their biological advantages. I don't see how you're considering that a hindrance.

- Nope. This is why there are far more female sex content creators than men because there's a larger market for it among heterosexual men.
---Don't know how you're trying to use "not being a sexual commodity" as a lose for males lol. Grass is always greener I guess.

- You didn't even bother to try and account for this one so I'm not even going to bother replying to it.
---Yeah, that one was too ridiculous for a response. How are you gonna use BLM for an argument while acknowledging it's dubiousness as an organization?

- Name three of such men for me, please.
---Your fallacy is: Burden of proof.

- Of course they can literally speak on these things but they can't do so without immediate disapproval, nor would they ever be seriously brought up in mainstream culture to the same extent female topics on the male/female dynamic are brought up.
---Boo hoo. "we live in a society!!"

The acceptance of physical assault is a byproduct of being more easily able to handle the physical assault. I know that sounds messed up and that doesn't make it right, I agree, but you have to weigh that with being essentially immune to half the population. I also don't feel right talking about the "higher expectations" when I haven't yet been subject to a military draft.

I'm afraid we cannot agree that the mainstream criticizes men more than women. Men may be portrayed a certain way compared to women in media, but when it comes down to criticism of the real person's looks, acting, behavior, beliefs, etc. it's usually heavier on women.

The sex work thing isn't just a "stigma"; it's not this cool source of free money that men should be clamoring to get in on. It's women being used by the kinds of people that pay to use women, and if they're doing it in-person, they are the ones that run the risk of stalking, injury, and pregnancy. All stigma could be completely removed and it still wouldn't be a glamorous or desirable position. It's a career path that is entirely contingent on how sexually attractive they are and otherwise cares very little about them as people.

You can't victimize men when men are the aggressors. Male on male violence is a male problem. Honestly, if any racial minority committed crime in such disproportionately high rates as men do (compared to women), segregation would still exist. The only reason men are part of civilized society is for procreation and manual/military labor.

LOL and men COMMIT the vast majority of violent crime. Think it through

Generally speaking about modern life as a whole, women. There are regions of the world and age groups where this will change though.

For instance, 40 year-old men are generally expected to be the providers of their households while 20 year-olds typically share the responsibility. Additionally, in certain parts of the world women are treated far worse than others.

I think both have it probably as hard in different areas. If this were 100 years ago I would have put women, hands down, but in the West, currently, and since there's no third option for both, I'd put men have it worse (only in the West though, and only by a hair).

Men are the ones who build and maintain the infrastructure and many cases work themselves to death. They're swimming through sewers to unclog them and doing very undesirable jobs. Women complain about equality but these fields are 99% male dominated and no woman cares about it but they certainly care about equality in positions of power.

Men. Lots of pressure to perform and provide. And the marriage laws favor the wife by far.

Men have it harder in life, including me, there's not enough attention on a poor man these days, even if men are gay, trannies, or transgender, it's worse off than women. Women have everything from the man: jewellery, a house, food, money, and men are struggling to be understood by women. Of course the answer's staring you in the face: you should marry her, because you're so desperate to propose a marriage. It's actually very simple, women should respect men and men should respect women, not the other way around. A man struggles through his hardships, I've seen myself do it, and I even struggle with money, besides that the bottom line is life's not easy. It's a bullshit thing when pessimism is the only truth, yes, as I find out as it's trying to prove it's not pretty, as women have no idea how lucky they are with men and even their son.

Sure women probably have it a little harder physically and financially, but as a man, your peers and society will have much higher expectations of you. Not as much for women. This is why housewives are even a thing.

Victimization is nearly 50/50, yet violent crime perpetuation is around 90/10 m/f. That clearly shows women have it worse in this category.

Sorry, I wrote 10% but that's wrong. The difference (according to the FBI statistics) was about 10,000 victims, not 10%. I just got it mixed up in my head. So, the total male victims was 419,505 and the female victims was 408,337. Unknown was 4,091.

"My point on this is that as you introduced a factor to reduce the percentage of innocent male victims..."

No, I was not talking about innocent male victims, I repeatedly, specifically, said I was referring to men willingly engaging in crime or violence, thus having some responsibility in their victim status. All victims are not created equal in most peoples eyes, and that's why people are dismissive of certain victims. You know this, and you agree, at least when it suits you to.

"Are you suggesting that an allegation of a crime is considered in the overall statistics of crimes known to have happened?"

It depends on the study. Some, yes, some no.. Read the study that you're looking at. Some studies get data from police reports, some get them from surveys, etc. You have to check the methodology and references for any study you're looking at.

"This is why we can't consider such unreported crimes."

Well, you brought up unreported crimes, not me.

You seem to feel personally attacked whenever someone merely points something out or challenges your view, thus causing you to get upset, and instead of talking about the actual issue it is just paragraph after paragraph of you assigning nefarious traits to whomever you're debating. Chill the fuck out, and just stop with the emotional rants, strawmen, and shit. I'm fine with debating you on the actual issues but I'm not going to put up with being essentially called a liar, or my dry, factual points twisted and distorted. OK?

Nearly 50/50, because that's what it said. I didn't save the numbers, but it was roughly 10% more for men, IIRC. And for offenders, 85 to 90% is hardly exact, and if you just looked at it, I said that because the numbers literally say that...some said 90% male offenders, some had a gender unknown portion of about 5% so I gave the benefit of the doubt to MEN actually by noting that 85% (the lower %) is possible. That's just what I read, and I posted what I read. There is no hidden motive.

Locating a perpetrator doesn't have any bearing on this particular set of statistics.. The statistics we're talking about in this instance are based on police reports, so the victim is counted regardless of the offender being found or not.

Sure, I'd count unreported/underreported crime victims. But then you're also going to be including rape and sexual assault, which is supposedly the most underreported type of crime, and skews heavily to female victims. I mean, whatever you want. If you want to include unreported crime estimates, then please post the numbers on that.

As for your last question, are we going by the police report data or are we now counting unreported crime too? Police report data seems to show slightly more male victims.

I didn't really have a position on it as I didn't actually know the numbers. I knew men participated/perpetrated significantly more violent crime, so I had a feeling that just by that fact alone, more men would naturally be victims of violence as well. So, I guess I'd say I was leaning towards men suffering more just by raw numbers, however as I was saying before....I'd exclude men who were willingly participating in violence/crime. Whether or not that would skew it towards women having it worse, I had no idea, so no position there.

Having taken a (brief) look at the numbers myself yesterday, it was pretty surprising to see that apparently violent crime victimization is nearly 50/50 by gender in the US, and violent offenders were 85-90% male. Don't take that as me having a solid opinion on things, I haven't studied it enough yet. That's just from a basic search and a few sources.

I personally like to get a range of sources, government is usually a starting point and then academic. It just depends on the quality of it. Nothing too biased either way.

What about being falsely accused of sexual assault and being imprisoned. Does this happen to women too? This must be the worse thing in the world apart from being the victim of the same.
Or even just losing your job, wife, children, house, car etc.(and not being able to get back because your name has been destroyed) because of false accusations of sexual assault.
Also when women are wrongfully imprisoned, for anything, are they violently raped by other inmates? that must be the worst thing in the world:(

I don't understand why you won't just post the numbers. You did make the claim that this is one of the ways men have it harder, so the burden of proof is on you to show it.

There's really no need to fly so many accusations at me, say that I'm saying things I'm not even saying, or any of that. Just post the numbers! I'm not going to spend hours going over and correcting every misunderstanding and acknowledging every accusation, all I want to talk about at this point is the numbers, what do the numbers say?

Rittenhouse victims would be included in gun death/injury statistics and most homicide statistics, so you have to be careful in reading the numbers. The way to tell if these victims are included in whatever statistics you're basing your point on would be for you to post the links that you're referencing so we can check the methodology, but most likely any homicide statistics would include them even though it wasn't criminal homicide.

Well, twice now you've opened your comment by accusing me of saying "most male victims are to blame" essentially, and then accusing me of "manipulating numbers" to make said point (a point I never made, by the way).

You (copied and pasted word for word): SaddleGoose
2 days ago | pl
I'm disagreeing that most men that are victimised are themselves guilty of the acts they are falling prey to which led to them being victimised by violent crime, which is the narrative you are offering.

SaddleGoose
2 days ago | pl
The problem I see with what you're putting forth is that despite not knowing those statistics yourself you've immediately defaulted to using the subject of gang violence as a means to dismiss the severity of men being victims by trying to taint the percentage we should care for, and I personally believe the intended purpose of this is so that you can artificially manipulate the numbers to say women fall victim to violent crime more when it isn't the case.
----

I never said most, you keep saying that I did. All I said was-basically- that yeah, while males make up more victims, they also participate more, and certainly some are responsible for their "victim status". I said I don't know the numbers, it could be most, it could be less, what is it? Do you even know?? Show the numbers, exclude those that have responsibility in their fate. You made the claim that this is a disadvantage that men face, so either show the real numbers or drop it. You made the claim, so prove it. Once you post the honest numbers, then we can discuss it.

Re: the Rittenhouse discussion, when discussing him, his victims were meaningless or they deserved it because defending Kyle was more important at the time, so they didn't count for anything then. But magically, when trying to show that men have it bad, all of a sudden those same victims are useful as a statistic to use, so now they matter. Flip-flop. Either they matter or they don't, you can't just use them either way depending on your debate that day. I mean, you do realize that there's numerous men that you've personally trashed and denied victims status, they're actually included as victims in the male violent crime statistics, right?

Again, I never said anything about "most" victims, or claimed most male crime victims shared blame. I don't know where you're getting that from.

You made the point that men have it worse due to violent crime victimization rates, however you did not provide the statistics, nor did you even mention that a portion of those victims may share blame in their fate. That seems dishonest.

I think you and I had a conversation about Rittenhouse a while back. It's interesting, some of the points that seem to flip and flop or become more or less important depending on what you're trying to argue.

I don't think it's good to bitch-slap your significant other but yeah it can be justified in some circumstances and definitely isn't comparable to what I would consider domestic abuse.

Um I meant a harmless bitch-slap, not the Sean Connery hitting someone to the floor and they pass out type of abuse. I honestly didn't follow the conversation that closely so I don't know what Bandeez meant when she said "it's hardly abuse when a man slaps a woman" but I assume that's what she meant as well. This is getting unnecessarily pedantic and I think you're grasping at straws trying to virtual signal and accuse your opponent of condoning abuse when you know full well that's not what they mean. The logical gender amiright

Men thinking a slap constitutes "domestic violence" shows how little you take domestic violence seriously

I didn't say most male victims carry blame. Honestly, I don't know the statistics on victims, I was just saying that there are types of violence where you have "consenting" people involved, thereby creating a circumstance much different than one with a "pure victim". These situations, in my opinion, should be judged differently both morally and -to an extent- legally. It's not "oh, you deserved to die" (unless we're talking self-defense), it's just being realistic about risk, and not infantilizing men (do you not think men can consent to fight? Do dangerous activities?)

The difference with rape is, by definition there can't be consent. The perpetrator is 100% of the time a criminal and the victim is always a victim, no matter the circumstance. I get what you're saying, that someone can possibly increase or reduce their odds of getting raped, MAYBE. But no matter what you do, no one has the right to rape you, nor can you consent to it. You could be mid-sex with someone and want to stop, doesn't get more "risky" than that really, and it's still rape if things don't stop when you say "no".

People certainly do judge and victim blame when it comes to rape, in fact it's probably the absolute worst for victim blaming. It even spills into the legal side.

There's violence as a broad term, and then there's analysis of specific violent acts. The circumstances of the act are taken into account and judgements are made from that. Are you saying that that's unfair and that any act of violence is equal to all others?

For instance, all killing is violence, but the circumstances of the killing will impact how the situation is dealt with legally, how it is viewed morally, etc. Is that wrong in your opinion? Is someone who killed by accident, or in self-defense, equal to someone who purposely killed someone for no reason? On the victim side, is a man who was just walking home and gets killed for his wallet the same as a man who was killed while breaking into someone's home?

I'd have to disagree with your r*pe example though, as there's never a legitimate reason to r*pe anyone, whereas there's many circumstances where violence may be warranted (defensive, typically).

In undeveloped countries, women by far. In the western world, men.

Me

😮

Socially speaking (in first worlds), neither.

Biologically speaking (and in undeveloped societies), women, generally.

I didn’t vote on the poll though. “Who has it harder” isn’t male v female. It’s privileged v disadvantaged, and either gender can be in either group.

Yeah, assault is never justified. My point was basically that, when it does happen, it doesn't tend to harm men as much.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Those are all just buzzwords, and they all specifically target behavior. Not performance, not achievements, not your face or personal life. It's a lot less personal and a lot easier to "fix", if anyone really takes it that seriously (and I don't know who does), than something like the sound of your voice.

Even for cam sites, my last line still applies. It's a career path that's entirely contingent on how sexually attractive they are and cares very little about them otherwise. It's almost like being a celebrity, except there's no way for them to be relevant anywhere outside of porn unless they break out of it. And that's assuming they're successful and enjoy doing it! If they got into it because they needed the money, it's automatically darker because that's essentially the same as being forced into it, and there's an inherent loss of dignity that comes alongside being naked in front of strangers when that wasn't what you had planned for yourself.

Trannies.

Life is equally hard for both, The difference is that we men don't play victim.

Currently or historically. Historically it was totally women, no argument there.

Currently it's up to serious debate. Men arent treated fairly by the education space and get loaded up with drugs when they are kids because they want to be out of a seat.

From Bill Burr's perspective, women had it pretty easy when the Titanic was sinking, just saying. 😂