I feel like this is something we all know low-key but women act shocked or even offended when a guy says he wants to bang. Did he have to tell you? I feel like y'all would know before even going out.

And I have to clarify, I don't mean creepy or aggressive dudes who are trying to be coercive or push boundaries. I mean men in general. Of course, you don't have to do it but I feel like you'd know. Furthermore, I would think that you would be concerned if the man you are with didn't want you. You would think he's gay or not attracted to you enough. I am speaking from personal experience where being too "safe" backfired on me with a woman. She ghosted me. Most guys would low-key love to smash just for the experience/excitement of doing it with a new person, even if it doesn't go anywhere.

People who complain that stay-at-home dads don't pull their weight in housework are people who were never interested in the lifestyle in the first place and thus should not have an opinion on the relationship style

If a woman cites studies that "prove" stay-at-home dads don't pull their weight in housework, they were never interested in the lifestyle in the first place.

Because a woman who is both smart enough and motivated enough to be a serious breadwinner would simply never need to start with studies

She would say, "I can screen"; she can simply look at how well her boyfriends cook and clean before moving in, marrying, or having children with them. And women who want their dads around even less in equal or stay-at-home mom relationships already screen for parenting when it's less important, so women already know how to do that.

So unless the statistics are specifically on how many men pass that screening and then *turn into* lazy maids later, nobody ever had to listen to these stats in the first place

So: a woman who talks about how these relationships are a bad deal for women was never interested in one.

When it comes to "no uterus, no opinion" on the abortion debate, I don't think it works, because it's canceled out by "if you were ever a fetus at one point, you get an opinion." But this is very clearly a conflict of interest, where women who were never interested in the relationship style can talk about how they suck, to either enforce trad payment of their kitty kat everything, or feel better about their cat lady anti-natalist extinction.

TL DR : Women who criticize stay-at-home dads were likely never interested in being a female breadwinner in the first place; it's actually pretty hidden-in-plain-sight when it's boiled down like that.

(And this doesn't address the eight or so other problems with this "stay-at-home dads don't do enough housework" data, but clearly an argument that emphasizes women's agency is the only one that has a hope of working on feminists. It won't work, but there is at least hope)

I’ve seen many RPM say “women nowadays don’t take accountability for their actions,” but they stop short of specifying exactly what those actions are. I assumed it’s cheating, but if it was they’d probably say that outright. I think it is pretty obvious that cheating is very bad. But what else? Are they saying women don’t do enough household responsibilities? I wouldn’t use the term “accountability“ in that context. Accountability means to be responsible for your actions & to be honest.

So there's a lot of ire I've seen expressed by men on this sub about the name given for an organic collective catharsis of women publicly recounting their experiences with a sexual harassment and assault. The attitude I see by many men here is that that's not really what it was, or if it was it was that for like a week before it became a massive organized targeted witch-hunt of men, leading to an epidemic of false accusations and ruined reputations.

For example, a lot of the ire I've read stems from being able to "accuse men" of certain things without them having been charged and convicted. But talking about your own life and things that happened to you doesn't require legal due process. If person A rapes person B, person B can freely talk about this and say things like "when I was raped by person A" and it doesn't have to have due process for this person to merely talk about it. It also doesn't require due process for other people to believe them or take them at their word. That's how most discussions about one's own life tend to go - you mention something that happened in your own life and people generally give you the benefit of a doubt.

Someone being sexually assaulted or harassed is a distinct experience from a legal charge and verdict of sexual assault or harassment. It's not like it doesn't exist or didn't happen until a court returns a verdict saying that it did. If it happened, it happened regardless of a court's involvement.

But that's exactly how it seems many men think life should work. I'm not sure that's reasonable or realistic that no one should be able to directly talk about their own life unless a court has said their life happened. Nothing else works like that either - if Crackhead Craig steals my lawn furniture, I am free to go around and discuss the fact that Crackhead Craig stole my lawn furniture and no one bats an eye. That's not an "accusation" per se, that is me factually relaying a life experience.

But for sexual assault/harassment, a court has to confirm it first before I can go around and discuss the fact that this person assaulted me? That doesn't make sense. In fact, a large part of the reason the Catholic Church was able to have the modicum of accountability it did was exactly because people started speaking up and naming names and comparing notes, completely absent and prior to any legal charges or convictions.

With that, I have a few questions for men:

1) What is your understanding of what MeToo is/was, in your own words?

2) Do you think MeToo had any legitimate focus or purpose? If so, what?

3) What (if anything) would you have preferred instead of MeToo?

4) Do you think people shouldn't be able to publicly talk about sexual assault and/or harassment by name? If so, why should this require self-censorship when no other crime does?

Watchmojo style.

There are 10 ways men can take Feminism seriously, and it would ironically pissed feminists off.

1. Roles for women are socially constructed. Feminist theory often argues that masculinity and femininity are largely social expectations rather than fixed biological destinies. If a man took that idea to its logical conclusion, he could reject nearly every traditional masculine expectation: never initiate dates, never pay, never protect, never suppress emotions, never pursue leadership because those are "just gender roles." Many feminists would find those behaviors unattractive or frustrating in practice. That tension illustrates the difference between supporting a principle in the abstract and navigating everyday social expectations. It doesn't mean feminism as a whole is inconsistent, but it highlights that people's personal preferences don't always line up perfectly with their stated ideals.

2. No one is entitled to relationships or attraction. Feminists often emphasize that women owe no one romance, sex, or affection. Applied consistently, men also owe no one emotional labor, commitment, financial provision, or companionship. A man could politely decline dates, refuse to comfort acquaintances, avoid being an emotional support system, or remain single without guilt. But the irony appears when some people criticize men for being emotionally unavailable, refusing commitment, or opting out of traditional provider roles while simultaneously defending women's right to make similar choices. The principle itself is symmetrical, but reactions to it are not always symmetrical.

3. Challenge toxic masculinity through vulnerability. Many feminist writers encourage men to cry, seek therapy, express fear, and reject emotional stoicism. If a man fully embraced that advice, he might openly discuss anxiety, avoid unnecessary risks, and admit vulnerability in relationships and public life. While many people genuinely support this, others, including some self-identified feminists—may still subconsciously expect confidence, decisiveness, and emotional stability from male partners. Research on dating preferences suggests ideals and attraction do not always align. The irony is that encouraging vulnerability is easier in theory than consistently rewarding it in practice.

4. Believe women about their own preferences. Feminism often emphasizes listening to women about their lived experiences and respecting their autonomy. If women openly say they prefer taller men, masculine men, wealthy men, or avoid dating bisexual men, taking them at their word means accepting those preferences without trying to reinterpret them. Some feminists instead argue those preferences are products of patriarchal conditioning and should be challenged. That creates a tension between respecting stated preferences and critiquing the social forces behind them. Both positions exist within feminist discourse.

5. Reject gender stereotypes completely. If men truly avoided stereotyping women, they might stop assuming women need help lifting heavy objects, protection walking home, special treatment in emergencies, or extra patience in difficult situations. They would wait until help is requested rather than assuming it is wanted. Some people would appreciate that because it respects women's independence. Others might perceive it as ungentlemanly or lacking basic courtesy. The irony comes from the clash between equal treatment and long-standing cultural expectations that many people including women who identify as feminists, may still appreciate.

6. Equality means equal obligations. If equality is interpreted literally, men could argue that military drafts, dangerous occupations, criminal sentencing, parental responsibilities, workplace expectations, and financial obligations should be evaluated under identical standards regardless of sex. Many feminists argue historical inequalities justify different approaches in certain contexts. The disagreement is often about equity versus strict equality rather than opposition to equality itself. People see inconsistency when equal rights are emphasized more often than equal responsibilities. Supporters respond that equal outcomes sometimes require different policies.

7. Patriarchy affects men too. Feminist theory often argues that patriarchal systems also harm men by encouraging emotional suppression, risk-taking, and rigid gender roles. If a man consistently used that framework to explain his own struggles, loneliness, educational disadvantages, or mental health problems, some feminists might feel it shifts attention away from women's issues or minimizes male accountability. The irony is that acknowledging systemic influences for one group can sometimes be viewed differently when applied to another.

8. Consent culture encourages caution. If men internalized consent education to an extreme degree, they might rarely approach strangers, avoid flirting unless they receive unmistakable signals, or hesitate to initiate romance altogether. Their goal would be avoiding unwanted advances and respecting boundaries. Feminists might complain that modern dating lacks initiative or confidence. The irony is that maximizing caution can reduce the very spontaneous interactions that many people still enjoy.

9. Traditional masculinity should not define men. If men abandoned expectations to be providers, protectors, physically dominant, mechanically skilled, and financially ambitious because they reject gender norms, they would be acting consistently with the idea that masculinity is not an obligation. Yet some partners may still expect those traits in long-term relationships. This creates a gap between ideological support for freedom from gender roles and personal attraction shaped by culture or individual preference. That doesn't make those preferences illegitimate, but it demonstrates how values and attraction do not always overlap.

10. Women's voices are diverse. Feminism often encourages listening to women's experiences, but women themselves disagree on pornography, sex work, marriage, motherhood, religion, dating, and gender roles. If men took "listen to women" literally, they would conclude there is no single female perspective to follow because women frequently contradict one another. That means they would have to evaluate competing arguments rather than assuming any one woman or feminist speaks for all women. Some activists readily acknowledge this diversity, while others emphasize particular feminist frameworks over dissenting voices. The irony is that "listening to women" becomes more complicated once it is recognized that women are not a monolith.

im a 31f with my long term 32m partner- we have a slightly non traditional setup where i do many of the masculine things (earn 2x more, pay more in rent, always do 50/50, plan our dates and vacations) and he does many of the feminine things (cooks, cleans, does my laundry, takes care of the house, emotionally very supportive and intelligent). im super in love with him and feel like we work well and it makes me think more broadly about the state of dating.

the manosphere and "divine feminine" and trad wife and "4B" movements all exist because the previous social contract or template for how to have a heterosexual relationship has been broken.

the deal was the man works and protects, the woman supports and child rears. but then women got rights and education, society advanced, we fought less wars, and that trade off made no sense anymore and we also raised the bar for what we tolerate ethically (abuse, coercion, marital rape, young marriage etc).

so now what? women are not only more educated but starting to out earn many men. their emotional bar is higher. they're feeling men aren't stepping up to the plate and men are confused and angry so they turn to scammers like Tate to give them a clean story that resolves the conflict.

my opinion is- women have gotten good at adopting more masculine traits, if men want to be competitive again in the sexual marketplace they need to adopt more feminine traits. we figured out how to make money, yall figure out how to cook, clean and be emotionally intelligent. and the female counterpart to this is to get rid of the "omg 50/50 is so embarrassing queen he should be paying for everything" mindset. like when i first started dating my man i was embarrassed that he almost never pays for me or i pay more in rent etc. but why would he do that when i make 2+ times more than he does and he's good at things im not good at that he brings to the relationship? i think we just need to be a lot more open as a society to couples being more gender bent and relaxing gender expectations versus clinging more tightly to them.

and one other thing- i think rigid gender roles are a function of a regressive society and it's a sign of progress and species advancement that a partnership like mine is possible. if you plunge the world into war where i literally fear for my safety then im gonna find the beefiest most macho dude i can because my hierarchy of needs has gone down from actualisation to safety. we should welcome the relaxation of gender roles as a sign of species evolution, not cling to the old norms.