> I'd rather deal with a teen pregnancy epidemic than the current situation of rising authoritarianism, isolationism, and reactionary turn that we are seeing from the youth of today.

You mean the male youth of today.

Ok, I understand your point but let's be real for a minute and just acknowledge that the worse situation that you can get. I'd rather hear about how what is happening with young men today was happening with young women than men - not that that would be better but it would be less dangerous.

Young men that are disenfranchised from their society and have little to live for are a primary metric political scientists use to measure the stability of country. Historically speaking, once a society gets too many men like that, the society ends.

This isn't a battle of the sexes and women do not win bc of what has happened with men.

Historically speaking, we have never seen a society where women have more education, wealth and status than men. This is uncharted territory. Not that I don't fear the repercussions of having the bottom 50% of men desperate and disenfranchised. But those bottom 50% of men don't guarantee societal collapse because they're not then ones propping it up, women are.

The question might be, what will women and higher status men do about the problems caused by the bottom half men?

Women are not propping up society. The majority of your food was grown by men. The majority of your food was transported across the country by men. Your home (apartment) was built by men. The building you work in was built by men. Your water purification, your power generation, your internet infrastructure, all done by men.

If the next generation of men feels that working these jobs will never afford them the ability to buy a house, start a family, and retire, then don't expect these jobs to be filled by women, because women are neither willing nor capable of doing them in the vast majority of instances.

> because women are neither willing nor capable of doing them in the vast majority of instances

Preposterous. I see women in construction, utility and farm work all the time – and don't tell me that I'm just seeing the exceptions to your absurd rule all localized in my little slice of rural living where hospitals and clinics are desperate for any warm body to fill nursing positions. Women are more than capable of doing the jobs you're talking about.

I live in a rural area, but i have lived in Los Angeles and Seattle, as well as in other rural areas on the west coast. There's not a single woman on any road crew, linesman crew, tree crew, ditch crew, runoff maintenance crew, and so on - out here. One time i saw a caltrans crew that both had a woman operator and a woman flagger, so i know there are exceptions!

Yes, women probably can do the hours and days of work on all those crews. They just don't. Here's some more: Wrecking, oil drilling, fishing vessels (the large ones), mining, trash collection and the maintenance of the landfills.

Commercial drivers licenses are 20:1 male to female. I personally was in an area with a high population of commercial truck drivers and every one of them had a story about the - read solitary - woman they met who was also a CDL.

Again, women probably could do all of these things - they just don't. I know people like to cite harassment and the like as reasons; but having worked blue collar, you just get harassed. You either deal with it and do the job or you don't and don't. Anyhow, I just don't see the point of pointing out that a few women do some or all of these jobs.

For the record, i'm for women being included in the SSS in the US.

> Anyhow, I just don't see the point of pointing out that a few women do some or all of these jobs.

My point was more to address the claim that women can't do the jobs, when that's patently false and we can all see with our eyes that they do actually work these jobs right now. I don't mean to claim that the crews I see are 50% women and 50% men†. Obviously women work these jobs at a much lower rate than men do, and whether that's due to harassment or not is an interesting thought exercise but best left to someone other than me to chew on.

† One area that I do think is close to even is farm work, at least in my part of rural Iowa. Working on a dairy from age 14 to 20, and just living in the area for my entire life, I see (anecdotally) just as many women doing manual farm labor, driving tractors and handling livestock as I do men.

The vast majority of women physically can't do the jobs as well as a man can, that is a fact. Yes, the women you see working those jobs are the exception to the rule, and would in fact be outclassed by a man with the same level of training and experience.

You're making the assumption that the jobs require exerting oneself to the peak of human physical capability. If that were so, then yes, a man is going to outperform a woman — I don't dispute that men are just biologically advantaged in terms of physical strength. But most blue collar work doesn't require the kind of physical prowess that only a man can reach at the extremes of our biology. From my own experience with farm and dairy work, the vast majority of tasks and labor are well within the capabilities of women regardless of biology.

Have you ever worked one of these jobs? I have. The average woman is not able to carry two 70 pound boxes of cable up four flights of stairs, multiple times and all day long, for ~$18 an hour.

Yes, I have literally said multiple times that I have personal experience working one of these jobs. From age 14 to 20 I worked on a dairy milking 800 head of cows, feeding them, scraping their barns and bottle feeding the calves. We did it without air conditioning in 110° heat and humidity, and we did it without heating in -25° cold and snow, because no matter how much I didn't want to work, those cows needed to be milked and fed.

It was tough physical work, and believe it or not most of my coworkers were in fact women, including my own sisters when they were old enough to get a job.

Feeding baby cows is not as strenuous as actual manual labor.

And again, ask yourself, who can do this job faster and more effectively? A team of men or a team of women?

It will always be the men, no matter how badly this bothers you.

From my perspective as an outsider looking in (that meaning, I have no horse in heterosexual dynamics), the problem is we've had no progressive movements for men. At best, men have gotten whatever crumbs have fallen through the proverbial car seat crack of the vehicle of feminism.

Largely there's only a few different ways to be a successful man. Even small deviations from the norm are met with ruler whips - and I don't just mean from other men. Modern women are incredibly cruel in the way they view non-conforming men.

These limitations used to be superpowers. If you could perform an adequate display of masculinity, you were granted the world. This is no longer the case, which is a good thing. But the expectation still exists and is still enforced with an iron-fist, just without the riches.

I mean, most heterosexual men I've met wouldn't even dare of so much as painting their nails. Let alone opening up their mind. How can we expect these people to follow along with the train of progressivism when none of it is for them? How can we expect them to leave gender roles behind when they know, and understand, there is only failure and heartache for them if they leave theirs's behind?

> But the other path IS viable. You can move to [name any big city], get an education, get a decent job, paint your nails, treat women nicely and, if you ask me, have better relationships, better sex, better lives than were ever available to most men in the past.

I agree this is viable, but you have to understand that for heterosexual men they face a lot of day-to-day backlashes for this. You have to understand the vast majority of women will not consider a relationship with them. And they will suffer in their career as well. Lack of masculinity, or rather perceived masculinity, in men means lack of respect across the board.

Because progressivism has not focused on that, so we're still dealing with many decades old understanding of masculinity. Even extremely surface-level reimagining, such as painting nails, is fringe. And I think that really demonstrates the problem.

I mean, forget emotional intelligence or vulnerability. We're battling black nail polish. We haven't even begun to take a crack at the simplest, most surface level stuff. Let alone the deeper stuff.

I said this in another comment, but modern heterosexual men are in a strange position where they have to perfect the art of performing masculinity in most situations, and then leaving hints of progressivism where other's find it most convenient.

Ultimately, even the most progressive woman is looking for a man who is somewhat kind and maybe he can get away with painting his nails. But he must still be masculine, he must not cry very much if ever, and he must always be a low level of emotional labor. Women want to deal with things like grappling with the shame of dating a man who paints his nails and the social repercussions of that, they don't also have the bandwidth to deal with, say, depression. That's step 100, we're still getting past step 1.

I really appreciate your perspectives on this. This is possibly the most important conversation of the current era and, like you've expressed, we've barely begun to have it.

The part that strikes me the most is the idea that women aren't ready to accept new gender norms among men. We're definitely in a transition era where expectations are out of whack. I do think a lot of women want an unrealistic blend of traditional masculinity with just the right types and amounts of femininity. And they are not finding it very often.

This is one of several recent surveys that show a sharp and rapid turn away from traditional gender and sexuality: https://news.gallup.com/poll/611864/lgbtq-identification.asp...

The trend is obvious in Millennials and then it absolutely skyrockets among Gen Z. More than a quarter of Gen Z women are rejecting traditional straightness in one capacity or another. I imagine many more have perspectives that are far more open than the traditional norm, even if doesn't change how they identify. I think that these women are capable of accepting a new form of masculinity in their partners. I think they are 10 steps ahead and they create a huge opportunity for men to embrace their gender in different ways without being ostracized. In fact, I think men will be rewarded, and the allure of those rewards will accelerate male rejection of traditional masculinity.

Not to get too personal, but in my hyper-progressive bubble of NYC, I see this exact dynamic playing out amongst my younger friends in their late 20's to late 30's. And they aren't even Gen Z. I like to think it's a preview of the large trends to come.

I 100% agree things are getting better and only getting better. It's just a very slow change, because I think those young people have to grapple with the people who are raising them and who they respect.

But - I will say in terms of sexuality among women - it's not all rainbows (ha). The majority of bisexual women I know would not date bisexual men, and they make it known. The "gap" in progressivism exists there too, just much less. Meaning, a lot of bisexual women are willing to accept all kinds of women and have a self-expression of wide variety, but many still look for what they deem to be a traditional, heterosexual man (when they are dating men).

It's complicated and then that really gets into a more intersectional issue because the elephant in the room is there's many strings connecting sexuality to masculinity. I think, in general, there's less genderized implications for behavior for women who are bisexual than there are for men who are bisexual. Being a bisexual man just comes with much more assumptions and baggage about identity in terms of masculinity/femininity that I don't really see for bisexuality in women. You can sort of see this in statistics, where bisexual women self-identify significantly more than bisexual men.

But bright side: this is improving, too. I see a lot less men hiding their bisexuality these days than I saw 10 years ago.

Feel free to upvote comments you like here. The incel brigade will inevitably come through and downvote most of our conversation into oblivion.

> Women want to deal with things like grappling with the shame of dating a man who paints his nails and the social repercussions of that, they don't also have the bandwidth to deal with, say, depression.

When you say “women” here, do you mean yourself? Do you mean the women you have interacted with in the past? Do you mean all women, everywhere? How do you know how they feel about this?

This is all purely anecdotal as I've noted at the beginning, because there's no studies on this or anyone looking into this at all.

I don't mean myself, I mean the heterosexual women and men I know. I'm gay, almost all my friends are women and it's just what I've observed.

And, to be clear, I'm not blaming women. Because relationships, too, are a performance.

This part is really important:

> Women want to deal with things like grappling with the shame of dating a man who paints his nails and the social repercussions of that

It's not just men who lose respect when masculinity isn't performed to a high enough standard, women associated with them lose respect too. Women have a lot to deal with, it's unreasonable for them to also take on additional emotional burden when they already have to manage the appearance of their relationship to outsiders.

As for how I know how they "feel" - well, I don't. But I see their actions and what they choose to tell me. From what I've seen, it's extremely risky for heterosexual men to be vulnerable in their relationships. The odds are incredibly high that will come back to bite them, often immediately, sometimes much later. And, women seem very hesitant to talk about any perceived feminine traits in the men they date. Typically, they do the opposite, almost talk them up. I think there's some perception management going on.

>I agree this is viable, but you have to understand that for heterosexual men they face a lot of day-to-day backlashes for this.

Are you under some weird belief that women who fought for progressive female empowerment did not face pushback from men AND women who wanted them to "stay in their place"?

Getting pushback from men and women while trying to be progressive isn't some special thing that affects only men. It's the damn default to any progression.

Women worked for decades to get passed it. They had to convince enough men to vote to give them the vote remember. They had to get laws passed so they could own a fucking credit card. Despite sitting politicians openly mocking women fighting for their rights, to this day, women were able to build spaces that helped women. Women were able to make support groups and businesses and all these things to try and be positive influences. Women are still not past the pushback for wanting to be seen as equals.

>I said this in another comment, but modern heterosexual men are in a strange position where they have to perfect the art of performing masculinity in most situations, and then leaving hints of progressivism where other's find it most convenient.

Absolutely not. If your friends/family/etc can't handle you not being a toxic shithead of a man, you should push back. Is that not part of being a man? IMO that's part of being a good human. A space that makes jokes and mockery of women is not a safe space for good men.

So women fought adversity and built all this pro-women social infrastructure to be inter-supporting and improve the lives of women. What have men done with their systemic adversity?

Well, young men have decided what they want to do is follow andrew tate, and ghouls like the "Fit and fresh" podcast on twitch, which spends hours every day espousing hatred towards all women. Young men are openly advocating for burning down society and replacing it with one where they are guaranteed sex. Young men are shooting up their schools because they couldn't get laid. Young men are rediscovering fucking phrenology to find a reason they aren't getting laid.

Why are young men so absurdly hung up on sex? Why is not getting laid in high school a psyche breaking experience for men?

> Getting pushback from men and women while trying to be progressive isn't some special thing that affects only men. It's the damn default to any progression

I absolutely agree, but I think this is unique in the sense that progressive men often don't get support from progressive women. But progressiveness has been focused on progression for women, so often progression for men is viewed as strange, distasteful, un-man-like, etc.

> Absolutely not. If your friends/family/etc can't handle you not being a toxic shithead of a man, you should push back. Is that not part of being a man? IMO that's part of being a good human. A space that makes jokes and mockery of women is not a safe space for good men.

To be clear, I'm not talking about being a shithead here. These men I'm referring to are the good ones. The ones you'd see on liberal college campuses.

They are progressive, but progressive for a man. They still perform masculinity nearly constantly, and drop only the most convenient and easy to digest hints of progressiveness when needed. They might, say, talk about how poorly show X has aged. They won't talk about their feelings, their depression, their desire for a fresh self expression, etc.

> Well, young men have decided what they want to do is follow andrew tate, and ghouls like the "Fit and fresh" podcast on twitch, which spends hours every day espousing hatred towards all women.

Once again, I agree, but these are not the men I'm referring to.

> Why are young men so absurdly hung up on sex? Why is not getting laid in high school a psyche breaking experience for men?

I can answer this one: it's because heterosexual men's self identity relies on sexual prowess. From a young age, boys are told they are sexual deviants. They can hardly exist around girls without overly-sexualized connotation from adults. Sexual behavior is not just excused, it's expected.

A successful man is one who has the ability to get sex. Look at any media, and I really mean any. Who has the most power? Who has the most money? Who has the most confidence? Is it the man who has sex, or the virgin loser? This reinforces the message that without their sexuality, men are nothing. They will be lonely, poor, with no future.

People sometimes miss this key part of sexual objectification. When we make women sex objects, we make men oglers and sex-doers. Sex is often perceived as something men DO to women - not something two people engage in together. It's both subtly, and blatantly, reinforced in movies, TV, and music. The most successful rappers brag about their women. The most successful men have trophies. The most loser men in movies are ugly and awkward.

For these men, a loss of sex translates to a loss of life. They have no future. Of course it's all perception, and their perspective is incorrect. But we need to understand WHY they have this perception if we want to deconstruct it and remove it.

>But the other path IS viable. You can move to [name any big city], get an education, get a decent job, paint your nails, treat women nicely and, if you ask me, have better relationships, better sex,

I'm sorry, this is total BS. Sure, you can move to a big US city and paint your nails and not have knuckle-dragging men harassing you about it like back in the rural areas, but you're not going to get much, if any, romantic interest from the "progressive" heterosexual women there. They'll treat you like a gay man: they'll be friendly with you and that's it.

Women have made up the majority of college graduates for the past 5 decades. And yet the majority of college scholarships are for women. If it were the other way around, you'd say this is unfair. There are job quotas for women, not men. Women make up the majority of government benefit receivers.

Yes, if you aren't going to care about a disenfranchised minority, you should expect them to be angry.

Show your work. Are those competitive scholarships? Maybe women are just out-performing men. Are those government services disproportionately aimed at women because they are caring for children? Or elderly parents?

Before we start thinking of men as a "disenfranchised minority" we should be crystal clear on the facts, don't you agree?

They get scholarships literally just for being women. You have Google, use it. Stop being a pathetic contrarian. You can be wrong all you want but reality still exists.

Won't someone think of the most privileged human beings to ever walk the surface of this planet (first world women)? :eyeroll:

You misunderstand. This is precisely the mindset that leave these men in a difficult position.

They're forced to perform an adequate display of masculinity to please individuals such as yourself, because the moment they don't they get this sort of treatment. But performing such masculinity doesn't grant them what it used to before. So, one would think they would leave it behind!

But they don't, because you don't welcome it. They have nowhere to go. Certainly, other men won't take them into their communities. And women won't either, because such men are weak and not worth their breath. So where do they end up if they choose that path?

So naturally they don't choose that path.

The problem here is that they can't "leave behind patriarchy". That translates into dying alone still. The reality is toxic masculinity is molded not just by men, but by women. Mothers, sisters, classmates. From the moment they leave the womb, boys understand there are strict rules they must conform to.

Enforcing these rules, which you're unintentionally doing with this sort of "boohoo" mentality, is part of the reason we're in the mess. Meaning, you yourself are upholding patriarchy in ways you might not understand.

Part of deconstructing toxic masculinity and giving men a fighting chance in a progressive world is being open to listening to them and giving them the space for vulnerability. You can't do that when you're hell-bent on never listening. When in such a position, men and young boys are set up for failure. They can't perform to a level that is deemed sufficient for progressivism, but they also can't perform for a level that is deemed sufficient for women and other men.

Only a select few, who have mastered the art of perfectly performing outward masculinity while selectively dropping little kernels of progressivism, succeed.

The solution is a modern progressive movement for men, but there's huge pushback to this idea. Even the notion men don't have to conform to even surface-level gender roles, like the clothes they wear, is met with huge uproar from men and women.

I mean, just ask yourself: do you think the average progressive woman would even humor dating a heterosexual man who does drag? Do you think the average progressive woman would even humor dating a heterosexual man who splits the bill?

The answer is a resounding no. Whatever little bits of progressivism men have gotten are pretty much just side-effects from feminism and gay liberation. But just side-effects. Men still can't act feminine, and they certainly can't do anything that might get them perceived as gay.

I mean, I find another placeholder for fa*got online just about every month. Heterosexual men are sorely lacking in progressivist movements that help them and their self-identity.

> The solution is a modern progressive movement for men

Do you have thoughts on what this should/could look like?

I think mental healthcare might be a good place to start. Campaigns specifically targeting men's mental health, particularly more "embarrassing" ones like depression and anxiety. Show men who can't bring themselves to brush their teeth, show men sitting in their car with a revolver in their hands. That's a harsh reality that is completely silent, I think.

I think we need to come to terms with men being in positions of abject "weakness" - or what we currently perceive as weakness. And we do that through visibility. Through PSAs, television shows, movies.

I also think clothing would be a good place to start, just because it's so immediately obvious and visible. Get protests allowing men to wear skirts at work, and make it clear they're still men. I don't think that will fix anything really, but I think it could force the issue to be looked at.

you gotta start real young and psychiatry is a soft science and so is early-childhood studies; it makes recommendations difficult to get behind. The only way to change this is cultural, seriously. We have to start now with Millennials and zoomers, and the few gen-x that aren't calcified in their own trauma - start by making therapy better sounding. Less "tissues and issues" and more "neutral third party that will be honest about reflections on what you've said / contemplated." I hope this makes sense - right now, seeking mental health help has a stigma. It's strange to go to the equivalent of a doctor and spend 45 minutes talking. Can you trust them? How open should you be? Are they judging you, and will that color their dialogue? Seriously, how open should you be?

Once we have a generation of parents that have benefited from therapy, when they see their child having an issue, they can now reach for the therapy route in addition to dr spock. Having good experiences with therapy in your formative years will make you more likely to seek similar experiences as an adult.

Who knows, it's all flimsy.

The fact that banning circumcision wasn't among the first things you said indicates that your movement is doomed to fail to meaningfully show men that you did something for THEM.

I think this is a good idea too on grounds of bodily autonomy. Really there's a lot of places you can start, but I'm not convinced circumcision is one of the larger issues (although it is an issue).

It is likely an important issue because of the downstream consequences of such a severe trauma.

From a physical trauma point of view, I'm not sure. I'm not educated enough on how the brain/body interprets this stuff. Intuitively, I would imagine they are just too young to remember anything.

But from a social perspective I think it matters, because of the message. I mean, it's a blatant violation of bodily autonomy done purely for sexual cosmetics. I don't think that sends a good message to boys about them and their body. It's hard to convince them there's more to them than sex when their own parents prioritized their sexual attractiveness right out of the womb. I think young boys already face a lot of sexualized pressure - they're essentially told that they are, or will become, sex-crazed monsters and that's their duty/destiny. I think circumcision without consent plays into that.

Unfortunately women's successes are a side issue here.

Disenfranchised men are in a chaotic state right now, but it's only going to take one decently charismatic leader to coerce them into a globally connected league of brownshirts.

millions of 12 year old boys already see Andrew Tate as their god.

Anyone who will give them easy and free access to sex.

Shitty men have never had to contend with an alliance of empowered women and the ~30% of men who aren't susceptible to a cultish victim mentality.

Societal collapse looks a lot more like the powerlines not being fixed then advertising dollars being inefficiently spent.

Is the implication that we need big, strong men to do big, strong man work? Because that era already has one foot out the door.

That’s true in a zero gravity environment.

You have electricity because of men. You have running water because of men. You have sewage and plumbing because of men. You have internet because of men. It's not women smashing apart concrete and installing cables and pipes, it's men. Most women I know struggle to pour themselves a drink from a newly open gallon jug. You are a fool if you believe a team of women can go out in a hurricane and replace powerlines at anywhere near the same rate that a team of men can.

Machines have already supplanted male strength in most of the ways it used to be indispensable. Do you see that trend reversing any time soon? Any serious observer can only see that trend accelerating, rapidly.

And no one is calling for an end to men. Are you kidding me?? But pretending that men's size and strength is some irreplaceable virtue is laughable.

Machines designed and built by men, first of all. And secondly, there's no machine that actually installs the internet cable, or fixes the transformer, or installs your toilet. That's all done by hand, by men.

It's not just size and strength either, there are very stark differences in visual-spatial reasoning, among other mental differences.

record amount of women are set to be single and childless past the fertility window, the most reasonable cause is a "lack of eligible bachelors"[0] in similar or better socioeconomic conditions.

Record amounts of people will never reproduce creating a deep demographic imbalance, bankrupting most social programs.

[0]https://www.medicaldaily.com/egg-freezing-rises-among-gradua...

Sure, and that's not ideal for women, but it's also not stopping their dramatic rise in education, wealth and status.

As for bankrupting the social safety net, that's a real concern, but it's not unavoidable. We've already seen into the future in places like East Asia and Western Europe. We've got a ways to go in the US before our fertility rates match theirs, and they're still holding the line. Plus, it's a problem that America is uniquely prepared to handle as a nation of immigrants. Once the hardcore nativist movement has finishing blowing its wad.

Authoritarianism is present in a lot of postmodern "leftist" movements that captivate younger women votes. it's justified with "fig leaves" reasons like curtailing free speech to contain hate speech, limiting liberties in the name of safety, Coercing personal behavior for greater causes like climate change, giving privileges to certain groups in the name of "penitence to ancestral sins", etc....

Isolationism is an issue that is hurting women too, way less than males as women tend to have stronger social networks

While at scale there isnt a trend of Reactionism, it looks that there is a greater political polarization and advocacy that compared to past generations hinders relations between ideologically different/incompatible groups

It would be wrong to ascribe this to the politics, it's the change in the physical and social reality that enabled this situation, off which some politicians are feeding their movements.

Young men might not be as socially adept, which matters more now than it did before. And that creates a lot of undesirable side effects. But politics didn't create this situation.

Politics had a large part in creating this situation. Women have made up the majority of college graduates for about half a century now. And yet we still hear that we need more women in college, and in fact there are far more times as many college scholarships for women as for men.

Not to mention that women make up the majority of government benefit recipients, and piles of other examples. This entire time, politicians have made lots of gains from supporting women. Where is the support for men?

You are talking about American politics, meanwhile this is happenning all over the world, in some countries much sooner and faster than in the US.

Yes, the same cancerous ideologies are spreading quickly to the rest of the world.

>Where is the support for men?

Where are the men willing to put in the hard work it takes to build man-positive spaces that talk about difficult subjects with men, and guide them through growing up into caring people?

Instead, it seems like men just want the world to go back to the way it was, and they would rather women suffer than they have to put in the leg work required to build a fair and just society.

That's what this horseshit is about. Millions of men are facing a small amount of pain adjusting to a world where you aren't default accepted based on having a penis, and their first response is "No, time to oppress women again".

Women faced all sorts of pushback for decades for wanting to be more than baby making machines. They literally still are, with one presidential candidate and his friends openly hostile to independent and self-sufficient women. They (most of them) still fight for their rights and still fight for the betterment of women in general.

It's going to be difficult, social change always is. It's going to take decades, social change always does. It won't be perfect. But I'd still rather a future society where men can be how they want even if it doesn't match some absurd and self destructive ideal of "masculinity" that doesn't let you be a human being, rather than going back to the 50s in terms of letting women be independent.

My mother did not work her ass off for 60 years for people like in this damn comment section to claim that they should go back to the kitchen, that they don't have bodily autonomy, that they don't have fiscal autonomy. I will fight for her.

Men will get a lot more support when they stop insisting the lack of male spaces and positive male role models is somehow women's fault, when they've worked their asses off for decades.

It's not a fucking zero sum game!

>Where are the men willing to put in the hard work it takes to build man-positive spaces that talk about difficult subjects with men, and guide them through growing up into caring people? Those types of spaces get shut down by governments/colleges at the behest of women.

See the male-only domestic violence shelters in Canada and the US. Or the story about the college that shut down the male mental health day, resulting in the suicide of at least one of its male students.

I'm not reading the rest of your absurd drivel. Men make up the majority of suicide victims, homeless, and violence. They get fewer scholarships and fewer government handouts, because those things typically only go to women on the basis of them being female.

The pay gap doesn't exist, it is explained entirely by men choosing to work longer hours.

I'm sorry you can't understand any of this and that reality bothers you, but that's your problem and not anyone else's.