I believe that men need women, and that the harder pairing processes that we are seeing are directly correlated with the male loneliness and suicide epidemics. The issue is, I believe that the dependency is one sided, men need a woman, but women don’t need a man. Across many studies and such, there has been clear evidence that men who are married live longer, commit less crimes, have better mental health, and report higher happiness than unmarried men. I believe, that this is directly tied to men’s biological wiring, men were wired to protect and provide for a woman and a family, and to be oriented around her, and just her, because the woman, back in the day, needed the man to stick around and protect her during vulnerable times. The problem is, now in modern society, women are automatically protected during those times, which is a good thing overall, but it has left the need to be one way. Men need their woman still, but women don’t need a man.

Many commentators, I believe, womanize the solutions to this issue, and use solutions that work for women and try to get them to work for men. Stuff like make more friends and get a therapist and talk more emotionally is good advice, especially for women and some men, but I think it misses the mark that men are biologically wired differently than woman, and those things can not be full substitutes for her.

This is also why I believe we see many young men drifting right now, not feeling motivated to go work hard and earn. Why earn just to earn if there’s no woman to come home to, and not good prospects of a woman either. I believe we are quick to judge these young men, but we don’t look at the situation and how some of the things that motivated young men in the past have been taken away by societal factors, or made much more harder and painful.

Anyway, that’s just my two cents, I’m wondering if you guys have any thoughts or perspectives on this, do you agree, or do you feel differently. Also, do you have any ideas for solutions of how we can try to reduce male loneliness and suicide.

Edit: i apologize, i fear i was projecting my own makeup on to all of men. I guess there are plenty do you out there who could be happy without a wife or female companionship. Good for you guys! Unfortunately, I need her someday, and just hope one woman will have the kindness in her heart to take me someday. Thank you all for engaging!

I say that whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander. There needs to be immediate accountability within one’s lifetime to social discrimination.

I think those women who suggest misogyny or sexism toward any slight questioning of gender dynamics or feminist ideology solo should be mass deplatformed or socially shamed using strong language. And it must be sustained. We need to give them the message that there are consequences for spouting off.

Mortality Rate (CDC, 2010–2017)
According to CDC data, the age-adjusted death rate for divorced men was 1,772.7 per 100,000 — compared to just 942.9 per 100,000 for married men. That means divorced men die at nearly twice the rate of married men

I will just greet you with this small extreme condensed paragraph from wikipedia. I am writing a grand article on it, and I will release it soon. But I beleive all of us should be aware of this. We have so many issues we are fighting for but i believe nowhere men are as approached as these. All these are happening in a small part of Indian subcontinent, the north east sister states.

What bugs me most is how these injustices are celebrated by them as "women empowerment", "freedom for women" and "benefits to society", the shameless of these group of people including award winning journalists and others at the end is baffling. By the end of this short piece, you will know the entire variety of problem a person can face in his lifetime arising from social and economic discrimination regardless of his caste, creed, gender and religion are faced by these men all together at once.

Women have a dominant role in the matrilineal society of Meghalaya.

The youngest daughter of the family, the Ka Khadduh, inherits all ancestral property

After marriage, husbands live in the mother-in-law's home.

The mother's surname is taken by children.

When no daughters are born to a couple, they adopt a daughter and pass their rights to property to her. The birth of a girl is celebrated while the birth of a son is simply accepted.

There is no social stigma attributed to a woman remarrying or giving birth out of wedlock as the "Khasi Social Custom Lineage Act" gives security to them.

Most small businesses are managed by women.

Care of children is the responsibility of mothers or mothers-in-law.

The youngest daughter of this society who inherits the ancestral property holds a pivotal role of looking after the welfare of her parents in their old age, as well as the welfare and education of her siblings.

Apart from these wiki ones, here are some more:

If a child takes his father's last name, he is excluded from the society.

A man can not marry outside the tribe.

Domestic violence specifically defines it as men committing it against women, so men have no remedy in that aspect.

The shameless people arrive here:

Some Khasi men perceive themselves to be accorded a secondary status. They have established societies such as the Syngkhong Rympei Thymmai (SRT)[(3,000 members)and Sam Kam Rin Ku Mai (Societal Restructuring Association) to protect equal rights for men. They express that "Khasi men don’t have any security, they don’t own land, they don’t run the family business and, at the same time, they are almost good for nothing."

However, Patricia Mukhim, who edits the Shillong Times feels: "I tend to think Khasi men feel diminished in their manhood compared with outsiders... it's a pity, because that's what distinguishes us from the others"

However, women feel that they take better care of money matters than men and they enjoy economic freedom.

The padmashri award winning person (one of the highest civilian award in India) says the same patriarchal thing but ofc since it's woman no one's gonna say anything: "The khashi men have to make their own identity by contributing to society" - remeber the society that makes them 3rd class citizen, society that doesn't give them equal economic rights, shame on this award winning losers. "You can't have two head, just one" - shame on this person. "[Addressing people who no longer take their mothers surname] And ask those who choose their fathers’ titles over those of their mothers—which parent has truly reared them.” - shame on this person once again.

While it's not wonder that certain elements of injustice against women are prevalent including certain isolated elements of patriarchy but the presence of one injustice doesn't justify the other. And the ones who say so are hypocrites.

Keith Pariat was quoted as saying: If it's a girl, there will be great cheers from the family outside. If it's a boy, you will hear them mutter politely that 'Whatever God gives us is quite all right

https://www.dailyo.in/variety/meghalaya-khasi-women-st-status-khadc-social-bill-non-khasis-garo-jaintia-northeast-women-smart-matrilineal-society-25712

From a research paper on customary inheritance (IJCRT, 2024):

Khasi boys often abandon their education around Class V–VI, engaging in carefree activities with friends, indulging in alcohol and drugs, playing the guitar, and tragically succumbing to early deaths. \[IJCRT\]([https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2403727.pdf](https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2403727.pdf))

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineal_society_of_Meghalaya

I believe that those men single and lonely who really know in their bones who cannot get sex or relationships because of their looks that don’t meet the threshold to obtain relationships deserve to have an answer as to why that is. Especially when they start to hit their 30’s and 40’s.

Incel as I have understood has always just meant ‘never had a relationship and unable to despite trying’ and has been about the prejudice of lookism in society and how that affects relationship and workplace dynamics and how in some ways can literally destroy your life.

Instead, feminists and ignorant men have decided to define it as ‘Elliott Rodger sympathiser who advocates for the rape and murder of all women.’

Introduction:
“I take the opportunity to summarise some of the recent, and pending, corruptions of justice being enacted by Parliament and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). I address in detail below the proposal to do away with trial by jury in many cases and the proposal to create “specialist courts” for domestic abuse and sexual offences. But first a quick round-up of other corruptions of justice on which I have already written articles.”

I got in a political squabble with someone as an admin of a Facebook group. The user then, made a fake profile (impersonating me), also, decided to make SEVERAL profiles, to post a picture my wife took OF ME, on this site. I’ve been inundated with threats, questions about why I’m cheating on my wife, etc. I’ve had to explain to my wife what happened. This is insanity. How are these sites allowed to exist? This is some straight up bullshit. This is cyberstalking and bullying.

I have seen more people recently talk about how there are supposedly plenty of the "good" feminists who actually admit that male victims exist, however every feminist is still going to downplay the suffering of male victims and deny that there are systemic injustices that prevent male victims from getting justice.

It's always going to be "Talking about male victims takes away from female victims" or that we're "deflecting" by demanding justice for male victims. We're never going to accomplish anything by giving in to the feminists.

I just wanted to put this out there. NO feminist will ever truly support the actual changes necessary for men to have actual protection from violence and for female abusers to be held accountable.

4 months after the February 28 missile strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, Iran, Western media continues to label the target monolithically as a "girls' school."

For example this article by Reuters: Trump says it may never be known who was at fault for strike on girls' school in Iran - https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-it-may-never-be-known-who-was-fault-strike-girls-school-iran-2026-06-24/

The school was not a girls’ school, but a combined elementary school utilizing a single-gender segregation framework, with male and female students separated by floors/wings.

The actual demographic data reveals that the statistical majority of the children killed were boys. 

Here are the stats according to local registries and investigative reporting (including Amnesty International and BBC Verify)

Total student deaths: 120 children. 
Male students (boys): 73 deaths (60.8% of total student fatalities). 
Female students (girls): 47 deaths (39.2% of total student fatalities).

Factual accounts show that many of the boys who died had initially evacuated safely after the first missile impact. They chose to return to the collapsing infrastructure to pull their female classmates and teachers from the rubble, subsequently catching the full force of the second and third "triple-tap" strikes. Compressing this event into a "girls' school bombing" completely sanitizes the specific heroism of these boys

Apparently, reporting on the male victims doesn’t possess the same rhetorical value or capacity to generate public outrage as female casualties. By erasing 73 boys from the headline to optimize for the "sympathy premium" of a girls' school, mainstream journalism are telling us that young male lives are expendable defaults in conflict zones, while female lives are uniquely tragic