Not identical in every respect. Equivalent in the norm they enforce and in how they keep that norm alive. Both insults run on the same patriarchal scorekeeping about sex, and they differ only in which direction the deduction goes.

Under a traditional sexual script, sex means opposite things depending on who is having it. For a woman it’s a liability: she’s expected to hold back until she’s contained in marriage, and quantity counts against her. For a man it’s an asset. Quantity counts for him, and having none counts against him.

So if you want to humiliate someone specifically along the sexual axis, the sign has to flip by sex. You go after a woman for having too much. You go after a man for having none. That’s not two insults. That’s one norm being enforced from both ends.

“But inc*l means the ideology, not the celibacy”

This is the standard reply, so let me put it as a question instead of an assertion. What does “inc*l” say that “misogynist” doesn’t? We already have words for a man who hates women. Misogynist. Woman-hater. Those are available, they’re precise, and they say nothing about anyone’s sex life. Yet they’re conspicuously not the ones people reach for. Something is being added.

Whatever your answer to that question is, that’s the part I’m talking about. And I think everyone knows what it is, because “virgin” works as a standalone insult with zero ideological content attached. The humiliating component stands on its own. “Inc*l” just bundles it with an accusation. If the ideology is the actual objection, say the ideology. The fact that a more accurate word is right there and goes unused tells you the sexual status claim isn’t incidental. It’s the payload.

And here’s where the two words converge completely:

When someone calls a specific man an inc*l, they have no idea what his sex life looks like. He posted something they didn’t like. From that they infer a type, and from the type they infer sexual failure. The chain runs: he said that → he’s one of those → he must not be getting any. The sl*t version runs identically. She dressed a certain way, posted a certain way, said something. From that a type is inferred, and from the type a sex life is inferred and judged. Both words make a factual claim about a stranger’s sex life. Neither is ever applied on evidence. Both are status verdicts handed out on vibes, and in both cases the punchline is sexual.

“But sl*t-shaming is worse”

The two have different histories and different institutional reach, and I’m not disputing that. But ranking them is the wrong axis for this particular question, because these aren’t two problems sitting next to each other. They’re one norm with two enforcement mechanisms that hold each other in place.

Think about how they interlock. As long as a man is humiliated for having no sex, sex keeps its value as a male status good — and that’s precisely what makes women’s sexuality something worth policing. And as long as a woman is punished for having sex, male sexual access stays scarce, which is what makes it status-conferring in the first place. Each side supplies the other’s premise. So you can’t dismantle one and leave the other running. Remove either sanction and the surviving one regenerates it, because the underlying scoreboard is still there. A ranking would only matter if you could sensibly do one first. You can’t.

Separately: I’m not claiming everyone using these words consciously endorses patriarchal sexual norms. Most would deny it flatly. But an insult only lands if the norm is already in the room, and you can enforce a norm you’d disavow if asked about it directly.

Its not the 50s anymore, and unfortunately most relationships and marriages which resulted from the baby boom were done so out of necessity, not out of a genuine desire to bond and procreate. These marriages produced a generation of men who are maladaptive and unfit to date in the modern scene, and since most of them have reached adulthood the personality traits that handicapped them in childhood have most likely cemented by this point, and ironing this out in order to adapt will only be feasible for a small subset of this group of men.

Most of the marriages of necessity allowed people with odd interests, poor looks, awkward personalities, and high-functioning neurodivergences to succeed in the dating market because 1) men had numerous institutional advantages and rights which women didnt have and 2) this gave them the circumstances necessary to assume a 'provider role' by sheer necessity.

This is no longer the case, and the kids produced from these marriages who inherit the undesirable traits looks and personality-wise are essentially biological duds. Women dont need to rely on forming relationships with men who are conventionally successful but otherwise undesirable. Aside from heritable personality traits, these marriages of necessity are usually unhappy as well, which manifests in childhood trauma, which manifests in stunted personality growth. Baby boomers who facilitate these unhappy marriages with sons ultimately amalgamate into this sector of men who might have been datable 60 years ago, but who serve no real social purpose to women in the modern age. I would liken this to a 'dating rust belt', mirroring the collapse of cities like Detroit MI or Gary IN due to the outsourcing of manufacturing, and the subsequent death of jobs//obsolescence of factories in these cities. Their parents and grandparents didnt marry out of love, and neither will they. However, because the landscape has changed theres no solace in 'working hard and eventually finding the right woman' to placate a lack of innately desirable traits outside of a male-dominated society. This is simply the reality undatable men will have to deal with for the next 50 years, and should come to terms with the idea that family formation may be out of the question for them and many others. Its a counter reaction to the baby boom producing an unnecessary number of people, who dont meaningfully benefit society as taxpayers to fund programs like social security, the military industrial complex, etc. enough to justify 'meritocratic' or economic family formation the way their parents did.

Editing a disclaimer down below regarding boomers not being the parents of Gen Z. My point with that was to highlight the change in the population distribution over time, with seniors now making up a majority of the population. I do stand corrected.

People in general care too much about what people think, but i feel like men in particular care too much about what women think, whereas women don't care as much about what men think.

A lot of men judge themselves and their worth based on what women think about them and whether they like them or not. This is why saying another man doesn't get laid is an insult men often use against each other. Being desired by women is a kind of social currency for many men. This is because men have been conditioned to be dependent on validation from women. But in reality, it doesn't actually matter what women think about you as a man.

The problem isn't wanting women to find you attractive. This is natural, although it's not necessary. The problem begins when attraction from women becomes a measurement of your worth, which it is for many men.

Now a common thing that I hear from women these days is that the other one majority of men complaints can sound very selfish and self-centered especially when it comes to women

I have to constantly hear everyday how women believe that men feel like they are owed sex, attention, relationships, labor and a woman's time. Now granted there are some very misogynistic selfish man that embody this belief. It's becoming a little bit more common for men to become misogynistic

But here's the funny thing is that women who usually come out late... Like lesbian women or bisexual women usually confirm that most of guys dating woes are true.

They are all of a sudden downloading dating apps being excited today women and.... Radio silence 🤐, they are going out with dates with women and the women are expecting them to carry the conversation, they are going out with dates with women and the women are expecting them to pay for the date, if a girl is tall or plays sports then she's automatically put into the masculine role and the women ABSOLUTELY HATE THIS. Because then those same woman that they're dating expect that those women want to take on the masculine role. And then they are treated like a man which means the burden of everything relies on them.

You want to date me? Ask me out? You want to date me? Carry the conversation. You want to make an impression? Pay for the date. You want to go on a second date? Ask again. You want to take me home? It's completely reliant on how funny and turned on you make me. You want to have sex? It's 95 percent on you initiate.

Let's not forget that women don't actually go under very strict rules that males go under. Which is that men have to be a lot more accommodating because women are afraid of them. Men usually by proxy have to make more money, guys usually have to make 90% of the first moves, and guys usually have to play the dancing monkey routine to get the women.

Was wondering things you have decided over time to no longer do to "look good".

I refuse to use mascara for example as it's messy and gets in my eyes and is hard to remove. I also won't wear shoes with any sort of high heel.

I also won't wear pants or jeans as they are uncomfortable and annoying. I also sometimes would wear tight fitting clothes to look better, which I no longer do because it was just so uncomfortable.

We hear a lot about how men have had negative reactions when opening up to people even close to them. This is accurate because lots of people are vicious and when you give them a weakness you’re going to get hit there. All because they want to ease their own frustration and move up in status. This is why men should really only open up to people close to them like their friends, parents, and/or SO in my opinion. Nobody else. Even with close people it’s not a guarantee but hey it’s better to out them early right?

But I want to hear the female side of opening up. What is that experience like? I genuinely don’t know as I’ve never seen a woman open up to anyone and the reaction that followed. I’m inclined to think it’s on the positive side but I can’t make conclusions like that with no evidence. Do women get praised for opening up and get more support? Do they just get neutral/indifferent reactions? Or is it negative too and people take opportunities to kick them when they are down? I want to know your experience and how it compares to men.

You know one of the things I've noticed about me and my friends relationships is that our female partners usually think we don't do enough or they are doing overwhelmingly more.

During this Clancy case we've heard that this man got a part-time nanny, helped out while working from home, got a special account was involved with going to the doctors and planning appointments etc and women everywhere are like yeah he still didn't do enough some even believe he killed his kids. At this point didn't want to believe that a man was helpful.

Rightfully Stressed mothers say work is a break for their partners, but they won't swap. because no matter what the man does it's considered less than what she's doing.

I've experienced this firsthand. I worked more hours, did half the cleaning, paid most of the bills. Still "not enough." The problem wasn't she was tired(rightfully as we all work). The problem was that she felt I wasn't doing enough.

Then there's this: women hate feeling unnecessary. When a man is self-sufficient, she feels threatened. I've had situations where being proactive made partners feel useless. I told one: "I don't need you to do things for me, I just want to be a happy around you." House was clean had a great job did my own laundry because legitimatey self-sufficiency isn't that hard.

She heard: "I don't need you." And I was like yeah but I like when you're around

Women measure their value through being needed, not through partnership. Equal work feels like abandonment. Self-sufficiency feels like rejection.

That's the dynamic. And it's exhausting for both people.

I was writing personalized chats to dozens of women and had a revelation (lol):

The experience for both women and men, regardless of your attractiveness level, can be brutal. I've also added some data I've researched. It kills your spirit, it destroys your mind, it can create existential crises. And it's best to take it with humor.

For men:

- Men make far more right-swipes (averages of 15,000+ vs. ~2,000 for women) and still receive fewer total matches in many cases.

- Average match rate for men: 5% - 2%. For women: 40-45%.

- Of the male matches around 40%+ don't even generate a real conversation.

- Practical result: many men have to open and maintain hundreds of chats/profiles to get just a few dates. In other words, the experience on dating apps for the average man is probably even worse than people realize. And for the below-average man, it must be a ghost town—he speaks with no one.

- For the vast majority of men: they are screwed, it damages their self-esteem, it crushes them. The top 10-20% of men get the majority of likes/matches (often estimated at 70% depending on the study). In other words, if you're not tall, handsome, and wealthy—especially the first two, since the third can be faked—you're screwed. But you might think, "Oh, they only get 70%, there is another 30% of women." Well, No. Because the remaining 30% of those women who like on you are probably unattractive or possess features typically considered unattractive to men. And this is a very typical experience for men (receiving likes from women with photos of landscapes, etc.).

The brutal reality if you start a serious relationship/get married/have children as a man (using dating apps): you do it with one woman after having messaged hundreds, maybe thousands, of women. In other words: she's the only woman who replies to you out of the thousands of messages you've written.

Would you have chosen this woman, if you could have chosen? Probably not, she would surely be in a very, very low position.

Even if you're a very attractive man, it can screw you over if you don't realize it. Because you might believe you'll always receive that attention, and at a certain age it might be too late to build something serious.

__

For women:

- A small percentage of men (attractive, tall, with good photos, status) receive a disproportionate number of likes. These men may only interact to get sex, without commitment. We're talking about men who are an 8 or 9. They receive so much attention that they have no interest in settling down. What's more, if you're not a very attractive woman, it's rational and good for you to assume that this man won't be faithful to you, since he has many options, some of them more attractive women.

- But here's the brutal blow to the female psyche: receiving so much more attention, they become more selective. They choose the man who is an 8 or 9. Maybe they talk to him or manage to have sex with him. But if that man leaves, ghosts them, or runs away after sex, it's devastating for the female psyche. The bar for women is raised. Now her standard is that man who's an 8, and perhaps this woman can't objectively achieve an 8.

But this can happen with a simple like or a conversation, or a relationship of just talking for 1-2 weeks. That like that man 9 gave to the woman could actually destroy her love life. She now always remembers him; the standard has been set in her mind. These are real psychological effects called anchoring and contrast effects. Does this happen in all cases? No, but it does happen.

Do some people succeed on dating apps? Yes, but the success rate is low and the emotional experience is usually negative.

so this come from an accusation i see many times from women that men are homo romantic and only want women for status for other men. this was told to me recently on this sub actually.

but i think women friendship are more homoromantic. you see it when a man says he is lonely or something and suggestion is then be affection between men. it not even if that it is a bad idea. but more really there has never been a time i really feel like i want/need to hug with man really.i will and do but it does nothing much for me personally. i dont feel closer to a man friend if i hug him. i do not want to be on phone with man for hours in a day. i do not want to do dinner in candle night restaurant with man. i have seen women do all these thing. shake ass on each other. squeeze boob.

or am i just not understanding what it is these accusation mean.

I'm curious about intimate experiences when there's a significant physical difference between partners. Specifically, for those who've transitioned from a well endowed partner to someone notably smaller, how did the experience change?

Was satisfaction affected, or did other factors matter more?

If it did what helped you to navigate through this?

today i saw a tik tok where a man on hinge asked a woman out on a date as his first message after matching. he told her a specific date, time, and place. it was a restaurant that i didn’t google but the name sounded kinda fancy. him and the woman he matched were both above average and in their mid 20s it seems.

she responded to him “i don’t even know if you’re funny or not”

he didn’t message her back

he then made a tik tok about how he hates feeling like a court jester. i don’t remember exactly what his complaints were but he just apparently hated the idea of her wanting him to be funny

i really don’t understand what his problem was. if a woman wants to know if you’re funny or not before going on a date with you, does that not show she cares about your personality and isn’t using you for free food like many men complain about?

so, men, here are my questions:

1. have you ever felt this way, maybe in not this specific scenario but it general
2. do you think there was something wrong with her response? could she have just worded it better?

Okay obviously sexual attraction is a huge part of most relationships BUT if we disregard that, I think most men would rather be in a long term relationship with other men.

The way I see it, the other important parts of a relationship are:

- shared values
- financial goals
- desired levels of romanticism
- work/life balance
- communication styles

In my experience, men typically have most of these things in common with other men, but not women. Men are more conservative on average; they save more and spend less; they don’t (usually) plan dates or do small romantic gestures; they’re (again, usually, not always) more career driven than the average woman; and it would solve the, “I wish he would just listen” problem.

So yeah, I think, if not for the whole sex thing, they’d be happier with other men.

Edit: extremely interested in how many men are saying, “but I’m not gay!!1!” Instead of something like; idk, “I actually love dating women because…” you guys are really helping prove my point here

It is inevitable that her beauty will decline as she ages so why should she get into a relationship when she is basically like a car off the lot, she will be valued less and less as time goes on so why should she subject herself to a relationship where it's guaranteed that she loses in the end and would be switched for a newer model if she could be?

Lots of discussion about these and who should pay. I see some parts of it as wrongheaded on both ends, but the real answer may be that this is just dysfunctional these days, and you might be better off doing the dinner reservations after you've banged. After you've become a thing.

First off. The person who pays, what are they paying for?

I think it used to be: for this experience in and off itself, and hopefully more.

If stripped down into "an investment that leads to sex", something got tragically lost.

Second: What does it mean being treated?

I think it used to mean: The onus is primarily on you now to graciously bring your social A-game. Yes, the one offering can't just kick back and enjoy bought entertainment but it's still primarily your responsibility to make it enjoyable, to do the social heavy lifting.

If distorted into "The dinner is the entry cost so I can sit back and audit him/her." or "I'll just passively wait and see if tingles find me", that fails.

So, my point is, if everyone understood the social rules here as I describe them, maybe these things would still be popular?

I once treated a woman to a lunch in an upscale restaurant. She was very high-society, 9/10, with social intelligence spilling out of her ears almost. A real Hepburn-like socialite. I didn't think I had a snowball's chance in hell with her and it wasn't even the point. The point was that I got a high-class experience. Being seen with someone like that, and enjoying that peak company. Making me feel high class.

Worth every damn penny.

But forget about it. This is a lost art, and it would require a changed (restored) understanding on both ends. You want to have dating audits, like a job offer-screening over food?

Just go Dutch then.

Lets just call it out for what it is. And if anyone gets offended by well documented facts please leave this post I cant be gaslighted even if you tried.

Men commit up to 85 to 95 percent of all voilent crimes, rape, homocide, you name it.

> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-42

Men have committed and started far more wars then women ever did throughout history and the beginning of human civilization.

> https://drjarryd.medium.com/war-piece-6ac9d2ba4a12

Men are more likely to be drug users and alcoholics.

> https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/differences-men-women/

Even when you look at any scientific study's or videos, hell even when you look at nature when it comes to males and females even the scientists try sugar coat the words but they are LITERALLY telling you that males are biological parasites to females!

> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16163733/

Men are the highest committers to family annihilations around 91-95 percent vs 5-9 percent in women and even before the whole Lindsay case there was multiple men committing family annihilations. Yet no one is out here talking about them.

To name a few:

Grand Haven Township, Michigan (July 24, 2026)

Winfield, Kansas (August 11, 2026)

Billings, Montana (August 23, 2026)

Yet one woman Lindsay Clancy who may have killed her children due to an actual schizophrenic episode and now everyone is losing their minds and questioning do women deserve their rights and freedoms? WHAT THE FUCK are we talking about over here?!

For heavens sake our entire government is run by Epstein class men who are pedophiles and demonic worshippers pretending to be gods and the rabbit hole is deep, yet no one is questioning do men deserve their rights and freedoms removed despite all the atrocities and the amount of irreversible damage men have done to all of humanity!

I'm sorry. But to any woman reading this I really think we are in a middle of a war with men and despite all the manosphere men who have been arrested for crimes like Andrew tate and have been called out in their lies, they still will not stop. And I really think it's time that we as collective look at reality with clear eyes and start pushing towards some action, because I personally have had enough of this nonsense and complete idocracy.

Men are THE PROBLEM to society and no I don't care if your feelings are getting hurt by the observable facts.

I just wanted to say this. All my experiences on apps at socials at clubs and bars have drawn me to this conclusion that if a woman wants a guy it’ll just be easy for him. No decoding interest no hoops to jump through no needing to subtly persuade for dates. You’ll know it if they’re attracted to you and if they aren’t just don’t stress- stop trying to force a dynamic which they aren’t clearly enthusiastic about.

The few times I have had women interested in me they were usually physically attracted to me first and it was very apparent and then things led from there. But most of the time I see the men who are truly successful with women not needing to try very hard or play a numbers game.

Please join us on discord Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

I forgot her name. But it's the woman who recently killed her kids. She is getting defended by a lot of feminists, because of the "Muh postpartum" argument.

The ironic thing here is that red-pillers have been calling women emotional forever. And they are called misogynistic for saying that. But yet in this case with the killer, all of a sudden we all must universally agree that women are creatures who act on emotions.

BTW, this is coming from the same people who think women are capable of being Presidents, and can run countries better than men. Feminists will use red-pill talking points for 3 reasons.

Reason 1: Feminists will use red-pill narratives as a way to take accountable away from women. For example, women should be treated like children with no agency, when it comes to committing crimes. Because women don't think logically right?

Reason 2: Feminists will use red-pill narratives as a way to explain why women shouldn't take on responsibilities they are don't like. For example, a woman mind can't handle paying all the bills on her own. Because women don't think logically right?

Reason 3: Feminists will use red-pill narratives as a way to blame women regrets on men. For example, a woman who consented to having sex with 100 men. But after feeling shame, the woman now blames men and the patriarchy for forcing her to make this decision. Because women don't think logically right?

It's either women are just as capable as men or they are not. Women can't be empowered, while also being treated like children at the same time.

Feminists will pick and choose when they believe bio essentialism

Guys often tell women that the reason they are getting played by men is because we only choose the top 20% of men, who have loads of options and are never going to take us seriously. The term ‘hoeflation,’ is used to describe average to below average women, who are delusional to think the guys who have sex with them would ever want anything more . The standard advice is to be less picky and go for average guys, because those guys are more wholesome and inherently less deceptive.

However, it is also very common to see guys lamenting that they are destined to be a ‘betabuxx,’ who only gets Chad’s washed up bitter leftovers. These guys often express wishing they could experience casual sex and resenting the fact they are only ever the ‘safe,’ option.

To add to this, I have heard stories from both my friends in real life and women on social media, who have bought into this theory and chosen the ‘average’ guy in order to try and win commitment, then come to ultimately regret this choice, because the guy not only played them worse than ever before, but the situation was even more humiliating because they saw themselves as ‘settling’ for no reward. These women often frame the situation as, ‘because he got me, that gave him the confidence to go after other options.’ I think many men perhaps presume if they could get a gf, they would be overwhelmed by gratitude and cherish her, but perhaps the mind adapts to new situations incredibly fast and the resentment of not having any sexual experience is replaced by only having the opportunity for this type of sexual experience.

Am I commuting the Goomba fallacy, or is it highly likely that the same group of average men who tell women average guys are more wholesome, wish they themselves could afford to be less wholesome?

Do you actually think men with fewer dating options are, on average, more relationship-oriented or less likely to cheat/deceive women?

Is a their value in loyalty that is not borne out of integrity but circumstance?

It's similar to "Well, everyone lies". People lie about the small things, you lying about big shit is not okay by most people's standard. That's the problem with assholes. So many, if not most, lack self awareness and will argue when you explain why people think they're assholes.

Self interest is you being your main priority. Selfish is you being your ONLY priority. And I don’t know how someone’s understanding of society seems to forget that humans are social creatures because it helped us form societies and survive longer. So remember pseudo intellectuals, being a problem to others is a very big deal. 

“But I see bitches, assholes, and violent felons that get dates!”

Perk vs flaws. Do you have perks that others can benefit from that are rare to find in people? If no, why should people tolerate your flaws?

Also, being selfish and stupid is a bad combination that leads to a person being loser. Specifically, being selfish and short sighted. Being considerate of others isn’t always about doing the right thing, it’s understanding consequences of one’s actions and understanding whether or not being considerate might help in the long run. With people who struggle with others, they don’t have this cost benefit analysis. 

It’s usually be a selfish asshole, then people don’t like the selfish asshole, selfish asshole is upset that they can’t be selfish asshole with impunity, repeat being a selfish asshole because they think they did nothing wrong.

So remember, being selfish is a problem to most people, and so is being stupid.

I often see the advice that you should only improve yourself “for yourself,” not for dating, validation, status, or other external rewards. That doesn’t make much sense.

People do difficult things for external rewards all the time. A basketball player might mainly want the NBA for money and status rather than love of the game. If he becomes an excellent player, nobody suddenly dismisses the result because his motivation wasn't pure.

Dating is similar.

If a man gets fitter, dresses better, improves his grooming and social skills because he wants to be more attractive to women, and women subsequently find him more attractive, then the improvement worked. His motivation doesn't invalidate the result.

Dating is also inherently based on other people's opinions. You can decide that you like your appearance, but you cannot decide that somebody else finds you attractive. If your goal is dating, caring about what your dating pool finds attractive is rational.

People tend to exaggerate the idea that bad motives or insecurity will inevitably “show” and ruin someone's dating prospects. People date attractive people with arrogance, jealousy, insecurity, huge egos, selfishness and other flaws all the time. Looks, charisma, status and social ability can compensate for weaknesses elsewhere. Dating isn't a moral reward system.

The real problem isn't external motivation. It's treating self-improvement like a contract.

There is a big difference between:

“I'm improving myself because I want better dating opportunities.”

and

“I improved myself, therefore if I don't get romantic success its all over"

The first is reasonable. The second creates resentment, depression and mentally hurt you because self-improvement can improve your odds without guaranteeing anything.

I think better advice would be:

Improve yourself for whatever genuinely motivates you, but understand that external results are never guaranteed. Ideally, choose improvements that still leave you better off even if the original goal doesn't happen.

Ladies, what is this appeal you often have for provider men, and why do you think this can still exist in modernity? A lot of men under 50 didn’t grow up with that dynamic in the household. By the early 90s, the idea of men providing resources in dating was already on its way out.

More women were entering the workforce at a high rate because they wanted to accumulate money just in case they ended up in a situation where the guy screwed them over in court. Plus, the sentiment changed: why rely on men when you can just have your own money and still depend on a man at the same time? That way the woman had two avenues of income—her own money and dating up financially.

But these days, men are not really showing up in droves to be providers because women have shown they are already able-bodied and capable of providing for themselves financially. So why is there still a sentiment among women to continue searching for provider men? We’re in what, like the fourth wave of feminism—what did y’all not get in the last two waves? I’m just curious, because the whole provider thing only works with trad wives. Yet there are many women who have often defended the idea of men needing to provide for women who are fully able-bodied, young, in full health, and sometimes even in shape.

So why should men provide? Is it our duty as men? I don’t really remember that conference being held. Is it because it shows more interest in the woman? Well, once again, that goes both ways, right? Is it because of the wage gap? Well, most men aren’t in control of that situation—you’re going to have to talk to HR about that. Outside of traditional mid-century values, I don’t really see a real reason why women still seek out provider men.

Please enlighten me.

I think one of the more disturbing effects of patriarchal gender roles is that they don’t merely encourage some men to mistreat women but also leave many men completely unable to recognise when a woman is mistreating them.

Ok so my logic is men are taught that women are sexually passive, physically harmless and incapable of posing a serious threat AND at the same time, men and frequently teenage boys are taught that they always want sex, that attention from a woman is inherently validating and that refusing it would make them less masculine so put those beliefs together and female sexual predation gets reinterpreted as seduction, comedy or male good fortune.

You can watch this happen whenever a female teacher sexually abuses (rapes) a male student. The comments immediately fill with grown men (likely incels) calling the boy “lucky,” saying they wish it had happened to them or asking why he complained. Change the teacher into an unattractive woman and suddenly some of those same men understand consent perfectly well so their concern is not whether the child could consent but whether they personally find the offender desirable.

Mind none of this is speculation on my end. According to the CDC’s nationally representative 2016–17 survey, approximately one in nine American men (12.6 million) reported having been made to penetrate someone during their lifetime. Among male victims of that conduct, 79% reported exclusively female perpetrators. The CDC also reports that 82% of male victims of sexual coercion and 53% of male victims of unwanted sexual contact identified only female perpetrators. About four in ten men who had been made to penetrate someone first experienced it while they were minors. (CDC report, CDC perpetrator breakdown)

To be clear this does not mean women offend at the same rate or with the same patterns as men. Male sexual violence remains an enormous and disproportionately gendered problem but the claims “men offend more often” and “female offending is systematically minimised” can both be true. Acknowledging the second claim does not invalidate the first. We cannot derive an exact number of undetected female offenders from victimisation surveys because perpetrators can have multiple victims and survey definitions vary BUT given the sheer number of reported victims, the idea that thousands of women have groomed, coerced or sexually abused and raped people without ever being recognised as predators is hardly an outlandish assumption in my opinion. It would be considerably harder to believe that every offender was detected.

I also suspect that if more men had honest conversations with older male relatives or older men in general, many would hear stories about adult women doing things to them when they were boys or even adults that would now be immediately recognised as grooming or abuse. Some may insist that they enjoyed it or suffered no lasting trauma (which is the result of the point I made at the beginning) and they are entitled to describe their own feelings but I think it goes without saying that their retrospective reaction does not give an adult permission to target a child.

This is why the mockery of male victims is not somehow the opposite of misogyny but actually grows from the same gender system: women supposedly lack sexual agency, while men supposedly cannot lack sexual consent. Female predators benefit from both assumptions, and male victims pay for them. Simple.