Hi from Argentina, irmãos brasileiros. I was watching the news, and Lula was reelected.

I read many times that Brazil has a misandry problem, apart that PT (ruling party) is pushing antimale policies, and now with 4 years more will persist.

Will it be a worsening or the start of feminism being confronted?

Disclaimer, this is not an endorsement on Asmongold, let's not make it about him.

Honest question, interested in exchange in good faith. How did this kind of content became normalized? It's delusional. These women make all these statements contrary to actual facts and nonetheless, this is considered passable. How? Why? When?

Here is a quote from the clip:

I am not saying you don't have to deal with stuff and I know you are not doing great. Look at suicide rates. But they don't have to deal with what we deal with. They don't have to laugh with jokes that aren't funny.

Again, for me the problem is not that there is a platform for these things. There is always going to be extremists and idiots and they will always be finding a way to make their ideas public. I am focusing on the fact, that this type of nonsensical thinking is societally accepted right now.

PS: As always, YouTube-Comments do not fail to deliver.

I believe many issues that are usually discussed separately are actually connected. These include men's issues, transgender rights, gender nonconformity, bodily autonomy, prison reform, opposition to military conscription, mental health, abuse prevention, and the freedom to live outside rigid social expectations.

At the heart of these issues is a simple principle: human beings should not be treated as disposable, owned, controlled, or forced into lives that cause unnecessary suffering. People should have meaningful autonomy over their own lives and bodies whenever possible.

I do not see concern for men and concern for transgender people as conflicting causes. In many respects they overlap. Both involve questions of gender expectations, social pressure, bodily autonomy, discrimination, violence, mental health, and the freedom to express oneself honestly. Rather than treating these issues as separate camps, I believe there is value in recognizing where experiences and interests overlap.

One issue I believe receives far too little attention is military conscription. Throughout history, countless men have been compelled into wars they did not choose, exposed to trauma, injury, death, and lasting psychological harm. Even long after wars end, many veterans continue to live with the consequences. I believe conscription is one of the most serious human-rights issues that has disproportionately affected men.

Another major issue is incarceration. The United States has an enormous prison population, most of whom are men. Prison violence, sexual abuse, solitary confinement, mental-health deterioration, family separation, and the difficulties faced by former prisoners after release are serious concerns that deserve far more attention. A society that claims to care about human rights should not ignore what happens behind prison walls.

I also believe society often overlooks male victims of abuse. Boys and men can be victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse, child abuse, institutional abuse, exploitation, and neglect. Their suffering should be taken seriously and not treated as a joke, a weakness, or something to be ignored.

Bodily autonomy is another principle that should be applied consistently. I am opposed to routine infant circumcision. I do not believe healthy baby boys should have part of their genitals permanently removed before they are old enough to understand or consent. Circumcision is often discussed as a minor procedure, but it is nevertheless an irreversible alteration of a child's body. I believe bodily autonomy requires us to take that issue seriously. If people are concerned with consent, human rights, and protection from unnecessary bodily modification, then those principles should apply to boys as well. Adults should have broad authority over their own bodies, but children deserve protection from unnecessary irreversible procedures until they are old enough to meaningfully participate in those decisions.

I support broader acceptance of gender nonconformity, androgyny, transgender people, and people who simply do not fit traditional expectations. Not everyone is comfortable in the role society assigns them, and people should have room to explore who they are without fear, humiliation, or persecution.

Children experiencing severe gender-related distress deserve compassion and support. They should not be mocked, demonized, or treated as problems to be managed. Their well-being should matter, and efforts should be made to reduce suffering rather than increase it. I believe society should make room for people to live as the gender they genuinely understand themselves to be rather than forcing them into roles that cause them constant misery.

I believe male sexuality is natural and should not automatically be treated as suspicious, immoral, or hateful. People should be respectful of others and respect consent, but there is nothing wrong with being attracted to other consenting adults or speaking honestly about that attraction. Liking women, finding people attractive, having crushes, and expressing normal sexual feelings does not make someone a misogynist.

I also believe society has become unnecessarily rigid in some areas of sexuality and gender. While the sexual revolution was imperfect, I believe it expanded personal freedom and challenged many restrictive assumptions. Greater tolerance, openness, and acceptance of different ways of living would be beneficial.

I believe people should be free to express themselves in ways that feel natural to them, whether that means being masculine, feminine, androgynous, transgender, gender-nonconforming, or simply uninterested in traditional expectations. A healthy society should make room for many different ways of living rather than trying to force everyone into the same mold.

More broadly, I worry that modern society often emphasizes conformity, productivity, punishment, and control at the expense of individuality, personal freedom, and human dignity. Whether the issue is war, prisons, abuse, rigid gender expectations, or social coercion, I believe we should move toward a society that is more humane, more tolerant, and more concerned with reducing unnecessary suffering.

My goal is not to attack women, transgender people, or any other group. My goal is to argue that men, boys, transgender people, abuse victims, prisoners, and other vulnerable people deserve serious concern, dignity, compassion, and protection. A society that values freedom and human well-being should extend those principles to everyone.

I want a society that is less coercive, less punitive, less obsessed with forcing people into predetermined roles, and more willing to respect individual dignity. Whether someone is a young man facing conscription, a prisoner, a victim of abuse, a transgender person struggling to be accepted, or simply someone who does not fit traditional expectations, they deserve the chance to live a life that is their own. Human freedom, bodily autonomy, compassion, and protection from unnecessary suffering should not be privileges reserved for a few. They should be principles applied to everyone.

Hey, so for starts I’m 29. I struggle with pelvic floor pain, and recently went to a urologist to get my prostate checked. My PT told me to do so, because my symptoms can line up with prostatitis and prostate cancer. So they often have you screened for it. I asked for this to be done but my doctor was a female, i think she was uncomfortable doing it, and used my age as a reason to not do it despite the health issues iv been having. She instead prescribed a new pill that i wont be taking due to the side effects actually making things worse for me.

I don’t really know what to do from here, i told my PT that i tried and was refused that care. So maybe she can point mr to a doctor that will.

Have you ever had health issues and be refused care based on your gender?

Be the way i do know its normally 40-50 people get prostate exam for cancer, but iv been having health issues and was told by my pelvic pt to have it done, because shes had people come back with prostatitis, and one time prostate cancer.

Something i genuinely never found funny or entertaining is someone getting it in the balls hard!
I know theres light taps that can happen, its unfortunate, it suck but theres no real risk of hard.
I see people promoting kicking guys in the balls, as if it should be a go to, and not just in self defense situations.

I remember growing up, i was kinda an outcast. There was this group of girl and guys that would always try their best to ram their foot into my testicals well i was walking the play ground, a few times causing real harm. This was never discouraged by teachers, and the girls thought it was the funniest thing to see me crimped over in pain, trying not to vomit.
It’s something thats always stuck with me now and pisses me off.
It’s often not treated with the heavy seriousness that it deserves.

I remember having to go to the doctor because at one point one of them got shoved back up inside my groin.

But its funny to kick guys the testicals i guess… totally not a very very fucked up thing to do.
I remember being told be careful with girls and not to be rough that if i was to rough house with one (this is a good idea of age) that i should be careful not to accidentally put pressure on their pelvis or stomach because it can hurt their reproductive system.

Where was the girls version of these talks? Do you think parents kinda fail at teaching girl to respect boys anatomy and right to not be touch or sexual assaulted as alot of boys are?

Parenthood law is inconsistent. A woman can decide whether to become a parent within a set window, but a man has no equivalent choice. If the state says a child's claim to support outweighs a parent's choice, it must apply to both parents. If it doesn't, it shouldn't apply to just one. So, which is it? If the concern is the child's welfare, the answer is to fund support some other way, not to make one parent liable by default.

I know the bodily autonomy argument for abortion. It’s valid, but it covers autonomy and not the bill. Our current system is a double standard.

The boy and the dad are presented as helpless idiots. The mom is going to her super job, while dad doesn't know how to make french toast. The boy is somehow gross.

Just like the Peppa Pig Cartoons, but in a version for adults. It's the cultural norm now I guess....

What blows my mind is that, before she moved to France and changed her mind, she said she would actually argue with her husband to get their son circumcised. That is the part that is completely alien to me. It is not just that I disagree with circumcision. I genuinely cannot understand caring that much about doing it.

Even if I hated foreskins, even if I preferred circumcised penises, even if I was perfectly happy with being circumcised myself, I still cannot imagine arguing with my wife to cut healthy tissue off our child. Why would I care that much? Why would I be fighting for that outcome rather than just leaving the kid alone?

And this was not even a religious issue for her. So what exactly was the motivation? You are seriously going to push for a permanent medical procedure on your own child because that is what you're used to seeing? That mindset is so foreign to me that I have trouble relating to it at all.

Then later she changes her mind, admits there is harm involved, compares it to female genital mutilation, acknowledges many of the points critics have been making for years, and suddenly realizes that maybe cutting healthy tissue off children is not such a great idea after all.

But then she still turns around and says parents should basically be allowed to do whatever they want. That is where she loses me completely. If you genuinely think it is harmful, and if you are willing to compare it to genital cutting performed on girls, then what is the point of spending an entire video making those arguments only to retreat into "but parents can decide"?

If somebody made a video about a form of genital cutting done to girls, compared it to female genital mutilation, talked about the harms involved, and then concluded with "but parents should be free to do it anyway," people would think that was absurd. Yet somehow when the discussion involves boys, people are expected to take that contradiction seriously.

The whole thing just makes me think that a lot of people's opinions on circumcision are driven more by culture and social expectations than by logic. She moves to France, where circumcision is much less common, and suddenly starts questioning assumptions that apparently never occurred to her before. It is as if surrounding norms changed and only then did the basic ethical questions become obvious.

What I cannot get over is not that she changed her mind. Changing your mind is fine. What I cannot understand is how she was ever passionate enough about circumcision to argue for it in the first place. Even if I thought circumcision was harmless, I still cannot imagine feeling strongly enough to campaign for the removal of healthy tissue from my own child. That level of enthusiasm for it is something I honestly cannot relate to at all.

In Australia we just had a man appointed by government as board chairman of a wholesale fruit and vegetable market regulator. He replaced a woman who was the acting board chair.

So what happens next? All the women on the board resign in protest! Now it might have been that the man was not qualified; but no, he had previously been head of the biggest produce retail market in Australia.

We have reached the point that qualified male appointees to senior positions are now unacceptable to feminist ideologues. Where will this end?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-26/melbourne-demons-boss-named-as-melbourne-market-chair/107300542