It's unclear why you think putting words in my mouth is going to achieve anything. ICOs don't need any special regulations, existing contract law is fine.

Finally, I'm not sure why you've written "regulatory clarity" there. Of course we'd like the authorities to act in a predicable way, but that's an orthagonal issue to how restrictive those regulations should be. It feels like you're just throwing out phrases you don't quite understand.

Pro-tip going forward in life: try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I prefer explanations that fit observed behaviour - men take larger overdoses, and neither a propensity for violence nor a higher tolerance for messiness can explain that.

Likewise, I don't believe women become more violent or selfish as they reach middle age, yet they also start taking larger overdoses. It seems more likely there are specific problems that affect women at that point in their lives and/or they they feel less able to overcome problems they'd have coped with earlier (due to shrinking support networks, for example).

As for pain, I'd note that females are much more likely to self-harm than males (which, incidentally, is also messy).

You're talking in circles here - you brought up what "sort of person" is in the manosphere, and your answer is people in the manosphere. Not exactly insightful.

The so-called manosphere is a wildly diverse grouping with different experiences, complaints, and conclusions. Lumping in Andrew Tate with Men's Rights is just nonsensical.

> bash feminism rather than a reason to fight things like rape culture

I can do both and it's served me very well. When feminists like Koss et al. downplay female abuse of boys, that is rape culture and I'll fight them all day long.

> If even with your experience can't figure out why serial rape victims might murder their attackers

This is a schizophrenic strawman. I understand that perfectly and I've said nothing that could lead someone of sound mind to think otherwise.

I've been called a feminist in real life (much to my annoyance) in arguments about abortion, or about behaviour online or at work. There's nothing about Men's Rights that requires taking legitimate rights away from women. I can be a good person without identifying as my own enemy.

If you were actually sorry about my experience, you might like to prove it by not making up lies, cut from whole cloth, about me and men like me, in what looks like a desperate attempt to paint yourself as One of the Good Ones.

I'd have a hard time denying it because I have no idea what that "sort of person" is even supposed to be. Is it just people you don't like?

I went down the Men's Rights rabbithole because I got sexually assaulted by a woman as a teenager and didn't know how to deal with it. They were the only ones talking about it, and I assure you nobody involved had any interest in relegalizing marital rape.

Rather, that seems to be a bit of DARVO given that feminist thinkers like Mary Koss would see happened to me reduced to "unwanted contact".

> And my point isn't that the men's rights people don't have legitimate points about how patriarchy also harms men.

"Patriarchy hurts men too" is empty handwaving, not a substitute for genuine solutions.

Given your little quip - "think of all the men who haven't been murdered as they slept" - I doubt you'll be interested in providing help for men (or boys, as it was) like myself. If that's the feminist line, then it is clear that feminism, to put it mildly, isn't for me.

The conversation would have ended up the same way had I seen his reply before editing the example in - I'd just have given it afterwards, and he'd still have no answer.

Go through the issues in the second section and tell me what Andrew Tate's position was on any of them.

Spoiler alert: you can't. Tate was not an MRA, he was a pickup artist.

Male feminists also tend to find themselves in trouble, by the way. Michael Kimmel used to play the same game of lumping legitimate issues (suicide/education/family courts) in with incels upset they can't get laid. He had to retire after getting #MeToo'd, heh. Tiresome and predictable. Perhaps I should add a Google Alert for your name ;)

Fascinating. This is exactly the sort of half-baked lie I was talking about.

Edit: At some point, rubber has to meet road. Either you accept that boys falling behind in education is an issue, or you don't. If you don't accept it as an issue, then you cannot simultaneously claim to be the ones solving it.

Some of those solutions are not easy. It's been known for decades that boys get lower grades in school, and not always for the quality of their work. In the UK we saw girls suddenly shoot past boys in maths results when exams were cancelled for COVID and teacher-assessed grades were given instead. What's the feminist solution for that?

Even a simple statement like "boys are falling behind in education" can get you implicated as a misogynist. Here's a lovely pull-quote from a recent report, The State of UK Boys:

> There's often an underlying assumption that boys should be attaining higher than girls, and if girls attain higher, then that's a problem. - Louise Archer

I could give examples on a range of issues: from suicide, discrimination in the court system, domestic violence/sexual assault. There's a set of knee-jerk responses (e.g. men only commit suicide more due to firearms/violence) that simply aren't true (men also die more from intentional overdoses). For each and every thing MRAs complain about, there's a knee-jerk, half-baked, feminist reaction.

You can question the relevance of a comparison without questioning the integrity of the person bringing it up: say it's off-topic and explain why.

More often than not, accusations of "whataboutery" are used to avoid having to explain why something isn't relevant and thus avoid addressing whatever point is being made. I'd go as far as to say it's why the word even exists.