A post about how traumatic it is to shave your legs. Meanwhile, men’s bodies are treated like machines or expendable assets. 400,000 American boys died in Vietnam. Average nineteen, nineteen, ner ner ner, nineteen.
Let me explain, since you’ve clearly misunderstood both the tone and the purpose of this piece.
This wasn’t a “post about shaving legs.” It was a satirical, culturally grounded critique of how women’s bodies are pathologised, censored, and commodified, while male discomfort, even with basic biology like menstruation, is treated as catastrophic. Your response isn’t clever or insightful. It’s a textbook case of whataboutism: the act of derailing a conversation by inserting unrelated male suffering to recenter the narrative around yourself.
Yes, men have been treated as expendable in war. That is also a product of patriarchy, the same system that tells men they are only valuable when they’re emotionless, disposable, or dominant. But instead of recognising that, you’ve used male trauma as a deflection, not a contribution. You didn’t engage with the article. You avoided it. You tried to shut it down with a non sequitur, as if throwing out a death toll makes women’s lived experience suddenly invalid.
This article doesn’t deny male suffering. It simply refuses to prioritise it in a space that isn’t about you. And the fact that you couldn’t handle one piece about women’s bodies without scrambling to make it about men proves the exact point it was making.
If that makes you uncomfortable, ask yourself why, and then do better.
Men being expendable in war is a product of democracy with 50 percent of women voting. Studies also show that a female leader is more likely to take a nation into war than a male leader. Your posts are the mirror image of INCEL culture. You’re clearly a misandrist and you’re trying to put me back in my box for having an opinion. Femsplaining?
Let’s break this down properly, since your argument relies on historical inaccuracy, selective data, and poor reasoning.
Claiming that men were treated as expendable in war because “50 percent of women vote” is factually wrong. Military drafts were created, enforced, and led by male-dominated governments. The Vietnam War draft in the US, for example, was legislated by an all-male Senate and signed into law by a male president. Women had no legislative power and barely any political representation. Voting rights do not equal control over military policy, and if you are indeed an economist, you should know the difference between enfranchisement and governance.
This kind of argument erases the male decision-makers who built and maintained the war machine. It also collapses cause and effect into something politically convenient but historically incorrect. No serious academic would accept this logic. It would not pass basic scrutiny.
As for your reference to female leaders being “more likely” to take a nation to war, you are likely referring to the 2019 study by Olsson and Johannesson. The actual research shows that in high-conflict scenarios, some female leaders may respond aggressively. Not because they’re inherently more violent, but because they’re operating in systems that demand they overcompensate to be taken seriously in masculine political spheres. That’s not a biological inevitability, that’s a symptom of (you guessed it) patriarchy.
Calling my work misandrist or likening it to incel culture is not an argument. It is a defensive deflection from the discomfort of being challenged. The piece in question was a satirical analysis of how women's bodies are pathologised, commodified, and politicised, while male biological discomfort is centred and protected. Critiquing the system that upholds these double standards is not hatred of men. It is an effort to expose and question a cultural imbalance that benefits neither women nor men. If that unsettles you, that is not my concern.
Calling disagreement “femsplaining” is another attempt to dismiss the point rather than engage with it. You are not being silenced. You are being corrected. That discomfort is yours to sit with.
Loved this!! From the references to penis drawings over periods to the reminder that Teeth was a movie. And I love the animal kingdom references too! As my entomology professor put it in college, “in most insect species, the males are just walking sperm packets”. Thanks for making me laugh. Both of you haha.
This is brilliant. You're brilliant. When I was younger my mother would hush me if I spoke too loudly about my period when my father or brother was present. Now Ive learned to challenge it and even my mom doesn't think it's so taboo anymore. If I may add one more fact about male bees, they get kicked out of their hives come winter by the females. Literally dragged out by their legs and left to starve or freeze to death. Their only job is to mate, once that's done they just eat up resources and become useless. So yea you're absolutely right, these female creatures are way ahead of us.
A post about how traumatic it is to shave your legs. Meanwhile, men’s bodies are treated like machines or expendable assets. 400,000 American boys died in Vietnam. Average nineteen, nineteen, ner ner ner, nineteen.
Let me explain, since you’ve clearly misunderstood both the tone and the purpose of this piece.
This wasn’t a “post about shaving legs.” It was a satirical, culturally grounded critique of how women’s bodies are pathologised, censored, and commodified, while male discomfort, even with basic biology like menstruation, is treated as catastrophic. Your response isn’t clever or insightful. It’s a textbook case of whataboutism: the act of derailing a conversation by inserting unrelated male suffering to recenter the narrative around yourself.
Yes, men have been treated as expendable in war. That is also a product of patriarchy, the same system that tells men they are only valuable when they’re emotionless, disposable, or dominant. But instead of recognising that, you’ve used male trauma as a deflection, not a contribution. You didn’t engage with the article. You avoided it. You tried to shut it down with a non sequitur, as if throwing out a death toll makes women’s lived experience suddenly invalid.
This article doesn’t deny male suffering. It simply refuses to prioritise it in a space that isn’t about you. And the fact that you couldn’t handle one piece about women’s bodies without scrambling to make it about men proves the exact point it was making.
If that makes you uncomfortable, ask yourself why, and then do better.
Men being expendable in war is a product of democracy with 50 percent of women voting. Studies also show that a female leader is more likely to take a nation into war than a male leader. Your posts are the mirror image of INCEL culture. You’re clearly a misandrist and you’re trying to put me back in my box for having an opinion. Femsplaining?
Let’s break this down properly, since your argument relies on historical inaccuracy, selective data, and poor reasoning.
Claiming that men were treated as expendable in war because “50 percent of women vote” is factually wrong. Military drafts were created, enforced, and led by male-dominated governments. The Vietnam War draft in the US, for example, was legislated by an all-male Senate and signed into law by a male president. Women had no legislative power and barely any political representation. Voting rights do not equal control over military policy, and if you are indeed an economist, you should know the difference between enfranchisement and governance.
This kind of argument erases the male decision-makers who built and maintained the war machine. It also collapses cause and effect into something politically convenient but historically incorrect. No serious academic would accept this logic. It would not pass basic scrutiny.
As for your reference to female leaders being “more likely” to take a nation to war, you are likely referring to the 2019 study by Olsson and Johannesson. The actual research shows that in high-conflict scenarios, some female leaders may respond aggressively. Not because they’re inherently more violent, but because they’re operating in systems that demand they overcompensate to be taken seriously in masculine political spheres. That’s not a biological inevitability, that’s a symptom of (you guessed it) patriarchy.
Calling my work misandrist or likening it to incel culture is not an argument. It is a defensive deflection from the discomfort of being challenged. The piece in question was a satirical analysis of how women's bodies are pathologised, commodified, and politicised, while male biological discomfort is centred and protected. Critiquing the system that upholds these double standards is not hatred of men. It is an effort to expose and question a cultural imbalance that benefits neither women nor men. If that unsettles you, that is not my concern.
Calling disagreement “femsplaining” is another attempt to dismiss the point rather than engage with it. You are not being silenced. You are being corrected. That discomfort is yours to sit with.
Excellent piece! Love this so much!
Loved this!! From the references to penis drawings over periods to the reminder that Teeth was a movie. And I love the animal kingdom references too! As my entomology professor put it in college, “in most insect species, the males are just walking sperm packets”. Thanks for making me laugh. Both of you haha.
Love this so much. Made me laugh- especially the image of the bee to top the whole story off. 🐝 😆
This is brilliant. You're brilliant. When I was younger my mother would hush me if I spoke too loudly about my period when my father or brother was present. Now Ive learned to challenge it and even my mom doesn't think it's so taboo anymore. If I may add one more fact about male bees, they get kicked out of their hives come winter by the females. Literally dragged out by their legs and left to starve or freeze to death. Their only job is to mate, once that's done they just eat up resources and become useless. So yea you're absolutely right, these female creatures are way ahead of us.