Many types of inappropriate or harmful behavior that are punished in men are considered acceptable — and sometimes even encouraged — in women. The double standards men face are unreasonable.
What are your thoughts on this video?
(Short answer: ABSOLUTELY. . . . . NOT!)
Much of the problem lies with the failure of the United Nations to uphold its founding principles, especially statements that affirm the need for gender equality:
UN Charter — Preamble reaffirms the necessity for “equal rights of men and women.”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, [or] sex,…”
(Men and boys are included in these two statements as well, but they continue to violate the human rights of men and boys deliberately.)
​
WASHINGTON / March 12, 2026 – In her 1970 book, Sexual Politics, feminist Kate Millett posited the existence of a systemic, society-wide structure of male dominance and power over women, what she referred to as the “patriarchy.” Over the years, “oppressive patriarchy” came to be viewed as a quasi-religious truth in some circles, never subject to question or doubt.
Now, over 50 years later, it’s time to ask for concrete evidence of the existence of patriarchy. Numerous scientific studies and governmental reports reveal men around the world are lagging behind women in 12 areas:
Education: Over “100 countries have lower levels of male secondary and tertiary education enrollment and completion,” according to the World Bank (1).
Health: Men face a global lifespan gender gap of 5 years: Men: 68.9 years; Women: 73.9 years, reveals the World Health Organization (2).
Boys: Among boys ages 5 to 17, 11.2% are involved in child labor, compared to 7.8% of girls, according to the International Labor Organization (3).
False Allegations: Men experience the majority of false allegations of abuse, according to surveys conducted in eight countries around the world (4).
Homicide victims: Males account for 78% of all homicide victims around the world (5).
Shared parenting: Fathers are awarded joint physical custody, on average, in only 5% of cases, according to a 37-country survey (6).
Criminal system: Men face more severe treatment at every step of the criminal-legal process, especially during the charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing stages (7).
Partner abuse: Far fewer services are available for male victims (8), even though men are equally likely to be victims of partner violence (9).
Homelessness: Around the world, 76% of homeless persons are males (10).
Workplace deaths: Men face 15 times the number of occupational deaths from accidents, compared to women: Men: 6.2 deaths/100,000 workers, Women: 0.4/100,000 workers (11).
Paternity fraud: Globally, fathers are victims of paternity fraud in 3.7% of pregnancies (12).
Media portrayals: Media reporting and commentary about men is 69% unfavorable, 12% favorable, and 19% neutral or balanced (13).
Despite the fact that those 0.1% men predominate in national legislative bodies, research reveals they are motivated by protective and chivalrous impulses, not by a desire to exercise male dominance over women (14).
The conclusion is clear: There is no such thing as “patriarchy” in western societies.
The International Council for Men and Boys is a non-governmental organization working to end the 12 sex disparities that affect men and boys worldwide. The ICMB is a leader of the emerging global movement to address the 12 areas of male disadvantage.
Links:
​
> Karen Straughan: “The omnipotent, ever-present patriarchy — the invisible force that directs all of our lives and causes all oppression and all suffering — our Devil. And the beautiful, wonderful force for justice: Feminism. It’s the way. It’s the way. It sounds like religion. It sounds like religion. And oh my goodness — for a movement that’s only about equality and isn’t blaming men, they named the force for evil after men and the force for justice after women. And this is a movement that is very, very concerned with the implications of language. So concerned that if you call a firefighter a ‘fireman,’ it will discourage little girls from aspiring to be firefighters — and sometimes discourage grown women as well. But we can call the force behind all oppression ‘patriarchy,’ essentially men, right? And we can call the force for good and justice ‘women.’ And that kind of language has no implications? We’re not blaming men; we just named everything bad after them.” — The Red Pill (2016 documentary)
I’ll start with mine: Christina Hoff Sommers, Warren Farrell, and Cassie Jaye.
Of course, I know there are other notable figures besides them, like Janice Fiamengo, Paul Elam, Karen Straughan, and the Honey Badgers, and I do appreciate their work and content. But for me, the difference in approach is what really makes the first three stand out.
The main reason I prefer Jaye, Sommers, and Farrell is that they explain things and critique feminism in a way that makes it clear they aren’t blaming women in general. They also acknowledge that some good has come from feminism—particularly first-wave feminism—and that women still face misogyny. They recognize that there are differences between men and women, and that socialization and culture can exaggerate those differences, but they don’t lean too far into gender essentialism.
Fiamengo, Elam, and Straughan, on the other hand, tend to take an approach that leans more toward gender essentialism, and traditional gender roles and values which I’m less interested in. That said, I do appreciate that they speak very directly, don’t get swayed by emotional sentiments, and aren’t afraid of controversy. They’re very blunt and explain things eloquently. Janice in particular, have sort of a mysterious vibe to her.
Even though these three don’t hate women and say they oppose feminism, their tone and language can sometimes come across as if they’re blaming women in general for the current state of society. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s the impression I sometimes get.
Overall, they share some common ground: criticizing feminism, challenging popular feminist beliefs, addressing issues that disproportionately affect men and boys, and arguing that men are disadvantaged compared to women.
> “The omnipotent, ever-present patriarchy — the invisible force that directs all of our lives and causes all oppression and all suffering — our Devil. And the beautiful, wonderful force for justice: Feminism. It’s the way. It’s the way. It sounds like religion. It sounds like religion. And oh my goodness — for a movement that’s only about equality and isn’t blaming men, they named the force for evil after men and the force for justice after women. And this is a movement that is very, very concerned with the implications of language. So concerned that if you call a firefighter a ‘fireman,’ it will discourage little girls from aspiring to be firefighters — and sometimes discourage grown women as well. But we can call the force behind all oppression ‘patriarchy,’ essentially men, right? And we can call the force for good and justice ‘women.’ And that kind of language has no implications? We’re not blaming men; we just named everything bad after them.” — The Red Pill (2016 documentary)
##A few extra points:
Men’s rights began gaining traction and recognition around the 1970s. One of the first major legal organizations was founded in 1977: the National Coalition for Men (NCFM), a civil rights organization that aims to address how sex discrimination and unfair laws affect and target men and boys. The NCFM is often seen as an original anchor and “legal backbone” of the men’s rights movement (MRM). It files lawsuits against businesses and schools while also applying political pressure on the government.
Up until the 1960s, women in the West tended to vote more right-wing, while men leaned more left-wing. This was also a time when left-wing and socialist movements were strongest, particularly when they focused on workers. As “the Left” increasingly incorporated feminism and identity politics, a political shift began to occur.
Men’s rights advocates generally frame their goals as seeking fairness and equal treatment for men and boys. History is often simplified as men oppressing women, but in reality, both men and women were constrained by broader social and economic systems. Both groups struggled for rights such as voting, education, and basic freedoms.
##Background On August 28, 2007, Jezebel published a satirical article titled “Have You Ever Beat Up a Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have” by Tracie Egan Morrissey. The article mocked male victims of female domestic violence, making light of the abuse women inflicted on their male partners.
As the article stated:
> “According to a study of relationships that engage in non-reciprocal violence, a whopping 70% are perpetrated by women. So basically that means that girls are beating up their BFs and husbands and the dudes aren’t fighting back. With Amy Winehouse reportedly busting open a can of whoop-ass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who had been violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let’s just say it would be wise to never, ever fuck with us."
Luckily, the backlash was immediate, and readers called out the author in the comment section.
##The Beauty of Selective Reading Anyone with common sense can see that the purpose of his article was to raise awareness of female perpetrators and male victims. His goal was to expose the hypocrisy of Jezebel and show how their humor relies on ignorant stereotypes of domestic violence. He made it abundantly clear that the article was not advocating for men to commit domestic violence on women. Yet all of this fell on the opposition’s deaf ears. They ignored the full context of the article. Journalists, political commentators, and even the Southern Poverty Law Center cited it as “concrete proof” that the men’s rights movement is violent—because, apparently, “the truth doesn’t matter,” right?
On October 18, 2013, David Futrelle wrote an article about Paul Elam on We Hunted The Mammoth (David’s website). In it, he stated, “Elam is also a fierce misogynist with a penchant for angry, violent rhetoric full of only-slightly veiled threats. But don’t take my word for it. Perhaps the best way to get to know Mr. Elam is through his own words.” The very first article he cited as evidence was Bash A Violent Bitch Month. So, the very first piece of “evidence” he could offer against Paul Elam was an article he took out of context—not exactly convincing.
In 2014, MRAs organized the first-ever International Conference on Men’s Issues (ICMI), which was protested by feminists in an attempt to shut it down. Matt Binder, from the Majority Report, attempted to defend the indefensible. What was his immediate justification for feminist censorship? You guessed it: the Bash A Violent Bitch Month article. In Binder’s mind, feminists should censor men’s conferences based on an article they intentionally took out of context.
On the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website, there is a “male supremacy” section in which they extensively cite A Voice For Men as a “male supremacy” site. To make their case, they posted several quotes from the site—among their leading examples was the Bash A Violent Bitch Month article. So, the SPLC, a site supposedly dedicated to tracking hate, can’t even manage accurate research on the very evidence they claim to be presenting.
This one article has been routinely cited out of context by the opposition. It serves as the ultimate “aha” moment for those hoping to prove that MRAs only care about hating women rather than helping men. It’s pretty ironic when you think about it. It’s nearly impossible to read the actual article and conclude that he was genuinely advocating for domestic violence. The fact that this article is constantly cited—out of context, mind you—seems to imply that the vast majority of the opposition to the MRM is based on fabricated evidence. If there were legitimate arguments against MRAs, they wouldn’t need to continuously manufacture content.
##Shifting the Goalposts Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there. Even when context is provided, the opposition immediately downplays the evidence. The Jezebel article that Paul was responding to is still out there for everyone to read—just a quick Google search away. Once you show people that Tracie wrote the original article mocking domestic violence victims, their outrage immediately disappears. If you show someone the Jezebel article, their response is often to ignore it and say, “It’s still no excuse for what he wrote.” There is no outrage over Tracie’s mockery of male victims, and no immediate retraction of their words, despite the truth being presented right in front of them.
In order to successfully shift the goalposts, people attempt to downplay the importance of female-on-male violence while amplifying the significance of male-on-female violence, using the deaths of innocent women as a shield for women to mock male victims of domestic violence. It’s very telling that most feminists seem to think that the abuse suffered by women at the hands of male partners a justification for women writers to make a mockery of men who suffer abuse from female partners.
##Conclusion Clearly, even if you show feminists this evidence, they’ll ignore it and continue to repeat the same lie afterwards. So this article isn’t directly for them. It’s for the casual observer who needs context on the topic. It’s used just in case, some dumb feminist pops up and says “MRAs mocked domestic violence victims. That’s why we oppose them. They hate da wammin.” Never hesitate to show them the context.