r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

I've seen a study on feminism, I think it was from 2025, and in most countries there would be 40-70% of women saying that not enough was done to ensure equal rights.

The highest percentage would be in the developed countries, which seems strange to me.

Sadly I don't remember the name of the study, but that got me thinking - are there actually rights that women are still lacking in your countries, like Canada and the US for example? Note I'm talking here specifically about the legislation.

I'm from Eastern Europe, it is considered to be a conservative and patriarcal country, and there are still some restrictions on the types of jobs women can take:

- mining

- working with toxic chemicals

- heavy industrial labor

- dangerous jobs like firefighters

Meanwhile, women also have benefits:

- no conscription and no related movement restriction

- capped prison sentences with better conditions

- pension 5 years earlier

- in my home region, work hours are reduced because of the harsh natural conditions in the region, while keeping the full salary

Also obviously there are benefits for pregnant women and women with small children, but I don't want to include these since they are female-specific.

Found this post on Twitter/X and felt it was worth sharing here. I know I post a lot about this sort of thing but this comment is right on the money about the problem of the "women and children" rhetoric. The implication that a man/boy dying during a tragic event like a bombing, shooting, terrorist attack, natural disaster, etc. is nothing major and not worth mourning even if that may not be the intent behind it. A male dying during an unfortunate incident like this is someone's son, father, brother, husband, etc. and it's so cruel to imply using this rhetoric that somehow a male's death doesn't matter. It's become worse in recent times how it's become "women and girls," which implies not even boys' lives and safety matters. Which is a whole other level of screwed up. I always felt "women and children/girls" is a classic example of misandry and how it's so widespread and enforced in much of society and institutions. I've seen some people defend it saying it's because women are more vulnerable. Well men are just as vulnerable and the average man isn't a Rambo-esque Action hero who's immune to harm. There's also misogynistic aspects to it too with how it infantalizes women and has them solely reliant on men to protect or rescue them when women are also capable of being soldiers, rescue workers, first responders, etc. and their efforts should be commended as much as the men in these professions.

Worth noting it was a female user who posted this as well, which is great. Always nice to see when both genders stick up for each other and call out bigotry against each other. I flaired this as progress because it always feels like progress when this rhetoric is called out for being blatantly anti-male and also when women call it out, showing they don't take well to men's lives being made out to be disposable and not worth caring about. Regardless of gender or age, everyone has a right to safety and protection.

I want to talk about the profound alienation so many of us are feeling right now. We live in a socio-political climate where it has become morally and politically acceptable to generalize, demonize, and vent about men. If you try to express any frustration regarding this ostracization, the response is immediate ridicule: you are downvoted, labeled an incel or a misogynist, and told that misandry is just "valid punching up" or "the oppressed retaliating against oppression."

Dealing with this systemic invalidation is incredibly complex. But to make sense of why modern discourse is so profoundly broken, we have to look at a massive structural blind spot in contemporary left-wing thought.

Modern sociology is hyper-fixated on analyzing systemic oppression and the potential threat of male physical asymmetry. Yet, it completely ignores the concept of systemic safety: the invisible infrastructure of protection, labor, and prosocial behavior provided by men that keeps civilization from collapsing.

When women participate in the "Man vs. Bear" debate, or claim they have a negative view of 70%+ of men, they are engaging in a hypervigilant risk-assessment. But society fails to realize that the very luxury to contemplate these hypothetical debates exists because of a vast, invisible network of good men keeping the wolves at bay.

To understand how this infrastructure actually works, we need to look at some structural realities of power, biology, and defense:

1. External defense: If all bad actors inside a nation suddenly vanished, that peaceful society would still need to be actively defended from external threats, such as extreme, patriarchal religious regimes or hostile foreign forces. We fundamentally rely on men to defend society against the violence of other men.
2. Men are indeed dangerous: Human beings possess an immense capacity for calculated cruelty and physical force. When blinded by anger, greed, or perversion, individuals are capable of horrific things. Because of physical asymmetry, a dangerous man is a highly potent threat, which is why hypervigilance against men exists. This reality cannot be denied.
3. Power is a structural reality: The male statistical majority in violent crime exists for the exact same biological reason that virtually 100% of world physical sports records are held by men: physical strength and capacity for explosive force. This is not an inherent moral failure of masculinity. If the biological power balance of the world were reversed, women would have to defend their peaceful societies against factions of other women. Power and force are structural realities of the natural world; evil itself knows no gender.
4. Men are the prosocial infrastructure of peace: Safety is an artificial construct maintained by a vast, invisible network of compassionate, working-class men. When a woman chooses to never speak to a man again or avoid them on the street, she can only safely maintain that lifestyle because an infrastructure of men is quietly maintaining safety around her. Your mere presence as a decent man on a dark street corner or in a room acts as a deterrent to crime. Without this male-supported safety net, society would instantly collapse into historical barbarism where women would be treated as currency or property. Your existence supports the safety, peace and happiness of your community.
5. Harmlessness is a fantasy: Wishing away male power is a dangerous, utopian fantasy because raw power will always seek to dominate the weak. Modern progressive spaces have confused being harmless with being good. A truly good man is not harmless; he is someone who possesses a massive capacity for force and chaos, but makes a conscious, daily, ethical choice for order, safety, and community instead. Critics will say: "Men are needed to defend us against other men, ergo... men are the problem", but this is a fantasy, and can never be seriously addressed. We are here to stay, and bad actors are too.

We are currently living through a thankless cultural moment where our systemic contributions are erased, and our gender is treated as a monolith of pathology. But the reward for your prosociality is the internal peace of your own material integrity.

True progressivism should mean recognizing the vital, protective, and constructive role that men play in the infrastructure of civilization. Our strength is not a systemic threat, but the very gift that keeps peace alive.

There are dozens upon dozens of novels portraying women trapped in abusive relationships with terrible men, but there are hardly any novels about the opposite, and most of the ones that do are super niche. Only a couple are really popular, like Gone Girl and Rebecca. How come this topic is so underutilized in literature?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597823000560

So when are there going to be measures to fix this like when women were discriminated against?

Any thoughts from anyone or discussion?

When asked which of four videotaped children — a boy and girl who were black and a pair who were white — required their closest attention, educators black and white alike chose the study’s African American boy most frequently. The study’s white boy came in a distant second and two girls — one white and one black — drew the least scrutiny from the teachers.

But when subjects in the new study were asked to rate the severity of a child’s disruptive behavior and recommend consequences for it, race played a more unexpected role: African American pre-K educators, the study found, judged misbehavior attributed to a black child more harshly than did white educators. And they were more inclined to recommend the child’s suspension or expulsion from the classroom.

At the pre-K level, Gilliam found an even starker pattern in 2005. In state-funded pre-K classrooms, 3- and 4-year-olds were being kicked out of school three times as often as older students. And black children — boys mostly — were about twice as likely as Latino and white children to be expelled.

There was a post by a programmer who happened to be female; and I commented on it critically. I didn't mention gender at all, I only gave mild pushback on the technical part, sort of "this is why that's not a good idea".

She responded to it very harshly but that's fine, it's the internet, I didn't think much of it at, some people just react like this to criticism.

But then a white knight arrived and put me on blast, accusing me of misogynie an mansplaining, and then she joined in, thanked him for validating her opinion, and that she agreed that was sexism but wasn't sure initially, and then they exchanged a few messages about how terrible it is to be a woman programmer. My explanations got ignored.

Granted I might be wrong for being critical on LinkedIn, a platform that is famously made for circlejerk, but there wasn't even a hint of sexism in any of my comments, I just have a bad habit of arguing on the internet. I make comments like these on the male programmer posts and it's never a big deal.

And the worst is that they proceeded to engage in a self-reinforcing loop about me and other men being sexist.

I looked into other comments of this guy, and it was obvious he had an angle and tried to find a way in to her.

My only thought it is - what the actual fuck. I get admonished for engaging in an honest conversation, while that guy gets complimented for the most blatant sycophancy.

I keep seeing this ridiculous idea being parroted everywhere on this platform and I had to say something about it. It's not only false but honestly offensive to me as an autistic man who's experienced what it's actually like.

This narrative mainly comes from autistic women who claim autistic men get away with not masking while they don't. If you don't know what masking means in the context of autism, it means behaving in such a way that makes your autistic symptoms less visible to others so that you can socialize more easily.

So where did this claim originate from? In recent years women have been getting diagnosed with autism on a scale never seen before. Autism as a label has for most of its history been given to men. Many people now wonder why it took this long for women to get diagnosed. How did these women go their entire lives undetected?

This is where the narrative begins but we can already ask some pretty obvious questions. When you get diagnosed with autism you do so by having its symptoms. If the symptoms have been noticed more in men, couldn't this point to them causing more problems in the way men are socialized? That many of these same symptoms don't conflict with the way women are socialized and go undetected?

Well, according to the narrative autistic symptoms look different in women, primarily because they mask more. But masking is a pretty nebulous thing to define here. How do you know if you're masking more or if conforming is simply just easier? Autism can look widely different in people, but autistic men not coming off as masculine is a hallmark trait. And lacking masculinity is a detriment to the social lives of men which affects everything else, such as their economic prospects. The inverse of this is simply not as severe for women. Women are permitted a much wider spectrum of gendered behavior, especially in dating. Both autistic men and women get infantilized but being a "manchild" is a gendered concept.

When people point out autistic men compared to autistic women are disproportionately friendless, single, jobless, poor, etc there is no sympathy. On subreddits for autistic women where you'd maybe expect some kind of solidarity there is none. The reason autistic men underperform? They simply haven't tried hard enough to mask because they're coddled, entitled, whiny, etc. That's what the responses are. Autistic men supposedly being "creepy" is one of the worst ones, since it's one of the reasons often used in those subreddits for why autistic women themselves don't date other autistic men. It's such blatant and ironic ableism that's used as justification to claim autistic men should just take personal responsibility. How the fuck is living a miserable life being coddled?

If I complain about any of this I get written off as an "incel". Autistic men are at the bottom of society's hierarchy yet receive absolutely no sympathy. The brutal bullying and abuse I've received when I didn't mask has traumatized me for life. The type of open harassment and violent attacks not only me but other guys I suspect also were on the spectrum received in school is something I never saw a single girl that could've been autistic be subjected to, even if she obviously got mistreated in other ways. I know this wasn't the most well-written post but I really had to say something.

You can view the full paper here.

As you can see in this analysis that covered ~97% of the recorded HPS cases in the U.S., males made up 61.5% of the cases. This is similar to an earlier study done on the data from (1993-2009) where males made up 64% of the cases.

The first paper (1993-2018 data) separates about the sexes based on the age-groups.

https://preview.redd.it/g9iypewqj12h1.png?width=2158&format=png&auto=webp&s=35104676f81edf5fd39bc4d812f5144e0739180c

This indicates a biological component since male disproportionality is common following adolescence, though surprisingly both papers don't seem to have elaborated much on it or tried to infer any possible causes.

The first paper does not even separate out the mortality based on sex.

The second paper (covering 1993-2009), does give morality rates, 33% for male and 39% for female, so not much different.

https://preview.redd.it/dasttoi3k12h1.png?width=1202&format=png&auto=webp&s=9bbfebe01fb59d930fca4c98fefee35e9296ddaa

This indicates being a male itself is a very large and serious risk factor in terms of getting the disease, though mortality does not seem to have much of a difference either for sex or for age.

This risk seems to increase starting from puberty.

This is similar to COVID-19, where males were much more likely to get the disease, require intensive care, as well as die from it; it being a global phenomena.

I'm surprised that I found no mention of the greater male risk despite that there are so many articles as well as updates on health sites regarding the virus.

One side says men should open up more about their feelings. Ok, so I open. And what I get is scrutiny from both women and men, saying that “I’m not man enough”.

Now my question:

Isn’t it sexist? The whole thing feminist men and women say they fight against?

Watching a CBC video. They are bringing up the discrimination that happens against boys in the canadian education system. Any man who's grown up in Canada knows full well men are openly discriminated against in education, health care, every social service and shelter service. Putting the question out to the crowd, does the program being rolled out by the Canadian government seem like it will actually address the difference in resourcing provided between male and female students?

Honestly Im kinda pessimistic. It kinda just seems that a few female teachers had sons and all of a sudden the problem now effects someone they actually care about.

I have some thoughts on why the social sciences are particularly subject to the beliefs that we critique here, and in my belief it stems from one core issue: the social sciences dress themselves up in the aesthetic of science while not practicing anything remotely scientific. For one, according to Popper, the strict demarcation between science and pseudoscience is that science is falsifiable: if a theory is truly scientific, then the proponents of the theory must be able to propose the exact set of experimental data that would falsify the theory. If a theory fails to be falsifiable then it is not science. We see this so much with feminist "theory": the theory is unfalsifiable because it is concerned more with projecting semantic descriptions onto reality first and foremost rather than beginning by looking at data and attempting to accurately describe and explain phenomena. The patriarchy is a mystical catch-all theory that explains all phenomena through ad hoc adjustment: if men commit crimes it's proof of the patriarchy oppressing women; if women do the exact same thing then it is also proof of the patriarchy. Popper explicitly warned that one mechanism by which a theory avoids falsification is through becoming so broad in its scope that any and all phenomena can be explained, at which point a theory ceases to be scientific and ceases to even attempt to rigorously explain reality.

Additionally, if we look at the other demands of rigorous science, namely reproducibility and methodological rigour, the social sciences largely fail these criteria as well. Routinely, papers are published that suffer from circular methodology and sampling bias (like using police arrest data to proclaim that men commit DV at rates that are significantly higher than women), or once again relying on semantics (such as defining sexual assault in a arbitrary manner that inflates numbers or prevents women from being recorded as perpetrators). This is not to mention the issues of reproducibility. It is well known that the majority of published journal papers are not reproducible, but in the social sciences this issues is even worse, as the degrees of freedom are unconstrained by any physical law, unlike in the hard sciences, where the environment itself is a constant arbiter to some extent. In the hard sciences, it is much more difficult to explain away a null result or failed experiment.

Instead of treating this extreme variability with a proportional increase in methodological rigor, the discipline has done the exact opposite. It has institutionalised a culture of selective reporting, p-hacking, and arbitrary data-filtering to force erratic human datasets into neat, narrative-friendly boxes. The peer-review process within these fields has degenerated from an aggressive, adversarial error checking phase into a collaborative gatekeeping mechanism, where members of the same ideological paradigm happily stamp a paper's conclusion without ever demanding access to the raw data or testing the replication parameters. By severing the connection between publication and reproducibility, social science has effectively abandoned the core of scientific progress.

Ultimately, if people were actually concerned with the truth above all else, then we would hold everyone to the strict standards laid out by the seminal thinkers in philosophy of science. But because social issues are unique in the sense that people feel deep personal investments in a theory, the standard tools of rationality are routinely abandoned in favor of emotional self-preservation. When a hypothesis transitions from a description/explanation of data into a foundational pillar of an individual's moral identity, any attempt at falsification is no longer treated as a healthy academic audit; it is perceived as a direct, existential assault. Because social science operates in this highly volatile environment of human ego and political utility, its practitioners have built an entire institutional fortress out of semantic gatekeeping and unfalsifiable, circular loops. They have created a system where protecting the comforting, self-serving narrative is prioritised over radical pursuit of truth above all else. Until we call this out directly by critiquing the house of cards that the entire field is built upon purely through the lens of philosophy of science/epistemology, rather than engaging in ideological back-and-forth over semantics, nothing will change.

I wanted to create a post about this after seeing more and more posts, reels and comments etc., like the ones i will give excerpts of. This is not the only or the first one i have seen, especially in leftist spaces that is supportive of feminism and filled with male feminist ''allies''. I apologize if my English or the post's structure isnt good. Some excerpts from these kinds of posts:

Title of Post: ''I am not comfortable with the concept of being male anymore''

-''As the title infers, I'm not comfortable with being male and the fact that other men cause such immense suffrage to women and other men. I am completely fine with my gender identity, but I don't like the fact that most violent crimes against both women and men are committed by men. Reading the news or posts on social media about crime against women occasionally makes me feel like I am only one bad day from doing something unspeakable (which of course isn't true but it feels as such).''

This is from a feminist woman, posted in a feminist subreddit:

-''My partner is leftist, thoughtful, non-violent and genuinely engaged with egalitarianism. Yet he internalises this kind of rhetoric to the point where it affects our relationship. For example he becomes afraid he’s harming me just by needing emotional support or even considers breaking up pre-emptively because he thinks I’d be better off without a man.

He reads studies about gender differences (for example how married men tend to sleep better next to a partner while married women report worse sleep quality) and then encounters highly generalised online discourse on feminist platforms. All of that collapses into a sense of personal failure tied purely to his gender.''

These are just two examples of men thinking there is something wrong with them because of the constant stream of dehumanization against men. Feminist discourse and with it hateful misandry have completely overtaken leftist spaces for decades now, and last few years its becoming even worse, from feminists cheering on male suicides to more and more people voicing misandrist thoughts like putting all men in jail or simply killing all men and boys. I think it is safe to say that for all intents and purposes, feminism is a hate ideology, though one thing i wanna especially talk about in this post is how it affects leftist men more than any other group of men.

The main thing i think is just how hostile leftist, especially feminist, places are towards men. I see many different posts on instagram and twitter and the difference is extremely big, while every single leftist post that includes gender is filled with feminists raving about how all men are pigs and rapists, the right wing stuff i see have a lot of content centered around both men and women united on things like parenthood etc, like i have seen multiple reels filled with right wing women praising men for being protectors, providers and expressing respect to them while i have literally never seen a completely wholesome post about men from left wing spaces. Every single post that has a hint of positivity for men is either centered around ''healthy masculinity'' (which is just repackaged traditional male gender norms) or just male dehumanization. Any women who say good things about men or defend men is named ''pick me''. Other imporant thing is the differences between male third spaces, where a non-left wing male third spaces will be male-only places where they can relax and socialize, a lot of leftist male spaces are just constant policing, lectures about ''positive masculinity'' or how they need to do better because feminists are disappointed with them.

The second most imporant thing i think is view on feminism and feminist women. A lot of leftists have favorable views on feminism, definitely overwhelming majority, I personally dislike feminists and feminism and think that anyone that support it is morally bankrupt. This dislike naturally results in me not internalizing or caring about a lot of things feminists say on a daily basis, this is also true for right wingers who thinks feminists are some blue hair screeching women. If you know that scene of boondocks where bunch of KKK guys light a cross in front of Mister's house and he simply goes ''Goddamn'' and takes a bucket of water to douse it, when i see misandrist and hateful posts about psychotic feminist women i simply go ''Damn'' and scroll, because who gives a shit those cultists think? Definitely not me, i automatically think less of anyone that is a feminist. But a lot of leftist men are friends or even partners with feminist women and are feminist ''allies'' themselves, this results in them actually putting value on the bigoted and sexist rants of feminist women. For example, if one day a nazi came up to you and started raving about how you were a subhuman, would you care? No, why would you, the guy is a nazi and everything he says is simply worthless. Except, what if its your female friends from college that commented ''Why is it so low?'' on a post about male suicide numbers, even though you shared with them your experiences of how badly you were affected when your cousin killed himself when you were in middle school? Or if you learnt that your female professor that you respect so much wrote an entire paper discussing SA rates and have multiple comments in it about how all men were rapist pigs and every man was automatically evil? For right wing men, random feminists raving about men are just weirdos online that they make fun of with other right wingers. For left wing men, those women are their wives, sisters, mothers, daughters or girlfriends that are saying those genuinely horrifying things with no thoughts spared to them.

I was originally thinking movember but after reading some of the posts here regarding the ethos and where the funding actually goes im a bit hesitant too. Are there any charities/org making a difference in men’s mental health where the proceeds go to awareness and support for men exclusively

Personal experiences with these organisations and how easy it is to access resources would help greatly as well

This guy popped out on my insta feed and is basically fighting against harmful/misandrist rhetorics that have plagued the left by providing actual counter-arguments against femcels and male feminists of the left.

His channel seems to be focused exclusively on calling toxic feminists out. We finally have one that advocates for us.

What do we think of this article, and what are your opinions on the topic?