A dominance analysis of a representative survey of American's views on various philosophical topics finds that the top predictors of being a masculinist are being a feminist and being a man.

This sub often seems to conflate left-wing politics with feminism, and as a result a lot of discussion ends up revolving around women rather than broader political issues.

If women or feminist organisations have contributed to a particular problem, then by all means discuss it and hold them accountable. But it feels like we're overlooking the fact that many of the people with the greatest political and economic power are men.

Whether it's politicians, billionaires, or business leaders such as Trump, Musk and others, many of the policies and decisions affecting ordinary men have been driven by those in positions of power. Shouldn't those issues be receiving more attention too?

I'm not saying discussions about feminism don't have a place. I'm questioning whether they've become so dominant that we're neglecting wider left-wing topics like workers' rights, housing, healthcare, unions, wealth inequality, corporate power, and the cost of living.

Much of the justification for misandry today—and yes, sometimes feminists and their apologists explicitly defend "misandry" in this context—comes back to male violence. Discussion of legal and social discrimination against men is dismissed with lines like "women won't sleep with men, men kill women" or "women are rude to men, men are violent towards women."

The more dramatic claims of male-on-female violence (92% of Zoomer men use coercion to get sex; 25% of women are raped in college by men, 1 in 4 American men attended a rape academy, etc.—a grizzly bear is less likely to kill a woman in an encounter than a man) come not from any claims that have been subject to an adversarial process or even reported to authorities, but usually from self-reporting by the alleged victims. I was recently told on Reddit, "Ask any woman you know; they will have experienced male violence." Any objection to self-reported victimization is seen as hyper-skeptical and misogynistic.

But the edgier objection, which is never answered, is that modern women's behavior in no way aligns with these beliefs. It is not consistent with living in terror of all men at any time. It's not consistent with the analogy that dealing with men is like eating a bag of M&Ms where several are poisoned.

-You see women migrate to dangerous cities from the suburbs for work.

-You see large numbers of women having casual hookups with unknown men.

-You see lots of social activity, often while intoxicated and therefore vulnerable, at clubs

-You see single mothers have strings of boyfriends whom they entrust with their children.

-you'd see a woman stranded in the woods for days flee in terror when a random guy comes across her and not beg for his help (lol, someone should make a comedy bit on this, riffing off of man v bear)

If we had these astronomically high rates of violent men,

-you would see women become extremely reclusive.

-You'd see near-zero casual sex

-You'd see single mothers exercise extreme caution in dating. -You'd see them demanding fathers and brothers escort them in public.

So, to conclude, the constant cudgel of self-reported astronomical rates of male violence toward women is not truly believed by feminists. The feminist you are interacting with on Reddit *does not actually believe what she or he is saying about men in this context*. She (or he) is doing a post hoc rationalization to justify hatred of men. It is extremely important to recognize these types of arguments as bad faith and deceptive. You will pull your hair out otherwise. It is a guilt-trip tactic but is not grounded in reality.

To preempt an argument against this—to deny that behavior implies beliefs—I would use some other examples. One major belief system is religion. -Is anyone going to say that some peak corrupt medieval pope fully believed the teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church? -Does a mid century southern politician who dotes on his interracial love child truly oppose interracial unions? Or is he lying to win votes? -Does someone claiming to be invincible to bullets like Papa Doc Duvalier—yet still has an army of bodyguards—actually believe he is invincible?

Potential objections: To stake the maximalist position of "your behaviors are not downstream from belief" would entail saying all of the people mentioned above were true believers. It is simply inconsistent to recognize they were not true believers but then state feminists are so

Feminists versus 'normal women'- it certainly is possible hardcore feminists behave more consistently. Although this may mean they are not engaging in bad faith, it still poses problems for their position. Why are women more generally not behaving consistently with this proported astronomical phenomena of male violence ?

*final note: i say "women" here not to bash women as a collective. Feminists invoke "women" as a whole as having had these experiences. I am looking at their behavior *as a whole* to debunk it. Women who engage in the behaviors i described yet don't make contradictory claims have done nothing wrong. ​

"Every sinful act is an effective denial of belief in God's Omniscience" -Jonathan Edwards, recognizing you cannot truly fully believe something while behaving counter to it.

Aba and Preach react to a random podcast on IG. The guy admits that the left offers nothing to men.

Here both Aba and Preach state how for 7 years they have been talking about the exact same thing. They highlight how the RP (filled with scammers and grifters) has attempted to fill the void left behind due to the left's inability to relate to men. Also how misandry often and still goes unchecked.

Overall, these were fair takes. I think both of them were in favour of the Theroux documentary. Whereas I still feel that RP / Tate is now used as a boogeyman to disregard any honest discourse about boys/men. I didn't agree with the talking points of the guy they were reacting to when he brought up positive masculinity. They also bring up the cringiness of male feminists and generally how ridiculous they are.

What are your thoughts?

Long list but NOT AI-generated btw.

1. Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy:

Switching between a bold, controversial claim (the "bailey") and a trivial, uncontroversial one (the "motte") depending on whether one is advancing the argument or defending it. When challenged on a radical claim, the speaker retreats to the safe definition; and once an opportunity presents itself, they re-advance the radical one.

Example:

• Bailey: "All heterosexual sex under patriarchy is rape," "The nuclear family is inherently oppressive," or "'Believe women' means women should be believed by default in all disputes."
• Motte: "Feminism just means equality between the sexes," or "It just means we should take claims seriously."

2. Shifting Between Academic and Colloquial Definitions

Using the academic/specialized definition of a term when it's rhetorically convenient, then using the colloquial definition when trying to generate moral outrage. The speaker fluidly moves between definitions so the target can never pin down the actual claim.

Example: Asserting that women cannot be sexist toward men because "sexism requires institutional power," but then describing a man making a sandwich joke as "sexist."

3. "Prejudice + Power" Redefinition of Sexism

Redefining "sexism" from their standard, widely-understood meanings (prejudice/discrimination based on sex) to require institutional power or hatred, thereby rendering it definitionally impossible for misandry to be meaningfully existent. As a corollary, defines all misogyny as based on institutional power or hatred.

4. Concept Creep

Progressively expanding the definitions of harm-related terms (abuse, harassment, violence, trauma, assault) to encompass milder and milder phenomena, then leveraging the emotional weight of the original, narrower definition. The word "violence" is stretched to cover disagreeing with someone online; "harassment" expands to include a single critical reply; "trauma" covers mild discomfort. This allows the speaker to invoke the moral gravity of serious harm while actually describing something far less severe.

Example: Calling a disagreeable opinion "literal violence," then benefiting from the urgency and moral condemnation that "violence" properly commands.

5. No True Scotsman

When presented with a feminist or feminist organization saying or doing something objectionable, dismissing them as "not a real feminist." This protects the ideology from any empirical counterexample by definitionally excluding any feminist whose behavior would reflect poorly on the movement.

6. Strategic Ambiguity

Keeping core terms ("patriarchy," "rape culture," "systemic oppression") vague enough to evade direct falsification while specific enough to generate moral urgency. When pressed for a concrete definition, the speaker can choose whichever version is hardest to attack in that moment.

7. Patriarchy as Unfalsifiable Explanation

"Patriarchy" is invoked as the cause of virtually every gendered outcome. When evidence of female advantage or male disadvantage is presented, it is reinterpreted as also being a product of patriarchy (e.g., "the draft hurts men, but only because patriarchy values men as disposable warriors"; "women receive lighter sentences, but that's benevolent sexism stemming from patriarchal views of women as weak"). All data points, regardless of direction, confirm the same hypothesis. This makes the framework unfalsifiable: every possible observation has been twisted to confirm it, and no possible observation could refute it.

Likewise, when women (or men) present evidence or arguments that contradict feminist claims, their perspective is attributed to having been "conditioned by the patriarchy" or suffer from "internalized misogyny." This preemptively invalidates all dissent without engaging with its substance. The critic's very disagreement is treated as proof of the framework's claims, making the framework self-sealing.

Example: A woman who says she doesn't feel oppressed is told she suffers from "internalized misogyny." Her denial is used as confirmation. Similarly, men who advocate for men's issues are dismissed as too blinded by privilege to see reality.

9. Epistemic Closure

The belief that only those who have adopted the feminist lens can truly understand sex-based discrimination, and anyone who hasn't simply has ill motives. This grants the female lens automatic epistemic authority on gender issues while simultaneously denying that men can have valid lived experience of their own oppression. This creates a closed loop: the framework can be validated only by those who already accept it, and those who do not become themselves cited as evidence of the framework's necessity. In other words: if you agree with feminism, you're enlightened; if you disagree, you're a participant of the very system feminism claims to fight.

Example: "If you you're anti-feminist, you're anti-women."

10. Ad Hominem

Rather than addressing the substance/merits of an argument, the speaker tries to impugn the motives the critic: they're a misogynist, an incel, a pick-me, they hate women, they benefit from the status quo, and so on.

Example: Attributing criticism of feminism to the critic's supposed romantic or sexual failures, as if only a personally defective man could object to feminist claims.

11. Poisoning the Well

Basically the same thing as the above point, but this is more of an internalized belief system.

Preemptively discrediting a person or category of person before they even speak. Often by establishing that any man who criticizes feminism is inherently suspect or that any critique of feminist claims is "right-wing" or "anti-woman" by default before the argument has even been heard.

12. Gendered Pathologization

Mocking male critics by pathologizing their reaction as emotional fragility to dismiss the argument without actually engaging with the criticism. Or pathologize ordinary behavior to delegitimize male participation. Essentially: anger and harshness from feminists are treated as legitimate expressions of righteous frustration, while any emotional response from critics (especially men) is treated as evidence of fragility, entitlement, or aggression.

Examples:

• A man expressing concern about male suicide rates is told to "cry more male tears."
• Gendered portmanteaux like mansplaining, manspreading, manterrupting

13. Appeal to Emotion/Damseling

Using emotionally charged language, personal suffering narratives, or graphic descriptions to make empirical claims unchallengeable. The implicit argument is: "If you disagree, you are callous toward suffering." This conflates compassion (which is appropriate) with uncritical acceptance of empirical claims (which is not). Terms like "rape culture," "war on women," and "femicide" are deployed to bypass analytical evaluation, where the intensity of the emotional valence substitutes for evidentiary rigor. In the case of women, it also triggers the social instinct to protect women (which is pervasive, as evidence shows).

14. Guilt by Association

Linking the opponent's argument to an obviously repugnant position or person, then treating the argument as tainted by that association whether or not it's true.

Example: "That's the same argument used by Andrew Tate."

15. Weaponized Empathy Gap

Related to 14. Where women's issues are framed as the sole embodiment of gender issues. Male suffering is rendered invisible or recast as a side effect of women's oppression.

16. Performative Outrage

Expressing shock or moral indignation at mild opinions to paint the critic as extremist.

Example: "Wow, you really hate women, huh?"

17. One-sided Burden of Proof

Making a factual claim and then, when asked for evidence, telling the critic to "educate yourself" or "do the research." But think about it: the person MAKING the claim should be the one who should support it. This lets the speaker use whatever tactic they want to uphold their framework, while dumping the labor of disproof on the critic. Yet, somehow strangely, there is never enough counter-evidence to disprove the claim (even if only one counter-example is necessary to disprove it).

18. Sealioning

Similar to the previous point, but more malicious. Per wikipedia: feign ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented) under the guise of "just trying to have a debate," so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.

19. Anecdotal Supremacy

Treating personal anecdotes or viral social media stories as representative of systemic trends, while demanding rigorous, peer-reviewed, large-n studies to refute them (and somehow all studies will be inherently suspect or insufficient).

20. "Studies Show" Without Showing Studies

Asserting that "studies prove X" as a bare appeal to authority without citation, knowing most people won't ask for the source. When asked, provides a study that doesn't actually say what was claimed or just flat out doesn't respond.

21. Moving the Goalposts

When evidence is presented that meets the stated criteria, the criteria are silently changed. For example, if a study shows the gender wage gap largely disappears when controlling for relevant variables, the argument shifts to "but why do women choose lower-paying fields?" A completely different/orthogonal question presented as though it's the same one. The critic is never allowed to "disprove" the speaker because the standard of proof keeps shifting.

22. Whataboutism

When presented with evidence of male disadvantage (suicide rates, workplace deaths, educational attainment gaps, family court disparities), responding by pointing to female disadvantages in other areas rather than engaging with the specific issue raised. This also inherently treats male issues as inherently unworthy of attention unless all female issues are resolved first.

23. Gish Gallop

Per wikipedia: a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, without regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.

Brandolini's Law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it." If any single claim goes unrefuted, it's declared proven.

24. Gatekeeping Gender Discrimination

Declaring that men (or white people, or cis people) are not permitted to have opinions on certain topics. A framework held unfalsifiable by banning identities known to generate critique.

25. "Right Side of History"

Using vague historical inevitability for argument. The implication is that disagreement is socially backward and will be judged harshly by future generations.

26. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO)

Per wikipedia:

1. The perpetrator denies the harm or abuse ever took place.
2. When confronted with evidence, the perpetrator then attacks the person that they had harmed, or are still harming. The attacker may also attack the victim's family or friends.
3. Finally, the perpetrator claims that they were or are actually the victim in the situation, thus reversing the positions of victim and offender. It often involves not just playing the victim but also victim blaming.

27. Cherry-Picking Statistics

Presenting the single study or statistic that supports the desired conclusion while ignoring the broader body of evidence that contradicts it or provides important context. The most prominent example is the raw gender wage gap figure (women earn ~82 cents per dollar earned by men) presented without acknowledging that this figure is a median comparison of all full-time workers that doesn't control for occupation, hours, experience, or other relevant variables.

Or citing a study's conclusion while omitting its caveats, limitations, or actual findings. The "1 in 5" campus sexual assault statistic, for instance, is frequently cited as though it means 1 in 5 women are raped on campus, when the original study included a much broader range of experiences (including attempted assault and incidents involving incapacitation), and over half of respondents who met the study's behavioral definition of sexual assault did not themselves consider what happened to them to be rape or assault.

28. Suppressing Male Victimization Data

Ignoring, minimizing, or reinterpreting data that shows men as victims. This ideological commitment has resulted in the systematic erasure of male victims of domestic violence, especially in academia, despite less biased research suggesting roughly comparable rates of intimate partner violence victimization among men and women.

See: "Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment"

29. Confirmation Bias in Research Design

Related to prior point.

Feminist research methodologies (particularly those rooted in feminist standpoint theory) explicitly begin from the premise that women are oppressed and then seek evidence confirming that premise. It's often described as "starting from women's lived experience." But consider this: when the conclusion (oppression) is built into the methodological starting point, the research is structurally biased toward confirming what it already assumes. They are often also hard to replicate and rely on the personal beliefs of the researchers.

Imagine a study by Nazis beginning from the premise that Germans are oppressed by Jews. See the problem?

30. Presumption of Truth

The principle that one should unconditionally believe accusers (in contexts like sexual assault allegations) is treated as a moral imperative. This is antithetical to fair process and functions as a demand for uncritical acceptance.

31. Strawmanning

Misrepresenting the critic's position as something extreme or ridiculous. E.g., "So you're saying women should just stay in the kitchen?" or "You think sexism doesn't exist at all?" when the critic merely disputes the magnitude or mechanism.

32. Framing All Gender Issues Through a Single Lens

Presenting the feminist framework as the only valid lens for understanding gender, and treating any alternative framework (egalitarian, male-advocacy, biological, economic) as inherently suspect or motivated by bigotry.

33. Historical Revisionism/Presentism

Judging historical arrangements by contemporary moral standards (often exclusively through the feminist lens that favor female victimhood while ignoring male victimhood) without acknowledging the material constraints, survival pressures, complementary obligations/dependencies, forms of suffering, and different value systems that shaped them. Suddenly, all of human history is a story of male oppression of women.

34. Equating the Movement with the Cause

"If you're not a feminist, you must be against equality." This makes it impossible to critique the movement's methods, priorities, or claims without being positioned as morally opposed to its stated goal. Related to #9.

35. Intersectionality

When confronted with evidence that white women are privileged relative to men of color, or that the gender narrative doesn't fit a particular racial or class dynamic, just invoke intersectionality to add enough variables to make the theory untestable while still preserving its core claims.

36. Censoring/Deplatforming Opposing Views

Advocating for or implementing policies that prevent critics from speaking, publishing, or being heard — and then framing this censorship as "safety" or "protecting marginalized people." This removes the possibility of public critique altogether.

37. Institutional Capture

Embedding feminist assumptions into institutional policies (e.g., the Duluth Model in law enforcement, Title IX guidance in universities, gender-mainstreaming in international organizations, HR departments, university administrations, media organizations, legal frameworks) and then pointing to those institutional endorsements as "objective evidence" that the framework is correct. It's circular reasoning: feminist ideology shaped the institution, and the institution now validates the ideology.

38. Defunding/Obstructing Research on Male Issues

Feminist organizations/individuals have historically opposed funding for research into male-specific issues (male victims of domestic violence, boys' educational decline, male health disparities), and have lobbied against the creation of men's commissions or men's health initiatives. "There's no evidence of male disadvantage" because research into male disadvantage has been systematically obstructed.

39. Academic Credibility Capture

Controlling peer review, journal editorial boards, and tenure committees to ensure only ideologically compatible research gets published. Also, notice how rarely studies illuminating male victimhood are rarely cited? Well, in addition to #37, these feminist-aligned studies are cited in circular loops, giving the appearance of a scientific consensus favoring female victimhood that doesn't exist.

---

We should be very aware of these tactics that are used, because they are masterfully used to counter any opposition to feminism. We must be ready and willing to point them out.

So I view myself as a leftist and I can identify with other leftists, but when it comes to gender topics it seems that this is kinda the literal only community I agree with? And this sucks.

Recently I've been pretty active in a Discord community and feeling comfortable there since I seemed to fit in there politically. No racism, no homophobia or transphobia, great. But today one of the mods made a weird statement (basically positive stereotype about women, negative stereotype about men) and maybe this sounds weird but it's kind of affecting me a lot? There was zero pushback but agreement. And like, before that I liked the person who posted that, I liked some of the people who responded positively to the statement that I found weird.

I don't feel comfortable bringing it up in the channel because I'm expecting to be made fun of. I'm expecting to be met with denying misandry exists and stuff like that. And now I just don't really know what to make of it since the community is kind of important to me. Misandry doesn't seem to be a common thing there, but to me this incident today feels like it is reflecting a general attitude that doesn't feel right to me.

It's just so weird to me because some people are literally cool people who I seem to agree with on everything until it comes to men. Like why can't you extend your principles and worldview to the way you view and treat men? Stuff like this makes me worry that maybe I'm the one who is in the wrong and maybe all this weird misandry is justified for some reason, but I don't believe that.

Stuff like this makes me feel like I belong nowhere and I don't really know how to deal with it. I have a therapist but I'm very hesitant to bring this gender stuff up with them because I just feel so alone with it and afraid to be judged.

Edit: So I just send a message in the channel about it and I'm fucking scared now. I kind of hovered above the send button for minutes worrying if that communicates it well and I'm still not 100% sure if it's too confrontational or if I'm misinterpreting a simple joke or something of the sort, but I decided to just send it at some point. I do think that it's better speaking up than just hiding my discontentment and I guess I'll see what happens even though I'm feeling kind of anxious now. Guess I'll distract myself somehow for now.

Edit 2: Well, the person who posted it said it was a shitpost and apologized, which I'm cool with. But some other people were kind of mean and invalidating which is making me pretty sad. And the topic has just changed by now so I don't know

Note: the following is a non-participation link. Do not brigade this subreddit or this post. This is strictly as a reference for discussion within LWMA.

The post in question is https://np.reddit.com/r/DecidingToBeBetter/comments/1ul1u23/wife_told_me_why_we_havent_had_sex_for_two_years/

Edit: My apologies that this didn’t fully post, I am on vacation and cell service has been spotty.

What I felt was worth posting here about how this is a saddening (and unfortunately fantastic) example of how misandry most commonly manifests in marriages when it comes to men and male gender roles.

Specifically, the OP states that he wants to improve and get better after his wife told him she no longer finds him attractive anymore. While there were some legitimate issues, her strongest most cited reason was his “lack of ambition”. He had previously been a news reporter and a successful book writer, but then COVID happened and fucked up the momentum.

What shocked me most though was the amount of women in the comments replying saying that they were wives who wish their husband would do the same as OP, and lament that other women they know have the same situation in their marriages. Is this a case of these married wives simply not reading past the title of the post and assuming it’s a classic “husband doesn’t want to do chores” situation, or an example of tried and true misandry?

Curious to see what folks here think.

I find it so confusing when a large number of people advocate that they are all for gender equality and proceed to say that they are feminists when what they mean is egalitarian, like feminism believe that gender equality can only be attained by “Smashing the patriarchy” which I think this sub knows it’s just silly. Unpopular take, but actual gender equality and feminism just don’t go hand in hand. I personally feel like egalitarianism as a term should go mainstream so that people can use the right terms as many people just don’t realise feminisms version of gender equality is probably not quite the version they are actually thinking about.

Men and boys were left out of workers’ rights in Ontario

Ontario’s labour history is usually taught like a simple story of progress: child labour laws, factory laws, minimum wage, the eight-hour day, modern employment standards. But that version hides something ugly. A lot of early “worker protection” was never written for workers as human beings. It was written around children, girls, and women, while older boys and men were treated as the disposable labour class.

Starting with the 1884 Factory Act. Ontario banned factories from hiring boys under 12 and girls under 14. Children under 14, girls 14-18 and women were limited to 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week. Meal-break protections applied to these children, young girls, and women. So a boy would age out of those protections at 14 and be pushed into the adult male labour category, while girls and women remained legally protected their whole life. At an age we would now clearly recognize as still being a child, a boy was not seen as a human being, but as a resource for the state.

In 1920, Ontario created minimum-wage protection for many female workers, but not male workers. A labour board was organized to evaluate women’s labour rates and set a minimum wage. In Toronto this was roughly $12 to $12.50 per week. By 1937, Ontario had 438,500 male non-agricultural wage labourers with no wage protection at all. Many were married with dependents, and some earned less than the legal minimum set for a single woman in Toronto. Ontario finally gave itself the power to set male minimum wages in 1937, but by the end of 1939 it had used that power only once: for male textile workers, at about $832 a year, or $16 a week. For most men, the “right” still did not exist in practice.

In 1944 Ontario finally created an eight-hour day and 48-hour week for covered workers, but the law still carved out whole sectors: agriculture, railway and steamship workers, stevedores, commercial fishermen, municipal fire departments, most professions, domestic service, wartime industries, managers, supervisors, and others. Many sectors that employed primarily men or boys. So boys and men in those sectors could still be left outside basic hours-of-work protections. This is not the history of men and boys simply “having rights.” It is the history of male suffering being normalized, male bodies being used, and then that exclusion being written out of the story.

Even today Ontario still prioritizes women and girls through a women’s forum, other programs, and funding streams. All based on the premise that it is women and girls who have been disadvantaged, who have been oppressed, or held back. Fewer boys still graduate high school, the majority of drug overdoses are male, the majority of suicides are male, and much more. The NDP, Greens, and Liberal parties of Ontario all have gender equity sections that only mention women’s and girls’ issues. Which leads them to then make the claim that men are targeting women via GBV since they don’t recognize or see the GBV men and boys face.

I also know of the Forced Labour Convention of 1930. That denied rights to many men. Once again showing that men’s rights, in this case workers’ rights, were never granted to them because they were male. In fact, governments worked to deny men and boys these rights so that they could benefit from them as a disposable group.

What did the history of workers’ rights look like in your country? Were men and boys denied equal protection there too?

• The validity of my pleasure is not determined by other people
• Being weird and dirty is fun
• I am worth fighting for, even if no one fights for me
• My pleasure is just as important as others
• I will treat my joy like I treat others joy
• The feminists who abandon queer men only ever showed fake support - virtue signaling rather than principle
• Men are beautiful and sensual
• Misandry isn’t right
• Other’s opinions genuinely don’t matter

Internet discourse is way too keen on pretending "male socialisation" occurs primarily through "education". IE, boys are "taught" to be violent, aggressive, domineering etc. This is a naive view about what "socialisation" entails. People do not need to be consciously deciding to treat you different in order for their actions to influence how you interpret the world; this is true of everyone.

I would argue a predominating factor in male socialisation is that there is a degree of coldness with which boys are treated that increases as they age, and especially after puberty. This does not fall on all boys evenly, and of course there are social butterflies who are gregarious from a young age, but the outcome of this tendency towards coldness socialises boys into being the "first movers" of social interactions, if they are interested in obtaining their social needs (which differ for each individual). Some come to this naturally, some grow to resent being forced into this, and others simply blend into the walls and pass through social interactions not particular standing out. This coldness comes from both men and women, children and adults, and is a massive factor in gendered socialisation that is easily ignored because we each only have our very particular social experiences to go on.

"Coldness" is an important concept because it's not "cruelty". There is often no malice behind it, and it is performed totally unconsciously. However, it slightly conditions every social interaction you have from quite a young age, and impacts your social development in a way you a likely not conscious of. Subconscious bias theory has been somewhat mainstream for years at this point, but "gender socialisation" is still thought of in terms of how we "teach" children vs how we already "treat" them as members of their gender, and the expectations that accrues.

I won't speculate much further, but I think many gendered differences are downstream of this "coldness", which in effect leads to boys "competing" over attention in ways slightly different than girls do. These differences don't need to be large in order for them to compound throughout our lives.

• An anonymous young woman who describes herself as a proud misandrist admits that the feminist movement was never about equality between the sexes, but rather about misandry and female supremacy. She, a feminist herself, admitted this!

• She attempts to justify her hatred of men by relying on classic feminist myths that were debunked decades ago.

• Some early suffragettes, such as Frances Swiney, called manhood "selfish" and "diseased" while promoting the idea that men were inferior to women. https://www.academia.edu/41268051/...

This will be a long post and english is not my first language so excuse me in advance if something is written in a weird way.

I see a lot of people on this sub say things like "modern feminism is..", "feminism has become x..", "feminism doesn't care about men because..", and I think all this kind of comments are either sexist people trying to rationalise their sexism and discredit feminism, or people who genuinely wants good for both sexes and are misguided by mainly social media, that amplifies whatever keeps us more engaged, and that means also ignorant content that makes us feel anger.

First of all, as any movement through history feminism is not a single ideology. All ideologies, be it religion like christianity, economic ideologies like communism and socialism, they are all composed of different people that have all a slightly different ideas of what their ideology means and what should change in the world.
Every movement will have people that are more radicals, people who are purists, people who are moderates, people who are pragmatic etc.
This means that saying "feminism hates men" is untrue, as the more correct version is "some feminists hate men".

Secondly, people can tell themselves (and others) that they adhere to a movement, even if they don't follow the principles of said movement. This is very apparent in religion, where lots of people call themselves christian while acting with complete disregard of the doctrine. Whatever the reason a person might do this (sense of moral superiority, masking an insecurity, appealing to the masses etc) doesn't really matter, as critical thinking means also being able to recognise such pattern, and separate the action of the person, from the movement they said to adhere to.
If a person murdered another person and stole their stuff while calling themselves christian, no intelligent person would ever say "christianity is dangerous, because christians kill and steal too".

Thirdly, there is always a significant gap between the people behind the theory of a movement, and the masses that follows it. If you read any feminist theory book written by a person with some basic qualification to write said book, you will never find phrases like "men are dangerous", "not all man but always a man", "I would choose the bear" written in it. Those is the social media discourse, and if you base your idea of a movement on what social media shows you, please get off the internet and reconnect with actual people. Social media are BY DESIGN built to cause shock, ragebait, trends, and whatever will get your attention. The amount of time spent by their users it's the only metrics that a social media cares about, and values like healthiness of the discourse, truth, critical thinking, compromises, are never even slightly considered. You can't base your idea of a movement off of that, it's a distorted image, that does disservice to you as person (if you are actually interested in the matter) and to the greater society at large.

Fourth and final point. We like to call ourselves rational beings, but all humans are largely driven by emotion. This is why behavioural economics exist, because thinking about humans like rational being is unproductive and completely disconnected by reality.
Being emotional, means that people build resentment. That resentment isn't an excuse to treat others like shit, but it can't be ignored either. If you spent years with a colleague or classmate bullying you, and at some point he decided to get better and treat you equally, it would be understandable if you kept being distrustful of him, skeptic, or maybe even unwilling to co-operate.
Yes it's not fair for me to pay the price of another person who was a piece of shit to a woman in the past, this doesn't change the fact that her reaction is understandable.

Does this means that I think feminism is perfectly fine as it is? Absolutely not. The general discourse is too divisive and heated, and feminists that actually want gender equality should be harder on those who use feminism as an excuse to propagate misandry. Male rights activists are often put on the same plain as actual misogynist incels (and see here that I specified misogynist, as incel themselves as a group in theory means just involuntary celibate). I also think that feminism is too divisive of a word, that egalitarianism would be better, and the fact that some feminists don't accept this to me shows that a lot of people are more interested in purity games than actually having an impact through some pragmatic compromises. I can't also avoid to suspect that feminism has at least partially being used intentionally to divide the population in an effort to control the masses (and that's why I think talking about things so complex on instagram / tiktok is totally impossible).

But still, for all the problem that feminism has, it's important to not forget that the ideas behind it are the rejection around gender expectations, that a lot of feminists fight for man's rights too (read the will to change by bell hooks if you need proof), and that misandrist calling themselves feminists 1. doesn't make them feminists and 2. doesn't mean that feminism is a movement that hates men.
Otherwise we risk the same fate that incels and MGTOWs encountered. We end up with misogynist men that use a version of feminism that only exist in their social media feed to discredit the whole movement whilst calling themselves male right activists, and with time passing the actually men's right activist that were interested in fixing feminism gets silenced by a loud and hateful minority.

That said, thanks for reading, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about all of this. Please have a civil discussion, and I'll try to reply to each person interested in discussing my points.

Previously in this sub I posted: The response, after I posted this in a subreddit that calls out sexism and things that are needlessly gendered

I was hesitant to post this, even though I had a massive problem with the word "center", and believed an organization as large as this, could've at least done the bare minimum work. However, it was also true that, in the aftermath of such disasters women and children tend to be affected and exploited more than men. 

After some reflection and digging, the latter fact being true, didn't change my stance; on the post being plain wrong at best, and extremely misandric at worst. 

A disaster as such can be divided into two stages:

1. Extraction and acute care: For the first 3-5 days people are pulled out of the rubble and tended to their injuries.
2. Life sustaining relief: Within days or hours of the victim being pulled out are provided with survival necessities.

 

Whether men or women carry higher physical risks is completely context dependent: location, time, country and their infrastructure (men working in factories), clothes (women wearing clothes that may impede escape). 

Also, men are more likely to attempt rescues themselves and become secondary casualties.

In Venezuela the quakes struck at 6:04 PM, commuting patterns, office occupancies, and residential structures all collapsed simultaneously.

It shouldn't be a surprise, why targeting a specific demographic is inherently problematic in stage 1. However, it is true that on stage 2, women are at high risk or exploitation, and need extra protection.

Notice that the post mentions "immediate humanitarian response". So which stage does that fall under? 

Both. However, largely stage one. Which is a massive reason why it was problematic in the first place.

Also, notice that it mentions women and girls, and not women and children. When in fact, adolescent boys are arguably the most poorly served demographic in humanitarian response. Because of:

• Sexual violence, which is both significantly underreported for boys and significantly underfunded in terms of response services.
• Hazardous labor exploitation, with boys disproportionately pulled into dangerous informal work during crises when household economies collapse.
• Exclusion from protection programming, which in practice often explicitly targets women and girls, meaning adolescent boys have no equivalent dedicated services and fall back on general programming that may not address their specific risks at all. (Like the thing that very post by UN Women was encouraging)

Lastly, as some people from my last post rightfully pointed out, it was quite poorly worded if “special attention for special needs women and girls” was what they were trying to say. “Rescue efforts to help women and girls in specific ways that they need" is another example. English is not my first language, but I think they are just better sentences that are articulated more precisely. But again, this isn’t even the bigger point.

After I posted that screenshot on their sub, I slept, as it was late at night. Waking up, I realized it was bombarded with reports, and went on to wait for moderator’s approval in a sub that supposedly calls out sexism. As a consequence, I couldn't really reply to some of their claims, as I had previous experience with this - the posts simply don't get re-approved.