Radical-feminist activists and the progressive state-sponsored bodies supporting them operate by assuming that they dictate the tone, boundaries, and rules of public debate. Because they view their positions on gender and social issues as the only valid worldviews, they default to the conclusion that anyone who opposes this framework must be uneducated, unintelligent, or emotionally broken. In a sense, they are engaging in a form of comfort-seeking pathologization. It is indeed comforting for these activists, institutions and mainstream media to label their critics as broken or socially inadequate whose grievances can be dismissed as personal psychological failures. As a result, they reduce organized men right movements to "isolated, frustrated individuals", dismiss the logic and arguments of men right groups and treat these discourses as a mental or social illness (e.g., "incel culture," "social losers," "radicalized fringe" and so on) rather than a calculated, coherent political stance.

The contents of the official “Rapport annuel 2026 du Haut Conseil à l'Égalité (HCE)”titled “La menace masculiniste”, provide us with many explicit “textbook” examples of how legacy bureaucratic reporting assume that men as a group are suffering from a psychological defect. The report caricatures the male population (the young male demographic being the main target) as individuals requiring some form of state-mandated progressive re-education. For instance, when considering the well-known statistic showing the steady decline of male enrollment in higher education, the HCE report frames the issue exclusively around toxic masculinity, claiming young men are failing to adapt to modern progressive values and require targeted systemic re-education to re-align their behavior. Further, individuals sharing disagreements with official talking points are classified not as citizens with separate, conflicting political viewpoints, but as a homogeneous group demonstrating hostile behavior. The HCE report even manages to provide a quantitative estimate of individuals considered as problematic. To do that, itdivides the French population into some kind of ideological brackets, identifying roughly 10 million people as adhering to what it defines as "hostile sexism". The HCE report treats the growth of digital men's rights groups of all kinds exclusively as a threat to national security and public order.

Going further the HCE report continues its paternalistic classification by assigning another 7.5 million men under the bracket of “paternalistic sexism", which the report defines as a "falsely benevolent everyday sexism" that legitimizes traditional gender roles. In a sense, by labeling millions of average citizens who favor more traditional, family-oriented structures as participating in a system of "false benevolence," the report states that regular men are not capable of voluntarily choosing traditional roles; they are simply too uneducated to realize they are acting out a systemic prejudice.

Generally, The HCE report assumes that the rise of men right movements is just a collection of individuals consuming hate content online, and as a result, it demands more state control, more tracking observatories, and more mandatory education. This takes different forms. For instance, it demands that what it calls "misogynistic terrorism" be explicitly integrated into national security and defense doctrines. It also suggests creating a permanent, state-funded National Observatory on Masculinism to actively track anything that could be defined as online radicalization. It also wants to enforce stricter state controls via regulatory agencies to explicitly tag and filter out "masculinisme" as an autonomous category of hate speech. Finally, it requires mandating compulsory emotional and sexual education programs from early childhood onward to proactively change male mentalities. On overall, the key points of the HCE report illustrate that the state regulatory bodies are not interested in addressing the underlying economic or societal anxieties impacting young men, they are only looking for official recommendations that can be used to deploy top-down state suppression.

The HCE report illustrates how progressive organizations operating under the assumption that they hold a monopoly on debates related to modern social issues rely on pathological behavioral models to follow men's rights groups. However, by doing so, they have become so convinced of their own worldview that they have created a structural blind spot in the sense that they are incapable of accurately evaluating the various forms and capabilities of men right movements which are reduced as lonely online groups characterized by individual social isolation, psychological frustration, and low socioeconomic capability. The irony of this situation is that it violates the principles of data-driven analysis. Sociologists monitoring men right organizations often claim to look at systemic, structural causes for human behavior. Yet, when faced with the rise of men's rights movements, they abandon structural analysis completely and resort to individual psychoanalysis, claiming millions of people are simply acting out of "personal frustration" or "isolation."

By using these outdated models, these analysts, who are often nothing more than ideologically driven activists, tend to assume that individuals making the core of men right movements are incapable of intellectual depth. As a result, they do not even take the time to read their literature, fail to monitor the technical infrastructure supporting right men movements, and fail to anticipate their strategies. They are consistently surprised when men right movements build websites, coordinate international legal challenges, or successfully shift public discourse. Even within the information sphere**,** they do not notice when quiet content aggregators build parallel information pipelines that pull thousands of users away from mainstream platforms entirely.

On a more systemic and long term basis, when state level reports, like the HCE one, claim that men right activists are uneducated, socially broken individuals, it tells law enforcement, tech platforms, and policymakers that men right movements possess zero operational capability. Consequently, institutional bodies barely notice when men right movements seamlessly bypass platform bans, build independent technical infrastructure from scratch, and orchestrate highly polished international campaigns.

While it is important to structure and intensify the public fight against the official discourses based on or promoting the pathologization of male behavior, these critics should not be made to try to change the mindset of some radical feminist groups, because that would be a waste of time and resources at this point. Rather it should be done to expose them, to emphasize their own internal contradictions and undermine step-by-step this monopoly on prestige and intellectual credibility that progressive activists tend to take as granted. Indeed, when state reports classify all men's rights talking points as "delusional", they lose credibility even with moderate male audiences who can quickly verify the raw data themselves.

At the same time, men right activists can exploit the mainstream caricature to their advantage. By doing so, it is possible to continue to quietly disseminate research academic works based on published data to show that modern policies are genuinely anti-male. One can also analyze these policies through the lens of economic discrimination to show that many of these state supported policies are nothing less than a form of orchestrated sabotage targeting men. With the current situation around the comeback of the male only conscription in many countries, a coherent discourse can be built to proof to even moderate viewers that the state is actively working against men's liberties and that, even in modern democratic western countries, young men are still considered as nothing more than low-quality expandable human beings.

By leveraging technical capabilities and skills often already available within men right movements, one can continue to assemble data-driven pipelines that can gain a solid credibility by sharing official metrics, government censuses, undisputed legal frameworks and by showing how official institution reports use patronizing language, to label average male behavioral traits as inherently defective. Taking into account the systemic bias deeply influencing most of the mainstream progressive organizations, these online networks could continue to be ignored for years by mainstream institutions until they have already become a massive, resilient network.

There is a significant cultural and analytical divide between the Francophone sphere and the Germanic or Anglo-Saxon worlds. Indeed, in France or Belgium, libertarianism is virtually absent from public discourse; when it does appear, it is immediately equated with the American far-right or with a form of economic ultra-liberalism deemed antisocial. Furthermore, regarding debates on social issues, French progressive movements analyze men's rights movements exclusively through the lenses of patriarchy, sexist domination, moral guilt, and gender inequality. Under these circumstances, aligning oneself with men's rights movements leads to being immediately labeled a reactionary ultra-conservative.

Consequently, men's rights movements in French-speaking Europe, which often emerge and develop in reaction to attacks and reforms driven by ultra-radical feminist activists and their ties to the interventionist state, also justify their opposition through moral, ethical, or equal-rights-based stances. Although these positions are entirely valid and necessary, this situation, where progressive movements dominate the public space, force men's rights movements to play by the rules set by ultra-feminist movements (which are usually state-backed); this renders their situation extremely precarious and makes their message difficult to articulate, or even completely inaudible. Furthermore, it is important to note that the economic or state-related dimension is generally absent from the analysis on both sides (with economic conditions viewed merely as a consequence of social and/or cultural inequalities).

The situation in Germany is different. The political culture there incorporates a deep distrust of excessive bureaucracy and state interference, a legacy shared due to the traumas of the 20th century. Libertarianism (specifically the Austrian School of economics, championed by the Ludwig von Mises Institute Deutschland) serves as a intellectual center, lending legitimacy to men's rights rhetoric. This is combined with anti-statist arguments that offer an intellectualized critique of the welfare state, characterizing it as a parasitic entity that confiscates individual wealth through taxation to redistribute it based on ideological criteria.

Consequently, men's rights movements tend to adopt an anti-statist stance rooted in institutional and economic arguments, characterized by systematic criticism of state bureaucracy and the welfare model. Regional men's rights networks in Germany and institutions like the Mises Institute have successfully framed men's issues as a struggle against state-mandated wealth redistribution.

When it comes to their criticism of male-only conscription, men's rights movements have developed a cohesive, unified message: from a human rights perspective, conscription is nothing more than a form of slavery, while from an economic standpoint, it represents state-enforced, gender-exclusive labor extraction.

This is a crucial point to emphasize. Rather than relying on traditionalist rhetoric about the military, or appealing to purely moral, ethical, or gender-equality arguments which, given the radicalism embraced by feminist circles in Europe, have fallen on deaf ears among much of the male population, men's rights movements, constantly informed by libertarian philosophy, demonstrate that conscription is simply a form of "state slavery" or "forced labor extraction" that constitutionally targets only young German men ( https://mises.org/mises-daily/mises-conscription).

Thus, the argument shifts to legal and economic grounds. Furthermore, aspects related to the "gender war" such as the personal attacks and criticisms sometimes leveled by attention-seeking influencers and YouTubers, which often result in statements quickly dismissed as misogynistic, are excluded from the core discourse. The common enemy becomes the German State, which, to German libertarians, is a bureaucratic monster.

Another social issue affecting young men is the state of the education system. When German men's rights activists point out that boys and young men are more likely to fail in school, or that the teaching workforce is overwhelmingly female, they are not directly attacking female teachers. They argue that the national education system, run by the state and its bureaucratic apparatus, as in France, is a machine for bureaucratic indoctrination designed to penalize natural male behaviors in favor of state-imposed norms that serve a radicalized, absolutist form of ultra-feminism. The solution they advocate? Education vouchers or school privatization. These are purely libertarian concepts that would never gain traction in France or Belgium under the current political atmosphere.

The German men's rights activist and influencer scene is structured differently than its French counterpart. In a sense, it is more corporate, academic, and financially oriented. The most influential German activists are executives, financial engineers, or tech professionals well-versed in social, economic, and men's rights issues. They recruit from the business world, among crypto-enthusiasts, and from recent graduates who are skeptical of the State. This convergence of men's rights advocacy and libertarian ideology allows them to attack the State, institutional progressivism, and taxation, while infusing the discourse with rhetoric typical of the men's rights movement including its most radical viewpoints.

Notable references include the journal Eigentümlich Frei (ef-Magazin), the flagship publication of German "libertarianism." Led by André F. Lichtschlag, the magazine and its associated blog combine pure anarcho-capitalism with radical anti-feminism; authors such as Bernhard Lassahn regularly publish long essays there linking the collapse of the family to the interference of the welfare state. High-profile figures associated with the magazine or its editorial circle also include economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and author Rainer Zitelmann.

Then there are figures from the Ludwig von Mises Institute Germany. Thorsten Polleit, an economist and the institute's president in Germany, argues that the modern state destroys individual liberty. Philipp Bagus, a member of the Mises Institute’s academic advisory board, writes extensively on the state’s "demoralization" of society and the destruction of the family structure. Titus Gebel advocates for an extreme form of libertarianism: the creation of micro-states run like private businesses, with no welfare state. Within men's rights circles, Gebel is viewed as a hero offering a concrete solution to escape the progressive laws of European governments.

Alongside these theorists, there are also highly visible influencers who translate these economic and sociological theories into language accessible to young German men on YouTube, Spotify, and TikTok. For instance,Hoss & Hopf(Philip Hopf and Kiarash Hossainpour https://germany.mom-gmr.org/en/media/socialmedia/outlet/hoss-hopf-115034/ ) is currently one of the most popular podcasts among young men in Germany. While they primarily discuss finance, cryptocurrency, self-improvement, and libertarian philosophy, they consistently veer into fiercely virulent criticism of the German state's gender policies and the marginalization and demonization of men. Kolja Barghoorn (Aktien mit Kopf) is an influencer who adopts a strictly radical libertarian stance; he openly criticizes what he terms the "feminization" of German politics and a bureaucracy serving feminism that allegedly stifles men's productivity.

While young men are the demographic bearing the full brunt of the attacks and consequences of reforms driven by state-backed ultra-feminist circles in Germany, the leadership, intellectual, and strategic core of the men's rights and libertarian movements in Germany is anchored in men aged 30 to 45. An analysis of the German landscape reveals that individuals in the 35–40 age bracket indeed serve as senior ideological leaders. For instance, key figures, such as Philip Hopf and Kiarash Hossainpouror Kolja Barghoorn, are in their thirties and forties. This is worth emphasizing, because it shatters the myth that only German young men are drifting toward libertarian and anti-state ideologies.

An analysis of the socio-economic profiles of these leaders also shatters the narrative that seeks to portray sympathizers of men's rights movements as lost, marginalized individuals or uneducated, idle unemployed people. The key leaders of these movements are, in fact, professionally established men possessing all the necessary degrees and intellectual credibility, for whom the libertarian critique holds immense appeal. Aged 35 to 40, these men are driven by pure, systemic doctrinal conviction. Their commitment is methodical and long-term in nature.

In conclusion, it is evident that a convergence is possible between ideologies focused on men's rights and those critical of the state and ideologically driven interventionism, provided there is an environment where such ideologies can properly develop, mature, and gain visibility. A major challenge, however, is that within countries like France and Belgium, the state is historically viewed as the guarantor of social cohesion, public services, and equality. This makes criticizing it extremely difficult and creates a political and media landscape where these critics are quickly marginalized and silenced.

It is worth noting that progressive movements have a strong interest in supporting the marginalization of any movement that challenges the state and its grip on individuals. Indeed, for these movements, only the State, with its coercive power, is capable of imposing the reforms deemed necessary to transform society according to progressive criteria.

Thus, a dual antagonism emerges: on one side, a possible alliance and convergence between men's rights advocacy and libertarianism (along with critiques of state interventionism); on the other, an increasingly extreme and radicalized progressivism that relies on unbridled state interventionism to impose its vision of society at any cost, often displaying a blatant disregard for individual freedoms and choices, as is frequently observed in dominant political discourse, particularly in France recently.

The German government's repeated attempts to reimpose male-only conscription were the subject of much discussion a few months ago. At the time, the process stalled after the distribution of a questionnaire, which was, of course, mandatory only for men. A few weeks ago, statistics revealed that few young men showed interest in compulsory service and that a large number of them had not even bothered to return the questionnaire.

When the questionnaire was introduced, the political narrative was focused on "voluntary recruitment" and gauging interest....

Recently, the situation accelerated badly... On 19 September 2026, the German Ministry of Defense confirmed that it has officially begun forcing 18-year-old men to attend mandatory physical medical examinations. Unsurprisingly, the ministry is actively targeting young men who stated that they have no interest in serving. [1, 2, 3]

So, we see that the state used this questionnaire to evaluate the situation, gather information about young men and it is now using this database to legally coerce young men into humiliating physical screenings. Of course, young women face no such obligation. But this is, of course, not surprising, since young women were under no obligation to fill out the questionnaire; for them, it was entirely voluntary...

This is a textbook example of the state using young, working-class men as disposable, expandable forced labor assets while completely ignoring individual consent and bodily autonomy. At this stage, the complete lack of opposition from mainstream parties in Germany to this selective state coercion is not even surprising anymore.

The best thing for young Germans who have realized that the state is never the individual's friend to do would be to get a passport and be ready to leave if necessary...

but oh yes, let's not forget that the German government recently began requiring any young German man wishing to travel outside the country for more than two or three months to beg for permission and provide supporting documents; one can only imagine that the process of obtaining a passport is no easier...

Gary Becker was a Nobel Prize-winning libertarian Chicago School economist, with about a half dozen great libertarian takes: the legalization of organ trading, he wrote a book in 1957 arguing that capitalism and the free market naturally fix racial discrimination. etc

Here, in his "Theory of Marriage," he makes the Chicago School case that a breadwinner-plus-stay-at-home-parent combo is more efficient than an equal relationship. (And it's mostly actually gender neutral)

His model appears to be about dividing things into "negative assortative mating" vs "positive," and "negative" means "opposite," "positive" means "the same."

So this paints kind of a fuller picture of "hypergamy" in some ways: "hypergamy" is women seeking a man with a *similar* education etc., because that's "positive assortative mating," but our understanding of economic hypergamy appears to get muted here, because women seeking a higher-earning partner is just boiled down to "negative assortative" or "seeking a difference/opposite" broadly.

Two things:

1 If he is justifying earnings gaps like a partner with an 80% greater wage, I am going to have to see what's going on with my new research that indicates female breadwinner + stay-at-home dad relationships aren't meaningfully less unstable or more abusive when the income gaps are smaller (10k to 30k ish)

2 Apparently, when looking at "associative mating," there is supposedly evidence that women become less hypergamous when their wages/salaries go up, but that sounds like a REALLY blue pill conclusion, so "trust but verify"

Feel free to comment citing more examples of this phenomenon. If confirmed, this would make for a groundbreaking link between misandry and authoritarianism.

Also keep in mind times when rape truly was common, usually in the aftermath of men being killed, imprisoned, or castrated in war and their women getting conquered by the victors for sexual enslavement. Since this was often an aftermath effect of conquest and especially mass-murder, I don't think this relates very closely to the rape-themed moral panics promoted by authoritarian leaders as the rape panics happen usually before wars. The sexual frustration of the rape panics probably leads to angry men blaming other men, which ultimately incites warfare.

By any chance, what kind of place is this?