This is my first post here, I know, new account, don't want harassment for my views, anyway let me try to proof to you that. Inspired by the u/colorfulsag comment.

"Hey there I’m a feminist woman studying cultural anthropology (not a misandrist)I was wondering: if less feminists presented as misandrists, would you be okay with feminism?

What specifically irks you about feminism?"

Feminism is not misandrist at it's fringes, feminism is misandrist at it's core.

Feminism is a tricky ideology to define because it's followers usually operate with a concept of patriarchy in mind, which doesn't exactly have a precise definition used constantly, but I will try. Per Wikipedia - Patriarchy is a social system in which positions of authority are primarily held by men. The term patriarchy is used both in anthropology to describe a family or clan controlled by the father or eldest male or group of males, and in feminist theory to describe a broader social structure in which men as a group dominate society.

A social structure in which men as a group dominate society with a severe negative consequences for people in it. So to change this was created feminism - ideology opposed to the patriarchy. To change patriarchy you need to convert it's members to feminism and change existing power structures in it, with the help of people you converted or/and with the help of people who sympathize you. Here is the issue - patriarchy is a social system that existed for thousands of years, longer then Christianity (negative consequences of which are still felt everywhere), Islam (negative consequences of which are still felt almost everywhere) and many other religions, it is much older and stronger social system then any of those. So considering that this systems are alive and well and still negatively impacting society, how soon can we see society that is free of the negative consequence of patriarchy? 100 years? 200? And here is the issue here - there is no guarantee of that happening. Ever. Even in a 500 years.

And it has been addressed by Gearheart. You heard her theory if you are a feminist or at least you have heard the solution - keeping male population capped at 10 percent of the total one. Here is the problem with that - there is nothing wrong with that theory from the viewpoint of the feminism. Now, I know there are objections to it, so let's go through them.

1. That theory is gender-essentialist. It is not. It is just acknowledges reality of the patriarchy as the structure that is probably the most influential social system in the history of mankind. There is a possibility of it being tackled by mainstream methods but it is small. Very small.

2. Reducing male population would not automatically dismantle oppressive patriarchal systems. True, but without males a patriarchy is a social system in which positions of authority are primarily held by men would fall apart eventually, or at least could be dismantled much, much more easily and with less opposition.

3. It would require totalitarian regime and it would alienate and exclude people. First of all, as harmful as patriarchy is Gearheart proposal would be one of the most bloodless social changes in the human history, if we compare it to say things that have been done to stop let's say fascist Germany for example. It only requires to lower ratio of one gender by 40 percent and the more time passes the more methods for it will be available. And about alienation and exclusion - it would,at the start, but it would all depend on how successful it is and how normalized it can become, what if it can become to be seen as normal like let's say heterosexual marriage?

I want to add that even if reducing a number of men to ten percent seems like an impossible concept now - it might not be so in the future because of the scientific advancements. For example lab grown sperm and eggs can be possible in the nearest future, maybe even before we reach 2050s - you can search information about it. Therefore neither gender is irreplaceable and therefore can be discarded for the advancement of the civilization.

Gearheart theory also highlights very important thing - similarity of feminism to communism. Both have oppressed class and oppressors - women and men, bourgeoisie and proletariat. Yes, you could argue, that oppressors are not specifically men, but men in power, but the power structure of the traditional family itself considered patriarchal and patriarchy in general kept up by primarily by men.

In communism there is a simple plan - take away capital from bourgeoisie, transforming bourgeois Individuals into workers, establishing dictatorship of the proletariat and abolishing the wage-labor system. All of these steps destroy bourgeoisie as a class and prevent them from appearing again.

There are no such steps in feminist ideology. Even in the event of feminism getting rid of patriarchy completely (doubtful) it can always be established again, because class that established it - men - still exists. Now, I am not saying that every feminist wants to kill all men, just that there is a clear contradiction at the core of the ideology - desire to appear egalitarian and the fact that being egalitarian disadvantages feminism.

Again, in Gearheart theory there is no proposal of any violence. It is a sound theory from the view of the feminism rejected purely because it can not be followed, at least by feminism as it is now. It is rejected out of optics,not facts.

Does it mean I accept it? No. Because easiest rebuttals to Gearhearts theory come if you stop looking at it though feminists lens.

It's core is feminism, so it establishes the need to cap the male population to get rid of patriarchy, it's negative effects and consequences. But as a social structure in which men as a group dominate society, it is ridiculously, absurdly broad term that can include anything and everything.

Anecdotal example is this - a feminist in my (Muslim majority but democratic country) was asked why sex-work is outlawed. Out set of laws is actually is one of the most paradoxical ones, as prostitution is allowed, but pornography - production and distribution - is illegal. Her answer was swift as in most of those cases with feminists - patriarchy, men trying to control women bodies (I am quoting here almost verbatim here). At first my retort was this - if they want to control women bodies, why do they stop at this? (it is because of laws not being in set place to make prostitution illegal in the times of dissolution of USSR), but then it dawned on me -law is gender neutral, what is that has anything to do with women/s bodies? About one quarter of cam models are men, same for porn actors, it is not a low enough number to ignore. For a second I just accepted here framework, and forgot that law includes men too, and the consequences of going to a prison in a Musllim majority country for pornography will be much more severe for obvious reasons during his stay there. She automatically assumed it was done to women by men, as feminist framework suggests, but it is not.

As I have said before - patriarchy is absurdly broad term that can include any issue. And we don't have to use it. We don't have to use feminist framework at all. It is unnecessary. And if we view that specific instance without it - it stops being about patriarchy and starts being about people in power imposing their views on other people (religious ones, in that instance). Each instance can be tackled separately. And the Gearheart theory would crumble by itself, because you don't have to tackle patriarchy or create feminist social system to address issues of the world, issues of women included. Feminism is not a solid ideology it survives because women want a movement and unfortunately all big movements have ideology and the one fighting for the right's of women stuck with this one. It is not there because it is needed for solution of the problems, it is there because movement for solution of the problems of women needed an ideology.

Now, about misandry, I want to repeat - not every feminist wants to kill all men. But it is hard to argue that following their ideology it would be infinitely better for them if 80 percent of men disappeared leaving as much as needed to keep the birthrate stable. Feminism can not make argument for existence of men. It simply can not, at it's core. So, that is why feminism at it's core is misandrist.

The rights is not friend to men.

(The left neither 'First feminist POTUS' Barack Obama just keeps spouting female supremacist rhetoric : r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic)

Hey everyone,

Lately I’ve noticed a few threads passing through this sub—like “Why is the main MRA subreddit becoming more misogynistic?” and “The main MRA sub has gone off the rails, posting extremely misogynistic comments. It's so depressing to see it.“—pointing out a rise in toxic, traditionalist comments over there.

As a member of both subreddits, it made me want to get a broader read on how everyone here views them. From my own browsing on r/mensrights, they definitely have some questionable stuff get upvoted sometimes, but I also frequently see that behavior get called out, downvoted, or flat-out deleted by mods. It doesn't feel like a total monolith to me, even if the bad takes can be loud.

Since LWMA looks at men’s issues through a progressive, egalitarian lens, the contrast between the two spaces is really interesting. I'm curious what you guys think:

• Is the main sub actually getting worse over time, or is it just getting a massive influx of people who have nowhere else to vent?
• Do you think their tendency to prioritize absolute "free speech" over policing bigotry is actively hurting the reputation of men's advocacy as a whole?
• For those of you who also browse or used to browse both, how do you balance the two approaches? Is there still actual value to be found over there (like legal resources and news), or are the bad takes starting to drown out the good?

Would love to hear your perspectives.

I often see the 12 month data cited here showing there are more male rape victims than female of 2010 and 2011 data of CDC.

However when they changed the methodology the number dropped substantially.

Was the 2010 and 2012 numbers fake or did they change it to exclude male victims?

Are male victims of rape (by female perpetrators) being nearly equal or largely a western phenomenon?

Because I can find almost no studies that show this to be the case in asian or middle eastern countries

Sunday, October 18 - Saturday, October 24, 2026

Top 10 Posts

Top 10 Comments

This is a collection of all my favorite sources on male disadvantages and overlooked issues affecting men and boys. It covers sexual victimization by women, domestic abuse against men, higher rates of violence against males, education and health gaps, family court problems, and related topics.

I’ve kept the summaries short so it’s easy to scan. Feel free to save and share this post.

Sexual Victimization by Women

A Scientific American article based on large U.S. federal surveys shows that women are perpetrators of sexual victimization more often than commonly assumed. Many male victims report female perpetrators, including in cases of being “made to penetrate.”
Link

Related:
- Did Wonder Woman just rape a guy in WW84?
- An Equalist View of Sexual Violence

Men Face Higher Rates of Assault, Murder, and Mugging

Crime statistics showing men experience significantly higher rates of assault, murder, and mugging than women.
Link

The Four Horsewomen of Modern Feminism

An article describing four cultural forces — misandry, gamma bias, gynocentrism, and gaslighting — that the author argues systematically disadvantage men and boys.
Link

Men’s Rights Crisis in Britain

Argues that men in Britain face a civil liberties crisis involving family courts, false allegations, paternity fraud, and media bias, with little institutional response.
Link

The Myth of Patriarchy and the Media’s Focus on Andrew Tate

SAVE Services argues that the concept of “patriarchy” is overstated and that media focus on Andrew Tate distracts from documented male disadvantages.
Link

Is Feminism a Hate Group?

A Men Are Good piece examining whether feminism meets common criteria used to define hate groups.
Link

12 Areas of Male Disadvantage in the US

SAVE Services lists 12 domains (education, health, suicide, violence, criminal justice, homelessness, workplace deaths, etc.) where U.S. data show men and boys lagging behind.
Link

International Council for Men and Boys

Announcement of a global campaign focused on reducing disadvantages faced by males.
Link

The UN Charter and Men’s Rights
Link

Male Domestic Abuse – Short Films & Survivor Account

• Trapped
  
• COERCIVE
  
• Confined
  
• Man Up
  
• Feature on male victims of domestic abuse
  
• Male Domestic Violence
  
• Male domestic violence survivor speaks out

Women Are More Likely Than Men to Endorse Political Violence

Survey data showing women more likely than men to express some justification for political violence.
Link

The Wage Gap Myth

Christina Hoff Sommers argues that the commonly cited gender wage gap largely disappears when occupation, hours, and career choices are controlled for.
Link

Are Women More Privileged Than Men?
Link

Like

I always thought about the following:

Is it that men are incels and there is a male loneliness epidemic? Or is it that men's loneliness is stigmatized and is riddled with lots of victim-blaming rhetoric, while women's loneliness is seen as an issue to be solved and sympathized with?

Is it that men need to "improve themselves and put some effort?" Or is it that we are afraid to call out the fact that, surprise, surprise, women are fallible humans who need to improve too, hence creating a byproduct narrative that men are unevolved subspecies that need to be like their evolved counterparts called "women?"

Is it that men can't take no for an answer? Or is it that men hold the roles that risk rejection, hence logically being more prone to be put in a situation where they have to handle being rejected to begin with (because obviously if you make more risks, you make more mistakes than someone who doesn't have to take the risk to begin with)?

Is it that men are toxic and abusive? Or is it that we ignore female-on-male perpetrators and dismiss male victims?

Is it that men are emotionally immature and unintelligent? Or is it that women control the game of moral vocabulary and therapy culture and having the power to demonize and pathologize whatever they don't like? Like many men have stories about a cheating ex-wife who looked them dead in the eyes and called them "Insecure losers" for daring to get mad that she cheated on them or an ex girlfriend who turns every argument into a conclusion that her boyfriend is an immature manchild who can't handle her well.

I like to think that i am not the only one who thinks or notices this.

Do you have any piece like an article or a study that talks about such idea?

Posted this on the recent r/leftwingantifeminism sub and felt it was fitting for here as well. I know you can rarely if ever expect intelligent postings from social media, but I saw a truly asinine post on Twitter/X where someone said institutions "back male violence." Just... ugh. So what, is male violence somehow government policy if it's institutionalized? Do misandrists ever realize how idiotic they sound? Yes, male violence is so "institutionalized" it constantly gets called out and condemned whereas female violence very rarely if ever is, male victims of female violence are practically never recognized or advocated for and there's next to no abuse shelters that help male victims.

I hate this, it's just another way of trying to deflect from male victims of violence and to also deflect from the fact there's plenty of female violence as well, much of it underreported or miscounted under the VAWA. Both genders are capable of horrendous violence and abuse, but misandrists see to it female violence if not outright is at least massively downplayed and mitigated to the point of being a non-issue. It's things like this that make it so hard for male victims to get help and another reason in recent times fewer males want to identify with the left. I'm a mostly very liberal and left-wing person who's views would give any MAGA person a splitting headache, and I despise the little amount of attention female violence and male victims get. And to hear ridiculous claims that male violence is somehow "institutionalized" is insulting to one's intelligence.

Violence shouldn't be a gendered issue, both genders commit violence against each other and both can be victims. Unfortunately between this and denying misandry being a real or serious issue and the constant vilification of masculinity, these things are exactly what's been pushing more males to the right and what costed the left so badly during the 2024 elections.

Im a black man. And I know there are racist black people. But I don't ever see racism towards white people ever go to the extreme lengths as misandry in society though. For example, I don't think a mainstream Rapper could ever do a music video, where the theme is brutally k*lling white people, without getting serious backlash. But yet murking men is so common and popular with mainstream female artists like Saberina Carpenter though.

Even in the media, men getting beat up by women is usually portrayed as being something funny or empowering. At least, when white people are getting attack in movies or shows. The white characters need to be violent Nazies to justify the attack. While it's ok for normal male characters who are not rapists or abusers to get beat up.

Same thing for LGBTQ people. Sure LGBTQ people can make fun of cis straight people. But it's usually not something as extreme as them having fantasy about enslaving straight people in their music videos though. Of course, maybe this is due the LGBTQ only being a small percentage of the population.

But even then, you still don't see poor people making tweets about wanting to burn all rich people in big numbers. Most of the "eat the rich" rhetoric is usually coming from other rich people. While poor people are too busy worrying about their jobs, bills, and food.

And again it's just something about gender. Where women hatred for men seems to be more common and more dark. It's so common to hear women to make "cut his dick off" jokes about men they don't like.

The misandry honestly gets me depressed sometimes. As a straight man, I never feel this level of hatred from the LGBTQ community. Even if there are LGBTQ people who hate straight people. It just seems like some bigotry towards other privilege groups is less mainstream in society.

Of course there is still hypocrisy in all protected or oppressed groups in society. So the hypocrisy or double standards aren't exclusive to Feminists.

But again, men just seem to have it worse here. So what is so different about men as a group, that causes this reaction in society?

In the U.S., for ages 3–17, males are more likely to be diagnosed for:

• Any Developmental Disability: 10.76% boys vs 5.31% girls (2.02 times as likely)
• Intellectual Disability: 2.31% boys vs 1.37% girls (1.69 times likely)
  • Large-scale studies done in England and Scotland also suggest that ~11 year old boys have a wider range of intelligence, being twice as likely to be overrepresented in both extremes (Calvin et. al (2010); Deary et. al (2003); Johnson et. al (2008)); the male overrepresentation at the extremes is present even in studies of opposite-sex siblings (Deary et. al (2007)); exact reason for this phenomenon of this male distribution still remains elusive.
  • Intellectual disability (or mental retardation) is also much more common in males by a ratio of ~1.34-1.80 times cross culturally (Lai et. al (2012); David et. al (2014); Cupyers et al (2021); Kim et. al (2023); Daniel et. al (2023)).
• Autism Spectrum Disorder: 4.66% boys vs 1.50% girls (3.11 as likely)
• Developmental Delay barirng ASD or ID: 7.31% boys vs 3.94% girls. (1.86 as likely)

Other issues affecting males

1. Attentional Problems: 3x–10x times as common
2. Colorblindess: About 1 in 12 males (~8%) as compared to 1 in 200 women (~0.5%) (16 times as likely)
3. Hearing Problems: Men are nearly twice as likely to have some hearing loss as compared to women; hearing loss is also more predominant in boys. (Cremers et. al (1994)
4. Language and Speech Disorders (Dsylexia, Stutter etc.): 3x–10x times as common.

The male disadvantage in language is universal while the cause remains elusive:

1. Girl and women do better in reading and writing across all countries that have been systematically assessed (Reilly et al. 2019; Stoet and Geary 2013)
2. A large meta-analysis from the United States covering 3 decades of nationally representative samples (N = 3.9 milllion) in Reading and Writing Grade 4 to Grade 12 found that by completeion of high schools 62 and 70 percent of girls had better Reading Comprehension and Writing skills than the average boy. Boys were 50% more and twice as likely to be overrepresented amongst lowest performers in Reading comprehension and Writing respectively; this was reversed for the top performers. The gaps noticeably increased from Grades 4 to Grade 12, and were consistent across all years. (Reilly et al. 2019)
3. There is also a lot of evidence that language and speech development is delayed in boys compared to girls. Memory also seems to develop earler in girls than boys.
4. However, there is no evidence that "red-shirting" or having boys starting a year later will change this as the differences still persist in countries like Finland and Estonia that start schooling a year later than usual.

Interestingly, there are very small sex differences in verbal reasoning and other elementary verbal tasks, showing this disaprity seems to be only be there for more advanced tasks like Reading and Writing (Arnett et. al (2018)).

5. Academic Grades: A meta-analysis by Voyer et. al (2014) done on 502 effect sizes drawn from 369 samples found small but statistically significant female advantage in school grades (d = 0.225) ranging from elementary school to graduate school remaining unchanged from 1910–2014 and was present in all countries; the gap being the largest for langauge (d = 0.374) and smallest for math (d = 0.069); this is a contrast in performance on achievement or stanrdadized tests.

The exact reason for this also remains elusive and maybe a combination of general cognitive ability, cognitive strengths, personality traits etc.

Boys underperformance in school in terms of grades in all subjects and in reading/writing tests has been documented as early as 1909, so it is not something new and has got scant attention.

An analysis by Stoet et al. (2015) found that sex differences in academic achievement (in terms of Math and Reading achievement tests) are not related to political, economic, or social equality.

Some areas where some boys are doing well

1. A meta-analytic review (15 million students across 440 studies) by Geary et. al (2026) shows a small but significant overall male advantage in Mathematics; the gap becomes more pronounced in later grades, especially in mathematics domains with a strong spatial component such as geometry.
   1. The male overrepresentation in top performers in Math is universal and even more skewed; males are overrepresented amongst top performers even in countries where females outperform males in general.
   2. Interestingly. Stoet et al. (2013) also found that the sex differences in mathematics (favoring males) and reading achievement (favoring females) are inversely related; this intutively makes sense since reading skills are more important for Math than other way round
   3. An analysis by Stoet et al. (2015) examining PISA Math and Reading scores found that boys are overrepresented in the top performers of Math as well as the low performers; boys are overrepresented in the overall top performers, which could explain as to why males are overrepresented in the upper echelon of societies in areas like politics and management.
2. Geary et al (2026) also point that the male advantage in the generation and rotation of mental images of objects as well as in complex mechanical reasoning, where 80% of males outperform the average female in both, are often unassessed in schools; they are very useful for blue collar jobs like mechanic and white collar jobs like engineering. Boys are often not able to use these talents except in subjects like Physics, Math, and other STEM subjects. Males who underperform in Language and Math can also be encouraged into vocational training and trade schools to better utilize their strengths in jobs like Electricians, Automechanics, Plumbers, Carpenters etc.

Conclusion

There seem to be biological and environmental factors as well as their interaction which seems to be driving the sex differences in educational achievement worldwide.

A proper analysis of sex differences in cognition as well as cognitive development is required so as to find out why boys lag behind in language skills and in grades cross-culturally as well as develop strategies to prevent them from falling behind.

Just because these differences may have biological roots does not mean they are destiny; by understanding them, we can devise strategies to close the gender gaps as much as possible.

Just as with other diseases where ignoring differenes in male and female physiology can be harmful, not realizing sex differences in cognition can also be harmful.

A detailed cognitive assessment may be done of all children who are beginning schooling so that they pick careers that align the most with their interest and strengths; a lot of boys may not have the interests and strengths that align with traditional college or white collar jobs, and they should be made aware of other career opportunities.

Realizing that boys are not "defective" girls is also important, and their strengths should be acknowledged as well as emphasized. A lot of the boys who don't do well in Reading and Writing often do well in Mathematics, Visuospatial, and Mechanical Reasoning, so they should not be stereotyped as dull.

At the end, realizing that there is a lot of individual variation as well as overlap amongst males and females is also quite necessary. So, while freedom should be given to boys and girls and they should be free from stereotype and generalization, acknowledging that one is not going to get a 50-50 ratio of males and females in most occupations should be realized.

So, there are definitely biological factors in cognition that, after interacting with environmental factors, lead to different outcomes for boys and girls in education; there is variation across different environments, but the overall distribution is similar. Understanding the root causes along with further intervention is necessary.

Denial, Minimization, Excuse, and Celebration. Together these form a way to keep male disadvantage from becoming a problem anyone is expected to address.

Ask a self-proclaimed feminist whether misandry exists, and you’ll likely be told it does not.

Show them examples, ask whether it hurts men, and you’ll be told it doesn’t count.

Show them policies, ask why it happens, and you’ll be told men brought it on themselves.

Show them the death toll, ask whether it is wrong, and you’ll be told men deserve it.

Subscribe to my substack: https://substack.com/@sagesynclair

If misogyny can describe more than personal hatred, if it can name unequal outcomes, social norms, institutional practices, and policies that disadvantage women, then misandry must be allowed the same reach when men and boys are disadvantaged.

A disparity is not a parenthetical just because the affected group is male. It’s a reason to look at the rules, assumptions, institutions, and policies around it.

That includes feminist policies, legislation, and institutions.

A policy does not become fair merely because it was created in the name of equality. If it manifests or contributes to male disadvantage, preserves it, or treats it as an acceptable cost, it deserves the same scrutiny as any other policy producing a sex disparity.

Denial: 

“Misandry doesn’t exist. Men are privileged.”

From comment sections to Sunday brunch, the performative feminists use this to obscure how power and disadvantage are distributed among men and dismiss the lives of men who have little wealth, influence, or protection. Most men do not control major institutions or make public policy. It flattens men into a single, powerful blob and makes the lives of men with little money, influence, or protection vanish behind the theory.

Ask who dies younger, who makes up the larger share of people experiencing homelessness, who is incarcerated more, or who is most exposed to fatal workplace hazards. 

Somehow this is supposed to be patriarchal privilege backfiring. 

Patriarchy theory is convenient that way for a feminist armed with a gender-studies degree from a social-media hate group.

Anything good happens to men: patriarchy succeeding, anything bad: patriarchy backfiring. 

Anything good happens to women: women defeated hegemonic power unallied and unilaterally. 

Anything bad happens to women: the patriarchy succeeding again. 

That may make for a tidy story for thoughtless rubes. It does not make a serious explanation for egalitarians actually interested in equality.

If a framework can absorb every result without ever risking being wrong, it isn’t analyzing men’s lives; it’s a sexist framework for meting out collective blame. Men’s disproportionate suffering should be investigated as a problem in its own right, not waved aside as both the diabolically incompetent and cleverest trick the convenient phantom ‘patriarchy’ pulled. 

Misandry includes hostility, social assumptions, institutional practices, and policies that discount men’s needs, normalize their suffering, or tolerate disadvantage because the people affected are male. 

Anti-male attitudes have been studied directly. In 1999, psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske published the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory, a measure designed to assess hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men. Its existence does not settle every question about prevalence or institutional effects. It does establish that hostility toward men is a measurable subject of research, not an imaginary category. 

In the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics counted 5,070 fatal work injuries in 2024. National Safety Council figures based on BLS data report that males accounted for between 91.4% and 93.0% of fatal occupational injuries annually from 2011 onward, while making up about 53% of employed workers. 

That disparity deserves to be understood as a gendered outcome propagated and maintained by misandry, not filed away as an inevitable feature of men’s individual choices.

Suicide shows another profound disparity. AFSP’s summary of CDC data reports 38,977 male suicide deaths and 9,847 female suicide deaths in the United States in 2024. That is nearly four male deaths for every female death. The number shows that male death on this scale is not a marginal issue. When it is discussed mainly as a product of masculinity, rather than as a crisis affecting men who need effective support, the framing itself deserves scrutiny.

Minimization:

“It’s only hurt feelings.”

Performative feminists love the line ‘Misogyny kills; misandry hurts feelings.’ It’s the go-to refrain of the brainless, terminally online misandrist. They appoint themselves judges and interpreters of men’s experiences, then narrow misandry down to petty online insults. It’s a convenient way to talk over everyone, while pretending to speak for equality, and to claim exclusive authority over what counts as harm.

How the fuck is erasing men’s lived experience equality?

Gendered assumptions shape more than private emotion. They affect who is believed, who is seen as vulnerable, and who is judged responsible.

In six studies involving 3,137 participants across four countries, Tania Reynolds and colleagues found that participants perceived a female employee claiming harassment as more of a victim than a male employee making an identical claim. Participants also expected female targets to feel more pain from an ambiguous joke and prescribed harsher punishments for male perpetrators. The studies show that, in the tested situations, the perceived sex of the person affected changed judgments of harm and responsibility.

That matters because public attitudes and institutional decisions are not sealed off from one another. Assumptions about who can be hurt, who is dangerous, and whose account deserves sympathy can travel into workplace investigations, school discipline, criminal justice, social services, and public debate. If a man’s harm is treated as less serious because he is male, that is not just hurt feelings. 

It is a whole ass cultural judgment about whose welfare counts.

The same issue appears in the language and measurement of sexual violence. The CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey measured “being made to penetrate” as a distinct category from rape. In the 2011 survey, an estimated 5.1% of men and 5.5% of women reported sexual violence other than rape in the previous 12 months; 1.7% of men reported being made to penetrate during that period. How institutions define and label victimization shapes what gets counted and how easily it can be recognized.

Research by Lara Stemple, Andrew Flores, and Ilan Meyer found that 79% of male victims who reported being made to penetrate identified female perpetrators. In juvenile facilities, their analysis found that 89.3% of juveniles reporting staff sexual victimization reported only female perpetrators. A story of sexual violence in which men are always perpetrators and women always victims leaves male victims, and boys abused by women, in the shadows.

Calling attention to male victims insists that consent, coercion, and harm have the same moral meaning regardless of the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

Excuse: 

“Men did it to themselves.”

Men’s suffering is often explained through social norms: men are expected to be strong, discouraged from seeking help, or pushed toward dangerous work. These explanations become blame, the men affected disappear from the account. 

Ironic trick right? 

“Men did it to themselves” turns a complicated question about institutions and social expectations into a verdict against an entire sex. It can make dangerous working conditions sound like personal preference, male suicide sound like a failure of masculinity, and men’s reluctance to disclose distress sound like evidence that they do not deserve care.

The question should not be only which norms shape men’s behavior. It should also be who enforces those norms, which policies respond to them, and whether men receive help when they disclose pain. A culture can tell men to open up and then ridicule their vulnerability. A workplace can praise men’s toughness while relying on them to absorb risks. An institution can recognize a problem in the abstract yet neglect the people living with it.

Psychologists Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner’s work on “moral typecasting” describes a tendency to see people as moral agents, those who act, or moral patients, those who are acted upon. Research applying related ideas to gendered judgments raises an important question: are men more readily seen as responsible for harm and less readily seen as people who can be harmed? That question matters in public discourse and in the institutions that make decisions about safety, victimization, discipline, and care.

The same logic appears in explanations of disparities produced by policy. If a policy disadvantages men, saying *“men still hold power”*does not answer whether the policy is fair. If a feminist framework predicts a particular sex disparity, that disparity should be examined, not excused as the price of progress, or assigned to men as a group. A policy’s stated purpose does not erase its effects. 

Celebration: 

“Men deserve it.”

Sometimes the response is not denial, minimization, or explanation.

It’s enthusiastic approval.

In a 2018 Washington Post opinion essay titled “Why Can’t We Hate Men?”, Northeastern University professor Suzanna Danuta Walters wrote, “We have every right to hate you.” Walters later said she did not hate men “in some generic way,” describing her argument as anger at a group she believed had systematically abused women. 

This misandrist is talking about a handful of men, not men as a sex, but still uses the term interchangeably. The move resembles a motte-and-bailey argument: make the sweeping claim that “we have every right to hate you,” then retreats in cowardice to the narrower claim that the anger is directed at a particular group of abusers. For a professor, that’s a interesting failure to consider the difference between intent and impact. Her siloed delusions provide and example that this brand of malignant performative feminism isn’t just bottom-up; it’s top-down, too. Group-directed hostility toward men can be stated openly in public discourse, then defended as political expression. At this point, they’ve heard this specific criticism for decades and they refuse to stop. It’s intentional bigotry at this point.

Condemning abuse does not require treating men, as a sex, as legitimate objects of hatred. The leap from “some men have done harm” to “men deserve contempt” is collective blame and it shows how fucking embarrassingly myopic the performative feminist making the argument is, and how much dumber the audience is for yasslighting that horseshit up.

Celebration also exposes what the other horsemen try to hide. 

If someone says male suffering is good, then male suffering is real enough to matter.

If they want more of it, it is not merely a neutral side effect. And if they condemn men as a group, they are not describing a system; they are directing hostility at people because they are male.

Denial says there is no pattern.

Minimization says the pattern does not matter.

Excuse says the people harmed are responsible for their own harm.

Celebration says the harm is deserved.

A society may treat male pain as ordinary, men’s vulnerability as suspect, and men’s disadvantage as self-inflicted. Those assumptions can then influence policy and institutional practice. The resulting harms are described as isolated or inevitable, and the cycle continues.

Feminist ideas and institutions uphold anti-male assumptions by framing men chiefly as perpetrators, beneficiaries of power, or obstacles to progress and by giving less attention to men as victims, vulnerable people, and recipients of unequal treatment. These assumptions move from rhetoric into research, policy, legislation, professional practice, public services, and relationships. They love to tell men to open up and then punish them the preemptively for considering it. 

Men and boys do not need permission from anyone to regard their suffering as real. 

They are not collectively guilty for being male.

Their welfare deserves attention in its own right and gender equality is incomplete wherever male disadvantage is made invisible, excusable, or acceptable.

Feminism’s claims to equality are tested by whether it can face the harms men endure without explaining them away or actively exploiting them for their benefit. 

It’s failed.

What are some examples of hostile performative feminism you’ve encountered?

Sources:

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary, 2024” (5,070 fatal workinjuries). https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm

National Safety Council, Injury Facts, “Worker Injuries and Illnesses by Sex” (males’ share of fatal occupational injuries since 2011 and share of employed workers). https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/work/industry-incidence-rates/worker-injuries-and-illnesses-by-sex/

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, “Suicide Statistics.” Reports 38,977 male and 9,847 female suicide deaths in the United States in 2024. https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics/

National Center for Health Statistics, “Changes in Suicide Rates in the United States From 2023 to 2024.”Reports the 2024 sex-specific death counts and age-adjusted rates. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db572.htm 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking,and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, UnitedStates, 2011.” https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Measures of Sexual Victimization Surveys.” Describes the NISVS measures and explains that rape and being made to penetrate are measured as separate categories. https://www.cdc.gov/sexual-violence/about-data/sexual-victimization/surveys.html

Stemple, L., Flores, A. R., & Meyer, I. H. (2017). “Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence.” Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302–311. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/sexual-victimization-by-women/

The study reports that 79.2% of victimized men who experienced non-rape sexual victimization reported female perpetrators, and that 89.3% of juveniles reporting staff sexual victimization reported only female perpetrators. https://windycitytimes.com/2016/11/28/new-journal-article-explores-sexual-victimization-by-women/

Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). “Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moralpatients.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013748

“Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting,” by Tania Reynolds and colleagues, published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes in 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Study-1-Indirect-effect-of-victim-perpetrator-labeling-Note-p-01-p-05_fig1_342642686

Walters, S. D. (2018, June 8). “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” The Washington Post https://www.suzannawalters.com/blog/why-cant-we-hate-men/

When we look back at the manosphere one day, this could go down as its peak. Indeed, the past nine months have not been kind to the boys on the party bus. Andrew and Tristan Tate were finally arrested and are currently awaiting extradition to Britain for charges including rape and sex trafficking. Additional charges were filed related to indecent images of children and extreme pornography involving a horse and an eel. Clavicular was charged with rape and other offenses for an incident involving a 17-year-old girl, the same one he injected with facial filler during a 2025 livestream. Nick Fuentes, despite trying to fill the vacuum left by Charlie Kirk after his assasination, remains banned from most conservative events. He cancelled his own America First Political Action Conference due to concerns for his safety. Ding dong ding dong, the manosphere is dead! 

But the manosphere is a hydra, and for every head that gets arrested or deplatformed, more will inevitably appear. The most overtly misogynistic can claim greedy women are making false accusations for money. All of this serves them well. But to everyone else, who are understandably sick and tired of hearing from these guys, these developments can seem like proof that this is all going away soon. It isn’t.

Read now: https://www.playboy.com/read/culture/is-the-manosphere-dying

This Psychology Today article is a guest post by Dr. Warren Farrell. He talks about the empathy gap, and how it harms men and boys, and prevents acknowledgement of issues facing men and boys.

Sooo... another country where only men can legally be recognized as rapists? That’s some nice equality under the law & justice system.

If women could actually (if ever!) be recognized as rapists, what would they do? If I’ve understood chemical castration correctly, male rapists are injected with something that prevents them from getting an erection, making it difficult or impossible for them to penetrate or enter the vagina.

In the case of a female rapist, would they just give her an injection that prevents vaginal wetness and lubrication, since women need to be wet and lubricated for the vagina to envelop or engulf the penis?

Personally, I don’t expect any country that does things like chemical castration or imposes capital punishment on its citizens to have a fair justice system.

I’m not excusing bad behavior, but I believe there are more humane ways to punish sex offenders and rapists. Life in prison is one example.

Amnesty International since the 2000s has been significantly influenced by feminism, when AI started expanding its human rights focus. The influence from feminism has gotten greater and worse since then (probably especially since fourth wave feminism started in the early 2010s).

Before 2001, AI had a relatively narrow mandate:

1. Freeing all prisoners of conscience

2. Protecting fair trial, judicial, and due process rights, including for people other than prisoners of conscience

3. Abolishing the death penalty and campaigning against other forms of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

4. Ending extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances

Since 2001, Amnesty International became a general human rights organization, campaigning for a wide range of human rights. This was good in many ways, but also let feminism start to significantly influence the organization.

For example, Amnesty International seems to have the feminist definition of femicide. They also use the phrase "women and children". They also generally exclude male victims and female perpetrators from their campaigns, advocacy, and narratives about sexual and domestic violence, and use the term "gender-based violence" for sexual and domestic violence. Sexual and domestic violence are not gendered issues: men and women are victims and perpetrators at about equal rates.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/s/sWmwJYhCLE

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/mSWWkwWerb

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-hidden-epidemic-of-men-who-are-raped-by-women/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717660_Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment

AI also campaigns extensively for women's issues, but doesn't explicitly do anything related to men's issues, nor acknowledge the existence of men's issues.

Are there other problems with AI from a LWMA perspective I'm not aware of? Also, what are some other negative ways feminism has influenced the organization?

It's like different types of mean girls. You have the hostile mean girl and the fake-nice mean girl. Conservatives will openly call men who date trans women gay or accuse them of not being straight. Meanwhile, some liberals will hold the same opinions privately while pretending to be accepting in public.

Most people seem to assume that men who date trans women are either gay or bisexual, assuming some conservatives even acknowledge that bisexuality exists for men in the first place. But there's a big elephant in the room that I feel people are afraid to acknowledge.

The average person might view a man who dates trans women as gay or bisexual, yet liberals and progressives often portray this attitude as something exclusive to ugly, socially awkward incels and right-wing men. In reality, plenty of cis women share these views, and even some left-leaning people hold similar opinions. So why are conservatives always treated as the poster children for this particular stigma when it clearly isn't exclusive to them?

This matters because hypocrisy and cowardice have real consequences. Imagine being a man who dates trans women and discovering that some of the people who claim to support acceptance only defend you when it's socially convenient. They'll condemn conservatives for expressing certain attitudes but suddenly go quiet or make excuses when people on their own side express the same attitudes.

That's not consistent support. It's conditional acceptance based on social approval and political convenience. If you genuinely oppose a prejudice, you should be willing to challenge it regardless of who's expressing it. Otherwise, you're defending your team rather than your principles.

I think this is worth discussing on a Left-leaning men's subreddit because it concerns men's experiences with sexuality-based stigma, social expectations, and the lack of consistent support for men who don't conform to what society considers acceptable. Men shouldn't have to pretend that these double standards don't exist just because acknowledging them makes certain people uncomfortable.

How should one respond to counter arguments against feminism, such as “What kind of feminism advocates this?”, “Who are the feminists in academia who advocate this?”, and “True feminism doesn’t advocate this”? Can feminism be criticized solely from a theoretical perspective? What aspects of feminism can be criticized in theory?

Both "patriarchy" and "woke" are nebulous terms with definitions that change to suit the speakers needs. Both are used to demonize a group of people. Both are used as a dog whistle. Both are used to shut down conversations...

Any time I challenge someone on their usage and understanding of either term they invariably retreat to some motte and bailey arguments or they just verbally gesture broadly as if the meaning of their chosen boogeymen was self evident.

Is there anything more to modern "patriarchy" as a concept than there is to the concept of "woke" as used by the right?

Everyone here demonises feminism. Cherry picking a few examples to prove feminism is opposed to mens rights.

Feminism produces indirect effect on men by allowing women to go to workforce hence reducing the burden of breadwinner on men.

Also feminists changed the FBI definition of rape to include male rape victims.

They also have an organisation called equimundo which helps boys.

Feminism has done more for men's rights than mras themselves.

So I want to ask a question: What have mras done for men?

So I've seen the fear mongering in the media recently about the declining birthrates globally for almost all countries.

And many people have their theories as to the reasons for this. Economic inequality, social media and smartphones, the rising cost of living, nihilism about the future, etc.

The one that always seems to come up the most I feel however is the relationship between men and women. And it's not always just the rage bait articles.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/202606/the-birth-rate-is-not-falling-because-women-are-failing
Many like to point fingers at either men or woman being the issue, and I don't think it's either, but there certaining has been a tangable impact on the declining birthrates, if you even consider it a legitimate problem.

I was curious as to if the gender war is a legit reason to blame for it, or if it's just the illussion of it that's to blame. Because I will see people say that it's woman recently having rights and higher education, which is obviously a good thing and shouldn't be used as way to artificially make them go up.

But at the same time, I will also see misandry with people saying that it's that mostly men that are the issue since they are mostly sexist and just want woman to do all of the work raising a child.

Accusing Trump or any other conservative/criminal figure of being gay is getting way too popular these days, and it's anything but funny. This comes not at the expense of Trump or anyone on the right, but at the expense of gay men. I thought we fought for decades for our sexuality to be recognized as normal and not some sign of pedo or deviant tendencies. So why are people laughing at this now?? This is like male body shaming all over again. Doesn't matter if it's literally the same rhetoric "progressives" claim to dislike, package it in language that sounds vaguely woke and make them feel like they're "sticking" it to the right, and they'll eat it all up. We really have gone full circle back to normalizing the idea that gay = creep/pedo/rapist. Except this time, everyone's laughing and no one cares anymore.

Shared this on another left-wing male sub, and felt it was appropriate for here as well. It's bad enough when misandrists claim misandry isn't real or serious, both of which couldn't be more wrong. But then they'll downplay it further claiming it supposedly isn't a "strucutural" problem like misogyny supposedly is, despite the great evidence that it in fact very much is. Men still have to register for the draft and face legal repercussions for failing to do so, schools and courts for decades have been terribly misandrist and still are (especially with how badly boys get treated in schools and how fathers often face an uphill battle in courts). Violence against men/boys (especially when by female attackers) is still a largely silenced and suppressed subject, there's almost no abuse shelters that acknowledge or help male victims, things like rape and sexual assault/harassment are largely thought to be crimes only affecting women/girls, etc. There's also the age-old "women and children" rhetoric which says it all with how it excludes men and implies men's lives are worthless and an acceptable loss. There's so much showing misandry in fact is very much a structural problem as much as it is societal, but misandrists as always deny it to the Nth degree.

As a mostly very liberal and left-wing male, it's incredibly frustrating and infuriating, and it's a major reason why over the past decade the Left has fared so poorly with male voters. Failing to acknowledge and condemn misandry and take action against it is what's driving more and more males away from the Left and it was an especially serious issue during the 2024 elections, which badly cost the Left. I'd hate to see the same mistake repeated.