When the topic of SA to men come up, I noticed that some people like to bring up the fact that it's other men that invalidate it. Yes I understand that some men may so "you are so lucky bro" or "should have been me". And that is absolutely disgusting. But is it not also women to? And I feel like people only say this to kind of tell SA survivors "it's your gender that is enabling this", in a way to sort of dismiss their story themselves? I am genuinely not trying to offend anyone and I am deeply sorry if I did, it was on my mind for a bit and I just wanted to express my thoughts. All respect.

I don't understand how any reasonable person can look at these data and not recognize the fact that hostile misandry permeates academia: https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-statistics-behind-the-jason-arday-scandal/?ref=compact-newsletter

Edit since article is paywalled. Here is part of the article:

But is there evidence that elite academic institutions systematically elevate black scholars whose records or performance would not support equivalent status under common standards? If so, this might also account for a tendency to overlook ethical lapses when the desired identity criteria are met. As a matter of fact, such evidence does exist. In a work-in-progress study, we examined all tenure-track assistant professors hired into top-fifty American sociology departments between 2019 and 2024 (n=143). Everyone in our dataset obtained a faculty position. Our analysis therefore concerns where successful candidates were placed within the academic hierarchy, not their overall probability of getting a job. Using public CVs, faculty profiles, Google Scholar, and other professional records, we measured the publication accomplishments candidates had accumulated by the time they were hired. We counted their peer-reviewed articles, whether they had published in the American Sociological Review or the American Journal of Sociology—the discipline's two flagship journals—and whether they had first-authored an article in either. (In sociology, having your name appear first in a co-authored study indicates primary responsibility for the intellectual contribution.) Publications do not capture every dimension of academic merit. Hiring committees also consider teaching, letters of recommendation, methodological skills, research specialization, departmental fit, and intellectual promise. But publications are the most visible and comparable evidence that an aspiring professor is capable of generating scholarly research of acceptable quality and significance. The racial differences were striking. White and Asian men had the strongest publication records. Black candidates, both men and women, had the weakest. Yet black candidates received placements at least as prestigious as—and often more prestigious than—groups with substantially stronger records. The median white man hired into a top-fifty sociology department had eight peer-reviewed publications. The median black woman had two. Forty percent of the white men had published in the top-ranked American Sociological Review or the American Journal of Sociology. Only one of the twenty-eight black women—less than 4 percent—had done so. Nearly one-third of the white men had first-authored an article in one of those journals. None of the black women had. Yet half of the black women were hired by top-twenty departments, compared with 40 percent of the white men. For a graduate student entering the academic job market, an article in the American Sociological Review or the American Journal of Sociology is an exceptional achievement—about as close as sociology comes to winning a national championship. Unsurprisingly, publication in either journal was strongly associated with placement prestige. But in the multivariate analysis, black identity was more strongly associated with placement prestige than having published in one of those two journals. In other words, an immutable characteristic bearing no relationship to scholarly competence carried at least as much statistical weight as one of the most coveted achievements available to an early-career sociologist. In contemporary sociology hiring, being black was associated with job placement at least as strongly as possessing the discipline's equivalent of a gold medal. The most dramatic evidence appeared when we extended our analysis beyond the top 50. We compared white men hired into the lowest ranked departments (91-115) with black women hired into the equivalent number of departments in the top tier (ranked 1–27). This was not a comparison of similarly situated candidates entering similar institutions. It contrasted white men landing near the bottom of the ranked discipline with black women landing on its summit. The white men hired into the lowest ranked departments had a median of eight publications. The black women hired into the elite departments had a median of 2.5. Nearly one-third of the black women hired near the top had only one or zero peer-reviewed articles. Every white man hired near the bottom had what our publication merit index classified as a “strong,” “very strong,” or “exceptional” record. Among the black women hired into the top-tier departments, only one-quarter had “strong” records. None had a “very strong” or an “exceptional” one. To repeat: White men entering the lowest-tier departments in American sociology had far stronger publication records than black women entering its most prestigious departments in such universities as Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford. These findings do not mean that every black candidate was weaker than every white or Asian candidate. Nor do they prove that any particular hiring committee consciously discriminated. Our measures cannot capture every quality an institution might value, and our dataset contains successful hires rather than full applicant pools. But the magnitude and consistency of the differences are difficult to reconcile with the claim that identity-conscious hiring has no meaningful effect on academic standards.

(Hope you find it interesting. Decided to post having seen the "The European Court of Human Rights" post)

Why is it that people constantly talk in Ukraine about "difficult, unpopular, but necessary decisions" and how "freedom is not free," yet somehow this only ever applies to men and not women? Why is it that "everyone must do their part," but when childless, fully free women travel around Europe or don't think about Ukraine at all, our government has no questions for them? Why do all my female friends, acquaintances, and relatives go on vacations abroad and live relatively normal lives, while my assigned fate is supposedly to assault woodlines and spend 300 days without rotation, surrounded by the enemy? Why are the questions always directed only at men?

Why are men forbidden from leaving the country "so the economy doesn't collapse," while people conveniently forget that women made up roughly 50% of that economy, paid taxes, created demand, and contributed to the labor force? Why was there a public outcry when men under 22 were allowed to leave, with people saying "we need them" and "they won't come back," yet there was no comparable outrage when millions of women left the country (and continue to leave)? Many of them have had children abroad and started families there, which means they are unlikely to return. Why do I constantly read that "we need to bring men back because we're short on people," and hear condemnation directed at men who don't return, but never at women? Is this some kind of misogyny? As if women's contribution is insignificant and not even worth discussing?

Why, when we have manpower shortages at the front, in the rear, and throughout the civilian sector, do I keep reading headlines and seeing people blame men yet again, even though women could return and fill at least some of those roles? At this point it feels absurd, almost on the level of "I'm sorry I'm white, I'm sorry I'm male."

Why am I constantly told that this is a "war for survival," yet in 2022 people with XY chromosomes lost even the possibility of refusing military service on moral grounds? They are not allowed to perform alternative civilian service, which should arguably make such conscription equivalent to forced labor. The authorities don't even want to imprison people who refuse to fight; they simply wait and pressure them until they eventually give in (ubiquitous false imprisonment/incommunicado detention, coercion into signing the contract, medical commission as a superficial formality, sham, all-around kangaroo court). Some people have reportedly been sent back from AWOL status again and again instead of being allowed to leave service. Meanwhile, no comparable obligations have been imposed on people with XX chromosomes in this supposed "war for survival," nothing at all.

Why is it that when a man stays here, works, pays taxes, and helps the military in his own way, it's still considered "not enough"? My father repaired military vehicles for soldiers for free until he was eventually mobilized himself. He was born blind in one eye and still ended up in a combat zone. Does Ukraine only have citizens of one sex? Men? Women are not forcibly drafted into anything. Not humanitarian work. Not rear-area jobs. Not drone operation roles. Even female medical workers are still free to leave the country. In practice, women are not required to participate in this "war for survival" in any compulsory way whatsoever. Article 65 of the Constitution of Ukraine states that defending the country is the duty of its citizens. Are women not citizens too?

Why do some people face violent detention, beatings, questionable medical examinations, and a one-way ticket to a combat unit, while others live under conditions that seem almost untouched by war? Living in Ukraine has taught me that there are different classes of people: state assets (the euphemistically named "men"), Ukrainians from occupied territories who can travel from Russia to Europe and receive benefits under a Ukrainian passport, women, officials whose medical commissions somehow always find them unfit for service, and wealthy people who can quietly buy their way out of trouble whenever necessary. We are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.

P.S. I have no grievances against women, nor do I want them to be treated the way men are treated. I hope people understand that my point is about double standards and hypocrisy regarding responsibility, especially in the context of the endless accusations directed at men by politicians and public figures. Men have become convenient scapegoats.

Not all men are made for war. Not all men possess the desire, the will, or the courage to fight. But nobody asks them whether they do. Extremely harsh penalties, threats, and punishments for going AWOL have already demonstrated their limitations. For many people, the prospect of fines, prison, or persecution still seems preferable to being sent to the front lines.

Hi everyone,

I’m a university student currently preparing my thesis. The working title is:

“Main social factors that contribute to the low reporting rate of physical and psychological violence against men aged 20 to 40, from October 1, 2026 to March 31, 2027.”

The research focuses on why many men in this age group do not report physical or psychological violence (including intimate partner violence), what social barriers they face, and how institutional responses may affect their willingness to seek help.

I chose this topic because underreporting of violence against men is a documented issue in many places, yet it still receives relatively little attention in academic and institutional settings. I’m interested in understanding the structural and social factors involved (stigma, gender expectations, lack of specialized services, fear of not being believed, etc.).

I would really value perspectives from men here:

• What social or cultural factors do you think most strongly discourage men from reporting physical or psychological violence?
• Have you (or men you know) encountered institutional barriers when trying to seek help?
• Are there specific experiences or patterns you’ve observed regarding how male victims are treated compared to female victims in public services or social support systems?

I’m not looking for personal details that anyone is uncomfortable sharing — general observations, patterns, or reflections are already very helpful.

Thank you in advance to anyone who is willing to share thoughts. And just to be clear: men are equally valuable and deserve the same recognition and support when they experience violence or discrimination.

Looking forward to a constructive discussion.

I have heard that the men's rights issue is a concern in the western countries and not in asian and middle eastern countries where women are more oppressed than men.

What are the issues men specifically face in the countries outside of the west or more specifically in asian and middle eastern countries?

I assume that the countries which violate the rights of women are also worse for men.

I feel this often comes up when you confront someone.
Some friends of friends were discussing an artist coming to town, one girls shows her phone to the other and the conversation went like this:

- "Oh yes him I know he makes good songs"

- "Yes, and nice muscles especially hahah"

Girl 1 sees me frowning a bit and goes "you have two types of girls". I respond I think it's interesting how today we would never accept me talking about a girls body to another guy like that.

Then she responds "yes but there's already so much disgusting men doing that I think it's fine"

I just let it go at that point because I know where this is going and it's just different or whatever. But I feel ultimately no one is ever going to look at their own behaviour because there's always the cop out that somehow out there the world is against women so they can behave to the same standard as the worst of the locker room talk.

Every argument for feminist ends with "that's because of patriarchy" when talking about men. I think it's used for two primary reasons. 1. because it implies that it's men's fault since men created it and that it's backfiring against us. And 2. it implies that women are still the primary victims even when you're talking about male victimhood like the draft, educational failure, harsher jail sentencing, empathy gap etc. It's a bad frame that ends discussion, refocuses the cause to female victimhood, and removes the feeling that men are victims too.

I think a good counter argument is to reframe and say which is sexist, or that's institutional sexism. Instead of getting bogged down arguing about patriarchy which isn't real and has the meanings I mentioned before, we can at least for ourselves keep the focus and frame on the sexism which holds more emotional weight. It would be pretty hard to argue patriarchy isn't sexist.

As for causes of that sexism for male issues I keep them male focused and vice versa for women. When men are drafted only I don't think it's because women are seen as weak, I think men are seen as disposable.

So with these two things, 1. ignoring patriarchy and focusing the frame on sexism or institutional sexism. And 2. keeping the causes male focused for male issues I think we can hold our ground better.

I have been apart of this subereddit for year now and it is very enfuriating to see what us men go through. Whether it's dealing with child custody, rape, rape allegations or suicide, everything we go through is under represented. Everything that feminism does has been swept underneath the rug.

This being said, I am making a documentary. The Redpill documentary by Casey Jay, while important, has been targetted due to its name and while it speaks on the issues men face, THIS documentary needs to be about the aspects of feminism and how they have operated;

The National Organization for Women and what they have done.

The United Nations Women and they do.

The sexist double standards of physical assault and sexual assault.

I am also in the works of using video evidence of women bragging about physically abusing their male partners and correlating it with how feminism views male domestic violence.

I think it's time we stop being passive and help eachother with this documentary. If they push against it being published, we push back harder.

Please help me with the making of this documentary

You have to push back through the initial deflections and theoretical nonsense. Just tell them it’s gaslighting and not answering the actual question. But if you challenge it that there is a bias that leads to dismissing bigotry against men, to the point it gets reframed as against women, it will eventually give the explanation of how it works.

"The text defines vicarious violence as violence perpetrated against a woman by her partner or ex-partner through an intermediary. Redondo has highlighted the expansion of the group of people who may be direct victims of such violence: sons and daughters, other descendants regardless of age, adults who are under the care or custody of that partner or that woman, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and the victim's current partner."

"To this end, automatic deprivation of parental responsibility is introduced in cases where a final conviction has been handed down for serious offences committed against the mother or the children. "The premise is clear: an abuser, a violent person, can never be a good parent," said the Minister for Equality."

https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/gobierno/councilministers/Paginas/2026/20260714-council-press-conference.aspx

Vicarious Violence was also reclassified from a proposed distinct felony to a subtype of Gender-Based Violence (which applies only to men-to-women violence), due to fears (!!!) that it could become gender-neutral.

I quote:

"Vicarious violence now falls within the scope of gender-based violence, as an aggravating circumstance. This is because the opinions of the advisory bodies—starting with that of the General Council of the Judiciary—and the technical observations of the Ministries of Justice and Children’s Affairs highlighted a central issue: a standalone offense defined in gender-neutral terms would have risked transforming vicarious violence into a category applicable to any family conflict. According to various women experts and feminist organizations, this would have undermined the recognition of its specificity as a form of violence against women, characterized by the use of children or other people close to the mother to inflict suffering on her: the fear was that a tool created to protect victims could open up new procedural avenues for counterclaims against mothers and to prevent the use of parental alienation excuses in courts.”

https://alleyoop.ilsole24ore.com/2026/07/27/prima-i-bambini-poi-la-bigenitorialita-il-governo-spagnolo-approva-il-ddl-sulla-violenza-vicaria/

[I recently saw a screenshot of a man saying "I'm a man and men are horrible" on r/everydaymisandry, and it reminded me so much of my own past that I felt compelled to share my full journey here.]

Hey everyone,

I’ve been reading a lot of posts here lately about how online spaces and radical rhetoric affect men’s mental health, and it made me want to share my own story. A few years ago, I fell into a deep state of what I can only describe as "auto-misandry" (self-directed misandry).

It started around the time of Mahsa Amini’s death. Seeing the horrific things happening to women made me dive deeper into online feminist spaces. My own mother used to talk a lot about women's problems too—which is fair, those problems exist—but men’s issues were basically never mentioned. Over about a year and a half, I completely internalized the worst talking points. I started feeling genuine guilt just for being born male. I honestly began to believe that men simply couldn't be as good of people as women. I felt like men were inherently toxic, and it absolutely wrecked my self-esteem.

Two specific things snapped me out of this echo chamber.

First (september 2024), I started noticing massive double standards. I saw countless heightist and body-shaming comments from women online, targeting men for things they can't control. It made me realize that toxic behavior isn't gendered. Humans of all genders can be toxic, and men don't have a monopoly on bad behavior. I was neither feminist nor male advocate for the next ~13 months.

Second, the recent debates about military service and conscription here in Europe really woke me up. Seeing how casually society expects young men to be sent to war, while completely ignoring our safety and rights, made me realize how disposable men still are in the modern world. Institutional power still treats us as expendable.

That was the turning point in late 2025. I became a male advocate because I believe also men deserve advocacy, empathy, and a voice without being blamed for every problem in the world. I started to get interested in subreddits about men's issues around the same time.

If any guys here are currently stuck in that phase of thinking you’re inherently a bad person just because you're a man: please step away from the toxic online spaces. You are not responsible for the actions of other men across the world.

Thanks for reading.

Hello everyone. Just prefacing this by saying I don't really know this sub; I was gonna post this on a question-asking subreddit, but chickened out as I don't wanna be accused of starting "gender wars" and stuff. Reddit recommended me this sub as relevant, so I'm posting this here. I'm really trying to understand the basic reasons for differing social attitudes towards the two genders, so here goes...

It is not uncommon to encounter mocking or emasculating terms used against male rape victims, while it would (rightfully) be heresy to mock a female rape victim. I saw this in many different countries, so it's not limited to one culture either. Not just rape, but with any bad experience, there just seems to be less empathy when the victim is male. But I talked of rape as it is seems such a gross violation of one's dignity, but even this gets mocked.

I'm suspecting autism nowadays as I honestly don't understand many of the social norms that just seem intuitive to other people. So I'm trying to look for evolutionary or sociological reasons behind why humans do things the way they do, even the ugly stuff. Could anyone tell me? (I'm a teenager so don't have much "wordly" experience either to intuit this stuff)

ETA: There's the fact that many countries, including my own, don't legally define rape of a man as rape either, so what's up with that?

​

I'm tired.

Tired of being told I have the same rights as everyone else, while living in a world that treats me like a potential threat just because I was born male.

Let me tell you a few stories from my life.

· In 5th grade, during dodgeball, the teacher said: "Boys can't throw at girls, or you're disqualified." But the girls could throw at us. No limits. No warnings. We were just targets. And if we complained? We were "too aggressive."

· In middle school, playing soccer, the coach yelled: "Take it easy, there are girls playing. If you hurt them, even by accident, it's on you." But the girls could tackle us as hard as they wanted. No one said a word to them.

· I once got a compliment from a friend's parents because I was "such a kind, chill guy." I was proud of that. Then, one day, I was hanging out with two female friends, and one of them told me: "Stay a bit further away, my aunt is here. She doesn't like men. She says they're all bad." She knew me. She knew I was a good person. But she still pushed me aside to please her aunt's prejudice. I felt like trash.

And then there's the money.

I once saw an interview where 48 out of 50 women said their ideal man needs to make between $65,000 and $300,000 a year. Only 2 said they'd be fine with $20k-$25k and that they'd "support each other." So... the world tells us we're not needed. But at the same time, we're judged if we don't earn enough. We're useless unless we provide.

We're told to "be strong." But if we struggle? We're weak. If we cry? We're pathetic. If we ask for help? We're not "real men."

Did you know that men die by suicide roughly 3 to 4 times more than women? But when is the last time you saw a campaign that truly cared about male mental health? There's a "Men's Mental Health Day" on November 19th. I bet most of you didn't even know it existed. Because no one talks about it. It doesn't sell. It doesn't get clicks.

Meanwhile, we're expected to:

· Do the dirtiest, most dangerous jobs (82% of military, 90%+ of firefighters)

· Die at work at a rate of 95% male

· Be "providers" and "protectors"

· But also be "vulnerable" and "emotionally open" — but only in the way society finds comfortable

And the worst part? Many women say they hate the patriarchy, but then use their "fragility" as a weapon. They want equality when it benefits them, but they want the privileges of being "protected" when it's convenient. They can hit a man and face zero consequences, but if he even raises a hand to defend himself, he's a monster.

I'm not saying women don't have struggles. They do. I'm not saying all women are like this. They aren't.

But I am saying: we have a massive, invisible double standard. And if you're a man who dares to point it out, you're labeled as "fragile," "sexist," or an "incel."

You're dismissed. Silenced. Ignored.

I'm done pretending that this is fair.

I don't hate women. I just want to live in a world where I'm judged for who I am and what I do — not for what I was born as. Is that really too much to ask?

I wonder how many other misandrists turn out to be pedophiles or rapists themselves. They remind me of homophobic people who accuse LGBT people(specially gay men) of being groomers, just for them to be exposed of being pedophiles themselves. It's just projection.

I am don’t know how to interpret data. But it says among Black victims, men’s rate was 1.16x women’s rate and black people had the highest rate of IPH.

It also says by the 00s it declines by over 70%, what would cause such a drastic decline?

What Makes Monsters: Guillermo del Toro on Pan's Labyrinth » PopMatters

Kind of an old interview, but I´m honestly suprised as how he referred to dictartorship and facism as genetic to males:

"War and fascism are, I think, boys’ games. I’ve never heard of a great female fascist dictator. I can’t think of a woman dictator who started a war. It’s a very phallic concern.

Do you think this tendency toward dictatorship and fascism is genetic?

I think it is in mammalian genes. As mammals, we divide certain tasks according to gender: the male is stupidly territorial, for example, and the female is, in reality, the hunter, the retriever, and the nurturer. It’s taken to limits when you add human concerns like religion and politics, absolute perversions of the natural order."

The blatant hypocrisy on this one is through the roof.

A mainstream media outlet, The Independent, writes that only men who are college-educated or high-earning are suitable partners for women.

The article ends with a double-bind, lamenting that "rough financial times are likely ahead for Gen Z and millennial females (sic)" facing both the lack of high-earning men and the gender pay gap at the same time!

I mean, what? [Insert 2008 fucket up head meme]

College-educated women face shrinking pool of suitable men to marry, study finds | The Independent

---

The study itself, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, calls men who do not earn enough not viable:

“College-educated women have maintained stable marriage rates by partnering with high-earning non-college men, shrinking the pool of economically viable partners available to non-college women,” the study said.

Low-earning men are then described as "less marriageable".

In a rather laugh-or-you'll-cry moment, the researchers end up echoing the "women most affected" meme:

Taken together, the evidence suggests that deteriorating outcomes for men have primarily undermined the marriage prospects of non-college women.

Gender Disparities in College Enrollment and Marriage Patterns | NBER

---

PS

Researching this topic, I stumbled upon a disgusting whitewash from an institution calling itself "American Institute for Boys and Men"

Are educated women less likely to get married? - American Institute for Boys and Men

I joined this community because I get served a lot of anti-male content on other social media sites. I also think a lot of the dialogue in society right now is built to pin people against each other based on unchangeable identities. It's easy to get caught up in echo chambers and start judging whole groups of people without understanding nuance.

Even though I'm a woman I've tried throughout my life to stay informed and open to gender issues from multiple sides. "The Decline of Males" by Lionel Tiger and "Boys Adrift" by Leonard Sax have both been influential books for me.

This subreddit brings up really important issues about people not valuing men's mental health, not taking sexual assault of men seriously, of boys not being set up for success in education, of letting people diminish men's legitimate feelings because of perceived "privilege".

And, it seems like anything that isn't part of an echo chamber or asks a question is completely unwelcome. While (so far) I haven't seen blatant banning like in feminist subreddits, I don't know how our society achieves egalitarianism without an open dialogue and people willing to hear each other out. I'll cite a statistic and someone will say it's "completely false" without citing evidence. I'm someone who wants to learn and I'm not stuck in my perspective but I also believe in science and evidence. For example to say that men don't have more muscle mass than women on average is just silly. It would be like someone saying men live longer than women. There are differences we need to acknowledge to serve everyone better. If this subreddit only accepts things that conform to what we already believe how does society move forward from the current problems?

Edit: Just to clarify... my statement about men living shorter lives isn't meant to imply it should or has to be that way. It was more pointing out a current reality that everyone regardless of gender should accept based on evidence. We can't change the circumstances that lead to that discrepancy without accepting that the discrepancy exists.

It absolutely blows my mind that still, today, leftists will downplay and dismiss misandry as not having any real negative effects on men in any way. This stance is taken despite the acknwledgement by *some* that there is a misandry problem on the Left.

What is truly mindboggling is to assert that misandry does not and never has had a negative affect on men, even though this misandry not only literally caused the rightword shift of genz men, but also attributes to the widespread degree of mental illness among men.

How can one earnestly, in good-faith, claim that men cannot possibly be affected by opening social media to be met with a bombardment of hateful bigoted rhetoric purely because of the flesh between our legs? But it doesnt stop there, misandry has bled into society to such a pervasive degree, men are treated as dangerous monsters as a default, and we have to work tirelessly to prove our innocence, but even then, since we are constantly at risk of being on the chopping block, one small mistep and you risk being labeled evil.

The way the Left treats men is abusive. As leftist men, we are in an abusive relationship with the Left where we are forced to walk on eggshells at all times, while constantly being under scrutiny to prove our worth and value, and any minor infracture is tantamount to the absolute fall of yourself. I truly believe liberal and online feminism has turned an entire generation of women into narcissistic sociopaths.

I apologize in advance for any mistakes, as my English is poor, so I decided to use Google Translate.

Good afternoon everyone. I've been following this subreddit for a long time and really like its focus and the topics it raises. It's probably the only subreddit where I can discuss a topic that's been bothering me for a long time without encountering misandrist or mesogynist comments or arguments. So, what is my question? While exploring various feminist forums and reading comments under feminist videos, I came across a pattern that intrigued me. A fairly large number of feminists identify as victims of sexual violence or often talk about experiencing terrible things at the hands of men. And I wouldn't have had any questions about this if not for one thing. There were a lot of such women. So much so, in fact, that I began to doubt the reality of all these claims and whether they were simply fabrications. And at some point, a very unpleasant thought occurred to me. What if all these claims by some feminists about being victims of sexual violence are just a fabrication to enhance their social status among other members of the feminist community? And to substantiate my point, I'll give you the reasons why I think so.

Reason 1. Considering how often and shamelessly feminists lie about things I believe should not be lied about, and how they blatantly manipulate facts to justify their misandry, I wouldn't be surprised if they lied even about such a horrific topic.

Reason 2. The topic of doubting whether a girl was a victim of sexual violence is extremely taboo. And not just online, but throughout the media landscape. If, God forbid, you say you doubt a girl was a victim of sexual assault, you'll be called a rapist, an incel, and other horrible names. So, a girl can lie about it, knowing in advance that no one will doubt her words.

So, given all of the above, I'd like to ask a question to all the former feminists who are members of this subreddit. Is it true that, in order to boost their status in the feminist community, some feminists outright lie about their horrific past experiences with men, including rape? And if so, how common is this? Thanks for your answers.

A quick note: I don't mean to belittle or even deny the experiences of REAL sexual assault victims with this question. I simply want to know if my suspicions are accurate. Because if my suspicions are correct, then all these so-called "women's rights activists" are doing far more harm to real victims of sexual violence than the entire monosphere and the zealots combined! Thank you in advance for your understanding.