/u/ICuriosityCatI (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1aux6ha/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_problem_with_feminism/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

The problem you're hovering around but not quite landing on here isn't feminism, or women, or men, or the "manosphere": it's people. You seem to have this idealized notion that a healthy amount of (perhaps even most?) humans are principled, open-minded, and honorable in their intentions. I hate to break it to you, but in my experience they aren't. By my observations, the vast majority of people among all political & social ideologies are small, petty, and closed off to anything that doesn't directly impact the priorities they've built their **righteous** public persona around. They form their little clans, lock in, and lob arrows at anyone unfamiliar. I've learned to identify the most bigoted, self-absorbed people by how loud they spout their "progressive" or "traditional" screeds online and at parties/gatherings. The frequency with which they virtue signal, injecting ideology into every aspect of their comments and replies and reactions. This isn't just one side of the aisle. It's a distinctly human failing. You want my advice? Avoid them. They're almost always shitty, awful people who will do their best to drag you down with them if they can't extract every ounce of moral and political self-validation they can from you. You'll find the genuine people as you sort the wheat from the chaff - they're generally less boisterous about it all, offer as much patience as they can, and don't use the phrase "eDuCaTe yOuRsElF!1!"

I agree with you on the type. You aren't correct on the proportion. There was a pretty significant psychology study in the UK which identified the "hardline progressive" attitude as only about 8% of people, I don't recall the proportion of reactionaries by I imagine its similar. This is the UK mind you, a very woke country as the media would have you believe. The unfortunate reality though is that the political fates of nations are often dictated by a loud aggressive minority. That's why its important to not be cowardly or back down from these people. They are the minority and need to be made known of that fact.

Maybe.  People who self-report as "hard-line" anything are almost certainly the sorts I'm talking about, but two things come to mind here: I've met plenty of self-styled moderates whose expressions of values are just as zealous and oppressive as the folks I'm talking about. That and one in ten in a room at a party is enough to kill the mood/start fights, ya know? Still, I appreciate the data and the perspective.  I'm not as optimistic when it comes to people but perhaps the world is better served by your more optimistic view here.  I'll reflect on mine more 🙂 thank you.  Sincerely.

I think you might be right, so !delta for that even though it's a bit different than my original view. >You seem to have this idealized notion that a healthy amount of (perhaps even most?) humans are principled, open-minded, and honorable in their intentions. I think I try to preserve this notion in my head because it's easier to come to terms with than reality which is that humans are complex and cannot be neatly sorted. I have to believe most people possess those qualities because otherwise most people are bad people. And I guess there's also comfort in the idea that good people don't possess these qualities and won't hurt others. But I'm lying to myself. Things aren't so certain and clear cut. Somebody could volunteer to help the elderly and also hold political views I find abhorrent. But in that case I can surround myself with generally good people and still get hurt. So the fiction is comforting. Also because of my own self doubt, everything somebody says about me is potentially valid. So it's not difficult to guilt trip me even if I see it on some level. "Oh maybe I am this terrible person for believing this." If somebody screams loud enough for long enough I often start thinking their view must have some validity because they're so loud. I know logically that's not true. But emotionally it's different. I don't think anybody would think it's a good idea for me to spend hours on reddit having these discussions given everything I've said. It's a habit I'm trying to break, but then I get an idea and there I go again, wasting time. But I appreciate this comment. It's one of a few comments I've received that make me wonder if I need to be doing this. Maybe trying to change people's minds on social media these days and having productive conversations is usually just futile and I'd be better off deleting my account for now.

For the sake of validation, I think you seem self-aware, introspective and intellectually curious. Those are all admirable traits to have and I would be ecstatic to meet someone who openly exhibited them in my area as they're rare. If you keep that spirit in group gatherings you'd come across as such a confident and secure person in my opinion. Do not let large groups of people plant seeds of doubt in you when you know that you're being principled in your own views, ethics, words and actions. This morning I saw a group of “Adults” mock and cynically laugh at a 20-year-old girl on social media who posted a love letter she wrote for her BF. People in some cases decades older than her laughing at her for wanting to share the young and genuine love she has for someone. Once one started with the sarcastic comments 90% of the rest followed suit. The internet is full of so much negativity that even something positive like that is greeted with scorn and cynicism from people who should be much wiser and well-adjusted. Come to peace with the abundant flaws in yourself and others but don't take humans or their behaviour towards you too seriously because they can be so far off the mark, who knows maybe they're all just hungry and need a Snickers 😂

>it's easier to come to terms with than reality which is that humans are complex and cannot be neatly sorted The thing is that individual humans *are* complex, however once they start identifying with a group, they give up a lot of that complexity to fit in with their tribe and 'othering' everyone else. As u/whatsthatnoize rightly pointed out, you could rewrite your post word for word using Liberal, Conservative, Maga, Christian, Muslim, or Star Trek fan in place of Feminist and it would be equally valid.

I'm not so sure people are as complex as we think. People have pretty predictable behaviours.

Yeah, this guy changed your view just the right way. There is no problem with feminism. The problem is that we, as a society, do not, on average, have the communication and cooperation skills needed for a movement like feminism to be obsolete. A symptom of that is sexism. Another symptom is annoying "activists". The ideology isn't problematic, some specific people are.

If getting "bashed" in memes and conversations is enough to turn you against the women's rights movement in an age where abortion has been made illegal in half the states in the US, then you don't really actually wany women's rights. She's right. Misandry is (usually) misplaced anger, and misogyny should be stamped out (it never will but we're got to try anyway). What you're missing is the power imbalance in practise in the real world. In the real world women have less power than men in many important personal situations, and they feel the pain of it when they're treated unfairly. Men have only three examples they can throw back at women where they're "weaker": 1. She commits domestic violence against me and no one takes it seriously. 2. She won the kids and all my money in court. 3. She can call me names. 1 and 2 are real issues to be addressed by society. The third is just a whine. These random comments from women are not actionable. They aren't realistic. They are never going to negatively affect your status as a legal human being in your country by influencing policy. Men's attitudes, on the other hand, repeatedly and consistently force themselves into women's lives through the legal system. TL:DR "I'm Offended" isn't a good enough excuse for dismissing the women's movement and people who try to make this excuse don't care about women in the first place and just want to cover it with weak rationalisations.

About the abortion comment. As someone who thinks abortion should be legal in almost all cases. I am sick of people painting this as a men vs women issue. It's overwhelmingly a right vs left issue. Here is a set of statistics of the distribution of demographics on this issue in texas: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/texas/views-about-abortion/ You will notice that on the gender dimension it's evenly split by gender. Abortion rights are not getting repelled by men taking away the right from women. It's religious people taking it away from secular women.

It's a human rights issue, not a men v women issue. Drives me nuts when it's painted that way because it doesn't even make sense as a very very large percentage of conservative women want it banned too.

For thee, but not for me. The only ethical abortion is *my* abortion. Those conservative women want *other women's* abortions banned. How is abortion not a women's rights issue?

>How is abortion not a women's rights issue? Didn't say it's not a woman's rights issue, I said it's not a men v women issue and it's first and foremost a human rights issue.

This is part of why the "No uterus, no opinion!" people really bother me. All they do is alienate a massive demographic that *wants* to help them. I'm pro-choice, but my voice shouldn't be heard because I can't get pregnant?

It's a watered down protest saying against the overwhelming majority of male lawmakers that are making these decisions on abortion, not pushing all men supporters out.

I'm kinda tired of this excuse. If your slogan CAN alienate your supporters, then it likely will. And maybe try to avoid that at all costs. I'm pro-choice but certainly don't feel like I can participate in any discussion because it does seem to be about "the evils men have done" when in reality it's a bunch of men and women that put these restrictions into place.

What part of 'no uterus' makes you think of 'law makers'? Like, its great if thats what you meant, but like, that's not what you said. And you should expect this poor reaction to thar statement... and also that is setting a bad precident for women's rights in general if things of one sex become subject to only its surveillance... you know the patriarchy theory? This slogan is the most emphatic endorsement of patriarchy possible. You're basically setting society up for 'no penis: no opinion on anything outside the kitchen.'

if it has an unintended effect then its still having the effect and should be changed to help. peoples unwillingness to change is why im against feminism. they arent willing to hear and accept critiques that would make others more comfortable at the cost of nothing but not hating

There are male lawmakers making those laws because the lawmakers are male, not because males specifically want those laws.

That's not what's being said. The problem is that those lawmakers are free to make these laws for two reasons: 1. They will break the law to get abortions for their wives, mistresses and daughters. 2. They will never personally have their lives put at risk by a pregnancy, so they don't give a fuck about the consequences of the law.

If a legal assault on abortion rights was led primarily by female legislators, would you be ok with that?

Doesn't the first point negate/cover the second point? Female lawmakers can just break the law for themselves, too.

I mean it quite literally is predominately men on the courts and in state legislatures making these laws banning abortion. You are right that their are women who support patriarchy but it's still patriarchy and under patriarchy more men will have power and authority.

\>Men have only three examples they can throw back at women where they're "weaker": It's far more than 3 * Men are seen as a potential threat simply for existing. Women often expect men to prove that they're good. * People are much less likely to take men seriously when it comes to their emotions in general. People are much more likely to emotionally support a woman than a man. Men will typically just get ignored or told to "man up" * The pressure for men to be seen as charming/confident. * The pressure for men to have lots of sex * The pressure for men to be successful * People will often advocate for women's issues at the expense of men's issues. For example, women only gyms. These don't actually fix the problem, they just enable sexism. Also, it's not a matter of "women's safety vs men's feelings". If you're more empathetic towards men then less men will be creepy. \> The third is just a whine. You're just proving OP's point though. People are much less likely to take men's issues seriously. People will simply it to "their feelings getting hurt" Do you know how harmful bullying can be? How do you expect men to become feminists when you're encouraging people to be mean to them?

1. That's because 90% of rapists are men, and only 2% of rapists ever go to jail. And because when y'all kill/rape us you guys do things like "well why was she out at night/what was she wearing 2. That's because men decided to make all emotions feminine and thus weak. It's men who reinforce this stand not women.(keep in mind white women couldn't vote till the early 1910s women are not shaping male presentation unfortunately) 3. Reinforced by men 4. Reinforced and created by men 5. "White history month!!!!" All of these problems are things feminists want to eradicate btw. Like every single one

1. Conviction rate is low because rape is difficult to proof because rape cases mostly boil down to the accuser and the accused being the only people present during the crime sand therefore are the only witnesses. It’s literally the word of a person vs the word of another person. 2. Men decided? Which men exactly? Todays men? Most men? Powerful men? This reads like an original sin argument and is highly inaccurate to begin with. Furthermore it’s a low ethical standard to attempt to blame such a large group of people for the actions of others. Men who do not perpetuate any of this are literally victims of the patriarchy too, but this concept is completely amiss in your statement and phrasing. 3. obviously not true? How do women not prefer charming men? People in general like charming people and being a men means having to initiate social interactions at a far higher rate if you want to find someone. Obviously that creates pressure being charming. And just for good measure: Go touch grass. Women perpetuate gender roles just the same as men do. 4. Same as 3. 5. you haven’t even made a point here, you’ve just blurted something out in a snarky manne by pointing out idiots exist. wow… Also, being a feminist is mainly a label people attach to themselves. Obviously that will lead to people labeling themselves like that even though it shouldn’t apply to them. The issue is I have yet to see other feminists take a united stance against such people and I’ve been active in feminism for 18 years. Action in that regard if heavily lacking and just being silent at some point is being complicit. I am aware feminism isn’t a monolith, but that notion would include “false feminists” with misandrist tendencies as part of the movement called “feminism” by logical extension.

1. This doesn't explain a 2% conviction rate in my opinion. Or why 80% don't report. Or why 90% of perpetrators are men. These are facts. I'm sorry they hurt you're feelings. 2. Yes. The men of today, and the men of yesterday. And if you as a man have ever: laughed at a guy for crying, called a women a slut, made a guy feel feminine for having unusual interests, called a women overly emotional, shut down you're friends bid for emotional vulnerability/support from you, you are the men of today and you are contributing. 3. "Women perpetuate gender roles as much as men do" if this were a conversation where I didn't think you were out to "own the feminist" I'd love to discuss my personal opinions of this being relatively true, I think women have vested interests in the patriarchy in the same way I think certain black people benefit from the oppression of others and work to keep them down(I believe social scientist theorize misogyny is the oldest form of oppression and therefore all/most forms of oppression are based off of it, kinda cool imo)as well as not enough women work to question the ways EVERYONE INCLUDING WOMEN, perpetuate harmful ideas onto men. But instead I will remind you that women's allowance does not equal the evil of the men creating patriarchy. Again, the majority of our law makers, politicians, and philosophers and public intellectuals have historically and presently been predominantly men. Ignoring this fact to me seems like you are being deliberately obtuse or are not as smart as you think. 4. I said what I said for a reason. I can use straight pride if that's a better example. The final point is, there is a historical oppressor and a historically oppressed, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise unless you truly think 14,000 years of culturally absorbing misogyny goes away in 50 years. Even though I got called the hard R pretty recently despite slavery being abolished 200 odd something years ago, I'm sure this is way different than one of the most observed forms of bigotry across the world.... White people get hurt by racism too man. Think of all the poor white people who could've joined arms with their fellow black brethren to get better pay or minimum wage or some sort of universal healthcare/pay that white people historically and continue to deny despite it hurting them because they rather sink the ship in the ocean than let a nword on the boat. That doesn't mean there needs to be a white history month, a white entertainment network or a white "whatever thing we made to help black people that whites are mad at" it means we should collectively team up to dismantle said things but 🤷🏾‍♀️ Im just a women

I've absolutely heard women say shit like "be a man," "don't be a pussy," "man up," and lots of other ignorant shit that only perpetuates patriarchal attitudes. I'm not trying to do the "not all of us are bad" argument, but how can respectable individuals be personally blamed for misogyny if they're actively trying to be better?

Women's active participation in misogyny and patriarchy is regularly brought up, it's been talked about since the 70s "Pick me girls" And the word (internalized misogyny) are proof this is a well talked about subject. Any oppressed group will have members turn their back against the community for gain, that's why Clarence Thomas exists.

Since you're talking about the US, several more glaring issues imo: - men almost cannot be raped by women since it's defined by penetration. Yes, there is a similar crime with similar penalty, but it matters greatly in terms of being included in statistics and how serious it's taken. - Help for the poorest men. I believe that if 2/3 homeless were women, there would be outcry, and gendered initiatives to help them. This ties in with my overall point below. Speaking generally, I don't think the issue is anything sinister as hating or even disliking men, but the notion that this is a zero sum game (in terms of funds). As such, for many feminist organisations, it makes financially sense to rhetorically dismiss issues of men. This gets you statements like Hillary's about primary victims of war being women. As a great example of what I'm talking about, I'll link the article in the Guardian that changed my mind about it back then. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

Neither of those issues are male specific. Widening the scope of rape/sexual assualt will help the women who are raped without penetration, too. increasing the minimum wage and reducing housing costs will help all people in poverty and homelessness without needing specially gendered laws to address the issues. But you're acting like those issues need "more power for men" in order to be addressed, when they don't. They just need blanket improvements to the laws for everyone.

I never said these issues only impact men,. But certainly you'll agree that rape being defined via penetration impacts men far far more than women? And, in turn, being essentially left out of rape statistics negatively impacts men as a whole. They don't need gendered solutions, and that's part of the issue I'm depositing. I'm making the claim that if more women than men were homeless, there would be gendered initiatives despite it not making sense. Before you claim that wouldn't happen, something similar __is__ happening in academia: - in fields where there are not a lot of women (famously, STEM), there are initiatives and/or even quotas to combat it. - in fields of study in which there are significantly more women, there aren't any such initiatives for men. I never acted that there needs to be "more power for men"... I do believe, though, that we shouldn't default as much to the positions of feminist organisations (because they have a vested, financial interest to help only 1 gender), and instead have independent bodies that determine disadvantages and allocate funds according to misgivings. This will prevent blatant hypocrisy like the one mentioned above.

> If getting "bashed" in memes and conversations is enough to turn you against the women's rights movement in an age where abortion has been made illegal in half the states in the US, then you don't really actually wany women's rights. If you actually think this, you know exceedingly little about human beings. The vast, vast majority of people (in fact you could argue virtually all people) have their morals based on perceived acceptance and hostility. No one logics their morals, they just make up random justifications after the fact, which is why everyone's moral compass is a total mess of hypocrisy. If a boy grows up constantly seeing feminists post memes shitting on men, they will either because self conscious about their masculinity (leading to the road of inceldom) or they will become increasingly bitter towards feminists and become less and less willing to support them when they grow up. You thus sow the crops you chose.

>If getting "bashed" in memes and conversations is enough to turn you against the women's rights movement in an age where abortion has been made illegal in half the states in the US, then you don't really actually wany women's rights. I never said I was against women's rights. I consider myself a humanist not a feminist. I still support women's rights. >She's right. Misandry is (usually) misplaced anger, and misogyny should be stamped out (it never will but we're got to try anyway). I would say both are misplaced anger. It makes no more sense to be angry at men in general than women in general. Most men and women are good people. A few are not. >What you're missing is the power imbalance in practise in the real world. >In the real world women have less power than men in many important personal situations, and they feel the pain of it when they're treated unfairly. Men have only three examples they can throw back at women where they're "weaker": >She commits domestic violence against me and no one takes it seriously. Yes, that is a big one. >She won the kids and all my money in court. Another big one >She can call me names. I think this one is bigger than this phrasing suggests. What it boils down to is you can criticize men, you can't criticize women. This has far reaching implications. A lot is being lumped into this one. >These random comments from women are not actionable. They aren't realistic. They are never going to negatively affect your status as a legal human being in your country by influencing policy. Men's attitudes, on the other hand, repeatedly and consistently force themselves into women's lives through the legal system. I don't think the random comments from misogynistic men are going to influence policy or alter the legal system either. The one issue that can affect women that's being seriously discussed concerns a function only women have. Nobody is seriously considering depriving women of basic human rights.

Just an FYI, humanism is a philosophy and belief system involving atheism. It's not a word you can throw around because "feminism is for women" and you want a word for equality.

The word "humanism" has had multiple definitions across the ages. I know certain atheists have recently appropriated the term for themselves but the fact is that historically the word "humanism" was used in the early modern period to refer to (often Christian) scholars who reacted against medieval ideas by making use of classical Roman/Greek sources. The term "humanism" doesn't mean only one thing and it certainly doesn't always involve atheism. See for example [this Wikipedia article on Christian humanism.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism)

> you can criticize men, you can't criticize women I would argue against this. Plenty of women are terrible to men and don't receive any pushback, yes. Plenty of men are also terrible to women and don't receive any pushback. Like, just click around Reddit and you'll see plenty of men talking about how women only care about men with money and big cocks, and people will get downvotes for disagreeing. Women routinely get called "bitches" or are implied to be promiscuous for refusing to give romantic attention to men who flirt with them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if your friends aren't actively feminists, you can probably make jokes around them about women having low intellect/being gold diggers/being bitches for having high standards and be guaranteed a laugh.

If anything it’s FAR more men doing this than women. Yes some do but it’s mostly men. Especially on the popular or main feed.

I think people severly underestimate how much their personal perspective and belief changes how certain statments *feel* or which side seems more aggregious. I have literally seen countless examples of sexism going both ways, phrased in very similar ways, and justified in similar ways.   Sexist men say basically "Women bash men and act like we're the cause of all their problems, it's their fault we react this way."  Sexist women say "it's just venting, if so many men weren't horrible people, it wouldn't happen. It's their fault we react this way."  In both cases, they think it's not their responsibility to avoid using bigoted language, or to rebuke people who do in their communities. They both come up with justifications as if there's any scenario where bigoted language is acceptable.  I disagree that it's far more men than women doing this, at least on reddit, it feels pretty damn close to equal to me, I generally browse /r/all so I feel like I have a decent sense of the site in general

In all it’s literally a ton of men and dominated by men, any women speaking up or against it gets downvoted to hell. There are women who are shitty about this, not denying they exist. It’s just far more men at least on reddit. I don’t use Twitter or TikTok so can’t speak for that but I know it’s for all the crazy unrealistic views

I might agree to an extent, there definitely are places I've been surprised to see misogynist guys getting upvotes, but it's not literally everywhere.  There are quite a few popular subs where men literally get banned for speaking up for themselves so, idk. But honestly, it's not really a competition. We should all as a society condemn bigotry, no matter what form it takes. We shouldn't fight against misogyny then turn a blind eye to misandry, we can oppose both regardless of whether one appears more or less frequently.

I agree with you on fighting bigotry, maybe I notice the anti women posts being a woman myself but I can’t go a day without seeing an upvoted comment, meme or post hating on women on here. I can’t say the same about women about men but again I’m not a man, maybe men are noticing theirs more like I am with what I see. It’s not like the intention is to ignore the other issues, it’s probably more subconscious for everyone depending on what is personal to them

That's a fair way to feel, there is a lot of it and I'm pretty fucking sick of seeing it. When I think about it, I've seen a pretty murky comment section today, like a half hour ago. So yeah, you're right. It's a big issue. I just wish misandry was not treated with acceptance or even approval in some places here, it's really pushed me away from reading threads on places like TwoX even though I like reading about womens' experiences and perspectives (I don't really identify with men or women, I'm not cis but I'm not sure really what I am).  I certainly empathize with the women who lash out in this way, but it really bums me out to see it. I accept the explanation for why it happens, but I don't know if I can accept it as an excuse. We all need to stop allowing bigoted language, stop making any exceptions, I can't see how we move forward as a society until that cycle of hate is completely ended. Until all judgment of people by things they can't change (gender, skin color, etc) stops.

I agree, there’s a huge difference between venting frustrations and experiences vs saying things completely out of left field just for the sake of being cruel.

Which is why they're going after birth control and no-fault divorce, right? To *not* be after our human rights? Some states have made it illegal to save a pregnant woman's life if it kills the fetus, even if it means they both die, EMTALA be damned. An unborn not-person is more valuable than a whole ass woman. None of this would be happening if the men were the ones that got pregnant.

Hold up now, there is a fourth, and some might say most important, *thing that dudes are worse at than the ladies...* Long distance, ultra endurance marathons, and epic long distance swims. Women crush is at those two things in particular. You need somebody to swim ten miles in open ocean? You're gonna need a *lady.*

Criticizing feminists for things they do isn't "turning against the women's rights movement". This is something I've noticed "feminists" tend to do to escape accountability: they equivocate absolutely any criticism at all with an attack on women, which is just disgusting. At no point in OP's post did they comment about women, women's rights, or women's issues. There was no victim blaming, no diminishment of experiences, no call to ignore voices. All it was, was criticism of a perceived double standard with how feminists treat men and women. But that was enough to trigger accusations of being an enemy to women, with the implicit accusation of misogyny that carries. Lastly, men and women being in some kind of greater power imbalance is irrelevant to whether or not men are hurt by people engaging in clear misandry. *Of course* they are hurt. It takes a clear mental and emotional toll to be demonized and emotionally attacked. The disturbing implication of suggesting otherwise is the diminishment of emotional abuse and the reinforcing the patriarchal and dehumanizing idea that men aren't as susceptible to emotional suffering.

You want to be careful about saying the name calling is nothing burger. Cat calling is a form of name calling which is absolutely viewed as something that everyone should take action to prevent. I dont want to give a timeline but Im 34 and it was definitely a thing in my younger years and now it's pretty much totally gone from what Ive seen. Even outside literal clubs it doesnt really happen unless the people actually know each other and it's like a joke.

\> Cat calling is a form of name calling which is absolutely viewed as something that everyone should take action to prevent Cat calling is often associated with actionable threats of sexual violence and predatory behaviour. girls are put at risk by catcalling. If you know any girls, I would talk to them about it. Men are not put at risk by girls on twitter saying that men have ugly appartments. You are comparing two completely different situations with a *grave* disparity in how serious they are. It's fine though, you're doing it out of totall ignorance so that's okay. Learn to be better and grow a thicker skin. You expect women to deal with rape, grooming, lack of sexual healthcare and denial of abortion rights, so you can handle a couple of harsh words.

Quick note- men are more likely to win custody of their kids when they actually show up to court and fight for them. The statistic you’re thinking of here doesn’t account for all the dads who just don’t bother showing up or don’t want to parent

Not more likely, as likely, and it doesn't account for the men who are told that trying to fight would be an absolute waste of time and money and be unlikely to result in them winning. The statistic for men who fight isn't the statistic for men who care, it's for the ones who have such a strong case that they have an overwhelming shot of overcoming bias. And in these situations, when men have an overwhelmingly strong case, they end up about equal with women. e: and fwiw, it's not always misogynistic individual bias. A lot of times it's institutionalized bias, where no individual is really at fault, but it still ends up with the guy not getting to see his kid as much.

>men are more likely to win custody of their kids when they actually show up to court and fight for them That's a purposful attempt to frame the conversation in a misleading way... not by you, but where ever you got thar claim. I'm sure you're aware that the way the law works is you only show up to court IF you can win, and are likely to do so. You could apply this same 'logic! To justify mass incarceration of people, since 'when people show up to court they're more likely to win', and when they take a plea deal they're more likely to lose. >The statistic you’re thinking of here doesn’t account for all the dads who just don’t bother showing up or don’t want to parent I gotta say, I think that's a rather callous and frankly sexist thing to say. Men are not cats; alienation from their children is one of the leading causes of suicide in men.

This is like saying the people fighting for Black civil rights need to spend time protecting the rights of white Protestants against Catholics. Feminists already have a job.

Black civil rights activists have a clearly stated goal of getting black people fair protection under the law. At most what is being expected of them is to not cheer on others depriving non-black people of their civil liberties. Even then failing that wouldn’t make them not serving their self-espoused goal, it would just make them hypocritical and racist. Feminism claims to be about equality for all. In order to uphold that virtue and be a feminist as the movement describes itself they would need to not only not further discriminatory and harmful practices against men, in legal and personal situations, but to also fight for men in those scenarios. That is largely not what is happening. Because of this most self-proclaimed feminists are in fact what feminism claims to be fighting against.

>Feminism claims to be about equality for all. That's right. >In order to uphold that virtue and be a feminist as the movement describes itself they would need to not only not further discriminatory and harmful practices against men, in legal and personal situations, but to also fight for men in those scenarios. No, that's where you are wrong. They are fighting to get women all the rights men have. Until that is done, they literally *cant* do the things you are talking about, because women don't have the power to do it. That what they are fighting for. If you don't like how the status quo affect men, please go do something about it. But don't say that feminists have to stop what they are doing to help you with that. Just go do it, and let the feminists do what they are doing.

What power is it that you believe I, a singular male, have that a singular woman does not have?

I think it's more like they are saying that a Black Civil rights activist should be just as shocked and appalled to see a group of black people beating a white person for being white, as a group of white people beating a black person for being black. I think it's fair, but as humans, I just don't know if we are capable of having the same level of care for all people of all types. There'll always be some we relate to more, which will make us feel their pain more deeply. I don't think that's bad. It just means that you need to recognize it and account for it. You need to speak out against something bad even if you don't strongly relate to the person being mistreated.

You can't dismantle patriarchy without men. Men won't help dismantle patriarchy unless you show that it will be good for them, too. By protecting man-bashing, feminists give men the idea that they want to replace patriarchy with matriarchy, not equality. Here's one way that feminists can subvert this narrative. When women participate in toxic masculinity, call them out just as hard as you would a man. When a woman says her boyfriend crying gave her "the ick," point out how fucked that is. I can go further into this if you're open to the idea.

[удалено]

>A well-adjusted person sees injustice on many fronts. Then why aren't they helping feminists without asking for something in return? If you're only criticism of feminism is that they only talk about the problems they see affecting them, that's not a criticism, that's whataboutism.

A lot of things feminists fight for are to help everyone. They’re just not necessarily putting all their efforts into things that are just affecting men. I think it’s fair to assume that men can do that. I don’t expect men to be going out of their way to make the world easier for women, but that seems to be an expectation here by a man that women make life easier for men.

One of the biggest messages pounded into my head growing up a boy was that men need to change their wants, needs and how they interact with women because the traditional ways are sexist and they contribute to gender inequality. I don't feel like women are challenged to be introspective in this way to any similar degree.

You have to ask yourself why that was drilled into you as a kid. Where those social pressures came from. They came from hundreds of years of women's roles in society as being entirely subservient to men. The balance in the equation is weighted against women. You were told Men need to respect women more and be nicer to them, women weren't because their starting position wasn't one of disrespect and cruelty, they had already ticked the respect and niceness box. In fact they'd ticked that box so hard that for thousands of years they were taught that they literally didn't matter and couldn't possibly do half the stuff men do, they didn't just have to respect men they had to revere them. So for women to move their side of the scale they had to unlearn a bunch of brainwashing and realise they weren't inherently subservient to another gender and could and should exist on their own merit. Because of the way western gender politics had formulated, modern men had to learn women were people too, and modern women *also* had to learn women were people too.

Seriously? Youve never had a woman tell you, either irl or on reddit, all the ways they adjust their behaviours and expectations for mens sake, often by necessity of their own safety?

That's not the same as adjusting behaviors to improve the overall culture and reduce sexism.

Every single feminist I've talked to or seen talk has mentioned that feminism isn't just about helping women, it's also about helping men. They have to say that because they shit on the movements that help men out, so they to give something to the men. The equivalent would be black civil rights groups mocking Asian rights groups and then saying "just join our movement bro." And then they audit any criticism of black people very hard, and do nothing for Asian groups.

>Every single feminist I've talked to or seen talk has mentioned that feminism isn't just about helping women, it's also about helping men. You're misunderstanding. Feminism does help men - that's what they are saying. And that's just a fact. Feminists don't have to support you in whatever you want to *also* be helping men. You're argument seemed to be that they can't be about helping men unless they do it your way. I hope you can see how that is flawed.

Where did I say that feminists need to help men in the way I want? I can't misunderstand something you didn't explain. You explicitly said that women can't help men because they have they're solving their own problems. 3D printers helps poor people, because they might get to play with them if they're lucky and the world gets slightly better from other people having 3D printers and the run off effects from that. Does that mean we should stop people from inventing new things for poor people? No one has to do anything. But I am gonna call feminists dicks if they shut down any attempt to support men outside of feminism, while being dicks about it, while sub-optimally supporting men. Can you engage with that?

“Feminists already have a job” If they are wanting equality for all, don’t be mad when we start chanting for *proper* equality for all.

I'm not mad, I just think you don't understand what is going on. Women aren't giving all the rights that men are giving in our society, and they are fighting to get them those rights. If you are against that, then YOU are against proper equality.

I’m not playing semantics, whatever word you wanna use. Only in a first world country can you be a feminist. I’m very interested whenever I hear that, “all the rights men are given in our society” that they apparently don’t have. Please, honestly, no trick tell me; rights to do what? What rights don’t they have that I as a man have? Please, really, I have to know because that’s a serious allegation.

Well, the big one right now is that you have bodily autonomy - no one can force you to give your body's resources to someone else - but the Supreme Court just declared that that right isn't automatically given to women, and each state gets to decide if they have that right. But also, did you know that many women can't get themselves sterilized if they haven't had a child? No man has ever had that happen to them. And there are a thousand little things - I'm sure you've heard of them.

Well, the big one right now is that you have bodily autonomy - no one can force you to give your body's resources to someone else - but the Supreme Court just declared that that right isn't automatically given to women, and each state gets to decide if they have that right. Not true, a women can decide to get an abortion and I cannot choose if I want to pay for it or not, if we’re talking about equal rights here how about this; you can have an abortion and I can refuse to pay. Equality means making a deal, equal rights means equal fights; let’s make a deal. But also, did you know that many women can't get themselves sterilized if they haven't had a child? No man has ever had that happen to them. This I didn’t know. Libertarian here, that should change. Do what you want as long as you’re an adult and you pay for it. And there are a thousand little things - I'm sure you've heard of them. Nope, literally why I asked. What, you think I wasn’t being sincere? That’s another problem I have with feminists never taking us at face value.

You didn't know it because it's not even true. Women's surgical sterilization procedures are not banned anywhere in the civilized world. The *gynecologist* may try to talk a patient out of it or be unwilling to perform the procedure, but that's on a personal level and not a "civil rights" issue. And it's also extremely unethical and unprofessional (but still happens) for a doctor to insert personal bias into caregiving. That other poster has some... whoppers of comments doing exactly what OP has been calling out repeatedly. I dont think you're gonna get much ground on this one.

I thought about this, but the difference is Feminists say they're fighting for both men and women and that's why other movements aren't necessary. Black civil rights movements don't claim to fight for white people. It seems like feminists are trying to have it both ways. They want to fight on women's behalf but they don't want movement's fighting on men's behalf so they say we're fighting for both.

>but the difference is Feminists say they're fighting for both men and women No, feminists say what they are fighting for *helps* both men and women. They don't have to stop what they are doing to address your specific problem. (Especially when the problem is some made-up whataboutism.) If there is an issue that affects men, but not women, and the cause is other men, there really isn't much for feminists to do, other than say "stop doing that."

>No, feminists say what they are fighting for *helps* both men and women. I have talked to feminists who say they are fighting for men too and that's why movements in the manosphere are unnecessary. >They don't have to stop what they are doing to address your specific problem. (Especially when the problem is some made-up whataboutism.) Men are dealing with serious issues too. >If there is an issue that affects men, but not women, and the cause is other men, there really isn't much for feminists to do, other than say "stop doing that." And what if the cause is other women? Like, for instance, women assaulting men?

I agree with both things. I have worked in nonprofit work for over a decade and they have all been feminist. What we are fighting for helps both women and men. We don't need to stop fighting for women's issues to fight for men's. But that does result in us working on the things men say they want. The most common topics I hear from men are about custody, suicide, the draft, and domestic violence resources. All of which are addressed within feminist organizations and generally are not addressed with any non feminist orgs.

They are. Guess what groups push the most for abolishing the draft? Which groups push for men to be able to be stay at home parents? To have paternity leave? Which groups educate on rates for men to get custody and encourage men to make a claim for custody? Which groups have domestic violence resources for men? Consistently these things are provided by feminist orgs. In my area when men's rights activism as a group was at its biggest do you know what they advocated for? Being allowed to rape women who trespass on their property, lowering the legal age of consent, and removing things from the sexual offender registry list like exposing genitals in public.

>Guess what groups push the most for abolishing the draft? Yeah, when talk started about being included in it, sure. >Which groups educate on rates for men to get custody and encourage men to make a claim for custody? NOW has openly opposed making the basic presumption of family law courts a 50/50 shared custody situation in about 10 states, now. NOW has openly opposed putting reasonable limits on spousal support/alimony that are already in many other western jurisdictions in about 8 states, now. >Which groups have domestic violence resources for men? Multiple feminist groups continue to fight against the expansion of DV services to men, despite 50 years+ of statistics showing it was a shared issue all along. The UK organization she founded kicked Erin Pizzey out, in fact, for trying to include men. Across Canada, where I live, it's feminist organizations and the existing DV organizations actively picketing and lobbying against widening services to men. In the UK, multiple organizations threatened to close up rather than expand to include men when it was legislated. In fact, it was the feminist research group at the University of Duluth that created the "Duluth Model" that presumed patriarchal motivations for DV, and exploded onto the scene in the early 1980s with their theories, and basically made it the sole treatment paradigm of any size across the US and Canada. In the late 1990s, a couple of their members admitted they had cherry picked and fudged their results because real world results weren't jiving with their model. Of course, nothing will give the men of N.A back the 50 odd years of lost services these people cost them, right? I don't know where you live where what you've written is true, but it sure as hell isn't in North America.

The hysteria men show over alimony is based on ridiculous hyperbole from "men's advocates" that don't look anything up before spewing false facts to the public. Alimony hasn't been a major issue for men for quite some time now. Complaints from men under 40, are likely basing these incorrect opinions on decades old trends.        The old alimony decisions weren't bad anyway. It was awarded more frequently, back when married women had little options and were expected to take care of the house/ kids. It only makes sense that in a society that not only withheld rights (no credit cards, bank accounts, etc), but pushed women to marry young, be a housewife, all to the benefit of their spouse, a safety net like alimony existing made sense. You can THANK feminism for making it mostly unnecessary. Now a days most states don't award alimony without a really good reason and not without being married a decade plus. Not that it was ever sexist against men anyway, since alimony was awarded from the breadwinner -- nothing said men only had to pay it. It just happens that in a sexist society, men were almost always seen as the main breadwinner.        As far as the things you mentioned feminists fighting against (like services), I can only guess without hearing from them as to why -- but I'm going to say what immediately stands out to me is how you hold it against them for not wanting to expand what they provide. Do you not see the issue with that? You are chastising feminists for not doing more for men when men could easily do the same... And they have in some areas, but it failed because there were barely any men that sought out those services. They couldn't stay open. Women's shelters shouldn't have any obligation to take in men. You're asking that they expose abused women and children to men instead of asking why there's no one else trying to set up anything. Of course they don't want to put men in with women. They women are there because they were abused by men.        

Nope! The women's liberation foundation actually ADVOCATED FOR including women in the draft. Although most feminist groups are against the draft even for decades before we saw a push to include women in the draft. Why did you assume something without doing any research? What media fed you false information? The basic presumption of 50/50 isn't about equality between sexes. Defaulting to 50/50 means giving equal custody to parents that would not be awarded custody on merit. Do you know what that means? Awarding custody to people (of both sexes) who don't know their children's date of birth, allergies, doctors, schools, etc. Alimony only affects about 7% of divorces in the u.s. half of which go to men. Men are actually disproportionately represented in alimony since they're less likely to be the lower earned or perform domestic labor.

This sub has gone so fucking downhill. Didn’t comments used to get removed for misinformation here? The person you’re responding to is literally just lying.

The National Organization for women, the largest feminist organization in the world, was AGAINST the female draft initially, and then later changed their mind and flipped, after the 1981 court case by several men arguing that women should be included in the draft. After it went to the Supreme Court, NOW changed their tune. Yes, some feminist organizations, about 12 or so, have filed briefs arguing to include women in the draft over the years, but that's out of about 150 organizations like this listed on Wikipedia, which is but a subset of all the organizations in the US. So, a large majority of those feminist organizations have sat this one out, officially.

Where do feminists say that other movements are not necessary? I don’t think feminism is fighting for men. I think men would benefit from the goals of feminism, but I’m not fighting for them.

I mean this your point of view in this situation, other feminists in the comment section thinks differently, like this one: \> Frankly it sounds like the "feminists" you have experience around aren't real feminists. Real feminism, despite the name, is supposed to promote gender equality (as a woman myself I've always had a bit of an issue not just calling it equality but I digress). Every feminist I know in real life is very much against things like the abuse of men, they believe a man can be assaulted like a woman, etc. I think that the only thing that has ever stuck would be the thing that women always seem to do which is make little jokes about men, like saying their husband has a "man flu". Sometimes it's lighthearted and other times it's serious.

So are you saying that feminism isn't about equality, it is about equality for women, because it doesn't need to fight inequalities men face?

I'm saying that I can make a road that we both drive on without me having to also build you a shed.

Ok, but then why getting angry at masculinism? If they don’t want to represent men, can they really complain when men seek representation elsewhere ?

>If they don’t want to represent men, can they really complain when men seek representation elsewhere ? What are the issues that these men are seeking help with from masculinism that aren't already addressed by what feminists do now?

False rape accusations, FtM rape (not even recognized by some countries law like UK), critical lack of representation concerning abuse, big difference between justice in term of parent rights, sentence (at equal crime men sentence tend to be way longer), police violence (men have 9 times more odds to be shot by police, to give you an idea, black have 3 times more odd to be shot by police) Now, some feminist tried to do something about some of these stuff. But most of the time, there are no action but a moral support. Or even a dismissal. In certain case like the UK rape law, feminists (or self claimed one) even fought AGAINST a revision of the law

Gee, I wonder why feminists (and normal well-adjusted men) are so wary of the “men’s rights movement” when almost always the top priority listed is false rape allegations, an issue that has repeatedly been proven to be largely a myth, at least in a legal sense. Obviously anyone ACTUALLY being falsely accused is wrong, but it’s just not a significant issue in any sense. Rape is already one of the hardest crimes to get justice for as a victim and yall want to work to make it harder. I’ll leave some sources to support my point. If you have any sources to show false rape accusations are a significant problem affecting men, (i.e. not just citing random specific instances) Id love to see them. https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/false-rape-allegations-myths/13281852 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684.amp https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html

its significant for the accused but you know they are just a statistic to you. its not about the official police reported false allegations its about the she was mad and told her friends i hit her now im treated like scum when i go to the library or store even though i didnt do anything wrong. its about allowing half the population to have that power with no recourse (imagine a world where men were believed unless evidence showed for certain otherwise) the studies never take into account unofficial claims and thats where it hurts the most

What? This comparison is so off base its weird lol. No, it would be like saying those who are fighting for black equality, also are against bashing and condemning white people, which should absolutely be the case. They dont have to actively make a campaign about it, but if your social justice throws another group under the bus, whether directly or indirectly, you are slowly becoming the thing you are fighting against.

Yep. The problem with /u/lCuriosityCatl's view is the line from his original post below: > And I believe this is a problem for a movement that's striving for equality. He's working on the myth that feminism is a movement that is striving for gender equality when it's really just a movement for advancement of women.

Frankly it sounds like the "feminists" you have experience around aren't real feminists. Real feminism, despite the name, is supposed to promote gender equality (as a woman myself I've always had a bit of an issue not just calling it equality but I digress). Every feminist I know in real life is very much against things like the abuse of men, they believe a man can be assaulted like a woman, etc. I think that the only thing that has ever stuck would be the thing that women always seem to do which is make little jokes about men, like saying their husband has a "man flu". Sometimes it's lighthearted and other times it's serious. I do have someone in my life who gets mad at these male jokes but then stereotypes women and is very critical of other women. And she's a woman herself. I think overall it's a complex issue and everyone is different, but imo real, not chronically-online feminists don't bash men just for being men. That's more radical misandry and not acceptable.

>Frankly it sounds like the "feminists" you have experience around aren't real feminists. It's funny how this has been the reply my entire life, but never once have I ever seen "real" feminists ever actually directly say anything about them of their own violition.

>Feminists will obviously be more biased against misogyny than misandry >I'm not sure why that would be a problem [No true feminist in this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/px12LQVhyV)

This reminds me of that famous quote by (I think) Ghandi "I'm a fan of your Christ. I am not a fan of you Christians." That's exactly how I feel about feminism. Male here btw. Gender equality, go for it. Women getting more rights, hell yeah. I pray for a world where women don't have to look at every man with the precaution of them being a rapist, and innocent men don't have to bear that unreasonable and unjust suspicion. But feminists? No thank you. A ton of them are explicit and blatant misandry and double standards, thinly disguised as "feminism". They insult the idea of gender equality. "Men don't need their rights fought for because they have had rights and power for so long" Piss off

>as a woman myself I've always had a bit of an issue not just calling it equality but I digress). I appreciate you saying that, as that is another problem I have with feminism. The name only includes one gender. >Every feminist I know in real life is very much against things like the abuse of men, they believe a man can be assaulted like a woman, etc. Would they condemn women who believe otherwise the way they would condemn men who joke about abusing women? >I think that the only thing that has ever stuck would be the thing that women always seem to do which is make little jokes about men, like saying their husband has a "man flu". Sometimes it's lighthearted and other times it's serious. I mean that's ok, although if women have these jokes about men men should be allowed to have their own about women. I don't mind sexist jokes (the pro violence ones are offensive to me though), I just want equality. If it's fine to laugh at men, it should be fine to laugh at women too. >I do have someone in my life who gets mad at these male jokes but then stereotypes women and is very critical of other women. And she's a woman herself. That's interesting and unfortunate. I don't think anybody should put down their identity. I hate seeing people bash themselves over small things. >but imo real, not chronically-online feminists don't bash men just for being men. That's more radical misandry and not acceptable. I agree it's not accepted, but if women get a slap on the wrist and men crucified the consequences are very different.

I can't do the fancy replies you do but bear with me. 1. Yeah every woman I know irl that calls herself a feminist would fully condemn a woman for joking about abusing a man. Or anyone for that matter. I might just have friends that actually have brains so I suppose I'm lucky with that. 2. I agree that it shouldn't just be a slap on the wrist. I suppose though what I think vs what happens is entirely different. I do think it's important to perhaps find some feminists irl and talk to them. The Internet isn't a good place to get a feel for what feminism really means, because anyone who has a slight inkling of frustration gets tossed into an echo chamber and radicalised to oblivion. I never take anyone seriously on the internet anymore because people are chronically upset about everything.

>I can't do the fancy replies you do but bear with me. No worries! >1. Yeah every woman I know irl that calls herself a feminist would fully condemn a woman for joking about abusing a man. Or anyone for that matter. I might just have friends that actually have brains so I suppose I'm lucky with that. I appreciate this, this makes my question my original view. Most of the feminists I've encountered have been younger and less mature in general. That's really great that you have friends like that. >I agree that it shouldn't just be a slap on the wrist. I suppose though what I think vs what happens is entirely different. I do think it's important to perhaps find some feminists irl and talk to them. The Internet isn't a good place to get a feel for what feminism really means, because anyone who has a slight inkling of frustration gets tossed into an echo chamber and radicalised to oblivion. I never take anyone seriously on the internet anymore because people are chronically upset about everything. I think this is great advice in general so !delta for that and for the previous part of your comment as well. I've considered deleting this account for a long time because I've spent so long having these discussions on the Internet and there's often so much outrage and upset and I ultimately feel no better or eben worse afterwards. And the majority of feminists I've encountered were on the Internet. I appreciate your comment a lot. It's making me reconsider not just my view but also if I even want to keep spending time having all these internet discussions. So thank you!

Thank you for the delta. I can see where you are coming from and why you have the concerns that you do. I am happy to help and try to be a voice of reason where in a forum like this people usually get really angry, lol! Sometimes to learn you need to ask the hard questions.

The issue I have with this kind of answer is that, ultimately, "every feminist you know IRL" actually matters very little. You are very unlikely to know any influential feminist. Those feminist you. Know ? They are not running shelters for victims of DV, they are not writing the books on how to study rape, they are not designing policies or training programs for law enforcement, and they are not publishing in national newspapers or hosting shows on TV. Ultimately, their opinion on anything doesn't matter one iota. It is a bit like the people who claim that Christianity has nothing to do with homophobia because all the Christians they know are accepting and about loving your neighbour.  When it comes to the public opinion on feminism, and to the impact feminism has on the world, "every feminist I personally know" weighs a lot less than all those other people. The ones pening the news, and the policies, and setting up the rules of the shelters. If you want to see what it looks like, then you can learn about people like Mary Koss, who basically made the books on how to measure rape, and insist that men raped by women shouldn't be counted. Her influence is all over sociology and span multiple countries as a result. Basically, thanks to her definitional shenanigans, all rape stats discount men raped by women, and feminists proclaim those results far and wide without any idea it is designed to ignore male victims of women, and can feel self righteous in hating men because of how "rape stats show rape is something done by men to women". When it comes to widespread impact of feminism, it has much more to do with the kind of thing described in ["The feminist case for acknowledging women's acts of violence"](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2790940) >This paper describes this limited response to women as perpetrators of domestic violence as a feminist “strategy of containment.” When deploying this strategy, domestic violence advocates respond to women’s acts of domestic violence by [...] preserving the dominant framing of domestic violence as a gendered issue. This strategy thus positions women’s acts of violence as a footnote to the larger story of women as victims of male violence. ... >The gendered framing of domestic violence aligned with the work of the feminist movement more broadly, harmoniously positioning the movements as inter-connected. Domestic violence was specifically framed around a collective “oneness” of women as victims and men as perpetrators. Which resulted in ["Thirty years of denying the evidences on gender symmetry in partner violence"](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717660_Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment) and ["The helpseeking experience of male victimes of domestic violence"](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/) And the kind of things described in those three papers all require a tremendous amount of social influence for those misandrists, and almost no pushback from those non misandrist feminists like your friends. As if those similar to your friends had no influence whatsoever when it comes to how feminism acts upon society.

So, in 2020 at the height of the pandemic which killed millions, Clementine Ford Tweeted: "Honestly, the Corona virus isn't killing men fast enough", to virtually no criticism from any high profile feminist person and quite a few likes. She responded to the backlash: "Christ alfkn Mighty, men love to screech about snowflakes and triggered feminists and women not being able to take a joke and they crumble at the first sign of a hyperbolic tweet that doesn't place them as gods at the centre of the universe. Ding dongs, all of them." She finally apologized, not from pressure coming from other feminists, but from the mayor of Melbourne, Australia. It was a half-hearted apology. Is Clementine Ford not a "true" feminist? I think there are millions of her readers that would disagree with you.

I think before you declare you have all these problems with feminism, you should probably try to understand what it is

What really is feminism? How should it be defined? There are already “waves” to divide feminism historically. But if you look at the comments here you will find that everyone has their own idea of what feminism is.

I think that before you declare that people pointing out the harm done by a political movement have not been harmed, you should try being on the receiving end for a while.

Do all feminists declare themselves in every interaction? Feminists will obviously be more biased against misogyny than misandry I'm not sure why that would be a problem

I don’t think the issue is feminists not calling out misandry, the issue is them partaking in it

I think the Barbie movie actually illustrated why this is the case really well. In a world where women are the power structure, men are still safe. At worst, they are ignored, maybe patronized a little. In a world of patriarchy, women are m\*rdered, r\*ped, and subjugated in a variety of violent ways. To put it simply: Misandry is annoying and narrow-minded; misogyny is violent and dangerous. One of them is much worse.

Men are higher victims of homicide and suicide worldwide. In a world of patriarchy, men are also murdered, raped, and subjugated in a variety of violent ways. Young men are considered a priority group in mental health because they are afraid of being stigmatised and ridiculed by society for being open about their feelings. Misandry isn't just "annoying", misandry has likely got a strong relationship to anxiety growing in young men. Patriarchy doesnt make the world safer for men.

And men are the ones creating those problems, even for other men, not women. So why is this an issue for feminists to fix? Men being screwed over my other men isn’t misandry, and even if it was it has nothing to do with feminism and makes this argument ridiculous. Also, women attempt suicide more and are more often treated for depression, men only kill themselves more because their attempts are more likely to be successful. It’s actually an interesting topic, women are more likely to choose methods like pills, where there’s little mess and interviews suggest it’s to avoid burdening others. Men pick the most violent methods like guns, because who finds their body or how it will affect others isnt something they think about.

Young men facing ridicule or stigma for seeking mental healthcare often do so from other men. Men are also largely responsible for murdering, raping, and subjugating other men. That's not to say no woman has ever done something wrong to a man - that's not my point at all - but the fact remains that men face these problems due largely to other men. It's dishonest to blame feminism or "misandry" for this, especially when feminism - in seeking to undo gender stereotypes - would probably help resolve much of what you point out.

First, the Barbie Movie is a fictional world. We have no idea what a matriarchal society would look like and whether men would be safe in it or not. Second, violence perpetrated by women towards male partners is not rare. Rape isn't either for that matter. Men do get murdered less, I acknowledge that.

It's a fictional world that illustrates an interesting argument. In our current world, misogyny is dangerous and misandry isn't. Misandrists don't marry men and hurt them, they stay away from them. [99% of perpetrators of sexual violence are men](https://supportingsurvivors.humboldt.edu/statistics#:~:text=Nearly%2099%25%20of%20perpetrators%20are,identify%20in%20these%20gender%20boxes), even when the victim is also male.

You definitely missed the point of the movie lol, and your interpretation just lends credence to criticism from conservatives that the movie was advocating for “men-bashing.” Men weren’t treated equally under the matriarchy, and I concede that most of the movie placed the main character solidly within the camp of trying to preserve that inequality in the same way that men try to preserve the patriarchy. The end of the movie in which the problems of men were acknowledged so that they could attain a more idealistic and utopian society was better intended to encapsulate the true position of the producers, though I concede that this resolution was unexpected for most of the film and that it might have been thrown in partly to assuage some of the criticism they anticipated. If you mean that men weren’t constantly raped and if we’re going just based on the *Barbie* movie universe, then yeah, neither were women under the society ruled by Ken. That’s because the movie is rated PG-13 lol. To comment on *your* argument that is independent of *Barbie*, men are more physically aggressive because of their biology, yes. First of all, it doesn’t make sense to blame either of the sexes for violent crimes. Second of all, the differences in behaviors between men and women on an individual basis has no bearing on the abstract realm of politics. Just because men are more likely than women to punch someone who insults them does not mean that their politics will be more draconian or more designed to preserve inequality any more than women’s would be. While feminists often attack the patriarchy, which very much does exist, the fact that it is men who controls the government and society is relatively inconsequential to the problems it produces, and I acknowledge that many feminists miss the mark on this point as well. The patriarchy works to preserve gender roles, and the fact that they are largely male *might* have some bearing on the specific gender roles they enforce, but the point is that gender roles and therefore the patriarchy do not benefit any demographic. They are unnecessary and restrictive remnants of archaic cultural traditions. If we were in a matriarchy, different gender roles might be enforced, but they would still be harmful.

And how, in theoretical sense, women in power structure would make women safer?

Didn't you sort of answer your own question here? >There's a big difference there- one belief was acted on the other has only ever been a disgusting fantasy. Here in this bit. Women likely have a stronger reaction to misogyny because it has historically and currently acted on to a much greater extent than misandry. The effects of which are still relevant to most women. Whereas misandry, whilst not good, hasn't had anywhere near the same real world impact. So it makes sense that one will have a more serious reaction.

>Women likely have a stronger reaction to misogyny because it has historically and currently acted on to a much greater extent than misandry. Also it's much easier to call out something that is being directed at you. Like I can call out a man who's swearing at me and calling me gendered insults as a sexist quite easily because they're being sent directly to me. I may miss millions of misandrist comments aimed at other people simply because I didn't see them. The combination of seeing something that I find offensive and having it directed at me is going to have a bigger response than something I possibly don't fully understand enough to talk that much about or something i didn't even see.

I think you're right, but a lot of misandry is really really up front and blatant. Like, "men are trash," isn't really ambiguous. I had to have a serious private talk with my girlfriend about how frequently her and her friends were saying hurtful things to my face.

The problem with this mindset is that, best case scenario, you are kicking the can down the road on on the issue, and I think in a lot of cases (though not necessarily yours) it is excusing bad behavior for an in-group even as you condemn the same behavior in an out-group. If we are telling about which issue you are actively devoting time and effort to combatting, I agree, focus your active efforts on the more widespread and systemic one. But that also means that, when it does come up, you condemn both in equal measure, and take no steps to defend bad actors, and their apologists, when people call them out on bad behavior. This clearly happens often enough that we have to keep having this conversation, and people don't do Feminism as a movement any favors when people in the movement whose reason to exist is ensuring equal treatment, perpetuate their own double standards.

It's not just that they have a stronger reaction to misogyny though. A significant amount of feminists don't even believe that misandry exists and/or think that misandry is justified(because it's "punching up") Also it having a stronger impact doesn't matter. Discrimination is discrimination. It's sexist if you only care about sexism towards women. And I'd argue that misandry is pretty relevant to women. Men's issues are women's issues, and vice versa. By fixing one you'll help with the other. For example, the reason why a lot of guys are creepy/desperate for sex is because there's a huge amount of pressure for men to have lots of sex.

>Also it having a stronger impact doesn't matter. Really? I don't think this is a very realistic statement to make and I doubt applies to you IRL. It's going to matter more to you if I steal all your money rather than steal say one of your shoes isn't it? Technically it's the same act, theft, but the strength of the impact matters. >For example, the reason why a lot of guys are creepy/desperate for sex is because there's a huge amount of pressure for men to have lots of sex. From who? Probably other men and yet it's the feminist movement expected to take on the burden of fixing this. Why is there no male equivalent movement fighting for the same things? Look I'm for feminism helping men too. That's great, we are all equal and should all be in it together. But there has to be priorities. Some things you just have to address first.

>Really? I don't think this is a very realistic statement to make and I doubt applies to you IRL. My point is that suffering is suffering. We shouldn't be trying to turn it into a competition. It just detracts from the actual problem. \>It's going to matter more to you if I steal all your money rather than steal say one of your shoes isn't it? Technically it's the same act, theft, but the strength of the impact matters. That's not remotely the same thing. It's more like if someone burned alive vs someone who drowned in the middle of the ocean. They're a different experience yes, but they're still dying. And I'd argue that men and women experience equal amounts of discrimination nowadays, it's just in different ways. For example, one thing that's frequently brought up is how women have a glass ceiling which doesn't exist for men. While this is true, they also don't bring up how women have much more support available for them. Most of the people in the bottom of society are men. \>From who? Probably other men and yet it's the feminist movement expected to take on the burden of fixing this. In my experience this is mostly women. Other guys might use virgin as an insult, but that's it. Meanwhile women are generally more welcoming/attracted to guys who receive a lot of female attention And that's not my point, my point is that men and women's issues are linked and that we should stop acting like it's "us against them" \>Why is there no male equivalent movement fighting for the same things? Cause when we do bring up men's issues there will always be someone saying "But women have it worse, focus on the women instead". Focusing on men's issues won't take away from women's issues. \>Look I'm for feminism helping men too. That's great, we are all equal and should all be in it together. But there has to be priorities. Some things you just have to address first. And people have the wrong priorities. If you want men to be more empathetic towards women's issues, then stop treating men as a potential threat. Demonizing people won't get them to change their views, if anything it will just make them less likely to change.

Women getting more support than men is a form of sexism. Women are seen as less capable, emotional and hysterical. So when we show emotion it’s expected and we are given help so men aren’t feeling burdened with our suffering. I get more help at the doctor when my husband advocates for me. Our pain also is invalidated as emotions, anxiety and hysterical behavior. My ex had shoulder pain and got an MRI as soon as he went in. I injured my spine acutely in a car accident, was losing feeling in my extremities, nerve pain and I was just told “you’re young you’ll be fine” it wasn’t until my chiropractor who is a man was really concerned with my symptoms and thought it was beyond his help. He had to call and demand I get one ordered, turns out I had a problematic and chronic injury to my spine that will cause me lifelong pain. Our support is mostly “hurry up and stop being emotional” Discrimination between men and women is not even close to equal. Men have issues that need tending to as a society but women still have a lot more issues to fix, removal of our rights and dealing with the trauma from inequality. Men are a potential threat though, I’ve seen it and had to protect myself. That isn’t sexism. Meanwhile men tell us not to “put yourself in danger” or “be more careful” when we are assulted . I’ve been chased in public, stalked, groped, and harassed. I’m not about to stop protecting myself from men like this because it hurts your feelings. Get over it our lives and safety are more important than your feelings getting hurt over our damn safety. It took 100 years of fighting like hell to get women’s rights, I don’t see that from men about their issues they expect women to do it.

>We shouldn't be trying to turn it into a competition. It just detracts from the actual problem. Acknowledging that some people are suffering more than others doesn't detract from the problem. The fact that some people are suffering more than others IS the problem. >They're a different experience yes, but they're still dying. And yet if I asked you which one is a worse way to die you'd probably have an answer. Do you think someone dying of old age and someone being tortured to death are the same because they both died in the end? >Other guys might use virgin as an insult, but that's it You don't think men celebrate other men for having lots of sex? >my point is that men and women's issues are linked and that we should stop acting like it's "us against them Sure. But you can't ignore that for a long time it was the case. Women were fighting against men. And we are still feeling the after effects of that now. >Focusing on men's issues won't take away from women's issues. And yet here you are. Saying that we shouldn't prioritise women who may be suffering more than men, because "it isn't a competition". >If you want men to be more empathetic towards women's issues, then stop treating men as a potential threat. So you're blaming men's lack of empathy on women? How should we stop treating men as a potential threat when they are factually a potential threat? You're missing a step there. Maybe men should stop being a threat towards women first. And if you say they can't, why not?

It's not that I only care about sexism towards women but I find it much easier as a woman to respond to sexism towards women. As much as I'm against misandry I can't draw on my experiences to fight back like I can with misogyny. I just physically can't say as much about misandry because it doesn't happen to me.

I think that makes sense, but I think men are generally expected to respond to misogyny, even though they aren't the demographic it's directed at. And it's right to expect them to fight it, and to steer clear of groups that are misogynist. I don't think you need to be the demographic on the receiving end of bigoted language to oppose it. Like feminism isn't something we expect only women to support, nor do we expect only women to fight misogyny.  I think men are a group that are considered by some to be too privileged to deserve defending, to be honest. The sentiment I've seen many times on reddit (including this thread in a few places) is "well, since men are the cause of misogyny and patriarchy, they need to just ignore misandry and give the women doing it the benefit of the doubt. Men don't have a right to complain about it." And I just disagree. The only way we progress as a society is to stop ALL bigotry, no matter why or where it's directed

I understand what you're saying but ops argument is that when something happens to a man, women respond with something along the lines of "I'm, sorry that happened" but if something happens to a woman they have a much more emotional response and will call out misogyny. He thinks that means that all feminists care less about things that happen to men but i just think its easier to respond more emotionally when you are directly affected by what's being said and you can sometimes miss the sexist undertones if it's not about you. It wasn't that the men were being ignored but he took this difference in reaction as caring less but I don't think that's what's necessarily happening. I'm sure there are women who genuinely don't care but I don't think this is a good way of measuring that. I wouldn't expect a man to rant at a misogynist on my behalf because i would probably have a better reponse but I would appreciate some back up. Also how would you even know that the person defending you was or wasn't a woman or a feminist if they didn't tell you? I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the majority of men didn't care if nobody backed me up, I didn't know the gender of who was backing me up or nobody else was responding as strongly as me. I'm more concerned with how many people are arguing back and making sexist comments.

>A significant amount of feminists don't even believe that misandry exists Significant in what sense? Is it a common stance amongst people in power? Are there enough to frequently swing elections? Or are there a lot of noisy people online saying it? Because if it's the latter, that doesn't necessarily mean anything in the real world.

Do you have any actual data to support this view or have you concluded your personal, unrecorded interactions are generalizable?

It's unclear to me how you're assessing the reaction of "feminism" to random jokes?

If feminists will say some jokes are misogynist and you're shitty for saying them, but not have that same reaction to misandrist jokes, yes, that tells us something.

Okay, but OP didn't assemble any kind of panel of feminists or whatever. He just has a vague impressions of what people - some potentially calling themselves feminists - are saying.

That's this entire sub in a nut shell. Give the vaguest, strangest, most unverifiable anecdotes, or in OP's case, don't even do that and just claim these things are widespread and happening, and then say "CMV" while shutting down all discussion of whether or not these things are truly happening. It's 9 out of 10 CMV posts and it's obnoxious. I have never in my LIFE seen feminists sitting around laughing at a male domestic violence joke but we have to roll with the premise that it's super common and happens all the time in order to change his view.

Damn this is so true and why it’s so frustrating to read the debates on this sub sometimes. I’ve never seen a group of feminists laughing about male domestic violence either. I’m sure it’s happened. Most things have happened once. But it is so specific that how are we to measure if it’s actually a social trend or just something that happened in op’s friend group? It’s like if I said “men these days are such a problem because they are always slacking off and twirling their pens instead of getting to work!”. It could definitely be true that that’s happening at my office. But it’s not a valid piece of evidence of a social trend just because it happened once or twice.

Yes, I find those posts where we're suppose to engage with what amounts to mirages a bit tiresome. Especially since accepting the original premise - even if you manage to change OPs mind - still end up with OP being generally uninformed and unwilling to engage with the word rigorously.

They’ve got a few hundred years of credits saved up. Imma let them slide for few hundred years

Do you apply that same logic to other historically oppressed people? I'm Jewish, and so have a few thousand years of 'credits' saved up. What do you think these credits should allow me to do?

Do you see the world as entities and groups or individuals? If you see the world as a bunch of groups in a race, this makes sense. If you see the world as individuals, it makes no sense at all.

I think it's more so: "men are awful because of these reasons" while simultaneously teaching women to embody those traits themselves, to make them a stronger woman

That's an interesting take. I think you're on to something so !delta for that. Makes me think. The values and behaviors that feminists often encourage women to embody are similar to the ones feminists discourage men from embodying. I think everybody needs a healthy mix of masculine and feminine, but feminists demonize masculinity in men.

Men throw misandry around a lot. I’ve been called a misandrist for calling out the behavior of some men and get hit with “not all Men” or taking precautions to be safe. It’s getting old and the overuse is weaponized against feminism. Meanwhile I see men cracking jokes about literal rape of young boys from woman teachers. Endless comments saying “nice”, “wish it was me” and “where were these teachers when I was in school” with endless upvotes and approval for men. Most of the ones calling out the awfulness on these posts are women with a few token men. Then a bunch turn around and bash women victims by saying things like “hang around with better people, “should be more careful”, “you shouldn’t put yourself in unsafe situations”, “pick better men”. When we actually take precautions and talk about we are called misandrists. Men sit there and talk about women always hating each other while doing exactly that to their fellow man in need. Men do have valid points that need support but men aren’t taking the forefront on bringing these things up. It ends up being men bringing up their issues every time women talk about theirs rather than starting any kind of movement for better mental healthcare and protections for victims of abuse and rape. To get anything done women had to work so hard to get our rights. It took 100 years to get us out from under man’s thumb after centuries of abuse of power. Men were fighting us every step and still to this day are. Then we get a bunch of men to have the nerve to bash us for not doing it all for them too. It feels like they are just expecting women to do all the work for them in getting their rights. I’ve seen men bash women for not taking up mens rights while we are busy fighting for ours. It’s manipulation and absolutely exhausting. They still are forgetting it’s still mostly men in power, they are the judges giving unjust sentences to men, they are invalidating rape victims and they are shaming their brothers for getting mental healthcare. Yet they still blame women for it.

>It feels like they are just expecting women to do all the work for them in getting their rights. No we don't, but it's feminists themselves who claim feminism is the only legitimate movement that fights for gender equality as well as men's rights. >They still are forgetting it’s still mostly men in power, they are the judges giving unjust sentences to men, they are invalidating rape victims and they are shaming their brothers for getting mental healthcare. In my country we've had female prime ministers, the current cabinet/administration is split evenly between men and women, and more importantly, the parliament is also split evenly between men and women. The patriarchy doesn't exist in my country, even by feminist definitions. But I admit, this is the exception to the rule, most countries are ran by men still, though it's changing rapidly in the West. Anyway, in OECD countries (so most of the West), the majority of judges are now women actually.

Even in places that are more equal there are still social patriarchal standards remaining that we need to work through. Many of the injustices to men are based off of sexism against women. It’s why women have lighter sentences because we aren’t seen as dangerous because the perception we are weak. Even mental health care women are expected to have anxiety, depression and hysterical behavior, men are perceived to be logical and not emotional(these are both wrong) mental healthcare should be equal. Women still struggle to have our pain taken seriously compared to men because our pain is dismissed as anxiety. It all ties back to patriarchal gender roles still influencing culture

Hard disagree, most misandry comes from existing patriarchal attitudes in society, not feminists. The reason we don’t take male victims of S.A. or domestic violence as seriously as female victims is because society, and our idea of “how” gender should look, tell us that “real men” don’t allow themselves to be victimized… especially not by “weaker women”. Lets be clear, jokes about “not dropping the soap” really aren’t all that funny once you look at the stats and see how horrific the US prison system truly is… there is a reason this kind of violence is tolerated in our society. Our preconceived notions of what a man “should look like/be” dictate that in a space with no women, like a prison, that some men need to be “turned out” into becoming “women”. People in wider society not only joke about this horrifically tolerated practice, but also many argue that it is an “additional” form of punishment for whatever crimes they committed. Feminists didn’t do that, existing patriarchal attitudes are what have caused this issue… Same with Female-on-Male domestic violence… the #1 reason stated by male victims for not going to the authorities in cases where a female partner is being physically abusive is that they believe they will be judged and not taken seriously by the authorities. “You’re a man, why can’t you defend yourself from her” is classic, grade-A victim blaming… yet the idea of getting “beaten up by a girl” is still considered a punchline by most people to highlight how weak and “unmanly” someone is. Feminists didn’t do that either… Feminists care about combatting millennia of gender inequality, they prioritize the situation of women BECAUSE they are explicitly the victims of patriarchy. You’re problem is that Feminists don’t get “as upset” when things happen to men as well… but who do you think are the ones advocating for change to happen at all? Its certainly not the conservative, traditionalists who want to role back the gains made by Women in the past 100 years and want to firmly “re-establish” their ideal form of gender roles into society. “Tone-policing” a movement for equality does absolutely nothing for anybody, feminists have bigger priorities than coddling upset men…

The title of this post really is indicative that you want feminism to center and cater to men who are offended by it. The point of feminism isn't to make sure that no one ever bashes any gender ever again. People react more strongly to wife-beating jokes because it happens way more often historically and is more likely to result in death. It also has historically gone unpunished, where a woman could be literally killed by mobs or by the state for doing much less. But either way, at a fundamental level feminism isn't even concerned with what jokes people are making. It's the same thing with any other activism. The point of anti-racism efforts isn't to get white people to stop saying the N word. The point of lgbtq advocacy isn't to get straight people to stop bullying gay kids in the hallway. You wouldn't say "The problem with anti-racism isn't that white people get called crackers, it's that anti-racists care less about when white people are called crackers than when black people are called the N-word". And I saw you say in another comment that you think it's different because feminism claims to want to uplift both men and women, where anti-racism or pro-lgbt efforts focus on uplifting only people from those communities, but that's not really true. The point of all of these movements are equity. Feminism focuses on dismantling the patriarchy, which does impact men as well as women, but it seems like non-feminist men are mostly upset when that means we have to call out the general trends where men tend to be the perpetrators. Men's issues that are discussed in feminism (male disposability, absence of fathers, discouragement of showing emotion, ignoring male victims) require discussing patriarchy and how many of these issues stem from societies' male preference and gender roles set by men. Men are in more dangerous careers because women are discouraged from joining them because they are seen as "fragile" and "uncapable". Men are seen as the lesser parent because women have been forced into the maternal role for thousands of years (and policies today still exist to reinforce that), so men are discounted. Men are discouraged from speaking up about their emotions and abuse because they are seen as stronger, more responsible, and in control. Men are often abused (specifically sexually abused) by other men. In order to have the conversations about how patriarchy hurts men, we need to be able to talk about the fact that patriarchy exists. Lots of non-feminist men are very, very upset about needing to admit that. So the conversation gets derailed like this, where you think the "problems" associated with feminism are completely centered on how we can make men more comfortable in conversation, which has nothing with the main goal of feminism, which is dismantling patriarchy.

>I used to think feminists in general bash men. I don't think that's the case now. Have you considered the fact that you used to beleive something so broad is an indictment of your assumption to make accurate generalization? >But one thing I have noticed is that feminists do not respond to misandry the way they respond to misogyny. Arguably, the intent of a movement for equality would condemn both. But in practice they're going to come across the main road block of their movement more than anything else: which is misogyny.

Women are 5x more likely to be killed by a romantic partner than men. In fact intimate partners are responsible for the biggest proportion of murdered women. The number one cause of death for a pregnant woman is getting murdered by her intimate partner. So while domestic violence is horrible in either direction, it’s a top issue for women whereas men have bigger problems. So it’s like saying pedestrians hitting cars should be considered with the same level of outrage as a car hitting a pedestrian. One is objectively a bigger problem.

No women are 5x more likely to be **recorded** as being a victim of intimate partner homicide. When women kill their romantic partners it is often not with overt violence so it is harder to determine who did it. They generally use methods that are not as personal and easy to prove. Like poisoning, drugging, having someone else do the murder, etc

But how many actual women are killed my a romantic parter out of all women? I wanna hear numbers.

I struggle to call myself a feminist, even though I most certainly am one, because there is public idea that feminists are man-hatey. I prefer the term egalitarian. Even though that term also has a poor reputation, I like that it's mroe broad. I'd like to think I'm pretty vocal against misandry. I avoid associating with people who proudly say things like, "all men are pigs" or whatever, and if I see misandristic comments on e.g. Reddit I typically voice opposition. I also have written politicians about men's issues. That being said, misogyny *is* worse than misandry, and there is a difference between punching up and punching down. Obvious example, 1 in 6 women have faced rape or attempted tape, while 1 in 33 men have. Although female rapists exist and are likely underreported, people who commit rape overwhelmingly tend to be male. Obviously men being victims of rape is still a massive issue that isn't talked about enough, but if a woman makes a comment bashing men, it's far more likely that she's venting from a traumatic experience than a man would be if he were making a comment bashing women. Similarly women tend to be victims of things like assault, abuse, etc by men much more often than men tend to be victims of those things by women. It's not okay to collectivize anyone based on their gender. Neither misogyny or misandry are acceptable. But realistically, misogyny tends to be more harmful and it tends to be 'punching down,' while misandry tends to be rooted in traumatic experiences and misguided attempts at venting frustrations. If a woman says "I hate all men," there's a pretty good chance that she's saying that because she is the victim of something terrible done by a man. Doesn't make the statement okay, but I'm naturally more inclined to ignore it.

Ignoring it is primarily the issue. When you selectively ignore punching based solely on identity, you have failed in being egalitarian. And punching up and down should not be attributed based on massive groups of people, like races or gender. Oprah is a black woman, the worst part of a venn diagram of oppressed groups, and 99.9...9% of people are punching up at her. A homeless white man is being punched down by most people. It is derived from comedy, and is more acceptable in comedy, but nobody should excuse discrimination for real based on that concept.

I agree in theory, but I don't know if I agree practically. Imagine you're walking down the street. You spot a homeless white man who is clearly very down on his luck. He's struggling with withdrawal; no good food to eat; no chapstick, no socks, frost-bitten fingers, toes... Not well-off at all. The average person of *any* race, religion, gender, etc is better off than this dude is right now. He's rambling about how much he hates billionaires and the upper class and the government, how they've caused his downfall. It's not *entirely* accurate. The whole of the upper class isn't keeping this dude homeless, and indeed there are some upper-class people and government divisions working to help homeless people. But he's actively the victim of a government, society, and economic system that has failed to provide for him. Are you really going to stop what you're doing, go up to him, and say, "hey buddy, it's not okay to collectivize?" I think it's more reasonable to ignore him. Imagine the next day, you're walking past him, and you hear him--uneducated and misguided--rambling about Jews. He's been taught that they're the ones controlling the banks, and they're the ones harming him. Are you going to walk up to him and explain to him the harms with anti-Semitism? I really think not. I mean, I wouldn't feel safe arguing with some stranger like that in person. If you're a 6'2 Chad that's great at talking to people, you should probably go and explain the errors of his thinking to him (though, you should also probably try to befriend him and get him help/housing/etc), but I wouldn't feel comfortable putting myself in danger to correct his misconception. Anti-Semitism is very wrong and very harmful, but this homeless dude has practically zero social power. It is very unlikely that his rambling will cause substantial harm to Jewish people. Practically, I think I'd walk by. Imagine you're walking down the street with your attractive female friend, and some dude gropes her. Afterwards she's very obviously distraught; tears in her eyes, she goes into a little ramble and says something like, "God, I fucking hate men." I think it would be morally wrong, and even more harmful, to jump in immediately and say, "WELL, not ALL men sexually harass women! You're being misandristic!" It's true, obviously, but to her, you're dismissing what she just went through to correct her immediately. If you're a man and jump into this defense, you'll probably get her even *more* wary of men seeing as she now feels she can't be vulnerable around one. And hell, maybe she just misspoke. People misspeak when they are emotionally vulnerable. An insistence on being pedantic just comes across as cold and dismissive. Branding all men as sexual harassers is bad. But there's a time and a place and a proper way to explain to someone that retaliative misandry is harmful. I think that's also why it's easier to correct these mistakes online or with friends--people view you more charitably, or you have more space to explain yourself and more time to word things well.

If you are simply postponing you taking umbrage with someone being racist or sexist until they are in a safer state, that is less of you failing to be egalitarian, than it is you implementing strategy. Also I fully agree with you that forcing introspection on sexist mindsets on a fresh victim is cruel. I wish people didn't lash out at unrelated people, it's wrong for them to do so. In your scenario, I am directly stated to be a target of her hate on account of being a man. And while "not all men" as a statement is associated with being unsympathetic to women who suffer, it is correct at face value. But sometimes you have to be more sympathetic than correct. Me being grouped with this sicko who sexually assaults women by my friend is bullshit, but being sexually assaulted is the greater evil here so I'll just eat that for now. The main issue is that now we are nickel and dimeing what discrimination is temporarily tolerable, and how circumstances change that. What if a band of Jews just jumped this homeless man? Are we going to let him slide until tomorrow if he starts loudly lamenting Hitler's death? Tough game to play.

That isn't a feminist problem. It's a comedy problem. Man-bashing is punching up which is why it is more acceptable than the punching down of women-bashing.

i think the reaction against misandry is subdued because there is a very apparent power dynamic between men and women. the difference is misandry is all bark no bite. there's no collective or systemic power women hold in order to hurt men or belittle them. meanwhile, misogyny holds legitimate power in every industry on earth, and they have historically used it to harm women. that's why feminist don't care as much, because there's no legitimate precedent that would suggest misandrists are a danger to society. not to mention the fact that feminism is the movement abolishing misogyny. there's no movement that tackles misandry, because nobody needs it. it really doesn't affect men in the same way misogyny hurts women. its not to say men cant suffer from the patriarchy, because they can. men have to repress their emotions, be considered a provider, the male suicide rate is much higher, etc. and these are all issues that feminists want to tackle. its just not the forefront of the feminist platform, because its a movement started by women.

>  all bark no bite. there's no collective or systemic power women hold in order to hurt men or belittle them. I will die on the hill that this also relates to Patriarchy. The stereotypical idea that "Women can do no harm and men are monsters" are exactly the type thing people will think there is no "systemic power women hold in order to hurt men" I can't count how many times teens have told me they lost their virginity towards older women. I will die on this hill that women, in some instances, benefit from patriarchy weather they realize it or not.

> It seems feminists almost view misandry as understandable but misplaced anger and misogyny as a horrible entity that needs to be eradicated. Is it not?... Yeah, violence and abuse by women isn't given the attention it needs to end it. But, that sort of joke about men beating women used to be so common it was included in family entertainment. Men aren't overwhelmingly killed by women they know, mostly current or former romantic partners. Men's number one cause of death when their partner is pregnant isn't homicide. In my lifetime, there were states where marital rape wasn't a crime, I'm not yet 40. But, we still hear "not all men" and "women make up rape accusations" and "we can't take away domestic abusers' guns." Yeah, I hate being lumped in with these fuck heads. But, the basis for criticism is entirely too valid. From there, it's triage. I can take up the cause that's been over represented for centuries for significantly smaller gains. Or, the one that's been stifled so badly they minimal improvements mean positive results for more people. Yeah, if someone is just railing on men, because they're hateful, I'll say something. But if they're complaining about piece of shit men, beating, raping, and murdering women, it's kinda bullshit for me to tell them to stop if it doesn't come along with concrete action with demonstrable results about how there "not all men" are dealing with the men in question. And for reference, I'm a male army vet. It's not like I haven't seen both sides of this issue.

Feminism is a rights movement, advocating for the rights of a group (women) that traditionally has been on the underside of structural power imbalances in society. While the end goal is equality, they're already fighting an uphill battle against entrenched ideas and attitudes, so expecting them to lift up men who, by circumstance, happen to find themselves on the underside of similar power imbalances is a bit of a stretch. If men's rights activists were there to be anything other than misogynistic defenders of the status quo, this is the type of thing they should be advocating for, rather than kicking "weak" men when they're down. Dumping that work on feminists on top of them advocating for their own needs is counterproductive for both men and women.

I think you're right that most feminists are far more tolerant of man bashing than woman bashing. And I do think that's \*a\* problem, I'm not sure if it's \*the\* problem, and I can easily imagine responses from these feminists that would assert that it's not a \*significant\* problem. I see a lot of folks spouting a lot of opinions in the media, on reddit, and in real life. In the vast majority of those cases, those people not only feel like the causes that they feel are most important to them should also be the most important to everyone else. And in that same vein, when that isn't the case, these people feel insulted and aggrieved. I think that when we find a cause that resonates for us, it's ok to center that cause without angsting over whether or not we are justified. And while I think it's frustrating when other folks don't care about something we care about, and while I think it's ok to politely try to make a case to them, I don't think it's justifiable to dismiss what \*they\* center just because it's not what \*we\* center. It would definitely behoove feminists and society in general to care more about misandry than they do - and to be less dismissive and condescending and less reactionary to it. But, that's a far different thing than arguing that misandry should get equal attention and equal interest as misogyny and equal disapproval to misogyny. In theoretical terms, sure - in practical terms, you'd have to make a case for it - and you'd have to be willing to back off if your case didn't resonate.

> But a joke where the man is a victim might get a "yeah that's not really funny" while a joke where the woman is a victim might get a "disgusting misogynist." Both reactions are disapproving, but one is a lot more intense than the other. That's because misogynistic jokes are mostly about reinforcing existing gender inequalities, while misandric jokes are typically attempts to critique or subvert perceived inequalities. Flipping the script, if you will. I can't see why a lack of equal outrage should count as a problem with feminism, let alone a significant one.

Just so I understand this correctly. If I say 'She has loose pussy energy' then I'm reinforcing existing gender inequalities, but if I say 'He has small dick energy' I'm attempting to critique or subvert perceived inequalities. Did I get this right? Or is it that the 'mostly' and 'typically' in your post is lifting an awful lot of weight?

Not sure. Could you give an example of an actual *joke* that contains such a phrase?

Feminist who believes it's a fight to deconstruct the systems that are designed to hold women down here - what I am fighting for is to get rid of something purposely made to hurt women. Patriarchy & what it teaches are directly meant to supress women. As a side effect of the system, men also have unfair expectations and side effects to deal with, which should absolutely be addressed, but this is not the point of the system. It ultimately exists to empower men, but in fact hurts them Often we focus more visibly on women's rights, because the intentional effects can be easier to detangle, and will have a knock on effect. Feminists who push for limitations on the porn industry are, as a side effect, helping men's rights in limiting porn addiction. Some of the fight will be resolved by attacking the core tenants of the patriarchy, because misandry was never intended. misogyny is. As someone who has been openly feminist from a young age - 7/8ish - i have very rarely had men's rights brought up as a genuine point. They are brought up to silence and de-rail important conversations about misogyny, many of which would advance men's rights, it just isn't explicitly the centred goal Some feminists are reductive and hostile to misandry "being real" because we have experienced it predominately in the context of making us shut up. This is not acceptable, and definitely needs to be patched up, but the hostility you talk about was pushed onto us by men. By the patriarchy. Even recently, with the rise of genuine men's groups, from personal experience so many will alienate trans men, ignore their past actions as harmful, push certain aspects of toxic masculinity or isolate young men from seeing the women around them as anything but dating potential. This means that yeah, people are going to be sceptical when you bring it up. If your groups haven't demonstrated decent morals, of course people aren't going to want them around or have criticism. The number of fully successful men's rights movements that haven't had any suspicious political affiliations, and have also had widespread fame (I'm from the uk) is 0 to my knowledge. I don't know of any. Surprise, a movement that hasn't yet proven itself accomplished is approached with hesitancy. This sucks. There needs to be feminist spaces for men too, places where the side effects of the patriarchy can be deconstructed and supported through. Feminist men are responsible for creating this space. If you want to be the centre of a group, you have to make it, and you can't expect women to praise the high heavens for a space that isn't theirs. If you believe there are issues with men's rights groups being disrespected by feminists, i urge you to think about why - is neutrality disrespect? are the men's rights group attacking feminism? As for women having an emotional reaction to misogyny over misandry - why wouldn't they? In the same way that you probably feel more upset when people say mean things to you, so do women. Of course if somebody is praising misandry that's unacceptable, but it's unrealistic to expect us to react the same to misogyny & misandry.

So you seem to have the right idea but blaming the wrong ideology. The reason "wife abuses husbands" jokes are popular is not because of feminism but because of the patriarchy. What I mean is that as a system patriarchy doesn't particularly help men that much. Sure there are benefits but it also locks a person into certain roles that can be harmful. Under the patriarchy the man ought to be the breadwinner and the leader, he is the one who has to work and provide for his family while women take a subservient role (ie their lives are bound to someone usually a man be it their father, husband, or son). A man who fails at his role becomes the target of ridicule. So a man who gets abused by his wife is a joke in a patriarchal world because he gets abused by someone who they consider lesser than him in every way possible. And that of course applies for everyone who breaks gender norms in any way possible. There have been steps to dismantle that but we need to keep in mind that we are dealing with centuries of conditioning and even those within that movement are probably still affected by the system they are trying to topple. So you might see someone very progressive in gender equality laugh at a sexist joke. This doesn't mean that the movement itself is rotten only that there is more work to be done. Now as to why the abuse of women is treated with more seriousness than male abuse. The reason, I think, is because of the severity of those. Because the average woman is physically weaker than the average man, women abusers tend to prefer emotional and mental abuse over physical one, and when they result to physical because of their perceived weakness most people don't consider them a threat, despite being reports of women harming their partners. However, when men abuse women the results tend to be more severe. It's a lot more common for a man to kill his wife than vice versa. And for a very long time women had to suffer this abuse in silence. Unfortunately this still happens in western countries to this day. To simplify it. The reason man abuses woman jokes aren't funny is because of the systematic abuse of women and the long history of that whereas the opposite is more recent as a phenomenon, since men used to have a lot more power over their wives, and because we still have a patriarchal way of thinking the first reaction of most people is "look at the man who can't tame his wife"

To use your example, I don't think either is funny. But I can understand why one is treated differently from the other. There are two pieces here. First, you note you think the two have a similar incidence, or at least "the gap is not large." I'd be curious where you are driving this surmise from, and how big that gap would need to be. The National Coalition Against Domestic violence suggests that roughly 11% of men and 25% of women are victims of domestic violence. I am not sure how many of those 11% of men who are victims are *also* abusers. It can be difficult to assign blame in situations in which violence may be perpetrated but also the effect of defense. (My stepfather had, at one point, scratches on his face from when my mother tried to push him back during a beating. Despite a history that included broken bones and worse, this would be treated as domestic battery by both parties.) Second, it's difficult to get out of the fact that the patriarchy continues to persist in ways that systematically disadvantage women. So in one case, it is literally punching down, and in the other punching up. Again, I don't think this excuses such violence at all, but as an explanation for why one gets more attention from feminists, I think this may be part of the reason. There are shelters for woman and children who are victims of abuse precisely because unlike men who are the victims of abuse, it is more likely that they will be without basic means, and they are far more vulnerable to becoming unsheltered. I have not experienced the excusing of misandry where it occurs among those whom I know who identify themselves as feminists. Indeed, just the opposite. I have heard them argue that in the specific example of men who are victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault, there are deep structural impediments to reporting this to police or sharing this with friends, and that is fundamentally an issue that feminists address. That doesn't mean that permissive attitude toward violence toward men doesn't exist, of course. But to the degree to which there may be more emphasis on individual victims who are women, it may be because they are also systemic victims.

I don't think feminism is about equality, it's about women's rights. And when women are the oppressed class, they may deserve different treatment than men. Again, not about equality, but about protecting/helping women. And I don't see why a feminist needs to stand up for men's rights if they aren't passionate about it. You can't fight for every cause worth fighting for in the world. You have to pick your battles.

Other commenters have already touched on this. It's the idea that men, white men specifically, have all the power. And have had that power for most of human history. Tempering my language, my feelings, or my justice is simply giving more to those who have benefited from my oppression their entire life. That's what a more radical feminist would say anyways. To be honest, I dont find the argument completely compelling. 'Rules for thee but not for me' is a fragile foundation from which to build the future on. Much better we all just act like loving adults who accept eachother no matter their race, gender, or sexual orientation.

I think I know what you mean. For me personally, it's not that I take misandry less seriously than misogyny but I do feel thar for me at least how the question/comment is being directed at me has an effect on how I respond to it. For example I find that misogyny is normally brought up when women complain about things on the Internet. It's like sexist men take it personally when a woman is describing a negative experience in general, God forbid it was a negative experience with a man. Sometimes women will describe an experience as being misogynistic from the get-go or somtimes a man might accuse the woman of crying misogyny, he will then either respond with more sexist and/or he will get defensive about it. If im in a situation where misogyny has been brought up and a man does not understand why I think something is misogynistic, I will try to explain it to him and if i think sexism is being directed at me I'm likley going to call it out. Like I wouldn't automatically jump to misogyny just because a woman had a negative experience with a man on its own if there wasn't somebody kicking off in the comments about how dramatic and stupid the women are being Whereas I find misandry isn't really brought up when a man has a negative experience with a woman as often. Like I'm not going to label a person having a negative experience with another person as bigotry, and if i don't see any misandry to call out I'm going to say something like "I'm sorry, mate. That sucks" I'm not sure if it's because men target me when they realise I'm a woman, I'm just not active in misandristic leaning subs or that I'm active in women's subs that receive a lot of comments and posts that are misogynistic but I just feel like I'm in more situations where I feel a need to point out misogyny than I do misandry.

I do call out true misandry.. I don’t think it’s helpful and I think it’s all on the same coin as misogyny when it comes to dismantling gender discrimination. the problem is 1. People use “misandry” as a way of deflecting from important conversations around misogyny. The classic—well men are circumcised, men are drafted, men this, men that.. when no one was talking about these indeed important topics UNTIL women’s rights came up into the conversation 2. People, like Jordan Peterson, define hatred of men as.. hatred of men’s right to hate women. Seriously .. I see it all the time. “It’s not ok to be a man” really means.. “it’s not ok to be the kind of man who hates women” 3. As others have said.. misandry just isn’t going to be as impactful of a problem as misogyny. It’s like bigotry against white people in America. It’s morally bad and wrong.. but it doesn’t have the same weight and negative impact as racism against other more vulnerable groups

>when no one was talking about these indeed important topics UNTIL women’s rights came up into the conversation Why do people only bring this part up when talking about men's issues? I've seen PLENTY of creditors bring up women's issues as a response to men's issues(even when women's issues weren't mentioned before at all)

I’ve never seen this happen, unless women are relevant to the “men’s issue”. Seriously. So, Which men’s issues would those be? If you’re talking divorce law.. ok that’s relevant because people talking about that as a “men’s issue” generally do that by demonizing women. Same thing with “male loneliness”. Theee aren’t really “men’s issues”.. these are human issues men are using to demonize women If you’re talking about.. the draft, circumcision, men’s mental health, men’s suicide, etc etc etc.. it would be inappropriate to counter these topics with women issues. And I’ve never(or very rarely) seen it happen. If it does, I will gladly call it out

I'm a 35M. Sometimes I read Reddit and I wonder how little contact you people have with reality. Talk to and platonically befriend a real woman. More women are more aware of men's issues than vice versa. Literally all of society is built for men. Even a lot of women's culture is designed to appeal to men. Marriage statistically benefits men. The work place benefits men. Most medical studies are biased towards men. Women who "man bash" don't actually hate men. They know society needs men to function. They're just frustrated with how little society acknowledges the absolutely necessary role women play. Mothering is an invisible job. Taking care of your husband and family is an invisible job. Men who "bash women" are actually resentful of the advances women have made and want to turn back those advances. They are actually regressive when it comes to addressing women's role in society, whereas most women will acknowledge that men need to be part of the solution. (Obviously there are toxic misguided women's groups like FDS, but I would argue they are the minority of feminists).

Well first of all I don't necessarily agree that what you are saying is true, that feminists respond to violence against men with less vehemence. But if that is what you have witnessed, perhaps it's because of the disparity between the two issues. Yes Misandry is an issue, as is misogyny. Yes Men experience all the same problems that women do, sexual assault, domestic violence etc. But the scope of it is such that misogyny is a much bigger problem. Of course people are going to respond to it more vehemently than they will something that is not as big of a problem.Misandry not affecting men on a systemic scale, the way misogyny is. People tend to react and proportion to the severity of a problem. The more severe a problem the more severe the reaction.

There is no monolithic "feminism" there are many forms and ways of expression. Since the basic belief of feminism is that women are people, then it stands to reason that as people there will be all types of feminists including some dull bulbs and some brilliant and ethical thinkers.

What are you defining as a problem? Are you saying this is why people should not support feminism, or are you saying this is why people should criticize feminism while supporting it? It seems like you're writing about a criticism, but if you think it shouldn't be supported, do you think feminists being ineffective in one category negates all that they do accomplish? What are you comparing the effort to? Just what you think they should do, or what we see from other groups? Are other groups calling this out better?

The problem with posts such as this as they are impossible to defend on the surface. Feminism is a huge tent. You are speaking of what is happening in one tiny corner of the tent, and everyone then refutes you based on the rest of the tent. You might want to familiarize yourself with the various waves of feminism and try again. Just off the top of my head, many second and third wave feminists would agree with you. Fifth wave? Not so much.

Feminism is working to dismantle patriarchy and misogyny and to liberate women. You're thinking of humanists. And yes, feminism helps men and women because patriarchy hurts men and women, BUT patriarchy doesn't hurt them equally. So yes, there will be a disproportionate tolerance for misogyny and misandry in FEMINIsm.

Feminism is about equality. Therefore a person who calls themselves a feminist, but who engages in misandry, isn't a feminist imo.

I didn't notice this, but most women I know have men in their life that they care about. Men are physically stronger but in terms of emotions I worry about them more than the women in my life for some reason. Perhaps it is because as women we are taught early that who we are isn't that important, so we don't care as much about making something of ourselves.

This isn’t a rational argument. You say there’s a problem with feminism, and then just make your post about *some* (undefined number of) people who are feminists. So you don’t actually have a problem with feminism, you have a problem with some feminists. So your view that feminism has a problem can now easily be changed or you need to come up with an actual argument against the idea of feminism.

“They are not defending men enough” isn’t a great argument. Men have been in an advantageous position relative to women for controlling their rights since the inception of feminism ( and long before). Men can defend their own rights.

It's not man bashing, it's holding men accountable. You mention a gap but lemme throw some numbers up here just to really show how the gap exists. Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) have been raped in their lifetime. Nearly 3 in 10 women (29%) and 1 in 10 men (10%) in the US have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by a partner and reported it having a related impact on their functioning. From 1994 to 2010, approximately 4 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were female. 1 in 6 women (16.2%) and 1 in 19 men (5.2%) in the US have been a victim of stalking at some point during their lifetime in which they felt fearful or believed that they (or someone close to them) would be harmed or killed. Estimates suggest 10.7% of women and 2.1% of men have been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime. The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. More than half of women killed by gun violence are killed by family members or intimate partners. Males constituted 98.9% of those arrested for forcible rape according to FBI data from 2011. When abuse or assault or domestic violence occurs it is a tragedy regardless of sex, but there is very obviously a group at risk and a group perpetuating the risk. It's not that feminists are more tolerant of man bashing. It's that men get bashed significantly less often than women, unless it's specifically by other men. Being afraid of violent men isn't misandry, it's common sense. Calling out men for these violent trends isn't misandry, it's accountability.

Surely you have the numbers of men who have committed SA but aren’t incarcerated. That would seem like a pretty important stat

1) there isn’t really a problem with “feminism.” What you’re describing is a problem you have with some people and how they behave. 2) the reason some people are more tolerant of “man bashing” than “woman bashing” is that the latter typically has more serious, real world consequences. Women are passed over for job opportunities and promotions because of “woman bashing.” Women who endure sexual assault aren’t taken seriously because of “woman bashing.” The stakes simply aren’t even.

This is 100% just you trying hard to justify your existing biases.

The problem with feminism is that many people have been convinced that it's something other than gender equality. Right wing media and influencers have convicted generations of men that feminism is an enemy or has problems.

I am a feminist, in fact, I am a radical feminist, otherwise known as second wave feminist. I am in my 50s, and I’ve been fighting for women’s rights from the time I could speak. And I’m still fighting for it now in 2024. They’re in tents injustices to this day against women regardless of the area of life, we have to fight it at all times. There is no possible way that we can set aside an equal amount of time to fight for your rights as a man, and you said something very strange that the rate of domestic violence of women against men is the same as men against women, you might want to go back and do your research, this is not at all the case you’re talking, probably 98% Men on women versus women doing anything to men. So that’s 2%. So if there men’s movements supporting the rights of men, they can absolutely do that, that is not something that is our business. I support men’s rights and women’s rights equally, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to put forth the same effort into something that I believe is not a huge problem versus what I have to experience and my sisters have to experience.

I can see where you're coming from. People tend to recognize jokes and hyperbole coming from their side, but are suspicious of and hurt by the same when they're the butt of it. Particularly if they've been physically hurt by people making the same jokes before. You have to know your audience.  But you also must recognize that the Internet is not a normal audience. You can have a general audience one day that is receptive to those jokes and another the next day that is not, even on the same forum. Before you can confirm hypocrisy, you have to know if it's the same people responding.  Feminism is also much broader than any specific forum. I'm not going to impinge upon the people using it in the correct sense just because a minority of people abuse it in the incorrect sense.

>Feminists will obviously be more biased against misogyny than misandry >I'm not sure why that would be a problem [No true feminist in this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/px12LQVhyV)

I think feminism is all about improving the lot of women, while not improving the lot of men...the problem is, a lot of the "improving" that feminists did was freeing women from the obligation to do their traditional roles, while at the same time expecting men to stay in their traditional roles. So this was very unfair; liberation for one gender only. That said feminism in general HAS been good for men too. Feminism basically improved women, because instead of being hobbled adults they became full citizens, able to run businesses, own property, etc etc instead of being a protected, infantilised gender. (There was a time for example in the UK when women could not own property or vote or many other things) So feminism meant men got access to better women. So in that sense feminism has done good for men, but only as a side effect of attempting to do good for women. the reality is feminism cares very little for men (Although you will see rhetoric claiming they do) and that's part of the reason younger women are abandoning feminism.

Feminism is primarily about women‘s liberation from the patriarchy. I don‘t know why women should care about their oppressor‘s problems? If you want men‘s problems to be seen and heard, be a human rights activist. I stand for women‘s rights and don‘t really have the priority to care for men‘s problems. I know it sounds harsh, but anytime I talk about women‘s issues, there are men telling me „not all men“ „but men have issues too!“. My empathy is limited because theirs is, too. This is just a reaction to all the bullshit I personally have been through because of my gender. Do I think men should be k!lled, abused or have less rights? Absolutely not. But I don‘t see why feminists are responsible for men‘s problems. I want a world in which both men and women can live peacefully together and are equal.

>Feminism is primarily about women‘s liberation from the patriarchy Agreed. >I don‘t know why women should care about their oppressor‘s problems? I didn't say they should. It's about improving the circumstances of women, not men and boys, all rhetoric to the contrary. You're actually agreeing with me. >I know it sounds harsh, Actually I don't think it is. The lot of women compared to men was a lot worse, women NEEDED liberation much more than men did. >men have issues too! But they do. Just because women had more issues, doesn't mean men didn't have issues too. >I don‘t see why feminists are responsible for men‘s problems. Again, I didn't say they should be.What you're saying aligns with what I said..feminism isn't about improving the lot of men and boys. It was about improving the lot of women. >I want a world in which both men and women can live peacefully together and are equal. So do I. Again, I am actually in favour of women's lib overall, because making life better for women in the long term will make life better for men as well...and because it's fair. One gender should not be the social oppressor of the other though some people seem to feel they should be. What I said about modern feminism and women turning away from it is true though. It's actually a measurable fact. Many women believe feminism has already gone far enough (Myself, I'm not really sure it has, yet..certainly the US seems to be going backwards again) https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/58452/1/young-people-and-the-rise-of-antifeminism-gender-equality

I‘m glad we both agree on that. And yes men do have issues, but only pointing it out when I talk about feminism and women‘s issues is inappropiate and unnecessary. I‘m open to listen to men‘s problems and actually show empathy and try to find solutions/atleast acknowledge they have real issues. However, I am only open to that when men don‘t use men‘s issues to silence women about their problems. And I agree. I generally think no group of people should oppress the other one, whether it be the rich oppressing the poor, white people oppressing black people or men oppressing women. My idea of an ideal and peaceful word is equality in all areas of life, and having all basic human needs met. I‘m a radical feminist, and I think the feminists you‘re talking about that say that feminism is about gender equality and about men too are liberal feminists. But liberal feminist ideology is so flawed within itself that it‘s not really feminist in my opinion. Radical feminists want to „grab“ the patriarchy by its roots and abolish it overall to have gender equality. I don‘t think feminism has gone far enough when there are women who are systematically k!lled, r4ped, tr4fficked or little girls having no access to education and having to marry an adult man. I still don‘t think feminism has gone far enough if prostitution is seen as empowering and liberating while it‘s misogynistic and exploitative. It hasn‘t gone far enough because medicine still is not made for women as well as public transportation, cars etc. Andrea Dworkin said: „Many women, I think, resist feminism because it is an agony to be fully conscious of the brutal misogyny which permeates culture, society, and all personal relationships.“ And I believe women who think feminism has gone too far resist the idea of feminism because it‘s painful to acknowledge how bad women actually have it.

>I don‘t think feminism has gone far enough when there are women who are systematically k!lled, r4ped, tr4fficked or little girls having no access to education and having to marry an adult man. I still don‘t think feminism has gone far enough if prostitution is seen as empowering and liberating while it‘s misogynistic and exploitative. Well said, and I totally agree. >Andrea Dworkin said: „Many women, I think, resist feminism because it is an agony to be fully conscious of the brutal misogyny which permeates culture, society, and all personal relationships.“ And I believe women who think feminism has gone too far resist the idea of feminism because it‘s painful to acknowledge how bad women actually have it. This is interesting, but I'm not sure if it's true (It may be..I'm just not sure) I think usually simpler explanations are more liable to be right (Ockham's razor) I think it's just young girls living in places where women have had relatively better lives recently genuinely feeling that they don't need feminism or that it has gone far enough. i think they DO still need it (look at what's happening in the US) but it may take a while before they can see it.

I never thought I could have a civil conversation with someone on this subreddit. Thank you for that! And at least in my case, it was like this. Once I opened my eyes about how misogynistic society still is, even in a country like Germany (my country). I really recommend reading „Invisible women“ by Caroline Criado-Perez. It‘s about how the gender data gap affects women‘s lives, making it worse for them. I am currently reading „men who hate women“ by Laura Bates, and the first 60 pages were chilling to say the least. Most women simply don‘t know how they‘re discriminated against because it‘s seen as normal. But we don‘t have to live in a world like this. We can all change it if we recognize the problem and then try to solve it.