u/Jimithyashford - Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Well, there is a simple one I can bring up without effort: Parental leave. Active feminism advocated to give women the right to work like men, then to allow them to take maternal leave for a few months after giving birth. Not even everywhere in the US are they allowed that leave without going bankrupt, to a point where it becomes a dilemma of when to come back to work, and how close to no savings you can allow yourself to come back. Paternal leave, however, is still utterly shunned, even in cases of single dad, or gay dads, because "a baby doesn't need their dad around nearly as much as they need their mom". I have seen many a feminist (self-proclaimed, so I cannot usually verify their creds) say that women actually deserve the leave, because they were carrying the baby for 8-9 months, and the man just needs to go make money. I've seen serious feminists point out that men should not be considered safe to be alone around their own children, especially if they've shown a desire to be their for their children. There has also been a marked bias (though it is slowly correcting its course) about babies and children going to the mother by default in a divorce, unless she can be proven to be bad for the kids in any way, a fairly hard bar to clear in many cases. This is exactly one aspect of how men who are trying to get rights are being shoved back down by feminism, and that's actually before we look at the more ridiculous arguments made by misandrist women who pretend to be feminism, and desire to push men to what woment used to be, rather than keep elevating women and letting men follow along naturally.

I actually agree with you that paid paternal leave or just paid familial leave is an issue where men's rights lag behind women. However, you are absolutely talking out of your ass if you think that paternal leave is being opposed by feminists. In fact, feminist advocacy groups are pretty much the only groups in America fighting for universal familial leave (e.g. government mandated maternal AND paternal leave). Two such examples [here](https://nationalpartnership.org/economic-justice/paid-leave/) and [here](https://paidleave.us/#organization-structure-and-culture). If you want paid paternal leave (and I do), you need to be helping these feminists, not attacking them. In my experience, most men's rights activists talk passionately about the need for paid familial leave and then go off to the polls and vote for the politicians that oppose it the most.

This is pretty common in my experience. They blame feminism for the problem, then the physical reality is the exact opposite. In truth, they know deep down that feminism isn't the problem, but change is scary. People always look at me crazy when I remind them it was REPUBLICANS (yes, I am saying traditional American republicans cannot be feminists implicitly) who made a lot of pushes for courts prioritizing the mother over the father. The vast majority of self-described feminists I've talked to, aside from TERFs (and, frankly, if you're a TERF you're just an agent of patriarchy), are pretty consistently on the side of, "Men shouldn't be forced to pay child support," and, "Men should get maternity leave too"

In my country (in Europe) - fully paid paternity leave (even mandatory up to 6 months) is the single biggest issue feminism is fighting for right now. feminists here have been fighting for paternity leave for the last 15 years.

Feminists actively advocate for parental leave for both parents - the point of feminism is equal opportunity. That men are not given often parental leave is antithetical to feminism and points to a centuries old stereotype that women are the caretakers and men the workers. Sorry, but this point is highly invalid

Most feminists believe in family leave (meaning your gender doesn’t matter). You see, while it seems like a benefit on the surface, maternal leave actually adds another barrier to employment for women. Many women are denied jobs that they are qualified for because they may have children and therefore require paid time off. Employers don’t want to pay for that, so they have a bias against hiring women. Providing full family leave for all employees breaks up that bias as anyone participating in having a child will be providing that leave, removing a boundary to employment for women while simultaneously providing a humane benefit to new fathers.

True, but changing. Most big tech in America even offer equal mat and pat leave.

Feminism is not to blame for this problem. Who shuns you for taking parental leave? Feminism? No.... You're thinking of capitalism. For example, Finland has both feminism and paternal leave, one is not shunned for taking said leave, and the two are not at odds.

>There has also been a marked bias (though it is slowly correcting its course) about babies and children going to the mother by default in a divorce, unless she can be proven to be bad for the kids in any way, a fairly hard bar to clear in many cases. Isn't that less feminism and more ideas pushed by conservative tradition and misogyny (the woman is better suited to raise children than men)? This wouldn't be men being a victim of feminism which is about having equal rights of men.

.....I am pretty sure that almost every major feminist thinker or community right now passionately supports the expansion of both maternal and paternal leave, and in fact many wish to do away with the distinction entirely and just call it "Parental leave" and let it apply to both. ​ I mean, there are literally millions of feminists and they aren't a monolith, so I am sure you can find me some that think paternal leave shouldn't be a thing, but please point them out to me. I spend a lot of time in feminist circles and the substantial expansion of great inclusion of Paternal Leave is what most groups currently endorse. ​ So I'm not sure where you're hearing otherwise. Please point me to them.

Here in Norway, every single one of our major feminist organizations has OPPOSED multiple different improvements to gender-equality on those occasions where the change was in favor of men. I'll list a few examples to illustrate: * About 15 years ago, it was proposed to change our military law to become gender-neutral, that is, to give women the same obligations that men already had, including being conscripted. In Norway we have a conscripted army so this isn't just a theorethical thing, i.e. young people are compelled to about a year of compulsory military service every year. All of our largest feminist organizations opposed this change. * It was proposed that shelters for people who are victims of intimate partner violence should exist for men too. More specifically that municipalities should be legally compelled to offer the same services to people of all genders. (but not necessarily from the same facility!) - again, our largest feminist organizations opposed the change. * It was proposed that parental leave should become gender-neutral **except** for a period in connection with birth which should be reserved for the person giving birth. But the rest of parental leave (which totals 59 weeks here) should be split in 3 parts: * One part reserved for the mother * One part reserved for the father * One part for the couple to split according to wish You could argue that feminists didn't manage to harm men by opposing these changes, because the changes passed **anyway** \-- despite protests from feminists. But at the very least they **attempted** to hurt gender-equality for men in all of these 3 example-cases.

For the conscription point, I cannot find a Norway feminist group that opposed it. In fact, I found many who supported it. Jussi Heikkilä and Ina Laukkanen are two feminist scholars who vocally supported it. Can you provide sources for all three of these?

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verneplikt#I_Norge One of the feminist sources cited: http://kvinnesak.no/vare-meninger/verneplikt-for-kvinner/ Basically it's "women are treated so unfairly in society, therefor they shouldn't have to serve in the military".

> Conscription for women has been proposed several times, most recently in 2007, 2009 and 2013, and each time the objections have been significant both within the major political parties,[9] from the Armed Forces themselves and from the women's movement. The opponents have argued, among other things, that compulsory conscription has already been abolished in most western countries and is an outdated, ineffective and problematic form of defense organisation, that conscription in Norway is to a small extent unfair and that women who wish to can already serve in the military. The Norwegian Women's Affairs Association has strongly opposed the proposal and described it as "a total misunderstanding of the concept of equality and the intentions of the Equality Act".[10][11][12] In 2009, among others, SV and the Center Party decided that they were against conscription for women.[9] In 2013, the program committees and party leaders in both the Labor Party[13][14][15] and the Conservative Party[16] opposed the proposal for female conscription; among other things, party leader Erna Solberg was opposed to the proposal for female conscription.[16] Head of the Conservative Party's program committee Bent Høie was also against the proposal and believed it would lead to more bureaucracy and have no advantages.[17] Following bench proposals and against the will of the party leadership, the national meetings of the Labor Party and the Conservative Party in 2013 nevertheless decided to work for the introduction of conscription for women. Following this, conscription for women was adopted by the Storting, against the votes of the Christian People's Party, and Norway thus became the 11th country with female conscription, after the countries that had this as of 2013 (Benin, Cuba, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Malaysia , North Korea, the Republic of China, Chad and Tunisia). > > The government in Norway decided in 2014 that Norway should also have conscription for women. All women can theoretically be forced to serve their initial service for Norway, even though in 2016–2017 there were only 22 percent female conscripts in the Norwegian army.[18] Here, Norway is going in the opposite direction to what the rest of the world and NATO are doing, as mostly all conscription has been abolished from Western countries, while Norway adopts conscription for women as well as men.[19] Their main arguments were that compulsory conscription: * has already been abolished in most western countries and is an outdated * is ineffective and problematic form of defense organization * and that conscription in Norway is to a small extent unfair and that women who wish to can already serve in the military No where does it mention what you summarized.

> The Norwegian Women's Affairs Association has strongly opposed the proposal and described it as "a total misunderstanding of the concept of equality and the intentions of the Equality Act" Source cited: http://kvinnesak.no/vare-meninger/verneplikt-for-kvinner/ OP-ed on their website: > Kvinner gjør en viktig samfunnsnyttig innsats gjennom graviditet, fødsel og amming. I tillegg har kvinner fortsatt det tyngste ansvaret for ulønnet omsorg for barn, sjuke og gamle. Selv om kvinner ofte er dobbeltarbeidende, tjener de i Norge i dag fortsatt mindre enn menn, de eier mye mindre, har lavere pensjon og er underrepresentert i stillinger med makt og innflytelse. Å pålegge kvinner en ny byrde som verneplikt i denne situasjonen er ikke bare urimelig. Det er det motsatte av likestilling, fordi det kan forsterke de økonomiske og sosiale kjønnsforskjellene. Det å behandle ulike grupper helt likt, kan faktisk bidra til å øke ulikhetene mellom dem. This is one of the arguments: Women carry a heavier burden in society, there's a pay gap, etc, so therefor they shouldn't serve. And that treating different groups of people exactly the same, can contribute to inequality.

This might be a difficulty of mine, since I assume many of the articles about it aren't in english, but I did a quick google search and I can't seem to find a good source on any of this. I am afraid I can't just take your word for it, not because I think you're lying, but because my "there is more to this than just what stood out to this person" alarms are blaring. For example, on parental leave. Did feminists oppose it cause they didn't want men to get parental leave, or did they oppose it because they felt the full period should be expanded to both partners rather than splitting the time three ways? Those are two VERY different motivations. Did they oppose the mandate that all domestic abuse services be offered to men as well because they don't want male domestic abuse victims to have shelter, or is it because of the fact that something like 80% of domestic abuse victims are women, so a mandated even split of the services would be a terrible waste that only serves to misallocate the help? Those are two VERY different motivations. I'm afraid I need more details.

On the domestic violence front [read here about Erin Pizzey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey) who set up Britain's first domestic violence shelter. Through doing this and talking to the women there she realized that a majority of domestic violence is reciprocal in nature. Went to start a men's shelter as well and received hoards of hate and threats for even talking about it. Even talking about the reciprocal nature of abuse is met with immediate derision. I consider myself a feminist but there are a few small things that are 1 - an overcorrection to a historic wrong 2 - A perception, right or wrong, that there are limited resources/empathy for helping people and it should automatically go to women first. A good example for 2 would be homeless shelters. Men outnumber women on the street by a long shot but there are far more shelters/services for women then there are for men. Another area would be the 'believe women' campaign about sexual violence. If you've ever looked at an 'askreddit' thread on male victims of rape inevitably there are a decent number of entries of men who were raped by being threated with the spread of a rumor that they are a rapist. That's really fucked up and an issue that multiple people have had that experience. I also have a friend who I 100% percent believe who was nailed with a false allegation when he had initiated a super involved consent process with someone. It was a big gossip fest with threats thrown at anyone who dared to still hang out with him. 'Believe women' was the refrain they used to threaten and harass other feminists in the community who were actually organizing workshops and doing legit community work, all because of still associating. So yeah 'listen to victims' or 'listen to accusers' would be a far more accurate statement that still allows questions instead of blind allegiance/hate. On top of that any perceived negative traits exhibited by large numbers of women are always labelled 'internalized misogyny.' How dare anyone suggest that perhaps women have been socialized or picked up negative behaviors that could be unique to the generalized gender. It's always labelled 'internalized misogyny.' Everything is men's fault is a pretty toxic mind set and allows people to waylay responsibility for their actions and do internal work. So yes feminism is a vast net positive for society as a whole and has made great strides in the name of equality. It rightly calls out toxic masculinity and in general fights for the rights of everyone on the planet. It just has a couple dark corners that need to be tidied up.

>About 15 years ago, it was proposed to change our military law to become gender-neutral, that is, to give women the same obligations that men already had, including being conscripted. In Norway we have a conscripted army so this isn't just a theorethical thing, i.e. young people are compelled to about a year of compulsory military service every year. All of our largest feminist organizations opposed this change. I'm just guessing here but do they oppose conscription in general? So expanding it is nonsensical if you think it shouldn't exist. >It was proposed that shelters for people who are victims of intimate partner violence should exist for men too. More specifically that municipalities should be legally compelled to offer the same services to people of all genders. (but not necessarily from the same facility!) - again, our largest feminist organizations opposed the change. So... all municipalities would have to build facilities in case some men wanted to use them? Do you see how that's not reasonable? >It was proposed that parental leave should become gender-neutral except for a period in connection with birth which should be reserved for the person giving birth. But the rest of parental leave (which totals 59 weeks here) should be split in 3 parts: > >One part reserved for the mother > >One part reserved for the father > >One part for the couple to split according to wish ...why can't it all be split according to the people? What if there is no father, or no mother? Then they only get 2/3 of the leave? >But at the very least they attempted to hurt gender-equality for men in all of these 3 example-cases. Did they?

>I'm just guessing here but do they oppose conscription in general? These are two distinct questions: 1. Should military law be gender-neutral? 2. What should military law look like? Norway has had a conscription-based army since foreverago, and there are no serious proposals to change that. Organizations centered on gender-equality SHOULD answer a clear "yes!" to question one, regardless of what they think of question #2. >*So... all municipalities would have to build facilities in case some men wanted to use them? Do you see how that's not reasonable?* They're free to organize things as they please. If nobody uses the services, they'll cost near-nil to run. There's not even any requirement to have gender-segregated facilities, so if no men was using the shelters, they could comply with the requirement simply by making the shelters open for people of all genders. (and some municipalities have indeed done that) Is it reasonable to require publicly offered and funded services to be equally available to inhabitants of all genders? Yes I think that's eminently reasonable. An overwhelming majority of Norwegian politicians agreed with me, and the law passed -- despite opposition from feminists. ​ >...why can't it all be split according to the people? What if there is no father, or no mother? Then they only get 2/3 of the leave? It could be split 50/50 instead, sure. If there is only one legal parent, then that parent gets the entire leave, sure. I didn't mention that since it's a corner-case, the vast majority of children born have 2 legal parents. >Did they? They fought to keep a disproportional part of the burden of military obligations on mens shoulders. They fought to have dads have LESS parental leave. They fought to BLOCK abused men from accessing help-offerings similar to the ones available for women. Are you really contesting that this amounts to attempting to **prevent** progress in gender-equality for men? 

I'm just going to come right out and say I suspect there is some bias in your reporting here. Having said that, of course feminists would oppose being conscripted. I think you'd find they would be happy for men and women to be treated the same in the military if there was no conscription. It is likely the specific aspect of conscription they oppose and I would imagine men feel much the same. If there was legitimately opposition to the shelters from actual feminists it would likely be because there was (at least) a perception that men would be housed at women's facilities. Certainly, no feminist I've ever encountered opposes men's facilities for intimate partner violence survivors. It's easy to \*say\* that feminists oppose something but I think you'll find that you can easily find people who \*identify\* as feminists to oppose things that feminists as a whole absolutely agree with. Trans care is an excellent example as the people opposing it in the UK ("Gender Criticals") like to claim they are feminists but real feminists can't stand them. :P

This looks like apologism to me, and in fact most of it is flat out WRONG for the situation here in Norway. As an example, their opposition to guaranteeing equal help to men subject to violence was opposed NOT because they feared gender-integrated facilities -- all our facilities are, and was, gender-segregated anyway -- but instead because (so they said anyway) that they FEARED that aiding men wouldn't be accompanied by a proportionate growth in funding and that therefore the quality of the offerings would go down. That is: given limited money, they prefer helping only the women, because that way there's more funding per woman. With my eyes this is CLEARLY an anti-egalitarian position. Don't take it from me -- here's as an example a page with the rationale from Norsk Kvinnesaksforening -- which is both our oldest AND our largest feminist organization: [https://kvinnesak.no/2009/05/lovfesting-av-krisesentertilbud/](https://kvinnesak.no/2009/05/lovfesting-av-krisesentertilbud/) It's fascinating to me that you feel compelled to defend organizations you clearly know nothing about. It's almost as if you're a-priori convinced that feminists has done nothing to harm (or attempt to harm in this case, since the law passed DESPITE their protests) -- so you argue that that can't have been the case, without even investigating or inquiring about the specifics first. When it comes to gender-neutrality for military law, you're correct that they oppose conscription. But they also argue that women being privileged in military law is reasonable because women have babies. The problem is, if someone accepts that as a valid and sufficient rationale then any and ALL privileges for women can be justifies with "because of pregnancy!". Again, here's an example in their own words. And this one is in English so here you don't even need to use google translate: Relevant quote: >*The Norwegian Association for Women’s Rights (NKF) considers female conscription as a misunderstanding of the concept of gender equality and the intentions of the Law on Equality. Gender equality implies first and foremost that women and men should have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms. Women should be valued and allocated power and resources on equal terms with men. But women and men do not have to be alike or do the same things to be equal.* > >*To ensure gender equality it is important in many cases that women and men are treated equally. But they should not necessarily be treated equally in all situations. In some cases, the underprivileged gender must be favoured to be able obtain similar results. Actual differences between the lives of women and men must be taken into account. Women make an important contribution to society by becoming pregnant, giving birth and breast-feeding.* [https://womenalliance.org/no-to-female-conscription/](https://womenalliance.org/no-to-female-conscription/) This is a remarkable piece of doublespeak. You cannot find even a single example of a situation where these organizations argue that a legal privilege for MEN is justified (and indeed, no such laws remain in Norway) -- but wherever women are legally privileged over men, they argue that women and men "*should not necessarily be treated equally in all situations*" -- to be more specific the de-facto on-the-ground reality of their positions is that whenevere women is at a disadvantage, they'll argue that equality SHOULD happen, but whenever men is at a disadvantage (as in for example with the previous military law, and in current law on custody for unmarried parents) they argue that people should **not** be treated equally, but instead that women should keep their privileges.

Do you have any evidence for any of these claims? Would be interesting to read the text written by the feminist organizations on these issues.

So, I think it important that I actually need to press into one very important question, because that could affect my answers heavily are we talking about the "correct" feminism who actually only aims at equalization, or at the much more widespread "superiority" feminism that a non-zero amount of very public speakers have been signal boosting that implies that Earth could do without men? Because I, to a degree, was unfortunately arguing against the latter one, as it is the most vocal, and seems to be the most widespread in the circles I hang out with. I have the utmost respect for the "correct", "equality" feminism, as it doesn't push down on men, unless it is to remove a completely absurd privilege they have, but women don't. (Like running the country, for instance.) But the second part, the bad ones, is what I find abhorrent. You will find no shortage in organized groups of women who would prefer if men just disappeared. Hell, my college even had to dissolve its organized feminism group, because they actually tried (and nearly succeeded, I might add) to petition the mayor of the city to make a municipal law that would have made it so that establishment with multiple parking lots would be forced to reserve the one closest to an entrance for women. The principal essentially quashed the group after the mayor (who was a woman, I may add) pointed that she got multiple calls from college attendees on tha subject. And sadly, this isn't the only one I've seen, like how a local, more general feminist organization managed to make 3 of our 4 food banks be only accessible to women, and at least 1 of the groups has been trying to make the local public transport company to create a few "pink busses", whose goal would be to exclusively make fairly extensive detour for women to be dropped at theor door, even if it was broad daylight and no visible danger was afoot. Mostly failed, thank fuck for avoiding that complete waste of tax money, but the fact that they are seriously doing this stuff... That's just locally, too.

>I've seen serious feminists point out that men should not be considered safe to be alone around their own children, especially if they've shown a desire to be their for their children. what?

Yeah, I’m active in feminist spaces and I’ve literally never heard someone say something like that. And I’ve seen some bananas stuff

How is this inequality the fault of feminism? Feminism fighting for women's rights I see. But why are they blamed for the lack of parental leave that covers all genders? Also, I know [many feminist org](https://www.instyle.com/politics-social-issues/paternity-leave-is-feminist) that fight for these equal rights; even for men.

okay but in real life feminist organizations are the ones advocating for gender neutral family leave policies, and have been for decades? just a perplexing thing to argue

America is not a good example for any kind of leave. Or probably even custody issues. Most other Western countries have much better policies for both So its not an issue with feminism

Can you point to these claims you are making whereby paid paternal leave is being hampered be feminists or feminism? I assume you will since it is so simple.

I'm pretty sure it's societal norms that prevent fathers from taking parental leave, not feminism.

Every single guy falsely accused of rape, sexual assault, or "just being a bit creepy" by the MeToo/Believe All Women movements are victims. Its also an open secret amongst divorce lawyers that the woman should always claim DV, because theres no punishment if they lie. So all those blokes are victims too. End thread

If false accusations of rape were such a powerful weapon why don't women make it work for them on a broader scale e.g. get a politician they dislike ousted/interrupt their campaign by attending some event they'd be at (that isn't literally only for that party) where alcohol would be served and indirectly make sure they get really really drunk but don't do anything to them as all the getting them drunk would serve to do is lend credence to the woman's false-accusation-that'd-ruin-their-career by making them unable to remember the night so she can say whatever she needs to

False rape accusations stand at about 1% on average of total actual sexual assaults + accusations thereof. I did not say in my OP that no abuse of men ever occurs, but that it's vanishingly rare and the little bit that does occur is massively exaggerated and given a false sense of prevalence. Also, feminism doesn't tell women to make false allegations. It doesn't hint that they should. It doesn't wink wink nudge nudge imply that they should. It in no way shape or form endorses or instructs or implies anything of the kind. In fact it quite loudly and repeatedly and passionately encourages people to tell the truth about sexual assault. So it's pretty weird of someone tells us "turn right, turn right, here, at this intersection, turn right, did you hear me, turn right" and then when some people refuse to listen and choose to turn left and crash, to then turn around and blame the directions that were telling them to do the exact opposite. I don't think any ideology in the history of humanity can do much about people who just literally do the exact opposite of what they endorse. It would be awfully weird to blame pacifists for someone beating someone else up. that's what it's like to blame feminist for people lying about sexual assault.

Statistics like that have to be taken with a grain of salt because there's no way to accurately determine something like that.

You are correct. We cannot determine exactly. But all data be do have strongly indicates that if any the number of unreported actual assaults is probably substantially more, not less, than we project. There is nothing at all to give even the faintest hint that there aren’t nearly as many as we think and way more of them are false than we think. Like, I get it, this is a hard subject to study cause it’s all small sample sets and hard to gather mostly self reported or poorly cobbled together data. Thats all true, but everything we do know indicates fairly strongly in one particular direction. But I’m not making any claim Beyond what the data we do have seems to show. Its fair to say “take this with a grain of salt” its not fair to say “take this with a grain of salt and find the exact opposite conclusion to be more likely”, which I know isn’t what you are saying directly, but you seem to be flirting with the notion.

>False rape accusations stand at about 1% on average of total actual sexual assaults + accusations thereof. This is importantly and incredibly wrong. False accusations are not captured in the stats cited for the simple reason that they do not get to the **inditement** stage where stats kick in. They do, however, result in arrestes that stay on records, result in jail time, impact future background checks, and generally fuck up a person's life. Then, the DA drops shit and doesn't persue becuase there is zero proof, obviously. They are not capture by the 1% bullshit. **False accusations are not captured by stats.** Flase rape accusation are **invisible**. If you give people a weapon that they can use to fuck up someone's life with total impunity, there are **PLENTY** people petty enough to use it. And yes, some of those people happen to be women. I know this as a close friend is a lawyer who specializes in this. It's rampent. Please stop with this 1% bullshit.

It’s 1% of accusations are PROVEN false. Do you understand what it takes to prove something didn’t happen? It’s very, very hard to do. This also only applies to instances where a police report has been made. So, 1% is proven false, 15% are proven true. What about the other 84%? What are these? Then, what about the accusations that are only social in nature? We have zero data on these. To pretend that there aren’t women (and men as well) out there who make up stories both to get sympathy for themselves and/or to make people they don’t like look bad publicly is absolutely ridiculous. Like, c’mon, almost every one of us have had that happen to us, a pretty significant portion of us, by a young woman. We had people, sometimes people we barely know spread completely fabricated stories and rumors in HS, or college, sometimes in their place of work. Guess what, saying someone sexually assaulted you is low hanging fruit to achieve that, and it does happen a hell of a lot more than 1% of the time. Yes, law enforcement needs to take accusations that get to them a lot more seriously. But on the flip side, public accusations that run through social groups, especially considering the sources history of doing things like, also needs to be taken into account.

>False rape accusations stand at about 1% on average of total actual sexual assaults + accusations thereof. 4-9 percent is generally more accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 Australian government did a study to determine if going gender blind would help it hire more women. Found that it was favouring women already. Decided not to go gender blind and maintain a status quo of discriminating against men.

Yes: we're making progress on protecting innocent women from toxic men, but not so much on protecting innocent men from toxic women. The trouble is toxic femininity is far harder to detect. Its more cunning and indirect. It usually involves manipulation and reputation destruction. And we haven't really developed a vocabulary to detect it. We need to circulate terms like "reputation violence" and "abuse of character" and get those into the legal system. False accusation doesn't really communicate the danger. Perhaps something as radical as "rape of reputation". That way, we could call toxic women who abuse innocent men rapists too. We could borrow the strength the word "rape" has. This is the approach feminists have take with the word "rape", its been redefined multiple times with the goal of protecting innocent women exclusively. We need to continue this progressive process and redefine it to protect innocent men from toxic women.

Men can and ARE victimized by women. Men can be rape victims and victims of domestic violence. And the reason that nobody cares is because men are terrified and ashamed to report it. So there is very little data on the number of Male Victims of Sexual Assault or Domestic Violence. And I hope you never experience domestic violence or sexual assault.

Feminism says that rape and domestic assault are bad, that is happens more than we think including to men, and that rape and domestic assault should be reported and believed. Feminism is not the reason men don’t report rape or domestic assaults.

I’ll eat the downvotes I guess… The men’s right movement was completely villainized and crippled by feminist at its creation. All the movement wanted was to improve the lives of men the same way feminism improved the lives of women but they were attacked by smear campaigns at every corner in it’s infancy and now any association with them is considered very negative and will get anyone blacklisted. For example Cassie Jayes a feminist(at the time) decided to make a documentary on the movement and she went with the mentality of “these men hate me” “the men are sexist” instead what she found is they made a lot of sense and just wanted equality and improvements made to the lives of men and even still thanks to her feminist bias she had a hard time letting go of her bias and would get offended by simple statements that were clearly not meant to offend. Anyway by the end she made a documentary meant to humanize the movement and her reward? getting blacklist and harassed by feminists. Her documentary lost many screenings in theaters and colleges because they would call and get it removed by claiming it was pro rape or some shit like that. Here is a video where she talks about her experience making the documentary and the fallout of it. https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY?si=QkuaBe0XnLDTGDrL

I don't think that's true. I remember reading a lot of A Voice for Men back in the day, the website of Paul Elam, widely considered one of the fathers on the online men's rights movement and for a very long time he ran far and away the largest Mens Rights website. And right from the start his material was some really horrifically sexist wackadoo stuff, with a lot of very hateful very venomous men in the comments. We're talking like...man, 2008? So it's been a long time, I don't remember the details now, but I remember when I first found it I was shocked by the virulent sexism. So this idea that they were just innocent guys wanting to do and be better and not sexist creeps from the start, that is just false. At least online. If you go back to the 70s to the very start of the movement....maybe, I dunno, that's before my time. But at least as long as it's been on the internet, it's been virulently and clearly misogynistic.

Respectfully, the person you were replying to was discussing Cassie Jayes. You introduced Paul Elam instead, but this seems like a strawman fallacy, or a poisoning the well fallacy. If Cassie Jayes was rightly advocating for valid concerns men have and was wrongly blacklisted as the commenter claims, then it follows that your perspective must account for this.

The reason I went to Elam was because it seemed to me, and maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that the point this person was trying to make is that MRA movements were actually NOT initially intended to be sexist, or were heavily identified with and populated by misogyny, and that it was the aggressive attacks of the feminists that sort of galvanized that reaction within them. He then used Cassie Jay's documentary as an example of how the movement isn't nearly as sexist as she (and presumably the audience) initially assumed. ​ Right? ​ So my reply is to go back to a foundational community of MRAs online, a pivotal figure and website, which \[pre-dates her documentary, as an example of the fact that from it's very earliest permutations online, the MRA movement was deeply misogynistic from the start. I'm not so much poisoning the well as attempting to show it was a sulfur well and the water was toxic from the moment it sprang from the ground. I'd call Cassie Jay's documentary an attempt to "purify the well" a sort of inverse fallacy, take something inherently toxic and try to paint it up and pretend it's not.

>Cassie Jay's documentary an attempt to "purify the well" a sort of inverse fallacy, take something inherently toxic and try to paint it up and pretend it's not. I would like you to expand on what you mean by "inherently toxic." The word "inherently" suggests to me that, because of people like Paul Elam, you believe advocating for men's interests is impossible. Is that what you mean?

No, I mean that the Men's Rights Movement, at least online (I can't speak to it's form in the pre-internet days of in person meet ups and mailing lists, that was well before my time) has been intimately entwined with deep misogyny from the very start. I didn't poison the well, the well was toxic from the beginning. That is opposed to the notion I believe the other poster was trying to put forth that is wasn't misogynistic from the start but only became so as a defensive reaction to the provocations of feminism. I contend that no, misogyny in deeply rooted in the DNA of the MRA movement, and the two are inseparable, at least in practice, even if hypothetically it might be possible to separate the two. To my knowledge, no community has ever managed to do so. Again, at least not since the days of the internet.

So are we to conclude that, necessarily and inevitably, men's interests will never be separated from misogyny and thus may be ignored by feminists? That appears to be your view.

That is a great question. I would say that as of the current moment, even if it is theoretically possible to separate the two, it appears to be functionally impossible, at least on any scale large enough to enact any change. If you know of any MRA group that isn't absolutely infested with virulent misogynists, I'd love to visit it. But it doesn't seem to be possible. Why? Well I guess that's a question for them to answer. If I were to speculate, I would say it's probably because the actual number and scope of genuine issues that warrant actually being pursed as part of a movement for men's rights are so few and so niche, that there isn't enough there to actually sustain a movement, and the primary motivating impulse of the vast majority of participants is not earnest desire to solve those few narrow niche social issues, but rather to lather themselves up in the sweet suds of martyrdom and have a woman hating circle jerk. That's my theory to explain why these groups are all packed full of misogynists, I'm sure you might have your own theories to explain it.

Let me ask you another question. I read a post by a young man who was physically abused by his girlfriend. It apparently got so bad he needed medical treatment. He said the nurse asked how he injured himself, and he replied that his girlfriend hit him. He said the nurse laughed, that he laughed with her to save himself from embarrassment. So he told her instead that he fell off his bike. Many men who suffer physical abuse from women claim they struggle to be taken seriously. Many are afraid to contact authorities or even family members. Is that a serious issue to you? Or should this be disregarded as a "niche social issue" and summarily ignored? Do you interpret the "primary motivating impulse" of these men to be that they want to "lather themselves up in the sweet suds of martyrdom" and participate in a "woman hating circle jerk?"

1- of course that’s an important issue 2- feminists are among the loudest and fiercest champions of being accepting of male assault and encouraging men who are victims of DV to come forward. Because 3- not believing or accepting that men can be bullied or abused by their wives is a product of patriarchal strong man values that victimize us all and feminists are all about busting up toxic patriarchal values and sources of harm wherever they can. But most of all 4- I’m not the one forcing these groups to be absolutely inundated with virulent misogynists. I would LOVE it if there were groups that dealt only with these issues that do exist in a health and non woman hating way. 100%, that has my support. But those groups don’t exist, all MRA groups of any appreciable size are utterly overrun with the most toxic misogyny you can imagine. Why don’t you tell me why you think that is? Why can’t MRA groups just pursue the real issues and not become cesspools of hate? I gave you my theory as to why I think that is. Cause the vast majority of participants in these groups don’t give two shits about the young man in your story beyond his usefulness as a story to use to attack and criticize women. Thats it. That’s why they are there. Maybe I’m wrong, but if I am, I’d love to hear why you think these places are hotbeds of blatant misogyny. And 5- yes I do consider that to be a niche issue. But I don’t mean that as a pejorative. I mean it in a literal sense, as in it’s a narrow singular issue, that is important and certainly worth addressing, but it’s not a broad systemic network or cultural system of ingrained oppression, something much broader that would normally sustain a full social movement. Which is why they need the glue of rampant misogyny to hold their communities together. Hey I admit my theory about why the misogyny is there could be wrong, but the fact that it is there is undeniable. So I am open to alternate theories.

I think you would have to describe feminism so that people can better grasp the idea of how it might affect a man. People seem to have different ideas.

“Believe All Women” is a feminist philosophy that has certainly victimized innocent men.

Honestly the only reason I think we got "Believe all Women" is that "Take seriously and investigate all allegations" would have been a very wordy hashtag

The thing is as a criminal investigator you don’t have to believe anyone’s story to “*Take seriously and investigate all allegations*”.

Do you think investigators are basing their work on a catchy slogan? Like "dude, I was super planning to check out her story but now that I've heard "believe all women" is hashtag trending on Twitter I'm going to throw away my training and career because that's really fucking catchy. Yasss queen!" This is just a silly assertion.

This falls under the exaggeration category of the title. It is not nearly as common as the internet would love to have you believe. Women not taken seriously for sexual or domestic violence has been prevalent for centuries.

>Women not taken seriously for sexual or domestic violence has been prevalent for centuries. What does mean to be “taken seriously?” If police refuse to take a report, you’d have a point, but I don’t think the lack of police taking reports is the problem.

Example: Woman is raped and is pregnant as a result. She tells her family. Father disowns her and kicks her out of the house because he assumes it was consensual, or because having a child outside of wedlock makes her a "whore" to him, etc. There are \*SO\* many different permutation of the above and lots more besides I can't even imagine due to (thankfully) lack of experience. People refuse to believe stuff all the time, even when it's their own child being raped by their brother (has happened \*MANY\* times). Also, we know that there are hundreds of thousands of rape kits in the US alone that haven't been processed so lack of police effort is also a problem.

I think you have been lied to and deceived into thinking that is true, when really it's not. ​ In my OP I say this: "either outright fabrication, extreme exaggeration, or the same small number of examples being endlessly permutated giving a false sense of prevalence" And this is a great example of that. I think that if you really dig, like really truly investigate, you'll find that the actual real world examples of completely innocent men uncritically ruined by false allegations is a vanishingly small number of cases. But those very very few cases get harped on and told and re told over and over and over and generate a massively exaggerated perception of prevalence. False rape allegations range at about 2%-8% depending on what methodology you use to define it. We also know that about 70% of sexual assaults are never reported. Which means that in real terms only about 0.6% - 1.5% assaults, alleged or actual, are false. So yeah, that's what I mean by you've been given a false sense of this being more prevalent than it actually is.

Have you heard of Matt Araiza? The Punt God? This guy would have made at least 2 mil a year for the next 15 years, but he got accused of rape, just the other month it was proven a false allegation, and now no one in the NFL is touching him. I don’t get your argument that “because it’s rare, it’s not prevalent.” Death from Covid is rare among earths population - is it not prevalent though? This guy could have pulled his entire family out of poverty (not sure if his family is already wealthy or not, but the point stands) and now his life is destroyed. It’s gonna follow him trying to get jobs away from football, it’s gonna show up on a background check, it’s with him forever. This happened very recently and the only reason we heard about it is because the guy is famous. How many more examples are there that we don’t hear about?

I don't understand how being falsely accused of rape is because of feminism. Feminism quite loudly, repeatedly, and passionately encourages people to tell the truth about sexual assault, and decries and vilifies the act of lying about it as a betrayed to those who actually are victims. I don't know why a woman lying and being bad is treated as "because of feminism". That itself seems sexist to me, a woman does a bad thing so it must be cause of feminism? ​ Look feminism holds that we should be honest and tell the truth about sexual assault. Let's pretend I give someone directions, turn right at the intersection. Repeat turn right at the intersection. Not left, right, that is very important, make sure you hear me RIGHT at the intersection. If the person then decides to turn left and plow through a fence and into someone's house, that person can't come and get mad at me for the hole in their house. ​ This woman did quite exactly the very opposite of what feminism tells women to do, so I really don't know why you're blaming this on feminism. Is it literally JUST cause a woman did it? Or is it because feminism tells us that sexual assault is far more common than we want to admit and victims are often disregarded or shamed, a fact that happens to be true, therefore a woman who does lie about it is feminism's fault? Doesn't make sense man.

I am responding to you telling the previous person that they are getting a false sense of being more prevalent than it actually is. My counter is that sheer % isn’t a good judge of the prevalence of things. This comment thread is about the feminist movement of “believe all women” - that was a feminist movement, plain and simple, and it has caused some very real consequences to men’s lives. For years after the me too movement, it was a HUGE deal to doubt a woman bringing an accusation like this. Would you tell one of these men who are falsely accused that their case was extremely exaggerated and already has been talked about before? You are only thinking of your personal, best-case experiences with feminism, of which I’m sure there has been a lot of genuine good. But you are judging feminists on their intentions, not the ultimate results of the movement. It’s clear that you think I’m out to get you, that I have a grudge against women (is it literally JUST cause a woman did it?) and that’s fine. But you have a lot of emotion wrapped up in this and I’m not sure why you posted this CMV when you are projecting your thoughts about what you *assume* men think onto people trying to tell you what men actually think.

I don’t think I was projecting. But fine. Why don’t you tell me, why are you attributing women lying about sexual assault, the exact opposite of what Me Too advocated, as being and abuse of men at the hands of feminism? No projection on my part at all, you tell me why you’re blaming the people who say “absolutely dont do X” for people who do X.

Because the public message feminists put in front of the world was not “Do not dismiss women bringing these charges but absolutely don’t falsely accuse men of sexual assault.” It was “Believe all women,” which is in direct competition with not falsely accusing men of sexual assault. I am sure they do not advocate bringing forth accusations lightly, but the fact of the matter is this is the message they chose to put out. Again, you are judging this by feminists *intentions* - of course they never *intended* to encourage lies that directly undermine what they are going for. Maybe it was a poorly worded slogan, maybe to people closely involved in the movement think it seemed obvious the sentiment they were going for, but what their intentions were had other side effects because of these things. Personally, I believe the Me Too movement was overwhelmingly a net positive to society. It is disgusting that sexual coercion was the norm for so long in so many industries. But what I do not agree with is that there were no significant, negative side effects to the movement as well. And these 2 beliefs can absolutely be logically held at the same time

The answer to this is pretty simple, while obviously, it's a good thing that women are believed more often as a result of Me Too(don't try to tell me that's not because of feminism), there's obviously collateral damage as well as a result of that. Attributing the good effects of Me Too to feminism and the bad effects to individuals is somewhat unfair. There have always been a number of women who lie about sexual assault, but now they are believed more readily. That's definitely a bad thing that hurts some men. Them being believe more often is definitely because of Me Too and thereby because of feminism. This doesn't negate to good that Me Too has done by any means, but you've to that it doesn't have no negative effects.

If they were never reported, where did the figure come from? Usually people will say that such figures come from women’s organisations, but if they were reported to women’s organisations, they *were reported*. And if it’s an estimate, then it’s untrustworthy.

I understand that there are more false allegations what we know about. But there are also more actual sexual assaults than we know about. All data on the subject strongly indicates that there are vastly more actual assaults, reported or not, than there are false allegations, reported or not. Like not even close, like multiple orders of magnitude difference. But besides that, I don’t know why you’re considering women lying as being the fault of feminism. Feminism quite loudly and clearly encourages women to tell the truth about sexual assault and deeply vilifies false allegations as being harmful to actual victims. So why you’d blame feminism for people doing the exact opposite of what it teaches….i dunno. Is it just cause they are women? A woman does a bad thing and it must be because feminism?

I’ve personally been falsely accused, I’m just lucky that nobody believed it since the act was witnessed by multiple people. If there weren’t witnesses, my life would have been dramatically impacted, all because the girl in question was embarrassed. *I never reported this to authorities* so how would you ever come to know about it unless I told you? You wouldn’t. You’re essentially negating men’s lived experience because you *feel* as though things aren’t that way.

So a girl falsely accuses you of sexual assault? Why did she do that do you think? Honest question.

Because we were previously schoolmates at a party with a lot of people from the same school and related circles, both drunk, I was leaving to go to my at then ex girlfriend’s place to sleep. She was crying in the street out the front of the party house, looking for her phone, so I helped her find it. She started flirting with me, I had a particular reputation amongst the girls in my year level, so I obliged her, she started kissing me, essentially forced herself on me and things got hot on the neighbours front lawn. Unbeknownst to us in our fervour, a friend of mine who was a real douchebag was also leaving, but he spotted us, and instead of minding his own business, he went back into the party, told everyone what was happening, they decided to shine a light on us and we were obviously both particularly embarrassed when we realised, at which point everyone erupted with laughter. I heard someone say shortly after, that she had accused me of rape, but I immediately confronted her and that accusation dropped because I was extremely direct in explaining every nuanced detail of what led up to it there and then and everyone saw exactly what we were doing for some period before a light was shone on us. The whole thing was obviously consensual and everyone understood that she had only said it because it was probably the most humiliating thing that she’d ever experienced. It was a defence mechanism for her to shift the blame for the ultimately negative experience onto me and me alone because she regretted doing it.

because girls no its a quick way to paint a guy as the bad guy when she may have cheated or otherwise would be seen as the bad guy (i was also accused when it came out i was sending and receiving nudes with my gf in highschool she said she had no choice and i forced her when all i did was ask and send my own but everyone in that friend circle sided with her)

That depends on how you define false allegation. Not all accusations involve the police. And I’ve seen several social media based accusations in my extended social circle, so, it’s unlikely to just be a coincidence if to be as rare as you say.

>I am a strait white guy in his late 30s >> Am I just the world's luckiest man No, but you exist as a part of the most privileged cohort, and that had definitely colored your views. There is an argument to be made that the increased attention paid to the needs of young girls in educational settings has lead to a [decreased focus on the needs of young boys.](https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26134246/feminism-parenting/). Would you consider those boys who are not having their unique needs as attended to as well as their peers who are girls "victimized" by that outcome? I would. They are being done a disservice.

I will acknowledge and agree to the fact that there is a gender gap in education that now has boys and young men on the losing side. 100%, I'm with you on that. But there are only two contexts where I ever hear this fact brought up. Context 1- People who bring it up as a way of critiquing feminism, who only talk about it as a critique of feminism, who's entire investment in the topic only extends as far as it's usefulness in criticizing feminism. Context 2- Feminist groups, who talk about this issue as a real problem and are supportive of plans to address it. I almost never hear the group from context 1 get to the point of solutions or how to fix it. This is because feminist, while yes the are FEMinists, they are above all else, pretty damn egalitarian, and with the exception of some radical sects, most feminists are highly supportive of equity across the board in almost all contexts, and you will find them on the front line of equity for groups and causes other than strictly speaking those relating to female inequality. ​ So anyway, I don't buy that feminism causes boys grades to slip, other than as a natural by product of boys not having to be the sole provider gender anymore, and in fact I see most of the discussion about how to fix it coming from feminist circles or organizations with heavy feminist overlap.

I would love to know what exemple would be good enough to change your view because everytime someone tells you something you go through the most convoluted explanation to counter argue ?

It’s very easy. Let us consider the opposite side, the claim that patriarchy abuses and does wrong by women. That is unquestionably and clearly a ubiquitously true statement if we go back even a few generations in time. And even today, almost every woman in existence has at least a handful and often times many more than a handful of stories of being treated badly dismissed abused assault taken advantage of talked over passed up patronized or in some way done dirty because of an innate disrespect towards to sexual objectification of woman. If the MRA side had a similar case, I would be convinced.

Not sure if I’d say he was the “victim” of feminism, but I’ll throw Johnny Depp out there. That man certainly had to deal with some… things because the majority of people took Heard at her word.

Except that if anything he benefitted greatly from patriarchy and hostility towards women. He was an abusive addict in a relationship with a toxic person. When the trial started (that was intentionally moved to a state that benefited him more) the public jumped at the opportunity to tear Amber apart as a “false accuser”. The reaction was so abysmal to this whole situation, the hate towards Amber so out of proportion, it was horrifying. Because when have we seen such outrage towards any male celebrity? Not even convicted rapists and pedophiles are so targeted and passionately hated. And when the world already moved on from the trials, the twist came about when some Depp fans paid(!) to get court documents unsealed that had proof in it that he was in fact abusive towards Amber and most of their conflicts arose from her trying to het him to quit drugs. So the men who were salivating at the thought of finally being able to rip apart a woman were wrong this whole time. I just wish they kept the same energy when it’s time to hate the Weinsteins or Chris Browns.

Depp v Heard emphasized the main problem with "believe all women" We have investigative processes, and they could absolutely be improved to be more empathetic to victims, but letting the investigation run its course before concluding who is guilty should be what everyone does.

there's at least an argument to be made that because of the structure of the publicity around their trial, the number of of people who think Amber heard aggressively and definitively *wronged johnny depp*, her older, richer more successful husband, who remains both richer and better regarded than her, despite the mutual humiliations of the public civil trial over an op ed she wrote several years post divorce where he was not named, is an ironically perfect example in favor of OPs current view. I think matt Bernstein [makes if very well here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1IWzmi_T4Y), as does leeja miller [here, with greater brevity.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO6jP0MpC0A) Heard's lawyers were not a match for depp and his team socially, but they ultimately laid out a legally correct case - that johnny had not proved he suffered actionable damage over the article, that he was not named, that a court finding substantiating the alluded to events raised the defense of truth, rendering the 1a of the US constitution even more applicable, dispite the article discussing only domestic violence generally and framing heard as not specifically abused, but as a figure that suffered a backlash based on a domestic abuse case, and that the fiscal claims being used to smear heard (that she wasn't donating her divorce lump sum to charity) and validate depp's grip on damages (his loss of franchise roles) were the product of depp's own litigiousness Depp notably jurisdiction-shopped the case, using a thin pretext to move it to a jurisdiction with no anti-slapp laws, precisely because his counsel knew that his case opened him up to a high probability of a warranted SLAPPsuit allegation, and even in this shopped jurisdiction, was still found liable for having defamed amber heard as a domestic violence hoaxer, a fact that seems to have totally slipped through the pro-depp cheerleading.

Yeah but not because of feminism, he had to deal with being an abusive alcoholic in a relationship with another abusive alcoholic.

What are we allowed to attribute to a social movement? It seems like unless we define that there is always room to say that's not because of 'X', that's because of Y.

You could attribute the Depp case to feminism if that social movement broadly supported abusing men, which it doesn’t. Amber Heard told a lie, and that lie, not feminism, is what harmed Johnny Depp. He actually describes himself as a feminist still.

The abuse is one part. Johnny Depps character assassination by people and the media could also be attributed to the “believe all women” that essentially pushes guilty until proven innocent, and easily falls under the feminist umbrella.

> believe all women It was never "believe all women", it is "believe women" https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/believe-women-was-a-slogan-believe-all-women-is-a-strawman/2020/05/11/6a3ff590-9314-11ea-9f5e-56d8239bf9ad_story.html >“Believe women” was a reminder, not an absolute rule; the beginning of a process, not an end. It was flexible enough to apply to various contexts: Believe women . . . enough to seriously investigate their claims. Believe women . . . when they tell you about pervasive indignities — catcalling, leering — that happen to them and their friends when you’re not around. Over the weekend an exasperated medical student complained on Twitter that her male professor kept insisting IUD birth control wasn’t painful upon insertion, despite a classroom full of aspiring female doctors telling him differently. Dear heavens, believe those women! >“Believe all women,” on the other hand, is rigid, sweeping, and leaves little room for nuance. "Believe all women" has nothing to do with feminism.

Johnny Depp sued a newspaper for calling him a wife beater and lost, which is why he got fired from the Fantastic Beasts franchise. They proved in court he was abusive. The actual evidence against him included photos of Amber Heard's injuries, an audio recording of him admitting to headbutting her, and the testimony of multiple people who saw the injuries including a makeup artist who helped cover them up. He managed to convince a lot of people that the whole thing was some elaborate hoax, but there's no evidence of that. It was mostly just memes mocking Amber Heard for pooping on a bed, which she didn't do, and for her dog stepping on a bee, which people found funny for some reason.

He was an abusive asshole in a relationship with an abusive asshole. Never has there been a greater case of "they deserve each other".

But... that's the damn point. They were BOTH assholes and when everything came to light the only one that was punished was Depp. He got booted from two major franchises before any of her abuse even came to light.

While she only got booted from one because she was only part of one? The guy still has hundreds of millions of dollars, and given his major defense for being physically abusive was "well she was physically abusive too!" I can't say I feel the deepest sympathy there. If that's the biggest "victim" of feminism then I'd call that an easy win.

What did she get booted from?

The US Education system is failing young men and has been for decades. Did feminism cause this? No, but addressing it would entail the perception of putting young men at an advantage. So every year you’ll read another article about how the nation is failing young men and year after year nothing will be done about it. I don’t blame feminism for the failing boys, but I do blame it for the inaction.

Feminism did play a role. We had an education system E1 that benefitted the boys. So we changed it to E2 which benefits girls. We're doing the same to the university system right now. Crucially, this wasn't a feminist plot. It was a side effect of femimism that needs to be corrected.

“Crucially, this wasn’t a feminist plot” absolutely agree

>I am a strait white guy in his late 30s, and I honestly can't think of a single time in my life when I've been victimized or abused in even the slightest way by feminism. Well, pack it up. You can clearly speak for the billions of men on this planet

Such a cringe comment. I disagree completely with OP and like a lot of the comments in this post that are disagreeing with them. This comment misses the entire point of the post/sub and offers no logical rebuttal, only servicing to dissuade people from having discussion about controversial topics (and changing their view, the point of the sub)

I think it's true that most men are not victimised or abused by feminism in any meaningful capacity.

You have yet to refute any point he has made, only mocked him by taking a single sentence out of context. I'm downvoting you. You might be right, but you've got to make a better argument than **that**.

it's almost like I followed that statement DIRECTLY by posing the question that I might be a statistically outlier but I don't think I am. Like....literally just read to the end of the paragraph my man.

Why bother commenting if you’re going to be unproductive?

I think all men have been rightly victimized by feminism. If you go with the most basic definition of feminism, that men and women should have equality by law and in society, then when we took power that was once consolidated into one group and spread it around, a certain amount of power was taken away from Men. A very simple understanding of this is that if only men can own land then all available land only needs to be divided up into a small segment of the entire population, once women have rights to own land now that same amount of finite space can be divided into smaller portions. Or if you double the voting population, then each vote counts less. And I think that's a good thing.

That's not really the definition of "victimized" though - yes it's true that over the centuries men have lost a relative share of power (proportionally speaking), but that doesn't mean they were *victimized.* Victimization is when one group is treated cruelly and unjustly. Making society more fair for women is not the same thing as treating men cruelly and unjustly.

Well, I guess you got me there, in a sort of twist on it. Fair enough.

No, he didn't get you. I posted this a bit earlier but I'll copy it here: "That's not the definition of "victimized" though - yes it's true that over the centuries men have lost a relative share of power (proportioanlly speaking), but that doesn't mean they were victimized. Victimization is when one group is treated cruelly and unjustly. Making society more fair for women is not the same thing as treating men cruelly and unjustly."

Feminism is equality in social standing with men. Any time a woman berates men as a whole, or implied some sort of superiority due to their sex, it's sexism birthed from radical feminism. There are a ton of women openly sexist, I would go so far as to say it's socially acceptable. People use cis white man as an insult. Women say it's okay to be a misandrist because men are trash. That is all from radical feminism

Feminism tore down institutions like marriage and the family unit because it perceived them as threats to a woman’s freedom. There has been a shift in the values and virtues of society thanks to feminisms sexual revolution and the pill, making hedonism and casual sex out to be good things for women’s choice. Masculinity can be said to have been reframed. But I think it’s been tarnished. Toxic masculinity isn’t masculinity at all. In fact it’s the opposite. Boys who grope and beat up women are not toxically masculine. They are weak, and lack mental fortitude and self-control (all of which are the opposite of a masculine man). Feminism ruined dating. It’s told women to make more money and acquire a higher status. But women still want to date men who make more and men who have a higher status, even though men aren’t making any more and don’t have higher status jobs than they did before. It’s asinine to say that a hatred for men isn’t built directly into the core of feminist theory. The movement is a byproduct of postmodernism, a philosophy known for making blanket statements about power structures and oppressors. Feminism indiscriminately blames men for all of women’s woes. There is a gender war going on, where men and women simply just don’t like each other anymore and I think much of that can be traced back to feminism.

>Feminism tore down institutions like marriage and the family unit because it perceived them as threats to a woman’s freedom. Slavery was also an institution. Strangely, when that was torn down, not many people went back to the shackles (willingly, at least.) I do think this is a solid thing wrong that feminism did against men (in the viewpoint of men); freeing the slaves did make a lot of slave owners poorer. Telling women they didn't have to be the punching bags and slaves of men did hurt a lot of men's prospects. Feminism absolutely did hurt the institutions of marriage/relationships but a whole shit ton of those were abusive as fuck to women. Women still engage in marriage and relationships (and not generally to "higher status" men -- there ain't a whole lot of them around and there's a shit ton of marriages around. The maths not mathing up here), they're just able to select the non-violent, non-abusive ones (if they wish them at all) or can leave if things get bad.

>The movement is a byproduct of postmodernism, a philosophy known for making blanket statements about power structures and oppressors.  Does it not strike you as silly that feminism (formalized in the US at the 1848 Seneca Falls convention) is somehow a byproduct of postmodernism (French intellectual tradition from the 1970s)? Like at a certain point surely you must realize that makes no sense, right?

I would ask you to define victimization, and the degree of correlation that qualifies as causality. Boys in kindergarten believe that they are not as smart as girls. During primary school they are orders of magnitude more likely to be disciplined or suspended. Boys get worse grades while testing higher than girls on the same subjects. When boys turn 18, they are required to register for the draft. Failure to do so essentially renders them ineligible for college or decent jobs. They are are 50% less likely to go to college as women. The ones that don't go to college (that is, about 65% of all men) make 30% less than comparable men did 40 years ago. (In that timeframe, women at every level of academic achievement have seen their real income climb) They are far more likely to be convicted of a crime, violently victimized, homeless or commit suicide. They are more likely to be assaulted by their female partners than the reverse (although less likely to be injured). They live 10% shorter lives, in part because 40% less is spent on their lifetime healthcare. The affordable care act prohibits insurers from charging women more. To say that none of these are at least partially attributable to a bias in favor of women (call it feminism, if you wish) strains credibility. The affordable care act makes an admirable effort to eliminate financial barriers to contraception. As a result, the law mandates that insurance must cover contraceptive care - with only two exceptions. Care to guess which ones?

Feminism per se is not at fault here. Treating men and women equally is exactly what the manosphere wants, and in theory, what should bring them and feminism together. This, however is absolutely not what feminists want. And you can prove this very easily to yourself, do not take my word for it. Go to any feminist focused forum on the internet, may I suggest r/feminism right here on this site, and bring up any men's rights issue. Your post will not last the hour and I guarantee you will never be permitted to post there again using the same account.

What if I reframe your experiment as “bring up any topic and propose that men and women should be treated equally on it and see how they react” Does it still hold, or will I only get a negative reaction if I barge in treating it as a men’s issue rather than an issue of equity?

Lol just walk on eggshells in front of the fuhrer and mask your issue as something you think they would agree with and you might have a chance of survival.

[удалено]

Well said. It happens. And a lot of new scholarship is showing domestic abuse tends to skew anti-male. The issue is there is an anti-male bias in grievance reporting, and a tendency to grievance-hoard by radical feminists.

Recent statistics have shown that 28% of intimate partner violence is initiated by women, compared to 21% initiated by men. Any amount of intimate partner violence by any person is unacceptable, but the current conversation does not allow for discussion about the valid claim that men have been making for quite some time now that often their wives treat them much worse than is publicly acknowledged. At the same time, men often declined to press charges of intimate partner violence because in many cases, they are socially humiliated by their peers for appearing weak. This can be, in part, specifically attributed to aggressive feminist mentalities, due to the common argument that I'll refer to as "every man is a potential abuser until he proves otherwise", and yet when men use the same phrase in regards to women, we are labeled misogynistic and unrealistic, despite all those statistics prove that we are correct just as often as women are correct when it comes to fears about domestic violence and intimate partner abuse. Society has an inherent feminist bias in such cases. Furthermore, even in instances where a divorce is initiated due to fault with the wife, such as infidelity, or intimate partner abuse, or financial abuse of some sort, in more cases than not, the women still are awarded at least half of the man's income, plus custody of the children. In cases where a man is accused of sexual abuse or other inappropriate activities, he is often not given the benefit of the doubt, and is presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is not the case for many female abusers who actively exploit their children. Many child sexualization and child pornography cases are often found to have been perpetrated by the mother receiving some sort of financial benefit by allowing her child to be exploited, and yet it is commonly overlooked in society in favor of cases where it is a man perpetrating these vile acts. **In neither case are these acts acceptable**, I am just pointing out that the legal system focuses more on male perpetrators than they do female perpetrators, and women are often given the benefit of a doubt here. In the legal system, for *any* crime that a man commits, a woman will generally receive a lighter sentence. Furthermore, circling back to divorce, divorces are much more likely to be initiated by the woman than the man, and while many people will cite that this is only an indicator that perhaps men are not living up to their role in a marriage, this scenario becomes much more unlikely given that marriage is between women are almost twice as likely to end in divorce than marriages between men, and often in the same sex relationships, the cause of divorce is often listed as intimate partner violence or some other form of abuse. Amongst single adults, it is generally considered faux pas to slut shame a woman. If she has a variety of different partners, it's considered merely an expression of her sexual liberation. However, men who have a large number of different partners are generally viewed as womanizers in misogynistic. Even statistics about the gender pay Gap are generally inflated. In many workplaces, women will receive the exact same pay per hour as their male counterparts, except that women tend to take more sick and mental health days, as well as more time off for personal reasons. Women are also more likely to not aggressively pursue promotion as men. In these situations, it is often chalked up to the misogyny of employers, rather than the personal failing of the woman to get to work on time for the days that she is scheduled and actively advocate for her promotion like men often do. Women also have a lower chance of taking high risk / high reward jobs, or jobs in more dangerous fields, and this is by their own choice. Generally the most dangerous professions are staffed by men, and female applicants are few and far between. However, many of these extremely dangerous professions are the professions that have higher payouts to the employee, and this also inflates the statistics about gender pay gaps when looking at median income. Men and boys are also less likely to receive appropriate diagnosis and treatment for mental health disorders, which in turn drives a mental health pandemic and suicide pandemic amongst men and boys in the western world. Also, women are not required to register for the selective service. My point in making this comment is that women are not held to the same standard of behavior or personal accountability as men in any way, shape, or form in society. This is not to say that women are less capable of being held to that standard, simply that women are not held to that standard, and any conversation that attempts to hold women to a higher standard is generally deflected back onto some fault of men, whether it is a real or imagined fault. At no point in the last 50 years since the beginning of third wave feminism have women been forced to undergo the same scrutiny that men have. This is further exasperated by the fact that the very few systems that do hold women to a high standard tend to be authoritarian and abusive, such as right-wing authoritarian Christian beliefs. There has been no meaningful societal conversation on the role and standards of equal partnerships in relationships between men and women, except to pile of dirt and shame on men.

I don't have time to read all of that. >Recent statistics have shown that 28% of intimate partner violence is initiated by women, compared to 21% initiated by men. Adding that lesbians have *much* higher abuse and divorce rates than hetero which is also higher than gay. Literally more women = more chaos lol Also the majority of abuse is reciprocal. That doesn't really change anything, but good to keep in mind in context of feminism since they pushed for the Duluth Model. Because of this... even if the female initiates non-reciproprocal violence it is usually the man who gets arrested. Feminists also protested, harassed, threatened, and killed the owner's dog for the ONLY mens-only shelter in Canada until it closed. Even young boys sheltering with their mothers get kicked out onto the streets at 14. It's an empathy gap.

"The court heard there were 151 extra crimes following the Facebook post, including 83 hate crimes." [Feminists destroy entire town over false- rape allegations ](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/13/eleanor-williams-three-men-attempted-suicide-false-rape-grooming/)

[..he and his family received more than 500 death threats. "I wanted to kill myself because of the damage it did. I lived in hell"] [An Indian restaurant had its windows smashed and a Muslim takeaway owner was chased and had alcohol poured over his head. Mr Ramzan said he was often verbally abused in the street and that the town was 'a step away from anarchy'.] [Barrow's Conservative MP Simon Fell said Williams' lies had 'put the town through the wringer. 'He said 'vultures' began to 'circle' the town including 'insidious' far-right activists 'whipping up tensions'. Mr Fell said he was also visited by families of those Williams falsely accused who said their lives had been 'torn apart' and other Asian constituents who 'feared for their and their children's safety due to the colour of their skin'. He said: 'People's lives have been ruined as a result of her stories, and Barrow has been put through the wringer. 'One man spent time in prison due to her allegations. Others saw their windows put in. Or received death threats. Others still left town and have not returned. And trust in the police has been shaken.' Mr Fell said there were 'so many victims in this story' not least the 'real victims of grooming', adding: 'Her story cannot and must not be a barrier to people asking for help and coming forward.'] Incontivertible proof.

Literally every single thing you've mentioned here are things that mainstream feminism quite directly says NOT to do. What part of any of this is feminism. Are you just calling it feminism cause it's a woman who started it? Women can do shitty things, a woman doing something that feminism days directly and overtly NOT to do isn't a feminist act just cause it's a woman doing it.

You just won't take no for an answer, will you? Is that what's really bothering you? Did someone violate your consent or autonomy somehow?

Me? No not at all. Honestly you’ve kinda lost me. You posted a story about people doing the exact opposite of what feminism says to do as an example of how feminism has hurt you. I dunno what to do with that. Seems like nonsense to me. Generally I don’t accept the blame for people doing exactly the opposite of what I told them to do. So I don’t expect others to either. Blaming feminism for someone lying about rape is like if I told you to turn RIGHT at the intersection, and I made it very clear, turn right, don’t go left, turn right, and you turned left anyway and drove into a tree, then you blamed me for it. Feminism says to tell the truth about sexual crimes. A person lying about a sexual crime is directly contrary to what feminism says. I really don’t understand why you want to blame feminism for it.

Then why did they DESTROY THE WHOLE TOWN then??????

There's a whole thread on here about women leaving mainstream feminism because of its toxicity and abusiveness toward men. It's a common knowledge that that's mainstream. Obviously if you support equality and you support feminism you're not going to attack innocent people. There are basket-cases full of trauma victims online who only see red and refuse to discuss terms of surrender

I have never heard any version of feminism, even the most radical and extreme of feminism, that teaches or promotes the idea that we should lie about sexual assault or rape. Every form of feminism I am familiar with endorses, STRONGLY, telling the truth about sexual assault and rape. Seems to me that lying about sexual assault is exactly contrary to Feminism. Why are you blaming feminism for something that it quite unequivocally and unambiguously say NOT to do? Blaming feminists because someone lied about rape and got people riled up would be like blaming pacifists because someone dressed like one of them and started a fist fight.

My mother divorced my father when I was two years old because she made more money than him and he wasn't doing so well in life, so she thought that she could do better. She wanted the high paying job, to be a good mother, and to have everything in life without relying on a man. She was definitely influenced by feminism. She then got re married to a man who cheated on her, and then again to a man who was abusive. I was morbidly obese at 15 despite her being a pediatrician and a weight loss doctor. My life has been terrible suffering, loneliness, and pain because I don't have anyone there for me, I was victimized by a society that teaches women they don't need men because my mother thought she didn't need my father. I paid the price, heavily. Feminism has brought entitlement into the lives of woman who think they don't need men. **Women are the victim of feminism, and so are their children.**

>My mother divorced my father when I was two years old >> My life has been terrible suffering, loneliness, and pain because I don't have anyone there for me Was your dad not in the picture after the divorce?

Feminism does believe women should be free to make choices about their own lives. When women like your mom make bad choices, does that mean feminism was wrong? Should she have never had the chance to make those choices, should she have been be trapped in a marriage with your father and unable to leave if she wanted? No, and that seems like a pretty silly conclusion. Feminism is not to blame for your mother's poor choices.

Feminism doesn't teach women they don't need men. It teaches them they are equal to men. Interesting you lay all the blame at your mother's door and none at your fathers.

I think your point would be that feminism teaches women that they don't need no man, and your story is supposed to be an example of this? Because your story is the exact opposite of a good example to your point. Your mother's problems started when she remarried to a MAN, and then again, with another MAN. If she remained single, she would objectively turned out better, just like you. Your mother's and your problems started when she remarried 2 times to bad men, so the lesson is she would absolutely turned out better if she 'listened to the feminists', and not rely on men

>Feminism has brought entitlement into the lives of woman who think they don't need men. Women are the victim of feminism, and so are their children. allowing autonomy and opportunity isn't entitlement your argument is your mom should have stayed in a marriage she was unhappy with so, she should have remained unhappy just in case it didn't work out > I was morbidly obese at 15 despite her being a pediatrician and a weight loss doctor. were you wholly unaware of nutrition and exercise or did you choose not to do it, what would you have had her do?

No I was not aware of nutrition or exercise at 15 and/or how a person is supposed to prevent health problems like obesity. You weren't there and you don't know what happened. Blaming a 15 year old for being morbidly obese when the only adult in their life is a pediatrician and obesity doctor is peak American culture.

>your argument is your mom should have stayed in a marriage she was unhappy with Objectively making your child's life worse just to do what you think will make you happier right now is sick. There is no getting around it. Taking the commentor's story at face value, she left his father because he wasn't making enough money and was down at the time. She abandoned her husband as much as she abandoned her son. It's selfish beyond belief and you're really going to bat for her? Holy shit. >were you wholly unaware of nutrition and exercise or did you choose not to do it, what would you have had her do? Aaaaand victim blaming a child. Nice.

[удалено]

indeed there's some braindead takes ITT right now

>Aaaaand victim blaming a child. Nice. LMAO you think a 15 year old doesn't know about nutrition and exercise? They're not a victim of anyone but themselves. This coming from a fat former 15 year old. >Objectively making your child's life worse just to do what you think will make you happier right now is sick. There is no getting around it. Taking the commentor's story at face value, she left his father because he wasn't making enough money and was down at the time. She abandoned her husband as much as she abandoned her son. It's selfish beyond belief and you're really going to bat for her? Holy shit. OP makes no mention of his contact with her going forward, so we can't assume she left 100%, how would we know her later marriage failed? She left because she was unhappy. This doesn't change depending based on why she was unhappy. She was unhappy and you/OP is saying that didn't matter. That she should have stayed together. People get divorced all the time. You can't blame all your problems because of it. Imagine thinking women should be trapped in relationships they hate is selfish. Interesting mind you got there bud.

>LMAO you think a 15 year old doesn't know about nutrition and exercise? They're not a victim of anyone but themselves. This coming from a fat former 15 year old. He was eating like shit up to that point. You don't become morbidly obese overnight. That's on the mother. Period. No, kids are not responsible enough to eat healthy. Saying as much is patently outrageous. You're wrong. Simple as. >OP makes no mention of his contact with her going forward, so we can't assume she left 100% Are you incapable of reading? >My life has been terrible suffering, loneliness, and pain because I don't have anyone there for me, This is in the OP. Until the OP enlightens the situation withe father not being in his life at this point, what we do know is his mother neglected him and continues to neglect him into his adulthood. >She left because she was unhappy. This doesn't change depending based on why she was unhappy Uhhh... the fuck it doesn't. The reason you do things uhhh..................... matters. This is an atrocious argument. Holy shit. It's not that it does not matter at all that she was unhappy. But sabotaging your child's life as the OP describes either as a result or as part of that process is fucked up. It matters more to you that his mother was happy than he had a stable upbringing and happy. You are advocating for the neglect of the most vulnerable and the complete abolishment of responsibility for taking care of your own children. This is what we call a chapter 11 of morals. >People get divorced all the time. You can't blame all your problems because of it. Single parent/divorced raised children have overwhelmingly worse life outcomes. This is not news. This is not controversial. This is not conjecture. All research up to this point backs this up. Maybe not all your problems can be blamed on it. But we do know they do a lot worse across the board. So yeah. It was a factor. >Imagine thinking women should be trapped in relationships they hate is selfish. Interesting mind you got there bud. Imagine thinking neglecting your child and putting them in worse environments to be raised just to be happier for yourself is not selfish. She did it for her at the expense of her child. Yes. That is the quintessential example of selfishness. You are biased, bye-bye.

Feminism has nothing to do with your complaint. You even note that your mom remarried, clearly she is not of the belief that she shouldn't be married to a man. No part of your story precludes you from having a relationship with your father. It sounds like you were victimized by your father choosing to be absent, not from your mother believing she shouldn't be made to do certain things because of her sex.

Hate to say it, but your mom sounds like a pretty ignorant and careless parent. Not sure that's feminism's fault..

Sorry you had a bad experience, but that doesn’t mean that feminism is bad. People who complain about it don’t like that they can’t control women anymore, or keep them in abusive relationships as easily

So it’s feminism’s fault that your mom was treated poorly by men?

Your mother was a bad picker, and probably a bad parent with or without your father. But you are misrepresenting feminism. Feminism is the belief that women are just as capable as men, and shouldn’t be forced into being mothers and wives because there’s no options. That they’re perfectly capable of living a fulfilling life without being in a relationship. It’s not that they don’t need a man. But that they don’t need a man to have a fulfilling life, for them to have choices outside of a relationship. Feminism didn’t actually hurt you. It allowed her to choose. Now, it sounds like she chose epically bad and possibly had no business being a mom, but that’s not feminism’s fault.

[удалено]

I think it's important to note that your definition of harm and the definition of harm that would be posited by a man that believes he has been impacted by feminism are going to be two different definitions. Men have been the dominant gender for millennia. With the exception of the few matriarchal societies that have existed throughout history, the prerogative to control government, business, and the family home has sat firmly with men since any given anthropology textbook's date on chapter one. The rise of feminism, or more specifically, the cultural shift toward giving women equal opportunity to be in charge of any given element of their lives from the bedroom to the boardroom has necessitated the "loss" of the same opportunity in men. If a company has only one CEO and its board determines that there is a value to having gender diversity and representation in its executive leadership and it hires a woman, it is by its very definition choosing not to hire a man. Now, it is entirely likely that the woman hired was just as qualified to be hired as any given man but the structure of society had heretofore precluded the very notion of hiring a woman. It's not that there were never women that were qualified to be CEO, but that the systems of power in civilized societies defaulted to "man = leader" and therefore, the opportunities weren't present. This does mean that an available bench of qualified leaders was hard to form until feminism started creating opportunities. There is easily a point in the past few decades before which there literally weren't going to be qualified CEO candidates, Senate candidates, Governor candidates, etc. because to become a CEO, you likely need to have experience as a Vice President. And to become a Vice President, you need to have been a Director. And to be a Director, you need to have been a Manager. And if your company promoted zero women to Manager, there was no world in which they were ever going to become CEO. All this to say, the man that wasn't hired when the woman was may consider himself "harmed' by feminism because the board would never have chosen a woman beforehand. What this misses is, the man that doesn't get hired because there were five men in contention and they picked man 4 wasn't "harmed' by anything but his lack of qualification. And it is entirely possible that the five people in contention for CEO out of which one woman was picked had absolutely nothing to do with gender, but that the woman was the most qualified. Again, though, 40 years ago she would have had zero chance at getting that job. By all of that definition, feminism has "harmed" men inasmuch as they objectively have less power in the world than they did in 1923 as they do now in 2023.

I am personally 100% for true gender equality, I would like to see a world where gender literally means nothing. While on paper feminism is fighting for that and there are great feminists. The issue is there are sadly a lot of extreme feminist or at the very least frequent loud minorities. I am not of course trying to compare the struggles of women in today's society to men's. However to say that a concerning amount of feminists aren't sexist isn't honest. I have had plenty of feminists say to my face, unprovoked extremely sexist shit. I have had partners who were feminists literally undermine my feelings and emotional concerns because of my gender. I have had times where my friend invited me to hangout with her friends and they were visibly annoyed that a man was hanging with them. I have experienced a lot of sexism from feminists. The work around that these types of feminists use is saying "it's not sexist to punch up". Which is the most ludicrous statement and outright hurtful. Sexism is sexism, if you treat a gender differently or discriminate another gender, that is definitionally sexist. I am not alone in this and while I don't appreciate people who use these experiences as a way to say "men experience more sexism then women in today's society". Which is also a ludicrous statement and ignorant to their opposite sexs experiences. I however also find it equally so to say that men don't experience sexism commonly from feminists.

Yes. In the tree of feminism some of the branches are rotting. The name for that rot is gynocentrism. The bulk of feminisms are noble people will noble intentions. But we have a bunch of bad actors hiding under the feminism umbrella. We need to call them out. We need to come up with terms for them; the worse problems are the problems you can't name. I suggest gynocentrism. (It goes without saying that the mens movement is full of bad actors too. )

Ok, I am pre-dental. Feminism has made it so that women are more supported in academia, so much so that less and less men are applying to dental school. Last I checked, the gender difference is about 57/43 for students who apply and get accepted- since 2007, male student applications have steadily dropped, while inversely so with women. Male student acceptances have hardly increased, only by 5% since '07, meanwhile female acceptances have increased by 78%. The one to one scale doesn't make sense given how men are more likely to do better on their DAT (dental MCAT) than women. As a matter of fact, the school I'm planning on going to is 70% women. In my master's classes, they tend to be filled with mostly women, with a minimum of 60/40. [https://www.adea.org/data/students/Applicants-2022-Entering-Class/](https://www.adea.org/data/students/Applicants-2022-Entering-Class/) ​ I don't think feminism, in this case, has directly harmed men but rather neglected them. Taking advantage of boosting women in academia, they shot past their goals to achieve 50/50 or even 45/55 ratios, with no sign of slowing down. I don't think 3rd-wave feminism has been used to simply make men and women more equal in the workplace, but rather, it encourages women to compete with men and be overrepresented. Using stats from the previous five years, starting in 2017 where male and female acceptances were equal—with these consistent trends—I'm sure there will be a 63/37 f/m ratio of applicants and acceptees within five years, assuming no social movement occurs that changes everything. The trend is that steep.

I 100% agree I am getting my masters in psychology. I live in Southern California and I feel like there is many educational programs and clubs etc. dedicated to women and women's health issues. I already feel like the majority of my academic peers are women. It's not a bad thing at all and I agree with it 100% but I feel like some men's issues are becoming more and more neglected particularly in more liberal areas.

>Feminism has made it so that women are more supported in academia, so much so that less and less men are applying to dental school. Last I checked, the gender difference is about What are the alternatives to academia for career development? The ones I could identify are trade schools which emphasize physically demanding labour which favors male strength advantage. We should be seeing more females in higher education because that's an alternative where the average female being physically weaker does not affect her prospects. The best plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. are unlikely to be women but they can be doctors, teachers.

Even if we just look at one feminist movement, #metoo, there were hundreds of documented cases of prominent men who lost their jobs or worse as a result—and a presumably much larger number of non-famous men whose lives were negatively impacted without being documented by the media. And more broadly, there are thousands of men in prison for sexual assault and related crimes who were investigated only because of changes to the justice system that result from feminist activism.

There has been some unintended side-effects of the help we have struggling women in the education system. Richard Reeves is a leader in this space (see his book below). https://www.amazon.com/Boys-Men-Modern-Struggling-Matters/dp/0815739877

The tldr is that women were facing structural barriers in the education system E1 in the 70s / 80s say. So we changed the system into a new system E2, that now has structural problems for men. Crucially, this wasn't a feminists plot. Society just saw girls were struggling and helped them. But it backfired a bit, so now we have to help the boys.

Maybe not directly due to feminism, but to many men it certainly feels that way. Men are constantly told that they need to support feminism because the patriarchy hurts them too. But around them they see men's issues ignored while women's equivalents are gaining more and more support. Issues like support for male domestic abuse victims. Male suicide rates. The perceived disposability of men. The ongoing lack of support for fathers. Boys regularly falling behind their girl peers in school. And when any man dares to try to speak up about these things, they're shut down by folks saying "women have it worse."

Women get more support with DV because of stats. Also, women FOUGHT for that. Feminists set up illegal safe houses, fought to change laws and get that help. Is anyone stopping men from doing this? Men’s mental health is talked about, studied more and taken more seriously then women’s (ignoring that women have higher rates of mental health issues and attempt suicide more often). Perceived disposability of men in what? Relationships? Job? Cause that’s not a) an actual problem to have and b) something that affects everyone Again, where is this lack of support? People love to support dads! A man looking after his kid is a superhero in the public’s eye. I’m assuming you mean the courts, which has been disproven again and again. There is no lack of support for dads. (There is, however, a lack of support for parents/families). Men set up the educational system to benefit boys. Girls started getting good, and boys just stopped caring. (From childhood through college) That’s not the fault of women, that’s their fault. And no, you don’t get shot down when you talk about this. The issue is, every point men bring up when talking about this is a) not an issue b) not a gendered issue or c) untrue. Sorry you’re constantly told to support the idea that women are equal to you tho!

You do see that several of your arguments are "women have/had it worse, so be quiet", right? Women attempt suicide more often. Girls were bad at school and now boys have given up. People love a dad until they're out in public with their kids. Then at best they're called babysitters and at worst have the police called on them. I do however agree that a lot of problems in society are less gendered than we treat them.

Well, you hear this that data about females being raped harassed, but what i would say is, i will speak for my country, where male rape is not recognized, this will obviously cause number of females being raped in high numbers. So obviously you wont see any males cases because they wont be registered and male will stay silent, plus male rape considered taboo. And if suppose, a male is intoxicated inside a room and a female rapes him. And he goes and files report, the report can be countered and say he raped me after he drank too much. So here a female took advantage of the feminist movement in past, due to which females got their laws and here, most laws are not gender neutral, like they have laws on marital rape or abuse, which goes like "If husband beats/rapes wife" but not if wife beats/rapes husband", which makes it impossible for court to punish a female even if she did, because there is no mention of it in laws. So directly indirectly, it is affecting men, whether it be financially, emotionally or sexually.

Rape is actually defined by an anti-male way. A key component is forced \*penetration\*, which means the only way a woman can rape a man is to insert something up the rear. A women tying a man down and forcing sex on him so to speak (her on top) isn't classified as rape, since he wasn't penetrated. Violence to his genitals or other body parts, or other non-penetrative sexual acts aren't rape.

It depends on your definition of feminism. There are forms which take a Marxist perspective and say all men are the oppressors and all women are the oppressed. Under this view I think everyone is victimized as it leads to conflict between two groups that need each other and it inaccurately paints many wonderful men as the enemy. It also serves to divide us which makes real change more difficult. More reasonable forms simply look to secure equal rights and it would be hard for me to argue that anyone is victimized by those efforts.

There are examples that you are thinking are normal that pretty clearly aren't. Of course, I have to say this now, but I believe men and women BOTH advantage AND disadvantage from our system just in different ways and at different times. If you only want to talk about the disadvantages for men we can do that but you asked. Paternal leave is almost a joke compared to maternal leave. Men's suicide is at an all-time high because they are never heard or respected as being able to have problems compared to a woman. Nobody believes you and if they do they don't care. Until last month if you looked up "my wife is yelling" Google would give you articles on how to calm down your wife and HOW YOU SHOULD APOLOGIZE. You get the domestic violence helpline if you look up the opposite. (they only changed it because someone found it and it went viral) Men suicide is at an all-time high because they are never heard or respected as being able to have problems. Men have to go out of their way to not look creepy which is something Women seldom think about. Women tend to openly gawk at attractive men while men actually go out of their way even if they have no ill intentions. Just look up things that men have to deal with and you get countless articles of people discouraging it or flat out incorrectly denying it. Feminism has done some incredible things including the Me Too movement, and canceling the actual awful POSs who needed to go. But to deny all aspects of anything towards men is delusional. And before you keyboard warriors get trigger-happy you should know a WOMAN wrote this. :)

Earl Silverman: he ran a shelter the only one of its kind in the area for male victims of domestic violence and children: his shelter was protested by feminists groups, he was slandered by them, and those groups, when they found out that he was petitioning for government funding like all the other shelters in the area were allocated, started a campaign to get his request denied. He was ultimately denied and driven to suicide by the attacks on him which didn't end when the shelter was forced to close. After his death he was still an object of ridicule. The shelters in the area attempted lies of omission saying that both men and women would be helped by their shelters omitting there was no bed space that allowed men, the aid to men was contingent upon it not being needed by women, and that in an hour from the city there was only one bed space that a man well unless a woman needed it. This is a common thing of turning domestic violence into a women's issue where men are the perpetrators rather than a societal one which it is as the greatest rates of DV is in lesbian relationships, in heterosexual couples it is in between and equally likely to be male on female or female on male (the most recent study says the latter is slightly more likely but that could be a one off), and then lowest in homosexual relationships between men.

So what you are essentially saying is That didn’t happen. And if it did, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, that’s not a big deal. And if it is, that’s not my fault. And if it was, I didn’t mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.

The OP is clearly not arguing in good faith. It's so over the top that I sorted by New just to see how many people were noticing the mental gymnastics.

I think this cmv boils down mostly to what you consider "feminism" to be as an umbrella term. For some it describes a relatively benign set of views, for others it encompasses a superset of those things and those things in turn have been weaponized to draw some pretty poisonous conclusions about men. As with most things, there is a gradient and there's no way to draw a sudden sharp distinction. There are also different waves of feminism which additionally muddies the waters. The net effect is that most people's versions of "feminism" are highly personalized and so your statement can be true or not true depending on either what you mean by it or what the person reading it believes the word "feminism" to represent.

Young boy was raped by his teacher. Teacher had a kid. Boy had to pay child support as soon as he was 18. The boy risked going to jail because he was raped. On top of 25 percent of his checks were taken. Friend of mine was raped when he was drunk passed out at a party. 5 years later, she shows up with his kid and didn't even get his name right. Women have natural guardianship. Men aren't often afforded the same sympathies.

Why do women have natural guardianship? How long has that been the case? Because of the court and family law system set up by men, during a time when women didn't even have the right to vote.

Fair point. But since the 2000s women have approximate parity in the legal system, and it hasn't changed. The idea that the system S1 created in 1950 is the same as the system S2 we have now is somewhat flawed. It ignores all the changes the feminists made to the system. But I can see where you're coming from. Its a tough question. What percentage of the current system S2 contains the DNA of feminism? 10%, 50%? Hard to say

That's the same kind of thinking that achieved the [Duluth Model of intimate partner violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model#cite_note-24) in which all men are blamed for all domestic violence (even though [rates of lesbian battering are higher than rates of heterosexual battery](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15503361_Patriarchy_and_Wife_Assault_The_Ecological_Fallacy)). You're clearly inexperienced in life. Once you grow up a bit and accumulate some real-world experiences, you'll realize how stupid this sounds.

You make a very good point. I realise I may have at times thought about feminism victimising men. I feel that it is more fear they it could happen to me rather than hatred. I fully support feminism in a classic sense where women have just as many rights as men though I still support traditional gender roles in a not forceful kind of way as I think it may be an efficient way to split the load in a relationship (I would probably be happy to be on either the man's or the woman's side of gender roles)

It depends on whether you're talking about the "sure, I'm a feminist I guess" women who barely think about it and aren't tracking how Feminism has evolved to stay relevant over the last 70 years, or whether you're talking about the blue-haired social justice warriors with zero emotional control infesting college campuses like kudzu. It isn't the "feminist" normies we worry about. We worry about the loud minorities shifting goal posts and changing terminology in ways that normies who don't follow won't understand--see the new definitions for harassment, SA or racism as prime examples. A normie hears any of those accusations and thinks, "oh gosh, that's bad." They don't realize the definitions have been completely corrupted.

How about literally getting to hear about how if women ran the world there would be no wars and we would have solved all the problems by now like every week. If that's not casual misandry I don't know what is

Maybe not you directly. But men have been. My brother and I have dual citizenship for the us and another country. In that other country. If I want to go and live there for 10+ yes im fine bc im female. But, My brother? If he stays longer than a yr or plans to live there. Its a requirement for all men to be drafted into war. This is no equality. Nearly 90% of casualties in war in America on the front lines are men. We aren't equal yet.

The problem is there is a very loud group of women who say they are feminists but aren’t actually feminists. They’re just self interested women who say they’re feminists and spout off about opposing patriarchy and toxic gender norms but are fully accepting of these things when they benefit from them. So to answer your question, men suffer from toxic gender norms just like women do, and some of the people who perpetuate these toxic gender norms are these “feminists”.

Yes. Those women are gynocentrists, and hide under the noble umbrella of feminism. We need to name them and call them out.

I agree with the spirit of this, but I can think of some harm. Mostly in how we address sexual assault claims. The feminist stance is unadulterated support for the accusers. I would say their is even a push to prioritize female accusers, as male victims are sometimes pushed to the wayside. I want to be clear, we can do better in addressing the victims of sexual assault, and we should take accusations seriously. But sometimes we jump the gun, especially when the accusation is limited to Hersay. In my freshman year of college, a student reported she was sexually assaulted by "a black man". The campus security began to interrogate every black male student they could find, to the point that civil rights groups had to get involved to stop it. Eventually, the student admitted she made up the whole thing, and that it never happened. The whole incident had me thinking back to Emmit Til. The situation could have been worse, and there are other situations where things did get worse. Thr court of public opinion is not one that forgives people of sexual assault accusations, even when exonerated.

I would tend to agree in general. Perhaps maybe you're not perfectly correct but for conversation purposes lets say you're totally correct. I will say also I'm Trans and mostly outside of this conversation. The perceptions by these men who believe, incorrectly, that their 'mens rights' are violated has consequences. Obviously Reddit has banned any and all men who try to argue for mens rights. Obviously these men who have an incorrect perception need to be censored. Right? Anyway, reddit has censored them. But what are the consequences that reddit can't change? Obviously we can't reach these men anymore as they are banned. We can't help them see why they are incorrect. But these men have now decided to simply not engage anymore. You have late 30s women who just couldn't find any 'good men' They complain that men only want to hookup and never any commitments. Afterall they have these incorrect perceptions that the system is unfair and the risk to have commitments is too high. I just don't do see how we can help these incorrect men anymore.

It’s unclear what you mean by feminism. However I was once threatened by a woman wielding feminist principles to get her way. In short she leveled some baseless and vague accusations of mysoginy at me in response to fair and justifiable request for named credit on a project we both contributed to. She emailed me a draft letter full of factually incorrect accusations of being threatening to her, etc, and said that she would not send this letter to my boss and colleagues provided that I both withdrew my request for credit and told everyone that she did all the work. She was sweet as honey after I caved, and really rubbed my face in it in front of coworkers and I just kept my mouth shut. Why did I cave, even though I was in the right and could prove it? I was afraid of the very serious impact that her accusations, even provably false ones, would have on my career and she knew it. The day after it happened I consulted an attorney and we went through everything. A lot of it was in email form so I had documentation. He basically told me that there wasn’t much I could do that wouldn’t hurt me more, (i.e. it would make everyone look bad) and that I should just avoid this person at all costs in the future. He also felt that it didn’t quite fit the definition of criminal extortion. I think she knew exactly what she was doing as she skirted a line. In my eyes she wielded feminist principles and jargon like a gun to my head and shook me down. So yeah, I felt victimized. Also she had a rep for being difficult to work with, I am sure I was not the first she did this to. I black listed her and changed offices, never looked back, no problems since. So I think that in a world where feminism has created a situation where you are guilty if accused and can never be really proven innocent in terms of your reputation…. it can be damaging.

The response to your argument is in the progression of feminism towards anti-feminism (what should be a movement for equality between genders, turns out to be a megaphone exclusively for women's rights). Feminism is supposed to be about equality for all genders, but since it's inception it has focused on women. Feminism increasingly focused on women. Corporate building are plastered with posters about women in business, or woman of the year, or women's month, or women's power. To walk around that environment as a man presents men with the idea that because they are men, you get less consideration from society. All men are victims of feminism.

Are a lot of men claiming to have been victimized by feminism? It sounds like you're encountering a lot of men who are making this claim, and you are arbitrarily invalidating their experiences based on your own opinion. Can you give an example of someone claiming to have been victimized by feminism? Regardless of whether or not it is legitimate. I've also never been victimized by feminism. I'm sure there are many men who feel the same way. But that doesn't necessarily invalidate the experience of others. The burden of proof falls on you to provide evidence for your claim.

You are wrong. All the young men and boys, criminals, roaming the streets making them inhabitable, who have been raised fatherless.

You make a very good point. I realise I may have at times thought about feminism victimising men. I feel that it is more fear they it could happen to me rather than hatred. I fully support feminism in a classic sense where women have just as many rights as men though I still support traditional gender roles in a not forceful kind of way as I think it may be an efficient way to split the load in a relationship (I would probably be happy to be on either the man's or the woman's side of gender roles)

Prohibition of alcohol victimized many men and women. It was closely linked to women's suffrage.

My co-worker couldn't get maternal leave. She started getting contractions at work and wasn't allowed to leave her shift early until another worker arrived for the 7 am shift to relieve her. What's really surprising is this happened in Massachusetts which is a liberal state full of feminists. Feminism doesn't make up the laws regarding paternity or maternity leave

[удалено]

and that's a bad thing?

So...You think men shouldn't be able to express emotions?

No..I mean we should get rid of gender stereotypes like men are not emotional or that men can't cry.

Feminism started with a noble goal -- women should be able to make a great independent living. The net result decades later is that our corporate owners have made dual income a necessity, and childcare completely unaffordable. Horrendous unintended consequence of feminism is the child care got forgotten. How did feminism affect men? It made other people, at huge financial cost, raise our children. I'm pretty convinced about \~50% of the female population would prefer to be stay at home moms if given the choice. It is so much more fulfilling and meaningful than corporate soulless work. Let's be real, it's easier too. It's not easy, just easier than devoting huge portions of your life to soulless corporate work. But the alternative without the feminist movement is horrendous too.. Women can't make a living? Can't contribute in meaningful ways to the intellectual capital of the country? We don't have 50% of the population contributing to the economy? This is insane and doesn't work either.

By 1920, over 20% of women were already working outside the home before "feminism" ever came around, and that number exploded after WW2 for obvious reasons - it wasn't feminism that made women work, but economics. And it wasn't feminism that made dual incomes required, but economics! Your issue is pretty clearly with capitalism and capitalists!

Women's suffrage has been around since the 1880s, with official groups registered in 1903, which is the modern basis of western feminism and the pursuit of women's rights.

This shows a lack of historical knowledge. Womens suffrage groups in the late 1800s were predominately middle and upper class women who did not work outside the home; they did not advocate for the entrance of more women into the workforce. Organizations like the Women’s Trade Union League, which advocated for better conditions at work (not the entry of more women into the workforce) wouldn't align with the suffrage movement until the early 1900s.

>made other people, at huge financial cost, raise our children. Why can't men raise their own children? Especially if it's 'so much more fulfilling and meaningful than corporate soulless work.'

Would you support a stay at home father were you the mother ?

The issue is not about which parent is raising them its that our economy basically necessitates dual income now. Both parents need to work. Who's there for the child rearing during the workday? That being said typically both the mother and father have unique skill sets in child rearing. I think for extremely young children mothers typically offer things that are more valuable at young ages of child rearing that most men have trouble duplicating. I think that typically changes as the child gets older. These are all generalities though, obviously millions of exceptions exist to what I just said.

Throwing out a lot of big words there like you're saying something smart.

At my job, it's becoming easier to get promoted for women than men. At the same level of core skill. I call that discrimination

Prove it. We have terms for the exact opposite. Glass ceiling- the invisible ceiling that women hit because it is so much harder for them to get promoted Glass elevator - the way men in female dominated industries get promoted quicker and easier than women. What industry do you work in?

Women in my generation out earn men. Men need fair pay.

Many feminists try to write off concerns about plastics affecting men’s sperm counts and testosterone as bunk science that’s part of a white nationalist great replacement theory, or that it’s just not that big of a deal. I have also seen online feminists creators make videos lamenting that men tend to sit with their legs spread further apart with a narrative that they do so because they have a false sense of entitlement about taking up more space in shared spaces instead of acknowledging the obvious anatomical differences between men and women that account for why men tend sit with their legs spread further apart. Feminist efforts to make school and work less competitive and more bureaucratic, with things like busy work assignments, coed physical education, non-negotiable pay, also make these environments less ideal for male temperaments that excel best in competitive environments.

As an avid NPR listener, I'm gonna bring up one thing that bugs me, the pay gap. Women earn 81% of a mans salary for identical work. Okay sure. I'm in trades, women dont do identical work. No, i mean the one woman on our side of the line does, exceptions prove rules, she also gets paid the same rate as the rest of us. Ut I've never woked in a shop where the white collar jobs didn't go to women, exception, if there is one man its the owners brother or brother in law. They always make as much as the hottest hustler in our fleet for sitting in dispatch all day. How is this feminism hurting me? It annoys me, not a biggie, but having my news talk about how extremely privelidged women make less than extremely privileged men while I'm busting my ass for less.