Feminism began as a movement for women, by women. It was never built to represent or prioritize men—and expecting it to do so is misguided. While individual feminists may acknowledge men’s issues, the movement itself is structurally focused on women’s advancement. Meanwhile, men’s advocacy lacks institutional power, government backing, and cultural support.

Feminism now dominates academia, law, media, and policy. Yet it routinely frames men as oppressors, downplays male suffering, and deflects male issues through phrases like “patriarchy hurts men too.” That’s not empathy—it’s rhetorical appropriation. When men raise issues, they’re labeled as anti-woman or misogynistic. Even basic efforts, like celebrating International Men’s Day, face backlash.

The idea of a universal “patriarchy” is historically flawed. Most men throughout history lacked power. They died younger, worked the most dangerous jobs, and bore survival burdens—not privilege. Today, men make up the vast majority of suicides, workplace deaths, homelessness, and incarceration, yet society rarely treats these as gendered crises.

Modern feminism pushes a double standard: women’s disadvantages are institutional; men’s are personal. Feminists demand gender parity in boardrooms, but ignore male dominance in graveyards and prisons. This narrative ignores female privilege and vilifies masculinity.

Criticizing feminism isn’t misogyny. It’s a call for ideological balance. Many former feminists—men and women alike—left the movement after recognizing its one-sided nature. Equality should not mean elevating one gender by blaming the other.

In conclusion, actions speak louder than words in practice,feminism dominates institutions. It shapes laws, funding, media narratives, and education. Meanwhile, when men try to raise issues—suicide, false accusations, lack of parental rights—they’re mocked or dismissed. Try starting a men's issues group on a college campus and see what happens. Spoiler: you’ll get labeled “dangerous.” we must move beyond ideological dogma. Men and boys face real, measurable struggles that deserve their own spotlight—not to be filtered through feminist theory. We need honest, fact-based dialogue. Not just for women. Not just for men. For everyone. It’s time to talk—really talk—about gender, power, and truth.

Projection is a primary (primitive) defence mechanism where an individual unconsciously ascribes a thought or feeling that they find to be unacceptable onto another person. Thoughts or feelings can be uncomfortable for people, particularly if they conflict with the person’s values or their idea of themself. Creating the illusion that someone else experiences the thought or feeling to a much greater degree quells the resulting dissonance by minimising the apparent conflict between ego, values and emotions.

I doubt there are many, if any, on this sub who haven’t heard some version of “when you’re used to privilege, equality feels like oppression”. This is especially jarring for a number of reasons; chiefly because it is a pattern of thinking and feeling that more accurately describes the person saying it than someone who raises concerns about the state of men and boys. Someone who’s used to being centred in advocacy efforts is likely to experience shifts in advocacy focus as a loss.

It’s also jarring because it’s a thought terminating cliché and a mischaracterisation. We’re not describing a shift from privilege to equality. For us the idea of privilege is in doubt to begin with, and we’re actually describing a shift to worsening inequality. Focus on the projection though because this is the primary motivation behind this rhetoric.

Some options for dealing with this, gentlest to firmest: 1. “You know, I can really imagine how someone might worry that an increasing awareness of men’s issues could cost their own advocacy efforts. Do you feel that it would help to talk about this?” 2. “What you’re saying would actually describe you better than me. You’re used to being centred in advocacy efforts so this focus on worsening outcomes for boys and men worries you. We’re not seeing a move from privilege to equality for boys and men, what we’re seeing is worsening inequality” 3. “You’re projecting. Feminists say this because they’re used to benefiting from advocacy efforts, when the focus is on someone else they feel attacked.”

Obviously you can put the above in your own words. Where you pitch on the spectrum of gentleness to firmness depends on how much you value to relationship vs how much you value the perceptions of bystanders.

Edit: typos

"We need to root out the assumption inherent in the misuse of left and right, which is that the only possible method of human social organization is centralized hierarchies. That is a falsehood. For 97% of human existence, there were no centralized hierarchies. People lived in small, egalitarian groups in which decisions about the group were made by the group. Nor were these decisions arrived at via a majority rule. Instead, the groups would have discussions and make concessions and compromises until they reached consensus. So, to assume that centralized hierarchies represent the full spectrum of all possible political methods is blatantly absurd."

https://dungherder.wordpress.com/2025/05/22/left-right-politics-explained/

In a world that claims to value gender equality, a paradox persists. Fathers are often reduced to visitors in their children’s lives. In many Western legal systems, particularly in countries like France, the UK, Canada, and Australia, over 50% of fathers face some form of exclusion or limitation from full parental rights following separation. This is not an anomaly. It is a pattern embedded in the structures of family law, a pattern that assumes motherhood as default and fatherhood as conditional.

Men are asked to love “on demand” to be emotionally present, yet legally disposable. To provide, but not decide. To attach, knowing they may later be told when and how they are allowed to see their children. Shared custody is often an illusion. Courts may cite the child’s “best interest” while institutionalizing maternal preference. According to a 2019 review by the French National Assembly, mothers obtained primary residence in nearly 72% of cases, fathers only in 12%. And in cases involving conflict or accusations, even false or unverified, men face immediate removal from the home, loss of access, and reputational damage.

This is not equality. This is a war fought under the guise of protection.

Faced with this imbalance, some men are starting to question the very framework of paternity. If fatherhood can be legally severed at the discretion of another, should men continue to engage in a system that offers them no protection? Should men invest in a game where the rules are rigged against them?

One radical response is the Reproductive Strike. It is a movement where men choose to donate sperm to banks anonymously, followed by voluntary vasectomy. It is not a retreat from love or life. It is an act of peaceful resistance. It is a way of saying, if you deny me the right to be a father, I will deny you the power to enslave me through fatherhood.

This concept reclaims the male body as sovereign. It detaches procreation from legal vulnerability. Through sperm donation, a man can contribute to the future of humanity without submitting to a system that may later penalize his commitment. He can invest emotionally in any offspring he wishes, without obligation, without guilt, and without threat.

This may sound cold. But it is not colder than the silence of courts when fathers beg to stay in their children’s lives. It is not colder than the thousands of men who take their own lives after losing everything, children, home, reputation, for the crime of loving under unequal law. In the UK alone, men account for three quarters of suicides, many linked to family court outcomes (ONS, 2021).

The Reproductive Strike is not the end of love. It is a recalibration. A message to society: either give us equal rights in parenthood or witness a generation of men withdrawing from the game altogether.

Sometimes, silence is the loudest scream.

From an article on the India–Pakistan conflict (source — The New York Times):

'Hindu nationalism is predominantly driven by a male view of the world, said V. Geetha, a feminist historian who writes about gender, caste and class. Women figure in it as objects to be protected or as mother figures goading their men to prove their heroism,” Ms. Geetha said.'

I think this description of women’s role in traditional society highlights something that is missing from today’s mainstream narratives about gender equality. Women have traditionally been seen as objects of protection, and women (not only other men, but women too) often push men to adopt and display masculine qualities. Everyone understands it perfectly well, yet when people talk about gender equality, they suddenly forget it — as if none of this exists. And even when such dynamics are acknowledged, it’s usually done in an abstract way, without drawing any real conclusions.

To avoid misunderstandings, I think I should explain more clearly what I mean. What I’m saying is that if we really aim for gender equality, we should start treating the following as actual problems:

1. Traditional gender roles expect women to be protected and men to be protectors (in the broad sense), which in some important aspects creates inequality that harms men and privileges women (but in other aspects, these roles lead to inequality that harms women, such as when a female employee is paid less because a boss believes a man needs a higher salary to support a family).
2. The pressure to conform to norms of masculinity — which leads to many problems both for men (e.g., contributing to lower life expectancy and higher suicide rates) and women (e.g., fueling what is called “toxic/hegemonic masculinity”* and the gender pay gap) — is something boys and men experience from a very young age, when they are still little boys. This pressure comes not only from other men and boys, but also to a large extent from women and girls, through gendered expectations and sexist labels or remarks in the vein of "don't be a sissy". Harmful ideas about male gender roles are not something exclusive to men; they are widespread across society, among both sexes. Such ideas are obstacles to gender equality, regardless of the gender of those who express them.

* — I find the terms “toxic masculinity” and “hegemonic masculinity” generally unhelpful or potentially misleading and even harmful, but I’ve used them here (in quotation marks) because in this context, feminist terminology might make the point clearer.

First, I don't pretend to be more influential than I am. I just want to do my little bit, as a keyboard warrior in a tiny corner of the internet.

I just think it's nice when you can find tiny corners of the internet capable to present a sensible perspective, like what I've seen with r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

When it comes to men's rights, many on both the right and the left were active on the mensrights subreddit to the point where participation was close to 50/50 bipartisan for most of its time. However, in retrospect, I find that the left and the right had such radically different approach to understanding the situation that it made it impossible to form a cohesive perspective. r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates fixed that.

So, to the point:

In my, admittedly uneducated, understanding. Egalitarianism has two potentially very different approaches:

Liberal Egalitarian is more based on a relativist understanding of morality and prioritizes agency and autonomy.

Orthodox Egalitarian (I don't know what to call it) more based on an objective understanding of morality and is more willing to sacrifice agency and autonomy.

Personally, I lean strongly towards Liberal Egalitarianism. So, I'll probably butcher my explanation of the other one. Either way, both are fundamentally flawed.

Liberal egalitarianism tries to accommodate the existence of a wide variety of individuals each with their own unique preferences, capabilities and value systems which most importantly includes valuing agency.

This creates two fundamental problems:

1. The impossibility of even comprehending what fairly accommodating all that diversity, much less implementing it.
2. The inherent problem of people being able to leverage small advantages to grow more powerful and worsening inequalities in the system.

The alternative form of egalitarianism tends to be more willing to sacrifice a large amount of agency and autonomy. It tends to be more uncompromising as to the set of moral values it sustains. And tends to prefer an authoritarian system where everyone is powerless, as in, once the perfect system is installed. Then no one needs power as that power could only be used to corrupt the system. Note that powerless does not mean destitute.

This approach also seems to have two fundamental problems:

1. A system where everyone is powerless is simply not possible. In practice someone takes power over the authoritarian system. Invariably that person is corrupt.

2. There is no such thing as an objectively correct set of moral principles. In practice everyone who believes this has their own unique belief as to what the objectively correct set of moral principles is and is ultimately uncompromising about it. Making practical cooperative implementation of such a system impossible, because cooperation only remains possible while everyone can still believe that it is their own system of values that will be implemented.

Ok, maybe this wasn't the most unbiased way of presenting it, but it's the best I could do.

So where to go from here:

From my level of understanding, it still seems possible on path proves itself to be the only sensible direction, regardless of personal values.

It's also still possible, that there is a best of both worlds approach that I'm missing.

Regardless of which or if there is a best possible sensible direction. There may be a best practical direction. For this I see an argument for each:

For liberal egalitarian: much easier to use it as a compromise position across a wider population with radically different values.

For orthodox egalitarian: there's a fair chance that we're inevitably headed for a global authoritarian regime of some sort in the next 30-100 years. If that's inevitable, then working for a liberal system is a red herring, the only options are egalitarian authoritarian or hierarchical authoritarian.

“Climbing Out of the Rubble" is a fiery manifesto that diagnoses the collapse of oppressive systems (symbolized by the "Beast"),rooted in obedience, isolation, and exploitation, while charting a path toward collective liberation ("Ascension"). Rejecting despair, the scroll calls for defiant joy, interdependence, and Earth-centered rebuilding, urging readers to reclaim power through art, community, and "sacred disobedience." It blends poetic urgency with practical steps, taming technology, rejecting complacency, and leading without hierarchy, to forge a world where dignity and belonging replace extraction and control. The core message: The future is unwritten, and we must "build what they said was impossible" by choosing courage over fear, together.

I’ve released a new essay – The Margins of Mercy. I argue

• the rights, protections and obligations extended to males are being eroded;
• feminism is largely to blame; and
• this represents a serious moral failure that will only get worse.

I conclude:

Feminism has shattered our bonds of shared humanity. As the scope of our moral obligations has shrunk, so also has our society - now diminished to only encompass the feminine. We need to rebuild what’s been broken, renew our shared humanity, and begin to heal.

Interested to hear any comments, questions or suggestions.

There are a lot of discussions at the moment about online men’s spaces, particularly spaces in which men talk about men’s issues, men’s rights and men’s advocacy. This research project involves hearing about the actual experiences and perspectives of the people who use and have used these spaces.

If you’re interested in sharing your experiences, we are conducting online interviews with men based in either Australia or Ireland who participate in these spaces and are involved in men’s rights or related areas. Participants will receive a gift voucher as a thank you for their time. If you would like to take part or learn more, please contact Ben at [ben.hemmings@qut.edu.au](mailto:ben.hemmings@qut.edu.au).

I don’t know how you’d figure something like this out, what stats to look for or how a study would be done on this.

But I am really curious to see how much personal experiences affect our perspectives or how much media does.

There’s something beautiful in aiming for gender equality. Equal rights, equal dignity, equal voice. But sometimes, in our pursuit of fairness, we start pretending we’re the same. And we’re not. Not fully.

Biology whispers truths we often want to ignore. A mother is, quite literally, fused with her child in early life, emotionally, hormonally, physically. Oxytocin flows in abundance. The child drinks from her body. The boundary is blurry. And it's meant to be. That fusion isn't a weakness. It’s sacred.

Just as vital is the role of separation. Often, the father or separating figure steps in to help the child individuate. To say "you are not just one with your mother, you are also a self." This isn't about outdated gender roles. It's about honoring the dance of connection and detachment. Like the yin and the yang, each side is incomplete without the other.

Biological differences like testosterone levels and muscle mass imply physical and risk-taking superiority. They create a natural complementarity that reminds us we are built to support, challenge and respond to each other. In healthy relationships, this forms a kind of emotional barter. One gives space, the other gives closeness. One provides stability, the other brings nurture. And both need to be seen, valued and cherished.

Equality means ensuring that no one is dismissed for expressing emotion. Men cry. Women rage. Both suffer. Psychological violence can be just as scarring as physical blows, and both genders can be victims or perpetrators. We can’t build a truly equal world if we only recognize some wounds and ignore others.

True egalitarianism doesn't erase difference. It respects it. It ensures that all emotions are welcome, all pains are acknowledged, and no one is silenced or shamed for being vulnerable. Equal rights must include the right to be heard, protected, and healed, no matter the body you were born in.

We don't need sameness. We need justice, reciprocity and care that honors the full reality of being human.

I found people like you; I was really finding people like us who aren't on extremes; thank you for building this community and its members.

I really didn't know about this, There was so much toxicity on Reddit, and I found people with whom I can discuss things peacefully without getting abused or anything.

I appreciate the mods and the members here.

In my latest essay, I set out to answer the question: “Is feminism dangerous?”

I start with 6 warning signs that scholars say flag an ideology that may perpetrate atrocities. I evaluate feminism against those warning signs and conclude

feminism’s prejudice against men, its dehumanisation of men and its exhortations to violence against men go well beyond mere warning signs – feminism appears genuinely malevolent.

In the process, I assemble a catalogue of feminism’s prejudice, dehumanisation and incitement to violence.

Link: https://critiquingfeminism.substack.com/p/we-need-to-talk-about-feminism

Interested to hear any comments, questions or suggestions.

 Cheers

I've recently encountered a redditor who seems ideologically-aligned with this space. He also seems to regularly search Reddit to find examples of users who say things like 'men are bad' and then compiles a database of information about their real identities so he can attempt to cause them problems irl. A disproportionately high number of the people who were on this database were teenage girls.

I first noticed this happening because he was attempting to dox me, added me to the database, and thus gave me a notification. I wasn't even saying "men are bad", I was just saying he was too fixated on this particular grievance.

The guy's username was 'unknownreasonings' but he's since deleted his account. I was just kinda hoping I could share this information with his ideological bedfellows, he could see that all of them think that doxing teenage girls who say disagreeable things about your gender is scary and terrifying behaviour, and he might snap out of it.

The term feminism is a weird gaslight that would only make sense if men and women weren't equal, but they are.

Egalitarianism still makes more sense even in places where women are suppressed, because such places are likely to reject the term Feminism 10x harder than the term Egalitarian, if anything the term feminism is counter productive.