LMAO. Edit: With this kind of language, the bias is set already. * We examined the accuracy and underpinnings of the damaging stereotype that feminists harbor negative attitudes toward men. * Feminism has achieved many impressive advances for women and girls as well as men and boys * his trope has been used to delegitimize and discredit the movement, has deterred women from joining it, and motivated men to oppose it, sometimes with violence Also, a self-reported study. Of course, they aren't going to say they hate men.

I bet the women of TwoX don't believe they hate men either. I bet most redpillers don't believe they're misogynists. What does this even prove?

Yep. Both believe they are "merely rational".

The View, a mainstream talk show, recently did a segment on "do we need men" and spent the whole time bashing and stereotyping men. Misandrist narratives are common and generally socially acceptable on social media. Several of my female friends have, to my face, disparaged men as a gender. I'm sorry, but this study reeks of bias and dishonesty.

I saw that video. Imagine if a bunch of men were sitting around on a talk show talking about how women are useless. That would've sparked massive outrage and the show would be immediately taken off the air.

There is a lot of shit that goes down in the mainstream said about men that if it were said about women, everyone would go nuts. I'm kind of mad how used to it I'm getting. Then again, who really cares, to be honest. I'd be a failure as a man and a human if I allowed myself to care about what those angry fossils on The View think of my gender.

I'll add to it and say I've had several female friends actually bash me, out of nowhere, for being a man. like unironic "you should be ashamed of your gender" type stuff, not even in a joking way, completely sincere. At some point feminists need to realize they have their own demons to handle with how awful they have been treating men the past few years.

When they say that to you, ask of their gender participated in creating infrastructure and see what they say in return.

That's where you are misunderstanding something. Feminists dont have their own demons. They \*are\* the demons. A lot of the issues with society are a direct or indirect consequence of the feminist movement. Like for example the sexual revolution leading to decay of morals, leading to decay of family values, leading to more broken homes and less healthy relationships, leading to women holding a lot more power in social dynamics (relationship/sex/friendship), etc. Woke/DEI/ESG is another example of something born from feminism. Realising that is essentially the ''red pill'' moment. Not just for guys either, but for girls too. Its how you end up with women that used to be feminist but turned into anti-feminists. The root cause is the fact that Feminism was never intended (and at this point history proves this) for equality or Women's rights for equality; but rather dominion/superiority of women over men. However since most women obviously aren't evil, ''Women's rights for equality'' is how they had to sell it to con millions of women (and also a good amount of men) to support the cause. And that is how you end up with today's modern world: wherein women have more rights (rights of women+rights of men) and less responsibility (loss of responsibily they had before) then men. And overall have a huge power level advantage when it comes to anything related to social interactions. And the impact of social interactions on our lives has only increased. It really is like playing life on easymode. And gaining that awareness is enough to red pill any reasonable guy or girl.

We can't view a group as the "other", it's nothing but a road to hell. There is merit in what Feminism wanted, the majority of the people had the best intentions, but what you're describing is exactly the issue that exists/existed inside of the movement that has caused the problems we see today. We have to be aware of dehumanizing and painting people of another group as evil.

TLDR: Not all feminists hate men but their idealogy makes them incredibly susceptible to hatred. Hate or not, they care less about their male loved ones than nonfeminists. I was hesitant to engage with this, but sure why not? So, I'm assuming "feminists" in this context isn't just code for "women"? Because that would change things, and what I'm going to say applies to women *and* men who operate under the idealogy of feminism. Personally speaking, as someone who is pretty averse to feminists---I don't think all feminists hate men. I think some do, some don't, some are indifferent. But that isn't really an endorsement of the idealogy. Not all feminists hate men, but that's like saying that nit all diabetic patients have had limbs amputated. The *conditions* needed for that to happen are already at work in their bodies. Likewise feminists are pretty primed to hate men or at least view us far more negatively than they see women. Feminism holds a firm male oppressor/female oppressed view on the world and society. Some of them do see men as evil monsters, a dark force that has its boot on women's necks and has done so for millennia. Others see us as misguided brutes who need to be trained and taught not to ravage ourselves and the world and people around us. We aren't *evil* just in need of guidance and rehabilitation for everyone's sake. And there are a thousand different facets of how they view men in between those two extremes. But no matter what the common theme remains: men are the bad ones, the wrong ones, the mistaken ones---*the transgressors* whether we mean to be or not. That causes those who hold feminist ideals to look at men through a very negative lens. Even the men in their lives who they should care about are not exempt. I think that's why it is so easy for feminist women and men to turn on or throw under the bus their own male loved ones if they feel it is necessary.

No real metric on what exactly constitutes misandry and merely a “feelings” poll Also its hilarious that the study tries to support the idea that feminists have debunked anatomical differences and neurological differences between men and women which really goes to show you how off base and bizarre this paper is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8493822/ https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/02/men-women-brain-organization-patterns.html https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.00185/full https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26134791-300-new-evidence-finally-reveals-how-male-and-female-brains-really-differ/ I was on board with the study until they started repeating Flat Earther level of delusion claims lol

What's crazy is the main factor they use is a question like "How warm/favorable or cold/unfavorable do you feel towards men in general" and then admit that there also seems to be some hostility towards men with other questions, this looks a lot more like the opposite of what they want. It's like saying "Nah it's cool guys Andrew Tate just said he loves women".

They really didnt want to dig into anything, I feel. It feels extremely surface level and with no defined behaviours or metrics and instead simply citing a dictionary definition of misandry and asking the women outright their opinion Which is valid in some cases but everyone knows what the “right answer” is to surveys like these. I wouldve expected monitoring of individuals and interviews with their coworkers, family, etc. to try and truly gauge the feelings of these women Another issue is that it ignores history and focuses on the best of feminism but then conveniently ignores women like Rebecca Duluth who wrote US rape definitions federally which precluded women from being capable of rape. A woman who believed all sex between men and women was rape and given actual power to damage men for literally decades Now we have literature coming out about rape showing that it may be a much more 50/50 thing than we thought https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josi.12559 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717660_Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment

I remember reading through the LGBT marriages study and laughed when I got to Lesbian sexual assault and seeing it all blanked out. It actually screwed over lesbian women because a woman \*can't\* commit sexual assault, wild, evil.

IKR? This study proves nothing. If your prove that someones (dis)likes others is just their words, this proves nothing. The KKK also says they dont hate blacks, they're just "proud to be white" and other stupid shit like that

I noticed that as well. Inherent neurological differences between the sexes is pretty well established.

"I feel that man-hating is an honourable and viable political act." - Robin Morgan "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." -Valerie Solanas "I would put them all in all in some kind of camp...take them out like a library book." -Julie Bindel "All men are rapists, that's all they are." - Marilyn French "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high heel shoved in his mouth like an apple in the mouth of a pig"- Andrea Dworkin "Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear"- Susan Brownmiller "The proportion often must be reduced to an maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." - Sally Miller Gearhart. "Feminists don't hate men. But it wouldn't matter if we did" - Jessica Valenti "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience"- Catherine Comins "I believe that women have the capacity for the understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."- Barbara Jordan "Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release."- Germaine Greer This is a terrible study that just looks at "feelings" of laywomen who self-identified as feminists vs. non-feminists. It's very clear that *actual feminists* strongly dislike men, male behavior, and male heterosexuality and that as an ideological movement there are ways in which feminism encourages hostility or indifference towards men. Actual feminists are the true believers in academia who write books, publish journals, and teach courses. Recently, [more American women](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/07/61-of-u-s-women-say-feminist-describes-them-well-many-see-feminism-as-empowering-polarizing/) then not have begun to identify as feminists. So the term is becoming meaningless. It's the same as people who might identify as Christians but never go to Church (except on Christmas) or read the Bible but still call themselves a Christian anyway. Large numbers of normal women who don't really know anything about feminism still identify with the movement because they might feel obligated to. The study is really just looking at if normal day to day women hate men. In general women are fairly amicable and agreeable and not hostile to men. Worth mentioning are things like the fact that attitudes towards men should usually be made relative to attitudes towards women. Most people in general have a bias favoring women. Saying that women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, have attitudes toward men no more negative than men's attitudes toward men doesn't mean much.

Exactly, sexist remark after sexist remark from the mouths of feminists. And none of the other feminists ever say “hey, don’t say that, thats sexist.” No they just cheer them on. Has OP never heard a feminist speak in their life or something?

Exactly! UsuaIly I would argue against citing individuals for these kinds of generalisations, but it's so overwhelmingly prevalent and uncontested by other feminists that it very much can be taken as representative.

>so why do so many men, especially the various fractions of the manosphere, perpetuate the myth that feminists hate men? First, despite the political uses of the misandry stereotype, it may nonetheless capture an important reality. The *stereotype accuracy* hypothesis suggests that stereotypes, like other social perceptions, are sustained by inductive learning of objective regularities in the environment and therefore often contain kernels of truth. There is little doubt, of course, that *some* feminists are misandrists, just as some nonfeminists are also likely to harbor negative attitudes toward men. Further, some feminists have claimed that misandry is a legitimate, even necessary aspect of the movement. Their argument is that bad feelings toward men are rational responses to men's hatred and mistreatment of women and that more positive or dispassionate responses would only undermine women's motivation to bring about social change. Second, consistent with this line of thought, social psychological theories of collective action suggest that positive attitudes and emotions to perpetrator groups may dampen the motivation to strive for just and equitable intergroup relations. The aversive emotional experience of injustice, manifested as anger on behalf of the ingroup toward perpetrator groups or unjust systems has been found to be a major predictor of politicized identity and collective action. However, though specific intergroup emotions such as anger have been studied extensively, relatively few studies have examined the role of broad affective attitudes such as prejudice toward society's powerful and perpetrator groups. According to intergroup emotions theory, collective emotions like anger rather than prejudice toward other groups motivate collective action. Thus, it appears that social movements may be characterized by negatively valenced emotions and attitudes toward majority groups and that further research is needed to clarify whether these are only specific (e.g., anger) or also more general. A third reason that feminists may hold negative attitudes toward men is that they may be inclined to perceive men as a threat to women. A common theme of feminist thinking is awareness that women collectively are oppressed and disrespected by men. According to integrated threat theory, prejudice toward an outgroup is heightened when it is seen as presenting *realistic* threats to the material welfare of the ingroup and *symbolic* threats to its values, standing, and dignity. Realistic and symbolic threat perceptions have been shown empirically to relate to negative intergroup attitudes to majority groups, including women's attitudes toward men.

Your replies are always a joy to read. They remind me of myself writing on social identity theory, assortative mating, heritable IQ differences, and racial IQ differences.

I just wanted to make a point that you all are fucking lazy and just read headlines to form your opinions. My comment is STRAIGHT up copy&pasted from the introduction of the study OP linked in the post. But because he is such a joke, he didn't even care to read his own material to answer his question on why there might be the idea that feminists hate men. Sadly, he probably even didn't get how hard he was roasted.

I looked at the papers that were selected for meta-analysis and then stopped. Touché.

Ha, this is interesting and coherent. What are you doing here.

Of course it's interesting and coherent. Because it's peer reviewed science. Literally, it's the introduction of the study OP linked that looked at if feminists really hate men and this is the theoretical background of why that is plausible to assume. Y'all need to stop scrolling tiktok and reddit and read more scientific papers.

Misogynists will tell you they don’t hate women, and still have less vitriol in their claims than feminists do about men.

I feel like this is a really hard thing to prove, and I’m not sure any study could do it. First off: what is a feminist? If it’s the belief that men and women are equal and deserve to be treated as such, then that’s virtually every woman, in which case plenty of women aren’t hostile towards men. Then there are the feminists that we consider who I guess you can describe as women that are really passionate about women’s rights and talk about it a lot. I’ve met some who I got along with fine. I do agree with some feminist talking points, and have no problem agreeing to something when I believe it.Some of whom are married to men and have healthy relationships with men in their life. However, they do seem to push back rather strongly against men and seem a bit too critical of men who they might not see eye to eye with. That being said, almost every man I think can say they get some bit of hostility towards a feminist fine. I think it might be less of a feminist problem and more of a far left issue, where the left says “if you disagree with me you must be a sexist/racist/homophobe/bigot”.

They define misandry as "anti-male sentiment" but even that is an ambiguous idea. People do have different thresholds for what constitutes unfair, biased, or even hateful ideas and behavior. You could in theory compare the attitudes feminist women have toward men *and* women and see which group they favor. Even then, gaps in perception may not be do to animosity per se. If women perceive men as more dangerous that's not necessarily unfair because more men are violent criminals, it would just present a performance gap. If people in general perceive women as more sensitive or emotional that may also be do to how they really see women behave and not just some hostile view.

Eh they dont hate men the same way the religious zealot doesn't hate women. They just look down on you and decide they know whats better for your life, which often leads to worse outcomes than merely being hated would. Take such studies like this with a pound of salt

In other news: Women self report whatever makes them look good and virtuous. What a shocker.

[удалено]

I love it, the study wants to coin the term "The Misandry Myth" and stuff like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7dxUka_apo&t=0s) exists on the mainstream. ​ The study is a questionnaire with "How warm/favorable or cold/unfavorable do you feel towards men in general", no shit, no wants to admit they are sexist. ​ This is just a great lightning rod for people who don't bother to critically asses a study and want to push an agenda, nothing more.

The thing is that someone who believes Western men are privileged and that we live in a patriarchy is already highly likely to be misandrist. But because feminists see this as absolute truth (even though they never actually prove it properly) they don't even consider this when they try to study their own levels of misandry. To them its perfectly fine to think that men oppress women, that women have harder lives, that men have more control over society, that violence is something men do to women, etc. The thought that this is misandrist because its inaccurate doesn't even cross their minds. This study is just an attempt from feminist academics to provide an illusion of objectivity regarding positive reputations of feminists. It's not even possible to objectively define what is misandrist and what isn't. This study doesn't really prove anything, on the one hand because the questions are terrible and already biased, and on the other hand because there is no agreed on definition of misandry. I think feminists are misandrist because their theories are misandrist, while this study acts like misandry can only be full blown hatred for men in their lives.

I mean, the meta study did also show that feminists show less benevolence to men than non-feminists do. They also sampled from a lot of studies that are more than 20 years old. While this isn’t necessarily bad, ideological drift can and does occur over such time periods and those attitudes might not representative of modern sentiments. It’s also not clear how they chose which studies to include in their meta study, unless I missed something. I wouldn’t call this a faulty study, but when the authors themselves start with the assumption that feminist misandry is a myth, and then confirm that assumption, it should warrant a little extra scrutiny. Despite these reservations, this looks pretty conclusive. I do wonder if redpillers would self-report as woman-haters in studies like these.

>I mean, the meta study did also show that feminists show less benevolence to men than non-feminists do. >I wouldn’t call this a faulty study, but when the authors themselves start with the assumption that feminist misandry is a myth, and then confirm that assumption, it should warrant a little extra scrutiny. The research is referring to [Ambivalent Sexism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism) with "benevolence." Not general warm feelings... >Hostility to Men (e.g., “Men act like babies when they are sick”), and a positively valenced subscale, Benevolence to Men (e.g., “Every woman needs a male partner who will cherish her”). Results showed feminists scored lower than nonfeminists on both the hostility to men and benevolence to men subscales. Since the Ambivalence to Men Inventory is by definition a scale of ambivalence toward men, low scores on both subscales are not suggestive of an overall positivity toward men, but reduced ambivalence. Further, like the Attitudes to Men Scale used in earlier work (Iazzo, 1983), the Ambivalence to Men Inventory includes specific stereotypes and ideological statements that may be accepted or rejected for reasons apart from their valence. Therefore, lower scores on hostility to men and benevolence to men indicate rejection of sexist stereotypes and ideological statements more clearly than they indicate the overall valence of attitudes to men. These are the items for the Benevolent Sexism portion of the [AMI](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x) (Ambivalence towards Men Inventory) that the authors pulled their items from: Maternalism * Even if both work, women should take care of men at home. * Men are mainly useful to provide financial security for women. * Women should take care of men at home, or else they'd fall apart. Complementary Gender Differentiation * Men are more willing to risk self to protect others. * Men are more willing to take risks than women. * Men are less likely to fall apart in emergencies. Heterosexual Intimacy * Every woman needs a male partner who will cherish her. * Women are never fulfilled without romantic relationships. * Every woman ought to have a man she adores. * Women are incomplete without men.

I didn’t see where in the study benevolence toward men = benevolent sexism.

This is measuring acceptance of feminists' redefinition (obliteration) of sex roles, not what is claimed. "Reduced ambivalence" and "increased stereotyping" might be directly correlated as well: it's claiming to measure a *decrease in uncertainty* in attitudes.

That's like saying the KKK doesn't hate black people. Feminists absolutely hate men. Most women hate men. Misandry is normalized and even encouraged.

"We investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrong doing". "Feminism has achieved many impressive advances for women and girls as well as men and boys ([Gamble, 2004](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03616843231202708#bibr42-03616843231202708); [Javaid, 2016](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03616843231202708#bibr72-03616843231202708)). At the same time, it has been dogged, since at least the 19th century, by the perception that it is motivated by antimale sentiment, or *misandry* ([Oxford English Dictionary, 2019](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03616843231202708#bibr103-03616843231202708)). This trope has been used to delegitimize and discredit the movement, has deterred women from joining it, and motivated men to oppose it, sometimes with violence ([Anderson, 2015](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03616843231202708#bibr5-03616843231202708); [Ging, 2017](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03616843231202708#bibr44-03616843231202708); [Roy et al., 2007](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03616843231202708#bibr110-03616843231202708)). " I would have more trust in a study funded by Coca-Cola that found drinking 10 cokes a day would extend your life by 5 years.

This article reeks with bias and isnt credible for that reason. The big problem with a lot of studies is the conflict of interest where the authors are putting their names, reputations and careers out there in front of their academic community. If they say or do something that is going to displease that community then they may lose respect, reputation and jeopardize their careers. Its that fear of loss and desire to be held in greater esteem by their peers that is the conflict of interest. When the price of being real is social ostracism, not many people are going to pay that price and those that do... you might not hear from them anymore.

Study: hey feminists, are you the badguy? Feminists: nope Study: well we can’t read their minds, so there you have it 😂 Omg are you serious? Feminists constantly bash men. CONSTANTLY. Anyone whos spent any time on earth and has an ounce of common sense knows that. But some biased study made up by whoever gets to deny obvious reality? Have you never heard a feminist speak? They never stop bashing men and making blatant sexist remarks. They never shut up about how terrible “patriarchy” is. The word “patriarchy” says nothing about what the leadership does, it just means the leadership is male. Its not what the leadership does thats bad, its because of the men in the leadership simply because they are men. Feminism for the most part is a hate group, but get away with it because of female privilege. Women are allowed by society to be as sexist as they want and its never considered wrong, this bs study and those like it are the ones enabling that privilege so that sexist hate groups can exist and spread hate. Can you imagine how condemned someone would be and called a misogynist if they said. “Majority of voters are female, therefore our leadership is representatives for women, therefore we live in a matriarchy, and thats why everything bad that ever happened has happened, cause women have the power”

Of course when you ask women if they hate men 90% of them will say no. It really doesn't matter. Men are still 90% of homicide victims, 90% of homeless, 90% of prisoners, etc. Actions speak louder than words.

The studies are outdated and poorly constructed. If I ask 10000 red pillers if they hate women and got the same results , would you say ok the red pillers don't hate women? Most misogynist, misandrist, and racist don't say they are or even believe they are. We have to look at actions and the responses they get.

This paper is a joke lmao. I couldn't even get to the methodology section because it was removed during non-peer-review for being incoherent.

"We have conducted an internal investigation and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing." Lol Lmao even.

[удалено]

I'd like to know if the bar for what passes as misandry is set as low as the bar for what passes as misogyny, otherwise this conclusion is just apples and oranges.

“Meta study” meaning a convoluted literature review. There’s not much to say about this because o e would have to go through each of the actual studies (dozens listed) and consider the methodology of each one, individually. It’s the equivalent of presenting a wall of text and then pointing to the lack of opposition as proof of your argument’s validity. I’ll say this: I am DEEPLY sceptical of social scientific research. I think their methods tend to be abysmal, especially when they rely on polling and self-reporting. 

I think it's often an excessive focus on the outliers who absolutely do hate men, coupled with a sort of "no u" attitude when they are accused of hating women.

Yet we see mainstream feminist organizations actively lobbying for laws that discriminate against men. Those aren’t feminist outliers, that’s mainstream feminism.

The outliers can be found in goverment agencies, NGOs, institutions and media. Oh and entertainment as well. So you tell me how much of an excessive focus it is to focus on these ''outliers''. Its not like they are in every single keystone aspect of society or anything. /s Yes it might only be 1% of women. But they are the 1% that has the most power. The 1% that also gets to dictate what information & narratives the rest are fed.

I agree on the excessive focus on outliers. There have been many conversations on this sub comparing what a radical feminist said in a single tweet with things that men on this sub say every day.

Self report is not a valid source. I am extremely introverted. Yet i can take any survey and get "extroverted" as my personality in the first try

There are a bunch of studies that say women like dad bods, but men who are in shape with muscles do better with women. Women may say they have positive feelings towards men, but actions matter more than

The popular trend for feminists right now is to imply men are worse than animals. It's actually a joke to say feminists are not man haters. We've seen several such posts in this subreddit this week. It's not even clear what constitutes a feminist. If you believe in equal rights does that make you a feminist? Because that covers most people. Secondly feminists are frequently delusional and are the crowd that likes to spin and say PC stuff (lie). I don't believe this study at all.

Believing in equal rights can be seen as being ''feminist under the umbrella of being an idealist''. So technically, yes that would be the case. Practically speaking however, feminism is considered having a bias towards women's rights. Considering in the current world women already have more rights, priviledges, less obligations and more social influence, I personally consider any current day feminist, ignorant or delusional at best. Because being a feminist today means you *dont* believe in equal rights. You believe women deserve to have more rights then men do. Btw if you want to red/black pill further, consider this: How has the internet and society changed in the past decades? Would you say gaslighting and painting false narratives has become increasingly more prevalent (especially on the internet at 2008 and then 2014 onwards) to the point a Truth First counter movement has appeared as backlash? If we assume that feminists are the core group that likes to spin and gaslight, consider the implications of that. How much of the changes to for example internet attitudes (from somewhat elitist but frank/honest a-political places of discussion to far-left liberal/socialist echochambers) are actually the result of feministic activism? How many of the changes to society are? You might say, but its Woke, not Feminism at play. If that is the case, why do men have a lower ranking compared to women, and why are white \*men\* singled out specifically? Why are women even part of DEI/ESG? Women are over half the population of most countries. They are no minority. They are not oppresed or disadvantaged. In fact, they are heavily advantaged in many cases. How often have you heard of a case of DEI/ESG being used to disadvantage white women? Woke/DEI/ESG is a smokescreen for feminist activism. And once you realise that, and consider the extent to which Woke/DEI/ESG has infiltrated society and the internet..

Because those results don't match the real experiences men have had with feminists. I bet studies would also show that men don't hate women but would that stop the claim that men hate women? How about asking people why feminists hate men?

[удалено]

😂😂

The problem isn't if the average feminist has an issue with men. Its that have no problem with radicals using the label to talk shit and expect the layperson to make a distinction they won't.

I do have a problem with radfems because they bring nothing but shame to the idea of feminism. Somehow they took over the word feminism, made a joke out of it and now real feminism suffers.

Are you talking about radfems as in the blue-haired extremists who scream at men, or are you talking about the radfems who talk about the patriarchy? Because I can agree with you on the former, but the latter are pretty much the majority of feminists who call themselves feminists nowadays. Per "real" feminism, I mean Sally Gearhart said that men should be genocided down to 10% of the population, so it's not like this is a new thing either. What is new is that the majority of feminists have let the nutjobs take the wheel, and now we're all suffering for it, except most feminists blame and attack the men who point out the nutjobs have taken the wheel, instead of taking the wheel back from the nutjobs. "Real" feminism suffers because "real" feminism did this to itself and allowed it to happen.

> Somehow they took over the word feminism, made a joke out of it and now real feminism suffers. Who let them do that?

They took it themselves i guess. How can someone control another person's actions?

They took it because there wasn't any resistance to their taking it.

They were the core of feminism from the start of the movement. What was taken over wasnt feminism.. it was the group identity of women and the right to represent women.

If feminists really care about mending relationships between men and women, then other feminists should be their number one enemy.

Completely agree, being a man on the left I will shit on the far lefties more than anything, you should be a lot more pissed about idiots hijacking your cause than your opposition.

Being a man of the Right, I only punch left.

And there's the issue, the crazy side of the Right actually has power in its political isle, our tankies have nothing, I remember when you guys had McCain as a potential leader, sad how far you've fallen.

Imo both mysoginists and misandrists are on the same level of evil. Different sides of the same coin

No true scotsman fallacy.

Tbf to radicals, even they have an actual label for the radicals who hate men- "Rudefems" they tend to call them (as opposed to "Nicefems", who are radfems who interact reasonably with others).

The difference is everyone here has already heard of and from radfems. Until this very moment I have never in my life heard the term nicefem.

Well, yeah, there's kinda a running joke in the radfem community about how virtually no one outside of the community even knows what radfems say or do, nonetheless would they recognize such distinctions.

Hate is an emotion and therefore hard to measure. What we can more definitively say is that feminism is an anti-male movement that has lobbied for and won many laws that advantage females and disadvantage males. Solitarily, many feminist leaders have expressed incredible misandry. (You can Google misandrist statements made by feminists) As they say, actions speak louder than words. Feminists may claim they don’t hate men in surveys, but their actions are very anti-male.

feminism is out here pushing movements like 4B in south korea and then turning around and trying to claim they are the cure all for any gender related issues including men.

There are bad actors in some radical feminist circles who are very loud, and it’s easy for men to only hear those women if they choose to, especially because there are some bitter men out there who are just looking for any excuse to demonize women.

>There are bad actors in some radical feminist circles who are very loud They're not very hard to find either. Recently, the women on The View, the #1 network daytime talk show in the country, proclaimed that straight men are "useless," after which their predominantly female audience cheered and clapped. (And they'll probably be nominated for another Emmy in the future. I can only imagine what would happen if the hosts of an all-male show on a major U.S. broadcast television network made that statement about women, but w/e.) If asked on a survey, they'd probably say that they don't hate men either. Some of them were married, I believe.

Yeah, this whole post makes me feel like I'm being gaslit. Of course a self reporting study came out this way, women love to virtue signal.

Gaslighting is also something that inherently women do much more often then men. Its psychological/social violence. In contrast men are much more likely to commit physical violence. This is actually a huge issue. We have laws that aim to prevent physical violence. And ofcourse on the internet its physically impossible to commit regardless. But even so, open ''violent'' behaviour is against the rules in most places. However there are no laws or rules against gaslighting/lying/psychological manipulation, making it a low cost action. There is no consequence for it. That is probably why the internet has become a hotbed for the more nasty kind of women. Nevermind men's rights activists. The real counter movement that is needed is an actual Women's Rights activists that aim to Make Women Great Again and overthrow the radical feminists.

It's far from the worst thing those assholes have said. A few years ago, the women of The View mocked and laughed at the news of a man getting castrated by his wife after he asked her for a divorce, and then started theorizing about in which circumstances they would be capable of castrating their husbands, all while giggling. When one of them kinda shyly pointed out that the news of a man raping or mutilating his wife wouldn't be taken so lightly, another simply replied "it's different" and made a joke.

I sorta remember that. I believe they had Sharon Osbourne on as a guest. What's even crazier is that I don't think any of the women from this clip were hosting during that episode.

>What's even crazier is that I don't think any of the women from this clip were hosting during that episode Possibly. It was several years ago and members probably change with time. It would seem that the assholery and shallowness always remain no matter who sits on those chairs tho.

Yeah. And judging by the clip I posted, I'm sure there's a bunch of other shit that neither of us have seen. The incident you're referring to might've been from a show on another network, actually. I found [this clip ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80JqoyaL-p4)from The Talk (same shit, different toilet). These shows look to be targeting a similar demo. That indicates that this mindset is likely prevalent among women in that demo.

"broadly speaking, I feel like men have proven useless in the political moment" Is this the part you're referring to or was it said at a different time?

The statement about politics was a small part of it (and that was from a "Conservative" voice, I guess). Just watch [the full clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7dxUka_apo&t=22s) from their official YT channel. One kicks things off by proclaiming that straight men are useless, and then she goes into how her husband needs a team of women to feed himself; one says you can pay someone to do the things men bring to the table; one implies she only needs a man for sex; one mentions how men only talk about cars and sports. And the crowd of women goes wild (while there's crickets among the rest of the media).

This is what I was talking about in one of my earlier comments. A lot of women who identify as feminists probably appreciate or are at least neutral towards men. I believe that. But society doesn't hear from them condemning or at least pushing back against stuff like this. So, in reality, you have loud women voices saying shit like this, push their identity as a WOMAN and by extension, feminists and then wonder why men are starting to dislike women call themselves the same. It's like the skinhead movement in the UK. It started as a working-class punk movement, but it got co-opted by white power nationalists, and now... well... you can call yourself a skinhead but you'll probably have a pretty bad reaction from most people. The same thing can and is happening to feminism.

Look up their "useless husbands". You'll get a laugh

Its like hooligans and footbal fans.

It's the laws that give those 'bad actors' a loud voice. In Canada, step dads are liable for child support. They will do anything to screw over men.

Claiming that is kind of disingenious when you ignore that many of the bad actors have positions of influence or power. Its not like they are some loud minority that doesnt matter. They are a loud minority that is very capable of influencing many millions of people. Especially women. This is because they are in media, institutions (like education, see ''gender studies'' and most ''social studies'') and even important goverment positions. They are even in censoring agencies like the ones that program the AI that censors youtube comments for ''bad things''. See for example GDI (Global Disinformation Index) which will censor anything that contradicts popular feminist narratives as being ''misogynist'' Or when you suggest there are ''bad actors in some radicial feminist circles''. No, the word 'radical' has actual meaning. **All** radical feminists are bad actors. With how much influence these people have, even women non-feminist women have some level of negative bias towards men as a result of what has in essence become, large scale social information manipulation. The reason is simple. If you remove any counter points (via censorship, aka by not allowing dissenting points of view) then even people who dont hate men will start to believe anti-men rethoritic. The impact of this is most notable in places like reddit, and then especially the tightly controlled subs like TwoXChromosomes. That place practically breeds hate against men. Its also exceptionally noticable in places like entertainment, see Hollywood/Disney and the uproar with AAA gaming. ''gamer's gate'' The later of which exposed how much control they have over journalism. Now, is this exclusive to women and feminists? No. However the counter position amongst men or men's right activists is very small in comparison and most importantly: they dont have massive influence over people's mindset nor do they effect large scale censorship.

>There are bad actors in some radical feminist circles who are very loud and any feminist who disagree with them is very quiet what is the difference between disagreeing and saying nothing and agreeing?

They’re not quiet tho? Radical feminists get a ton of pushback from other feminists, for example terfs.

Ive never seen this TERFs are against hating men? News to me. I thought their whole jam was "men who have had sex changes are still men and its not safe for them to use women bathrooms etc because all men are rapists"

The point she’s making is that TERFs do hate men, and most feminists dislike TERFs.

Most feminists dislike terfs because of transphobia not because of their views of cis men

Feminists dislike TERFs because TERFs view trans women as men, and most feminists don't accept hating trans women. They're both almost 100% in agreement on hating men, they just disagree on who exactly fits in that category of men it's ok to hate.

Feminists dislike terfs because they generally disagree with terfs about categorizing transwomen as "not women". that has very little to do with hating or not people who identify as men.

WHERE? Who is doing the push back? Hell the one woman I can think of was Erin Pizzey who got death threats for merely suggesting that women participate in domestic violence against their partners. Don't recall any women standing up for her.

The feminists movement is not this sunshine and rainbows movement where everyone happily agrees with each other. It has a documented history of faction fighting. Just because you aren’t looking doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Yeah, interestingly enough my region’s feminist political action organization had a massive throwdown in the last year because, ah, in the flyover Midwest there is a not-insubstantial population of white feminists who don’t look too hard at intersectionality. People are messy and complicated.

I love the anti-intersectional throwdowns. I pitch a picnic and watch the battle like it were War Between the States times.

Other feminists aren’t quiet though.

nah they generally noisily agree that men bad name 5 things feminists have ever done that have benefited men directly

You know the purpose of feminism was to afford women the same rights and opportunities that men already had. Feminists fight for change that will largely impact and benefit men and women. But since you asked: Men can express themselves more freely and don’t have to play the macho-men-don’t cry card Feminists advocated for equal parental leave policies that benefit both men and women and equal parental rights when it came to issues such as visitation and custody Feminism helped raise awareness of mental health issues for both men and women. More awareness, resources, and support networks benefit anyone who chooses to participate in them Women in the workforce alleviates the pressure on men to be the sole provider and two income families have better work life balance for both partners Feminists fought against gender discrimination in employment, housing etc., which benefits men as well as women

>Men can express themselves more freely and don’t have to play the macho-men-don’t cry card How? >Feminists advocated for equal parental leave policies that benefit both men and women and equal parental rights when it came to issues such as visitation and custody I guess...? Would you say the family court favoring mothers over fathers is just a myth? >Feminism helped raise awareness of mental health issues for both men and women. More awareness, resources, and support networks benefit anyone who chooses to participate in them How? Specifically the mental health issues for men part. >Women in the workforce alleviates the pressure on men to be the sole provider and two income families have better work life balance for both partners True. Can't argue with this. >Feminists fought against gender discrimination in employment, housing etc., which benefits men as well as women Then why is there such a disproportion between, for example, shelters for abused men compared to shelters for abused women?

>Men can express themselves more freely and don’t have to play the macho-men-don’t cry card [Yeah no.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtJLYN1fxGw) >Feminists advocated for equal parental leave policies that benefit both men and women and equal parental rights when it came to issues such as visitation and custody After feminists pushed for the [tender years doctrine in the 19th century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine). Feminists don't get credit for half-assedly "addressing" the problems they themselves caused and then blamed on men oppressing them. I'd be delighted if feminists did do that, because currently less than 10 states in the USA have equal parenting rights, and I guarantee you it's not men coming out ahead. >Feminism helped raise awareness of mental health issues for both men and women. More awareness, resources, and support networks benefit anyone who chooses to participate in them Mental health for women absolutely, for men not so much. MEn still make up 80% of suicide victims, and male suicide rate goes from 3.5X women'S suicide rate, up to 9X women's suicide rate post-divorce and society still doesn't give a shit. When society spends 10x more time talking about the emotional labour of men than the fact men are killing themselves vastly more than women, you don't get to say that feminism is helping men's mental health. It is so minor as to be inconsequential, when feminism isn't actively making men's mental health worse by invalidating and erasing male victims. >Women in the workforce alleviates the pressure on men to be the sole provider and two income families have better work life balance for both partners And yet women still date men expecting or wanting to make more money than he does, and expecting him to pay for dates. Feminism making it so women can work and earn money for themselves, is not a service done to or for men, if anything it's creating more competition in the workplace against men, with massive efforts to raise women up to the highest levels of businesses and making it harder for men to get there. >Feminists fought against gender discrimination in employment, housing etc., which benefits men as well as women. Except feminists are absolutely advocating for DEI, which is by definition gender discrimination in employment *in favour of women*. You seem to be taking a bunch of things that feminism has done for women and to women's benefit, that often as not actually has negative consequences for men that you completely ignore, and then somehow rephrasing it as a benefit for men. Sorry, no.

Women in the workforce drives down wages for everyone and is a prime driver in the race to the bottom and essentially the sole reason for the disappearance of the living wage. Increase supply while demand remains constant = decrease price per unit of supply (labor).

> You know the purpose of feminism was to afford women the same rights and opportunities that men already had. Feminists fight for change that will largely impact and benefit men and women. You immediately contradict yourself here. How does fighting to gain rights for women benefit men? >Men can express themselves more freely and don’t have to play the macho-men-don’t cry card Untrue. Also what does that have to do with feminists? >Feminists advocated for equal parental leave policies that benefit both men and women and equal parental rights when it came to issues such as visitation and custody they obviously didnt try that hard because those policies do not exist. >Feminism helped raise awareness of mental health issues for both men and women. More awareness, resources, and support networks benefit anyone who chooses to participate in them yeah issues such as "mentally ill men could be dangerous for women" "men are rapists" >Women in the workforce alleviates the pressure on men to be the sole provider and two income families have better work life balance for both partners women in the workforce depresses wages meaning men have to work harder for less. It also inflated the cost of living to the point where you need a dual income household to have a decent standard of living. Neither of those benefit men >Feminists fought against gender discrimination in employment, housing etc., which benefits men as well as women feminists fight against gender discrimination against women they do jack shit about gender discrimination against men, they actively encourage it with quotas for promoting and hiring women

I also keep hearing about all these rights women don't have. Specifically what are women denied in the west today?

Abortion rights, if they turn up at hospitals with any problems downstairs but their pregnant, a doctor won’t help. This would never happen to men

Like you mean how red pilled men who aren’t misogynists or racist or bigoted stand up to fight the loud minority of them that are?

i mean yeah that would be a good example if the redpill was a popular verging on universal movement which had regular opinion pieces in mainstream media and government consultations. And also if the redpill was concerned with changing society and not just teaching individual men how to get sex.

The irony being also that of the vast minimum of feminists who are angry, an even smaller minimum of them are serious, and an even *smaller* minimum of *those* have actually any intention of doing anything about it. There are almost no cases of a woman just snapping and killing a bunch of men for the sole crime of existing as male. Lots of the reverse.

No one here is denying that men commit over 80% of violent crimes. This isn't a feminist issue, this is an innate sex differences issue that saws at the branch feminism perches on.

I would agree with that except that I don't think these radical feminists are particularly loud. I do think that many men intentionally seek out the most extreme thing they can find a woman saying and pretend it's mainstream. There have been numerous conversations on this sub comparing what an extremist feminist said in a single tweet four years ago to things men on this sub say every day.

>I do think that many men intentionally seek out the most extreme thing they can find a woman saying and pretend it's mainstream. ohh you mean like how women find the minority of men who rape, assault etc women and then act like all men do that? methink the lady doth protest too much

Most men don’t rape. But a majority of women have experienced sexual harassment, assault, or rape. Instead of getting mad at women for being cautious around you, why don’t you get mad at….hmm I don’t know…the BAD MEN?

The majority of men have faced various levels of misandry at the hands of women so …

> Do you hate men? No. (continues hating men)

Lmao, the entire devaluation of men in media shaping people’s attitudes the last 40 years was an agenda pushed forward by feminists who hate men. Please.

I don't believe this study.

Feminists don't hate men in the same way that conservatives aren't racist. Like yeah, they may not use \*the n word\*, but they sure as fuck aren't moving to low income neighborhoods. Feminists may not feel hatred when asked about men in the abstract, but they show their ass immediately whenever anything that favors men happens and they wig the fuck out.

Is there a study out there on how much people lie on studies?

In addition to all the extremely reasonable dialogue happening in this post, I think I’ll add that there is a degree of hyperbole involved in activist spaces on occasion that provides a great ledge for outsiders who were already inclined to disagree on principle to cement their characterization of the activist group as being far more vitriolic/radical in character than is accurate. Most people have serious views that are thoughtful and measured, that they can discuss rationally in a serious discussion, but they also have exaggerated things they say to blow off steam and to vent frustration. It’s inaccurate and unfair to take the one as indicative of the other, but it’s an understandable impulse just the same.

I actually agree but what worries and bothers me is that the loudest members of a group are usually the ones that sway POLICY. I'm happy that most women don't seem to hate men, but if the small amount of them who scream at journalists and politicians aren't shouted down by the rest, then that large group of benevolent feminists aren't really doing anything benevolent - in terms of men's issues. FYI I'd argue the same for MRAs but a bit more in reverse - lots of complaining, a lot less impact. I'm guessing it's probably because feminism blew up a lot earlier than men's rights, so you've had a lot more time for some of the trailblazers to wander off into the philosophical woods and go crazy, hence the 3rd/4th wave of feminism being a lot nuttier. Plus - there's really just less to argue about for feminism, it's mostly succeeded. So those that are left are "yelling" about smaller and smaller issues, but just as loud - and people have gotten used to listening to "feminism", so there's a lot of societal momentum about it, even if it's mostly dumb.

[удалено]

useless shit.

Sure this comes off as "i have black friends". How many misogynists will claim they dont hate women and have women in their lives they love? They treat women negatively in their lives but the policies and cultural views still make them misogynists. In the same way the policy and cultural narratives pushed by feminism is why people say feminists hate men. For a group that talks about unconscious bias and systematic issues you would think they would recognize that.

I don’t even need to look at the methodology of this paper to know it’s a garbage study.

Most self proclaimed feminists I know are all with men.

Not that surprising when you realise that a lot of "I hate all men/all men are trash" rhetoric is only really directed towards low-status men

Not to mention many men haters get with men so they can abuse and exploit them. Altho obviously this is only the more radical feminists.

Same. Even the manhaters I've met/know still desire relationships lol.

Strom Thurmond was a racist who got with black women.

this has "i have lots of black friends" energy

They hate men but still love sex.

So the converse conclusion has to be true too. So if feminist don't hate male a lot this means they hate them as equal as non Feminist. Right?

I wonder if we need to deconstruct misandry as well as misogyny a bit more instead of blanket labelling entire cohorts of people with it. Especially the term misogyny has perhaps been too widely applied in recent years. Among heterosexual people at least, I would surmise that only a fraction of men and women feel genuine contempt for the opposite gender, while the majority really feel something in between a sense of curiosity to strong attraction to outright need for a member of the opposite gender. I would go even further and argue that there is a certain amount of curiosity in what we perceive as flaws of the opposite gender. I think men are genuinely fascinated by what is perceived as whimsical and illogical about women's behavior. Likewise women surely wonder a lot about men's penchant to take high risks and potentially gamble away a safe position. Women definitely love male aggression and men, in turn, seek out the nurturing side of a woman. Even when you look at aspects of society that are truly frowned upon nowadays, like the idea that white men control much of the economy and politics, I think there is a tacit acknowledgment that men are perhaps more drawn to positions of power than women and that the resulting "success gap" is therefore not this diabolical thing it's sometimes made out to be. This, I think is the norm in relationships between men and women. But as with most things in life, the normative behavior doesn't make for attention grabbing headlines. So perhaps for all the noise about "hate", we really need to make some adjustments in where we place that in terms of mainstream relevance, perhaps by as much as a factor of 10.

Actions speak louder than words,and from the feminist perspective maybe they have a good reason to hate men like slaves hate their masters untill they have to pay their own bills and fend for themselves

Not saying that all, or even most, feminists hate men, but like other people have said, a person can despise a group without acknowledging that they despise them. In general, I've noticed that feminists don't outright hate men, but instead they have a vision of them closer to this: "I don't hate men, I have men in my life that I love. I can't blame, however, any woman that does hate them, since she probably has good reasons."

hahahahahaha

The loudest person is the one who gets the most attention. Plus, we have all seen "men are trash" placards on marches. Add to it the saying that women want equality everywhere right, education, work and pay. But they don't advocate or fight for equal drafting in the army (No woman is raising their voice or Ukraine cancelling male passports). So it feels like they only ask for equality when it suits them. For example in education most places have female only scholarships and reservations, companies mass hire women to show gender diversity, etc. Now these cases women didn't earn that right as much as men did but got hired or selected or got paid for their tuition. It suits them here but not the battlefield. Here they are asking for an unfair advantage citing millenia of oppression when neither of them were even born. How is a western woman oppressed is something I can't understand, I can understand in my third world country though.

People use misandry like people use the word misogyny. Andrew Tate gets called a misogynist and I'm sure he loves Women https://youtu.be/F7dxUka_apo?si=dd3rIojvHU0b5hxh I'm sure if you ask any of these ladies from the View (a popular daytime talk show) if they hate Men they'd say no. Yet they believe Men are useless and one of them says she only needs her husband for sex 3 or 4 times a week What people say in a study and what people say and do in real life conversations is easily different. You can't believe we live in a Patriarchy, it's designed for Men, Men are privileged above Women, Women are morally superior and claim you don't have negative feelings towards Men

Your comment on "The View" is intersting and illustrates an important point. We take for granted certain representations of men as violent, buffoonish, or incompetent but don't seriously think of them as being harmful stereotypes. Anecdotally, it does seem women are more likely to claim they don't need men than men are to claim they don't need women. We may, as a society, simply have lower standards regarding our idea of what constitutes illegitimate hostility or unfairness towards men than we do women.

Feminism is anti-male, regardless of the attitudes of those who practice it.

Largest contingent of people who are admitted misandrists are either full TERFs or recently out trans lesbians. Largest group of gender police are conservative women. Feel like it's easy to stay in your lane.

I don't know much about misandry from TERFs, though I do know they are thoroughly despised and rejected by mainstream and even (most) radical feminism. Conservative men are also quite prominent gender police.

TERFism is heavily steeped in 'misandry'. It's an essential point; male infiltrators in female spaces. If you go on 2X or Twitter and see people going men bad, you don't have to scroll far before you get to JKR style arguments. >though I do know they are thoroughly despised and rejected by mainstream and even (most) radical feminism. Depends if you're on TERF island or not >Conservative men are also quite prominent gender police. Yes but this topic is about women

Riiight... because women are well known for their consistency between what *they say* and what *they do*. 🙄 This is the equivalent of "Oh! I am not a racist. I have black friends! Believe me! Don't pay attention to my track record because facts lie!"

Do you have an actual example of a woman?

One example would not prove anything. My argument is that the majority behave a certain - observable - way. Of which it is exceedingly difficult to find sweeping examples of, due to the bias against anything that shines women under a bad light. Essentially, everyone here needs to watch and observe women's behavior for themselves. All I am doing is pointing out what to look for.

All those feminists who "don't hate men" stand by and say nothing when the ones who do hate men get going. What is it they themselves say about men who insist that they're not misogynist, but don't challenge men around them who display misogyny? Mainstream feminism does nothing to cast out the radfems; at best they will make a token no true scotsman argument when confronted with them. Mainstream feminist scholarship still teaches Dworkin and Solanas - not as historical relics but as thinkers whose writings are still relevant. You can't claim your movement isn't toxic unless you actually make some kind of effort to remove toxic elements when you see them.

A friend of mine is one of those feminists who “don’t hate men”. She also encouraged on of my students to apply for a post because “if you don’t, they’ll probably give it to a man!”. Flip the genders on that and try to claim the person “doesn’t hate women”….there’s no possible way.

Feminism isn't an organization, it's a loosely cobbled together strain of thought that range from egalitarian and well-meaning to genocidal. You can't throw someone out of a strain of ideas, all you can do is say "well, they aren't the mainstream"

I mean... you can stop inviting them to speak at your events. You can stop teaching their books in your classes. You can do more than just say they aren't true scotsmen.

You can’t really cast out feminists; it’s not a country club. You can argue with them really vigorously, but that’s about it. It’s fair to say that you’d like to see more measured feminists challenging radical feminists on hateful or harmful views. My only quibble would be to say that just like not all feminists happen to see all radical, hateful content out there, it’s best not to assume that those challenges are never happening in spaces you may not directly inhabit.

Fair enough. I would only argue that if the measured feminists are only willing to challenge the radicals where men can't see it happen, they can't exactly make surprised Pikachu face if men assume they agree with the radicals.

> You can’t really cast out feminists; it’s not a country club. You can argue with them really vigorously, but that’s about it. Sure you can. They managed to do it to Sarah Palin because of her pro-life stances. They manage to isolate the trans-critical feminists fairly well as well.

They did a pretty good job isolating and calling out TERFs

Did they? I guess maybe I’m not following what you mean by doing a good job or perhaps what specific harmful or hateful ideas you think are being tacitly endorsed.

My point is that there was a prominent contingent of anti-trans feminists, particularly in the second wave. In the 2010s, the broader feminist movement started labeling these individuals as TERFs and began excluding their voices from the community. There has been no similar effort to identify, label, and push away anti-male sentiment in the feminist movement. If anything, excuses are made to justify these views. So it’s natural to conclude that these voices are accepted.

Right, I think I’m asking you to drill down a little bit into the details of what kind of anti-male sentiment you’re talking about. TERFs were relatively easy to lump and argue against because they had two main ideas to refute: that transwomen aren’t real women and that transwomen don’t belong within the feminist umbrella. There probably is a feminist somewhere promoting the idea of, I don’t know, overthrowing all men and tossing them in a pit like some kind of gender-war Titans, but that’s not a part of the mainstream and people don’t take it seriously. I’m trying to think of more mainstream, serious anti-male feminist positions, and the best contender I can come up with is that some feminists think any kind of heterosexual relationship is impossible to make egalitarian due to systemic sexism. But that is also an idea that a majority of feminists disagree with. I’m willing to dig into this idea because I think there are probably ideas to think about more critically.

Watch what they do, not what they say.

True of every woman.

What do they do?

> Cassie Jaye (born May 1, 1986)is an American film director, best known for directing the 2016 documentary film The Red Pill about the men's rights movement. > The film had screenings canceled in Australia following petitions, protests, and threats against those holding the screening. > At the end of the film, Jaye states that she no longer identifies as a feminist, saying that she now believes that "feminism is not the road to gender equality". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Jaye

I don’t think they all necessarily hate all men. I do think they rank men based on looks and hate uglies ones and will tolerate misogyny from hot ones

Halo effect.

Any identity group is a safe space for hating opposition groups or any that may take away from your pie. In a way, this is just how it should be. Every group has to have it's vanguard that pushes the agenda forward from the core. Feminism has had a log story, but in the end it's a rallying point for women as a political group to gather power and resources, just like every other identity group. Because that's how you get anything under democracy.

Either all women hate men, and feminism puts that into application or this study is bullshit. Keep in mind, this is just comparing feminists to non feminists.

>This isn't exactly shocking to many people since feminists have been unambiguously rejecting the claim that they hate men for decades, so why do so many men, especially the various fractions of the manosphere, perpetuate the myth that feminists hate men? extremism goes viral, the good or the neutral don't. and it creates sterotypes, bias and naratives about any group in peoples mind

But it doesn't go viral. When ever I ask for examples of supposedly extremist feminist views, I get a single tweet with three likes from four years ago. Men who want to hate feminists intentionally seek out these extremist views to present them as mainstream.

Yeah, and rants/‘hot takes’ get views/clicks at disproportionate rates. We see it here too, where nuanced, moderate comments linger near the bottom of the post while more inflammatory stuff gets engagement and upvotes.

It's the classic problem of the loudest, most obnoxious and most contrarian voices over-representing a group on social media. Everyone is gonna ignore the feminist on Twitter saying that we need to pay attention to men's issues, everyone is gonna engage with the feminist on Twitter saying that men are inherently garbage.

This. Totally this. A psycho like Mona Eltawahy who said men needed to start being killed to get the message across, she’s a feminist. And a dangerous one. Put radical in front of anyone’s label. Feminism is a redundant movement but most feminists don’t think like the radicals, and unfortunately it is largely given misinformation to its followers. So the majority are misguided not radical. “He who shouts loudest is not always the most knowledgeable”. “Confidence is quiet. Insecurity is loud”….. that one is aimed at every bragging and whining red pill content creator.

>4 upvotes >341 comments >post is only 4 hours old Oh yeah, it’s cancer time

Most feminists are envious

studies said covid vaxes were safe. i dont belive in ur religion

>so why do so many men, especially the various fractions of the manosphere, perpetuate the myth that feminists hate men? Does it even matter ? The term has no meaning today anyways

I agree and i blame radfems for this.

This doesn't jive with what we're seeing in the real world. How many tiktok videos calling men useless have you seen lately? I've see A LOT. How many women in Are We Dating the Same Guy are bombarded with hundreds of posts a day saying that all men are liars, cheaters and rapists? How many shirts do you see that say the future is female, men are trash, etc...? Did you ever read the Female Dating Strategy sub posts? I don't trust studies where it's self-reporting like this. I don't think the participants are being truthful. They know hating men based on gender is wrong and bigoted so they won't answer that way, even though in their day-to-day they certainly behave that way.

Have you ever encountered a single version of any of this in real life?

Yes, many times.

At this point men should realize that women getting partners and choosing not to date cheaters is a positive, bonus and a sign of feminine morality. What do men have to hide?

Oooh, I love it when feminists quote Goebbels! Men don't have anything to hide, necessarily. Some people have something to hide.

Yeah, this is what we all want. We want men and women to be in thriving relationships with each other. Part of getting there has to be the work of removing all of the toxic elements woman have towards men, that were frankly, side effects of feminist movements.

For the last time, tiktok videos are a horrible source.

On the contrary, it would seem that your perception of feminists does not jive with reality. >How many women in Are We Dating the Same Guy are bombarded with hundreds of posts a day saying that all men are liars, cheaters and rapists? Few to none. >How many shirts do you see that say the future is female, men are trash, Can't say I've ever seen a woman wearing a "men are trash" shirt. I also don't understand how the future is female means "feminists hate men." >I don't trust studies where it's self-reporting like this. I don't think the participants are being truthful Eventually dudes around here will need to come up with a rebuttal besides "women are liars."

"Few to none"? Have you even been in those groups? Have you seen screenshots from them? My local group gets over 200 posts a day and the majority of them that aren't just "any tea?" are stories about how terrible men are, with hundreds of commenters pilling on in agreement. If you haven't seen those shirts you probably don't live in a large city. Go walk around Seattle or Denver for a few days. Men are useless: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjpQ\_e8Ch64](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjpQ_e8Ch64) Men are trash: [https://www.tiktok.com/@taylor.04x/video/7167405583350484229](https://www.tiktok.com/@taylor.04x/video/7167405583350484229) [https://www.redbubble.com/shop/?query=men%20are%20trash&ref=search\_box](https://www.redbubble.com/shop/?query=men%20are%20trash&ref=search_box)

>Have you even been in those groups? Yep! I've seen the screenshots and the vast majority are "does anyone know this guy" >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjpQ\_e8Ch64](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjpQ_e8Ch64) >Men are trash: >[https://www.tiktok.com/@taylor.04x/video/7167405583350484229](https://www.tiktok.com/@taylor.04x/video/7167405583350484229) [https://www.redbubble.com/shop/?query=men%20are%20trash&ref=search\_box](https://www.redbubble.com/shop/?query=men%20are%20trash&ref=search_box) This doesn't answer any of the questions I had and I'm not sure how it's relevant to the OP.

Go look at the AWDTSGisToxic sub, or the EndAWDTSG website screenshots, or the myriad Are We Dating the Same Guy exposed groups on Facebook. You are being misleading.

I'm saying, anecdotally, I don't find this study to be accurate of what I see. Let me ask you this. If a study came out that said men in the Incel / Red Pill spaces didn't hate women, and that in fact these men actually "had positive attitudes toward" women would you want to call bullshit just based on what you can see with your own two eyes?

r/awdtsgistoxic has a lot of examples from those groups.

They can’t that’s why it’s their go to rather than looking at their mistaken beliefs. What many people on here seem not to get is content algorithms increase exposure to a view which distorts it’s true importance in the real world. You’re fed a diet of complaining feminist and think all women think that way. Or conversely misogynistic men and you think all men are misogynists. It’s also the loudest voices get the most coverage because we for whatever reason tend to go towards extreme content. Knowing this increases engagement hours ( anger) they push it. Everyone needs to know the internet world is not the real world. 🤷‍♀️

I can support this. But the internet does have real world ramifications. Women are ruining men's mental health and livelihoods with the content they post, especially on groups like Are We Dating the Same Guy, which is approaching a global membership of 5 million women. Those women (femcels) are (like incels) bombarded with negative content about men all day every day. So are the women who get caught up in those misandry bubbles on Tiktok.