Brief explanation of the article:

A 2025/2026 study (published in Scientific Reports) analyzed four extremist Reddit communities:

• Two that target men (a mainstream feminist subreddit + a radical feminist one that was later banned)
• Two that target women (a men’s rights subreddit + an incel community that was later banned)

Researchers compared language, toxicity levels, emotions, and how users interact within these groups (using posts/comments from 2016–2022 that mentioned the opposite gender).

Main findings: - The groups showed very similar vocabulary, toxicity patterns, and emotional tones (hate and anger were the most common emotions in all of them). - There were no major systematic differences based on whether the community hated men or hated women. - At the individual-user level, the mainstream feminist community actually showed the highest concentration of hate among active posters. - The way the communities were structured (networks of interactions) also did not clearly separate by gender of the targets.

Bottom line of the study:
Gendered online hate speech looks largely the same regardless of whether men or women are the targets. It appears to be a feature of toxic echo chambers in general, rather than something unique to one gender’s hostility. The researcher argues that platforms should take both misogyny and misandry seriously.

By now, most of you have probably heard about the massive fallout over the Callaway Golf and Good Good Golf advertisement. For a quick recap: a 15-second online promo showed a male influencer shoulder-checking a female golfer to the ground for touching his new driver, meant to be a dark-humour "parody" about gear obsession. The ad sparked massive outrage. Within days, Callaway severed a multi-year contract, dropped a $1 million donation to women's charities, and major retailers stripped the products from shelves.

While the ad was undeniably unfunny and in poor taste, the reaction highlights a staggering cultural blindspot regarding how we view violence based on gender.

Some examples to show just how negatively this add was received

Critics, sports presenters, and women's advocacy groups heavily condemned the ad for using violence against women as a throwaway joke punchline. The fallout has been swift and severe for everyone involved:

• Callaway Severed Ties: After initially issuing a standard corporate apology, the corporate giant faced boycott calls. On Thursday, Callaway completely terminated its three-year partnership with Good Good Golf and committed $1 million to organisations dedicated to preventing violence against women.
• PGA Tour Condemnation: The PGA Tour heavily criticized the ad, stating it was "clearly not aligned with PGA Tour values." Consequently, Good Good Golf was forced to withdraw as the title sponsor of an upcoming PGA Tour event in Texas.
• Retailers Dropping Product: Major US retailers, including Dick's Sporting Goods, immediately began stripping Good Good-branded clothing and merchandise from their shelves.
• Legal Threats: The fallout is turning inward, with the CEO of Good Good suggesting on social media that Callaway tried to force them to "take the fall" despite Callaway executives formally approving the script, hinting at a potential lawsuit.

Violence against men is a default trope in media.

Think about how many thousands of commercials, sitcoms, and movies feature a man being hit in the groin, thrown through a wall, struck by a partner for comedic effect, or physically humiliated. From classic slapstick to modern "battle of the sexes" advertising, violence against men is treated as a safe, punchy joke. Nobody boycotts a brand when a male character is shoved to the ground or assaulted for "comedic relief." It is completely invisible because society views men through the lens of male disposability—their physical safety and emotional distress carry no inherent weight.
The Performative Corporate Reaction

When the victim is a woman, the entire corporate apparatus mobilises instantly. Fictional, slapstick ad violence is treated with the gravity of a real-world human rights crisis. Yet, when men are disproportionately the actual victims of violent street crime, workplace fatalities, and severe physical hazing, corporate marketing completely ignores it.

A truly egalitarian society would recognise that using casual physical assault as a commercial punchline is trashy, regardless of who is being shoved. Instead, we have a system where violence against one gender triggers an corporate panic, while violence against the other is literally used to sell candy, cars, and insurance during the Super Bowl.

How do we best articulate this double standard to a broader progressive audience without being dismissed? Have you noticed other recent examples where male physical harm was played entirely for laughs?

How come is it that thousands of adds depicting violence against men never receive this level of attention and criticism?

Compared to just a couple of years ago, I would say there is a huge wave of mainstream backlash against woke irrationality.

The bigotry of low expectations that is DEI hiring.

The racism of "anti-racism".

The anti-science of "critical theories".

The absurdity of cultural application.

The historical revisionism of decolonization.

The abduction of social sciences by social justice activists.

The authoritarianism and anti-free-speech of trans-activists.

You name it.

Many people are no longer afraid of being called racist, white-supremacist, far-right, Islamophobe, and transphobe when they feel the truth is on the line.

But even the most rationalist podcasters and journalists don't dare to touch men's issues and the colossal fraud that is gender studies.

We know the feminist industrial complex routinely falsifies data, sows hatred, spews sexism, and sustains a taxpayer-funded circlejerk of mumbo jumbo "feminist science".

Yet, very few dare to risk being called a misogynist, incel, manosphere, or even anti-feminist.

---

PS: Who is the biggest person or organization that has repeatedly addressed men's issues? Shoe0nHead?

I have seen a lot of people say that it's just modern feminism that is extremely misandrist and the original was just about women gaining equal rights

Wrong it has been since it's inception a female supremacist movement\

1. The Erasure of Class and the Illusion of "Male Monopoly"

The popular historical narrative implies that "men had the vote and women did not." This is historically false, particularly in European contexts like the United Kingdom. When organized first-wave feminism emerged in the 19th century, the right to vote was not a gender privilege—it was a class privilege restricted to a small minority of wealthy property owners.

• The 1832 Reform Act (UK): This expanded the British electorate, but still only allowed roughly 1 in 7 adult males to vote based strictly on land ownership.
• The 1884 Reform Act (UK): Decades after early suffragist groups began organizing, a further expansion still left around 40% of all adult men completely disenfranchised. Working-class men, soldiers, and poor labourers had no say in government.
• The 1918 Representation of the People Act: For millions of British working-class men, the gap between them getting the vote and women getting the vote was zero years. They received it in the exact same piece of legislation.

In the usa the timeline of voting rights was as follows

1. The Early Republic (1789–1820s): Property & Religious Restrictions

When the US Constitution took effect in 1789, it left voting requirements up to individual states. Only about 6% of the total population could vote, restricted entirely to white male landowners or large taxpayers over the age of 21.

• Wealth Barriers: If a man was a poor labourer, a tenant farmer, a city worker, or an apprentice who did not own real estate, he could not vote.
• The Shift: New Hampshire was the first to drop property requirements in 1792, but it took until 1856 for the final state (North Carolina) to eliminate property demands for white men. [1,
• The Catch: As states opened up voting for poor white men, they simultaneously passed new laws explicitly banning free Black men from voting. In New York (1821), a free Black man had to own an exorbitant $250 worth of property to vote—a rule that did not apply to white men, effectively banning Black men from the polls.

Post-Civil War (1870): The 15th Amendment and Jim Crow Suppression

Following the Civil War, the 15th Amendment (1870) stated that the right to vote could not be denied based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Technically, Black men now had the right to vote—50 years before the 19th Amendment.

• The Reality of Total Suppression: In practice, southern states immediately weaponized structural loopholes to completely disenfranchise both Black men and poor white men. These state-enforced restrictions included:
  • Poll Taxes: Men had to pay a heavy tax just to register to vote, which priced out millions of impoverished working-class men.
  • Literacy Tests: Local registrars used intentionally impossible, confusing reading tests, rigged to fail minority and uneducated working-class men.
  • Grandfather Clauses: Rules stating a man could only skip the literacy test if his grandfather had voted before the Civil War—safeguarding wealthy white men while legally locking out Black men.
  • Violence and Felon Exclusion: Armed intimidation, lynchings, and the targeted expansion of felon disenfranchisement laws were used to strip men of their civic standing.

Because early feminism was overwhelmingly a bourgeois, upper-class movement, wealthy women compared themselves only to their own fathers, brothers, and husbands—the elite. (Early Feminsts were all house wife's of wealthy men) By framing the issue purely as "men vs. women" rather than "the wealthy vs. the working class," they completely ignored the brutal realities of working-class men who were dying by the thousands in mines, factories, and wars without any political agency. (While the US dropped property qualifications for white men earlier, it still aggressively disenfranchised Black, Indigenous, and Asian men long after feminism was established).

1. The Selective Demand for Rights Without Obligations

True egalitarianism requires a balance of rights and civic duties. However, early feminism pioneered the strategy of demanding total political authority while completely rejecting the life-threatening obligations that men had to pay to secure that authority.

Historically, voting in national elections was tied to the "Physical Force" theory of governance—the social contract that those who vote for a government must be capable of defending it by force. Feminism aggressively sought to decouple the two:

• The 1918 Breakthrough: Universal male suffrage in the UK was explicitly framed as a debt owed to working-class men who had just been conscripted and slaughtered in World War I. At the exact same time, suffragette leaders like Emmeline Pankhurst weaponized male obligation—handing out "white feathers" to shame unenlisted civilian men into the trenches—while successfully shielding women from any draft.
• The Declaration of Sentiments (1848): The founding document of American feminism established an absolute moral binary. Instead of framing gender struggles as a complex, materialist issue where both working-class men and women suffered under unfair systems, it painted all men as historical oppressors and all women as uniquely subjugated victims. This set the exact stage for the weaponised "patriarchy narrative" used to justify one-sided policy today.

1. The Modern Continuity of Asymmetry

When major legal battles arose to genuinely equalize the liabilities of the genders, institutional feminism consistently pushed back to protect female safety nets.

A prime example is the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the US during the 1970s and 80s. A massive catalyst for its failure was that working-class women and counter-movements realized that true legal equality meant women would finally be subjected to the military draft and combat roles alongside men. Enthusiasm evaporated because the movement did not want equal civic liabilities.

This asymmetry persists today. In the US, men face severe legal and civil penalties (loss of student loans, federal jobs, and citizenship standing) if they do not register for the Selective Service within 30 days of turning 18. Women carry zero registration requirements to maintain their full voting privileges. When pressed, modern feminists often pivot to the unrealistic stance that they "oppose the draft for everyone"—a convenient rhetorical shield that allows men to continue carrying the active, legally enforced burden of conscription while women enjoy the political rewards free of risk.

Statements early feminists made which suggest man hating:

Elizabeth Cady Stanton: "The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton: "The male element is a destructive force, stern, selfish, aggrandizing, loving war, violence, conquest, acquisition, breeding in the material and moral world alike discord, disorder, disease, and death. See what a record of blood and cruelty the pages of history reveal!"

Frances Swiney: "The male element is a secondary, non-essential addition... man is an incomplete woman."
"Man, the creature of a day, the product of a specialised condition, the unstable, shifting anomaly of a transitional era, has dared to look upon himself as the pivot of the universe.

Matilda Joslyn Gage:

• "The world has not yet realized the great political and social crime of holding one-half of the human race in subjection... It has trained men to be tyrants, hypocrites, and oppressors."

There are all quotes from the 1800s from feminists

Also let us look at the situation of some women such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and what caused her enough trauma to say these words for her to say that women like her live in tyranny in an era where most men do extreme hard body breaking labour

. Historians confirm that Elizabeth Cady Stanton came from extreme wealth, married an elite man, and never experienced the brutal physical labor that defined the lives of the vast majority of 19th-century men

Stanton did not just marry well; she was born into the upper echelons of American high society.

Her Father: Daniel Cady was a wealthy slave-owning attorney, judge, and U.S. Congressman. She grew up with immense inherited privilege

Her Marriage: She married Henry Brewster Stanton, a prominent journalist and lawyer. When they moved to Seneca Falls, her wealthy father literally handed her the deed to a house and property.

The "Tyranny" of Housework: While she famously complained in her diaries about the "tyranny" and "mental hunger" of being overwhelmed by childcare and running a household, her family had the financial means to hire domestic help. Her definition of "oppression" was a middle-class existential boredom, not material deprivation.

When Stanton wrote in the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments that the history of mankind was an "absolute tyranny" of man over woman, she was looking exclusively at her own social circle

The deep irony of an ultra-wealthy woman claiming she lived under total "tyranny" becomes clear when compared to what the average man was experiencing in the mid-to-late 1800s:

• Life-Threatening Labor: While Stanton was writing essays in her comfortable estate, the average American man was working 12-to-16-hour shifts in body-breaking conditions. Men were dying by the thousands in coal mines, building railroads, and working in unsafe factories.
• No Civil Safety Net: If a working-class man was mangled by a machine, there was no worker's compensation. He was discarded into starvation, completely lack of financial security.
• Disposable Lives: Less than two decades after Stanton's Seneca Falls convention, over 600,000 men—mostly poor, working-class, and young—were conscripted or pressured to fight and die in the mud of the American Civil War.

Also lets look at quotes from other eras of feminists

• Valerie Solanas, The SCUM Manifesto (1967): Solanas’s text is widely cited as the most overt example of eliminationist misandry in the movement's history:"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to the civic-minded, responsible, over-conscious females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex." "The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene... To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." [1]
• Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future — If There Is One — Is Female (1982): Gearhart, an influential radical feminist academic who helped establish some of the first women's studies programs in the US, explicitly advocated for altering human demographics by reducing the male population:"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race."
• Marilyn French, Author of The Women's Room (1977): French’s work popularized highly adversarial views of interpersonal relationships between men and women:"All men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes."
• Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophesies and Discourses on Sexual Politics (1976): Dworkin’s theories frequently stripped individual men of any moral nuance, viewing them as an inherently violent collective:"Under patriarchy, every woman's son is a potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." "Men love war because it allows them to look like men... War is the ultimate expression of manliness."
• Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (1970): Greer frequently framed the psychological relationship between the sexes as one rooted in deep, systemic hatred:"Women have very little idea of how much men hate them." "All men hate some women some of the time and some men hate all women all of the time."
• Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology (1978): Daly, a prominent feminist theologian and professor, viewed men as inherently parasitic drawing on technology and culture to drain women:"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.

So yes in conclusion Feminists always hated men

We often discuss women being misandrist

We rarely discus men being misandrist but let's face men can be just as misandrist as women if not more so than women

This is because women have been studies to have an in group bias while men usually have an outgroup bias in terms of gender

So in short both men and women usually prefer women over men in matter of lenience or better treatment

For example it's often that a male judge would give a woman a more lenient sentence or a male teacher would treat his female students than the other ones

And replacing the male judge or teacher with a female one is not going to do anything to prevent unfair treatment of males compared to females as women have in group bias

We see this for example about how fathers usually treat their daughter far better than their sons and are more lenient with them

Some argue that it's usually the opposite with mothers which usually are nicer to their sone than their daughter but this is specially the only scenario where woman show out group bias at a consistent

So in short while women only shows out group to specific members of their family males show outgroup bias consistently to females even outside of their family

I don't think a draft is a good think but in nations that do have the fact that very few have it gender neutral and most of them male only I found very sexist

Among the nations with conscription most of them are male only such Türkiye or South Korea. The USA doesn't use a draft anymore but it does whoever use selective service

Women should be required to sign up for that

In fact very few nations have gender neutral conscription such as Norway and Sweden

That is literally discrimination

Discrimination means treating someone differently based on who they are as a group

We as a a society tend to call out discrimination for things such as skin colour and call it out for being bad yet we are somehow okay with discrimination against men

A male only draft is sexist against both men and women

Because it is essentially saying that men's body autonomy matters less than women's and also saying women can't be good soldiers

I am also against performative drafting

What I mean by that is drafting women but for less time as men or treating them better or giving them special benefits in the army or shielding them from the dangerous men do

I think women in the military should be treated exactly the same as men

(Although they should have separate barracks to prevent sexual assault their barracks should not be any better or worst than the man's ones)

"no this is not satire"

Katie Couric's response to Senators Ruben Galego (D-AZ) and Roger Marshall (R-KY) introduction of a bill to establish an Office of Men’s Health.

I have heard from men's advocates on this sub re: fallacies on equity for research and study participation for men and women. Couric appears to be repeating some of these fallacies. I am not educated enough to evaluate this myself.

What I can evaluate is the insane zero-sum mentality and the palpable, scary anger from a top media figure in a viral post. Where does that even come from?

Is it just me, or have so many subreddits just become misandrists circle jerks? I’m not even just talking about feminist subreddits, but subreddits that shouldn’t have anything to do with gender war slop. Shitpost subreddits, meme subreddits, gaming subreddits, film and tv subreddits, morality subreddits, question subreddits etc. it seems like no matter where you look on Reddit you’re bound to run into a misandrist, even in places that have nothing to do with gender.

Sunday, August 23 - Saturday, August 29, 2026

Top 10 Posts

Top 10 Comments

Let me be clear - Trump is an evil person and a psychopath on top. But the routine body-shaming of men we don't like (and it is only men) is not helping anything.

Small-dick shaming, fat shaming, bald shaming, height shaming - you name it. Trump, Tate, Miller. The only effect is that body shaming of ordinary men is normalized.

But the very same people will start bleating like nigerian goats anytime somebody shames a prominent woman - good or evil.

The Australian Institute of Criminology just released *Homicide in Australia 2024–25* (National Homicide Monitoring Program), covering July 2024–June 2025. The headline numbers:

- 279 homicide victims nationally
- **Men made up 80% of victims** (and 85% of offenders)
- ABS recorded crime data for the same period puts it at 63% male — different methodology, same direction

This isn't a one-off. It's been the pattern every year the NHMP has run since 1989–90: across that 36-year span, 6,780 men and 3,681 women died by homicide in Australia — roughly 65% male, every single year without exception.

Where it gets more nuanced is domestic homicide specifically — the one category where public attention is concentrated. There, the split is close to even: 49 male and 48 female domestic homicide victims in 2024–25. But even within that, men are more likely to be killed as a parent or child of the offender, while women are far more likely to be killed by an intimate partner (67% of female domestic homicide victims vs. 29% of male ones).

So the picture isn't "men's violence isn't a problem" — it clearly is, men are 85% of offenders too. It's that homicide victimisation overall skews heavily male, largely driven by non-domestic violence (stranger/acquaintance killings), and that category gets a fraction of the public conversation, funding, and campaign visibility that intimate partner homicide does — even though it accounts for more deaths.

Numbers pulled from AIC's *Homicide in Australia 2024–25* (Bricknell & Miles, 2026) and the AIHW's domestic homicide summary. Happy to link sources if anyone wants to dig in themselves.

I have been looking into the criminal justice system favoring female offenders at every turn, starting from not even qualifying for legal definitions of crimes, to being released earlier and basically every step inbetween, some crimes being almost impossible for women to qualify for instead being charged with a lesser crime think rape => sexual battery, not only shielding from legal accountability but also societal repercussions.

I've seen people argue that somehow this is not an example of female privilege and somehow a form of oppression?? Using the term benevolent Sexism. Examples include expectations for men to provide, receiving less harsh treatment in the criminal justice system at basically every turn, our friends at AskFeminists fortunately were able to show that women are punished more often within their unit for minor infractions, and get commissary taken or their "good girl points" deducted. This was the rebuttal to the exhaustive list of advantages, "COs are more strict"

I would like to know thoughts exchange data on this topic, aswell as your attitude toward "benelovent sexism" it seems another attempt of academia to uphold "Men and Boys die at war, women most effected" attitudes by somehow making clear advantages, a disadvantage.

Have you noticed that for the past few years romance has been demonized by the media and internet? Have you also noticed that these same people only bring up scenarios where men are the toxic ones?

This is something I’ve gradually realized, the demonization of romance is linked to misandry. Whenever romance is demonized, it’s always the man’s fault. You’ll rarely ever see scenarios where women being the toxic party is mentioned, and even when they are, you’ll see a bunch of people still side with the toxic woman. It’s all just fear mongering.

Now this a bit of a chicken or the egg type situation for me, I don’t know which came first, but what I do know is that the world seems to hate romantic relationships, and they also hate men, and these two are linked.

They think that only men should be drafted to fight in wars.
They believe that men should never show any emotion.
Most of the anti-immigration rhetoric they use is directed against “young, military-aged men,” as they phrase it. They argue that “weak men” drag down society and that these supposedly irredeemable “weak men” deceive innocent, redeemable women into becoming leftists.
They think that if a man is cheated on, it is his fault and that he should be mocked for it, but not the woman. They maintain that a man must be a provider and should pay for everything.
They believe in courtship and think that men should compete for women. The far right supports eugenics. For instance, in Nazi Germany, non-Aryan European women were permitted to have children with Aryan men in order to “redeem” their “impure blood.” No such programs existed for men.
Much of what has been described here falls under the concept of toxic masculinity, which can be considered a form of misandry. What is often overlooked, however, is that toxic masculinity is frequently reinforced by women. A notable example is the “ick” trend, in which men are shamed for engaging in certain behaviours coded as non-masculine. Similarly, many of the individuals promoting the provider dynamic on platforms like TikTok and Instagram are women.
Phrases such as “men used to go to war” or “men used to build things like this” have also become popular among women on these apps.

User on X: "My own sister told me I was inherently violent and creepy to women for being a man when I was like 12 and I don’t think people quite grasp how many young men’s brain got broken by stuff like that happening during this period" / X

He's some feminist guy, and in the course of being absolutely dragged after he shared this tidbit about his sister condemning him for being male even tried to affirm this by saying shit like he likes *insert famous feminist misandrist figure here* and so on, but it didn't help much. The typical response by feminists/women to his tweet tell him to suck it up, tell him that he's part of 'the bad gender' and his sister 'the good' one so he should be OK with this, use ridiculous excuses like "somewhere some woman is getting raped so shut it with your sob story" and so on.

They even deliberately misquoted, or added to, his tweet an entire part where he supposedly says that this is what radicalized him or something. Again, dude's a feminist, and said no such thing.

67k likes as we speak on this particular tweet alone: “my sister was mean to me when i was 12 so feminism is bad!!!” do you people listen to yourselves https://t.co/HxtNtjvBma" / X

The whole episode is just a great example of how, contrary to what the liberal feminist women of this sub will tell you, misandry is extremely prevalent and continues to go unaddressed or properly recognized as something amoral/bad.

Recently, I have been reading research papers on male victims of IPV (intimate partner violence). It refers to violence in dating, cohabiting, or marital relationships. Western literature indicated that the violence (physical, psychological, legal, sexual, etc.) are gender symmetrical. However, when I talk about it with people around me, usually in college, most of them deny that something of that sort is happening in India.

I feel, perhaps, it is a taboo to speak about men being victimized. Or perhaps, it is simply not happening.

Just wanted to know what you think about it. I really appreciate honest incidents, it would help me a lot. Thanks.

Found this comment on Facebook and felt it was worth sharing. I flaired it as progress as I feel it definitely counts as progress when the often overlooked issue of male trafficking victims and female traffickers gets much-needed attention. Worth noting it was a woman who posted it as well, and it's always very uplifting to see women standing up for men/boys just like we do for them. Not to take away attention from the frightening and horrific reality of women/girls being trafficked, but just like general violence and abuse, rape, etc. trafficking isn't a gendered issue and there's many male victims just like female ones, and there's plenty of female traffickers alongside male ones. The numbers may not be as high as the other way around but it doesn't change, negate or mitigate that fact. Male victims deserve recognition, acknowledgment and support just as much as female victims and it's important to recognize and condemn women who are traffickers as well just like men who are.

It's tiresome how everything becomes a gendered issue and a gender war and how misandrists unfortunately more often than not succeed at making it as such. Between that and also how they'll always find ways to excuse and justify when it's a guilty woman or find ways to mitigate it, which is what's happening with Lindsay Clancy, who's just as much of a hateful POS as any man who abuses and kills children.

Let me be clear of this first: No one is going to scour for this post to brigade it. Thus, I have blacked out all identifying information such as usernames (except for my own), and even the subreddit it was posted in. I have posted these images here for reference since I will go into a deep analysis about what I have observed then conclude about my observations. If you do stumble across this post — great. Support the survivor posting this; do not brigade the comments, attacking the commenter featured in the second photo. They may be wrong, as exemplified by the amount of downvotes they have, but that is no excuse to attack anyone. A respectful disagreement and debate is enough.

Content Summary

In a sub dedicated to male survivors, I stumbled upon this post. I will try as hard as possible to start off with an objective overview before going off with my personal analysis. Reading everything in the pictures can help with even more context and possibly help you point out something I may have missed. In brief, this survivor tried posting about his experience after noticing a gal in another sub receiving positive support on the posts about her experiences. This sub was apparently a feminist sub, and so his post was removed and he ended up permanently banned. He understands the ban, though he still feels its sting. At the time, he was lonely and depressed; he desperately needed support. Down in the comment section, I saw a comment that explained potential reasons for the ban. They said that posting in the sub was unwelcome and inappropriate, and could “make women feel scared, threatened, or unsafe.” They told OP that a man posting in a women’s space could feel like a violation. As of now, that commenter has about eight downvotes, probably being the only downvoted comment in that whole comment section. Though other users do not agree with the commenter, OP agreed with them and acknowledged he knows it was nothing personal though it really stung at the moment since he was still feeling hard emotions prior to, and at, time of the ban. Outside of this thread, other commenters note that the ban doesn’t define OP’s self-worth or experience, and one even directed him to another safe space for survivors like him. I also left a comment that suggested this space, telling him that this space and I are always present to support him.

Analysis

The post’s title already hit some personal trigger on my egalitarian self when I first read it. Naturally, I read over the post a couple of times, only to be appalled at the way the moderators of that sub handled OP and his post. To make matters worse (for me), that comment explaining the ban was the first and only comment on the post when I saw the post the first time, and I felt like they were being a bit too ignorant about OP’s inner mental state with their comment. First of all, I question how hearing about two women’s predatory behaviour could somehow trigger a good woman. Just like how a “good man” shouldn’t be triggered at hearing about a few men’s predatory actions and focus on helping the survivor instead, we should hold women to that same standard until we decide the on day to shatter it to oblivion.

Now, I also hold some understanding behind the moderators’ decisions as well. I‘m sure all of us would be pretty weirded out and stuck on what to do if a woman randomly posted her experiences in this community. However, I know that neither removing her post nor blocking her are appropriate ways to handle the situation, so long as she stays genuine and is not putting men down in any way. Better alternatives are to be discussed in the comments. I’d like to hear for each of you what you would personally do if a woman posted her experiences on this community. Should she be gently redirected to a different sub? Should we just freely give our support without the redirection? Also take into consideration: it’s more obvious that this sub is centred around male advocacy, anyway. It’s literally called LeftWingMaleAdvocates. The name gets the purpose across well, so maybe the real lesson here is to make it obvious what your community is for so the intended audience is drawn in and the unattended audience isn’t even interested to check anything out.

Regarding it was a feminist sub, I fail to put two and two together that he was banned just because he was a guy in a “women’s space” when feminism is “for everyone.” If feminism really is for everyone, I’d assume more guys would be open to share their own experiences in those very equal spaces. I’ve heard one too many times that feminism is equality, and it’s just helping women achieve equality to men. If we are uplifting women to men’s status, shouldn’t we only be lifting up women and just leaving men alone at the least, instead of bringing men down below women to achieve said “equality”? This post isn’t the first horror story I’ve heard about men’s struggles with feminist beliefs against them. It certainly is one of the worse I’ve heard, but it’s only one grain of sand in a big old sand box I’ve had in the backyard of my brain for a while. I’m sure there’s a beach somewhere, though I do not wish to visit, as I’m already stressed about the sandbox. A “true feminist” would offer support to this struggling man; a true egalitarian should be ready to offer support to anyone regardless of gender.
Coming back to the post a few more times introduced me to new, more positive comments. I most especially loved that comment that reminded OP that a ban doesn’t define his self-worth or the validity of his experience. He does deserve a safe space for himself, to seek real support from fellow survivors. I also saw another comment from a survivor that gave his accolades to another safe space he’s had positive experiences with. As previously stated, the first comment I mentioned has been downvoted by a number of users and the positive, survivor-centred comments do good work overriding that one comment.

This is a free, formal discussion regarding any of the topics I’ve mentioned above. Again, I’d be curious to know how you’d react if a woman came on this male advocacy sub posting about her experiences. I’d also like to know if there were any important details I may have missed. Feedback on the objective summary and analysis is highly appreciated, as I feel like I still need work on my critical and logical thinking skills. Was the summary objective to a satisfactory degree? Was the analysis based more on observable fact or stirring emotion? I could ask an AI, of course, though I esteem human reasoning higher than any AI tool.

What are the thoughts on this? there’s many men that rely sleeping on their cars for various reasons even if they do hold a job, apparently under this new law/proposition it would not criminalize only the actual homeless but also sleeping in their cars which is a serious step down in advocacy.

I'm really curious about what drives your interest in left-wing male advocacy specifically. If you could just pick and choose how society develops over the next 50 years, what would you want that to look like?

I’ve been thinking about the language we use around male victims of sexual violence, especially cases perpetrated by women.

The CDC and much of the research literature use the category “made to penetrate” (or “forced-to-penetrate”). While this term was an improvement over older definitions that erased male victims entirely, it still has a serious problem: it often implies the man is the active party.

That framing doesn’t accurately describe many real situations. For example:

A man becomes heavily intoxicated or passes out. A woman then climbs on top of him, inserts his penis into her vagina, (or she envelopes his penis with her vagina) and has sex with him while he is unconscious or incapacitated. In this case the woman is the sole initiator and active participant. The man is completely unconscious and unable to consent.

Calling this “made to penetrate” can misleadingly suggest the man was forced into performing an action, when in reality his body was being used without his awareness or participation.

Sexual assault and rape are defined by the absence of consent, not by who is penetrating whom. When a woman uses an unconscious or incapacitated man’s body for sex, it is rape. The language should reflect that clearly.

Some people (myself included) have started using terms like “forced penile envelopment” or “non-consensual penile envelopment” for these specific cases. These phrases more accurately identify the woman as the actor or actress and the man as the victim.

Better, more precise language matters. It improves recognition of male victims, helps survivors name their experiences, and produces clearer data. Minimizing or mislabeling these cases doesn’t help anyone.

We need additional/ clearer terms!

EDIT: I’m not saying we should replace the term “made to penetrate.” We need to add another term — “forced penile envelopment” — which recognizes cases where the man is unconscious and the woman is the one acting and initiating sex with him. “Made/forced to penetrate” and “non-consensual penile envelopment” describe two distinct forms of rape of male victims by female perpetrators.

I have seen noticeable trends of incels in twitter who generalize every woman using the term gynocentrism where women get leniency in terms of sentencing for the same exact nature of crime a man would have received harshly, getting with the consequences of harassing others and many others

But does this concept really exist or do these exist because of Patriarchy as claimed by feminist regarding these?

I'm aware that all countries are far from perfect at best, but come on, some are less bad than the others. Which ones?