Usually, when one of the more "compassionate" feminists tries to support men's issues, the conversation gravitates to an oxymoronic statement that the "patriarchy hurts men too." Although the definition of patriarchy is a system built by men for the benefit of men, according to some, even if men are the victims, it is still a contribution to the oppression of women.

Making this argument is flawed because the "existence" of the patriarchy was frequently the driving force behind many vile actions committed both by individual feminists and organizations both at a systemic level giving the argument practically no weight whatsoever.

To refute the belief that the "patriarchy hurts men too," it is essential to understand that some problems men face are not caused by feminists directly but rather heavily exasperated by feminists and feminist organizations. One of these many issues is the struggles of education that men and boys have in education. The struggles of education that men face are not caused by feminism, but the movement has offered nothing to help; as a matter of fact, it deliberately cripples men and boys more. For example, The Swedish government abolished affirmative action and gender quota laws in university admission because men were benefitting in specific courses; this would not have been a problem but Tobias Krantz, who was the minister of higher education at the time abolished the laws due to protest from women's groups at the time stating "The education system should open doors — not slam them in the face of motivated young women," indicating that this would change would not have occurred if it was women benefitting from these laws.

Again in Sweden, the liberal feminist party tried pushing for a "man tax," which is a way for men to compensate for all the male-on-female violence in Sweden. However, it should be noted that the leader of the feminist party got convicted of tax evasion before making that statement.

Similarly, Mary Curnock is the founder of UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) in England. Has expressed concern about the lack of men in post-secondary education and the disappointing figures of men enrolling in universities. Mary Curnock cited after overseeing UCAS studies that confirmed her initial concerns. Curnock observed an increasing normalization in the failure of boys and men in all age groups and stated that "Quite often initiatives to support men do meet derision from feminists."

Her disquiet was very much granted because a month before coming out with these findings, the University of West England attempted to instill the first (and only) men's officer by the name of James Knight; however, the role was unceremoniously scraped after James, who was the only candidate, faced harassment and disapproving resistance from feminists students and the NUS women's officer at the time by the name of Sarah Lasoye who said: "The role of a men's officer is entirely obsolete and the attempt to implement one stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of liberation and almost always an unearned sense of entitlement." The opposition to James Knight was enough, and he stepped down from the position. As a result, no University in England has had any men's officers since 2018.

This was not the last time this has happened; however in, Ryerson University, an attempt by men to submit their group named "The Ryerson Men's Issues Awareness Society (MIAS)" was denied on the bases that it is anti-feminist and violates the union's core equity values.'

The patriarchy also wasn't the one thing that managed to get Feminist staff and alums signed a letter objecting to an event catering to International men's day at the University of York. The letter in question has poor reasoning as to why they support banning the day, Stating that "We recognize that patriarchy is damaging to both men and women, and we are in support of a discussion concerning this, as well as increased attention to specific issues surrounding men's health. However, we do not believe that the university statement engages with these complex issues with sufficient nuance or understanding." Despite the so-called concern about men's issues from the letter, the day was effectively shut down. Any attempts to discuss men's issues at the University of York have dissipated afterward.

These examples are simply the beginning of an insidious pipeline of transgressions against men and their rights in the name of "equality." One of these rights was the right to safety and support from Domestic violence rights that feminists have not spared a battle fighting against.

Another huge issue that men face is domestic violence, an issue that feminists were all too well-complicit in. In the early 70s, Suzzane K Steinmetz, Murray A Straus, and Richard J Gelles were among the first to study family violence with research that concluded with their groundbreaking research at the time published under the name of Battered Husband Syndrome. The study was one of the earliest discussing male victimization in marriages. Unsurprisingly, the trio and their families were harassed relentlessly, with Suzzane being subject to the majority of the abuse, with her family getting harassment and threats as well as bomb threats in events she was supposed to speak in, not to mention threatening her career by feminists.

​

Details of the harrasement Suzzane faced.

Murray was not spared the treatment as well, with him detailing harassment and getting penalized in his career multiple times as well as detailing the concealment, fraud, or blocking of publication of any data that suggest gender Symmetry. It should be stressed that this happened in the early beginning of research into the matter of family violence affecting the general perception and services available heavily for years to come.

​

Details of harrasment faced by Murray

On the other side of the planet, Erin Pizzey started the first Domestic Violence shelter in the world in 1971 Chiswick, London, facing heavy opposition from authorities; she managed to start a series of shelters as well.

Meanwhile in her first shelter, she interviewed the first 100 women to seek Refuge; in her shelter, she discovered that 60 of the 100 women who entered her shelter were just as violent as the men, if not more violent, concluding that women were just as violent as men. This, however, caused her to actively get harassed by militant feminists after publishing her conclusions in a book titled prone to violence and receiving bomb threats to the point of getting exiled from the UK and having her first shelter rebranded as Refuge, where she was banned from subsequently.

Now the question that asks itself is, what is the purpose of this post? It is simple to highlight that it was not that patriarchy that prevented men from talking and expressing their issues in academia; it was not the patriarchy that prevented a dialogue into men's issues with higher education by deeming such a discussion as an "unearned sense of entitlement." It was most certainly not the patriarchy that harassed and concealed or used intimidation tactics on early researchers of domestic violence. Most importantly, it was not the patriarchy that succeeded in fighting against gender-neutral rape laws in India and Israel. It most certainly was not the patriarchy but the National organization of women (NOW) and their corresponding legal team who fought to replace the gender-neutral 1984 Federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act with the one-sided Violence Against Women Act in 1994, cutting men from any federal aid or funds despite the pre-existing knowledge and studies about family violence. It was not the patriarchy that harassed Erin Pizzey into exile for suggesting that women can be as violent as men.

So, where does this put the "patriarchy hurts men too" argument? It is lip service used by people unaware of what their idealogy has done; it is nothing more than an argument meant to divert the discussion around men's rights to an area that will not offend the sensibilities of feminists. It is a cheap lie made to lure lost men into an idealogy that does not care about their sorrows or issues in any meaningful way. If you care about men, those who are abused, and those who are violated, you will not use lazy rhetoric from the same idealogy that helps perpetuate these transgressions against them.