Are Feminists Right in Seeking Equal Treatment With Men?

abelabb · 2026-03-18T04:18:24+00:00

Im working two jobs, I pay 75% of everything in the houses, sometimes I drive 10 hours straight and still put in 8 hours of work, and wife complains kitchen is dirty and she is the only one cleaning it, after her stay at home remote computer job 8-4:30.

Forgot I also do the cooking, my own laundry and grocery shopping.

At some point enough is enough, on top of all my sacrifices I don’t want to hear drama!!!

It’s simply not fair equality to women is them taking more than they deserve and still being able to complain!

AbysmalDescent · 2026-03-18T04:24:36+00:00

Feminists are not actually looking for equal treatment with men. They want all the positives of equality, without any of the negatives. That's not equality.

If feminists want women to be paid the same a men, without putting the same level of effort and without having the same burdens of provision that men do, then that's not equality. That's just paying people, who have fewer expenses and put in less effort, more. If feminists want women to have absolute reproductive rights, without allowing for male reproductive rights to even be part of the conversation, then that's not equality. If feminists want to end all violence against women, ignoring the facts that it's impossible to control all violence or that violence against men is still quite common and normalized(from both men and women), that is not equality. If feminists want women to be free of all gender stereotypes or body shaming, but still actively promote gender stereotypes and body shaming against men, that is not equality. If feminists want women to be given the same level of respect as men, but then actively cheer on for women to disrespect men, that is not equality. If feminists want women to no longer be approached/pursued by men and consider it a burden for men to even try, but then make no effort to approach/pursue men themselves, that is not equality.

Angryasfk · 2026-03-18T05:07:58+00:00

One sided “equality” is the point. And it exposes the nasty reality of feminism.

Unnecessary_Timeline · 2026-03-18T04:50:01+00:00

But where it starts to feel off is when “equal” only seems to apply in certain directions or in certain circumstances

It’s about that difference between equal and equitable. Feminists often publicly advocate for equality, whereas their actual goal is equitability.

Equality can be measured quantitatively, it can be measured.

Equitability is a perversion of equality. It can’t be measured, it’s based on an opinion. Feminists purposely conflate the two in order to justify their prejudices. Equitability is institutional and social advantage (aka Feminist approved “privilege” and discrimination) by a different name.

StripedFalafel · 2026-03-18T05:56:47+00:00

I agree with your position but not your terminology.

Feminism opposes equal treatment of men and women - ie it opposes equality. (Sometimes called equal opportunity or formal equality.)

Feminism supports a one-sided version of equality of outcomes. (Sometimes called "gender equality" or substantive equality.)

I understand why you might be confused with the terminology - I think feminism promotes that confusion deliberately. But it makes it really hard to communicate if we use the wrong words.

Former-Dragonfly2226 · 2026-03-18T08:30:31+00:00

They already have equality

Different-Product-91 · 2026-03-18T06:07:37+00:00

It has been said often enough, but it bears repetition: "Equality" in the feminist sense means all rights and benefits and special treatment for women, and none of this for men. We should not discuss this subject any longer but fight against this concept - for the benefit of men!

Brave_Bluebird5042 · 2026-03-18T10:39:51+00:00

Equality of opportunity is not just fair it's beneficial.

Equality of outcome is the dangerous idea.

Melohdy · 2026-03-18T09:40:06+00:00

It's not so much as equal treatment or even equal rights. They want equal benefits, but without the equal responsibility.

New-Distribution6033 · 2026-03-18T14:49:12+00:00

When feminists use the twrm equality, they do not mean they get the same chance as a man, they mean it as a form of justice. A historical justice where all members of the men alive today must pay restitution for the percieved injustices of some, bad men that are now all dead.

Jill tells Jack that since Jack's grandpa was mean to Jill's grandma, Jack has to apologize, and pay her.

Rare-Discipline3774 · 2026-03-18T06:57:22+00:00

Where are they seeking equal treatment?

They already have nearly everything over men, the wage gap will even be in favor of women once the 3 oldest generations die out.

If they sought equality they'd recognize that patriarchy, which requires men to benefit from society, does not exist, they'd stop using the term. They'd be in favor of financial abortion and standardized 50/50 custody. They'd recognize that men are the majority victims of violent crimes instead of saying women should feel safe like men.

Etcetera

Puzzleheaded_Card_71 · 2026-03-18T16:22:50+00:00

It’s never been about equality. It’s about them wanting all their traditional benefits to remain in place, and then equality in the things where men used to dominate or had more influence, thus allowing to achieve supremacy.

Thats why you don’t see women giving up any of their traditional benefits or advantages.

None of them are demanding to be included in selective service.

None of them are demanding wedding be about equal attention to the groom and stop making the bride the focus - but they sure complain about their dad walking them down the aisle and handing them to the husband.

None of them are demanding divorce reform knowing full well they benefit from the current laws.

IceCorrect · 2026-03-19T00:21:20+00:00

They never wanted equal treatment. They wanted male privilage without being treated as expandable

Lanfeix · 2026-03-18T08:52:14+00:00

The original post asks whether we are talking about equal rights and equal responsibilities, or just one side. The Sharples case answers that concretely.

Nineteen men. Ten convictions overturned. Destroyed relationships, lost jobs, estrangement from children, homelessness, suicidal ideation. Andrew Dearden wrote that he started thinking about how much easier life would be if he wasn't here anymore. The anonymous final victim went from the best period of his life to blackout drinking and sleeping rough.

Here is the part that matters most: Sharples did not contact those men's employers. She did not call their families. She did not message their partners. She did not get them disowned, fired, or removed from their children's lives. She made an accusation. Everything else was done by other people, voluntarily, based on an unproven allegation. The accusation was the only input. Society did the rest automatically.

That only works if the default assumption is guilt on accusation. That assumption was built deliberately: believe all women, false allegations are vanishingly rare, scepticism toward a complaint is inherently hostile to victims. One person with bad intent can now activate an entire social system against a man who has been charged with nothing.

Now consider the anonymity argument. Those men were not named publicly. They had what looks like anonymity from the outside. What they actually had was forced silence. They could not defend themselves publicly. They could not be exonerated in open court because there was no trial. There was no forum in which innocence could be established. The silence was not a shield. It was a trap.

The feminist organisations lobbying against anonymity protections for the accused argue that naming defendants encourages other accusers to come forward. The London Feminist Network formally submitted to government that granting anonymity to rape defendants sends a misleading message that false allegations are common. Rape Crisis Scotland argued there is no reason to single out rape defendants for anonymity. The position, stated plainly, is that public naming before charge is a mechanism for producing more accusations. The social destruction that follows is the mechanism working as intended.

The conviction gap argument makes this explicit. End Violence Against Women sued the CPS for being insufficiently aggressive in prosecution. The CPS under Alison Saunders set explicit targets to increase the volume and rate of rape convictions, documented in internal communications. The feminist position is not that the current consequences for accused men are too high. It is that not enough men are being convicted. What happened to the nineteen is, on that framework, the acceptable friction of a system that still is not doing enough.

Now consider what the response to any of this would be if it became politically inconvenient. The Economou case is the template.

Alexander Economou was falsely accused of rape in 2013. He was arrested and never charged. The evidence against the accusation was clear: CCTV footage, hundreds of text messages, an extensive paper trail. His only ask was for her to stop publicly calling him a rapist. He did not go to the police first. He tried to have her stop. When that failed he brought a private prosecution as a last resort, at a cost of £200,000 of his own money. The CPS reviewed the evidence and took over the prosecution themselves, independently concluding it was justified.

Eleanor de Freitas died by suicide four days before trial. Her father then went to every feminist organisation and national media outlet he could find, named Economou publicly, and ran a sustained campaign portraying his daughter as a victim of a vindictive prosecution. The Guardian, the BBC, and the Telegraph all ran the story framing it around her death, not around the false accusation. The Director of Public Prosecutions personally intervened to review the CPS decision. Economou spent years being treated in public discourse as the aggressor.

He sued for defamation. He lost. The Court of Appeal upheld the public interest defence on the grounds that raising questions about CPS conduct was a legitimate matter of public concern. The man who was falsely accused of rape, arrested, publicly named as a rapist, and spent years and his own money trying to clear his name, lost the right to have the record corrected because his accuser's father had a genuine grievance about how the prosecution was handled.

That is the mechanism. The moment a false accusation leads to any outcome that can be reframed as harm to the accuser, the story inverts. The accused becomes the cause of the harm. His attempts to seek remedy become aggression. His request to simply stop being called a rapist becomes harassment. And the institutional response is not to examine the original false accusation. It is to examine the behaviour of the man who tried to address it.

This is not speculation about what might happen if the Sharples case became politically inconvenient. It is a documented case study of exactly that mechanism operating in full. The feminist framework does not have a plan for men like the nineteen. It has a plan for what to do when pursuing accountability for women like Sharples starts to look bad. Economou shows what that plan looks like in practice.

SgtSplacker · 2026-03-18T12:44:05+00:00

Of course men and women should be treated equally. These movements are all the same. You have many that just want equality, then some that want to abuse it to gain more than what they deserve. This is all about people who try to take advantage of the tribal way ALL people think. No, people should not all be paid the same, nobody is the same. Different skill, education, and negotiation skills. The only fair thing is to get what you earn. Nobody should have any legal advantage over any other person... ever.

63daddy · 2026-03-18T13:08:03+00:00

Feminists organizations have time and time again lobbied for policies that advantage women and disadvantage men, clearly showing they are not about gender equality.

Comprehensive_Baby53 · 2026-03-18T04:19:35+00:00

I have this crazy concept that's never been tried before...what if one man and one woman joined together to make a union....that way they would both benefit and falter together. If all single women who were under paid had a husband...the husband would make up for the loss in wages....Its a bizarre consent but by golly, i think it could work!

Feminist don't want equal rights, they want women to be single and working while they're children are in feminist indoctrination camps all day to make more brainwashed feminist aka communists.

Technical_Joke7180 · 2026-03-18T06:37:23+00:00

Does anybody notice that this sub is turned into just a bunch of clickbaity sounding posts

NAWALT_VADER · 2026-03-18T09:12:10+00:00

In my experience, some of this has already changed.

In my divorce, for the custody battle I was easily able to get full 50/50 shared custody. I was the primary caretaker for my two children, so I also receive child support monthly. I was even able to get a lump sum spousal support payment that was considerable.

I agree with many of your complaints, but want to reassure you that many changes have already taken place, and men can and should expect better outcomes these days, at least in divorce court.

Title	Are Feminists Right in Seeking Equal Treatment With Men?
Author	PositiveCorrect4213
Upvotes	25
Comments	33
Date	March 18, 2026 4:09 AM UTC (4 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1rwtpj3/are_feminists_right_in_seeking_equal_treatment/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/are-feminists-right-in-seeking-equal-treatment.1575777 https://theredarchive.com/post/1575777

Comments