Misogyny law" of Brazil is sexist, totalitarian and blatant violation of freedom of speech.

MonochromaticPrism · 2026-04-08T19:48:11+00:00

A source on a legal response to this Law: https://www.direitonews.com.br/2025/12/parecer-tecnico-critico-pl-896-2023-criminalizacao-misoginia-luz-hostilidade-contemporanea-generos.html?m=1

The following text is translated via Google Translate:

First of all, I register my position in favor of the criminalization of sex-based hate speech, as long as it is symmetrical, covering both misogyny and misandry.

Criminal protection against hate speech is legitimate, but must obey the constitutional principles of legality, strictness, proportionality, isonomy, freedom of expression and legal certainty.

The PL, however, was proposed in an environment strongly influenced by media controversies and conceptual distortions, especially involving the term "red pill".

To understand the impact of this on the writing of the criminal type, it is necessary to contextualize the phenomenon.

1.1. The controversy of "Red Pill" and PL 896/2023

The processing of PL 896/2023 occurred amid gender polarization, intensified by the controversy surrounding the term "red pill".

The expression, originally a metaphor for "awakening critical" in the movie The Matrix, has been resignified over time. Cassie Jaye's documentary The Red Pill (2016) highlighted often ignored inequalities that affect men and boys - such as guard disputes, male suicide, domestic violence against men, labor risks and institutional inattention to male emotional health.

Despite this, they reduced "red pill" to a derogatory label, dissociated from the legitimate issues that motivated their initial adoption.

1.2. Reasons to avoid the term in the current debate

Faced with the public crystallization of this misrepresentation, the term "red pill" lost conceptual precision and acquired a strong negative charge. Researchers and defenders of men's rights have avoided using it so as not to reinforce stigmas or undue associations.

As a lawyer and researcher focused on the study of the "Rights of Men and Boys", I deliberately adopt this terminology because I understand it as the most rigorous and appropriate to the definition and delimitation of my research object.

UPDATED LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE AND ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENTS IN THE SENATE

The final text of Bill No. 896/2023 was assessed in a final decision by the Committees of the Chamber of Deputies on October 22, 2025, being approved and immediately sent to the Federal Senate.

Currently, the PL is processing in the Senate at a rapid pace, with declared political priority and expectation of a quick vote.

The text approved by the Commissions now has the following normative wording:

Art. 1º Crimes resulting from discrimination or prejudice of race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin or committed due to misogyny will be punished in the form of this Law.

Single paragraph. Misogyny is considered conduct that manifests hatred or aversion to women." (NR)

Art. 2º-A Insulting someone, offending his dignity or decorum, because of race, color, ethnicity or national origin, or by misogyny: (...) (NR)

Art. 20. Practice, induce or incite discrimination or prejudice of race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin, or misogyny: (...) (NR)

Art. 2º The menu of Law No. 7,716/1989 comes into force with the following wording:

"Defines crimes resulting from prejudice of race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin, or practiced due to misogyny."

In addition to the base text sent by the Chamber, the project received six amendments presented by Senators, which have not yet been approved and are pending deliberation.

Among them, Amendment No. 3 stands out, which proposes a new expanded definition of misogyny:

"For the purposes of this Law, misogyny is considered malicious conduct that promotes or incites discrimination, hostility, segregation or violence against women, due to their female condition, prohibited the punishment of manifestations of an artistic, scientific, journalistic, academic or religious nature, when the discriminatory intention is absent."

2.1. Critical Analysis of Amendment No. 3 in the light of this opinion

As demonstrated in the subsequent legal analysis, Amendment No. 3 does not correct the structural defects of the PL, on the contrary, it reinforces the indeterminacy of the criminal type and expands the space of judicial subjectivity, maintaining:

Violation of strict legality and criminal strictness;
Absence of material delimitation of the protected legal good;
Risk of judicial activism and ideological persecution;
Disproportionate impact on freedom of expression;
Symbolic and undue expansion of Criminal Law;
And, above all, the persistent constitutional asymmetry due to the absence of protection against misandria.

Thus, Amendment No. 3 does not solve, and in some points aggravates, the problems of constitutionality and legal certainty already identified in the base text of PL 896/2023.

ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT OF MISOGYNY IN PL 896/2023

The PL intends to include as a crime of racism "conduct that manifests hatred or aversion to women, based on the belief of the supremacy of the male gender".

Although the stated goal is to combat hate speech, the writing violates structuring principles of the rule of law.

3.1. Violation of Strict Legality and Criminal Taxivity (art. 5º, XXXIX/CF)

The Constitution requires strict, determined, predictable criminal law. The Supreme Court, in repeated jurisprudence, has already stated that the criminal type must be precise and determined, and cannot delegate to the interpreter the role of defining conduct.

The wording of the PL: does not describe conduct, describes feelings ("hate", "aversion"), does not specify typical actions, does not establish circumstances, does not define objective element, does not delimit agent, victim, medium, intensity, purpose, context.

The type of PL is open in excess, allowing arbitrary framing of: opinions, social criticism, academic debates, statistics, humor, controversial comments, scientific diagnoses.

This directly violates the principle of criminal strictness (right lex).

3.2. Lack of Delimitation of the Protected Legal Good

Every criminal type must protect a specific legal good.

The PL does not make it clear what it is: equality? Woman's dignity?

Public peace? Fight against hatred? Moral protection? Protection of female psychological integrity? Defense of ideological narratives?

Law No. 7,716/1989 was built to protect access to goods and services, material equality and protection against institutional discrimination.

The PL does not describe conduct, does not describe discriminatory action, does not link conduct to concrete losses, does not define the core of the type.

Therefore, the criminal type lacks material typicality - consolidated doctrinal and jurisprudential requirement. The PL violates this premise.

Mirality- · 2026-04-08T23:39:49+00:00

There is a bunch of misogynists in the brazilian congress, this won't pass AT ALL, so i'm not worried and you probably shouldn't be too.

It does suck that, for the first time in my life, i have to be grateful to sexist people being in the congress to avoid an easy to abuse law 🙄, fighting evil with evil feels icky. Lei Felca only passed cause more people care TOO MUCH about children than they do about adult women

Razorbladekandyfan · 2026-04-08T19:26:34+00:00

Yeah, Brazilian men need to wake up NOW!

TheDdken · 2026-04-09T00:03:00+00:00

Interesting. I paused the reading of a book to go to Reddit and I stumbled upon this thread. The book is called "Heterophobia" by Daphne Patai, and it explains among other things how loose definitions have been abused by what she labelled the Sexual Harassment Industry, for whimsical accusations. The book was released in 1998. We can safely say that history is repeating itself.

AutoModerator · 2026-04-08T17:13:05+00:00

Thank you for posting to r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates. All new posts are held for manual review and may take up to 48 hours to be approved. Please don’t message the moderators, we’ll make sure to review your submission as soon as possible. If this is your first post, be sure to review our rules to ensure it meets our criteria.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

anomalocarus · 2026-04-09T04:21:26+00:00

OP do you have a source that says men can get 5 years in prison for interupting women? I cant find it anywhere.

yumaeatsirochki · 2026-04-09T14:25:32+00:00

Army just a gay club lol

isekaitis_victim · 2026-04-09T10:05:52+00:00

It sure is dire when i have to sort by controversial to get the reasonable comments. Of course i could make up my own mind if you gave people a source of any kind, but you didn’t

miraidensetsu · 2026-04-08T19:59:06+00:00

As brazilian, let me say this: this is a blatant lie.

That law project seeks to pevent discrimination against woman. And that project (it isn't law yet) don't forbid "manterrupt", "mansplaining" or something like that.

MonochromaticPrism · 2026-04-08T19:50:01+00:00

Looking at forceful mobilization in Ukraine, men are already slaves.

This isn't a reasonable take. A defensive war against a genuinely hateful aggressor is a fair time for a draft. It might be better if the draft was equal, but total war is one circumstances where the physical dimorphism of humans is actually relevant, as the physical demands on active soldiers are substantial. You could argue that more women should be drafted into support roles, but those lower danger roles are basically just jobs unless the nation is defeated, so it just represents diluting employment of men working in those jobs. Additionally if, after this war, Ukraine implements something like the G.I. Bill in the USA, it will end up substantially benefitting those support role men + remaining active soldiers in the long term.

FrostingPlenty4801 · 2026-04-08T21:14:09+00:00

Given that the laws have been (and in many countries) still are oppressing women to much worse degrees, and this “oppressive law” is making you not do something you already shouldn’t do, I think you’ll be ok. If you treat women like people instead of subhuman, this law will not affect you. I think it’s sad that we had to take things to this measure to be treated with the same human decency a man would be treated with. If you want to live in a country where you can be a misogynistic dick, move to a third world country. Both you and the government can shit on women together. Complaining that you can’t make misogynistic comments is like complaining because white people can’t say the n word. The hate women face has been far too normalized. Men make fun of and ridicule everything about femininity. They literally see being associated with femininity as an insult. They think misogynistic jokes are comedy gold and that sexual harassment makes for a fun pass time. The laws are a little vague, but the oppression the laws could cause doesn’t come close to the oppression women already face. If you want to see what it’s really like to be oppressed, try being a woman in the Middle East. Men aren’t allowed to do one thing and they act like they’re a victim of a hate crime, but when they see the constant misogyny and harassment women face, they tell us to just deal with it. It’s hard to care about men being oppressed when women have faced way worse oppression and men never gave a fuck unless we gave them sex or pressured them to do something about it. You don’t see men’s outrage on Trump’s policies that could significantly decrease voting rights for married women. Almost every source you find will disprove that women are more privileged than men. Until the late 19th-20th century, we were literally legally (and socially) seen as property. The oppression men face from the law in Brazil is not being able to use misogynistic slurs or not being able to tell a woman she has a nice rack.

Title	Misogyny law" of Brazil is sexist, totalitarian and blatant violation of freedom of speech.
Author	blackmamba4554
Upvotes	129
Comments	117
Date	April 8, 2026 5:13 PM UTC (3 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1sfz3f0/misogyny_law_of_brazil_is_sexist_totalitarian_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/misogyny-law-of-brazil-is-sexist-totalitarian-and.1577461 https://theredarchive.com/post/1577461

Comments