I don't know where to post this. But I want to get it off my chest somehow. I was reading masculinists the other day and I couldn't help but feel like I was going into a spiral of nonsense.

On the one hand, women and men choose their careers freely and based on their biological differences, therefore there is no oppression, discrimination, sexism, or whatever, limiting women in their careers.

And on the other hand: But men are required to earn more money! So, men and women choose their careers freely based on their fundamental differences, but men are oppressed because they make career choices that make them earn more money thanks to social pressure and the role of provider.

...It doesn't make any sense to me.

Okay, let's go to Ernst Belfort. Again: poor men who must provide for their wives without exception. And also: it's okay that women don't get the same pay as men. How does that work? Men should not be the main income at home, but at the same time their wives should not get equal pay for the same work. Okay, Ernst. It also sickens me that masculinists pretend there isn't a shred of misogyny in their movement while having guys like Belfort as referents who are against women's suffrage while maintaining that women are the privileged sex.

There is a kind of whimsical back and forth between what is biological and what is social.

I also find some of the evidence they use to argue that gynocentrism exists very lazy. 'On X occasion teachers evaluated women better when they knew they were women and worse when the test was anonymous. Female privilege...!' And what about all the countless occasions where the opposite was the case? Where the examiners evaluated women worse because they were women and evaluated them better when the test was anonymous? Does that not exist? Does that prove the relentless androcentrism in which we live? Does that prove patriarchy? Does reality change at the whim of these anecdotes that depend on the subjectivity and beliefs of the examiners?

I've also seen nonsense there like it's negative and a sign of misandry that men make a lot of money...Somebody give me that oppression, I need it to pay the dentist.

And also...and this is what I find most insulting, an instrumentalization of autism and a misunderstanding of autism. You know they don't give a damn about men when autism only comes up for two things: 1.Justifying Elliot Rodger 2. Telling you that you are privileged because women have less autism than men, and even telling you that you are privileged because it is impossible for women to have 'that disease', not like men.

This attitude about any subject I have seen in both anti-feminism and masculinism. Think about any issue, I don't know, child abuse. Well, they'll use it to make some gender oppression speech to men: 'Boys get beaten up more than girls!' Three minutes later you'll find them justifying child abuse as an educational tool for parents. The actual issue is irrelevant, it only matters if this has some statistic that apparently disadvantages men over women. Same with autism in this case. men suffer from it more ahhhhh oppressionnnnnnnnnn! Three minutes later: autism is a disease. Anyone who has taken the time to study autism will know that it is not a disease and that girls are possibly misdiagnosed or diagnosed late because they mask better than boys and because there is no differential diagnosis. Female privilege.

I think they have some points, but it's all ruined by these and more stupidities.