Blatantly Untrue

Punder_man · 2025-06-09T04:33:26+00:00

So men apparently don't experience systematic erasure..
Ignoring the fact that in most countries the crime of rape is gendered to be a crime that only men can commit thus erasing male victims of rape at the hands of women from the statistics..

Not only that but many countries also have domestic violence policies that out right discriminate against men.. after all, men can't be victims if the system declares that they can only be abusers..

Or in the UK where men who are victims of domestic violence are recorded under the stats for "Violence Against Women and Girls"
Yeah.. men are totally not being systematically erased at all..

Its crap like this which reaffirms why I'm such a jaded individual these days..

DarkBehindTheStars · 2025-06-08T23:49:58+00:00

I hate this so much, when people will deny men can experience sexism. Sexism is something that affects both men and women in different ways, and both genders can be sexist to each other. It's wrong and unacceptable either way, but as usual the misandrist song and dance as to how men supposedly can and will never have it as bad as women even though there's numerous inequalities and problems facing men and boys that continue being neglected.

And you want to talk about institutionalized sexism against men, how about the fact men still have to register for the draft? How infamously misandrist courts and schools are against men and boys? The lack of abuse shelters for male victims? How male victims of things like rape, domestic violence/abuse, trafficking, etc. (especially when by women) are still largely unrecognized? And "believe women" which completely destroys due process for potentially innocent falsely accused men and boys? This all seems pretty damn institutional if you ask me.

I've said it before, but as a mostly left-wing and liberal person, it's always so annoying and infuriating how people are quick to associate being those things with hating men and not wanting to help them. Garbage like this only re-enforces that.

angry_cabbie · 2025-06-09T07:58:02+00:00

Karl Marx was against Feminism, because he felt the fight for rights across classes would be diminished by the fight for the rights of a group.

rump_truck · 2025-06-09T14:05:56+00:00

This feels very similar to the "misogyny kills, misandry hurts feelings" meme. Of course that's how things are going to look when you define "misandry" exclusively as women saying mean things to men on the internet, and define every other form of sexism as misogyny.

Take male-only drafts for example. "That's misogyny because women are perceived as too weak to fight." But when the law was changed to allow women to serve in combat roles, they weren't added to the draft. If it was about women being too weak to fight, they wouldn't have allowed to fight. The fact that they are allowed to fight but not required to sign up for the draft proves that it is actually because men are perceived as disposable. Therefore it should be considered misandry instead of misogyny.

"But men were the ones who set up the draft, so it can't be misandry." So what? Nothing has ever been disqualified from being considered misogyny just because women did it, it just gets considered internalized misogyny. So rich men drafting disposable poor men can absolutely be internalized misandry.

Langland88 · 2025-06-09T06:53:12+00:00

This is yet again another example of trying to add the whole power dynamic to a definition in order to nullify or justify any hate or discrimination against certain people. This is the same BS that's been used to say that racism against white people can't exist or that the LGBT+ community can't harbor any hateful feelings towards heterosexuals. This is no different and this is also why a lot of Conservative parties are now winning elections all over the world and why a lot of Academic Institutions are losing their trust and credibility.

Kuato2012 · 2025-06-09T12:44:54+00:00

Men experience both systemic violence and erasure, so it sounds like that post just admitted that we are an oppressed class...

Despite their best attempts to ahem erase that fact.

purpleblossom · 2025-06-09T13:12:31+00:00

The thing I hate most about the "power + privilege" definition is two-fold: 1st, it was originally created for racism by a white woman, & 2nd, it doesn't take into account classism whatsoever. In fact, the creator explicitly said classism has no bearing on bigotry when it is the oldest form of bigotry there is.

KPplumbingBob · 2025-06-09T12:50:49+00:00

Feminists and dodging accountability, name a more iconic duo.

dhoomz · 2025-06-09T13:06:41+00:00

Its all about hating men and wanting to see them go down.

BhryaenDagger · 2025-06-09T17:28:52+00:00

Women are also not facing “institutionalized violence and systematic erasure,” so congrats, according to feminists, you’re not oppressed either, ladies! And since women and men comprise the sum total of all humans, that’s it: there’s no oppression in human society anywhere!

No, the key to that reasoning isn’t in the meaningful distinctions they’re failing to make but in the behavior it’s intended to provide a mask for. It’s apologism for bigotry. “I can be an ass to you without empathy or conscience cuz I’ve found a rationalization that I personally find sufficient.” It’s an excuse to be a sociopath. Which is exactly how every other rationalization for bigotry works. The only difference is that the feminist version’s rationalization entails a false narrative of “fighting oppression” while simply making a normative habit of being an ass to a group in society they hate… a group which otherwise has the distinction of merely having been born. Arguably though Nazi propaganda also couched antisemitism in terms of “fighting back against the powerful Jew”. Same deliberate error.

And, no, impoverished Appalachian white guys and impoverished inner city blacks and impoverished men across the planet are not oppressing Oprah or Amber Heard or Marjorie Taylor Green or Taylor Swift. Homeless guys and disabled vets aren’t oppressing trophy wives and women’s studies professors and feminist lobbyists/consultants and Disney girlbosses and women CEOs. The oversimplification of oppressor status to the possession of dangly bits is not merely a minor oops. It’s demonstration of a wish to apply oppression to them dangly bits creatures.

And, mind you, sexism is a blanket term which applies to all the others- stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination- as applied to a group delineated by sex. It’s not a “special” word only intended for “the naughty stuff” or only for one sex. See how they have to rework language itself to make their sociopathy fit? It certainly doesn’t fit on its own. Sociopathy never does.

All that said, the draft is very much an institutional mandate of violence that applies exclusively to men, and the general expectation of men to do the dangerous work in society that can result in their “erasure” are both grounds on that definition that would reasonably apply “oppression” status to men, but… please. “I ain’t no Senator’s son. I ain’t no fortunate one.” Not all men are treated the same. And not all women.

A0lipke · 2025-06-09T14:09:50+00:00

A group can occupy the most and least privileged levels or castes in a hierarchy and the highest.

Oversimplifying would be wrong.

Holding the least privileged caste responsible sounds like a common scape goat.

Phuxsea · 2025-06-09T15:15:05+00:00

This is some old indoctrinatory BS that I've heard for a while. It's the same narrative that says there isn't racism against white people.

2025-06-09T03:38:42+00:00

Relevant Karen Straughan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmL2Xna1VdE&t=345s

play_hard_outside · 2025-06-09T07:42:08+00:00

This type of utterly garbage thinking is partly why the United States is failing into a fascist dictatorship.

definitelylowIQ · 2025-06-09T21:09:04+00:00

People defining words to mean what they want them to mean has always happened, and it has always been stupid. The proper way is to follow their lead and ask them to define even more, and more, and more until they themselves don't even know what the hell they're talking about. How do you define oppression in this framework? At what threshold does institutionalized violence become systematic?

In the end, it's never about whose definition is the prettiest - it's about the value judgment implication. "It's not possible to be sexist against men" = "Behavior that is sexist if women experience it isn't a problem if men are on the receiving end". Or at least that's a much more interesting and fruitful statement to discuss for both sides.

Skirt_Douglas · 2025-06-09T16:50:00+00:00

Specifically what systems are violent against women?

AigisxLabrys · 2025-06-09T20:01:42+00:00

No True Scotsman fallacy

Puzzleheaded_Pea_889 · 2025-06-10T03:20:52+00:00

The original source, in case anyone else wants it. Not much better in context though.

Femi_gnatzee_hunter · 2025-06-10T15:37:38+00:00

Actually, it's objectively MEN who are oppressed, and women who are privileged. That's why "misogyny" is fake, it's a BS word used to silence men.

Blauwpetje · 2025-06-13T07:22:57+00:00

It’s a circle reasoning. Postmodern identity politics assumes the voice of the marginalised is more important than the voice of the privileged. It also assumes men are the privileged and women are the marginalised. As this makes women’s voice crucial and men’s voice insignificant, it can NEVER be concluded it may as well be the other way round, or even 50-50, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Postmodern thinking is deadly, both for men and for rational, scientific reasoning.

ABUS3S · 2025-06-15T21:24:04+00:00

People who write this way aren't looking to be convinced. It's an argument that hinges on one engaging with the goal posts they've already arbitrarily set.

Outside of an academic setting terms such as prejudice, discrimination are largely interchangeable. Call them out on their classism, because it's what it is. They, the poster, wants you to either engage from his or her point of view (oh look based on the definitions and goal posts they've set, they're right again!), and or educate/correct you based on language specificity. It's very passive aggressive and should be condemned behaviour. The point is to be always correct by either forcing you to adopt their point of view or dismissing you as ignorant.

Song_of_Laughter · 2025-06-09T23:54:35+00:00

Cool, what's your source of this? Anybody can post a jpg image of some text.

Comments