In this article, I'll try to prove that the argumentantion of antimasculists is based on logical fallacies. Their position is clearly fragile because it's based on them. While antimasculists try to convince that their point of view is scientific, it is actually totally illogical. They don't understand dialectics and their worldview is based on their fantasies, not on reality. It is precisely because the rhetoric of anti-masculists is based on logical errors that conversation with them turns into torture.

The most common logical fallacies used by antimasculists include: false analogy, straw man, hasty generalization, false cause, slippery slope, false dillemma, wishful thinking.

Antimasculists often use false analogies to compare two situations which are not similar, or draw invalid conclusions from these comparisons. For example, they draw a false analogy between sexism against men and reverse racism, without seeing the fundamental differences in these phenomena. Both misandry and racism, as well as their synthesis, anti-Black misandry, are reasons why Black men, more than other groups, are viewed as potential criminals and cannon fodder for imperialist war. On the contrary, women have a similar privilege to white people in this matter (although this may not have applied to South Africa, it is more than applicable in the birthplace of intersectional feminism, i.e. United States).

The straw man fallacy is a common informal fallacy where a person creates a strawman version of their opponent's argument. For example, in reality masculists say that sexism against men exist, but in antimasculist caricatures they use the term “reverse sexism” instead of “sexism against men”. And in a dialogue with antimasculists, if you use the term “sexism against men”, then with a high probability they will prove to you that “reverse sexism” does not exist. Meanwhile, many scientists, including even the completely non-masculist Julia Serano, recognize the existence of sexism men face not in the form of reverse sexism.

Hasty generalization is another common fallacy used by antimasculists. Hasty generalization is when someone draws a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. The conclusion drawn is usually far-reaching, but it is based on a small and incomplete sample size. They often use anecdotal evidence to draw broad conclusions about all men.

False cause fallacy is when someone claims that some event is the cause without actually proving the connection. Antimasculists often do that when they claim that gender inequality is caused only by patriarchy, ignoring alienation of men holding public office and owning the means of production and profits from men in general.

The slippery slope is another of the common logical fallacies of antimasculists. In particular, they try to explain the hatred of feminine men as misogyny. In this case, they “allow” themselves to take a position of gender essentialism and confuse femininity and women where this has no basis at all. Hatred towards feminine men has its basis precisely in the fact that they are perceived as extremely different from women, as those who, unlike the “better half of humanity,” should know their place as cannon fodder, and not allow themselves to be feminine. What is simply explained should not be explained by fantasizing about the association of feminine men with women. It should be noted that antimasculists themselves are very often femmephobic and try to portray all feminine women as those who live by adaptive preferences caused by patriarchy. So in this case it even resembles a projection.

False dilemma is when someone presents only two options when there are actually more. Antimasculists often try to make the situation look like a choice between conservatism and radical feminism. In reality, there are many things on which conservatives agree with radical feminists, and many people who disagree with both of them.

Wishful thinking is when someone creates a desired reality in their mind, regardless of the existing circumstances. Antimasculists often ignore the reality of men's difficulties in society and believe that life for men is much easier than it actually is. They focus on the privileges that men have while ignoring other problems such as men's emotional isolation, lack of support from society, and lack of empathy for men's issues and problems. This wishful thinking leads to a situation in which antimasculists overlook the difficulties that men face and only focus on their privileges, often causing a lack of empathy towards men. Antimasculists also believe that they have unconditional support in serious academic circles, although much academic work has been written about discrimination against men as a real, serious and dangerous phenomenon.

In summary, antimasculists use several common logical fallacies including false analogy, straw man, hasty generalization, false cause, slippery slope, and wishful thinking. They use these fallacies to justify their anti-male views and to attack any opposing views they encounter.

There is already a sarcastic joke: men invented logic to oppress.