Why do anti-feminist arguments usually fall flat? (and what are some that don't?)

miscellaneousmonk · 2023-10-28T21:24:37+00:00

I think the best arguments against feminism are those that attack feminism as a theoretical framework, not a political agenda. Patriarchy theory has a nasty habit of trying to overgeneralize complicated and disparate phenomenon, squeezing as much as it can into its umbrella in a way that is technically internally coherent, but fails to account for competing hypotheses.

The conceptual category of Benevolent Sexism is a classic example of this failure. Say we observe that courts punish men more harshly than women for identical crimes, or that male victims of police violence outnumber women 17 to 1, or that people tend to assume perpetrators are men and victims are women. A typical abductive inference in response to this information might be to conclude that there are some areas in which men are negatively stereotyped as violent, criminals, dangerous, etc., and that this stereotype is cashed out in the form of criminal justice discrimination. Instead, a feminist approach to these issues tends to single-mindedly link them back to women's oppression at the expense of considering the more obvious interpretation. It's not even wrong for feminists to look for these connections per se, but it is intellectually lazy at best to ignore these simpler interpretations first, and ethically worrisome to overlook the impacts they have on men in a material sense.

There's also a sociological critique to be made: feminist groups, despite the occasional lip service to men's issues when and precisely when they can be framed as a consequence of patriarchy, are often quite hostile to addressing men's issues head-on. In my experience from my days as a feminist, bringing up men's issues at all is something of a taboo in these groups. People typically take it as a confusing non sequitur at best, and hostile derailment at worst.

Even within those existing feminist efforts to address men's problems, there is a strong undercurrent of victim-blaming. Very often, we will find projects like the good men project, which adopt a framing of trying to "fix" men instead of helping them, as though men themselves were the problem. This isn't just some symbolic slight, it's actively counterproductive. How can any man who has been on the receiving end of legal discrimination or hostile social attitudes look at a project like this and conclude that it's a productive place to help improve men's lot in society? For that matter, is this man going to take women's issues seriously if this is the treatment his own problems get?

One might similarly critique the tendency in feminist groups to permit and even promote hateful stereotypes towards men, particularly those that cast men as violent and/or predatory. Your mileage may vary on whether this matters, since on the hypothesis that Patriarchy theory is correct and men's issues are in some sense insignificant, such stereotypes wouldn't be that important. But, I believe that if you ditch the prior assumption that the theory is valid and try to build a new theory from scratch just by looking at the world, it becomes much more reasonable to say that men may constitute a vulnerable class.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2023-10-28T23:35:10+00:00

I'm 40, and considered myself a feminist for like 20 years. Was saying most of the stuff you hear today from the feminist left before it was trendy. I won't go over the conditions that eventually got me questioning feminism.

But the thing that turned me against it with finality was learning just how much feminist organizations and leadership figures have done to actively victimize men, and then the same movement tells men that these things they did are things men actually did to themselves.

Here's some major examples, which played a huge role in my turn against feminism.

The Duluth Model. Founded by a feminist. This one cuts me deep, because I'm a man who was in an abusive relationship for 20 years. During that time, I saw how the law is biased against men in domestic situations. I knew people who were arrested by default as a matter of state policy to do so, even though they had done nothing aggressive or harmful. For like 15 years, when considering whether to/how to stick up for myself against my abusive ex in my own home, I had to consider that she would start screaming on a hairtrigger, and the likelihood of that resulting in neighbors calling police. I actually had 5 police cars surround me once within like 2 minutes of my ex throwing a temper tantrum in a parking lot.

Through that whole time, I believed the feminist narrative on the issue. That it's that way for 2 reasons. Because domestic violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women, therefor it is proper for protocols to be focused on protecting women. And because cultural biases also see women as too weak and non-agentic to believe that they could possibly abuse a man (benevolent sexism). I thought my experience was an extreme outlier and that was just unfortunate for me, but until women weren't the majority victims of DV that that's all there was to it.

But then I learned about the Duluth Model. Founded by a feminist, Ellen Pence, in the early 80's. Hard to define succinctly what the Duluth Model is. It's a theoretical framework for understanding the issue of domestic abuse, and a set of programs and policy initiatives for combating the issue. It frames abuse as strictly a matter of male entitlement, and it has been the strongest guiding force in public policy in a majority of states for over 30 years. If you've ever been anywhere near an office or website dedicated to addressing victims or perpetrators of abuse, you have almost certainly seen the Power and Control Wheel, which on the left side has "Using Male Privilege" as one of its rungs. The Power and Control Wheel is an invention of the Duluth Model. The founder of the Duluth Model herself denounced her own work in the late 90's, stating that she'd come to understand that her approach to the issue was purely ideological and rife with confirmation bias from the outset, and she could no longer ignore that the majority of her working experience contradicted that ideology and her own dishonest body of research constructed to support it. Yet the Duluth Model still remains a prevalent force in public policy to this day. THIS is the reason I had to fear neighbors calling police and getting me arrested by default if I dared even speak back to my abuser for so long. But you will NEVER see a feminist acknowledge this, and you're unlikely to ever even learn it exists unless you engage with MRA spaces. Yet the people who still push the Duluth Model still do so under the feminist label.

And this brings me to the next point. Data. I spent my whole life believing women make up the overwhelming majority of victims of sex crimes and abuse. Yet over the course of my adult life, I gradually discovered that I was not an outlier. Almost every man I knew had been a victim of these things. Yet when it happened to them, it never seemed to be acknowledged as such. People just wouldn't use the same words to refer to those incidents that they would if they'd happened to women, even though they were very clearly the same. And when I started actually looking into the background of the rhetoric I'd been taught to believe, I found incredible loads of dishonesty. Such as using justice statistics to claim women as majority victims of rape, when the legal definition doesn't allow for women to perpetrate against men. Or citing academic research that does the same thing. Or how much research focuses on pro-actively trying to prove and quantify female victimization, but never attempts to establish whether the same happens to men. Or how the single most cited academic researcher on the subject of sexual violence ever, Mary Koss, the one responsible for the famous 1 in 4 statistic, has multiple times published and publicly stated that men should not ever be considered victims of rape. I've even listened to an interview with her where she was confronted with a man's story of being drugged, tied to a chair while unconscious, and raped, and when asked whether she would label that man's experience as rape, she responded no, that she would label it "unwanted sexual contact". She's also been a consultant for the government on drafting federal definitions and policy.

And when you try to engage with feminists on the subject of male victims, the dishonesty just shines blindingly. This was actually the #1 thing that set me on the path of questioning. Witnessing just how outspokenly callous and dishonest feminists were towards male victims around the beginning of the metoo era, at a time when my personal situation was reaching its climax (extreme levels of conflict shortly before we finally separated). Criticizing men relentlessly flooded social media everywhere, and still does, even if it's not quite as bad as 2018. Yet what I noticed was so much of the criticism was framed in such a way that it could just as easily describe a male victim as much as anything else. Such as dragging men for needing women to do the "emotional labor" of managing their social lives for them *when controlling someone's social life is a form of abuse*, and outside observers aren't in a position to tell if it's happening because the guy is putting that "emotional labor" on them or if it's because they're a victim. This is one I actually got into an argument with some people I knew online over for spreading this narrative. People who KNEW that I went to decent lengths to hide that I had any meaningful social life online, because my ex was so controlling. Yet instead of conceding the point, they just got mad at me (I no longer associate with them). I witnessed this type of callous attitude everywhere, constantly, in every left-leaning community I had any window into.

That aforementioned group was an offshoot community from a game I played, so I'd built relationships with them prior to that era and prior to my openly talking with anyone about my abusive situation. So even they were more sympathetic than most. As I started questioning my feminist beliefs and actively panic-seeking guidance on how to navigate my escalating situation, I found that the attitude if you present yourself as a male victim in most feminist spaces is "Yes, there there, we're very sorry about what happened to you. Supposedly. Men can be victims. But men also like to use that as a wedge to discredit feminist views, and male victims are statistically incredibly rare. So we're VERY SUSPICIOUS OF YOU NOW."

They'll also pro-actively acknowledge that men can be victims, and claim that feminism actually acknowledges this MORE readily than the rest of the world does, being dominated by patriarchal thinking. Yet this acknowledgement never goes beyond theoretical (aside from the obligatory "there there" for anyone who claims to be a male victim when engaging with them directly). Every single time there is ever a female perpetrator/male victim case, they pull every mental gymnastic imaginable to frame it as the opposite, no matter how clear it is. Acknowledgement for male victims never goes beyond theoretical, unless the perpetrator is another man, and then they're enthusiastically all about it and hold it up as a shining example of "Look! This one! This one! See! We believe in male victims this time!"

This is best demonstrated with the Depp v Heard case. The evidence is abundantly clear that Heard was horribly abusive to Depp. If there was ever a case of a female victim who had audio recordings of her telling her abuser that she flees their conflicts because he gets physically violent, and the man admitting that he gets violent when they fight, but that she's a coward for running away from it. Along with audio of her hiding in the bathroom as her husband bangs on the door and demands to be let in. It would justifiably be an immediately open/shut case in the eyes of the public and the law. Not so with feminists in this case. To the point that over 130 prominent feminist organizations and leadership figures signed an open letter condemning the results of the trial, and asserting their view of Depp as abuser/Heard as victim, including NOW, the largest feminist organization in North America. If you go into almost any feminist space online, you will find either support for Heard or a hand-wave towards the case as having no significance and they don't understand why men see anything important in it. Or at best, they will acknowledge the reality, but bemoan how a male victim getting some justice in this case will have such horrible impacts on female victims that they still think it's a bad thing.

matrixislife · 2023-10-28T21:16:36+00:00

I'd suggest take a look at thetinmenblog There's quite a lot that focuses only on mens issues, but there's quite a lot that relates women's experiences to men's, and thats the obvious tie in for feminism.

gratis_eekhoorn · 2023-10-28T20:04:58+00:00

because most people don't know/care about actual male issues and the part of feminism in that, all they care about is relationships so when try to go after feminists thats what happens.

_geancanach · 2023-10-28T23:07:51+00:00

I find the ones listed in "Karen Straughan: talk at the IMCI 2014" (as well as in many of Karen's videos, like "When female privilege backfires" specifically) and "Feminist's biggest lie - women owe them for the vote" to be most convincing. Oh there's also a website called "purple motes" with tons of articles, mostly debunking the idea that ancient world was misogynistic, and exploring misandry since the ancient times and paganism throughout the medieval and Christianity, if only from a weirdly sexualised perspective. Like "against Spartan mothers" and such might be an interesting argument against "da patriarchy created war" (then again, as we know mothers are literally forced to disown and kill their "cowardly" sons by the patriarchy, and are the real victims, right?)

But feminists will always say to anything that a) it's because of da Patriarchy, b) it's not real feminism tho, only random people on the internet who don't know shite about their own movement's history or ideology are real feminists , c) didn't read because I don't like it therefore it's lies, d) they're inc3ls/pick-mes. That's how it is with any argument against a fanatic

MSHUser · 2023-10-29T03:12:51+00:00

Many of the things some feminist will tell you is that "we live in a patriarchy" "patriarchy oppresses women, and hurts men by making them believe they have to oppress women to benefit from it." What's their foundation for this argument? The fact that most positions of power throughout history were held primarily by men.

The next thing is toxic masculinity i.e "Toxic masculinity is harmful to men and women, it makes men not show their emotions and believe they have to be super strong, so they become domestic abusers" what's the foundation behind this argument? The expectation for male to conform to male expectations.

However, if you talk about the redpill, one of the things they'll say is "women only want men who are taller than them, richer than them, they'll never truly respect a man who she deems beneath her. Hypergamy is in female nature" What's the foundation for this argument? The fact that women do tend to marry men who are making more money than them and seem more put together even if they themselves are not there yet. Not to mention women value men for different things than the things men value women for.

What they all have in common is that they take truths of certain trends and mold it into their theory. When you learn to separate truthful events from theory, you start to take a look at things outside of it.

When we think of the words "patriarchy" "male-dominated" etc, many of those concepts came from feminist books. The idea that because most men held positions of power throughout history is the reason we live in a patriarchy was a theory developed by feminist. To look at our society and say it's male dominated were said by feminists. And I'm not talking about feminist today. You need to look at the OG members of feminist such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Simone De Beauvoir, Kate Milette, Betty Freidan, Andrea Dworkin, etc. Their theories started off with claiming men are seeking to control these positions of power and seek to harm women through them, and the second-wave feminists (types like Dworkin and Milette) used that original stance to develop the "patriarchy theory." They way they talk about patriarchy, they talk about it as if most men in society held positions of power (which they don't, it's just that most people who held positions of power just so happen to be men.) When you take a look at the laws set in place in the past and factor in queens who have exercised equal power to men in history before feminism was a thing, you realize the fact that most positions of power were held by men doesn't tell the whole story and in fact ignores the impact female rulers had in history. But unfortunately, one thing I learned about ideologies is that if you buy into it, you'll get attached to it and start talking about these theories developed by these same movements as if they're facts (feminist believes patriarchy is fact, redpiller believes hypergamy/matrix is fact despite them coming up with these theories themselves). You have to start seeing feminism as an ideology. Ideologies are always going to have flaws and it can and will shape people to view the world a certain way. It's better to learn from these ideologies and what they try to convey, and understand the world to see what truths the ideology is saying and what interpretations they're trying to force down on you.

Once you start associating certain concepts with certain ideologies, arguments that sounded very logical at the time will start to look irrational when you step outside of them, and you will see just how biased they can be, even when conducting studies.

Even the term "toxic masculinity" wasn't meant to be a feminist term. It was coined by the mythopoetic men's movement and the point of that term was to draw a clear standard of the toxic parts of masculinity and replace them with healthy parts. But feminists took this term, redefined it and applied it to everything they deem bad that is male, and so the term loses its definition.

All in all, we have posts here that dives deep into dissecting the ideology, post about history that never gets talked about, etc. You just have to browse through enough subreddits and find what you're looking for.

I am curious how anti-feminist arguments have fallen flat, cuz the one thing you have to keep in mind is that feminists are very biased to their ideology, so anything that falls outside of that will "fall flat" which is a danger you want to watch out for when engaging with them.

PriorBattle · 2023-10-28T20:46:46+00:00

Highly recommend GirlWritesWhat's early videos, the playlist Dismantling Feminism mainly.
Feminism is based upon patriarchy theory (distinct from patriarchy, which is simply a description of a patrilineal system) and that asserts that men as a group have always oppressed women for their own benefit. Whereas in reality patriarchy was a gynocentric system, those two are not mutually exclusive. Men in power have always benefited women at the expense of other men, patriarchy was always the protection and provision of women.
And just look at how feminists behave in reality, not what they claim to support. All the bleating about equality disappears every time equality would disadvantage women and then it becomes an issue we need to support women (which because of patriarchy theory, is seen as pro-equality, even if it's blatantly sexist).

Blauwpetje · 2023-10-29T06:53:47+00:00

Be specific instead of saying in general ‘they fall flat’. It’s an impolite way of debating, not just laying the burden of proof on your opponent, but even let him find out what issues you talk about. And the left wing telling you to dislike feminism? Pull the other one.

JJnanajuana · 2023-10-29T08:16:53+00:00

My "anti-feminist argument" is just that I strongly disagree with a lot of high profile, influencial feminists.

I also think they are damageing.

(also i dont think research should be ideology based, it there shouldmt be feminists research.)

I've got a lot of issues with feminist research on domestic violece, reading a bunch of studies has convinced me, well a lot of stuff, they assume the woman is the victim and use methodology that supports that. Like sourcing participants from womens shelters, or jail and their partners, or just taking the victims word for it, or claiming that men "are managing" by hiding knives and sleeping in their car, while women are scared. Or that when a woman gets a restraining order its proof he was abusive and when he does it shows him using systems abuse, same if she gets custody and beats the kids, shes traumatized and trying to protect them, it proves shes a good mum, but when he does the same back he's kidnapping or using administrative abusive amd manipulating the kids opinions towards the woman who was beating them.

Anyway i should say i have issues with feminist dv research. Reading it, made me take issue with how its used (and annoyed about how they use a viel of 'science' to gain authority for their theries while doing the kind of sciece that wouldnt pass a yr10 proposal.)

I disagree with Mary p koss (the inventer of the widest used secual assult survey) about men raped by women, i think its rape, she thinks its unwanted sexual contact or something like that.

I dislike that when she updated her sexual assult survey, fom originaly giving men a perpetrators one and womens a victims one, to include male victims too, she avoided asking men about "non consentual hetero sex" while asking women about it, and men about other stuff so it looks (at a glance) like their evenly compaired when they are not. And did so after recognizing (in the paper) that that is the main way men are assulted.

I also disagree with Catherine A Mckinnon (harvard law teacher and ex international cort gender rep) that we should change rape law to get rif of consent and define force to include inequalities including gender.

I also don't understand how she claims this doesnt make all hetero sex rape, while also claiming the mensa rea needed for americain law could include "the man needs to know he's having sex.

I think everyone shpuld be able to choose not to rape anyone without having to resort to abstenance to make sure of it.

tzaanthor · 2023-10-29T09:07:43+00:00

Which I agree, there are double standards and differences in dating lives, but feminists agree with these tenants too, attributing these to creations of the patriarchy.

That's great, but what do they DO about these problems? And I don't mean attacking the problem in an indirect way that according to their ideology will eventually result in the intended effect, but actually doing something about it it.

In other words: what do they do about male suicide? Nothing. In fact they blame men for it. If they're lucky, they also say the it's not a problem, or 'not their' problem.

WeEatBabies · 2023-10-28T23:23:55+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISYBgqPKR2w

Above video includes the Srebrenica gendercide, the U.N. general assembly deciding to recognized November 19th as world toilet day, food relief in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake aimed only at women, Australia offering 5000$ to women left unemployed due to the pandemic and so much more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRuLJnxL2lA

Above video includes the government study done by the U.K. Government to excludes men from the grape legislation, what happen there was deliberate.

Also, I let feminists speak for themselves, they do the work for me, I just merely document it :

https://www.instagram.com/p/CgwxTGhr0zY/

https://www.instagram.com/p/CguXR6PLK5j/

https://www.instagram.com/p/CgutU0PlCYX/

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cw56AW9LxSR/

griii2 · 2023-10-29T08:25:43+00:00

Because feminism is not a single thing, it is a range of movements and ideologies. In order to argue against it, you need a proof that leader and prominent feminists are toxic.

That is why I have started r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic

symbolic_poet_guy · 2023-10-28T18:58:56+00:00

My arguments against the problematic parts of feminism are arguments against unilateralism, authoritarianism, dogma, taboo and censorship.

If you are only coming across arguments against feminism that the feminists are willing to endorse, that should be a sign that there is something else happening outside of view. We need to have more genuine conversations about what it actually means to make space for diversity. It's not just about the control passing from one privileged group to another.

My viewpoint is that feminism and social justice in this century need to be discussed in the context of religion and that the feminists who are causing problems behave like extremely devout, evangelical religious people.

In my opinion these are arguments about secularism.

This is not lazy: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/postmodern-religion-faith-social-justice/

Johntoreno · 2023-10-29T14:17:39+00:00

Which I agree, there are double standards and differences in dating lives, but feminists agree with these tenants too

No they DON'T! I've only seen them blaming men for not being good enough. Most of the time they call men who complain about their dating struggles "whiny entitled incels", where did you miraculously spot this feminist unicorn that empathizes with men's struggles? I never witnessed such a feminist!

so I'm just curious if anyone can tell me some arguments against feminism.

How about we start with the fact that Feminists refuse to police misandry in their group and let the most bigoted of feminists gain power&clout within Feminism??

astral-mamoth · 2023-10-29T15:03:20+00:00

Honestly I don’t know why people have such an aversion to dating in general most mens rights or men’s menthol health subreddits eventually bans all posts about dating and/ or create a megathread( which amounts still to banning because those things are useless) about it.

I get that there are many other problems that men face and that it can get repetitive but dating and double standards is obviously a concern for young men everywhere and denying them the healthy space they need to talk will only drive them into far more toxic and self destructive communities. We shouldn’t dismiss people worries and problems even if to us they seem unimportant.

untamed-italian · 2023-10-29T14:30:26+00:00

Care to name the arguments you are talking about?

ArmchairDesease · 2023-10-29T21:44:48+00:00

Other comments replied much better. I'll just add that "the Patriarchy did it", as a theory of gender discrimination against men, is losing credibility: as the (western) world gets more un-patriarchical than ever, men's issues remain completely unaddressed by the public eye.

If they were solely stemming from the Patriarchy, we would see men liberation from their gender role going hand in hand with the growing influence of feminism.

Cunari · 2023-10-29T02:53:09+00:00

Here’s what I would argue against in feminist ideology: terminology like toxic masculinity and male fragility, the view that work is privilege, the massively different goal posts between misandry and misogyny, the world view that men have an in-group bias (women are more agreeable with other women than men are agreeable with other men), the notion of heterosexual privilege(asexual is optimal for men since you have to expend resources for sex and bisexual for women since you get resources for sex), and white privilege as that is more correlational than causal.

ChimpPimp20 · 2023-10-31T04:21:08+00:00

I don’t call myself anti-feminist but I’ve been called one by feminists here on this app. I was basically saying that feminism is not here to establish “equality of the sexes” but is only here for the betterment of women. This isn’t a bad thing because this is what every other organization does.

There are no main stream courses on men’s issues in schools (this includes entertainment). You have to learn that on your own. You will here leftist/feminists say that men “have all their rights” when in reality we lose our autonomy at birth. There’s also a lot of infallibility when it comes to this issue also. Calling out men’s rights is a no brainer but calling about feminism seems to be a bit taboo. There shouldn’t be an issue with calling out either.

I think the moment I realized the big problem with feminists was when I realized that subs like menslib seem to have no issue with some of the women’s subs when they seem to be very hateful of men. Things said about men that certainly don’t fly when it’s the vice versa. One time I saw an article posted on TwoX where it was about men failing in school and work. The comments lacked basic empathy and the poster told them to just “get out this rut.” Others were making fun. I can send the link if you want.

There are numerous posts about generalizations about how bad men are and everyone there obliques. Menslib doesn’t care though and there appears to be an affiliation with these subs. I even got banned for making “outrage porn” about the College Point Center in NYC to which the mod told me to “be mad I guess.” You can look for it pretty quick on my profile.

What REALLY helped me understand the problem was when a woman commented on a conversation on male victims and mentioned she was surprised how calm the discourse about this was compared to the women’s. Menslib isn’t allowed to shoehorn misogynistic viewpoints. Subs like TwoX, TrollX, 4thWave take no issue in being misandrist. There was even a post some time ago about them blatantly undermining misandry.

To sit here and say there aren’t basic problems with feminism that aren’t only affecting minority women, trans, disabled, etc, is very ignorant. If you look at my posts I was the naive one about menslib. I totally understand why someone would be anti-feminist but I’m gonna continue to hold the line. I’m not giving up yet.

Prizvyshche · 2023-10-28T22:37:54+00:00

This is very true and thank you for pointing it out!

A good resource has already been cited here in other comments: thetinman

Also, obviously, this sub is cool 🙂

Dashing2025 · 2023-10-29T11:13:49+00:00

How would you define feminism?

aumbase · 2023-10-29T12:08:03+00:00

Feminists don’t typically like classically loud, present and unapologetic males. They actively work to silence and control that male. Biologically, that male is who he is and they are who they are. He is not wrong or in need of fixing. Neither are they. But someone has to decide who gets to be in charge. So feminists will weaponize their anti masculine attitude through ganging up on him, using legal means, anything to restrain his natural self. He, in turn, will resist and fight back. It’s his nature. In the end, one will win. Neither is more right than the other. They both just use whatever means they have at their disposal to take charge or feel in control. If you force them to coexist and insist they fight their own nature just to get a little bread, you will live in a perpetual state of low grade conflict and resentment. Which is what we have all the time now. Yay! Progress!

SuspicousEggSmell · 2023-10-29T17:28:21+00:00

I think arguing from the point of being an anti-feminist rather than pro gender equality and men’s issues tends to go poorly. There’s no real point to it besides being anti one ideology, and tends to end up about being more of a contrarian than about consistent beliefs. So you usually just end up in superficial arguments about feminists being hypocrites online rather than arguments about deeper societal issues.

Feminism, as frustrating and shitty as it’s members can be, is a complex and nuanced group of ideologies (as most ideological are), so when we go at it as purely anti feminist we tend to end up reducing that and it ends up not really allowing any meaningful progress or solution, and make it seem like we’re against some of the legitimate progress feminists have made.

No_Insurance_71 · 2025-04-01T14:37:24+00:00

Many of the critiques aimed at feminism in the Reddit thread reflect frustration not with equality, but with what critics perceive as the ideological rigidity and selective advocacy of modern feminist discourse. One of the central arguments is that feminism, particularly in its mainstream or institutional form, leans too heavily on patriarchy theory. Critics argue that this framework seeks to explain nearly all gendered social problems—whether they affect men or women—through the lens of female oppression. As a result, issues like male suicide, male victims of domestic violence, and educational underachievement are either minimized or reframed as unintended consequences of a male-dominated system, rather than acknowledged as distinct or co-equal social concerns.

This leads to a second criticism: that feminism often operates more like a belief system than a critical framework, exhibiting traits of dogmatism and moral absolutism. The feminist movement, some argue, has become resistant to internal critique, labeling dissent as misogyny, and enforcing a rigid orthodoxy that discourages nuanced discussion. In this view, questioning core ideas like patriarchy or toxic masculinity isn’t met with dialogue but with accusations of bad faith. This not only weakens feminism’s intellectual credibility but also alienates potential allies—particularly men—who might otherwise engage in good faith.

Related to this is the perception that feminism gives insufficient attention to men’s issues. Although some feminists acknowledge that men suffer under rigid gender roles, critics argue that these acknowledgments are often couched in blame: men are harmed by systems they themselves uphold. Institutions influenced by feminist ideas, like the Duluth Model or the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), are presented as one-sided frameworks that structurally disadvantage men—presuming male guilt in domestic abuse cases and ignoring female perpetrators. Critics highlight that even when feminists concede male victimhood, the institutional or cultural follow-through is minimal, leading many men to feel dismissed or pathologized rather than supported.

Additionally, feminists are often accused of operating with a double standard: calling for equality when it benefits women, but resisting it when it imposes burdens. For example, critics point to the absence of feminist support for male inclusion in the military draft, disparities in sentencing between men and women, or child custody biases as evidence that feminism selectively promotes equality. Even concepts like “toxic masculinity” are critiqued as once-constructive ideas from male-positive movements that have been co-opted and weaponized to pathologize male behavior broadly.

The most damning critique is that institutional feminism—unlike other political or religious movements—is rarely held accountable for the downstream effects of its most influential figures or policies. For instance, Ellen Pence, founder of the Duluth Model, later admitted her framework was ideologically motivated and flawed. Yet her model persists in public policy. Similarly, Mary Koss, a leading researcher on sexual violence, has made exclusionary claims about male victims that have shaped U.S. federal definitions. Critics argue that if feminism were judged like other movements—based on the impacts of its ideas and leadership—it would not be so easily insulated from critique.

These critiques converge on a single, profound concern: feminism, as it currently exists in many mainstream and institutional forms, lacks a self-correcting mechanism. It claims the moral authority of a justice movement but often behaves with the rigidity of an ideology—resistant to scrutiny, slow to acknowledge its own excesses, and selective in its empathy. The problem is not that feminism exists, or that it fights for women’s rights—but that it increasingly frames itself as the sole legitimate lens through which to view gender, while marginalizing competing perspectives and failing to reckon with the unintended harm it can cause. As such, the core issue isn’t feminism per se, but ideological capture: when any movement—feminist or otherwise—becomes too dominant, too insular, and too resistant to accountability, it risks becoming part of the very system of power and exclusion it once sought to challenge

hshsgdve · 2023-10-29T01:07:08+00:00

Ask “is there anything that patriarchy produced that improves your life?”

Given patriarchy us the whole society, perhaps they could start with electricity.

Dashing2025 · 2023-10-29T11:08:05+00:00

They fall flat because you're arguing with a feminist; no amount of logic will appeal to someone arguing in bad faith.

Feroste · 2023-10-30T00:57:35+00:00

Black lives matter...
But a black man in prison is in there 6x more for being a man instead of a man rather than being black instead of white.
While they arguing for locking up more men... That's not patriarchy.

Feminists fought for tender years, no fault divorce.
Fought against paternal surrender...

What patriarchy?
Women can vote and outnumber men...
WHAT PATRIARCHY?

INFeelp · 2026-06-02T23:41:02+00:00

Feminism = misandry .

DrankTooMuchMead · 2023-10-29T01:19:48+00:00

Keep in mind that extreme feminists, the ones that right wingers won't shut up about, probably only make up about 20% of all feminists.

Most feminists just want equality.

Title	Why do anti-feminist arguments usually fall flat? (and what are some that don't?)
Author	cosmicsurvivalist
Upvotes	36
Comments	64
Date	October 28, 2023 4:25 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/17ihc0l/why_do_antifeminist_arguments_usually_fall_flat/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/why-do-anti-feminist-arguments-usually-fall-flat.1236689 https://theredarchive.com/post/1236689

Comments