As cited in Perspectives in Male Psychology, Louise Liddon & John Barry, page 79:

An Israeli study of nearly 30,000 pupils in more than 300 schools examined data for three cohorts of Jewish secular high-school seniors in the years 2000-2002 (Lavy, 2004). Student matriculation exams were routinely graded in two ways: an external grade which is blind to name and sex of the pupil, and an internal grade which is non-blind. The pupil's final grade is a mean of the internal and external grades. This study found that boys were given lower grades in the non-blind assessments across all nine subjects studied. The researcher, having ruled out the other possible explanations, concluded the discrepancy in scoring was a result of bias in the unblinded grading. A strength of this study is that it is a natural experiment.

The 2004 papers is freely available here. See also an updated version of the paper: Do gender stereotypes reduce girls' or boys' human capital outcomes? Evidence from a natural experiment (Lavy, 2008)

In PISA 2012 results: The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence (OECD, 2015) it was found that "teachers generally award girls higher marks than boys [for the same exact work]" (page 159):

The report also shows that teachers generally award girls higher marks than boys [for the same exact work], given what would be expected after considering their performance in PISA. This practice is particularly apparent in language-of-instruction courses. Girls’ better marks may reflect the fact that they tend to be “better students” than boys: they tend to do what is required and expected of them, thanks to better self-regulation skills, and they are more driven to excel in school. In addition, girls appear to be stronger in displaying the knowledge they have acquired (i.e. solving an algebraic equation) than in problem solving, the latter of which is a central component of the PISA test. But this report reveals that the gender gap observed in both school marks and PISA scores is not the same in both language-of-instruction classes and mathematics. The fact that it is much wider in the language-of-instruction courses suggests that teachers may harbour conscious or unconscious stereotyped notions about girls’ and boys’ strengths and weaknesses in school subjects, and, through the marks they give, reinforce those notions among their students and their students’ families.

The previous results are also reported in Teachers 'give higher marks to girls'. British Broadcasting Corporations. (Coughlan, 2015).

In Boys lag behind: How teachers’ gender biases affect student achievement (Terrier, 2020), the author found that "[w]ithout teachers’ bias in favor of girls, the gender gap in choosing a science track would be 12.5% larger in favor of boys" and that unlike the OECD report speculated, the states that "[g]irls’ better behaviour in class is not behind this nudge forwards". In Boys Lag Behind: How Teachers' Gender Biases Affect Student Achievement (Terrier, 2016) she also finds that "[g]ender-biased grading accounts for 21 percent of boys falling behind girls in math during middle school" and again that "girls who benefit from gender bias in math are more likely to select a science track in high school". This unconscious bias to give better marks to girls was confirmed in dozens of independent research papers confirming that these results hold in elementary school, middle school, high school and college, across multiple countries, in all subjects and have measurable effects on boys' university enrollment and grade repetition, but it would not be appropriate to list them all here.

The authors of The Boy Crisis: Experimental Evidence on the Acceptance of Males Falling Behind (Cappelen et al., 2019) find "strong evidence of a gender bias against low-performing males, particularly among female participants" and state that their study "provides novel evidence on the nature of discrimination and on how males falling behind are perceived by society" and that the reason behind this is statistical fairness discrimination, a phenomenon in which people use the victim's gender to infer other traits that are relevant to their fairness judgements. They conclude:

The emergence of the ‘boy crisis’ prompts the question of whether people interpret gender inequalities differently depending on whether males or females are lagging behind. We study this question in a novel large-scale economic experiment conducted with a general population [involving more than 5,000 participants] from the United States. The participants act as spectators and distribute earnings between two workers in a controlled labor market environment. When initial earnings are based on merit, we find that the spectators are gender-biased against males. We show that this gender bias is driven by female spectators and we provide evidence suggesting that the underlying mechanism is statistical fairness discrimination, where spectators interpret a male loser as someone who has exerted less effort than a female loser. Our study provides new evidence on the nature of gender discrimination, by showing how the perception of females being disadvantaged may cause people to infer that low-performing males have exerted less effort than low-performing females. […]

According to Wikipedia — School corporal punishment in the United States, as of 2018 corporal punishment is still legal in private schools in every U.S. state except New Jersey and Iowa, legal in public schools in 19 states and practiced in 15 states. The authors of Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: Prevalence, Disparities in Use, and Status in State and Federal Policy (Gershoff & Font, 2016) showed that in most districts in the U.S. where corporal punishement is practiced, boys are 1.6 to greater than 5 times more likely than girls to face it, with the majority of districts showing gender disparities exceeding 3.0. On average, black boys were 1.8 as likely than white boys to face punishment.

The authors of Race and Gender Bias in the Administration of Corporal Punishment. (Shaw & Braden, 1990) "[e]xamined disciplinary actions taken by school building administrators after receiving discipline referral to identify evidence of race and gender bias in administration of corporal punishment (CP). Analysis of discipline files (n=6,244) demonstrated statistically significant relationships between race and CP and between gender and CP. Results indicated evidence of race and gender bias in administration of CP", which means that boys and particularly black boys were punished more frequently for the same behavioral problems.

According to Do early educators' implicit biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and recommendations of preschool expulsions and suspensions? (Gilliam et al., 2016) boys receive closer surveillance for the same behavior, and in particular black boys which "may contribute to greater levels of identification of challenging behaviors with Black preschoolers and especially Black boys, which perhaps contributes to the documented sex and race disparities in preschool expulsions and suspensions".

In Parsing Disciplinary Disproportionality: Contributions of Infraction, Student, and School Characteristics to Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion (Skiba et al., 2014) the authors state that "[m]ales have been estimated as being disciplined at a rate between two (Raffaele Mendez & Knoff, 2003) and up to four times (Imich, 1994) higher than female students. It has been suggested that gender disproportionality could be accounted for by the fact that teachers may view boys as more defiant and disruptive than girls (Newcomb et al., 2002; Wentzel, 2002)".

According to an article by U.S. News with the title Boys Bear the Brunt of School Discipline (Laura Camera, 2016) boys come to school having more behavioral problems on average but in addition to that, even same behavior problems were penalized a lot more in boys than girls, and this has been linked to worse school performance.

The author of Student victimization by teachers in Taiwan: Prevalence and associations (Chen, 2011) states:

International literature consistently reports that male students are more likely to be physically punished (Brown, 2009; Delfabbro et al., 2006; Youssef et al., 1998). Prior studies also indicate that boys are more likely to report being emotionally, physically, and sexually maltreated by staff members in schools (Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002; Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002; Khoury-Kassabri, 2006; Zeira et al., 2002). Thus, the present study hypothesizes that male students are more likely than female ones to experience emotional, physical, and sexual maltreatment by teachers in Taiwan.

[…]

Results: Overall, 26.9% of students reported having been maltreated by teachers at least 1 time in the previous semester. Hitting, beating, or slapping was the most common maltreatment, and the most vulnerable students were boys and senior students. Students who perceived that student–teacher relationships were poor, and those who were involved with at-risk peers, were more likely to report victimization.

According to Gender Differences in Corporal Punishment, Academic Self-Efficacy and Drop-Out in Secondary School Students (Rafique & Ahmed, 2019):

The objective of the present research was to find out gender differences in corporal punishment, academic self-efficacy and drop-out in secondary school students. […] The findings of the study revealed that corporal punishment showed a positive relationship with drop-out. Boys were found to expose more to corporal punishment and had higher drop-out than the girls. […]

Intimate Partner Violence

This YouTube video with the title Trapped (channel: Jack Beament) excellently portrays the experience of a male intimate partner violence victim, and how hard it is to get help when no one is on your side and you can expect to be seen as the perpetrator even though you were actually the victim, just because you are the man and your victimizer is a woman. And this video named #ViolenceIsViolence: Domestic abuse advert Mankind (channel: The Mankind Initiative) is another example of how people rush to help female victims of male perpetrated domestic violence, but turn a blind eye or even laugh when a man is subjected to the same level of abuse by a woman.

In THE SOCIAL EXPERIMENT | The Rise Of Female Violence (BBC Three, 2015), two actors (one male, one female) were asked to take part in a social experiment where they enacted a scene in which one partner was seen being physically abusive to the other. Bystanders only intervened in the case where violence was directed from the man towards the woman. Not only did bystanders not intervene when the man was abused by the woman, one was even seen cheering on the woman as she beat her partner, assuming that he must have been unfaithful.

News Stories of Intimate Partner Violence: An Experimental Examination of Participant Sex, Perpetrator Sex, and Violence Severity on Seriousness, Sympathy, and Punishment Preferences (Savage et al. 2016) showed that people's "[r]atings of seriousness of IPV for stories with male perpetrators were significantly higher than ratings of seriousness for stories with female perpetrators" and that overall, participants had significantly higher sympathy for female victims of domestic violence and "reported stronger punishment preferences for male perpetrators".

The authors of Victim Gender, Rater Attitudes, and Rater Violence History Influence Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence (Erickson et al., 2017) state:

Perceptions of intimate partner violence (IPV) have been proposed to play a role in the stigmatization and underreporting of violence by individuals who are victimized by intimate partners, especially in cases that are inconsistent with the male-to-female IPV paradigm. We examined the independent and combined influences of victim and perpetrator sex, attitudes toward gender roles, and history of IPV perpetration on perceptions of IPV among 240 college students. We employed a vignette methodology to manipulate perpetrator and victim sex in a fully crossed design. Results indicate that violence perpetrated against males is perceived as less serious and more justified, and male victims are perceived to be more blameworthy than female victims. Traditional gender role attitudes and histories of IPV perpetration are associated with greater blaming of victims and justification of perpetrators across contexts

The authors of The Effect of Gender of Perpetrator and Victim on Perceptions of Psychological and Physical Intimate Partner Aggression (Hammock et al., 2017) state:

Two hundred and fifty one participants (166 females) read scenarios involving psychological or physical aggression between two males, two females, or a male and a female. Participants reported their perceptions of the encounter and the character and emotional reactions of the individual couple members. Physical aggression was evaluated more negatively than psychological aggression. Participants evaluated the encounter and the perpetrator and victim in a manner consistent with stereotypical gender roles, revealing more concern for female than male victims and greater denigration of male than female perpetrators. These results have implications for programs aimed at the reduction of intimate partner violence and the services and programs developed for perpetrators and victims.

The authors of When a man hits a woman: moral evaluations and reporting violence to the police (Felson & Feld, 2009) state:

[R]espondents are particularly likely to condemn men's assaults on women, and to favor reporting them. The pattern appears to reflect both greater moral condemnation of men's assaults on women and the belief that the victims of these assaults are in greater danger. In general, moral judgments and attitudes toward reporting do not depend on the gender, age, level of education, or political ideology of the respondent. Condemnation of men's violence against women, and support for police intervention when it occurs, are apparently widespread across different segments of the population.

In Does violence involving women and intimate partners have a special etiology? (Felson & Lane 2010) the authors state:

We used data from a survey of inmates who have committed homicide or assault to examine whether men and women who have killed or assaulted their intimate partners are different from other violent offenders. A "gender perspective" implies that intimate partner violence and violence between the sexes have different etiologies than other types of violence, whereas a “violence perspective” implies that they have similar etiologies. Our evidence supports a violence perspective. In general, offenders who attack their partners are similar to other offenders in terms of their prior records, alcohol and drug use, and experiences of abuse. We observed some differences between men who attack women (including their female partners) and other male offenders, but the differences were opposite those predicted by a gender perspective. For example, men who attacked their partners were particularly likely to have been abused by their partners. In addition, men who attacked women were particularly likely to have experienced sexual abuse during childhood and to have been intoxicated at the time of the incident. These results suggest that some well-known predictors of violence are particularly strong predictors of male violence against women and female partners.

Evaluations of sexual assault: Perceptions of guilt and legal elements for male and female aggressors using various coercive strategies. (Russel et al. 2011) found that "[p]eople attribute less guilt to a female on male sexual aggressor than a male on female one".

In Perceptions of Harm, Criminality, and Law Enforcement Response: Comparing Violence by Men Against Women and Violence by Women Against Men – (Allen & Bradley 2017) the authors state:

Studies tend to support the idea that people rate violence against wives more negatively than wives’ violence against husbands. Violence by women against men tends to be minimized: violence is evaluated more harshly when perpetrated by male partners against female victims than vice versa (Dennison & Thompson, 2011; Feather, 1996; Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Hamel, Desmarais, & Nicholls, 2007; Harris & Cook, 1994; Simon et al., 2001; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005). In addition to the general public, studies find that psychologists are more likely to characterize violent acts as abusive when they were perpetrated by husbands against wives than in similar circumstances where wives committed acts against their husbands (Follingstad, DeHart, & Green, 2004).

[…]

Our findings suggest that real or perceived differences in injury or potential for injury provide some explanation behind differences in attitudes regarding domestic violence across perpetrator or victim gender, but it does not fully explain this difference. Rather, across all three measures, respondents evaluated violence by men against women more seriously than they did violence by women against men. We find that third parties (a) rated men’s violence as more injurious, (b) were more likely to label men’s violence as a crime even after controlling for injury rating, and (c) deemed men’s violence as more worthy of police contact, controlling for injury rating and criminal labeling.

They also find that "violence by men against women has over 9 times the odds of violence by women against men of being considered crime" and that there is "no significant conditional effect of respondent gender on this relationship".

The authors of Discourses Around Male IPV Related Systemic Biases on Reddit (Sivagurunathan et al., 2021) found:

A widely used social networking site (http://www.reddit.com/) was scraped for submissions relating to male IPV. Search was carried out using three keywords resulting in 917 submissions, out of which 82 met inclusion criteria. Submissions were included in final analysis if they consisted of more than half a page of data pertaining to male IPV. Thematic content analysis was utilized to analyze the data.

Responses reflect common experiences with participants identifying multiple sources of perceived systemic biases: (1) social norms, (2) legal system, (3) social services, (4) media, and (5) government.

The sources of potential support for male IPV survivors exhibit substantial pervasive biases against males as victims of IPV. Findings from current study can inform policies across multiple systems.

The Duluth model which has its roots in feminist patriarchy theory and which sprung out of the false believe that men are always perpetrators and women always victims is an example of systemic gender bias against men. This becomes even clearer when one looks at the facts and notes that women exceed men both in frequency and prevalence of commiting domestic violence (see e.g. References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Updated Annotated Bibliography, Fiebert, 2014).

Other Biases (and things that didn't fit in the other posts)

According to Ethnic and Gender Discrimination in the Rental Housing Market: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis of Correspondence Tests, 2006-2017 (Flage, 2018) which covered 15 OECD countries and totals over 110,000 letters :

[I]ndividuals belonging to the majority are more than twice as likely to be chosen as Arab/Muslim applicants. Female applicants are almost 30% more likely to be chosen than male applicants. However, this result differs depending on the group of applicants: women belonging to an ethnic minority are 34% more likely to be selected by an agent than men belonging to the same minority. This result is even higher when we compare Arab/Muslim women with Arab/Muslim men: women are 50% more likely than men to be favored. Finally, a woman belonging to the majority has “only” 20% more chance of being chosen than a man belonging to the majority. Therefore, ethnic and gender discrimination interact: gender discrimination is greater for minority-sounding names than for majority-sounding names. Thus, female majority- sounding names are the most favored, while male minority names are the most disadvantaged (especially Arab/Muslim males).

Fear extinction is a process whereby a person is exposed to a fear and that exposure alone reduces the fear. In Fear Extinction to an Out-Group Face: The Role of Target Gender (Navarrete et al., 2009) the authors find a fear-extinction bias towards outgroup males (e.g. males of other races), but not towards outgroup females. They also state that "[c]onditioning studies on humans and other primates show that fear responses acquired toward danger-relevant stimuli, such as snakes, resist extinction, whereas responses toward danger-irrelevant stimuli, such as birds, are more readily extinguished" and that "similar evolved biases may extend to human groups". They also state that "social outgroup targets served as prepared stimuli, but only when the exemplar was male", where preparedness is "the biological predisposition to quickly learn associations between stimuli, responses, and reinforcers that can be explained by their fit with genetic traits that evolved to enhance the chances of a species' survival" (APA). To summarize, conditioned fear towards outgroups has a strongly gendered component, with specifically outgroup males resisting fear extinction.

The authors of Prejudice at the nexus of race and gender: An outgroup male target hypothesis. (Navarrete et al., 2010) state:

Using several measures of bias, across four studies we found that race bias is targeted primarily toward male targets and that such bias is generated by distinct individual difference variables between men and women. In two studies, we found results consistent with the notions that the fear of sexual coercion motivates bias against outgroup male targets among women and that aggression and social dominance motivates bias against outgroup male targets among men. These notions are consistent with current perspectives that conceptualize aggression as a means to an end of broader social goals (e.g., Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005) and that this goal can include domination of the racial outgroup. These results underscore the importance of studying the psychology of race bias as both an intergroup phenomenon and a gendered phenomenon—and in terms of both the targets of bias and its agents.

The author of The Gendered Nature of Discriminatory Experiences by Race, Class, and Sexuality: A Comparison of Intersectionality Theory and the Subordinate Male Target Hypothesis (Veenstra, 2012) writes:

Three competing theoretical approaches to social inequalities by gender, race, class, and sexuality are examined. The additive approach assumes that people possessing multiple subordinate-group identities experience the oppressions associated with them as distinct phenomena. The intersectionality-inspired approach suggests that subordinate-group identities such as non-White, lower class, and non-heterosexual interact with gender in a synergistic way, occasioning inordinately pernicious experiences of discrimination for women possessing one or more additional subordinate-group identities. The subordinate male target hypothesis (SMTH) claims that the discrimination experienced by the men of subordinate groups—primarily at the hands of men of dominant groups—is greater than that experienced by the women of the same subordinate groups. In 2009, telephone survey data was collected from 414 women and 208 men in Toronto, Canada and 521 women and 245 men in Vancouver, Canada. Negative binomial regression techniques are applied to these data to determine whether and how gender (male or female), race (White or non-White), educational attainment, household income, and sexual orientation (heterosexual or non-heterosexual), as well as two-way interactions between gender and the other variables, predict scale measures of self-reported major experiences of discrimination and self-reported chronic, routine discriminatory experiences. High levels of both kinds of discrimination reported by men in general are at odds with the additive and intersectionality-inspired perspectives which accord women the gender identity most vulnerable to discrimination. Inordinately high levels of routine discrimination reported by men with a high school diploma or less are consistent with the SMTH-inspired perspective.

In the Pew Research article For black Americans, experiences of racial discrimination vary by education level, gender (Anderson, 2019), it is shown that black men are far more likely than black women to say they've been unfairly stopped by the police (around twice as much), to say people have acted as if they were suspicious of them, to say that they’ve been subjected to slurs or jokes, and to say that someone assumed they were racist or prejudiced because of their racial background.

In An Alternative Account of Anti-Effeminacy Bias: Reputation Concerns and Lack of Coalitional Value Explain Honor-Oriented Men’s Reluctance to Befriend Feminine Men (Gul & Uskul, 2020) the authors state:

Anti-effeminacy bias follows a specific pattern with men showing stronger anti-effeminacy bias against male targets than women. Previous explanations focused on men’s higher tendency to stigmatize feminine men as homosexual and motives to maintain a dominant group status. Here, we suggest that certain expressions of anti-effeminacy bias may rather be a manifestation of men’s reputation management motives for coalition formation, and be amplified among high (vs. low) masculine honor-oriented men. In three studies with samples from the United Kingdom and Turkey, we showed that men perceived feminine (vs. masculine) male targets as lower on coalitional value and were more reluctant to befriend them, yet this applied only to high (not low) honor-oriented men. Honor-oriented men’s friendship reluctance was mediated by concern with losing reputation by association with targets lacking coalitional value. These findings extend understanding of anti-effeminacy bias by drawing attention to men’s reputation concerns for coalitional reasons and individual differences.

The authors of Loving and leaving: Sex differences in romantic attachments (Rubin eta al., 1981) found:

(1) Men tend to fall in love more readily than women; (2) women tend to fall out of love more readily than men. Evidence in support of these generalizations is derived from a longitudinal study of 231 college student dating couples. The data suggest that women are more cautious than men about entering into romantic relationships, more likely to compare these relationships to alternatives, more likely to end a relationship that seems ill fated, and better able to cope with rejection. […] In the wake of the breakup, men tended to report that they felt more depressed, more lonely, less happy, and less free than did their former girlfriends.

In Female Choice and Male Stoicism (Brown et al., 2018) it is shown that females prefer stoic males for long-term mates.

The authors of Implicit attitudes about gender and emotion are associated with mothers’ but not fathers’ emotion socialization.(Thomassin & Seddon, 2019) found that mothers, but not fathers, have less favorable attitudes toward boys' but not girls' expressions of sadness and anger. Fathers exhibited no gender bias. According to 'Boys don't cry': Study suggests mothers, not fathers, show gender bias towards sons. CTV News (Nicole Bogart, 2019), the "researchers went into the study with their own gender biases, assuming that dads would be more biased towards boys showing emotions and encourage them to “toughen up” during moments of sadness". They even reran the study with a different sample but came to the same results.

In an article written for the Institute for FamilyStudies called The Ideal Husband? A Man in Possession of a Good Income (Hopcroft, 2021), the author presents the findings of her study which demonstrate clearly that a man's income has a very substantial influence on whether he gets and stays married. Particularly figure 1 and figure 2 illustrate this nicely.

In both the U.S. and Canada, most hate crimes are directed towards men. In the U.S. in 2012, anti-male homosexual hate crimes were around 4 1/2 times as likely as anti-female homosexual hate crimes. In Canada in 2012, incidents motivated by sexual orientation were 80% male, that's around 4 times as high as the number of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation towards women. Overall in Canada, 72% of hate crimes were directed at men, which yields a factor of around 2 1/2.

According to this theguardian.com article Charlie Hebdo killings: ‘Don’t be afraid. I won’t kill you. You’re a woman’ (Sigolène Vinson, 2015):

"“He said ‘don’t be afraid, calm down. I won’t kill you. You’re a woman, we don’t kill women. But think about what you do, what you do is bad. I’m sparing you and because I’ve spared you, you will read the Qur’an’. […] “I nodded my head, to maintain some kind of contact. I didn’t want to lose eye contact because Jean-Luc [layout editor] was under the table … I fully understood that if this guy didn’t kill women, he killed men.”"

To end this, I urge you to watch this excellent YouTube video titled Rick Bradford (channel: Oxford International Men's Day), in which Rick Bradford (whose pseudonym is William Collins, author of The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect) tries to answer the question of what a man is. He explains that there must be a powerful evolutionary advantage to dimorphic reproduction to offset this twofold reduction in birthrate and argues that the enhanced genetic variety resulting from this sexual dimorphism is not an explanation that stands up to scrutiny; rather, the success of dimorphic sexual reproduction lies in three things: 1. sexual reproduction acts to filter out deleterious mutations, 2. the burden on this mutational cleansing falls disproportionately on males, 3. sexual dimorphism permits mate selection of males by females; genetic quality of males is made apparent in multiple ways, such as anatomical or behavioral displays as well as the male hierarchies. The combination of these three features, he explains, comprises the male genetic filter mechanism. Precisely this mechanism, he argues, offsets the cost of dimorphic sexual reproduction. The purpose of the male, he explains, is to be disposable. The male genetic filter function is the "ground zero" of male disposability, and all specific manifestations of male disposability, he claims, are consequences of it. And even though this is a rather bold claim, given that in the case of humans many of these manifestations are highly culture specific, there is plenty of evidence for male disposability, i.e. the greater selection pressure on males, which he goes on to list. For example, the fact that since ancient times, 80% of women bore children but only 40% of men (smaller still during the agricultural revolution), that mammals express more genetic variance from the father than the mother such that it is more important to get good genes from the father than the mother because genes from the father are more likely to be expressed and hence deleterious. He also points out the tendency for males to be more vulnerable to disease than females thus culling the less strong males, evidenced by the staggeringly large sex difference in death rates of all ages from 0 to age 80. The male sex hormone, testosterone, he explains, is an immunosuppressant. The male fetus is at greater risk than the female from virtually all medical complications and developmental disorders. Social attitudes about the resilience of boys compound the biological deficits. He explains that both these biological deficits and the socially and culturally instantiated deficits are manifestations of male disposability. Those males who are filtered out by this mechanism are evolutionary dross, and nature wastes no compassion upon them; they are disposed of. Males are obliged to play a high risk game. To decline to play is to lose. The empathy gap, he explains, is a psychological disposition in both sexes, which facilitates male disposability by rendering it less apparent. Our ability to ignore, reinterpret or distort empirical evidence when it fails to align with what we need to believe is quite remarkable. Here are some of the consequences: 1. we are more comfortable exposing men to risks (thus all dirty or laborious or dangerous jobs are done by men, and wars are fought by men), 2. violence perpetrated against men is perceived as less significant than that perpetrated against men (the entirety of the violence against women and girls policies are testament to that, the 2014 Chibok schoolgirl kidnapping of 276 was perceived as more heinous than the burning alive of thousands of boys, Hillary Clinton's remark that women have always been the primary victims of war is symptomatic of that mindset, 3. criminal sanctions are far more severe for the same crime because one sex is regarded as precious and the other as disposable, 4. in the case of contested child contact it's overwhelmingly the father who is estranged from his children which society tacitly condones whereas a single instance of a mother being sent home from a maternity ward with the wrong baby is headline news, 5. the strikingly distinct public perceptions of male and female genital mutilation. Most people do not perceive these as examples of male disposability, regarding them instead as acceptable, a simply right and proper, just how things are. Male disposability, he remarks, is itself perceived as acceptable, provided one does not draw attention to the fact that it is actually prejudice. But prejudice is not seen as such, provided that the prejudice is sufficiently thorough. Both sexes are genetically predisposed to be prejudiced in precisely this manner. The mantras of male privilege and male toxicity, he states, are increasingly desperate attempts to keep male disposability from being apprehended because we have a visceral need to maintain male disposability which requires that it remains covert.

And as a closing statement, I would like to let everyone know that July the 11th is Gender Empathy Gap Day. The origins are MANNdat, a German association founded in 2004 and based in Stuttgart which sees itself as an independent, non-partisan interest group for male citizens with the goal of eliminating legal disadvantages and public discrimination against men. Let's make this an international holiday in which we advocate for both men and women to stand up to this great injustice, talk to our family and friends about it, donate money and time, and think about what it means for our loved ones, the boys and men in our lives!