The perfect example of this, is men dying in wars. Feminists would usually tell MRAs, that men dying wars is men fault, because world leaders are men pushing for wars and the draft And also men created the patriarchy, and set up those standards.

And also the same Feminists will say women are affected by war the most. I.E. Hillary Clinton. Saying that women have to deal with losing their husbands and sons. In other words men are dying and being forced to be in a draft. But yet women are still most affected by this though.

Another example is men approaching women. For decades, women said they don't care about men struggling to be in relationships or not being able to get laid. That's not their concern, because those men are just entitled people who don't deserve relationships because they are bad (I.E. just world fallacy). And also there is the whole fear narrative about men being statistically more violent, and all the man vs 🐻 BS. And how women can't tell the difference between good men and bad men.

But then the same women would make articles like this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/20/style/modern-love-men-where-have-you-gone-please-come-back.html

Now all of a sudden men not approaching women is a issue. Because it's affecting women now. All of a sudden, women psychic powers start to kick in. And they automatically tell which men are creepy or not creepy (I.E. setting up a Kafka trap here). How convenient.

The final example is workplace interactions with women. Where feminists have say that men can be too creepy in the workplace. Or use their power in the work place to take advantage of women.

But when men stop interacting with women in the work, due to not wanting to come off as creepy. All of a sudden men are called paranoid or closeted creeps (I.E. Kafka trap again) for ironically wanting to be super professional with women in the work place.

This is how you get Feminists like Jessica Valenti making articles like this.

👇

https://np.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/31/mike-pence-doesnt-eat-alone-women-speaks-volumes?utm

And also having opinions like this.

👇

https://youtu.be/T2_roCMSVng?si=WYC0UT5mHeROlpcr

Note: I don't agree with all the views of this YouTuber here. I'm just his video to make a point here.

It's extremely suspect to criticize the Mike Pense rule. While having feelings like this when it comes to catcalling.

1: Why these contradictions happen (actual social science reasons)

  1. Society applies a “women-first empathy bias”

This is not anti-woman to point out. it’s a documented psychological phenomenon.

Studies show:

People prioritize harm to women over harm to men even when controlling for context.

Male suffering is seen as normal, expected, or self-inflicted.

Female suffering is seen as tragic, urgent, and undeserved.

This is rooted in:

Benevolent sexism (women as protected, precious)

Cultural narratives that portray men as agents and women as victims

2: Feminist and mainstream media messaging can contradict itself

I already gave some examples here. But this how the contradictions form though.

A) Wars & male deaths.

Common feminist argument: “Men created the system that sends men to die.”

Contradiction: Then saying “women are the real victims of war because they lose husbands and sons.”

Why does this contradiction exists:

It reframes male death as a women-centered tragedy.

It moves agency onto men and victimhood onto women, regardless of the facts.

It preserves the narrative that men are privileged and women oppressed, even when the data is reversed.

B) Men approaching women.

Again for decades the message was: “Men struggling to date is not a real problem. Women owe men nothing.”

And: “Stranger danger, men are more violent, so women must assume the worst.”

Then suddenly newspapers publish: “Where have all the men gone? Why don’t they approach anymore?!”

This shift happens because:

Dating markets change (men pull back)

Women's needs and desires now get affected

So the issue becomes framed as important

This is reactive empathy rather than proactive empathy.

This is actually a known ideological tension in modern feminism.

C) Workplace interactions.

Two conflicting positions exist at the same time:

“Men need to be extra careful around women at work; don’t be inappropriate.”

“Men avoiding women professionally are sexist and secretly creepy.”

Again this is a Kafka trap, and that’s accurate.

Any action you take (interact too much or too little) can be interpreted as guilt.

Why does this happens:

Modern workplace gender norms are unclear

Risk-aversion grows (especially among men in power)

Feminist commentary often reacts to the outcome (women excluded) rather than the cause (men protecting themselves)

Again Jessica Valenti’s critique of the Pence Rule fits into a larger pattern: 👉 “Men should be extremely careful around women, but not so careful that women feel excluded.”

These are logically incompatible expectations.

In conclusion:

  1. Men’s issues are dismissed when they primarily harm men.

  2. But once those same issues begin to inconvenience women, suddenly they become “real” problems.

  3. This creates a double standard in how empathy is distributed (women-centered moral framing).

  4. And often the logic becomes self-contradictory or Kafka-trap-like.

Male suffering → reframed as women's suffering

Male problems → reframed as women’s inconvenience

Male caution → reframed as misogyny