1. They argue that from the very beginning, feminism fought for women's rights and not men's. Uh yeah that's kind of the point of a specific movement. And people fought for women's rights because up till that point, whenever human rights were discussed and implemented they more often than not excluded women.

  1. They argue that feminism didn't start out peacefully. I don't know much about this except that a few women tried to attack some men with axes and that they bombed a few letter boxes. But literally no human rights or victories in history have ever been given by asking nicely, people always had to fight for them. As the saying goes: you only gave us rights because we gave you riots. This is all while redpillers gloat about how men fought battles and needlessly invaded other nations btw.

  1. They argue that it's not true women had it harder than men pre-feminism and that the genders suffered equally. That's bs, a close call, but still bs. Literally any crime done to a man would be condemned but any crime done to a woman be seen as a fitting punishment. The deal is that working class women sometimes worked just as hard as men and still got the short end of the stick just for being women. Let's also take into account middle and upper class women. They still had less rights than men. They may have been given an education but where not allowed to study the same things as men and where not allowed to have any of the jobs and positions men could. When they were educated it was mostly to look and sound pretty and the most they could ever be was a teacher, if they weren't bored stiff in the home looking after children.

  1. Redpillers constantly whine about more women being teachers than men which to them automatically compromises boys' education. I repeat. Redpillers are mad about women becoming teachers. And in what way do female teachers compromise boys' education according to them? Well, they cite the very real discrepancy between girls' and boys' performances in schools and the difference in their behavioural reports.

They claim the bad reports are due to female teachers' biases and the discrepancy in performance due to the boys' flawed upbringing thanks to other women in their lives. If they ever bothered to investigate the nature of these reports, they might find that the bias may not be bias at all. Boys (as per biology) are more likely than girls to be rowdy and misbehave, which teachers regardless of gender do not like. Redpillers claim that male teachers would see the misbehaviour as less severe than female teachers. But if that were the case, the male teachers would actually be incredibly biased and bad at their job. One of the aims of school (however bad and controversial) is to train children for the world of work where they must follow orders in an average desk job. Therefore a teacher's job is to get the rowdy child to follow orders and sit still. Boys are less likely to obey because they have more testosterone than girls. A male teacher who does not chastise boys as much because they are boys is being very biased.

Conveniently enough, redpillers never wonder about the reason why women are more likely than men to go into teaching, or ever chastise men for not going into teaching. There could be a rational and very biological reason for this, being that women are attracted to caring jobs and more likely to be satisfied with a lesser position, in contrast to men who want to move on to become professors and so on. That would follow the nature of biology that redpillers so constantly praise.