So we've all seen a preponderance of evidence that social studies and gender studies classes in university lean heavily towards misandry and spread anti-male perspectives.

And we've heard of those guys who make some fake and absurd feminist sociology papers and were able to have them peer reviewed.

But neither of those things are true representatives of what is actually happening in academia.

The BS that professors parrot in first year gender studies classes is pretty meaningless.

Getting a few bunk papers published in some questionable journals is more suspicious but not necessarily damning.

On the other hand I'm seing evidence of progress, which I had previously credited to just the only MRM but now I wonder if it may actually have come from academia.

Namely, 10-15 years ago, it was all about "male privilege" and "check your privilege". Now we hear "toxic masculinity" and "patriarchy hurts men too".

We have intelectuals in /r/feminismuncensored talking like it would be absurd for anyone to believe that the existence of a patriarchy implies male privilege. (I don't know what rock they're hidding under to hold that perspective).

And we have this perception that feminism operate using a "Mote and Baley" principle.

But the mote is incredibly well developed and it's moving away from the goal of continued male demonization.

Not only that but we're working in the realm of social ideas here. With different people holding different beliefs. You absolutely can have one feminist 100% believing in the mote and refuting the baley and another different feminist 100% believing the baley and refuting the mote.

When it comes to the life of ideas in a society, there isn't just one true perspective. In this case, the mote and baley perspective isn't going to help us. Yes, it is representative of the overall effect that feminism is having on society. But it is not representative of the internal mechanics.

The "scientific" and "Mischaractarization" perspective, I suspect, is a better representation of the internal mechanics. But a poorer representation of the overall effect. You have social science that says one thing, and you have prominent misandrists who regularly mischaracterize the science.

So basically, if we want to be outraged, the "mote and baley" perspective will help us be outraged. But if we want to enact change the "scientific" and "mischaracterization" perspective is the one we should use.

This makes us an ally of the more rigorous scientific aspects of sociology, gender studies and feminism.

It looks like they've already established male privilege and male oppressors is a junk theory (I only have 3rd hand evidence for this, everything I said is worthless if I'm wrong about this). Acknowledging the damage caused by male-negative terminology (mansplaining, toxic masculinity) is sure to follow in due time.

Right now, misandrist feminists are having a field day because they can claim scientific authority because they claim their statements are backed by science. But they pick and chose the science and mischaracterize it. If we try to rebuke them with original ideas and interpretations (not truly backed by science). They our response don't carry enough weight.

Original interpretations includes doing our own research to cherry pick the right statistics to support our claims. While this works on the mainstream, it won't work on important decision makers (whom I believe base their decision exclusively on appeals to authority and political expedience).

But my assumption here is that if feminists have started saying "the patriarchy hurts men too" it's because there are published papers that have indisputably debunked the concept of patriarchy as male privilege. Possibly using the exact same arguments we're using except also with "scientific" language and published in peer reviewed journals.

So that's my suggestion, should we start looking at what's really going on published sociology and are we actually seeing misandrists losing ground there?

I was hoping to find the answers to that before making this post. But given how lazy and clueless I am and how hard scientific papers are to read, it would probably take me months to do.

On more thing, if all my assumptions are correct, then I would recommend being very patient with our academic feminist allies. They live in a world where the only truths are those that have been "scientifically" demonstrated. And science works slowly. And I'm sure social science has it's own rules for how new knowledge is incorporated. I shouldn't be too prescriptive on a topic I don't understand well, but it seems to me that the effective strategy to work with social science is to raise awareness on interesting directions of research (e.g. the effect of negative gendered terms on men). And promote the latest results that are MRM friendly (as in, breaking news: men are just as oppressed as women in a patriarchy, so we should start increasing priority of research into what that oppression looks like and what we can do to minimize the damage for men).