latest

It is now males, rather than females, who suffer the vast majority of institutional discrimination

This post was originally submitted by u/Vwar. For new subscribers, here it is again. There are many useful links at the bottom of the post.

I don't believe that males have ever been privileged in the way feminists claim. But we are now at the point where the deck is stacked against males at every stage of their lives and in almost every major institution.

When a male is born he can have his genitals mutilated. Hundreds of baby boys die from this procedure every year.

Then comes primary school, where boys are often punished and even drugged for displaying natural boyish behaviour. Recent studies have also revealed that female teachers mark down boys by an average of 20 percent for the same work.

Huge numbers of boys are now being raised without fathers (including about 99 percent of school shooters, funny how we never talk about that), and since pedo hysteria has chased male teachers out of primary school, boys often don't have any male role models until much later in life.

Boys only clubs such as the Boy Scouts are being eliminated while girl only clubs remain.

Teenage boys are being introduced to blatantly misandrist concepts like "toxic masculinity," with nary a word about toxic femininity and nothing about the positive aspects of masculinity.

Next it's off to University, where there are a range of female-specific scholarships and programs even though women make up the majority of college students and young women are now out-earning young men. They are also portrayed as rapists in waiting, and there are entire departments (gender studies) devoted to demonising their sex. If a young man pisses off a young woman (eg dumps her after a one night stand) he faces the possibility of being subjected to a false accusation and a feminist Kangaroo court. Then it's bye bye academic career and social reputation.

If he wants to vote he will have to sign over his body to the state (selective service). After that, conscription is mandatory if the State wants it. In some countries, all males but no females are required to undergo a compulsory period of military service after the reach adulthood.

If he gets a woman pregnant he will not have the option of legal parental surrender. While a woman can just drop off the baby at a safe haven, the man is on the hook for 18 years of child support and will be locked up if he loses his job and can't pay.

In the workplace things are just as bad. Men perform almost all of the dirty and dangerous jobs and make up 95 percent of workplace injuries and deaths. If a white man wants to pursue a more respected career he faces racial and sexual discrimination in hiring due to corporate "diversity" measures and quotas. A recent study in ... I think it was Australia found that "blind hiring" practices (where the employer doesn't know the race or sex of the applicant) result in more straight white males being hired; this means that it is straight white men who are now suffering discrimination in the workplace.

With MeToo, a man can be fired from his job simply for making a woman uncomfortable. There have even been cases of men being fired for telling a naughty joke.

If he gets married and the wife divorces him through no fault of his own he will likely be treated like shit by the family courts unless he can afford a high priced lawyer. There are countless stories of men effectively being turned into indentured servants by their ex-wives; they live in poverty and seldom see their kids while the wife gets a new "baby daddy" and lives high on the hog. NOW, the largest feminist organization in the world, continues to oppose shared parenting even though every single study shows it to be in the best interests of the children, the father and even the mother.

He will receive less social support, less health care spending, and be relentlessly demonised in the media.

If a male is sexually assaulted by a woman he will probably not receive justice; the perpetrator will likely get a slap on the wrist even if the victim is a boy.

If he commits a crime or is falsely accused of a crime he will be treated much, much more harshly by the criminal justice system.

I could go on.

It is a myth that feminists think the sexes are equal. Their method of operation goes like this: if men are ahead in some area, that means women are being oppressed because the sexes are identical except for genitalia; however, if women are ahead in some area that's because women are superior. You can find this sentiment going back to the first wave. Elizabeth Cady Stanton claimed that women are "infinitely superior" to men.

The prison thing is perhaps the most glaring example of feminists not practising what they preach. If they were serious about equality they would be demanding either that men be treated with more compassion/leniency or that women be treated more harshly (or some combination of the two). Instead, they want women to be treated even more leniently, and some are even advocating for the complete abolition of female prisons.

Men are increasingly second class citizens not only in a social but legal sense. A study in the UK determined that if women were treated like men by the criminal justice system, fully half of all prisoners would be female. Women do NOT commit less crimes than men (though they do commit less homicides), they just don't get punished to anywhere near the same extent.

If feminism were an "equality" movement they would not be trying to privilege females in every single institution. They would be looking with a keen eye at areas in which males are disadvantaged and/or subject to institutional discrimination. They certainly wouldn't blame everything on some nebulous all-encompassing "patriarchy" that hasn't even been proven to exist.

Advocates of gender equality must reject feminism, and support men's rights.

Having a penis means you are a man. There is no such thing as a female penis.

Question, how do you define those who have XX chromosomes but have a penis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome#:~:text=XX%20male%20syndrome%2C%20also%20known,that%20can%20vary%20among%20cases.
Are they a man or are they a

Per the name of the page you're linking, the answer would seem to be male.

Regardless, extreme edge cases don't and shouldn't define broad rules. Over-specificity will render otherwise useful concepts useless through inflation.

"Cats have four legs" is a true species-level statement even given the existence of mutated or amputee cats.

There's also a tendency to fall into the univariate fallacy when discussing this. That because one magic vector that neatly cleaves the groups cannot be found, the groups themselves are invalid. This is patently false, traits can be clustered.

If an object matches 5/6 characteristics of Item A and 1/6 of Item B, which is it more likely to be? Which of the two boxes do you put it in when sorting?

Ok what about a woman who through surgery to attach a penis. Is this person a man or a woman?

More difficult. It depends on the rest of the cluster of traits, doesn't it? While that's a strong indicator in one direction, whether it's enough to balance out the rest has to be taken as an individual case.

I agree, there should be some flex in what determines who is a man and who is a woman, you seem to be against this.

Some flex maybe, not 100% flex. But my point was more that categories are rarely ever neat but they must be coherent, at the very least. Simply identifying as X is not enough to become X. And defining X as "ABC", without regard to exceptions, is more broadly useful to people everyday than strictly defining X as "ABC, except when D, but also ACE, unless F, or ABD in which case look at GH in conjuction with AB to determine if C."

I agree yet you seem so focussed on saying that this rule doesn't apply to trans people.

I suppose the corollary is that, as I said above, I don't consider all traits to have equal "weight" when determining what category to put someone in.

So having a penis might be 100 "weight" towards considering someone a man. Having XY chromosomes might be 50 "weight". Having a beard might be 5 or 10.

Identifying as a male registers as a 1, if anything.

This is all just numbers pulled from my arse, I've never sat down and quantified how much I consider each trait to be indicative. It's just my attempt to illustrate why someone who spends a lot of time money and effort on passing is an easier "sell" for me than someone like Yaniv, who does not, and why I do not consider the two equivalent.

But even then, anyone who manages to "cross categories" will still have an asterisk next to their designation, as you used as an example above, an "XX male" or "trans male" and I don't think that's inherently unfair. You can be male, subcategory trans, and that can be relevant information sometimes. Especially in medicine, or dating, or, as in the original example, other "intimate" or delicate/vulnerable situations.

I think it's important that trans people just make their peace with that, because a little compromise will go a long way to reconciliation, as opposed to attempting to "inflict" themselves on the unwilling put of a sense of moral indignation.

You personally think that the presence of a penis is more of an indicator than the xx or xy chromosome, I could find other people that disagree and say it is the other way around.

But again... "XX male". it's not Female Penis Syndrome.

Rather than imposing views why not let said people decide for themselves?

Because we don't let people self-identify as doctors, or as engineers. We take umbrage when someone who is noticeably not decides to call themselves clever or beautiful or talented. People's self identification means very little to us in quite a lot of ways.

So what someone identifies themselves as normally has little bearing on how others identify them, and this is right and proper. We are allowed to disagree.

I don't think this is an excuse to deny said person which sex/gender they are.

The argument they make is that if I don't want to date/sleep with them because they have a vagina, and that viscerally repulses me, that I don't "really" see them as a man.

Which, I mean, is right, but how do you reconcile that?

I mean I think both sides could be polite, no-one has to date or sleep with anyone they don't like.

I'm pretty sure that would get you excoriated by most trans activists. (Maybe not trans people, but activists.)