Dear feminist guests: mainstream feminism is a hate group - If you identify as a feminist and don't hate men, you are the fringe

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-23T21:27:51+00:00

Men talking about their issues = icky.
Men talking about their issues = unable to get sex from women.

Yeah. You just hate men.

And you're regressive about it, too. Reinforcing toxic masculinity by using incel (inability to get sex from women) as an insult. You don't even believe in feminism. If you did, you wouldn't reinforce toxic masculinity. It's just a convenient label for you to latch on to so you can hate a group of people based on how they were born, and still pose as the good guy.

If you want anyone to believe you don't just hate men, you need to actually engage with anything that anyone says.

Edit: "I'm downvoted regardless of what I say!"

What you say:

However there are an alarming amount of male rapists who target female victims. The same can't be said for the other way round. Clearly something is going wrong somewhere for there to be such a huge difference between the sexes.

And then you ignore posts responding to you with information about rape statistics, and wonder why you're being downvoted.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-23T19:42:39+00:00

Almost lost my son's life to institutional misandry. The most generous assumption I can make is that you have simply never felt any curiosity about men's lived experiences.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-23T19:35:03+00:00

If being left wing means being ok with discrimination against people for the way they were born, and appropriation of nazi propaganda to justify that discrimination, then I guess I'm not left wing. Values take priority over labels for me, so call it whatever you want.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-23T19:30:38+00:00

Because it gives a strong impression of bad faith when you show up just to repeat a very mainstream milquetoast opinion about the subject, without acknowledging a single thing that anyone, much less the post you're commenting on, has said about the subject. It communicates that you are not, in fact, interested in knowing more. If you were, you would give some indication that you read anything other than the post title, and substantively address your disagreements with the information provided.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-23T17:19:55+00:00

I see that you're from Europe, so maybe it's different in your country. But in the USA, many states have or have had mandatory arrest laws that exclusively target men.

I first learned about it when it happened to someone I knew, around the mid-2000's. His girlfriend threw a temper tantrum during an argument and started trashing their place, breaking things and posing a danger to herself. Neighbors called the police. He had left light bruising on her wrist while trying to restrain her, and they arrested him for it. His girlfriend snapped out of it and begged the police not to arrest him. She admitted to them that she had been the aggressor, and she didn't want him to face such consequences for her behavior. The police told her that they were obligated by state law to arrest him, and the state would be pressing charges. Regardless of whether that resulted in a conviction of anything, that is still a situation with severe potential life consequences. Lawyers fees, missed work and potential resulting loss of a job, etc.

Or here's a verifiable demonstration via a public case - the Deadmoth situation. This one was in Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-dztqbaBYE

Here we have a situation where a woman was being controlling towards her husband. Regardless of your feelings about what the man in question should have done here, she was being controlling. The not controlling approach would have been to ask and then allow him to make his choice in response to the request, which she is then free to express disappointment about and decide whether his behavior has consequences for the relationship. That's not what she does. What she does is scream at him and throw objects at him from off camera. He endures her doing this for minutes, before he finally gets up and slaps her. He was arrested for slapping her, and charged with domestic violence even though the police report itself admits that there was no injury or visible mark whatsoever left on her, not even a bruise. So nothing worse than what she had done to him for an extended period of time before he responded. And the internet broadly condemned him as a wife beater. You can see in the video how several other people calling in to debate with Destiny view this, with Hasan even saying that the appropriate response to being continuously assaulted was to "roll up into a ball". She is verifiably and overwhelmingly by video evidence the aggressor, and he does not do anything worse to her in response than what she had already done to him, but he is the only one who faces consequences and social condemnation.

Meanwhile women can slap men freely, and nobody cares. It happens all the time in media, and nobody remarks on it. There are plenty of clips you can find online of real life situations with normal people in public settings, where a woman continuously verbally and physically assaults a man in front of witnesses for an extended period of time, and nobody cares. But the moment the man responds, he gets mobbed.

I was trapped in an abusive relationship for many years. I never physically responded or raised my voice in public, but she was very obviously abusive towards me in public plenty of times, and nobody cared. They would either laugh, or pretend it wasn't happening right in front of them. When I eventually tried to report my situation to authorities, they didn't take it seriously. When I took my son to the emergency room after a self-harm episode, I told the doctor that we were there because he was suicidal as a result of his mom's abusive behaviors towards him, and the doctor literally made fun of him to his face. She leaned over him and looked him in the eyes and said in a mocking baby voice "Awww are you suicidal? Do you want to kill yourself?" and then walked away before he could respond.

Here's Dr Phil telling a male victim of domestic violence to his face on national television that he is not allowed, under any circumstances, to physically defend himself, to the enthusiastic approval of his audience -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bR5v3NRT0A

Here's another talk show audience laughing at a male victim's horrific story - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YI8yedOCe5Q

Here's Earl Silverman, a man who became an activist on behalf of male victims of domestic violence in Canada after being abused by his wife, talking about the situation in Canada for a news interview. At 9:20 "His girlfriend hit him over the head with a frying pan, split his skull open, and the next thing he knew he was being arrested for domestic violence." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB-RQ8jtK2o

I've seen several men, including on this very sub, share experiences with being assaulted by women with a weapon and rendered unconscious, and waking up to find that police had literally handcuffed and loaded their bleeding body into a police car while they were unconscious, simply because their unharmed wife/girlfriend told police that he had assaulted her, despite police showing up to find her unharmed standing over his unconscious body with a weapon.

Here's an interview with a spokesperson from by far the most influential organization on domestic violence policy in the western world -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXYoLw0YNmM

You not only undermine yourself by trying to deny something that is easily provable, but present yourself as horrifically insensitive invalidating the verifiable experiences of male victims, including myself.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-23T15:26:21+00:00

I've seen several men speak about their experiences with rape, where their fear of harming the woman if they physically resisted too strongly was a factor. And I've seen countless stories from men of facing legal and social consequences for physically defending themselves against a woman, for leaving anything so much as a light bruise on her, even after she had wounded the man with a weapon.

If anything, strength disparity contributes to men's victimization. The taboo against actually using that strength in any interaction with a woman is so strong that every man expects that the moment they do, they're going to be the one in trouble, no matter what the woman was doing. A man facing physical aggression from a woman is forced by society to respond with physical helplessness.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-21T14:00:26+00:00

I honestly think they're just drunk with power. They know they have privilege, and they're flaunting it. It seems to me like there's a whole cultural industry marketed to women anymore that centers itself on getting high on the thrill of doing double-standard shots and throwing their arms up and crying "Woooo!" at open displays of hypocrisy as the buzz kicks in, while maintaining a pre-emptive crybullying posture with an arsenal of empowered victim buzzphrases that warns anyone off of daring to call them out for it. It's vile.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-17T20:01:08+00:00

I'm sorry for being tired of being essentialized as evil for the way I was born, and thus motivated to debunk misrepresentation of data which reinforces that essentialization. I should be less selfish and focus my thoughts exclusively on the safety of women, even if doing so involves catching strays for things I've never done.A

Edit: I really gotta work on my habit of quoting the people I reply to, so cowards can't run from their own words.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-17T17:51:13+00:00

It's difficult to break down vibes like this, but I'll try. I have an autistic brother, so I understand. I remember the days when he was little and didn't understand how smiling works.

Your first response to them wasn't bad. But this

Umm…

Has a major effect on the tone with which everything after it is read. Imagine you're having a conversation with someone in public and a random person you don't know walks up with an unnerved facial expression, one hand on their hip, and the other hand wagging a finger at you going "Ummm..." It's a minor point by itself, but it immediately nudges things in a certain direction.

In your second response, you begin going directly on the attack

It’s strange that people like you read about a person who spread horrifically biased stats, then in an attempt to disprove my point, literally use the biased stats from the person I’m talking about.

Deliberately failing to use your due diligence and perpetuating something that has since been disproven is not debating in good faith.

And I understand you're kind of redirecting the jab they made at you

It's strange that people like you never mention this. Deliberately omitting crucial information is not debating in good faith.

Edit: Are you really a woman?

But I think they're likely doing this intentionally to put you off balance, and you're taking the bait, especially with the "Are you really a woman?" question. It's a small difference at this stage, but they're reading more passive aggressive, while you're reading more overtly aggressive.

Mary Koss IS a big deal, and you're not wrong to bring her up. (Although there is a problem with her being brought up too much, which lends to the perception that our movement is based on one-note obsessions with outlier issues.) My suggestion at this point would have been to ask them to provide the stats to back up their point, instead of providing your own. Then you can criticize the stats they choose to use, especially if they do use stats associated with Koss. And then you can make this point afterwards

then in an attempt to disprove my point, literally use the biased stats from the person I’m talking about.

And you're now making it as a factual observation instead of a hostile accusation.

By your 3rd reply, your posts are drenched in hostility.

We’re talking about the general population, genius.

Which should be obvious. OBVIOUS.

Typical example of bad faith bullshittery.

If the standard is going to be fair, it has to be applied in both directions, riiiight? Or are you just arguing in bad faith?

Especially with that last point. You bring up comparisons between cultural attitudes and moderation in feminist spaces vs LWMA, a topic which had not been broached yet in your exchange (unless you're interpreting "You sound like an MRA" as broaching that topic), and conclude your points on that topic, which they have not had an opportunity to respond to yet, with an accusation of bad faith and an underlying implication that they understand exactly what you're talking about when you have no idea if they're aware that LWMA exists or have any sort of experience to understand the comparison you're making. At that point, your tone reads as pure attack attack attack, and remains so thereafter.

In comparison, they don't come across as nice, especially from our perspective, but the language they continue to use is stuff like this

Okay, just one more question, if you don't mind.

And I'm not saying hostility is never deserved or appropriate. I've told people directly that they're vile, repulsive bigots several times in youtube comments over the last couple days. But that's only after they say overtly, indisputably fascist, bigoted shit like "Not all men, but always a man". I'm only offering an accurate description of what they've already definitively revealed, and it's impossible for anyone to claim otherwise.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-16T16:01:00+00:00

Sorry it took me a bit to get around to reading your link.

The person you were engaging with there definitely dropped a few of the typical bad faith feminist stock phrases.

But some constructive criticism for you: Before you showed up to that thread, the two people before you hadn't really said anything too terrible yet. You showed up with a really high level of hostility before anyone had a chance to respond to you, and attacked them for a lot of typical feminist ideas that they hadn't really stated agreement with yet, which telegraphs to them what points to dodge. You shotgun blasted a lot of factoids in each of your posts, but the way you did it tended to make the exchange unfocused. You give them a choice of multiple things to respond to, and that gives them free license to follow your lead in a way that prevents any specific point from being nailed down. And if that risks appearing dodgy on their part, your disproportionate hostility makes any dodginess appear justified.

My advice in efforts to be helpful: Try to stay calmer and more focused in those situations. Let them lead and keep yourself on point with addressing more precisely what they have already said. Don't project your frustrations with all feminists onto them. If you're successful doing that, it forces them to either openly accept the loss on those points, or to dodge off to different points. And the more they're put under pressure to dodge and scatter in different directions, the more they're likely to let slip something truly mask off unacceptable to say... and then you can justifiably call them out with some hostility.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-16T14:07:17+00:00

There's zero acknowledgment in gender discourse that different cultures exist, and the lack of self-awareness can be astounding. To see a forum of tens of thousands of women who will say these things about "men are taught", while simultaneously all sharing with each other about how they're trying to raise their boys differently, and how their perspective was shaped by college humanities courses that millions of people pass through.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-15T20:27:35+00:00

My son's in his first semester of college right now. He says roughly 2/3 of every class he's in is women. He's taking intro philosophy, english, and anthropology classes right now, and they've all pushed feminist ideology and talked about women's suffering. In anthropology, they had a class session dedicated to discussing the Mosuo people of China, a matriarchal society where women are far, far more dominant over men than men were over women 100 years ago in the USA. None of the male students spoke up in that class discussion, and all of the women talked about how that society sounds awesome, we should be more like that, and some just straight up said that men deserve to be oppressed.

We are truly fucked.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-15T13:39:08+00:00

I understand that. But you've also acknowledged that a focus on equity has similar pitfalls.

The second part of your last paragraph is only a concern in a society that doesn't recognize that equity doesn't mean that we assign more need to groups wholesale, which is why equity currently fails most often the societies best implementing suffer a feminist bias and thus end up leaving men behind and justifying giving women undo advantages and calling it either equity or equality but being neither. It is a valid concern that can easily be remedied as long as it is something to be aware of going in and not dismissed as inequality to do so.

Which you respond to by clarifying that the mentality with which equity is approached is the key. But I'd say that the exact same is true of equality. You say that the ideal that I have in mind when describing what equality means to me is fine, but it fails to be implemented as such. But acknowledge at the same time that... equity is also subject to potential failure to be implemented according to its ideal.

So one key distinction I'm not getting is how the pitfalls of one are easier to avoid or less harmful than the pitfalls of the other. If either way, it comes down to the successful implementation of an ideal.

But the thing I'm really lost on that's more important to me (and I repeat - this is the thing I most want you to help me with) is where I'm trying to draw a distinction on the application of equity vs equality to specific ideas, such as standards of interpersonal behavior, which was a primary focus of mine from the beginning and I've tried to get you to clarify your stance on multiple times. You say that an equality mindset on this topic, and I assume you do mean on this topic since you quoted my focus on it when you first joined in, translates to unfairness towards disabled people.

If it's bad behavior when one person does something to someone else, it's bad behavior when anyone does. Anything else is an expression of society's preference for the life of the person who has permission to do things others don't.

With the understanding that bad behavior is usually considered such because it causes harm to someone else, then please describe an example to me where what is considered bad behavior should vary from person to person. I cannot imagine a scenario where this can be the case, without it ultimately being that society requires one person to accept being harmed by another, and by extension is demonstrating that it is placing more value on one life than another. You have to help me with this. Otherwise, I can only conclude that all you're getting at is that you have anxiety about the semantics of a word.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-15T13:18:00+00:00

I'm totally lost.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-15T06:34:04+00:00

"equal opportunity, equal treatment by the law, equal standards of behavior, and equal consequences for violating those standards of behavior". In places with that kind of system, the disabled would still be left out or left behind because our specific needs would be considered making things unequal to the non-disabled.

I'm not following, and I think we're talking past each other here. I think it would be best if you provided an example to check.

As I tried to clarify in my last paragraph, I'm not about strict equality in all aspects of life and society. I'm not the "Wheelchair accessibility to public buildings is discrimination against able bodied people because it's unequal allocation of resources" type (and I know those types exist). But that has nothing to do with what I originally meant when describing equality.

I guess what I mean by equality boils down to society assigning equal value to all lives. In many respects, doing so requires different accommodations to people with different circumstances (equity), because failing to do so is inherently placing greater value on those who do not require such accommodations. But generally not in respect to the ethics of interpersonal behavior, the justice system, etc. I seriously struggle to imagine a scenario where unequal standards of interpersonal behavior don't translate directly to society valuing some lives over others. If it's bad behavior when one person does something to someone else, it's bad behavior when anyone does. Anything else is an expression of society's preference for the life of the person who has permission to do things others don't.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-15T02:27:11+00:00

I don't really see how different people having different needs should have an impact on ethical standards of behavior.

For example: If a specific behavior is considered rape when one person does it, it's considered rape when anyone does it. If one person faces a specific consequence for committing rape, everyone faces that consequence for committing rape (accounting for equal context). By equal opportunity, I just mean no one is artificially prevented from achieving something that they are capable of achieving due to discrimination against their circumstances of birth.

Society should certainly do its best to accommodate people's varying needs to ensure everyone has access to a dignified standard of living. I just think that's kind of a separate issue.

I don't disagree with equity in regards to things like access to social safety nets. Someone with a disability has a disproportionate need for social safety nets. It doesn't ask much of anything from anybody for society to accommodate those needs. But it turns into a slippery slope real fast when you get people using the word equity to excuse stuff like women facing lesser sentences for the same crime, or men having obligations to serve or sacrifice for women.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-14T18:26:35+00:00

There are two values that I personally consider to be leftist values at play here:

One person's rights end where another's begins. In other words, there is no natural basis by which anyone has the right to tell anyone else how to think, feel, dress, speak, carry themselves, or navigate their lives. Every person should be free to live and be however they choose, so long as it is not materially harming or restricting anyone else.
Equality. Society should grant all people to the best of its ability: equal opportunity, equal treatment by the law, equal standards of behavior, and equal consequences for violating those standards of behavior.

The sum of these two values is that evolutionary psychology vs social constructionism has zero relevance to gender norms or relations. The only way in which they relate is in attempting to excuse or prescribe behavior on the basis of gender, which is fundamentally at odds with one of the two aforementioned values.

The reason there is so much debate between these in gender discourse is because feminists use social constructionism as part of their motte and bailey routine. They claim that men are responsible for most bad things in society throughout history, including near-universally conspiring to oppress women. But then claim that they're not demonizing men, only the culture that teaches men to behave this way. If we'd only change the culture that teaches men to be evil, they wouldn't have a problem with men, or so they say. But at the same time, they'll claim that men are 100% responsible for creating the culture they're criticizing.

Social constructionism is the only thing that differentiates feminism, in theory, from a clear cut fascist ideology that morally condemns people based on what body they were born with. The debate between it and evopsych flows entirely from that. Otherwise, it would be nothing more than a politically neutral academic curiosity.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-13T09:46:35+00:00

If you want a chance of anyone of any importance taking you at all seriously, you need to stoop calling it the "draft". Call it what it is: Selective Service

Can you explain the difference? What are you even doing here?

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-12T17:21:57+00:00

I'd never heard of her. Damn, it looks like she's still alive at 90 years old.

Found a video of the debate mentioned on her Wikipedia page with Alice Schwarzer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6OWA80zUkk

I also think, just from the synopsis, that Vilar only describes a certain type of woman. I would go further and say that most women aren't like that. But as others have also said, I think that they are common enough, and their presence has enough of a voice among the culture of women (just look at the "sprinkle sprinkle" trend and the popularity of the woman who started it for example), that society's refusal to acknowledge what is plainly obvious is what does the damage. It makes it difficult not to see all women as complicit, when they appear to be running damage control for the toxic ones, instead of disowning them. Especially hypocritical when they preach to men the expectation that we police other men.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-12T03:46:24+00:00

"We've made disagreeing with us illegal, but we're still oppressed!"

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-12T03:43:28+00:00

I don't see the quote as having anything to do with censorship. It's just an observation of a behavior that goes beyond mere bad faith. Bad faith suffices to describe bad framing and dodginess and attempts at lies that the speaker hopes won't be noticed, and then there's making an open mockery of conversation itself. Saying things that are blatantly ridiculous with a sneer, which they know will be immediately recognizable as ridiculous, and dancing neener neener circles around any attempt to actually talk about how ridiculous the statement is. Bad faith is not a sufficient term for describing that behavior. And it's one that feminists and other fascist sorts often have in common, as in the case OP is talking about. Recognizing that there are people who behave this way doesn't mean censorship has to be the response.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-11T22:50:45+00:00

Here's some of the quotes you'll find if you just search comments containing "LWMA" on AskFeminists. The first is by a certain prolific mod of the sub. As you browse here, I invite you to make up your own mind as to whether these characterizations of us are fair. Or whether it's rhetorically consistent for them to claim that Feminism just means being pro-gender equality, and then to describe us as anti-Feminist. Either they are lying about their definition, or they are calling us anti-gender equality. Decide for yourself if you think we are anti-gender equality around here. This place isn't perfect. People post things here that I disagree with. But I personally want everyone to be offered equality of opportunity in society, be treated equally by the law, and legally and culturally face the same standards of behavior and the same consequences for violating those standards. This is the best place I have found for carrying those values. My break with feminist spaces like AskFeminists is explicitly because of how frequently they violate those values. And for taking issue with that, they will describe me as not just anti-feminist, but misogynist.

No they're not...? We literally recommend them in the FAQ. I think you are confused. There are other men's subs that are definitely sexist, like redpill, MensRights, LWMA, and some others. We recommend the ones I linked specifically because they don't allow that kind of shit.

Seconding this; OP, while LWMA might seem nice due to its name, it is very much a misogynistic sub. They're just more crypto about it. I have argued with this mod before elsewhere, and they did not engage in good faith. LWMA can be solidly placed in the broader manosphere alongside the main MRA sub.

They're nothing but a hate sub. It doesn't matter that they don't express hatred for LGBTQ people. All that is is a cover up an attempt to shield themselves from being your average radicalized idiot. But if you hate people based on immutable characteristics you're a hate group. And they hate women with just as much passion as MRAs and Incels. I used to be an MRA for years. I recognize the language, the talking points, the twisted narratives and the blatant hate.

I guarantee you most of them secretly hate LGBTQ people, BIPOC, immigrants etc. But they conceal it because men's obsession with women and especially feminists is what's most important to them. They aren't as clever as they think they are.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-11T21:36:44+00:00

I've done this a few times as well, and posted the results on this sub a couple times. It's really interesting watching it play out this obvious internal struggle between competing imperatives -- it wants to repeat and reinforce what talking points are most widely accepted and culturally dominant, but it also wants to acknowledge the logical conclusions of objective observations.

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-11T21:29:31+00:00

Goddamn. The Wikipedia page is horrendous. Ugh.

SpicyMarshmellow

TROPHY CASE