According to a study done in 2012, men usually receive 63% longer sentencing for the same crime than women do. [1] There are clearly large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution. Another meta-analysis found that it was advantageous for defendants to be physically attractive, female, white, and of high socioeconomic status. [2] Men receive capital punishment 100x as much as women. [3] In a study done by the University of San Fransisco Law, it found that women guilty of capital murder were far less likely to receive the death penalty than men who had done capital murder and that people who killed women were more likely to receive capital punishment than people who killed men. [4]
In the U.K., women are only jailed for serious crimes as the new Justice Secretary revealed in July of 2018. [5] While men get jailed for the most minor offenses, such as smoking weed in their own home (and get large prison sentences), women only get jailed for actually serious crimes such as murder, treason, or robbery. This is not even a new concept, as in the 1800s, whatever crime a woman committed, her husband served time for it. [6] How is this patriarchy? Feminists seem to think that chivalry was misogynistic or sexist against women, but, in reality, it protected and privileged them in almost every way.
Faculty in STEM fields have demonstrated a preference for female applicants over equally qualified male applicants by a factor of 2:1. [7] If women were being pushed away from STEM, how would this be the case?
A paper just published in the British Journal of Psychology led by Steve Stewart-Williams found that people respond to research on sex differences in ways that favor females. In two studies, participants were asked to read a popular science article that was experimentally manipulated to suggest that either men or women have a more desirable quality (for example, men/women are better at drawing or men/women lie less often). Participants evaluated the female-favoring research more favorably than male-favoring research. Specifically, participants found the female-favoring research more important, more plausible, and more well-conducted and found the male-favoring research more offensive, more harmful, more upsetting, and more inherently sexist. This pro-female bias was observed among both male and female participants, and in study two, the researchers replicated the results in a south-east Asian sample. [8]
We have also found that people have a stronger desire to censor science that disfavors women. In this study, participants were asked to read a series of passages from books and to decide whether the text should be censored (for example, whether it should be removed from the library, whether a professor should not be allowed to require it for class). One passage argued that either men or women make better leaders. The results showed that people wanted to censor the book more when it argued that men make better leaders than women than when it argued the opposite. [9]
According to a study done by Developmental Science, on the development of implicit and explicit gender attitudes, found that both sexes are significantly biased towards females over males. “Findings demonstrate that implicit and explicit own-gender preferences emerge early in both boys and girls, but implicit own-gender preferences are stronger in young girls than boys. In addition, female participants’ attitudes remain largely stable over development, whereas male participants’ implicit and explicit attitudes show an age-related shift towards increasing female positivity. Gender attitudes are an anomaly in that social evaluations dissociate from social status, with both male and female participants tending to evaluate female more positively than male.” [10]
A meta-analysis found that women, on average, receive substantially more help than men, and men give more help than they receive. [11] This is backed up by the literally innumerable amount of money spent on female causes. For instance, federal and state money subsidizes more than 15,000 women’s studies courses versus a measly 91 men’s studies courses. In Canada, Canada’s Department of Education helps fund the Canadian equivalent of the National Organization for Women 7 and every Canadian province has a Women’s Directorate (Ontario’s has a staff of fifty-one and a budget of $8 million per year). A Google Scholar search for misogyny yielded 114,000 results, whereas a search for misandry yielded only 2,340. The data is pretty clear: people are vastly more sympathetic toward women and their causes than they are to men.
Boys also receive vastly more corporal punishment than girls (such as getting paddled), along with African-Americans and Hispanics. [12] Why do boys have to receive violent education when women who misbehave and do the exact same offense do not?
Girls earn significantly better grades than boys in the education system unlike what is found in scholastic achievement tests, according to a meta-analysis done by the University of New Brunswick.[13] Another study done by OECD confirmed this very fact: when the teacher does not know that the student is a boy, his grade is put at least ⅓ higher than it already is. [14] This shows a significant bias towards girls in terms of grading since it has nothing to do with scores.
The pressure to be masculine amongst men is also significantly greater than the pressure to feminine amongst girls. The teenage suicide rate amongst gays is 3x as high as the suicide rate amongst lesbians. [15] This implies that effeminate men are more likely to get bullied than women who act more manly. Think about it: if a girl showed up to school or work dressed manly (say with a suit), no one would bat an eye; but, if a boy showed up anywhere with a dress, he would be completely laughed at and made fun of.
Additionally, in family courts, women win 90% of all child custody cases. [16] This is plain and simple misandry (or sexism against men) in the court system, and no one talks about it. There is absolutely no reason why a woman has more of a right to her own child than a man, and to claim otherwise would be discriminatory.
Men also pay 97% of alimony (or financial support to their spouse post-divorce). [17] Men don’t make that much more money than women (considering the wage gap is not that large), and, therefore, should not have to pay that much alimony. Once again, plain and simple misandry.
Men are also exploited as cash machines by other women in relationships. 70% of U.K. women would instantly change their minds about leaving a boring man if he won a lottery jackpot. [18] 78% of US women said a partner with a steady job was the most important trait in a future spouse. [19] 75% of women say that they would have a problem with dating someone who doesn’t have a job, and only 4% of women would go out with an unemployed man. [20] In China, women expect men to provide apartments along with a cash marriage offer in order to have a relationship. [21] Women are seen as sex objects, but men are seen as success and money objects. A man’s success and wealth matter more than his individual character.
In life-threatening situations (such as abandoned ships), women and children are always saved first. [22] When a man and woman fail to protect, the results are always different. For instance, when a male captain failed to control his ship and the resultant oil spill destroyed wildlife, the names Exxon Valdez and Captain Joseph Hazelwood became infamous. Captain Hazelwood was put on trial, fined, and imprisoned. He became the pitiful butt of jokes by Johnny Carson and Jay Leno. His drinking was highlighted. The fact that a sudden schedule change had pushed an exhausted captain and crew back to sea and into a ruined career was ignored. So, what happens when a female captain does that?
When a female air traffic controller failed at her job and the resultant air crash killed thirty-four humans (not wildlife), her colleagues took her to a hotel to shield her from publicity. They spent days comforting her. Instead of being the butt of jokes, she received humor therapy, paid for by taxes. Rather than sue her, the Federal Aviation Administration provided her with a counselor. Instead of publicizing her name, the National Transportation Safety Board cooperated in keeping her identity secret from the public. To this day, her name remains virtually unknown. Headlines in papers from the Los Angeles Times to The New York Times focused on her grief, not the grief of the families of those killed or the ruined lives of those injured, for instance: “Controller Was Stricken by Grief, Tears after Crash.” If this is true, then how would the misogyny theory make sense? We clearly accept female error a lot better than we do male error, so this would point to an entirely different narrative than most feminists push.
Male genital mutilation is also legal, but female genital mutilation is not. While some forms of female genital mutilation are a lot worse than male genital mutilation, both are not O.K. If you look at the procedure of circumcision, it is quite horrible; the baby is screaming and crying as his penis’ foreskin is retracted using a clamp. [23] - Warning: Graphic The fact that male babies should be allowed to get tortured and reduced sexual pleasure should be something eliminated and removed from society if we want to get anywhere towards gender equality.
In terms of domestic violence, 70.7% of domestic violence is female-perpetrated [24]; and according to the CDC, 53.3% percent of men had been the victims of intimate partner violence in the past 12 months. [25] So, the question remains: why are there no domestic violence shelters for men? Even though it is true that a lot of domestic violence against females go unreported, the media still paints domestic violence as a female-only issue when the statistics (of reported cases) shows otherwise.
Every time, women are killed somewhere, in the news headline, it is almost unanimously made clear that, indeed, a woman was killed; but when a man is killed, he is usually referred to as a person., Take for instance, the Chibok schoolgirl kidnappings where hundreds of schoolgirls were kidnapped by a terrorist group called Boko Haram [26]; everyone from Barack and Michelle Obama [27] to the U.K. government [28] denounced the kidnappings as misogynistically intended kidnappings made to take away education from girls. However, almost none of these girls were actually killed; they were put into an arranged marriage with the chance to escape. The boys, on the other hand, were burned and killed; and mind you, they were called “people,” “students,” and “villagers,” not “boys” or “men.” [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] In one of the reports written by AFP, it is said: “A hundred and six people, including an old woman, have been killed by the attackers, suspected to be Boko Haram gunmen…” [36]
According to an Oxfam protection survey, 41% more killings were of men and boys by Boko Haram than of women and girls [37]; the number was even higher amongst adults, with 77% more men killed than women. Whenever girls are killed (or kidnapped), their gender must be mentioned since it has to do with that; but when it’s boys killed, it’s just a group of individuals dead and must never have anything to do with their gender. Studies have confirmed this as well, that female victims (and especially white females) are focused most in the media. [38]
This plays into the concept of “male expendability,” or the idea that in society, female life matters more than male life. In 1998, shortly after the Rwandan genocide, Hillary Clinton gave a speech in El Salvador, saying: “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” [39] This implies that the men who died aren’t really the victims of war; it is women who matter because they are impacted by the death of men, not because the men, in and of themselves, died.
The “male disposability hypothesis” is also backed up by many studies. In 2016, a study published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science where it found that people would be significantly more willing to sacrifice men than women in times of crisis; they are also more willing to inflict harm upon men rather than women. [40] A study done in Poland (in 2017) found that people were 3 times as likely to deliver severe electric shocks to men when asked by an experimenter to do so than to women. [41] A study done in 2000, found that amongst vehicular homicides, drivers who kill women very often get much higher sentences than drivers who kill men. [42] This is also true in regards to all crimes; according to a study done in 2004, criminals who victimized females received vastly more punishment than those who victimized males. [43] A husband whose wife died is way more likely to commit suicide and be depressed than a wife whose husband died. [44]
It explains why 93% of workplace fatalities are male [45]; men are forced to do dangerous jobs, which gets them killed and society simply doesn’t care. This is confirmed by a study done by the USBLS, which found that the most hazardous jobs (the ones with the highest-death percentage) were almost exclusively male [46], [47]:
Firefighting
99% male
Ironworking
99% male
Trucking
98% male
Construction
98% male
Logging
98% male
Coal Mining
97% male
Whereas the least hazardous jobs (ones with the lowest-death percentages) were always almost completely exclusively female [48]:
Secretary
99% female
Receptionist
97% female
The Jobs Related Almanac ranked 250 jobs from best to worst based on a combination of salary, stress, work environment, outlook, security, and physical demands. 24/25 out of these jobs were 95-100% male-dominated. [49] Military deaths are largely male as well. According to the FAS, in the Korean War, 99.9% of all deaths were male. In the Vietnam War, once again, 99.9% of all deaths were male. During the Persian Gulf War, 95% of all deaths were male. During Panama, 100% of deaths were male. During OEF and OIF, 98% percent of deaths were male. Why is this such a persistent theme?
“I think women are too valuable to be in combat.” - Casper Weinberger, U.S. Secretary of Defense (under Reagan)
“It is not appropriate for women to engage in combat... to be captured or to be shot, as opposed to pushing a button someplace in a missile silo.” - Sandra Day O’Connor, Supreme Court Justice
“If there’s a fire at sea and you have to slam down a hatch to save the ship, you might do it on a man. But on a woman…”
According to the feminist, this must be due to sexism, since women have to stay in the kitchen. I also don’t think, however, that being brutally killed in war is all that much better than being a caretaker due to evolutionary instincts. As all this evidence (including the quotes) shows, it is female life being placed as more valuable than the male life, that is an explanation for this male disposability.
If feminism is about, “aiming to establish and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes,” then why does it never talk about these issues? Why does it stay silent on the issues that really matter? Why are there no gender studies classes on any of these topics? It’s almost as if the media, politicians, and radicals don’t actually care about the equality of the sexes, but are only looking to drive an oppression narrative to which it can gain political standings off of.
These are serious examples of structural sexism that have long-standing impacts, and all we can ramble about is how it’s harder to pronounce ‘woman’ rather than ‘man?’ Or how insults against a man in English also insult women in some subtle way?
Saying the word ‘policeman’ will discourage little girls and even grown women from becoming police officers, but calling the force of evil that oppresses women after men (patriarchy) and the force of good that will bring gender equality after women (feminism) is completely fine? We can’t carry on this absurdity as a society of claiming structural oppression against women. We have to focus on real issues, and then truly work to achieve some form of gender equality.
This idea that patriarchy exists and male privilege is a harmful myth that helps no one. Men who want to feel guilt for something that they’re not even guilty of in the first place are plain and simple simps. They want to pretend like they share guilt for all female problems.
Response to common feminist myths:
Some feminists may object by pointing out the wage gap, and that women earn less than men (specifically 77 cents to the dollar a man makes). But, the reason is that this merely divides the annual salary of men with women. It does not take into account career professions, where women have statistically been shown to go to careers that pay less and careers where men get paid more vice-versa. [50] For the same job and qualifications, the wage gap is 98 cents to the dollar a man makes. [51] However, this still does not account for the number of hours worked, which men work a lot more of. [52] Also, it has been found that young, single, and childless women earn 17% more than men. [52] Going by feminist standards, we have just proved that we live under a misandrist matriarchy! Asking why male CEOs make more than female CEOs is seriously like asking why female models get paid more than male models. Some women get paid 180 grand to sell feet pics. [53] Seriously, taking one picture a day or week of their own feet and getting paid fortunes. The “pay gap” is something that is really appalling because it displays a lack of basic common sense.
Women have been, evolutionarily speaking, caretakers. [54] In hunter-gatherer societies, women gathered and took care of kids, whereas, men cooperatively hunted. [55] So, they often make career choices that make less money and sometimes, even no money. Women, therefore, naturally thrive under jobs such as nursing or even abstinence of jobs altogether in the pursuit of taking care of offspring. The fact that women tend to choose fewer STEM careers is not the result of cultural prejudice because a study done in countries (where there’s higher national gender equality) found that sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose. [56] This isn’t sexism, it’s just basic biology.
But, why do women hold less than 25% of governmental positions in the U.S. nationwide? Why can’t women become leaders like men? Why do men take up the top 1%? The problem with this is that it ignores everything else. Men take up 70% of the homeless [57] and are 2x as likely to be drug-addicted. [58] This takes up about 15% of the population, according to the CDC. [59] So, the fact that men take up the top 1% means absolutely nothing if they also take up the bottom 15%. Also, looking at men in government and saying they have all the power is like looking at women in grocery stores and saying they have all the food. It’s a matter of choice, not adding a gendered prefix next to a suffix.
Plus, most of these congressmen, CEO’s, etc… have wives and children that benefit from the money that they make; the spouses of CEO’s end up inevitably doing less work than the CEO’s themselves. In Japan, overwork resulting in death is called karoshi. So, far, in the past 20 years, sudden deaths amongst executives have gone up by a lot. And, as usual, men in their 40’s take up the vast majority of these deaths. [60]
Another method that feminists use to justify patriarchy is rape culture; men have the privilege of not being raped whereas women do. However, this is just false; men are actually raped way more often than women when accounting for the number of prison rapes (over 900,000 male inmates raped), according to The Guardian and the American Public Health Association. [61], [62]
Feminists will also bring up slut-shaming against women as an example of societal sexism against women; women are slut-shamed for being promiscuous, whereas men can be as promiscuous as they want. But, this is actually completely incorrect. In fact, a study done by George Washington University found that on Facebook, promiscuous males are slut-shamed much more than promiscuous women. [63] And for those that do slut-shame women, a large majority are women themselves. [64]
But, what about sexual harassment? Don’t women get sexually harassed and men don’t have to deal with that? Male privilege! Actually, let’s look at the facts. Since 1988, making a dirty joke, looking at a woman’s short skirt, calling a female employee “honey,” can all be illegal and considered sexual harassment if a woman decides she doesn’t like it and the man has perpetrated the act. [65] In other words, women have the power to imprison men for "sexual harassment" if they do anything that could be interpreted as sexually suggestive. When you actually delve into the politics of sexual harassment, a different image other than the feminist model of misogyny emerges.
Thank you guys for reading!
Extra research compiling what I just listed + a lot more:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hfo7UXSS6ZlsfXZnlU4kPlzj0759nAxw9KrFi-s2ZLU/edit#
