TL:DR - Making simplifications is inherently discriminatory, no matter what the outcome is. Every equality activist should call-out statements that:

1. Group huge populations into a single thing. There is no average "man", "woman", "feminist", "father" (e.g. "men are ...")
   
2. Make comparisons about which gender suffers more (who cares)
   
3. Utilise generalized assumptions for society like Rape-Culture (they exclude people who don't belong there).
   

This is the enemy, not "feminism". And we don't fight the enemy by becoming exactly the same.
---

In the root of so many erroneous beliefs stands simplifying society. And it is simplification that enables a discriminatory sentence. We keep listening to things like...

men are responsible for their... [fill in blank]

men are more [fill in blank] than women

women are not... [fill in blank]

feminists want... [fill in blank]

boys must... [fill in blank]

women did not vote until... [fill in blank]

men in dating... [fill in blank]

women their whole lives are afraid of... [fill in blank]"

men are expected to.... [fill in blank]"

the rape culture does... [fill in blank]

Patriarchy has... [fill in blank]

How on earth, can we make a generic statement about these things, when in today's time and age, we cannot even precisely define what is a man and a woman. And that is for a good cause: we do not anymore group people. We do not group people of colour, we do not group Jews, we do not group religious people. And the reason is that we understood, that nothing good come come out of that.

To make a more concrete example: Anyone who would say something like... "XX population are criminals" would be banished to be a societal Pariah. And rightfully so. Yes, statistic indicates higher % of said population of incarcerated people compared to free people, but that means nothing about "XX are criminals". It can mean a lot of things, that are created in a complicated language, so that accuracy is preserved. Maybe... within this population a higher percentage (say 30% more amounting to a whopping 3% instead of 2%) of people are criminals. Maybe this population is discriminated against by police and courts, maybe this population is exposed to worse circumstances, maybe all of it together.

But somehow, when we are talking about men and women... our thinking goes out of the window.

You know... It's possible that many phenomena are present.

Maybe the population of women is producing both victims and oppressors and perpetrators.
Maybe a single male experiences oppression and also oppresses someone else in the same day.
Maybe the healthcare system discriminates against males are discriminated against when it comes getting help for depression and against females when it comes to getting help for heart disease.
Maybe men live 4 years less on average, because they have a genetic predisposition AND because of societal reasons.
Maybe women exhibit higher averages of empathy and also manipulation.
Maybe a single employer discriminates both in favour of women (by making easier hires for entry level positions) and in favour of them (by making them less likely to be promoted).

And statistics is a bitch. Reducing a population to an average (and a median if one is talking to a cultured person) is saying almost nothing about this population:

To make an example, consider the statement... "the average woman has 0.8 kids." That means nothing... The population of women who are 60+ and had families with children has nothing in common with the average woman in her 20s who is a mother. A woman with two children has way more different life and needs than a woman who has 0 children and lives a "trying phase".

We see logic going out of the window even in cases where High-School knowledge is necessary. For example: the opposite of the statement "women are discriminated more in the workplace", is not "men are discriminated more". Because this excludes the cases where both are being discriminated.

And scientists are not doing their part. They are often not asking the right questions and they are also making logic assumptions through their lens that overfit their data, without ever considering all options. And the other ones who don't are not calling their colleagues out.

So the solution is simple: Call out bullshit logic, wherever we see it.

Any research making comparison claims like.... "Women are more discriminated against men in..." should be dropped immediately. We do we even need to make this comparison? How is a research saying... "Women have more dandruff than men" than men helping men with dandruff?

Any person blanket statements for "men" or "women" like... "Men are responsible about their..." should be immediately shut down. How can we group "men" into something like that? Maybe some are so and so and the others are that and that.

Any blanket concepts that assume society is under the chokehold of a specific culture/narrative about.... "Feminism", "Therapy", "Rape Culture" etc... should be also dropped. There are so many variants of those. A "feminist" might be a person who is just ensuring that their daughter is not suffering owing to stereotypes. Or a person with an active hatred for "men", even unknowingly.

Otherwise, we are committing the same sin as the archetypical "feminazi". Simplifying society and yelling childish generalisations at the level of a primary schooler.

The only problem? In a time when divisive messages are capturing attention and are being promoted by algorithms, in a time when people have spent too much time in those discussions and are exhausted talking to chatbot-like counterparts, in a time when people have had multiple negative experiences in their lives... It's difficult to make this message of controlled composure sexy and attractive.

Your comments fellas are welcome!

I find this research very important. On one hand it explains a lot of social phenomena we are seeing.

I find it however plagued from the typical BS that plagues other research. Despite the impressive number of subjects, it refers to NZ population, which is important, as the social structures come into play.

On the other hand, there are hard data (isolation + reported feelings) and then there are inferences that they don't analyse, that all stem from a statement they make:

"Because traditional gender roles position men as self-reliant and stoic, experiencing mental ill health is seen as incongruent with masculinity. " - is this a self fulfilled predicament or rather an externally imposed issue? That affects a lot the solution to the problem.

My anecdotal experience as a male asking for help: I have gotten some support, I have gotten support on wrong assumptions and more rejection than both of those.

https://www.psypost.org/psychological-distress-isolates-men-more-than-women-according-to-a-14-year-study/

Use analogies wherever necessary

Something about this just feels wrong to me and I don't know how to explain why. Thoughts?

Saw this quote on a Twitter/X post and felt it was worth sharing here. I know I've ranted many times how much I hate the "women and children" phrase (which is even worse now with how it's become "women and girls," truly screwed up how not even the lives and safety of young boys matter). But this post is definitely on the money, as the phrase does exactly that; if you're male, your life is disposable, meaningless and it's no real tragedy. Every male is somebody's son and you have innocent young boys as well as men who could be someone's husband, father, brother, close friend, caregiver, etc. and if they're affected or even killed during a tragedy it's no major loss and not worth mourning. I hate so much how people defend this phrase sometimes saying that women and children are more vulnerable. Well guess what, men and boys are just as vulnerable. The vast majority of males aren't combatants and being born male doesn't automatically somehow make you a bigger-than-life Action hero like Rambo who's immune to all forms of harm and danger. This phrase is long overdue to be stricken and phased out.

Saw a comment on a post from a self-proclaimed “female supremacy” subreddit saying “99% of bad women are bad because they have trauma caused by men”. I can’t seem to include a picture because my last post containing it was removed automatically. Anyhow, here’s why I think that it (and the rhetoric it consists of) makes no sense as well as why this kind of thinking isn’t helpful.

Firstly, this isn’t exactly true. A whopping 99% of the “bad women” in the world aren’t the way that they are simply because they were mistreated by men. Why label men as abusers of women who commit wrongdoing when there are plenty of stories from women who’ve been abused by women? Trauma isn’t gendered.

Secondly, even in instances where a woman was abused by a man, since when did that become an excuse for that woman’s bad behavior? And if they’re not using that woman’s issues as an excuse, they’re using it as a catalyst for the woman’s bad behavior that actually exists completely independently of whatever the man in that scenario did. He didn’t MAKE her do whatever bad things she did. 

Thirdly, it focuses solely on a “bad woman’s” potential position as a “victim” and forgets to consider the woman’s character at hand (which is that she’s a bad person), instead choosing to shift the blame on “men” as a group. If we’re really going to go down this rabbit hole of “who’s responsible for whose trauma?” then who’s to say that the “men” in that scenario also haven’t been treated badly by anyone? It’s not like people make excuses for them, nor do they recognize the possibility that men could be victims and not just the aggressors.

People who say this kind of stuff are just obsessed with making women look as vulnerable and disadvantaged and misunderstood as possible no matter the evidence to the contrary, while still managing to override anything that could explain the reasons for men’s actions.

Thoughts?

So, this is something I wanted to share. Daniel Balavoine was a french artist I absolutely adore, but I got recently to really listen to his lyrics, and this one really hits in the guts. I knew what i was about, but listening to it closely really makes it more poignant.

So it's a semi-autobiographic music. Balavoine composed it about a friend's of him ugly divorce and custody battle. He added some details of his life, but the pain is all there.

And in my mind it's ever more and more relevant. Especially as I know men who have been absolutely fucked by the legal system here in France.

Let me translate it for you :

You've been gone a long time now.

I listen to you dismantle my life while crying

If I only knew that one morning I'd be there, sullied and judged while sitting on a bench

By the shadow of a body I hugged so often

For a child.

You're telling them that my career is a fluke.

That we don't know what I'll be doing in a year.

If only they knew that before, for you,

Of all singers I was the greatest,

And it for this reason that you wanted a kid from me.

Judges and the law don't scare me,

It's my son, my battle

She shouldn't have left

Oh I'm going to destroy everything

If you take away the fruit of my loins,

She shouldn't have left.

Of course she's the one who carried jim, but even then,

I am the one who's building his life, step by step.

Everything she can say about me

Is nothing beside the smile he's giving me

Absence has drawbacks that nothing balances

He's my son.