Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
David Benatar's book has valid comments to make about the position of men.
Tags: feminism Let's talk about men
@ Or Paul Elam's charming 'beat a violent bitch' month or whatever he called it
If you had had actually read the original article instead of the false accusations made by feminists about the article, you'd know that it was anti-bully, anti-violence and anti-sexist double standards.
Ok its the usual string of false hoods and false accusations that are put together by David Futrelle.
The Spearhead have repeatedly said that they are not a men's rights blog - they are a traditionalist blog, the mrm is largely about being free from traditionalism, inMalaFide is an american alt right blog.
Paul Elams "Bash Violent B month" is anti-violence, anti bullying and anti sexist double standards.
Tom Martins comments were odd, and not the norm in mainstream mrm.
I asked you to show me real examples, I was going to require that you didn't just repeat examples David Futrelles yellow journalism and false accusations and claim that's an accurate reflection of the mrm.
I asked you to provide evidence of the accusation you made in relating to sex crimes.
" as it is pretty much the only example they can find of violent misandry from a feminist site)"
Are you telling lies AllyF?
The magic number to bring the males under control is ~30% of the population
Females don’t have to kill baby boys. Just not nurture them. Females are forced to birth baby boys, but beyond that a female’s physical actions are her own.
Males will die without the constant infusion of female energy that they get from our wombs and from our lives. They are perfectly welcome to take the male infants from the hands of the midwife, and what they do with it from that point is their decision.
Females need to not be emotionally and intellectually invested in a male future.
Men oppress us, so it’s no good getting annoyed at women for raising boys, although I certainly agree that lowering the male population is important, and I’ll never forget those two midwives who killed every boy baby for decades to prevent the warring between the tribes.That is a hopeful, positive story.
Even if we killed off 90% of men, the majority of women left over would do their best to keep the oppressive system. I’d dare say we’d have to kill off all the women too and leave the little girls and radfems to create the utopia.
it occurs to me that a female ob/gyn that was willing to perform sex-selective abortions on male fetuses would be giving a gift to the next generation, and preventing the future generation of girls and women being eaten alive.
as vliet suggested, i think a biological solution would be a radical solution. such as dispatching male babies at birth.
The framing of abuse as gendered in normal in feminist discourse, you cannot show an example of more wide spread misogyny in the mrm.
Im asking you to demonstrate the mens movement doing something that feminism isn't doing to a greater extent and to provide evidence that what you allege is the norm, is in fact the norm.
Not to demonstrate that you believe that feminism gets a free pass, and that when women do it and do it to far greater extents, its different.
radicalhub are out and out nutters. A tiny fringe of genuine man-haters.
If you think The Spearhead or In Mala Fide are not genuine MRA sites, please tell me some that are, and I'll happily reconsider.
But since you mention (approvingly) A Voice For Men, I just checked and literally the past few days we have a comment about the VAWA debate:
"The Lame Stream Media made the mistake of paying attention to NCFM’s letter to the wh0res in the House. "
and this above the line:
"And why the hell is Jessica Valenti not getting morally b1tch-slapped, within an inch of her psychological life, from every press room and pulpit in the land? Eh? Bonobobabe, Luckynkl, and all that crowd are a bit worse than Jessica Valenti . . but only a bit. So Jessica Valenti, consider yourself b1tch-slapped, Fidelbogen style! Yes, you DO deserve this."
How far back to you need me to go to keep digging up examples? I do have other things to do this week.
"You'll probably say that's not typical, or that the blog is not a "true" MRM site or whatever else, but just take a look at AVfM or Spearhead or countless others and tell me how long it takes you to find a comment about b1tches or wh0res or whatever."
You must have predicted this because that's what you would do...
"radicalhub are out and out nutters. A tiny fringe of genuine man-haters."
Funny that, don't you think?
What you fail to realize however, is that while you call them nutters and fringe, you still accept they are feminists, radical, but feminists none the less (to call them fringe is to acknowledge they are still a part of the group, just revolving around the outside.
Yet, Christina Hoff Sommers, Warren Farrel and a number of others self identify as feminist, are about equality, and are openly critical of those nutters you accept on the fringe, and they have been rejected and labeled anti-feminists within the feminist movement.
Why is it the egalitarians are ejected but the nutters can stay, unless the nutters ideals are closer to that of feminism then equality?
"radicalhub are out and out nutters. A tiny fringe of genuine man-haters. "
The "No Real Scotsman" argument again, /sigh.
No they are not, we infiltrated their network, many of them are political, professional feminists much more involved in the actual running of feminism than the followers that support all their polices and laws are. They are what feminism is running on, without the radicals, the movement would just disintegrate because the followers and believers would have no policies, laws, activism and non profits to support.
And you still have not provided me with evidence that the mens movement contains higher levels of widespread misogyny than feminism has misogyny.
This is directed at feminists not women, the "whores" is a reference to telling lies in congress about abuse being gendered so that large sums of money can funneled to radical feminist organisations that run discriminatory abuse intervention services and PSAs that lie about abuse rates and castigate men, via VAWA.
If men were covering up abuse of women, and running discriminatory services, would it be suddenly ok for feminists to use strong language?
Thats not misogny, feminism isn't women and the real haters in the story are the radical feminists that are lying about abuse rates and running discriminatory abuse services.
Plus, you are not showing me anything beyond what can be found on mumsnet, womens chat shows, or feminist sites.
Im asking you to give me examples without using sexist double standards.
And I already gave you two sites, as you know.
Well I'm afraid if you don't see what is misogynistic about talking about "the wh0res in the House" or saying a prominent feminist needs to be "b1tch-slapped" then you've gone a long way towards proving my point.
As for the examples you gave of MRA sites - I'm rather an admirer of Pelle Billing although we don't always agree, we often do. But he's basically a lone voice and his comments get a handful of comments. Compare that to something like AVfM and I'd struggle to agree that his site represents much beyond himself. And I've always said there are some reasonable voices within the Men's Movement too. You could add Glen Poole from International Fathers Day / Men's Network to that too. One of the good guys.
r/mensrights is more awkward, because it is an open forum, is browsed by an awful lot of non-MRAs from elsewhere in Reddit, and as I understand it the forums are moderated and most of the abuse and overt misogyny is deleted pretty quick. I find it mind-twisting to read, so don't stay there long but again, I don't see it as typical of the MRM.
As for 'proving' that misogyny is more common amongst MRAs than misandry is among feminists, I don't claim I can. Give me about three years and a healthy research budget. SO all I can go on is my own impressions, having spent a lot of time over many years following both.
Please demonstrate how a Voice for Men is doing something that feminism and the mainstream women's media does not do but to far greater extent.
Or stop with your sexist double standards.
The fact of the matter here is you are pedestalising yourself.
Women and the womens movement can say whatever the hell they want about men, womens chat show hosts cackle and the female audience laughsand cheers about a sexually mutilated man. Feminists call for the murder of men and baby boys on rad fem hub, all feminist areas proliferate toxic and misandric lies about abuse being generally masculine and victimhood being generally female.
But, when men and the mens movement have strong words for bigoted radical feminist that lie to cogress about abuse rates and run discriminatory services and bigots like Valenti and Marocotte that call for an end for the presumption of innocence for men, they are the bad guys - because they spoke to the delicate ladies in an ungentlemanly way.
You are a sexist, supremacist.
You are not special class.
The mens movement is far less misogynist than feminism and the womens mainstream media is misandrist.
So come down off that pedestal and start thinking of men and women as of equal value.
I'll explain it again.
If a man says X about a woman, and a woman says something on a par with it about a man, those things are equal to each other, the fact one being said to a woman shouldn't magically make it a blasphemous breach of code, while the same thing being said to a man by a woman is totally different and not a breach of the code because according to us, men and women are of equal value, equally worthy of respect and dignity - and we are the future of this debate, the feminist rehash of Victorian ladies first sensibilities, chivalry and pedestalising of women that they mistakenly think represents equality and an end to patriarchy rather than the modifying and perpetration of it, is old hat now.
"As for the examples you gave of MRA sites - I'm rather an admirer of Pelle Billing although we don't always agree, we often do. But he's basically a lone voice and his comments get a handful of comments."
Really? Look at his blog:
and at the most recent four or five posts. I wouldn't call over a hundred comments "a handful".
He is far form a lone voice. He is part of a wide-rangng debate in Sweden on state feminism and there are many voices, male and female, on his side of the debate. He has published articles in opinion section of major dailies.
His English-language blog is an afterthought. His main blog is definitely worth your time, and with the resources at your disposal it would be easy for you to monitor it.
"Perhaps it is understandable, given the constant drone of anti-feminism and misogyny that hums beneath much men’s activism".
There is less misogny in mens acticism than there is misandry in womens activism, anything that feminists hold up and use to try to delegitimize men's issues is or has been done by feminists to much greater extremes and much of the organised malicious gossip and rumour spreading that feminists engage in about men's activism is based in misrepresentation and false accusations, thats been going on since they were framing the fathers rights and equal rights for abuse victims as abusers lobbies.
Feminists need to stop thinking of themselves and women as a special class that can deride others and preach misandric quasi-religion with impunity, while at the same time framing any criticism of that behaviour as blasphomy and hatred of women.
You're not a special class, you are the same as everyone else.
"There is less misogny in mens acticism than there is misandry in womens activism"
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ on that one.
When we start seeing MRAs calling women, all women, "pigs", then maybe you'll have a point.
When we start seeing rpae awareness training calling all women potential rapists - which after all is true but not helpful - than we can talk about "misogyny" in the MRM.
Calling someone a whore or a slut is pretty insignificant compared to calling them a rapist - ask any women which she would rather be called, with an actual possibility of jail time, which in far too many jurisdictions is far to distant a possibility - and in fact it is nothing more than erasure by false equivalence to even compare them.
I've seen some sexist stuff on "men's rights" blogs and forums, mainly from pick-up artist types with a slut/stud double standard, or conservatives pushing traditional gender roles. But that doesn't even come close to the level of seething hatred that many feminists openly express towards men.
You have to look for isolated examples from the very worst of the men's rights movement to find sexism comparable with the hateful garbage routinely spewed by feminist academics, writers and activists.
The biggest difference between them is that publicly stating blatantly misogynistic views wouldn't be tolerated, while feminists publish books and present lectures full of sexist bile with very little criticism.
This is a case of you seeing men and women in different classes, the female class are allowed to hate on the male class, its normalised so it flyes under the radar, while the slightest criticism of the female class by the male class is coded as blasphemy and so is more visible.
There is nothing in mens activism that can be compared to feminism's covering up female perpetrated abuse to support its misandric patriarchal dominance theory.
"Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence"
The closest things we have to compare to feminism's use of pseudo science to castigate men are similar politically motivated operations carried out in the past against various races.
I have to say I agree with Feministsmakethingsup
Mark Simpson has written on how misandry is an 'acceptable prejudice' like you suggest, whereas misogyny is not.
HI ally no 'agreeing to disagree' is not good enough.
we can find evidence of misandry and misogyny in the men's rights movement and feminism. we can also find evidence of which one of those movements has more power and representation in academia and the media.
If you write a book on this subject you will need to have done your research. 'Opinion' is for lazy hacks like Suzanne Moore.
“Of course they can, and if you guys want to campaign on those issues, I’ll applaud you.” Yeah, that ‘s the usual reaction all right, just look at the Vagenda piece.
Your suggesting each gender campaigns for only the issues that effects them, and there’s a scramble for resources at the end with each ‘side’ claiming to have it worse than the other, and we know how that ends.
This guy only managed to get some grudging acceptance of the points he was making anesthetising the feminist knee jerk with pages of pre-amble assuring them that they have it worse. How dare a man ask for injustice to be addressed without getting permission from feminists first.
I don't agree with the zero sum argument. That may partly explain why, for example, why womens domestic violence charities are suspicious of men's activism, but many issues described above here - eg military combat exclusions, circumcision, active fathering, tolerance of violence against men etc etc are largely in keeping with women's concerns.
Setting up these issues as men vs women rather than compassion vs injustice is the great failing of much of the feminist movement AND much of the men's rights movement.
“In keeping with woman’s concerns..” is another way of saying men are allowed to complain about the stuff that women say they can? Outside of that they’re being extremists?
It’s not a zero sum game on average, but try telling that to one of the thousands of individuals who make up the imbalance in early deaths.
There must be a way between the MR groups childish hyperbole and this appalling cringing to feminists, making sure it’s OK with them before an MR issue can be accepted by mainstream media.
If a male writer wants to point out some the glaring inequalities built into public services he should be able to do so without newspaper columnists and commentators declaring him a misogynist, because he didn’t ask permission first.
I think women's domestic violence and rape charities are suspicious of men because they are on the whole run by extremist radical feminists whose whole raison d'etre is to spread suspicion and distrust of men.
For example The Eaves Project, the Poppy Project and the Lilith research wing of Eeaves.
I agree that men, as a gender, are discriminated against in some cases -- but to call this sexism is misleading. Sexism is more than set cases of prejudiced or discriminatory actions -- it's structural, extensive and deeply embedded oppression which flows almost entirely one way: against women. If you root through the huge gender discrimination faced by women, perpetuated by the media, the judiciary, the state and reproduced on an individual level, you may find cases where men are indeed disadvantaged. But in the same way, look at the state at various times in history and you find in it, there have been some genuine, progressive representatives fighting for ordinary people's interests (John McDonnell, for example) -- but this doesn't change the overall position of the state as opposed to the interests of ordinary people. Calling discrimination against men "sexism" only works if you refuse to accept sexism as a broad, embedded structure that, when taken as a whole, disempowers and oppresses women.
You define sexism as
"..structural, extensive and deeply embedded oppression"
and then state that any "sexism" against men is not of this form. Is a statement that is very easily made but I defy you to defend this assertion.
Benatar deals with this at some length in the book. He argues that there are two different definitions of sexism in circulation, one of which is a simple one - discrimination on the basis of sex. The other is the systemic political definition based around power structures etc, as you describe here.
Benatar favours the former, hence the book title, but concludes that it doesn't really matter. The injustice and problems don't go away just because we recoil from using the word "sexism." If we call it something else, the extent of suffering and injustice remains the same.
FWIW, I'm not convinced Benatar deals with this issue entirely convincingly, it would be one of my criticisms had I had ten times as much space. But the point about semantics, I think, is entirely sound.
Ah, good to see he also considers that definition. I prefer seeing sexism as only discrimination that's geared against women because then it has more weight; to include the discrimination men face I think in some cases waters it down, especially when you look at how aggressively a lot of "Men's Rights" groups peddle their points. I do agree any discrimination and injustice is wrong, and I would class myself as someone who campaigns for gender liberation as a whole, with female equality being at least a step towards that. Cuz it is fair to say many men face a lot of problems trying to fit in with the conventional view of masculinity, and as much as the nature of the feminine gender role hurts women through disempowerment, the masculine gender role can hurt men by casting them as strong, less emotional etc. which I think is a decisive reason on why men are more likely to face harsh sentences in the courts. There seems to be an underlying paternalism with women that inclines towards protecting them from hostile environments, and an almost macho affirmation involved with entering males into prison.
You openly state:-
"I prefer seeing sexism as only discrimination that's geared against women "
Holy crap are you kidding me?
You are saying that there is some aggressive peddling of points by "men's rights" groups.
Please provide example of "men's right's" groups peddling their points and levels of aggression that are not far surpassed by "women's rights" groups peddling their points.
Do you believe that women and men should be judged by different standards in this respect, with "women's rights" being given the privilege of operating at levels of high emotion and aggression, but when it comes to men expressing the same, it suddenly becomes unacceptable for them to express emotion and difficulty in the same way?
Do you actually read MRA blogs? If you did, paid attention and aren't cognitively deficient, you would know exactly what is being talked about.
But here you go, someone else has gone of the trouble of cataloguing some of the most ridiculous misogyny found within MRA literature:
To re-phrase your words:-
Do you actually read "FEMINSIST" blogs? If you did, paid attention and aren't cognitively deficient, you would know exactly what is being talked about
...took me seconds to find that lot.
Now compare those to
Two can play this game.
So in essence you are indulging in Ad Hominem.
Here is David Futrelle promoting his false accusations and double standards journalism.
I'm not David Futrelle - in fact, it's safe to say him and I don't look, sound or act remotely like each other.
He's just documented the prevelance of misogny within MRA literature already - no need to create double work for myself.
You are telling all the same lies he does and spamming the area with links to his blog, the likelyhood is that you are him.
CASE CLOSED!!!! Look at Poirot over there...
From the files of Police Squad, MRA Detective Feministsmakethingsup!!
David Futrelle collates and publishes instances of misogyny that appears within MRA websites on his blog. You asked for citations of misogyny on MRA websites - it's been done and done well.
So go and have a look. He provides all the links and backs up everything that he says with direct quotes – in fact they form the basis of what he writes.
All the evidence that you could want – if you genuinely want it.
The case is that you David Futrelle make a living out of telling lies, telling half truths, libel, cherry picking, conflating, false accusations and using sexist double standards to a group of pretentious internet bullies in the comments section below that get high on hate and a false sense of superiority.
What's the weather like on your planet?
No point discussing serious issues with you - you clearly have major problems with reality.
"No point discussing serious issues with you - you clearly have major problems with reality."
You have only brought gender war, chaos, libel, lies and false accusations to the table here.
I think women have a lot more objectively to be very very angry about. Yes, custodial sentences favouring women is a possible problem in society. But stack that against issues like rape, sexual harrassment/assault, abortion rights, representation, sexualisation, objectification, the ideology imposed on women telling them they're either sluts or frigid, too plain or too fake, pushovers or "bitches" etc., and it could be argued that a lot of men's rights groups are being very very reactionary, grasping at straws to justify a pre-set notion that feminism is bad or "unfair" and inflating their anger in order to make the issues facing each gender equatable. They're not.
"But stack that against issues like rape, sexual harrassment/assault, abortion rights, representation, sexualisation, objectification, the ideology imposed on women telling them they're either sluts or frigid, too plain or too fake, pushovers or "bitches" etc.,"
Yes let's stack those up:
Rape - rape of males is not even illegal in many jurisdiction due tot he way statutes are worded. even where they are crimes by statute enforcement of rapes against amles is often non-existent. so in fact women are free to rape men, and have the ful sanction of society to do so.
Sexual harassment - Sexual harrassment by owmen of men, in the form of sexual displays, is in most cases not even considered sexual harassment. Tthe wording of policies and regulations completely permits this form of mostly femlae harrassment of men.
Abortion rights - Men have exactly no legal rights in the area of abortion - not the right to keep thier child from being aborted, not the right to renounce a child they do not want to raise or support, nor even the right to summary disposal for adoption that women in many jusrisdictions have, either de jure or de facto.
Representation - If you mean legislative rperesentation , then you must admit that both in the UK and in the USoowmen are the majority of voters. Who are you to judge their voting choices? If you mean representation in professional life, first you cannot exclude family life from that comparison, where men face many cultural and legal barriers; and second for every area where women are under-represented, there is an area when men are not only under-represented but face active barriers.
Sexualisation - Men are treatedas sexual objects, both in advertizing and other media, and also in daily life, every bit as much as women are, and this reaches back into the 1920s beginning with matinee idols. Check your confirmation bias.
Objectification - This is a huge subject, but we can start by pointing out that objectifying men as units of production and succes objects is a structural feature of the traditional male gender role. And we should also acknowledge that feminism's theoretical framework objectifies men as members of Class Man rather than seeing them as individuals - much like feminism's misogyny in seeing women as members of Class Woman, false consciousness and all, rather than as individuals.
The ideology imposed on women telling them they're either sluts or frigid, too plain or too fake, pushovers or "bitches" etc. - is the exact inverse of the sexual shaming men face - gay-shaming, virgin-shaming, creep-shaming - it's a long list and it mirrors the crap women face.
"a lot of men's rights groups are being very very reactionary, grasping at straws to justify a pre-set notion that feminism is bad or "unfair" and inflating their anger in order to make the issues facing each gender equatable. "
Here is how feminism conned society into believing that family abuse is gendered - that lie was used castigate men, influence the legal system and family law and run discriminatory abuse intervention programs.
Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence
I think that its feminism's derision of men, that causes them to believe so readily that the people that speak out about that are in the grip of some kind of mass delusion.
You believe that womens anger is justified.
"But stack that against issues like rape,"
Rape of men by women is not recognized, when men are asked about forced intercourse by envelopment, men and women report being raped by each other are roughly equal rates (excluding prison). So women are privileged in that regard, at least their rapes are counted.
Men are more likely to be assaulted by both men and women, than are women.
Women have more reproductive rights and options than men, men funded and invented safe abortion for women.
Women are over represented as they are the majority vote, and are free t0 sacrifice family life to get to the top just like men are.
Both gendered are sexualized
" objectification, "
Both gendereds are objectified, one of the ways men are objectified is as death objects, which is the most horrific kind.
"the ideology imposed on women telling them they're either sluts or frigid, too plain or too fake, pushovers or "bitches" etc.,"
Men have a similar set of constraints for men. Your telling men that they are incorrect for showing anger and emotion for example.
Plus, there are more issues beyond those.
I think your rationalizations for gender boxing of different standards of acceptable and not acceptable behaviour and emotion for things coded male and female are rooted in feminism's dishonest and aggressive peddling of issues, victimhood and hardship as uniquely or mainly female coupled with patriarchal assumptions and sexist stereotypes.
In 8% of rape cases the victim is male. Female victims of domestic abuse make up for (depending on estimates) between 55-95% of all domestic abuse cases.
Your point about abortion doesn't even make sense. Cis men do not have uteruses, so it is quite self-evident that on a purely quantitative scale they would have "less" reproductive rights -- this is a ridiculous way of framing it.
On representation, I suppose you'd also say a homeless person is free to pull themselves together and become a middle-class suburbanite as well? Individuals do not operate in a vaccuum. Our lives and decisions are massively influenced by our surrounding ideology, background and social conditions.
Women are easily more defined around sexual aspects than men. Go to any magazine rack, you'll see what I mean. The same applies for objectification.
I am not saying men are incorrect at showing anger. I'm a man, and I regularly attend protests and scream my lungs raw. There are a few contradictions in the male role, but far fewer than those in femininity.
Finally, I never said any emotions were unacceptable for either gender. You're just lying now. I'm not peddling anything mate. I don't even agree with partiarchy theory. I'm a revolutionary socialist, so I believe that every person who works for a wage faces hardship, victimhood and issues -- man or woman. It's just with gender issues I believe women face more discrimination than men. It's not that radical an idea.
"Your point about abortion doesn't even make sense. Cis men do not have uteruses, "
Abortion is not only about uteruses but also about foetuses, and it is puerile to center uteruses in a discussion of reproductive rights. There is a lot to reproduction than preganacy.
"In 8% of rape cases the victim is male. "
That figure does not include female perpetrated rape, of course if you don't count envelopment and so erase most of the male rape victims and do not include prison rape, the number of raped men is going to be small. This is what I'm saying about women being privileged in that regard, noone is erasing male on female rape, the way you, mist research and society erases female on male rape. It generally doesn't count, that's why we think its gendered.
Thats why when the CDC 2010 asked men about "forced to penetrate another", the risk for men being forced to have intercourse, was the same as that for women and women made up 40% of the rapists, according to the previous years data.
"Female victims of domestic abuse make up for (depending on estimates) between 55-95% of all domestic abuse cases."
The data on patters of Domestic Violence in the US and in 32 nations show that women are more likley to be the DV abuser.  and the truth about DV rates has been systematically covered up by the feminist movement since the 1970s 
So like I said, you are basing your double standards for levels of emotion and anger in the two movements based on faulty data that's being proliferated by the feminist movement.
I don't believe state patriarchy exists.
The courts do not favour men when it comes to child custody and divorce.
The courts do not favour men when it comes to the letter of the law as regards 'rape' (in the UK a penis is required to rape. so only men can be convicted of that crime).
Historically the law has not favoured homosexual men with their sex lives being criminalised up to 1967 and beyond. In the USA sex between men was not legalised across the whole country till 1994.
The state has not protected men from suffering accidents and even death at work in much larger numbers than women.
The state has not prevented men from commiting suicide in much larger numbers than women.
I don't agree with patriarchy theory in general either -- as that implies that a gender swap in powerful positions would enact fundamental change, which isn't a given.
With your first two examples, I've said in the original comment I'm aware of such prejudices. But let's not kid ourselves. The conviction rates of rape are abysmally low, police are less likely to punish domestic abuse and disturbances as compared with other violent crimes (both of these massively disproportionately affect women). And that's not mentioning the more ideological role of the state in reproducing gender stereotyping and inequalities, especially the Tories when they hark back to traditional family values, but also wider issues such as representation in power-positions, and the requirement of many "top women" to internalise quite aggressive "masculine" values to succeed (I'm aware this isn't always the case, but it's by no means uncommon) -- which we may not be able to change in the current framework, as the whole point of the masculine gender construct is it's crafted around traits which maximise "success" in society. And the media is definitely more prejudiced against women than men. There's general sexual objectification found in too many publications to count, and specific stuff like the villification of single mothers who receive benefits and a "blame the parents" (which in many cases entails more blame towards the mother than the father) culture about criminal behaviour etc.
For your examples of homosexual men and workplace accidents, you're misrepresenting the oppression of LGBTQ people and workers as male oppression. In those cases men aren't oppressed as males, they're oppressed as gay, or as workers. If you're talking gender discrimination you have to look at how men are oppressed /as a gender/, not at how they're oppressed because of other aspects of their identity.
The final point about the "lack of state prevention" -- I could harp on all day about how the state fails to prevent domestic abuse, fails to prevent dispropotionate rape, harrassment, eating and other body-image related disorders, media perpetuation of horrible gender stereotypes etc. etc.
The conviction rate for rape cases in court is higher than murder, about 58% . What the hell are you talking about?
the conviction rates for rape by men are low.
No women in the UK get convicted of rape as the crime does not exist for women perpetrators.
OK, gender studies 101...
Patriarchy is an overused phrase. MRAs aren't interested, or are unable, to understand what it means.
Patriarchy means that men are deemed as failures unless they exert and exude power over others, males and females. Challenging patriarchy means that you can reject the notion that an "alpha" male is superior to a "beta" male (I'm using MRA discourse here).
This is really not a difficult concept to grasp.