This reads like rote repeat of standardised thought.

One thing sticks out though: the “no true scotsman fallacy”. It is unfair to generalize a social movement based on fringe elements, which is why saying feminism is about equality is unfair. As of today mainstream, politically influential feminist organisations are successfully pushing openly discriminatory policies, with success.

That’s how you have the special justice system in Spain where the right to a fair trial is essentially abolished if the alleged victim is a woman and the alleged perpetrator is a man. (Look it up!) That’s how Belgium is right now putting into law that killing a woman is a more severe crime than killing a man. (Look it up if you know dutch or french) That’s how homeless shelters across the world are reserved to women only by pretending that they’re about domestic violence and that only women suffer that (both untrue), even though most of the homeless are men. The list goes on.

I’m sure many people who identify as feminists do not agree with these horrific, dehumanizing policies, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are the direct result of the movement. All politicians who made those things happen had gone into politics through feminism. The policies made possible through feminism are more representative of the movement than any “definition” anyone likes to think is true based on their own preference.

If you believe in equality, stop calling yourself a feminist, it’s empowering very nefarious people.

The concept of patriarchy refers to a social system in which men hold primary power and women are marginalized. While the degree and manifestation of patriarchy may vary across cultures and societies, if you examine a list of presidents, CEOs, top academics, and billionaires it’s difficult to conclude women are given equal treatment-unless you genuinely believe women are inferior, and so have achieved less.

Ugh, new forum, same old story. And I just don’t have the patience of go through yet another rabbit whole with yet another pseudo-academic online feminist.

I’ve done it enough that I’ve given up hope on breaking through all that brainwashing. I reply to you, but not for you. This reply is for anyone else reading this who still has the capability of independent thought.

“men hold primary power”: There’s multiple interpretation of that phrase, and feminists leverage this to both claim that patriarchy is everywhere and imply that it creates inequality in favor of men. Once you disambiguate the phrase, you quickly find out that both are rarely true at the same time.

Specifically:
A) “men hold primary power” means that men as a class wield the power of how society function. They, as a class, make the rules. And they do so only understanding their own needs and desires and as a result, they rule to the benefit of men at the expense of women.

The opposite interpretation is:
B) The positions of authority are held by men, but they do not wield this authority on their own behalf, they wield it on behalf of stakeholders where one the most important of which is women. As a result the authorities create a society that primarily oppresses men to the benefit of women.

So feminists like GravyMan like to go around claiming that we live in a patriarchy by mentioning male billionaires, top politicians etc… And then usually they imply that this means that there is inequality that favors men and oppresses women. They usually only imply it because this gives them wiggle room to wiggle out of the claim. Here he didn’t straight out claim a direct link of inequality he just said “it’s difficult to conclude [the opposite]”, but that’s a difficult one to wiggle out of.

So yes, obviously, the prevalence of men in positions of power implies that we live in some kind of patriarchy for some definition of patriarchy. But the question is: which definition is the one that applies to our society?

And if you look at the rates of completed suicide, the rates of homelessness, the rates of homicide victims and more recently post secondary education. Then contrast this with social efforts to help victims of violence, suicide risks, education opportunities that are gendered for the benefit of women. It becomes quite clear that we’re far closer to definition B) than we are to definition A).

Furthermore, people like me, who are concerned with the general trend of callousness towards men and accompanying misleading ideology that takes away empathy and aid resources from those men, we don’t like the term “Patriarchy”. We see how it is misused to imply things that are not true about the way society function. And we see how it’s definition is so malleable and routinely exploited to the detriment of men. So we try to condemn its use wherever we see it.

While I agree with OPs three other points. I don’t generally like to spend much time on them. I think ideas are more important than labels.

And at the end of the day there is just one core concept that can unravel all of the misandry found within feminism. And I can summarize it in a simple question:

What happened to your empathy and compassion for men?

Feminism does not suppress science. Feminists actively engage with and contribute to various scientific fields, including sociology, psychology

This may blow your tiny male feminist brain, but two things can be true at once. Feminism is an ideological infestation which has made some minor contributions while simultaneously holding back research on issues including boys’ underachievement in education, domestic violence against men, the sentencing gap and much more.

it’s difficult to conclude women are given equal treatment-unless you genuinely believe women are inferior, and so have achieved less.

This is only difficult to conclude if you are a deeply stupid individual. Men have far greater pressure on them to succeed, and they do so in greater numbers despite being increasingly held back. They’re also far more likely to fail spectacularly, ending up homeless, in prison, or killing themselves (suicide being another topic on which feminists fight the data).

“Men” do not hold power, a tiny minority of men do (and if you’re talking politics, those men are ultimately beholden to an electorate that is mostly female).

It advocates for equal rights, agency, and autonomy for women.

Square that with calls to close women’s prisons, give them lower sentences for the same crimes, and generally frame all their misbehaviour as a consequence of the patriarchy. Hint: you cannot.

recognizes their capacity for self-determination

Self-determination? Were you not just complaining about the lack of female CEOs? Truly, the feminist brain is not capable of self-awareness.

Women in greater numbers choose to take time off work to raise children, the effects of which you complained about just one paragraph earlier. Conversely men sacrifice greater portions of their lives working longer hours, further from home, seeing less of their kids. That’s why they earn more, but it’s not at zero cost and women make a different trade-off, as do men before children enter the picture (that last part should be a wake-up call, but you’re too sleepy for that).

Calling people misogynists for seeing feminism for what it is does not hide the fact you’re a creepy incel trying to present yourself as “one of the good ones”.

So, you didn’t watch the 48 minute video which very clearly and in-depth goes over each point and instead labeled it “misogyny”?

Do I have to remind you that attacking a social movement for its bad policies is not the same as “hating women”?

As for the rest of your nonsense post, I give you this kernel of truth:

'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. ’

Consider your evidenceless post dismissed.