These cases are horrific and the men involved should face the full weight of the law. But a few terrible cases can't tell you how common something is. That's what rates are for.
Take "a family annihilation every 5 days." That's about 73 a year, out of roughly 170 million US males, around 1 in 2.3 million. That's almost exactly the estimated rate of neonaticide, mothers killing newborns on the first day of life, at about 75 a year. Nobody posts a list of those cases and says "stop saying not all women," because everyone understands that a few dozen horrific crimes a year don't describe 170 million people.
Where I'd agree is the group of men cheering and blocking her friends. That's a real problem: peer cultures that enable assault instead of stopping it. That's something men can and should push back on. But "stop saying not all men" asks men to accept guilt for crimes they didn't commit. The ask should be to stop tolerating the men who do.
It is also worth noting that people who are convicted of serial assault generally are friends with people accused of sexual assault. Terrible people move in packs unfortunately. The idea of "men need to tell their friends not to do X" is almost always flawed, because if the guy wouldn't do something himself, it is doubtful he would be friends with someone who would.
Yup, all of the guys i know are very respectful towards women, and the few guys I've met in my life who have had shitty views of women, I stopped being friends with them.
Nuh uh, you must accept bigoted generalisations with a smile on your face otherwise you are 'part of the problem'. Gosh, didn't you read How To Be A Good Doormat Ally 101?
Calling a man a "little bitch," mocking him for not being manly enough, and saying women find him unattractive is textbook toxic masculinity, the exact thing feminists say damages men. You can't criticize that pressure and then use it as an insult.
You also changed the subject. He never said anything about women or attraction. His point was about dignity and basic respect: not being lumped in with criminals because of his sex. Turning that into "women find you unattractive" assumes men only object to generalizations because they want approval from women. People object to being treated as guilty for things they didn't do, and that holds whether or not anyone finds them attractive.
And it proves his point. He said men are expected to accept generalizations quietly or be labeled part of the problem, and your response to him objecting was to shame his masculinity. That's not how you win men over as allies.
Seems you think personal attacks mask your lack of good arguments for why people shouldn't call out bigotry.
I'm also not sure why you appear to think that, instead of basing their principles on what's right or wrong, people should instead base them on what apparently "gives women tHe iCk".
That in itself is a organization and an elite thing, majority of crimes like this in college are associated with Fraternities. Majority of these Fraternities are white. So they have the backing of rich and powerful white men that protect them. Also a lot of these Fraternities also are aligned with female Fraternities. By saying all men you're covering up the system in itself that allows this type of behavior along with the Universities
Ha, fair. And honestly that's its own problem. The share of men with no close friends went from 3% in 1990 to 15% in 2021. So "fix peer culture" only covers the guys who have one. The other half of the problem is how many men don't have anyone at all.
Some of us just thrive in low-social environments.
That infamous Stanford study proved people need social connection for happiness but the amount of social connection needed varies from person to person.
Some people need a lot of social interactions and get stressed from very little.
Some people need very few social interactions and get stressed from too many.
I have ADHD with a potential side of Autism. I love alone time and I can barely function in social settings after an hour or two.
You're making my point for me. Men saying "all women are manipulative" is wrong, and I'd call it out every time. So is a verified commentator telling people to "stop saying not all men" and getting hundreds of upvotes for it.
"Men do it too" isn't a defense. It just means both sides are doing the same wrong thing. If you agree generalizing women based on a few cases like Clancy is wrong, then you already agree generalizing men based on a few cases is wrong. The only question is whether you'll apply that consistently.
And they aren't treated the same. When men generalize women, it's called misogyny, and it should be. When someone says "stop saying not all men," it's treated as moral clarity. Polling backs that up: about 21% of people view young men negatively vs 11% for young women. I'm not asking anyone to excuse the men who generalize women. I'm asking for the same standard both ways.
Fair, "everyone understands" was too strong. Plenty of people do say "all women are ___." But when they do, the overwhelming response from both women and men is to call it what it is: misogyny. When someone says "all men" or "stop saying not all men," almost no one calls it misandry. It's treated as justified, or even as moral clarity.
The numbers show that asymmetry. In a recent UK YouGov survey, 59% of Gen Z men said misogyny is widespread, so most young men acknowledge it. But only 20% of women said misandry is widespread, even though nearly a quarter of Gen Z men (23%) say they've personally been affected by it. Men are largely willing to name the prejudice against women. Most women aren't willing to name the prejudice against men.
That's my point. The generalizing is wrong both ways, but only one direction gets named and called out.
No the overwhelming response is to tell these women to stop gaslighting men into thinking that they are the minority. Saying that this is another example that women can't take accountability. Women are called misandry for all sorts of opinion, it is in fact being talked about all the time.
Not saying misandry is widespread is not the same as saying it's not bad, that's false equivalency.
There's recent research on this. A 2025 study of about 35,000 Americans (Cappelen et al.) found people supported equality programs for women more than for men (54% vs 42%), and were more likely to blame men's disadvantages on lack of effort (47% vs 33% for women). Both sexes showed that bias, and it was larger among women.
Another study compared hate speech in feminist and men's rights communities on Reddit and found toxicity levels were "remarkably similar" across them. Hate was the most common negative emotion in both (Coppolillo, Scientific Reports). And in Equimundo's 2025 State of American Men report, 57% of young adults agreed "no one cares if men are okay."
Prejudice against men exists, it's measurable, and both sexes hold it. It just rarely gets named the way misogyny does.
I am with you that both is bad. But I strongly disagree the notion that men hating is tolerated and no one talks about it.
It's talked about all the time. The rise of far right amounst young men, school shootings, manosphare communities, and boys lagging behind in the education system and higher unemployment rates are all attributed to misandry, how men are lashing out because they just had enough.
I never said if it exists or if it's wrong, but the idea that no one ever talks about it is....talked about all the time everywhere.
Regarding toxicity levels, there are a few female subs that can have man bashing at times but many of the gender neutral subs are overwhelmingly biased against women like all the meme subs.
In fact under this very post people as calling out misandry and "not all man". This is certainly not a men's right sub.
Statistically speaking based on studies, women are factually more shallow than men on average; they care more about height, weight, income, etc... This is if the studies are to be believed. Again, just statistically speaking.
it's weird to equivocate family annihilations with neonaticide considering that family annihilations are almost universally long premeditated killings of entire families, and those are also confirmed and convicted numbers rather than just estimates and neonaticide is typically done out of desperation or delusion from new mothers suffering post partum depression and unable to afford childcare or healthcare for themselves
like are we really going to reduce this down to "welp someone died tally another one up" without bothering to look at what motivates people to do these things? are we really that infantile?
and are we really going to pretend that the numbers we're given for rates of rapists among men arent massive undercounts, considering that when a group of men blocks access to a bathroom so someone else can commit rape, they're all participating in that rape? are we going to pretend all those cheering bystanders who outnumber the rapist by multitudes aren't just as okay with the crime of rape as the guy actually doing the rape?
Fair points, and I'll concede two outright. Rape is massively undercounted, and the men who blocked her friends so the assault could continue are complicit. Morally, and possibly legally as accomplices. No argument from me.
But on motive, you're applying it to one side only. Neonaticide is mostly about concealed pregnancies and denial. In a French court-records study, none of the mothers were obviously mentally ill, two-thirds were employed, and a third already had three or more kids. Family annihilators, meanwhile, are often depressed men facing financial ruin who kill their families and then themselves, many with no prior record. If desperation is relevant context for mothers, it's relevant context for those men too. I agree we should look at motive. I'm asking that we look at it for everyone.
And I wasn't saying the crimes are morally identical. I was making a point about scale, which is what "every 5 days" was doing too. Both are rare. Both deserve to be understood. Neither describes the 170 million people who share the perpetrators' sex.
As for the bystanders, five men cheering at one party is a culture problem among those men, and it should be confronted directly. It still doesn't make the man reading this complicit in something he'd have stopped.
No, not a fair point. The "1 in 4 women are raped in college" type statistics are almost certainly OVERcounts, not UNDERcounts because of they way the surveys are worded. In most cases the surveys ask about "rape and sexual assault," and define "sexual assault" in overly broad vague language that covers too much activity/behavior. Then people cite the study as asking about "rape." Why activists can't be more honest about this, I have no idea, but there's a pretty big gap between rape as in criminal rape and whatever anonymous questionnaires ask about.
Regardless of which studies are most accurate, the often-quoted statistic that one in four American college women will be raped during her college years is not supported by the scientific evidence.
Respectfully, this is mostly sexist fear-mongering BS (person above you that you're responding to... I know it's not you):
massive undercounts, considering that when a group of men blocks access to a bathroom so someone else can commit rape, they're all participating in that rape? are we going to pretend all those cheering bystanders who outnumber the rapist by multitudes aren't just as okay with the crime of rape as the guy actually doing the rape?
Really, you think it's reasonable to believe college guys are regularly standing around "cheering" and "blocking access to a bathroom" to enable rape? What kind of a weird paranoid fantasy land are people living in?
I think we mostly agree. I conceded that rape is undercounted compared to police reports and convictions, and your own source supports that: about 0.02% of students reported a forcible sex offense to police, while student surveys found around 3% of college women experienced completed or attempted rape in a single year. You're right that the "1 in 4" headline isn't supported, and the same NIJ page says so. Both things are true: convictions massively undercount, and some activist figures overstate.
On the bystanders, I never said it's common. I was talking about the specific UChicago case, where the police report says up to five men cheered and blocked her friends. If that's accurate, those men are complicit. That's one alleged incident, which is exactly why I said it doesn't describe men as a group.
Men step in all the time, it just doesn't go viral. Two male grad students tackled Brock Turner at Stanford and held him for police. This year in Chicago, a neighbor grabbed a baseball bat and chased down a man who'd assaulted a jogger. Two weeks ago in Niles, Michigan, a man heard a woman screaming and intervened, and the attacker tried to run him over as he fled. In Portland in 2017, three men stood up for two teenage girls being harassed on a train, and two of them were stabbed to death. The men cheering outside that bathroom don't represent men any more than these men do. That's the point.
So, because society doesn't have a trendy phrase to describe men's emotions, women get a pass because of post partum depression? That is some extremely broken logic. BOTH genders should be held to the same level of accountability when it comes to such heinous behavior.
well it's because of the whole "killing everyone in their family because they don't like their wife" vs "killing their newborn because they're driven mad by an incredibly recent trauma and nobody cares or will help them". but men tend to get upset if you put it that way. they need to be coddled
Uhm, no. first off, this is not an equivocation.
Secondly, you don't get to claim rape is undercounted and just invent a number of unreported cases, while not giving the same leniency to false accusations. Everyone can claim anything, especially when claiming it has only potential positives.
I'm a woman, so this isn't about my feelings. And I didn't dismiss anything. I said the men involved should face the full weight of the law, and that the guys cheering outside that bathroom are complicit. My point is that blaming "all men" doesn't help any victim. It lets the specific people and institutions responsible off the hook by spreading the blame across millions of men who had nothing to do with it.
Oh, if you're a man and you believe so deeply in "all men", then I hope you are treated that exact way by everyone and society: as a suspect first and a person second. If you wouldn't accept that for yourself, maybe don't demand it for everyone else.
If some soy bitch like you ever starts grouping me in with rapists and abusers, they better be sure their shoes are tied and their hands are up. X2 if they call me âboyâ.
Keep this energy on the internet. It wonât serve you well in the real world.
I'm glad I was raised so that adhering to the law is contextually correct.
For example, getting cut off in traffic is not a good reason to start swinging bar stools and make such a big fucking scene that the entire joint has to get shut down and I get a chilly hotel room for a few days.
This? This is.
Remember fellas, occasionally, it is okay to see red, disinhibit and begin inflicting the most explosive, asymmetric application of malicious, intentionally injurious force into a conflict you will absolutely lose. It is okay to, in some circumstances, use a heavy, long object to compromise a human spine in an interventionary capacity.
Yeah, when they see men need to be dangerous they don't mean like that group. We were all raised on Liam Neeson and Bruce Willis and then immediately start pussyfooting about our administrative consequence while someone's autonomy and dignity is forcibly fucked out of them in the next room. Fuck that.
If you find out your buddys are raping a girl, grab the heaviest, densest object you can and accelerate it into their head as rapidly as you can. If you can't teach the person, then teach the animal.
Anyone who's witnessed this and stood by is part of the problem. Nobody cares if you get your ass kicked. Man the fuck up.
You are right that it's ok to use some serious force in these situations. It is also legally supported under self defence laws.
But also "nobody cares if you get beat up" the person getting beat up does. Some random frat house brawl wouldn't be too bad, so this one yeah absolutely swing in. But there are some situations where it will get you killed. There is a difference between bravery and stupidity.
1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men are assaulted by men (probably more because men severely under-report). All men benefit from this. Because it means the bar for "good men" is in hell. I'm tired of men feeling insulted by something being more important than the actual physical harm they do and the consequences of it. Your ego is not the most important thing at stake here.
Another case of not understanding what the comment they are responding to is about. Men who don't rape women do not benefit from some men raping women.
Jesus Christ thank you. What a fuckin weird take saying that I'm ameliorated by this situation of rampant rape simply because I'm an honest and good person and the bar is now "lower" so I can achieve what? An ultimate goal of..... getting into more pants?
this subreddit is very ... i dont wanna say left leaning but mostly on the radical feminist side of this discourse. Unfortunately, we have come so far where simply saying things is enough and requires no evidence to back up.
And it's sad because these people are setting back feminism because they undermine any kind of serious discussion we could have about rape and the problems we face. How to help victims. How to deal with the fact it is incredibly hard to prove. What to do with false accusations. Etc.
Here's what I think a lot of feminists miss: most young men aren't anti-feminist. In YouGov's polling, 59% of Gen Z men say feminism's purpose is to bring women up to equal with men, and only 15% think it's about putting men down. That goodwill is real, but it's being lost. In the US, 45% of young men now say men face gender discrimination, up from under a third in 2019.
When a man's first experience of feminism is being told he's a potential abuser, or that "not all men" makes him pathetic, or that his experience as a victim doesn't count, he learns that feminism isn't for him. Then the only people who seem to take his problems seriously are the manosphere guys, and that's exactly where we lose him.
If men were treated as allies until they proved otherwise, and male victims were taken seriously instead of turned away, a lot more men would show up for women's issues. You don't win people over by treating them as suspects. As a woman, I want more men on our side, and the way we're going about it is pushing them away.
Wise words. Im a guy and I dont like to call myself a feminist bc i feel feminism as a mainstream movement has at some point taken a wrong turn. I want to associate with the movement that is for equal opportunity, against rigid gender roles, and for a peaceful together.
And ye, as you said exactly. If only a person like Tate claims to take young men seriously, of course they will flock to him. This is something men need to push back on tho. Show that there are enough ways to be a good man that aren't being a cringe "alpha".
When people of color complain about dealing with issues, I say damn right. Because I know those issues exist and also I'm not a part of them. I don't get offended and say not all white people. I actually call out the people saying not all white people, because that's not what the conversation is about.
Men, en masse, are never going to be on our side. You are not going to reason them in to treating women equal.
I agree, and I'd say "damn right" too when people of color describe what they deal with. But that's describing experiences. If someone said "all white people are trash," most antiracists would push back, because that's a generalization, not an experience. I've never objected to women describing what we deal with. I object to "all men."
And "men will never be on our side" isn't true. Women got the vote because a Congress that was almost entirely male passed the 19th Amendment and overwhelmingly male state legislatures ratified it. Men were reasoned into equality before. Today, 59% of Gen Z men say feminism's purpose is to make women equal. That support is there to keep or to lose, and writing off every man as an enemy is how we lose it.
"Assaulted by men" leaves something out. In CDC data, men who were "made to penetrate" someone overwhelmingly name women as the perpetrator: 69.6% reported only female perpetrators in 2016/17, and 79% in 2010. In the 2010â2012 data, more men were made to penetrate (1.7 million) than women were raped (1.5 million) in a single year. About 1 in 9 men experience it in their lifetime. The CDC doesn't count it as rape, which is a big part of why those men stay invisible. Women are still victimized more over a lifetime, and I'm not disputing that.
And I'm a woman. This isn't my ego. I'd be appalled if society dismissed women the way it dismisses male victims, telling them they can't have been raped by a woman, turning them away from shelters, or treating them as the abuser when they ask for help. Caring about male victims takes nothing away from female victims. Telling men that every man shares the blame doesn't protect a single woman. It just makes it harder for the men who are victims to be believed.
17
u/i_have_a_semicolon 2h ago
These cases are horrific and the men involved should face the full weight of the law. But a few terrible cases can't tell you how common something is. That's what rates are for.
Take "a family annihilation every 5 days." That's about 73 a year, out of roughly 170 million US males, around 1 in 2.3 million. That's almost exactly the estimated rate of neonaticide, mothers killing newborns on the first day of life, at about 75 a year. Nobody posts a list of those cases and says "stop saying not all women," because everyone understands that a few dozen horrific crimes a year don't describe 170 million people.
Where I'd agree is the group of men cheering and blocking her friends. That's a real problem: peer cultures that enable assault instead of stopping it. That's something men can and should push back on. But "stop saying not all men" asks men to accept guilt for crimes they didn't commit. The ask should be to stop tolerating the men who do.