The Anti Feminist Liberal

  The problem with lived experience is that it's often proffered as evidence as to why a certain thing is the way it is. Feminist circles often use this to push the narrative that "All men are trash". Page after page of how awful men have been are offfered and it shows a compelling picture. The thing is that this "lived experience" is not really evidence of anything. We all know the odds of winning the UK national lottery are approximately 1 in 14 million . This is the equivalent of tossing a coin and getting heads 21 times in a row. It's extremely unlikely, yet there were 383 winners in 2024 . The majority of people will accept that winning the lottery is extremely unlikely. However if you are in a large enough population then there will likely be a few lottery winners there. "It's really unlikely you will win the lottery", "Well I did!", "Yes and so did I". It starts to feel that those incredibly long odds are actually mo...

One of the, many, arguments a misandrist will say, to show men as awful, is that they are statistically more likely to leave their wives if the wife becomes chronically ill, or disabled , and he is expected to be the caretaker.  This is following a study in 2015 which tracked 2,701 marriages and found that the onset of a wfe's illness is more likely associated with an elevated risk of divorce. So yes, men, the swine, are more likely to leave a sick wife than a wife is to leave a sick man. As always though, these things are not quite as cut and dry as the average, angry, feminist would have you believe. They point to it as another form of misogyny and how women are constantly held back by patriachy and, as per usual, awful, horrible, men. The thing is even getting to that point where a marriage has lasted long enough for illness onset in later life is incredibly rare. Sadly 42% of marriages, in the UK, end in divorce .The courts usually award child custody to the mother, fathers l...

Whenever you read a feminist site, violence towards girls, or women, form men is one of the major talking points. Whether it's sex crimes or homicide, it features predominately in discourse. Now, obviously crime is horrible, it's awful. Nobody should be attacked and the full weight of the law and law enforcement should be deployed to protect people against crime. However whenever you dig into the statistics, or look a little closer the whole story seems rather more complicated than "horrible man beating women" which has almost become such a meme amongst feminist circles. Here's the actual numbers, the risks that women face in life in 21st Century United Kingdom: Activity Fatalities Dementia 40,256 Diabetes mellitus 30,132 Alzheimer's disease 25,789 ...

Women's spaces will often lament algorithms serving up misgonystic content to young boys and radicalising them into the  Manosphere .The blame for this is often directed at various places: men going to the right, search algorithms or any number of places but never at the most obvious cause of this itself. Search engines, Instagram etc are serving Andrew Tate content to young, teenage, boys within 2 hours of the account being created . It's a neat, scape goat for what is happening isn't it ? Big internet companies are servive up misgynistic content and radicalising a group of teenage boys and causing mayhem for girls. This theory wholeheartedly absolves anyone of any wrong doing and explains why teenage boys are being beastly to innocent teenage girls. Firstly search algorithms are serving up content they think you will like, what is popular. It is serving up Andrew Tate because he is saying something that other teenage boys have bought into and so the algorithm is serving ...

In any feminist space you will find misandry, quickly and easily. Whenever feminists are asked about the sexism in their spaces, or movement, they generally reply by disputing that misandry exists, minimising it's effects or with whatboutism stating that male misogyny effects women far worse. The huge problem with this is that feminism has already accepted sexism at it's core. It sees sexism everywhere and because of this has now accepted sexism.Misandric comments, ideas, man hating are all  absolutely rife in feminist spaces . Claiming that misandry is fine because the oppressed can never be the oppressor is not borne out by history which tells us a very, very different story. Oppressed people, who accept prejudice to their oppresor have a strong tradition of repeating their oppression in an even worse way. If you look at the actions of Israel in Palestine then you can see, very clearly, how an oppressed people (the Jews in World War 2) really are very, very capable of being ...

A recent study has found that yes, misandry is real, yet feminists continuously deny it exists. Why ? Spend any time on a feminist space and you'll find man hating within a minute. Garaunteed! I often play this game, visit Mums Net Feminism or any feminist space, start a timer and see how long it takes until I find a misandrist post.  Let's do it now..... Ok, 25s after being on MumsNet here's the  first misandrist post . Often when you read feminist spaces, or watch their YouTube videos, they will be sexist, bigoted and prejudiced. Anti men. Whenever feminists are confronted about misandry in their communities they will always either play dumb ("What do you mean by misandry?"), deny it exists ("Misandry is a myth by men to derail feminist conversations"), start with Whatboutism  ("Misandry is nothing compared to the systematic misogyny women have endured for thousands of years") or simply minimise ("Misandry is just a 14 year old girl sayi...

I recently sat through Gail Dines talking, on you tube, for about 40 minutes about the damage porn does . I was expecting a challenging, thought provoking critique of pornography and so I sat and watched, opened minded.  Gail Dines has been described as a “Radical Feminist” and the world’s largest anti porn crusader. What I actually sat through was less science and more propaganda. Dines appears to be a Mary Whitehouse’esque prude who has some sort of shame based problem to pornography. When you read her history she was born into an orthodox Jewish family and it would appear this deeply religious, Conservative, upbringing is filtering her thoughts here. She speak eloquently about pornography use and her reasoning is cleverly presented but unfortunately 100% incorrect and easily debunked. One point she makes is that once you start watching pornography you need more and more extreme versions in order to continue your enjoyment, this is called the content progression thesis . She say...

Whenever you read female, and more likely feminist spaces, you will often come across woman who simply disag ree with anything that people write. Anything that doesn't stick to the rigid script of men opressing women,  patriarchy  holding all women back is robustly rejected. It's almost lifted directly from the Russian propoganda play book: d imiss, deny, minimise. Often it feels that you are talking to a cult member. Similar to socialists minimising that communism led to mass murder in Russia, Cambodia and other countries to name a few, feminists maintain that feminism is nothing but good and that misandry does not exist. Even though it's there, clear as day to anyone who reads feminist spaces, misandry is ultimately rejected as not even existing. A recent discussion on reddit brought the standard rejection that feminists are misandrist. Some even struggled to understand the term misandry even though they seem to have an adept grip of the opposite term, misogyny.  When...