There was a post on r/leftwingmaleadvocates which asked, "Are incels bad?" One of the comments said the following:

"Yea problem is dating is so rigged with the apps and no cultural celebration/rolls for men to be fulfilled and desirable, that about 80% of guys probably fall into the category of incel these days. There are actually whole countries like Japan or China where MOST men are permanently single and have no hope of ever getting a partner or relationship. Feminism has been IMMENSELY vindictive and bigoted culturally, but there are also big socioeconomic factors at play here. There are literally tens of millions of guys out there that could be considered incel, and even if your not an incel dating is still extremely difficult which is just as much a problem. I think the incel label is almost like the label ‘thug’. It takes a social issue and crushes you by making it a -you- thing. Oh you say a lot of women/society don’t even treat you as human, hmmm sounds like there must be something wrong with YOU, work harder and pull yourself up by the bootstraps!"

I replied to the comment by saying that 80% of men are not incels. In public, I have seen average looking men with girlfriends. In my experience, what this Redditor said is not true. I was downvoted for saying that. I disagree with this comment because it seems to be "black-pilled."

There was also a post on r/mensrights which was about a guy sharing his personal experience. He said he was able to get laid while being broke. He said women don't care about money much. He was also downvoted.

Some MRAs (who probably have trouble dating) seem to have black-pilled beliefs. The black-pill says if a man isn't in the top 20% he is doomed. He won't be able to get casual sex or a girlfriend. Some take it to a more extreme level and say a man has to be 6 ft tall, have a 6 figure income, 6 pack abs, and a 6 inch penis.

The black-pill is a derivative of the red-pill, but it has less nuance. Rollo Tomassi is supposed to be the inventor of the red-pill. In one of his videos he said, women are attracted to 20% of men. The 20% is subjective for each woman. He never said 20% of men sleep with 80% of women. Someone misunderstood what he said and it spread throughout the internet.

By saying 20%, it means women are pickier than men. Maybe some women think less than 20% are attractive, and some think more than 20%. It's not an exact 20%. A man can be in the 20% (attractive) for one woman and be in the unattractive category for another.

Some people say 80% of women swipe right on 20% of men on Tinder. I don't know how true that is. I haven't read the data on it. Black-pillers claim this is true.

In my opinion, average men are not doomed. I think these black pilled beliefs are harmful to the men who hold them.

I think learning about men's issues is bad for mental health. If you are a man, it definitely is. Feminists don't care about men's issues. If they did, there would be more positive changes occurring for men. It's a futile exercise to debate feminists. It's better for them to wake up by themselves.

I identify as anti-feminism, not anti-feminist. Anti-feminist sounds like I am against a group of people. I'm not against any group of people's rights. Anti-feminism sounds like I am against the ideology, which I am. I guess that's the proper term.

I have been reading articles from New Male Studies. It is a journal about men's issues. They are a group of professors and scholars who write about men's issues. Here is their website: https://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms.

Abstract:

"Masculine identity has become increasingly problematic due to technological and cultural changes over the past ten thousand years, beginning with the horticultural and agricultural revolutions but gaining momentum with the industrial, military and reproductive revolutions. Egalitarian feminists have unwittingly exacerbated the problem by equating sexual equality with sexual sameness, leaving men unable to make even one contribution to society, as men, which is distinctive, necessary and can therefore be publicly valued--that is, unable to establish a healthy collective identity specifically as men. The result of this emptiness is a growing tendency to give up either by dropping out of school and or by committing suicide. Ideological feminists have thrown down the gauntlet, on the other hand, by ascribing to men a highly negative collective identity. The result of this misandry is an increasing number of men who believe that even a negative collective identity is better than no collective identity‚ at all. No solution will be possible without challenging pervasive assumptions about both boys and men."

Nathanson, P., & Young, K. K. (2012). Misandry and emptiness: Masculine identity in a toxic cultural environment. New Male Studies Journal, 1(1), 4-18.

I read this article. It is very disturbing that there is a lot of misandry in our society. It causes men to commit suicide. The New Male Studies journal goes against everything that feminism teaches.

Feminists say misandry is not real. I searched on Google to see if there are any articles about misandry. According to scholars, misandry is definitely real.

I read an article today about misandry. It's on scholar.google.com for free. Here is the abstract:

No published science paper demonstrates misogyny exists. Data on both implicit and explicit gender attitudes shows males substantially favouring females – philogyny – or, at worst, gender neutrality. This is hidden by elision with the wider notion of sexism; but there’s no evidence for hostile
sexism, and hypothesised benevolent sexism is fatally flawed in operational definition. The mode whereby sexism supposedly causes harm -- stereotyping (stereotype threat) -- has been debunked; likewise inter-
sexual dominance, removing any theoretical basis. Possible male harm by control is belied in women being found the controlling party. Misogyny / sexism in being defined circularly is unfalsifiable, therefore non-scientific conceptualisation: ideology itself actually hostile sexism (misandry, which is shown to be real but unseen).

Moxon, S. P. "Misogyny has no scientific basis of any kind: the evidence is of philogyny–and misandry." New Male Studies 7.2 (2018): 26-42.

I don't totally agree with this article. I think there might be a few individuals who are misogynists. However, I don't think there is any systemic misogyny like feminists claim. The misogynists are probably very few and lack any real power to influence society.

A few weeks ago, I took this test. I was accused of misogyny, so I wanted to see if I am a misogynist. I scored a 0 on hostile sexism and very low on benevolent sexism. The items from this test are mentioned in the article too. It is a flawed test.

In the department next to mine, they hired 5 women and 0 men. That made me wonder if there is discrimination against men in job hiring. I found some studies about the discrimination of men in job hiring.

Abstract:

Gender discrimination is often regarded as an important driver of women’s disadvantage in the labour market, yet earlier studies show mixed results. However, because different studies employ different research designs, the estimates of discrimination cannot be compared across countries. By utilizing data from the first harmonized comparative field experiment on gender discrimination in hiring in six countries, we can directly compare employers’ callbacks to fictitious male and female applicants. The countries included vary in a number of key institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions, yet we found no sign of discrimination against women. This cross-national finding constitutes an important and robust piece of evidence. Second, we found discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, and no discrimination against men in Norway and the United States. However, in the pooled data the gender gradient hardly differs across countries. Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere.

Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund and others, Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Evidence from a Cross-National Harmonized Field Experiment, European Sociological Review, Volume 38, Issue 3, June 2022, Pages 337–354, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcab043

Abstract:

Audits of tenure-track hiring reveal faculty prefer to hire female applicants over males. However, audit data do not control for applicant quality, allowing some to argue women are hired at higher rates because they are more qualified. To test this, Williams and Ceci (2015) conducted an experiment demonstrating a preference for hiring women over identically-qualified men. While their findings are consistent with audits, they raise the specter that faculty may prefer women over even more-qualified men, a claim made recently. We evaluated this claim in the present study: 158 faculty ranked two men and one woman for a tenure-track-assistant professorship, and 94 faculty ranked two women and one man. In the former condition, the female applicant was slightly weaker than her two male competitors, although still strong; in the other condition the male applicant was slightly weaker than his two female competitors, although still strong. Faculty of both genders and in all fields preferred the more-qualified men over the slightly-less-qualified women, and they also preferred the stronger women over the slightly-less-qualified man. This suggests that preference for women among identically-qualified applicants found in experimental studies and in audits does not extend to women whose credentials are even slightly weaker than male counterparts. Thus these data give no support to the twin claims that weaker males are chosen over stronger females or weaker females are hired over stronger males.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01532/full?utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&field=&journalName=Frontiers_in_Psychology&id=147830

Abstract:

Scholars have documented ethnic and gender discrimination across labour markets since the 1970s by using field experiments (correspondence tests) in which pairs of equally qualified applications are sent to employers with job openings. In these experiments, discrimination is measured by documenting group differences in callbacks. However, the gendered nature of ethnic discrimination has been neglected thus far in this literature. Drawing on the results of a correspondence test, this study presents evidence of extensive ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labour market against applicants with Arabic and North African names but no evidence of discrimination against women. However, the findings also reveal gendered ethnic employer preferences: employers in male-dominated occupations practice gender overcompensation favouring female-named applicants, whereas employers in female-dominated occupations practice both ethnic and gender overcompensation, favouring foreign-named men in particular.

Moa Bursell, The Multiple Burdens of Foreign-Named Men—Evidence from a Field Experiment on Gendered Ethnic Hiring Discrimination in Sweden, European Sociological Review, Volume 30, Issue 3, June 2014, Pages 399–409, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu047

A few months ago, there was a post on the antifeminist sub. The post was a screenshot from an incel website that was posted on the Nothowgirlswork sub. There was a comment from nothowgirlswork which roasted the incel post.

The incel said he felt anxiety when he walked on the streets and saw women. The comment from nothowgirlswork was ridiculing him for feeling fear of women. He didn't say anything misogynistic. There are some incels (on incel websites) who condone horrible things like raping women. This post was not like that.

It made me think that society expects men to be fearless and brave. Men are human and fear is a normal emotion that everyone has. It's normal to feel anxiety around women, if the man has been traumatized in the past. Maybe the incel was traumatized by a woman in the past. People shouldn't judge someone without knowing them.

The truth is women can be just as dangerous as men. Society has to stop thinking women are not as dangerous.

If a woman said she felt anxiety around men, redditors would be supporting her. They would say men are rapists and she should be scared of them. She would get all the empathy and sympathy. Reddit shows what people think secretly. Many people in society have this double standard too.

Sometimes I enjoy talking to feminists and misandrists. It helps me to understand their viewpoints. Some feminists are open to debate and some are not. I don't try to change their minds. It can be pretty toxic.

I was messaged by feminists on reddit. They read my post history. I haven't said anything misogynistic. They called me an "incel" and a "misogynist". I remained calm when they hurled insults. If I lashed out, it would prove to them I am a misogynist. They want their opponents to get angry.

One woman who messaged me said she is proud to be a misandrist. She said men are worthless, driven by hormones, and many other nonsense things. She also said women don't perpetrate domestic violence. Eventually I got her to calm down and she became more respectful.

I think a lot of feminists misunderstand what MRAs believe in and want. There was a question in the r/askfeminists sub if feminists would collaborate with MRAs. Many of the feminists said no. One commenter said MRAs are misogynists. Another said men are not oppressed, so there's no need for MRAs. Some people hate us for doing the right thing.

Some feminists have told me there's a difference between feminists and misandrists. Most feminists think they're normal people. I think some misandrists use feminism to their benefit. Governments and corporations definitely use feminism against men.

I don't know too many feminists in real life. I don't talk about feminism or politics with the women I know. It is silently understood that most people believe in equality. I'm also an egalitarian.

After knowing about men's issues, I don't want to pretend like they don't exist. If I started dating a feminist, I don't think my political views would align with hers. I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to talk about men's issues.

Do you think it's better to avoid dating women who identify as feminists? If you date a feminist, is it a good idea to talk about men's issues?

I had an interesting conversation with a feminist on Reddit. She replied to my post about why left-wingers support feminism. In the post, I said I don't believe in a patriarchy or toxic masculinity.

She cited examples of women being forced to marry young as a patriarchal issue. She cited women having to bear children in America without abortion rights as a patriarchal issue. She cited women being domestically abused as a patriarchal issue.

I told her women being forced to marry young was more prevalent in the past. Nowadays, forced marriages are illegal. The examples she cited don't indicate a patriarchy, because the average man (most men) don't have more power than the average women. For example, a man is more likely to be arrested for domestic violence even if he is the victim.

Feminists believe there is a patriarchy because they look at the men, in the top 1% or 5%. They assume all other men have very minimal issues in their lives. Most rich people will be treated better, regardless of gender.

When I disagreed with the feminist, she called me stupid and an "incel." I remained calm and told her I'm not an "incel." It seems like feminists want men to think in a gynocentric point of view. Anything that isn't gynocentric seems misogynistic to them. I don't think advocating for men's issues and women's issues is mutually exclusive.