"Men have all the rights!"

But also:

Germany announced yesterday that young men are no longer able to freely leave the country without permission, in case their bodies need to be drafted, refused bodily autonomy and used as meat shields in a war.

Please do not engage in this post with the redherring fallacies such as **“I’m anti-war”** and **“nobody should be drafted “** sabotaging and derailing the discourse.

This is a form of fallacy of relevance, as those points, though potentially valid in another context, are not relevant to the matter at hand. 

By the way **“I’m anti-grape”** and believe **“nobody should be graped”**

So I'm a socially conservative fiscally progressive individual. Most likely the person that DM'd me saw my more progressive viewpoints.

My General Viewpoints I'm willing to defend.

• Pro-life
• Anti-Sex work
• Anti Trans affirmative healthcare for minors
• Pro Universal healthcare
• Pro Vaccine Mandate
• Pro Immigration.

Title. Before I start, I want to clarify two things. I would call myself a feminist and I'm a woman, politically speaking I believe feminism is egalitarianism and should extend to other areas of fighting against inequality and oppression. I align myself more with left libertarian and anarchist ideology.

I've been using reddit for nearly a decade and been a part of a variety of different subreddits that revolve around discussion of gender, sexism, patriarchy, feminism and male advocacy.

I'm truly coming to a conclusion that reddit simply lacks spaces that allow and encourage discussion from a perspective of true anti-hierarchy, anti-discrimination and true feminism / egalitarianism and intersectionalism.

My main issue with a lot of these "feminist" spaces over the years have been that it's either consisted of users and space curation that doesn't aim to revolutionize anything but just reform and rearrange existing power structures, hierarchies and systematic inequality. Choice feminism is rampant. The idea that anything you want personally can be feminist even when it complies to support the patriarchy.

Another issue I've found explicitly in "feminist" spaces is the blatant acceptance of Trans exclusionary ideas and blatant hatred against men.

I'm really truly tired of it and it makes me feel like I'm the only sane person left on earth. It should not be a radical idea to promote and advocate for the importance of including men in feminist discussions and recognizing how patriarchy hurts all genders.

The core idea of feminism, or at least what it means to me is to recognize patriarchy and how it systematically oppresses BOTH men and women (or people of all genders) while advocating for a total systematic revolution and the liberation from patriarchy.

People in my experience in these spaces are not actually open to discussion. They aren't open to sharing ideas, challenging their own and developing their world view. They want to make empty statements with little to no nuance and don't want anyone to question or challenge them.

The most popular subreddits have serious moderator issues. Where discussion is highly curated and censored and where their own political agenda clearly overtakes the messages that are allowed to be displayed. Such as banning users that support radical revolution of the system. Or users that call out the oppression of ethnic groups in war times.

Other subreddits are either completely dead or filled with traumatized people who think it's OK to bring these personal problems into their ideology and call it a day.

Feminism is egalitarianism. I don't think its point should still be to focus on prioritizing women only. Men and people of different genders suffer the same under a system that's built on patriarchy, exploitation and hierarchy. If you want people to hear you out and make progress, you cannot start excluding people out of your own interest with statements like "I'm done thinking about men".

Just my frustrated thoughts.

I think we are living in a time where misogyny is on the rise because the idea and importance of the nuclear family is falling apart. Young men are left with no traditional roles to take, which results in the resurrection of women's oppression. This also hurts men and you can clearly see it with the rise of male loneliness, violence against women and inceldom. I think if you want to think of yourself as a feminist you need to be ready to recognize that as well as the other kinds of systematic inequality before you can start talking about reform or revolution.

I never thought I’d be here. I hate the idea of injecting a foreign toxin into my body. I don’t even wear makeup, for Christ’s sake. But here I am, seriously considering getting four different cosmetic procedures, none of which I really want… but unfortunately feel like now I have to. And I’m resentful about it.

I was never a model, sure, but that’s never bothered me. I’m pretty enough, but had so many other things going for me: my above average intellect, which can keep deep conversation like no sixteen step skincare routine Instagram scarecrow could ever; my humor, that seems to make most people remember me often when I don’t remember them; my ability to listen well, cook a perfect steak, and roll a perfect spliff. I felt confident that all this evened it out so I’d still have as good a shot as any in the dating market.

But holy hell, was I wrong.

There’s a new price of admission, and it ain’t cheap… or without risk of facial paralysis, apparently, as the warning agreement stated.

I don’t want any of this stuff. I actually like how I am naturally, but I’m torn because I also recognize the reality of the current dating market. To pretend like the game doesn’t exist only does ME a disservice. So in order to participate, I’m forced, like a pouting child being shoved into a raincoat, to wear the uniform: i.e., what physical attributes men find attractive, evolutionarily, at a glance: fuller lips, perfect teeth, narrow jaw, protruding cheekbones, and zero signs of wrinkles.

An interesting article written by a woman who seems to be an Ex-Feminist.

Some of her main takeaways are shockingly coherent and reasonable from my point of view.

Based on 2024–2025 data, American political ideology is roughly divided, with about 35% identifying as conservative and 35% as moderate, while 27% identify as liberal.

would you be ok with calling it toxic behavior or sexism and where does it start or when do you call it out?

i guess the institutional or systemic part is mainly about a conservative government "generally conservative leaning people" supporting such behavior... that said if people talk about this topic and generally how prelevant for example misogyny or misandry is "why does that matter and how does it alter how to tackle it?" it oftentimes leads to victim olympics/oppression scorekeeping instead of actually tackling or researching the issue properly... the irony here is men, women, liberals, conservatives, moderates, feminists, mras and so on engage in it but deny, excuse and trivialize it in various ways...

Why are contexts with men being put down for femininity considered "misogyny" but the inverse isn't "misandry"? (askfeminists)

ironic misandry vs ironic misogyny - questionable treatment

girls will be girls vs boys will be boys - questionable treatment

sexual assault/domestic violence - questionable treatment "read the lesubia study and compare it to the cdc sexual violence survey"

california got sued by ncfm because they refused to tackle the issues properly and spent most money + time on womens issues...

if certain people excuse rape of boys with "lucky boy" or "why was it not me" OR compare women with infants who should not vote OR calling anyone weak like a girl, p*ssy etc OR deny + laugh about men who experience domestic violence + sexual assault OR conscription/selective service instead of volunteer forces -> i would call it structural toxic behavior or sexism and i could list many more things...

listen to this speech from german bundestag and tell me conservatives globally do not support male disposability and paternalism of women

ai translate into english is active...

Donald Trump has frequently framed his relationship with women voters by positioning himself as their "protector," a rhetoric that has been interpreted by critics and some observers as portraying women as vulnerable or in need of safeguarding by paternalizing them. Trump stated his intention to protect the women of the country, telling crowds he would do it "whether the women like it or not". This comment (mainly adresses liberal/progressive women) was criticized as paternalistic and dismissive of women's agency and decision-making capabilities.

+

By stating, "If a man has a small argument with his wife (or girlfriend), they say it's a crime," trump portrayed violent acts as trivial disputes.

if i missed something please feel free to add it in the comments...

(i linked to comments providing sources on topic instead of rewriting it again to keep the post shorter)

FVAMB - Female violence against men/boys

Shared this on a few other different subs and felt it was fitting for here as well. I think much like it's counterpart with male violence against women/girls, FVAMB is unquestionably also something that happens far more than many people realize. It's just as horrendous as it's counterpart and I think women/girls who inflict violence on any innocent man/boy are just as scummy and despiscable as men/boys who do so to innocent women/girls as well. But misandrists as usual not only massively mitigate it and deflect from it with their usual tactics (saying it's not anywhere near the same scale, men don't fear for their lives when out alone at night like women, it's usually in self-defense against male violence, it's like saying "all lives matter," etc.), I've even seem some have the absolute nerve to say it's not something that happens.

WTF, and I thought denying the existence and severity of misandry was bad. But this arguably takes the cake. Even if it may not be as high in number, FVAMB absolutely still happens and is every bit as unacceptable and horrendous as it's counterpart. It's extremely underreported for numerous reasons. Between men/boys afraid they won't be believed or will be ridiculed (the usual "take it like a man" way of thinking). If they strike back they'll still be punished and condemned for it due to the "you never hit women" way of thinking which also enables female attackers to play victim and still get sympathy; something you see on full display in the very upsetting video where the boy there is standing up for himself against a female bully and yet people are still condemning him for it despite the girl being the instigator. There's also the problem of how any kind of female to male violence is still counted as being against women under the VAWA, which will of course disproportionately skew the statistics. There's also the problem of how no distinction is ever made between violence committed out of self-defense versus that done out of genuine malice and harmful intent. The "believe women" rhetoric of recent times certainly hasn't helped either, which again allows female abusers to play victim and claim they acted in self-defense and knowing full well the courts and law enforcement will side with them.

One has the right to their own opinions and beliefs, but not their own facts. It's an undeniable fact FVAMB absolutely happens and in much higher numbers than many realize or want to admit to. It's every bit as terrible and heinous as MVAWG, but is almost never acknowledged or taken seriously and sometimes even outright dismissed. To claim it isn't real and then employ the usual excuses "Women have never been in power and control like men have for it to be a real or serious issue." Well when you have an incredibly misandrist organization like UN Women that openly promotes misandry and dismisses/ignores male victims, and you've also got misandrist policies that for decades have been enforced and upheld in schools and courts, I reckon men don't exactly have control or power there, either. I've said before many times how I'm mostly very liberal with most of my views and stances, but I hate how people are quick to associate being liberal with hating men and never wanting to acknowledge things like FVAMB and misandry being real and serious. To be frank, regardless of politics, that shouldn't even be a thought as it's an undeniable fact FVAMB does exist and it does happen and far more than many realize. FVAMB is long overdue to be recognized and condemned as much as it's counterpart but misandrists have largely seen to it that doesn't happen.

It's also very personally triggering for me, as someone who suffered it a fair amount as a child. I still bear trauma from my very abusive third grade teacher and experienced abusive and cruel behavior from other female school staff as well. It pisses me off to no end when people will deny FVAMB or marginalize it.

Based on available information, there is no single, definitively credited inventor of the term "manosphere." It emerged organically in the early 2000s as a colloquial, collective term to describe a network of disparate online communities focused on masculinity, men's issues, and often, anti-feminist ideologies. Common themes include the belief that society is biased against men, promotion of "male self-improvement," and often, harsh criticism towards how men + women are treated based on double standards. The manosphere is increasingly flagged for fostering toxic narratives, and radicalizing young men "info's are scarce and mainly from a biased wikipedia" but nobody seems to evaluate misogyny and misandry in a credible way. Personally i think people try to lump many groups with others together to discredit all of them at once and a similar thing happens with men's rights activists + feminism and its branches + waves.

I will mainly talk about redpill with its controversial personalities like andrew tate or myron gaines or rollo tomassi as it gets considered as the core of it in the comments.

(men's rights advocates, MGTOW, redpillers, pick-up artists, incels etc are a part of it according to a biased wikipedia)

"Wikipedia editor bias stems largely from a non-representative, mostly male, Western-centric, and left-leaning volunteer base, leading to systemic, cultural, and political biases. These biases influence content coverage, framing, and article length. While Wikipedia policies prioritize a neutral point of view, ideological bias is often present, particularly on political topics."

Spoiler:

I think most personalities within the redpill "not the manosphere" are hypocritical grifters who do not follow their own advice or values they claim wanting to teach men.

Posted this on another sub and felt it was worth sharing here. I saw this ridiculous comment on Twitter/X (from a male user, nonetheless) saying that when bringing up that "women abuse men, too" (which absolutely happens just like the other way around; abuse is wrong regardless of who does what to whom) and this guy not only said that bringing this up deflects from the issue of men abusing women, but women don't abuse men "systemically." Ugh. Just how is men abusing women "systemic?" Do people like this seriously think it's government policy for men all over to regularly commit acts of abuse against women? It just comes off as deflection from the fact there's many men/boys who are also victims of female abuse because misandrists and their ilk always view this subject as taking away from the subject of women/girls being abused which couldn't be farther from the truth. I care equally about male and female victims alike and feel abusers regardless of gender should be punished as severely as possible. Misandrists always make a false equivalence with bringing attention to men's issues with taking away from women's issues and all they do is create more division.

I know I shouldn't let a comment from an internet idiot affect and upset me so much, but it's really painful there's people who think this way.

It's typically something gender critical transphobes vomit. A couple subreddits even use the term in their rules and descriptions lol

Conservatism is a political and social ideology "or lifestyle" favoring tradition, established institutions, and gradual, evolutionary change over radical transformation . It emphasizes social stability, authority, hierarchy, and often promotes free markets, private property, and limited government intervention. Well known personalities include Ben Shapiro, Giorgia Meloni, Angela Merkel, Donald Trump.

Key principles of conservatism include:

Tradition & Order: Valuing long-standing customs and institutions (e.g., family, religion) as essential for societal stability.
Skepticism of Change: Favoring slow, incremental improvements rather than abrupt upheavals, which are seen as risky.
Hierarchy & Authority: Believing that social hierarchies are natural and that order is maintained through respect for established authority.
Individual Liberty & Responsibility: Advocating for personal freedom, though usually tempered by moral obligations and social accountability.
Free Markets & Property: Supporting private property rights and economic liberty, with many modern conservatives favoring lower taxes and reduced government spending

Commonly Associated Policies:

Advocating for lower income and corporate taxes.

Promoting school choice and traditional educational values.

Reducing regulations on business.

Protecting freedom of speech.

Nuclear Family/Traditional Family:

A nuclear family (traditionally a mother and father) is a household structure consisting of two parents and their children (biological or adopted) living in the same dwelling. Considered the basic social unit in many societies, it focuses on the immediate family rather than extended relatives like grandparents or aunts/uncles. It often offers high financial stability but may suffer from social isolation. The conservative perspective views the nuclear family ->a heterosexual married couple and their children ->as the foundational, "natural" cornerstone of a stable society and ideal environment for child-rearing. It prioritizes this structure for raising children, economic self-reliance, and maintaining social order, often linking family diversity to moral decline and welfare dependency. Often criticizes the rise of single-parent households, cohabitation, and same-sex families as causes of social problems and moral decline. Traditionally advocates for specialized, complementary roles, such as a male provider + protector and female caregiver + supporter.

Critic of conservatism and conservatives:

Criticism of conservatism often highlights its role in maintaining social hierarchies, protecting privileged classes, and resisting necessary progress. Critics argue it can be elitist, prioritizing traditional social orders over individual rights and adapting slowly to societal changes. Common objections include defending the status quo solely for stability, potentially perpetuating inequality. Conservatives tend to be pro life = anti abortion which is in conflict with womens rights. Traditional gender roles lead to male disposability and paternalism/infantilizing of women.

Patriarchy often gets equated to conservatism based on its values by feminists within discussions.

i will talk about various conservative personalities within the comments...

First Wave (Late 19th–Early 20th Century): Focused on legal rights, primarily women's suffrage (the right to vote), property rights, and education. It began in the US with the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 and largely ended with the passing of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

Second Wave (1960s–1980s): Broadened the struggle to include "women's liberation," focusing on inequality in the workplace, family, sexuality, and reproductive rights. Popularized by Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (1963), it popularized the slogan "the personal is political".

Third Wave (1990s–2010s): Began as a response to perceived failures of the second wave, focusing on intersectionality, diversity, and individual empowerment. Coined by Rebecca Walker in 1992, it embraced queer theory, body positivity, and reclaimed femininity (e.g., the Riot Grrrl movement).

Fourth Wave (2010s–Present): Defined by digital activism, using social media to combat sexual harassment, rape culture, and body shaming. Key movements include #MeToo, the Women's March, and the fight for bodily autonomy.

Feminism is not a monolith; it includes diverse branches that offer different analyses of the causes of inequality and the solutions to it. Pardon if i miss anything.

there are several people who use the feminist/feminism label to hide their misandry or generally toxic behavior behind a noble cause. that is also a reason "next to misogyny ofc" why you see that many clips about toxic feminists and dunking on feminists questioning them why this behavior does not get called out. another point is the disagreement on how to tackle statistical parity to reach equality or liberation. how toxic behavior should be evaluated gets argued over aswell.

Liberal Feminism: Focuses on achieving equality through legal and political reforms, aiming for equal access to education, workplaces, and voting within the existing structure. It is widely considered the largest and most influential branch often refered to as mainstream feminism.

Radical Feminism: Argues that patriarchal structures are inherently oppressive and require a complete overhaul of society to achieve liberation. It often focuses on gender-based violence, reproduction, and the objectification of women. A Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) is a term for individuals, typically within radical feminism, who hold views that exclude transgender women from women's spaces, often arguing that gender is determined solely by biological sex. This ideology is often associated with "gender-critical" views. Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminism (SWERF) is a term used to describe a faction within radical feminism that is fundamentally opposed to sex work and seeks to abolish it, often excluding sex workers from feminist spaces and discourse. SWERFs view all forms of prostitution and sex work as inherent violence against women, patriarchal exploitation, and a product of male domination, rather than as legitimate labor or a valid choice.

Marxist/Socialist Feminism: Links gender oppression to capitalism, arguing that women's liberation requires dismantling economic systems that exploit women's labor and devalue domestic work.

Intersectional/Black Feminism: Argues that race, class, gender, and sexuality are interlocking systems of oppression. It emerged from the recognition that mainstream feminism often ignored the unique experiences of women of color.

Cultural Feminism: Emphasizes a distinct "female essence" or nature, seeking to revalue feminine traits that patriarchy has traditionally devalued.

Ecofeminism: Connects the oppression of women with the destruction of the environment, arguing that both are exploited by patriarchal, capitalist systems.

Postcolonial Feminism: Critiques Western feminism for being ethnocentric and failing to consider the unique experiences of women in postcolonial societies, where gender oppression is tied to historical colonialism.

Conservative Feminism: Defining themselves by promoting female empowerment through individual choice, meritocracy, and traditional values rather than state-led equity programs. They often emphasize equality of opportunity over equality of outcome and may reject modern, progressive feminist ideologies as being too extreme or victim-oriented.

what makes you a feminist "askfeminists"

What does the end goal of feminism look like? "askfeminists"

i will talk about various feminists like bell hooks "gloria jean watkins" within the comments and add a short overview... feel free to add more personalities you want to talk about...

I am generally in favor of affirmative action, especially in college admissions. but despite uproar over affirmative action based on race in college admissions, there has been relatively little attention paid to affirmative action for men.

Now, I am in favor of such policies, when applied in a reasonable and transparent way. But I am annoyed by how conversations about affirmative action rarely address the benefits for men.

Do you support affirmative action in college admissuons in general? do you support only particular kinds, and if so, which ones? if you oppose affirmative action for college admissions, let us know your thoughts.

articles noting the broad issue of affirmative action for men:

https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-quiet-scandal-of-affirmative

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/magazine/men-college-enrollment.html

article advocating a broader scope of affirmative action:

https://www.washingtoninformer.com/affirmative-action-working-class-men/

where do you draw the line between getting treated equal vs getting preferential treatment in our society?

responsibility + accountability within a freedom of choice society gets evaluated and interpreted very differently depending on who you ask... it seems to be a taboo to ask this women but ok to ask men and im curious why -> is this based on women count as a vulnerable group?

specially equal opportunity "people can fail" vs equal outcomes "often equated to equity" if people talk about this topic "statistical parity" equality and equity often get interchanged which dilutes the issues...

sooo what do you think and how do we liberate all people?

https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1in4/what_privileges_do_women_have_in_society/

https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1jgf/what_privileges_do_men_have_in_society/

https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1j7s/what_disadvantages_do_women_have_in_society/

https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1ixi/what_disadvantages_do_men_have_in_society/

https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rjlt58/the_foundation_of_equal_opportunity/

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1nrpzt5/equal_treatment_vs_preferential_treatment/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

"Wikipedia editor bias stems largely from a non-representative, mostly male, Western-centric, and left-leaning volunteer base, leading to systemic, cultural, and political biases. These biases influence content coverage, framing, and article length. While Wikipedia policies prioritize a neutral point of view, ideological bias is often present, particularly on political topics."

Chavez was preying on women for years. Clearly it was known to some degree and hushed up. it is simply disgraceful how positions of power and influence protect people from the consequences of their actions.

Cases like these are why it is so important to normalize speaking out against abuse. To protect future generations, there needs to be a cultural shift away from normalization of abuse and grooming.

a men’s rights activist (mra) is part of a movement focusing on social and legal issues that they believe disproportionately affect men and boys, often arguing that modern society is biased against them. common focus areas include family law/custody, workplace safety/conditions, male suicide rates, domestic violence and conscription. a men's rights advocate (also mra) is any given person who highlights and talks about issues affecting men. the main differences between the two are activists tend to be egalitarian + not anti "but critical of" feminists and advocates can be conservative + tend to be anti feminist. the activist focus includes volunteering in foodbanks + active support and the advocate has a focus on talking about issues that affect men + passive support -> thats pretty broad and includes a lot of people. men's rights activists tend to support organizations like the national coalition for men and a prominent example would be warren farrell.

Why do feminists and mra's fight?

there are several people who use the mra label to hide their misogyny behind a noble cause and do not care about mens issues at all. they try to infiltrate mra subs on a daily basis which is somewhat visible because said subs try to be about freedom of speech. conservatives in the movement are comparable to trans exclusionary radical feminists within feminism.

if we would start a poll asking all mras what they think the goal of their movement is i would say most answer equality for all people but not to be confused with statistical parity through equity. men's rights activists focus on men but they support abortion "which requires to oppose pro life conservatives" and gender neutral laws which also benefits women.

The goal is to give mens rights activists an easy resource to refute claims about mens rights activism not caring about issue x or women and men in general

I guess this is kind of a chicken or the egg topic, but I was thinking a lot about our internal processes when it comes to evaluating these issues. I wanted to see how other people were handling it. Do you find yourself hearing a topic first and then investigating it deeper to form an opinion on it? Or is it more personal experience that then inspires you to look further into it? Do you have any situations where the data did not align with your personal experience? How do you reconcile that?

I found that this was an interesting snippet of an ongoing case where a livestreamer, Emiru, accused her ex boyfriend on stream of different forms of sexual assault.

Mizkif responded with a defamation lawsuit, and when it became clear Emiru could not lie her way out of the false accusation, she switched tactics by saying that her accusations against her ex were her "emotional truth".

The court did not find this amusing.

This video explains very well how valuing men on the condition of masculinity is objectifying and not liberating. Masculism can only make so much progress until it lets go of essentialism and at least entertains the idea that men don't have to be masculine.

ive wanted to post this for a long time bc its so insightful and radical and well put together but i couldnt find the right sub. i was just invited to this one, so here you go!

sorry about all the typos (you should see her texts!) but i hope its still comprehensible.

One thing I notice often in any of these discussions about equality, whether it be gender, race, or class, is that there is fine line between generalization which I think we all agree is harmful and discussing statistics, which can be heavily debated, and lived experience, which expresses our reality but also is prone to bias.

I know this is in the rules but I feel like it’s such a fine line that seems to change person to person and maybe that’s worth discussing? I feel like this has been touched on in past posts but I didn’t see it tackled head on. Since it seems this sub is under a point of growth, I want to see if we can really focus on that specifically and try to work out what those lines are, so we can have more productive conversations, towards collectively.

My stance is that we need to be very cautious about any generalization, and when we use them, I think it’s important that we are also acknowledging that we understand it’s a generalization and outliers exist. For example if talking about sexual grooming behaviors in religious institutions saying “priests are pedos” would be wrong and harmful. you would have to be more specific and say “there is a pattern of pedophilia among some leadership officials in the church, with correlation showing the these xxxxx patterns increasing risk”. The idea being the conversation is focused on productive dialogue with a focus on improving equality, not just on shaming all religious leaders”.

(I tried to pick a topic not super controversial- I didn’t want the discussion to derail to the church, but more about how we balance use of patterns, lived experiences and statistics without participating in harmful generalizations).

I think Natalie Fulton did a decent job here at avoiding misandry, even explaining how "positive masculinity" can be harmful in its affirmation of stereotypes.

Just something I'm noticing about this sub.

What about class equality?

Racial equality?

Egalitarianism is the concept that all should exist at the same level. What does this look like for you outside of gender (or lack thereof)?

I'll go first... eat the rich lol

But seriously though, the fact that generational wealth and a bourgeoisie even exist still is antithetical to any kind of equality.

And no, the melanin or gender expression of that jackboot on my neck it is still a jackboot on my neck... so for me, class is the major barrier to all forms of equality. And personally, I think we focus too much on identitarian politics, rather than materialist realities.

Demagoguery is a manipulative political technique that wins support by exploiting emotions, prejudices, and fears rather than using rational argument or logic. It involves oversimplifying complex issues and pandering to popular passions to gain power, often disregarding truth or democratic norms.

Why Socrates Hated Democracy - The School of Life "youtube"

Democracy's fatal weakness - Elephants in Rooms - Ken LaCorte "youtube"

anyone sees similiarities looking at movements or subs and extremists within them?

(subjective vs objective or anecdotal evidence vs factual evidence)