Men being misogynistic in the comments just proves her point. I’m sorry but there’s no such thing as racism towards white people like there is no such thing as Misandry to men. Women definitely can discriminate against men but they do not and cannot systematically discriminate men (misandry). When men discriminate against men it is actually due to misogyny ie. men getting conscripted to war - women are too weak to fight in war and are only good to make more babies after the war. Men are literally in places of power everywhere, there is no place where it’s just women. White men specifically, always want to be victims of “misandry” because they want to be oppressed even though they are doing the oppression. It’s cognitive dissonance. White men run the western world and systematically oppress other races, cultures and gender identities (that aren’t cis white men). It’s weird how they want to be the victim instead of trying to fight for equity of everyone. Many go on about, “victim mentality” to actual victims but in the same boat cry about misandry when women hate them because they are misogynistic.
This list has a lot of force, but only if you assume misandry just looks like misogyny with the genders swapped, which it absolutely isn't. Someone could use the same tactics to (ludicrously) argue that misogyny doesn't exist. Watch:
Can you name 1 country that refuses to outlaw rape against women, but outlaws rape against men?
Can you name 1 country where women, and only women, are coerced into military service?
Can you name 1 country where female murder victims outnumber male murder victims?
Can you name 1 society with a taboo forbidding interpersonal violence against, and only against, men?
And so on and so on.
I don't even believe that, globally, misandry is necessarily as significant a force as misogyny, but there's got to be a more intellectually honest way to argue that point than this.
I just wanted to point something out: When people talk about systemic misandry, they're talking about the whole system which includes men and women as the perpetrators. For instance, when they talk about misandry in the criminal justice system, a guy who gets a longer sentence or less time with his kids for no other reason than his gender isn't "less discriminated against" if the judge is also male. It's still misandry. When men at the top discriminate against men at the bottom, it's still a form of misandry.
That's actually still rooted in misogyny because to acknowledge a woman is the only one capable of nurturing a child is to think that men belong to a certain social construct of masculinity perpetuated predominately by men. Same goes for not punishing her the same as a man for foul actions such as abuse, because the idea is that she's too weak to be able to do something like that or that there was failing on the man's part "to allow," a woman of all things to get a leg up on him. It dismisses the power a woman on an individual scale may have because women are not seen as equals so in some small ways women get to benefit from misogyny if they are trying to get away with certain crimes. Misandry isn't the root issue for men on a larger scale, systemically like what you just referenced. Misandry is individual and case by case, it is not systemic in any way.
"Misandry (/mɪˈsændri/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men"
All of your points are valid but I think you're missing something key- misandry is not just about the boot being on the other foot, but rather if a group is being victimized. I also think you also take a very state oriented approach to defining misandry, which misses a lot. I think the media has a huge part in sexism, to the point that I'd argue that it's systemic. I'd love to talk to you about it sometime.
I believe misandry exists and its either an unintentional side effect of or an intentional evil created by the patriarchy.
Example: The idiot dad media trope. Fathers should be gentle and loving leaders and protectors but instead they are useless morons so frequently. Their value comes from making money and little else. This is either to excuse male shittyness or to encourage men to be losers. Their character arcs are constantly just "man becomes slightly less dumb". This media is almost always created by men.
I think the biggest problem with talking about misandry is that its so often brought up to dismiss misogyny when its really just proving the feminists point lol
Very well put. This woman's post does bring up valid points, and I do agree that misogyny/oppression of men is a far more systemic and pressing issue. However to say that misandry or at least things that oppress or constrict men do not exist on most an individual and even systemic level is still absurd as others have brought up. I get her annoyance because I hate when men try and conflate feminism with misandry or claim that systemic misogyny enforced by patriarchy don't exist and aren't oppressing women in many countries right now. But whenever people try and argue "oh misandry doesn't exist, men don't have it worse on any systemic level, at most their feelings will get hurt (which ignores that verbal bullying/discrimination is still a serious issue)" it comes off as just trying to prove that women are the only ones who have it rough and that men don't have their own internalized issues, and it could make men think that most feminists think that way when they don't.
A host of a show starts to explain how a woman cut off a man's penis and the audience laughs and applauds. If the host would have said a man mutilated a woman's body part the crowd would have the same reaction? No, that is systemic misandry right there.
Why does IMDB have a searchable category of 'kicked in the balls', and 'woman-kicks-a-man-in-the-groin'? Why is it funny to some to watch a guy get kicked in the balls? That is misandry.
Courts automatically side with women for child custody because they are deemed better parents due to their gender, that's misandry.
Women can't pay for their kids so they get government assistance. Men can't pay for their kids and they go to prison for it, that's misandry.
A man claims to be assaulted and is dismissed because he should have been able to defend himself. A woman claims to be assaulted and is automatically believed even with no evidence, that's misandry.
A woman can openly say they hate men, the actually definition of misandry, but that is culturally okay to do so.
A relationship ends and people assume that it was because the man did something or didn't do enough, that's misandry.
The test to see if misandry exists is to take any story and reverse the genders. If there isn't the same outrage then you have identified a double standard. Most likely it will be either misogyny or misandry.
That's misandry but it isn't systemic because, unlike in many countries (including sometimes in ours), there is no power (government, economic, or otherwise) to back it up. Try again, Tex.
A group of people laughing doesn't translate to systemic misandry. If that woman was sentenced by the authorities for doing that, it's not systemic.
Misandry, but not systemic
Nope, most child custodies are not decided in court and half the time, when dads fight for the custody, they get it. There is even a bias against women who declare that the relationship was abusive, because dads become even more likely to get the custody.
I searched for it, but the "assistance" is just help to find the parent that has to pay and stablish a percentage. Government doesn't help women to pay for their own children.
Have you ever talked to an assaulted woman? Because they all get the "what were you wearing/did you say no/did you fight/where is the evidence/you are lying" bit. A lot of men and women also accept without evidence that that woman is lying and trying to destroy the man she is accusing.
Manosphere men, who hold a male supremacist and misogynistic ideology are supported by powerful rich men like Elon Musk and for more than ten years a lot of male influencers have live out of making misogynistic content online. Also, a male politician was behind theredpill subreddit.
Not systemic, and mostly true, since men cheat more than women and most marriages end because of it.
So the problems with this theory is the questions are based on misogyny and not the root of what is happening, so that makes this irrelevant, secondly this is purposely manipulative of what the definition of misandry is, you actually do say misandry exists as it's the hatred and prejudice of men, thirdly misandry exists with misandrists who seek to carry out many of what you listed, just because they haven't got the power yet to do that does not mean they don't exist, this is just a poor idea. Misandry exists is a fact that all feminists accept, it does not however yet appear in the same way misogyny does, but this does not mean it doesn't exist, that is illogical thought. It also doesn't mean it should be ignored. Extremist movements need to be prevented before they carry out their attacks, you wouldn't say the terrorists who committed 9/11 attacks didn't exist until the attacks? That is absurd, please stop showing your dehumanisation and prejudice against men, that is another example of misandry, men are denied to even acknowledge their suffering, we know from history that this is a technique by the oppressors, and really highlights the misinformation and ridiculousness of your argument
Blanket statements to push your d*monic agendas.... and sl*ve trade answers all those st*pid questions... the sl*ves were treated less than human beings... and there were many matriarchs and f*male monarchs that took part in the atrocities and inhumanity that transpired.... this is just hypocrisy at the highest level... ( so we should also start asking name one minority country that colonised other countries name one minority country that took slaves , name one minority country that benefited from imperialism name one minority country that plays god of the world and imposes it's ideologies onto other nations)..... f*minism has gone too far trying to prove ya'll are oppressed... we should start pointing the finger and saying f*minists also benefited from sl*ve trade becoz their ancestors used free labour to build the society now that makes them comfortable enough to say they don't need myn.... and if any one of ya'll f*minists had any divine inclinations you would understand that God's kingdom has no f*minism... it's hierarchy and principles... so go a head and blasphem God as well... is he a misogynist...
Okay so everyone who complains about misogyny in the modern world like the US is also wrong? Not like any of these apply to the modern world.
Also: in how many countries is army conscription gender neutral, rather than male-only? Your list completely ignores male issues to focus on women’s issues. Which is pretty typical lmao.
"2. If you did find one example, all you have done is found an exception which proves the rule. If all you can find is one example in the history of the entire world, whilst thousands or millions of girls and women are subjected to that example on a daily basis, again, you’ve proven that misandry does not and cannot exist on a systemic level."
No Dr. Taylor, it means that you are objectively wrong and need to stop making false statements, and you pre-emptively admitting that you're wrong doesn't change that. It just shows that even you can't be confident that what you're saying has any truth to it.
"19. Can you name 1 country where males must get permission and supervision of females to travel, marry or seek healthcare?"
I can name a lot of countries where you need more than one party's permission to marry, Dr. Taylor.
"23. Can you name 1 country where men have been forbidden from using any form of contraception?"
Afghanistan literally just banned contraceptives of ALL kinds. Is this what inspired the little disclaimer about "exceptions?"
"26. Can you name 1 country in the world where women kill more than 3 men per week?"
Do Russian wives sending every man they know off to become sunflower fertilizer in Bakhmut while fervently supporting Putin's regime count? Because the stuff you hear in leaked calls from the front, lemme tell ya...
"31. Can you name 1 country where female-led governments have stated that men are not legally allowed to drive trains, tractors or pilot ships?"
Had to exclude planes and narrow to "female-led governments" because even Saudi Arabia has female fighter pilots, eh?
"37. Can you name 1 country where men and boys were routinely sectioned and had their reproductive organs removed because female doctors believed it was causing them to become insane?"
Nowadays, the residency and med school enrollment numbers for OB/GYN speak for themselves, and someone's gotta circumcise the baby boys for... something about cereal, I think?
FGM in Africa and the Middle East, likewise, is also overwhelmingly performed by female elders
2. It doesn't mean she's objectively wrong. Even if you can find one tiny exception, the fact that all the other instances are of males having power over females proves her point.
19. But do males specifically require female permission and not the reverse? Are women in those places able to force men into marriage? You're equating equality with women dominating men. Typical.
23. Men specifically. Just men.
26. Are these Russian women legally able to force them into battle? And are the women staying home because they're pampered and spoiled or because they risk much higher rates of rape and abuse? Also, even HAD they been able to force the men into battle, this would be one tiny example against thousands of the opposite.
31. Again, having female pilots doesn't equal excluding male ones.
37. Male circumcision is done- in very few cultures, I might add- for religious reasons, not because they hate boys and not against a backdrop of males lacking other rights and personhood. Much of the time it is pushed by the fathers. It is unacceptable as is...
...female circumcision, which is a lot more physically damaging and IS undertaken because of a hatred of females, considering it happens in cultures where females are already very oppressed, unlike with male circumcision.
FGM is performed by female doctors because the men, who have control in those countries, allow it and even order it. It is, after all, supposed to be for the benefit of prospective male partners, and takes place in African and Middle Eastern societies that we can see are very anti-female and male dominated.
In response to number 37, to say male circumcision is uncommon is just blatantly false. It's estimated that about 38.7% of the male population has been circumcised, and is incredibly common in many countries.
That's about 1,450,000,000 men/boys who had their genitals mutilated, generally without their permission. And frankly it doesn't matter if it comes from a hatred of boys because oppression isn't always caused out of hatred. It can be done out of desire for power over others, for religious purposes, or an ingrained belief that a certain group of people is inferior and therefore deserves less rights. Not everyone that suppresses the rights of women do so out of hatred. It often comes from incredibly sexist ideals or religions that teach of women being inferior to men. Does that make it any better? Fuck no. It's still oppression and in this case genital mutilation regardless of purpose. And to claim that male genital mutilation isn't as bad because "they don't do it because they hate men" is a misguided and idiotic argument that downsizes the harm it causes. I don't want to assume but it comes off that you can't just say that women are more oppressed than men overall (which they are), you feel the need to prove that men are oppressed or subjected to unfair standards in any way, as if that would invalidate what women have to go through. Which is frankly a dumb, sexist, and tribalist way of thinking. People can and should acknowledge that women are oppressed and discriminated against in many countries, and systemic misongy is something we need to combat and end, while also acknowledging that men also have issues that systemically oppressed them (many countries only drafting them, longer prison sentences and being trusted less inherently, genital mutilation, etc.). Both these issues can and do exist.
Don't get me wrong, else wise I agree with you. The person you're responding to is a sexist moron who mistakes places where women have equal rights to them as somehow equivocal to women oppressing men. They're a sexist moron and most of your rebuttals are sound. But that one about male circumcision is just dumb and wrong.
Keeping this article on tap for the next time anyone in my life uses the word "misandry" 🙄
So well put, thank you for sharing this!
Brilliant Jessica. Sharing with my social work students on placement in FDV contexts. Perth, Western Australia : )
Men being misogynistic in the comments just proves her point. I’m sorry but there’s no such thing as racism towards white people like there is no such thing as Misandry to men. Women definitely can discriminate against men but they do not and cannot systematically discriminate men (misandry). When men discriminate against men it is actually due to misogyny ie. men getting conscripted to war - women are too weak to fight in war and are only good to make more babies after the war. Men are literally in places of power everywhere, there is no place where it’s just women. White men specifically, always want to be victims of “misandry” because they want to be oppressed even though they are doing the oppression. It’s cognitive dissonance. White men run the western world and systematically oppress other races, cultures and gender identities (that aren’t cis white men). It’s weird how they want to be the victim instead of trying to fight for equity of everyone. Many go on about, “victim mentality” to actual victims but in the same boat cry about misandry when women hate them because they are misogynistic.
This list has a lot of force, but only if you assume misandry just looks like misogyny with the genders swapped, which it absolutely isn't. Someone could use the same tactics to (ludicrously) argue that misogyny doesn't exist. Watch:
Can you name 1 country that refuses to outlaw rape against women, but outlaws rape against men?
Can you name 1 country where women, and only women, are coerced into military service?
Can you name 1 country where female murder victims outnumber male murder victims?
Can you name 1 society with a taboo forbidding interpersonal violence against, and only against, men?
And so on and so on.
I don't even believe that, globally, misandry is necessarily as significant a force as misogyny, but there's got to be a more intellectually honest way to argue that point than this.
I just wanted to point something out: When people talk about systemic misandry, they're talking about the whole system which includes men and women as the perpetrators. For instance, when they talk about misandry in the criminal justice system, a guy who gets a longer sentence or less time with his kids for no other reason than his gender isn't "less discriminated against" if the judge is also male. It's still misandry. When men at the top discriminate against men at the bottom, it's still a form of misandry.
That's actually still rooted in misogyny because to acknowledge a woman is the only one capable of nurturing a child is to think that men belong to a certain social construct of masculinity perpetuated predominately by men. Same goes for not punishing her the same as a man for foul actions such as abuse, because the idea is that she's too weak to be able to do something like that or that there was failing on the man's part "to allow," a woman of all things to get a leg up on him. It dismisses the power a woman on an individual scale may have because women are not seen as equals so in some small ways women get to benefit from misogyny if they are trying to get away with certain crimes. Misandry isn't the root issue for men on a larger scale, systemically like what you just referenced. Misandry is individual and case by case, it is not systemic in any way.
What the fuck are you talking about ? How in the entire fuck is anti-male sentiment rooted in misogyny you pudding brained imbecile ?
"Misandry (/mɪˈsændri/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men"
All of your points are valid but I think you're missing something key- misandry is not just about the boot being on the other foot, but rather if a group is being victimized. I also think you also take a very state oriented approach to defining misandry, which misses a lot. I think the media has a huge part in sexism, to the point that I'd argue that it's systemic. I'd love to talk to you about it sometime.
I believe misandry exists and its either an unintentional side effect of or an intentional evil created by the patriarchy.
Example: The idiot dad media trope. Fathers should be gentle and loving leaders and protectors but instead they are useless morons so frequently. Their value comes from making money and little else. This is either to excuse male shittyness or to encourage men to be losers. Their character arcs are constantly just "man becomes slightly less dumb". This media is almost always created by men.
I think the biggest problem with talking about misandry is that its so often brought up to dismiss misogyny when its really just proving the feminists point lol
Very well put. This woman's post does bring up valid points, and I do agree that misogyny/oppression of men is a far more systemic and pressing issue. However to say that misandry or at least things that oppress or constrict men do not exist on most an individual and even systemic level is still absurd as others have brought up. I get her annoyance because I hate when men try and conflate feminism with misandry or claim that systemic misogyny enforced by patriarchy don't exist and aren't oppressing women in many countries right now. But whenever people try and argue "oh misandry doesn't exist, men don't have it worse on any systemic level, at most their feelings will get hurt (which ignores that verbal bullying/discrimination is still a serious issue)" it comes off as just trying to prove that women are the only ones who have it rough and that men don't have their own internalized issues, and it could make men think that most feminists think that way when they don't.
A host of a show starts to explain how a woman cut off a man's penis and the audience laughs and applauds. If the host would have said a man mutilated a woman's body part the crowd would have the same reaction? No, that is systemic misandry right there.
Why does IMDB have a searchable category of 'kicked in the balls', and 'woman-kicks-a-man-in-the-groin'? Why is it funny to some to watch a guy get kicked in the balls? That is misandry.
Courts automatically side with women for child custody because they are deemed better parents due to their gender, that's misandry.
Women can't pay for their kids so they get government assistance. Men can't pay for their kids and they go to prison for it, that's misandry.
A man claims to be assaulted and is dismissed because he should have been able to defend himself. A woman claims to be assaulted and is automatically believed even with no evidence, that's misandry.
A woman can openly say they hate men, the actually definition of misandry, but that is culturally okay to do so.
A relationship ends and people assume that it was because the man did something or didn't do enough, that's misandry.
The test to see if misandry exists is to take any story and reverse the genders. If there isn't the same outrage then you have identified a double standard. Most likely it will be either misogyny or misandry.
That's misandry but it isn't systemic because, unlike in many countries (including sometimes in ours), there is no power (government, economic, or otherwise) to back it up. Try again, Tex.
One of the examples is the court system doing the discriminating, which is systemic.
A group of people laughing doesn't translate to systemic misandry. If that woman was sentenced by the authorities for doing that, it's not systemic.
Misandry, but not systemic
Nope, most child custodies are not decided in court and half the time, when dads fight for the custody, they get it. There is even a bias against women who declare that the relationship was abusive, because dads become even more likely to get the custody.
I searched for it, but the "assistance" is just help to find the parent that has to pay and stablish a percentage. Government doesn't help women to pay for their own children.
Have you ever talked to an assaulted woman? Because they all get the "what were you wearing/did you say no/did you fight/where is the evidence/you are lying" bit. A lot of men and women also accept without evidence that that woman is lying and trying to destroy the man she is accusing.
Manosphere men, who hold a male supremacist and misogynistic ideology are supported by powerful rich men like Elon Musk and for more than ten years a lot of male influencers have live out of making misogynistic content online. Also, a male politician was behind theredpill subreddit.
Not systemic, and mostly true, since men cheat more than women and most marriages end because of it.
So the problems with this theory is the questions are based on misogyny and not the root of what is happening, so that makes this irrelevant, secondly this is purposely manipulative of what the definition of misandry is, you actually do say misandry exists as it's the hatred and prejudice of men, thirdly misandry exists with misandrists who seek to carry out many of what you listed, just because they haven't got the power yet to do that does not mean they don't exist, this is just a poor idea. Misandry exists is a fact that all feminists accept, it does not however yet appear in the same way misogyny does, but this does not mean it doesn't exist, that is illogical thought. It also doesn't mean it should be ignored. Extremist movements need to be prevented before they carry out their attacks, you wouldn't say the terrorists who committed 9/11 attacks didn't exist until the attacks? That is absurd, please stop showing your dehumanisation and prejudice against men, that is another example of misandry, men are denied to even acknowledge their suffering, we know from history that this is a technique by the oppressors, and really highlights the misinformation and ridiculousness of your argument
Blanket statements to push your d*monic agendas.... and sl*ve trade answers all those st*pid questions... the sl*ves were treated less than human beings... and there were many matriarchs and f*male monarchs that took part in the atrocities and inhumanity that transpired.... this is just hypocrisy at the highest level... ( so we should also start asking name one minority country that colonised other countries name one minority country that took slaves , name one minority country that benefited from imperialism name one minority country that plays god of the world and imposes it's ideologies onto other nations)..... f*minism has gone too far trying to prove ya'll are oppressed... we should start pointing the finger and saying f*minists also benefited from sl*ve trade becoz their ancestors used free labour to build the society now that makes them comfortable enough to say they don't need myn.... and if any one of ya'll f*minists had any divine inclinations you would understand that God's kingdom has no f*minism... it's hierarchy and principles... so go a head and blasphem God as well... is he a misogynist...
Great article, I would just add the link to the stats.
Imagine being so stupid that you think opression is only about rape and murder.
Clearly the writer doesn’t know her head from her ass. She’s another slut who was treated badly by crappy men so she hates all men
Okay so everyone who complains about misogyny in the modern world like the US is also wrong? Not like any of these apply to the modern world.
Also: in how many countries is army conscription gender neutral, rather than male-only? Your list completely ignores male issues to focus on women’s issues. Which is pretty typical lmao.
"2. If you did find one example, all you have done is found an exception which proves the rule. If all you can find is one example in the history of the entire world, whilst thousands or millions of girls and women are subjected to that example on a daily basis, again, you’ve proven that misandry does not and cannot exist on a systemic level."
No Dr. Taylor, it means that you are objectively wrong and need to stop making false statements, and you pre-emptively admitting that you're wrong doesn't change that. It just shows that even you can't be confident that what you're saying has any truth to it.
"19. Can you name 1 country where males must get permission and supervision of females to travel, marry or seek healthcare?"
I can name a lot of countries where you need more than one party's permission to marry, Dr. Taylor.
"23. Can you name 1 country where men have been forbidden from using any form of contraception?"
Afghanistan literally just banned contraceptives of ALL kinds. Is this what inspired the little disclaimer about "exceptions?"
"26. Can you name 1 country in the world where women kill more than 3 men per week?"
Do Russian wives sending every man they know off to become sunflower fertilizer in Bakhmut while fervently supporting Putin's regime count? Because the stuff you hear in leaked calls from the front, lemme tell ya...
"31. Can you name 1 country where female-led governments have stated that men are not legally allowed to drive trains, tractors or pilot ships?"
Had to exclude planes and narrow to "female-led governments" because even Saudi Arabia has female fighter pilots, eh?
"37. Can you name 1 country where men and boys were routinely sectioned and had their reproductive organs removed because female doctors believed it was causing them to become insane?"
Nowadays, the residency and med school enrollment numbers for OB/GYN speak for themselves, and someone's gotta circumcise the baby boys for... something about cereal, I think?
FGM in Africa and the Middle East, likewise, is also overwhelmingly performed by female elders
2. It doesn't mean she's objectively wrong. Even if you can find one tiny exception, the fact that all the other instances are of males having power over females proves her point.
19. But do males specifically require female permission and not the reverse? Are women in those places able to force men into marriage? You're equating equality with women dominating men. Typical.
23. Men specifically. Just men.
26. Are these Russian women legally able to force them into battle? And are the women staying home because they're pampered and spoiled or because they risk much higher rates of rape and abuse? Also, even HAD they been able to force the men into battle, this would be one tiny example against thousands of the opposite.
31. Again, having female pilots doesn't equal excluding male ones.
37. Male circumcision is done- in very few cultures, I might add- for religious reasons, not because they hate boys and not against a backdrop of males lacking other rights and personhood. Much of the time it is pushed by the fathers. It is unacceptable as is...
...female circumcision, which is a lot more physically damaging and IS undertaken because of a hatred of females, considering it happens in cultures where females are already very oppressed, unlike with male circumcision.
FGM is performed by female doctors because the men, who have control in those countries, allow it and even order it. It is, after all, supposed to be for the benefit of prospective male partners, and takes place in African and Middle Eastern societies that we can see are very anti-female and male dominated.
You're not fooling anyone.
In response to number 37, to say male circumcision is uncommon is just blatantly false. It's estimated that about 38.7% of the male population has been circumcised, and is incredibly common in many countries.
https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5
https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5/tables/1
That's about 1,450,000,000 men/boys who had their genitals mutilated, generally without their permission. And frankly it doesn't matter if it comes from a hatred of boys because oppression isn't always caused out of hatred. It can be done out of desire for power over others, for religious purposes, or an ingrained belief that a certain group of people is inferior and therefore deserves less rights. Not everyone that suppresses the rights of women do so out of hatred. It often comes from incredibly sexist ideals or religions that teach of women being inferior to men. Does that make it any better? Fuck no. It's still oppression and in this case genital mutilation regardless of purpose. And to claim that male genital mutilation isn't as bad because "they don't do it because they hate men" is a misguided and idiotic argument that downsizes the harm it causes. I don't want to assume but it comes off that you can't just say that women are more oppressed than men overall (which they are), you feel the need to prove that men are oppressed or subjected to unfair standards in any way, as if that would invalidate what women have to go through. Which is frankly a dumb, sexist, and tribalist way of thinking. People can and should acknowledge that women are oppressed and discriminated against in many countries, and systemic misongy is something we need to combat and end, while also acknowledging that men also have issues that systemically oppressed them (many countries only drafting them, longer prison sentences and being trusted less inherently, genital mutilation, etc.). Both these issues can and do exist.
Don't get me wrong, else wise I agree with you. The person you're responding to is a sexist moron who mistakes places where women have equal rights to them as somehow equivocal to women oppressing men. They're a sexist moron and most of your rebuttals are sound. But that one about male circumcision is just dumb and wrong.