being against feminism is necessary for gender equality. This is a pretty long post. So I'm going to divide it into four main categories. Also this is a patchwork of various comments I've saved across reddit. Thanks to the original creators I have lost some of your names but if you see something you wrote and want to be credited. leave a comment and I'll edit it in.

Feminist theory and underlying beliefs

Misleading feminist statistics to reinforce said beliefs

Innate human biases that feminist advocacy weaponizes.

addressing the "true scotsman"

Feminist theory and underlying beliefs

To get into the first section. To quote a popular post on the subject

Because the foundational views of feminism and it's most influential advocates are anti-male in their nature.

All forms of Feminism hold the following premises as self-evident:

• Society is Male Dominated

• Male dominance privileges men over women

• While some men can sometimes be harmed by this system, the system itself is set up to privilege men and subjugate women for mens express benefit.

• Men are in power and the system operates to benefit and serve mens' needs, drives, and interests at the expense of womens' needs, drives, and interests.

This could be described as "class warfare between men and women, with men winning".

If these are true, then society is this way because men want it to be so. Since society is (supposedly) male dominated and serves to benefit mens' needs drives and interests, the subjugation of women must be in-keeping with mens' inclinations.

Therefore, it is in-keeping with mens inclinations to oppress, subjugate, beat, rape, and violate women, including their own mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, girlfriends, and every other women they claim to "love". If a man does not do these things to the women in his life, he is complicit and tacitly supporting the system that allows other men to do this to the women in his life.

Women, being the subjugated class, cannot be held accountable for this, in the same way one cannot hold slaves accountable for their own slavery, even if they perpetuate the system through their actions and personal beliefs.

Further, even the immense influence a mother has over her child - one that shapes and moulds the child's adult personality, values, and sense of belonging - has been unable to raise men that won't oppress them. Women are singularly incompetent in the face of male monstrosity. And men are foolish too, because they leave their offspring in the care of those who are seen as lessers.

Misleading feminist statistics that reinforce these beliefs

The information needed to confirm this belief of male monstrosity is often brought out by feminist academics injecting their bias into their methodology. and creating and disseminating inaccurate statistics.

Two such excellent examples of where this has happened are in the areas of rape and domestic violence. On the topic of the feminist approach to domestic violence. We have the Duluth model.

the Duluth Model is the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States. (it's also the basis for a number of other programs across the world)

The feminist theory underlying the Duluth Model is that men use violence within relationships to exercise power and control.

However, Ellen Pence (the creator) herself has written,

"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."[22]

This is further debunked by Professor Murray A. Straus. who is best known for creating the conflict tactics scale, the "most widely used instrument in research on family violence"

In the following study

Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment

It summarizes results from more than 200 studies that have found gender symmetry in perpetration and in risk factors and motives for physical violence in martial and dating relationships. It also summarizes research that has found that most partner violence is mutual and that self-defense explains only a small percentage of partner violence by either men or women. The second part of the article documents seven methods that have been used to deny, conceal, and distort the evidence on gender symmetry (Often by feminist groups) Now. On top of this being more recent evidence.

We have also known about this as far back as the first domestic violence shelter. founded in 1971. By Erin Pizzey.

Who had the same findings as Straus and all of the studies he cites. But she was chased out of her home and country with bomb threats from feminists when she expressed interest in opening a similar shelter for men

Now. Let's move on to rape.

Feminists are also responsible for stopping male victims of female rapists from being recognized in India, Israel, [Nepal] (https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/12/11/ordinance-amends-law-on-rape-but-fails-to-recognise-rape-of-boy-child-and-sexual-minorities) and the USA

Now, Let's focus on that last one.

For statistical reporting, rape has been carefully defined as forced penetration of the victim in most of the world. You should listen to this feminist professor Mary P Koss explain that a woman raping a man isn't rape. Hear her explain in her own voice just a few years ago - https://clyp.it/uckbtczn. I encourage you to listen to what she is saying. (Really. Listen to it! Think about it from a man's perspective.)

She is considered the foremost expert on sexual violence in the US. And is an advisor to the CDC, FBI, Congress, and researchers around the world and promoting the idea that men cannot be raped by women.

That is where most people get the idea rape is just a man on woman crime. Men are fairly rarely penetrated and it is almost always by another man. This also means that all of those stories you hear about a female teacher raping their underage students, according to the official government rape statistics, are not rape.

BUT if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

When you actually do the work to include male victims. The idea of "patriarchy" and male monstrosity towards women evaporates.

So why is it that the idea still endures? Well aside from the notion that feminist academics are building their entire careers on the backs of these beliefs and as such have a vested interest in continuing to propagate them. there's

Innate human biases that feminist advocacy weaponizes.

Feminist advocacy also weaponizes a number of innate and studied human biases that subconsciously push us to promote women's protection and their issues over men. Human beings are a gynocentric species – this means that we prioritize the needs and wellbeing of women over men. This is an evolved instinct that came about as a result of women being the limiting factor in reproduction – ie. women have a much lower ceiling on how many offspring they can physically produce – and in small communities that are subsisting this makes them highly important because they potentially hold the key to whether or not the collective will survive at all. This is why we traditionally send only men to war, this is why we have the “women and children first” Birkenhead Drill, this is why people are more likely to put themselves at risk to save a woman in danger than a man – and it’s why we have feminism. Feminism has taken our gynocentrism and weaponized it.

And here are some studies to reaffirm that.

• Men lack an in-group bias based on gender
• Men are more willing to sacrifice men than women
• Men and women have a negative reaction to studies that show sex differences favouring men. But positive reaction for the opposite.
• Stereotypes have changed over time and now more people think women are superior to men than the other way around.
• Men are more likely to be altruistic to women than to men.
• People are particularly concerned when men are violent to women.
• People are less concerned about male suffering
• Male and female adolescents feel more empathy for female peers.
• People are more supportive of women in male-dominated professions than vice versa.
• People who classify groups as oppressed and privileged cannot make unbiased judgements about privileged groups even when they think they should.
• People underestimate men's support for women.
• Male victims of sexual coercion against men is not taken as seriously as against women
• Male sexual harassment victims are viewed as suffering less than female victims.
• People don't like affirmative action but especially for men.
• Female chatbots are seen as more human than male ones
• Male teachers who have sexual relations with students judged more harshly than female ones.
• Both men and women are against double standards that favour men, but support some double standards that favour women.

Finally. To address the "no true feminist" argument.

As feminists, many feminists harm others because of their feminism. In fact, the worldview and belief system that drives the most powerful and influential members of the feminist movement is a worldview and a belief system that thrives on pedestalizing women as a group and demonizing men as a group. Your support for the harm they do derives simply from you describing yourself as feminist and therefore projecting an impression of unity of purpose with them.

There is no way for a lawmaker or public policy maker to know that you, as an individual feminist, disagree with a specific change demanded by a feminist group or organization. Because you call yourself the same thing they do, the unity of purpose is implicit. Your voice is added, with that of every other feminist, in support of what those people, speaking from their intellectual authority as feminists, wish to enact or change. That lawmaker or policy maker is not interested in getting to know every feminist as an individual. Even if he/she was, they wouldn't have the time to do so.

There is very little of what I would call "policing the movement" coming from within feminism itself. NOW and other groups get up to some seriously fucked up shit, with very little criticism directed their way from other feminists. That silence, combined with your entirely voluntary labeling of yourself as a feminist means that you, in effect, are supporting them in their efforts to, say, erode father's rights even more, or to block the establishment of domestic violence shelters for men, or whatever bigotry they're up to this week. While you may adamantly oppose them in these efforts, within the privacy of your own thoughts, or within the context of who you are as an individual speaking to other individuals, you are still, in a very practical sense, supporting them. Unless you are there in the room with them saying, "Wait an effing minute! I don't agree with these people! This is wrongheaded and harmful!" it is only natural for lawmakers and policy makers to assume that the feminists in front of them who are speaking as feminists are also speaking for you.

And although it is your luxury to define what feminism means to you, it is the most active, powerful and visible members of feminism that get to define what feminism means to the rest of the world. You can't revoke their membership (it's a self-applied label), and they hold the political reins of your movement. There is no way for you to kick them out. The only way to unequivocally dissociate yourself and your beliefs from them and their beliefs (and the harm they do) is by calling yourself something different.

https://ms-demeanor.tumblr.com/post/631349536442417152/i-have-a-friend-who-is-constantly-racked-with

I realized that men tend to be a lot nicer to women compared to how they treat men, most of the times because they hope to receive some romantic attention back. This is especially more observable online. An "e-girl" asking for help, suddenly multiple guys jump in to help her, and if a guy asks for the same help, these same guys do not help him/look aside. I know not all of the guys are like this, but I am scared that it is a very common occurrence. It just feels like guys are thinking with their other head all the time and always thinking about sex/romantic relationship, and I feel very disgusted by this. It is almost self sabotaging, they give so much attention to so many women at the same time, then they complain that dating is hard/they don't get messages back, after creating an artificial competition between themselves by "shooting their shot" to every girl they see.

I decided to post this here because, I believe in gender egalitarianism. No one should be treated nicer/worse in society because of their gender, and I am disgusted by people who does this discrimination. I also think this whole thing could be related to hidden misogyny, thinking, "women are weak and they need our help". What do you all think?

Racism, sexism, whatever; stripping the group you fear of rights and forcing them into a position of dependance is done out of fear that they will A) do the same to you or B) outperform you on equal footing. Nothing screams weakness as loudly as the oppressor.

It’s a very simple concept, but one which has been glossed over in favor of pushing ideological views.

In essence, there is an idea among some that in order to be more equal, some others must have their rights diminished.

This idea is antithetical to what equality actually is… and the test for it is fairly simple:

Take any argument which impacts two or more groups of people, and apply the argument to all the individual groups. If the argument takes on a negative connotation with any application, then the argument itself is unequal and application of the argument would likely strengthen inequality, rather than address it.

There are many issues we need to address… but in our pursuit of righting wrongs, it’s important to recognize the flaws inherent in some offered solutions.

Certainly no solution should ever dehumanize anyone in an effort to achieve parity.

Humanity should be recognized in all groups involved. Then, and perhaps only then, can we say a step toward equality has been achieved.

https://www.facebook.com/egalitarianismhome/posts/2310710442292874

I wanted to share a comment I found elsewhere on the topic of the man v bear debate that went around.

Yeah the problem is women are treated as universally harmless, so they don't really understand the consequences of being treated as a predator with no proof. They've never experienced it, so they assume it's not an issue, and fixate on their own problems.

They've never had an unreasonable woman accuse them of being a pedophile for the crime of walking their daughter to school without a woman present. They've never felt the horror of seeing fear in someone's eyes, and realizing they're about to hurt you. They've never been isolated because "they can't be trusted".

Women simply have never had to live with the consequences of other's irrational fears, or the sort of toxic strategies women often use to make themselves feel safe.

Fear is a lot like anger, in that while it's valid, unpleasant, and you can't control it, it also doesn't justify acting against someone. You can just as easily hurt someone in fear as anger, and women often feel entitled to having their fear appeased.

Women learn to fear angry men. Men learn to fear paranoid women.

It's a little rough around the edges. But I think the point is a good one.

Women largely don't understand the social ostracism and danger of being labelled like this. They don't understand how much it actually hurts us because they've never lived as men to experience the cultural and societal pressures and attitudes that make these accusations physically dangerous to us.

My fiancee and I recently had a heated discussion about the whole man v bear discussion where we came to an understanding.

She was concerned that I wasn't hearing hers and women's fears.

And what I said was that I did. But by being born and raised as a man. Violence has long since been normalized for me. That if we both met some angry dude in a dark alley. It's me who's expected to fight him and defend her.

I also reminded her of how the police responded when I called them after I had a gun pointed at me. Vs how they responded when she told them about it.

I was advised to just ignore the person who did it despite them harassing me. And she was given a rundown on how to file a restraining order and what legal avenues she could pursue.

Or even how I had nerve damage in my feet from working in a shitty carwash and getting trench foot and a number of other issues because I as a man was just expected to "man up" and deal with the pain.

And how this all comes together to say that I don't intend to dismiss womens experiences. But with how normalized the harm I've experienced has been. That fear is my average. I've just been conditioned to "man up" and deal with it.

There are two proposals how to resolve to the problem of misandrist consription aka miliary slavery - gender neutral draft/conscription or abolition?

In my opinion, gender neutral draft is way better that draft for men only. It's fair, not sexist at least. But I suppose that men and women won't be treated equally anyway. Israel is a sample of it. men have to serve longer, and only men can be sent to the frontline.

Recently some Ukrainian MPs proposed to mobilize women, but... BUT for the front home.

It is assumed that women can only be in safe positions. Which also means that the men who currently occupy such positions will be sent to the front against their will. Therefore, I propose a complete abolition. And also the recognition of forced mobilization as a war crime. Civilian men did not choose this. And this is the same exposure of the civilian population to risk during military operations.

What do you think?

https://artofgender.substack.com/p/misandry-2-electric-boogaloo?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Trump literally was found civilly liable for sexual assault and brags about it, and yet most of the commentors on this sub seem to think women are the problem. Get your priorities straight, people!

All the posts I see these days are about the oppression of men. Then when you look at the posters history pretty much all it is is posting and commenting on men’s rights subs.

I believe in men’s rights as much as I believe in women’s. But that is the point. There is balance in that. Most posts here now have no balance. It has been taken over by people with an agenda that goes against the very principles of egalitarianism.

It makes me sad that I have to leave a sub which was once one of the few places we can talk about equality for all.

When I was a young man I saw myself as a proud feminist. I thought, "what kind of person wouldn't stand up for women's rights?" I had no problem with wearing pink t-shirts, having female friends, or stereotypically feminine interests like playing princess or having tea parties. Though, as I got older, borders seemed to vanish. I even remember playing barbies with my neighbors so much, one year I asked my parents for a barbie dream carriage for Christmas.

And they got it for me. They were super progressive about this stuff. But I was also bullied heavily for a number of reasons. And come high school, there was an elective course on women's studies offered. And the girls enrolled in it. And used what they learned as a bludgeon to bully the guys they didn't like. It wasn't just that they disliked the guy who asked them out awkwardly. Now, he was a creepy entitled misogynist objectifying them. Any guy they didn't like who talked about girls and his attraction to them (as hormone-filled teenage boys do) were labeled as sexual abusers and predators. The message we got was clear: "As a man, you do NOT show your interest unless she expresses hers first."

And remember. Men shoulder almost the entirety of social pressure to approach and initiate. We're not given a manual on how to do this. So it's going to be awkward sometimes. Please don't hate us or shame us for that. as a guy we don't get the luxury to wait on the sidelines for someone to approach us. For the most part girls will not initiate dates or ask us out or approach first So if we don't want to be alone. we have to approach and initiate. And we have to do so right off the bat. Lest we be seen "hiding our intentions" That constant rejection shit grinds us down. And some guys don't react well after dealing with that. and lash out. And I'm sorry for that.

But it's not like we want it to be this way. In a more egalitarian society this imbalance wouldn't exist. Women wouldn't feel restrained for whatever reason to not openly express their interest and men wouldn't feel the constant need to always have this "i have to impress the girl" mode on. I internalized this for years and it pushed me into a number of abusive and manipulative "friendships" with people who used me. Because all we're left with for ways to express interest is being nice or being deceptive. (This probably wasn't the intended result, but I have never seen the people teaching these classes offer a disclaimer that men weren't the enemy or that male sexuality wasn't horrible, or that women weren't the victim.)

And I dealt with the results of internalizing that up until just a few years ago. I watched everybody around me build families. Find love. Struggle through tough times with a partner to lean on. All the while I had nothing. Because nobody was expressing interest in me and I was terrified of doing so first. I struggled through poverty. Through mental health issues that nearly had me taking my own life. I noticed something else. The friends I had, that were struggling like me, they had help. When one of my guy friends lost his job, his girlfriend and now wife took over the bills while he was looking. When another friend was struggling to make ends meet while trying to go back to school to better themselves, her boyfriend worked so she could study.

I had none of that because I was given the message that my desires and sexuality were disgusting and unwanted and I internalized it. And who wouldn't internalize it in my shoes? These people were academic authorities, sounding so self-assured and believable, with scientific-sounding arguments and fire in their eyes. Up until this year, I struggled with this issue until I finally snapped. I decided that I was going to stop caring about being a monster., I was going to find somebody online and just push my "toxic desires" onto them. I was going to pressure them with my predatory sexuality and stop giving a fuck about if they thought I was creepy. And so I did. And they reciprocated my interest. They WANTED my interest, they LIKED that I desired them sexually. We hooked up. And then we dated. It didn't last very long. But it still happened. And we're still friends. And I'm not the only one who has noticed this.

These are great reads on their own if you want. But I'll single out the most important bits for what I'm saying here. https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/106549627991/that-scott-aaronson-thing

I’m a woman. I’m gay. By the time I realized that second thing, I’d internalized that all attraction to women was objectifying and therefore evil. I spent years of my life convinced that it was coercive to make it clear to girls that I wanted to date them, lest they feel pressured. So I could only ask them out with a clear conscience if I was in fact totally indifferent to their answer. I still decide I’m abusive pretty frequently, on the basis of things like ‘i want to kiss her, which is what an abuser would want’ and 'i want to be special to her, which is what an abuser would want’. I internalized these messages from exposure to feminist memes, norms, and communities. It was feminist messages, not homophobic ones, that made it hardest for me to come to terms with my sexuality. It wasn’t intentional. But it happened. And it has happened by now to enough people that 'well obviously you’re misinterpreting it’ is starting to wear thin as an excuse. Lots and lots of people are misinterpreting the way I did. By and large, we’re vulnerable people. Very often we’re mentally ill or disabled people.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2091#comment-326664

Here’s the thing: I spent my formative years—basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s—feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. And furthermore, that the people who did these things to me would somehow be morally right to do them—even if I couldn’t understand how. You can call that my personal psychological problem if you want, but it was strongly reinforced by everything I picked up from my environment: to take one example, the sexual-assault prevention workshops we had to attend regularly as undergrads, with their endless lists of all the forms of human interaction that “might be” sexual harassment or assault, and their refusal, ever, to specify anything that definitely wouldn’t be sexual harassment or assault. I left each of those workshops with enough fresh paranoia and self-hatred to last me through another year.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070917210115/http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2007/06/19/when-you-have-feminist-guilt-you-dont-need-catholic-guilt/

Feminism can exacerbate a man’s shyness, anxiety, self-consciousness, and guilt exactly because he is working very hard not to be sexist, and because he is sympathetic to feminism. Just as some workers, even conscientious ones, have trouble getting work done out of a perfectionistic fear of making mistakes, some men, even pro-feminist men or proto-feminist men, have trouble interacting with women out of a fear of making what feminism defines as mistakes (it doesn’t help that feminism’s criteria for acceptable behavior and so ambiguous and vague, and fail to clearly distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, but that’s a whole different post). And to sum them all up. A quote about all three.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/

Scott Aaronson is a straight guy, and he’s saying feminist shaming tactics have made it worse. I’m an asexual heteroromantic guy, and I’m telling her feminist shaming tactics have made it worse. Unitofcaring is a lesbian woman, and she’s saying feminist shaming tactics have made it worse. HughRistik, who is some sort of weird metrosexual something (I mock him because I love him), is telling her feminist shaming tactics have made it worse. A giant cry has arisen from shy awkward men, lesbians, bisexuals, whatever of the world is saying “NO, SERIOUSLY, FEMINIST SHAMING TACTICS ARE MAKING THIS WORSE”

"Blame patriarchy, not feminism", "men oppress other men, not women do it". What did a feminist and a former Prime Minister of Finland Sanna Marin do to abolish male only conscription?! Maybe plenty of other female leaders did anything?

Btw, Finland had several female prime ministers who also did nothing to abolish conscription aka military slavery or make it gender neutral at least, like their neighbors Sweden and Norway.

What have female leaders of Denmark, Switzerland, Estonia, Thailand, South Korea, Brazil done to abolish conscription aka military slavery or make it gender neutral at least.

And that's not all. Female president of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaite pushed forward restitution of conscription in 2015, and ofc for men only. Female prime minister of Latvia Evika Silina did the same in 2023.

Plenty of women in Ukrainian parliament voted for male only mobilization and plenty of ordinary women support it.

Feminists say all the time that feminism is a movement for gender equality. This is very against the principle of gender equality.

In this case they shouldn't say "Blame patriarchy, not feminism", "men oppress other men, not women", "feminism a movement for gender equality".

Moreover, men's rights activists could revolt against it, but feminists have been cancelling MRA with slurs like all of them are far right, fascists, incels, homophobes, transphobes. While it's European toxic feminism is rapidly becoming homophobic and transphobic.

All these claims could be valid in 1925, but not in 2025. Women actively take part in discrimination against men and should be accountable for this as well. It's based on aforementioned facts. Maybe you know other samples like this. Write them below.

It's really obvious that posts in this sub are geared toward one particular perceived struggle in society, but I'm curious as to which area of power imbalance do the members here think is actually the greatest. I'm not asking about which side of the imbalance is greater, just the category that has the greatest difference in power.

View Poll

Reflections on gender equality

My core belief is that there is no difference in the level of intelligence or ability between male and female students, except for their different physiological make-up and the difference in the level of hormones in their bodies.

Why there are more famous male scientists than female, there are multiple factors that combine to create this result. A large part of the reason is the social indoctrination of the problem scientists are the activities of the tip of the pyramid, male and female students in the process of climbing to the tip of the pyramid, the voices they hear are completely different, for the male students, society will encourage him to go upward, the family will provide a great deal of support to push him to continue to go up, and the female students in the process, the voices they hear are pulling her downward around the environment is always encouraging her to take the easier road, the Don't have to fight so hard and work so hard, just rely on others, so there are millions of girls in the process did not resist such temptation, lost in the sugar-coated, and even use the rules to make it more difficult for other girls who want a fair chance.

Let's not say that men and women are just equal intellectually in terms of ability, even if there is a difference in the ceiling, it's not people's turn to spell out their talent with the level of effort they put in nowadays. The vast majority of jobs in society can be done well with deliberate practice.

I don't want my daughter to grow up in an atmosphere that discriminates against women's abilities. I don't want her father to teach her things like, “You can't do it, don't do it,” “You can't do it well because you're a girl,” “You don't have to work hard, just rely on others,” etc. I don't want her father to teach her things like, “You can't do it because you're a girl. I don't want her father to teach her that “you can't do it, don't do it”, “you can't do it because you're a girl”, “you don't have to work hard, you can just rely on other people” and so on, which will easily limit her unlimited possibilities.

I hope that my other half is someone who respects girls, recognizes the equality of men and women, and fully supports a girl to keep moving forward in her work.

Honestly, I'm sick of these stereotype about mothers loving their sons and raising their daughters. There are a lot of sons in the world who are unloved or raised harshly. For one, boys are more likely to face corporal punishment in many countries. Secondly, studies also show that parents tend to adopt daughters as outside children more than sons. Thirdly, sons are also expected to be tough aswell. Seriously though, I don't even know why that's a saying that "Mothers love their sons and raise their daughters" when a lot of sons are unloved, expected to be tough plus they are corporally punished at a higher rate whether the punishment is mild or severe. And what's even weird is, the main perpetrators of corporal punishment are mothers. Besides while we're at it let's not act like many mothers don't coddle their daughters aswell. Like when people keep talking about Toxic Men, it'sbecause they are coddled as a child but when Toxic Women are mentioned, it's ALWAYS because of some unknown child abuse. Besides coddling has no gender. There are also many mothers who hate their sons or raise them or love their daughters more. Many mothers also coddle their daughters. Recently, a 5 year old girl was throwing stuff around in the supermarket and mom was normalizing it. Back it 2017, kyandrea cooks mom wailed when she was arrested which obviously means, she loved her so much and didn't raise her well. Recently 6 young girls killed a homeless man but the mom of one of them tried to defend her daughter saying she was shot to her her sympathy. McKenzie Shirilla was found guilty recently and her parents defended her. A 10 year old girl stabbed and killed an infant boy and the mom said it was an accident. Jamie Komoroskis parents tried to bail her out of jail after she was found guilty. So at this point people need to stop saying "parents coddle their sons" when many do the same with daughters instead and don't raise them. I know a friend in a family of 4 and her little sister is favored over him. Daughters being coddled by parents or mothers is something that needs to be talked more about.