The Red Pill

[vendic]

Ok, so I'm going to do a long post on serious misreporting by media. We can put this down to all sorts of things, ignorance, deliberate manipulation, lies, ideological bias etc. I personally don't care, I'm just showing what I did to verify this one article's facts, using their own sources (since they must have read them if they are quoting them). I'm doing this because I am now in the habit of not taking any author seriously unless I verify their sources too. If their sources use sources, I do that too. I repeat till I get to the original source of the material, a legitimate study, if I can.

The article I'll check today, it's just purely random at this point so it could go either way. I might end up finding this article is actually fair and balanced. The odds however are not really in their favor since every single article I have ever read has been factually wrong or at best misleading.

The title is: "Dad's day in court. The perception that family law is unfair to fathers is not exactly true", by Hanna Rosin.
Article

Ok, the first problem. The article title has the conclusion already. This pre-supposes that they are right. Sure this is acceptable, if they actually have the data to back that assertion up with some hard facts. Lets see if they do or don't.

The Author wrote the book, "The end of men". It's actually a book claiming that women have won the gender war and are now ahead of men. Hmm, maybe I picked an article that might make me look like a fool. Ok, yeah, I know, I don't need any article to do that!.

But is this actually true? “There’s a real perception—even women share it—that courts are unfair to fathers,” says Ira Ellman, a custody expert at Arizona State University. But in fact the great revolution in family court over the past 40 years or so has been the movement away from the presumption that mothers should be the main, or even sole, caretakers for their children. Individual cases like Patric’s may raise novel legal issues, but on the whole, courts are fair to men, particularly men who can afford a decent lawyer.

So you need a decent lawyer if you're a man. Does the woman need one too, or are you implying that the system is set up to favor the woman and the man needs a decent lawyer to overcome it?
**For the record, this is directly contradicted by the only study that the article quotes, where the legal representation went from 80% to 69% and the number of shared custody outcomes increased. IOW, you get a lawyer, she then gets one and then it favors the woman. If you both don't use a lawyer, you're more likely to get more visitation rights if you're the father.

There has been a great revolution in the last 40 years. Ok, lets see some data...

Pretty rapidly, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone explain in their new book, Marriage Markets: How Inequality Is Remaking the American Family, the rules became more “gender neutral.”

*end of source trail. Author expects reader to by a $19 book and read it.

And the vast majority of states moved toward an assumption of joint custody. In 2000, for example, a new law in Wisconsin directed courts to maximize the time children spent with both parents.

* No sources at all.

According to one of the most thorough surveys of child custody outcomes, which looked at Wisconsin between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5. And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support.

Claimed it was the one of the most thorough surveys in child custody outcomes. Just from one State. That itself is a problem because there is so much state to state variation, but lets look further into the claim. The article did link the study so I went to that.
*The second claim was sourced to a Reuters article that noted a survey of lawyers indicated that 56% of them noticed an increase in mothers paying child support. No sources, no data on the number of women actually in a position to pay child support but we can derive that from the data below. Since the vast majority of custody cases go to women, the number of women paying child support can only be views as a percentage change as it is not possible to have vast numbers of women paying child support when they are the ones with custody. While they named who did the survey, the AAML has literally hundreds of articles that one would need to look through to find the data they are referring to. This is ridiculous and just plain lazy reporting.

The article states that currently, women get sole custody in 45.7% of cases. Then goes on to claim that in just ten years, the number of joint custody cases doubled to 30%
That sounds awesome, till you actually understand what that means.
Ten years ago, mothers had sole custody in 60% of cases and equal shared custody was 15%.
They don't specify the rest. You have to dig into the statistics yourself.
Primary mother: 11%
Primary father: 1.3%
Sole father: 7.5%

So ten years ago, women got pretty much full custody in about 71% of cases, equal custody in 15% of cases.
Fathers got pretty much full custody in 8.8% of cases and obviously 15% equal.
That's pretty skewed. Lets see how it improved.

Ten years later, it becomes pretty much full custody in 59% for the mother (46% sole custody), equal custody at 30%
for men, pretty much full custody is 8.9%, equal custody is 30%

While it has improved, I doubt anyone can say that it is a massive thing to write home about.
But wait, that was only for divorce cases. Fathers are legally held liable for children out of wedlock so what are the figures here?
These are actual adjudicated paternity cases so the fathers wanted to share in the upbringing of the child.
Women sole custody: 97% vs men 1.3%, the balance is equally shared (0.9%) and 0.1% primary mother.
Yep, that's pretty bad. Lets see the dramatic improvement ten years later.

Women sole custody: 91% vs 2% for men. A slight drop in women and a slight increase in men, overall, a serious miss-balance still.
Primary mother: 2%, so about 93% awarded to women, vs 2.1% for men.
The main difference is that now, 4.5% of men get shared custody. Considering men are fully responsible for the child support, want to be a parent, that is still a huge mess.

The article then went off on a tangent:

The marriage ended when the father told the mother that he was having an affair with a colleague. In another era, the mother would have gotten sole custody of the children and alimony, but not much child support. Now, “the mother’s ability to retain custody depends on her willingness to support the father’s involvement,” Cahn and Carbone write. In this case, the mother accused the father of abuse and neglect. When the investigators could not confirm the charges, the court awarded the father 50 percent custody and made the mother’s custody contingent on her working to repair the relationship with the father.

Not sure what to do with that. The link to the article failed and it's pretty much one case that seems to have gone about right.

So was the article fair and balanced?

The articles sources show that fathers get a raw deal in divorce cases (59% vs 9%), but, in paternity cases outside of wedlock, the fathers virtually have a consistent fail: (93% vs 2%)

The title said: "The perception that family law is unfair to fathers is not exactly true"
Not sure how 59% vs 9% of divorces, favoring women and 93% vs 2% favoring women in paternity cases shows that the above statement is not exactly true. I call it a flat out load of shit.

So there you go. That's what I do when I read articles now.

[geonuc]

...A practicing law firms opinion...

I don't want to jump into this too far but I will say after reading that link that you need to find another law firm to use to support your arguments. That article is an embarrassment to the legal profession.

Really?

rofl
I'm not laughing at you, just loved your response.

The guy that wrote the article:

Stephen D. Lombardi who has practiced civil trial litigation (personal injury lawyer-litigator, accidents, construction site injuries including death and workers’ compensation cases) for over 35 years. He holds a law license in Iowa and Florida.

He is a practicing lawyer.
What has the world come to if you can't even trust a lawyer anymore! lol

Nothing to do with trust. And he may well be a fine lawyer. However, based on that one article, I think he sucks at explaining legal issues in layman's terms. If he even wrote it, as opposed to having a summer intern do it.

[vendic]

Nothing to do with trust. And he may well be a fine lawyer. However, based on that one article, I think he sucks at explaining legal issues in layman's terms. If he even wrote it, as opposed to having a summer intern do it.

I think he wrote that to target his customers, men who aren't that educated and have been screwed over. If he wrote something legalese it would just serve to isolate him from his customer base. So one could argue he has a vested interest in it.

[vendic]

Sorry, I've been posting in general rather than that specific case.

I can stick to that case though. I'll sum it up pretty easily.
I am pro choice. Men should have the right to choose who they support unless they are biologically responsible for them.
I believe that a man who is not the biological father of a child should have a choice through the entire child's life if he wants to support that child or not.
In short, I believe in a non biological fathers right of choice if he wants to, or not, to support that child to full term (22 years).
The exact same way I believe it is a woman's choice if she wants to abort a pregnancy.

I don't entirely agree, because, adoption. I just think you have to be very careful in the language you use.

Adopting means that you are 100% aware that the child is not yours and you chose to take responsibility for that child anyway. The adoption process binds you to the child through the adopting parents consent and choice. I'm pro choice. So I have no issue with that.
The difference is that these "accused" fathers were told that they were the biological father but were not. Two totally different things. You can't legitimately give consent when that consent is based on false information.

It gets even more confusing because if you are not the biological father you still pay child support. However, if you file for custody, you can't get it because it's not your child. The net result is women raising kids based on the back of a guy who is not the father and has no rights raising that child.

Even if you want to take care of the child, and it is your biological child, but you are not married, trying to get custody results in a 4.5% equal custody rate and a 2% sole father rate. Yet, the father is still responsible for the child support. So claiming it is all for the benefit of the child is clearly not how reality works. It's almost all about the mother and the money.

The data doesn't lie.

[geonuc]

Nothing to do with trust. And he may well be a fine lawyer. However, based on that one article, I think he sucks at explaining legal issues in layman's terms. If he even wrote it, as opposed to having a summer intern do it.

I think he wrote that to target his customers, men who aren't that educated and have been screwed over. If he wrote something legalese it would just serve to isolate him from his customer base. So one could argue he has a vested interest in it.

Not to belabor the point, but no.The alternative to writing crappy layman's stuff is not to write it in legalese. The alternative is to write a non-crappy layman's piece. Plenty of lawyers can do that.

[vendic]

Fair enough.

[vendic]

An nice absurd articlefrom Australia, about a feminist woman who has to come to grips with being pregnant with a boy.

But I know what these thoughts were now. They were a manifestation of the same feelings I've had a few times over the past year. In this patriarchal world, this world where even the best men (and women, for that matter) engage in casual and ingrained sexism, how will I raise a son who respects me the way a daughter would? Who sees women as just like him? As just human beings?

I look at my gorgeous baby boy and my love for him swells my heart, but makes we worry whether I, as his mother, will be able to counter the devaluing of women that is obviously so prevalent in our world.

People are constantly telling me "boys are easier" to raise (casual and ingrained sexism, anyone?), but I think they are much harder. How do you raise a white, middle-class boy not to think his own experience is the default experience of the world?

The original article had this but was later changed.

There were dark moments in the middle of the night (when all those dark thoughts come), when I felt sick at the thought of something male growing inside me.

It now reads:

There were dark moments in the middle of the night (when all those dark thoughts come), when I felt sick with worry thinking about how I would go about raising a son.

source: https://archive.is/BYg2v

And she calls men sexists.


Poor kid...

[Rommie]

You realize you sound exactly like GJ right now, right? Posting random things from nutters where we're all just going to say "yeah, she's nuts, and I don't think she's right, why are you wasting your time reading what idiots think and assuming they're representative of anyone?"

[Tarragon]

The state was set up and is still largely run by a Christianist patriarchy. A man takes care of his own. And if it's not his own, then he should be punished for not sexing or beating his wife enough to keep her faithful. And if they're not married, then they be fornicatin and deserve whatever they get, because kids are a punishment, except when they're not, and only the preacherman can tell you which you deserved and got.

I have a problem with the whole patriarchy theory. A few actually.
Firstly, the theory is used to explain how men have been exploiting women for centuries.
But that doesn't reconcile with the fact that men are not exactly getting a good deal out of it when we look at the statistics.
If patriarchy theory wants to be taken seriously, they should be more specific, it's more likely that powerful men get the good deals out of it. The average male is screwed by it just like the average woman is (just in different ways) and claiming it's all men that have an advantage is insane.

What theory? Feminist Theory? Aristotle's theory?

Patriarchy is a hierarchy. Archeology suggests it arose with hierarchy at the neolithic transformation, when people changed from hunter-gatherer nomads (evidence suggests they were more egalitarian) and organized into settlements with an agricultural economy. Of course, it's a few men at the top with lots of men under their thumb, that was the point. (Both the point of Patriarchy from its prehistoric origins in hierarchy and the point of my comment.)

Part of the issue, I suspect, is that the US has a hodgepodge of laws, with older patriarchal laws being changed to support different ideas of patriarchy (due to various different religious ideals, immigration history, culture, etc) and ideas that conflict with patriarchy. When certain Americans say they are losing the country, this is part of what they are referring to. Love it or hate it, patriarchy was comprehensive, and what's replacing it is a series of dysfunctional, competing ideas that push people apart instead of developing a single system.

Who's claiming that it's all men that have the advantage? Under an actual system of patriarchy this would be true, as every man would still be superior to any woman. A similar argument was used to promote slavery in the Southern USA, saying that no matter how bad a social or economic life a white man had, he still had someone beneath him to kick around. In a full-on patriarchal (or slavery) system, that's not window dressing, it's the cultural touchstone that gives and demands a man rise to fulfill his role as master. After all, hierarchy isn't just kings and serfs, they always need middle management.

[vendic]

You realize you sound exactly like GJ right now, right? Posting random things from nutters where we're all just going to say "yeah, she's nuts, and I don't think she's right, why are you wasting your time reading what idiots think and assuming they're representative of anyone?"

OUCH! rofl
Technically, GJ posted crazy shit he believed, I posted crazy shit I don't.

Only one article was crazy anyway. The other that I analysed is actually pretty typical of mainstream media at this point regarding men's issues. Feel free to start checking yourself. I did, SFC did. It's quite eye opening.

I'm more interested in the fact that the article was modified after it was published to make it sound not as man hating.
Oddly enough, there are men that quoted the original article being accused of lying because people researched it by going to the source and the source was changed without them knowing. So now, people that were quoting the original article are being accused of lying and are losing their impartiality and respect from their readers.

Yet another one I now have to consider. So now I will have to look up archives of articles in case they were messed with. I'll note that the current article does not state that it was changed.

[vendic]

What theory? Feminist Theory? Aristotle's theory?

The feminist theory of patriarchy. Sorry, I just thought that was implicit given the thread we are in.

Who's claiming that it's all men that have the advantage?

Feminist patriarchal theory is. Lots of very high profile prominent feminists hold this view. They are in media, government and the education system. They subscribe that all women are disadvantaged by all men. That men always have it better than women when compared evenly to the station they reside. Working class men have it better than working class women. Poor men have it better than poor women. Rich men have it better than rich women etc.

Look at the protests in Universities. White males in particular are blamed for the patriarchal system and are oppressing women. They believe that males are rigging the system to the advantage of all males at the expense of all females.

You can see this in their arguments too. A slight infraction against a woman is something that needs to be addressed, but, a mortal wound for a man is dismissed. This is because of the firm belief that men already have it better all the time.

e.g.
Mansplaining, manspreading, manteruption, microaggression.
These are all being addressed very vocally and publicly.

Men's suicide rate vs women's : about 75% to 25%
Not addressed, when it's brought up it is dismissed as MRA propaganda.

Men's work place deaths: 93% vs 7% for women.
As I wrote in this thread, they are literally trying to address about 25 women a year being shot by partners in the work place, while ignoring the over 4200 men that die each year at work.

Men getting very little rates of custody for children is met with, "cry me a river"

Men being domestically abused at similar rates to women are being dismissed as lies, evidence to the contrary is ignored.

Men not having access to support shelters etc are being ignored and justified.

Men's homeless rates, about 80% is seen as a non issue, there are many women's refuges, few men's refuges.

Male graduation is now 40% vs 60% for women, yet there are women's services to help them get educated, but none for men. There are women's safe spaces in schools, not men's.

There are estimated about 50,000 men in prison any given day because of child support infractions. They are regarded as "dead beat dads". You saw the statistics I have given regarding custody rates and the way the system is set up, this is a problem. Percentage wise, you are about 8 times more likely to go jail if you are a male vs female if you are not paying your child support. No one wants to acknowledge it.

The jail time for the same crime is 66% longer for men as it is for women. This is ignored.

That's just a small sample of the institutionalized* differences in how men are treated differently to women. The complaints that women have are social/individual constructs, as opposed to institutionalized constructs. e.g. microaggression, catcalling etc. I currently am not aware of any institutionalized issues that advantage men over women. If there are, I'd love to know what. That is not to say their isn't sexism around, it's just that it is illegal to be sexist against women (it's ok if it's sexist for women) and is enforceable by law. The same does not apply to men and is evidenced in the system itself and the way it treats men vs women for the same things.

Because my friend, it's a patriarchal system designed to oppress women, so women are the ones that need the support.
They believe it, have convinced most people it's true, they have affected policy based on that belief, and the above is the result.
Everyone is equal. Some are just more equal than others

[vendic]

Since I brought up institutionalized sexism, I figured I'd also do a big search to see if I can find anything.

I found this

This is what this lady thinks it is:

What is institutional sexism? It’s a set of rules — both overt and implied — that discriminate against women and afford better opportunities to men. Institutional sexism shows itself in very simple ways.

At work, companies create job requirements and reward employees for a set of skills and abilities that only men seem to possess.
In our criminal justice system, it’s requiring rape victims to jump through countless hurdles to prove that they said no and didn’t really mean yes — even just for a moment.
And in the HR technology start-up community that is rooted in Silicon Valley and London, institutional sexism rears its ugly head when men who look and fit the “part” are entrusted with millions of dollars while women have to bend over backwards to prove that they can manage a checkbook, won’t get pregnant during the launch of a company and will work long hours and stick with an idea long after the first round of funding hits the books.

So lets tackle it one thing at a time.
Firstly, you'll notice her definition, that it's against women.
There can't be sexism against men. Even though I have shown in previous posts that there is quite a lot of it around. You just have to be willing to take the blinkers off.

At work, companies create job requirements and reward employees for a set of skills and abilities that only men seem to possess.

This one honestly confuses me. We are constantly told that women are equal to men. So how does one have a set of skills and abilities that only men seem to possess? Doesn't that implicitly mean that men aren't equal but have a unique set of skills and abilities? If they have a unique set of abilities that only men seem to possess and they are useful to the company, then isn't it something that the company would want to exploit? e.g. coal miners.

In our criminal justice system, it’s requiring rape victims to jump through countless hurdles to prove that they said no and didn’t really mean yes — even just for a moment.

Now I'm no lawyer, stop laughing geonuc.
But, isn't there a burden of proof involved in criminal cases?
The reason rape is so hard to deal with isn't because rape is illegal, it's because sex between men and women isn't.
It's not proving that a woman had sex that is the problem, it is proving that it was non consensual sex that is the problem.
The easy way to fix the system is to make sex illegal between men and women regardless of reason unless they go to a safe house for conception purposes. Then, any sex can be classified as being illegal and men can be punished far more easily. All that needs to be established is that sex had taken place.
The harder way is to establish a base line of reasoning that women can never give consent, thus all sex becomes illegal. Defaulting to rape regardless of any circumstances. This is what one section of feminism already tried to push for. Thankfully, most people are not that gullible.
But, lets look at the criminal justice system for cases of sexism outside of the boundaries that simply view it from a female perspective, what then? Well, then there are huge discrepancies for incarceration rates, time served for similar offenses, mandatory arresting in cases of DV, always the male. We sure can see a problem there. So yes, there is institutionalized sexism, but it's not what you think it is.

And in the HR technology start-up community that is rooted in Silicon Valley and London, institutional sexism rears its ugly head when men who look and fit the “part” are entrusted with millions of dollars while women have to bend over backwards to prove that they can manage a checkbook, won’t get pregnant during the launch of a company and will work long hours and stick with an idea long after the first round of funding hits the books.

lol
wtf?
I won't even bother as it should be self apparent.

[Tarragon]

What theory? Feminist Theory? Aristotle's theory?

The feminist theory of patriarchy. Sorry, I just thought that was implicit given the thread we are in.

Who's claiming that it's all men that have the advantage?

Feminist patriarchal theory is. Lots of very high profile prominent feminists hold this view. They are in media, government and the education system. They subscribe that all women are disadvantaged by all men. That men always have it better than women when compared evenly to the station they reside. Working class men have it better than working class women. Poor men have it better than poor women. Rich men have it better than rich women etc.

Calm down, have some dip.

There's a whole context thing going on. That was meant to be meta. As in, "I didn't mention a theory, and I'm not claiming x or y (XX or XY?) has the advantage."

I was pointing out historic religious laws that manifest as misogyny. These laws came about before the modern concepts of feminism. It wasn't just the context my comment, but the historical context I was pointing out. There used to be codes for protecting women, not based necessarily on misogyny, but on biology. When Feminists and ant-feminists focus on the present society only in the modern context and forget the root causes that drove the cultural system to evolve, then it's no surprise they can't find common ground.

[vendic]

Calm down, have some dip.
[/quote

Sorry, I really am pretty calm, but it doesn't translate well when sweat is pouring off me in crazy humid windless conditions getting eaten alive by bugs.

There's a whole context thing going on. That was meant to be meta. As in, "I didn't mention a theory, and I'm not claiming x or y (XX or XY?) has the advantage."

I was pointing out historic religious laws that manifest as misogyny. These laws came about before the modern concepts of feminism. It wasn't just the context my comment, but the historical context I was pointing out. There used to be codes for protecting women, not based necessarily on misogyny, but on biology. When Feminists and ant-feminists focus on the present society only in the modern context and forget the root causes that drove the cultural system to evolve, then it's no surprise they can't find common ground.

I agree with you. There is way too much reinterpretation of history, flat out bullshit (on all sides) and because everyone has their own personal facts, those that have a different view are vilified regardless of the legitimacy of their data or logical basis of their argument or more often simply ignored. This happens when the data is not acknowledged, verified or discussed, but any insignificant point that can be used against the person presenting it is thrown their way in an unconscious bias trying to reject the argument. We saw that in this very thread. It's what just about every single legitimate MRA group is experiencing.

e.g. People are now claiming "history", means: His story. When in fact the word story was derived from the Greek word historia, meaning knowledge acquired by investigation. Literally re-writing "history" lol

I'm not anti feminist, I'm anti bigotry, anti hate. If someone subscribes to the view that to them feminism is about equality, I don't have a problem with their view. They do need to look at how it is implemented however to see if their view is the one that is affecting the populace. So when I look at it, I see people claiming it is all about equality, but, the data doesn't support that so I present the data. What someone does with it is up to them. As I'd mentioned, up until I seriously researched it, checking and cross checking all sources, I too subscribed that it was all about equality. I no longer do. Words are different to actions and the actions don't reflect the words.

As an example of the disconnect, the majority (83%) of people in the UK support equality of opportunity for women, but only 7% regard themselves as feminists. There are actually more people who think feminism is irrelevant (9%).
61% believe in women's equality but do not believe in feminism. That shows that the majority of the public do not believe that feminism represents equality anymore.
The figures for the USA are higher but no where near even equity at about 20% who consider themselves as feminists while 83% of people believe in gender equality.

So why the discrepancy?
I believe it's because of the now institutionalized bias that punishes men. Men go through it and women see it when a man they know gets screwed by it. Till it becomes personal it's not really relevant. It's not hard to see it in statistics, but they are being suppressed through protest claiming it is hate speech. If the feminist movement continues to push and even expand this bias, they will just lose more support from the very people they need on their side.

Worst of all, they lose in understanding simple issues so that makes them look like retards, and by association, other feminists too. e.g. manspreading. Where a segment of the feminist movement is upset that men tend to spread their legs more when they sit. They are oblivious to basic mechanics. To top it off, they find this an issue but don't raise any of the serious concerns that affect men and boys. So when they claim feminism is about equality, their actions fail to meet the words.

Then we get men's groups that do spread hate as well. Because that will always help a rational discussion. So yeah, I'm with you on this. Few people seem to be interested in an unbiased look at both arguments. Their idea of debating seems to be shutting down free speech. Because, you know, that always works out for the best.

[vendic]

Back on topic, here is Cassie Jaye doing a talk about her experience making the Red Pill, and what she went through during, and after the filming. It's very good and only 20 minutes.
It also just got released today. I was one of the first people to watch it. If you don't want to watch the movie, you should at least listen to her speak on this short clip.

Cassie Jaye

[SciFi Chick]

That made me cry. I really relate to her journey of learning to listen. Growing up, we used to have a saying about having two ears and one mouth so you can listen more than you speak.

[Tarragon]

Men's Rights advocates might help themselves by changing their rhetoric. The ones I've seen tend to target feminism as the source of the problem instead of laws descended from patriarchy. Some even want to restore patriarchy and those laws. A lot of of the benefits they accuse women of having are promoted by patriarchy under the idea of helping and protecting women because they are less capable.

Many, perhaps most of the people I know who label themselves as feminists believe in equality. Some go further and promote affirmative action to bring balance and/or maintain it once it is achieved. A few go further and promote radical anti-male agendas. However, a lot will say things like changing words that bear resemblance to the male pronoun simply to make a point and to serve as red herrings for their opponents to chase.

[vendic]

Men's Rights advocates might help themselves by changing their rhetoric. The ones I've seen tend to target feminism as the source of the problem instead of laws descended from patriarchy. Some even want to restore patriarchy and those laws. A lot of of the benefits they accuse women of having are promoted by patriarchy under the idea of helping and protecting women because they are less capable.

A lot of them were campaigned by women and then the laws were changed. Trying to change bad laws is often thwarted by feminist groups.
r.e. changing rhetoric. Men's groups have been vilified for over 40 years. It's only a recent thing that some are getting nasty. Warren Farrell for example chaired the women's group NOW for three years in their early history. Then he was asked by the group to start a men's movement to help promote men's issues. He's been vilified ever since. He does not push rhetoric. He is calm, to the point and presents fact based evidence. Yet he is still called a racist, sexist, alt-right spokesperson and is often protested when trying to do a speech.
Oh, feminists have some really serious nut jobs in their ranks. No one dares make the claim that they should change that rhetoric to help themselves. It's that rhetoric that got them where they are. Men were just slow picking that up.
Still, I do agree that their message would be easier to accept if they dialed it down. Then again, as this thread can attest, it makes no real difference when people are already convinced that they are right. Clearly that last comment was directed at one person and it wasn't you.

Many, perhaps most of the people I know who label themselves as feminists believe in equality. Some go further and promote affirmative action to bring balance and/or maintain it once it is achieved. A few go further and promote radical anti-male agendas. However, a lot will say things like changing words that bear resemblance to the male pronoun simply to make a point and to serve as red herrings for their opponents to chase.

I know a lot of people who equate feminism with equality. I used to. Not that long ago really. Then I took a long hard genuine look at the situation and concluded that while there are some, the ones with the loudest mouth's prevail. They affect policy, and the public's view of feminism. Feminists are a minority in the population even though most people believe in equality between the sexes. There is a reason for that.
I'm seeing a lot of former very prominent feminists now reject the movement because they believe it has lost it's way. Likewise, there is a growing list of former glorified women who are now downgraded to the status of "she that cannot be named" by the feminist movement. But the ones that spew hate on men, who make claims like men should be rounded up in prison, they are still supported. Go figure. Those are the actions of a hate group, so I can understand why many people are equating the two.