What expressions are actually okay to use?

I actually reached out to the moderators over in the "banned users corner" (which I can't even access right now, if you can believe it) to ask for some guidance on how to keep my posts here constructive, maybe using more appropriate vocabulary so we can actually have a decent conversation. Sadly, I haven't heard a peep back, so the whole thing is just hanging there, unresolved. I’m looking for a CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE RESPONSE.

Look, I have no intention of walking away from this discussion regarding the erosion of male equality here in America. It feels like there are unconstitutional mandates, regulations, and systemic biases baked right into our government institutions, not to mention the chauvinistic attitudes coming from certain women, various women's advocacy groups, and other "special interest" organizations targeting men.

Since, for some reason that I honestly can't quite wrap my head around, I'm apparently forbidden from grouping all of this under the umbrella term "feminism," I’d like the moderators to step up and provide me with an acceptable alternative.

What specific term am I permitted to use to describe these unconstitutional policies and institutional actions that drive gender inequality against men, as well as the chauvinistic behavior of certain women and their associated interest groups?

Thanks in advance for providing that terminology.

silentridge3 said:What’s the right terminology to use when we're talking about those systemic anti-male regulations, government policies, and biased actions—you know, that whole wave of gender inequality aimed at men? And don't even get me started on the chauvinistic behavior coming from certain women, specific women's advocacy groups, or even those "progressive" organizations that seem to target the male gender specifically? I've been thinking about this all morning while sipping my coffee!

Thanks a million for that expression!

You know, it’s funny how language works! Back home in the rural parts of the Midwest, we have such specific ways of addressing our elders. We have this little term we use for grandmothers—it’s just part of the local flavor, you know? It’s one of those cozy, old-school expressions that really captures the spirit of the countryside. I was just thinking about my own Nana and how much those little linguistic quirks define where we come from! 🤷
Maybe, just maybe, in this particular instance, we could consider tossing in a little prefix—or perhaps a suffix—of the "f***ing" variety? Just a thought! 😁

Fortunately, here in the States, we have similar institutions out there providing refuge and support for men facing abuse. Depending on whether they're government-run or private non-profits, people tend to label them differently—some see them as essential lifelines, while others view them as nothing more than a curse on society!

Oh, my goodness, I just have to vent for a second! Honestly, men are just... ugh, such a struggle sometimes! It feels like we are constantly being pushed into this corner where we’re totally subordinate and everything is just so incredibly unequal. It’s actually quite exhausting! It honestly feels like they’re using these almost sinister, calculated tactics just to dim our light, degrade us, and try to make us feel small. It’s like they’re actively working to dull our spark so we don't shine as bright as we should! Just thinking about it makes me want to grab a huge latte and go for a long walk to clear my head! 😂🤣

silentridge3 said:What’s the right term to use when you're talking about those anti-male regulations, policies, and systemic moves within government agencies that push for gender inequality? I'm also looking for a way to describe that chauvinistic behavior coming from certain women, female-led advocacy groups, and even those "progressive" organizations that seem specifically targeted at men.

Thanks so much for that. I really appreciate it.

I guess it’s officially fair game now. People can basically weaponize anti-counterfeit regulations, government mandates, and the entire weight of the state bureaucracy to push against gender equality for men. On top of that, you've got this wave of chauvinistic behavior coming from certain women, specific women's advocacy groups, and even those "progressive" organizations that seem hell-bent on targeting men. It's all becoming part of the system, I suppose.

I guess I’m also all for actually naming names instead of falling back on that old, tired cliché: "Look, let's be realistic, people in power make mistakes sometimes." It’s just lazy.

Jose White23 said:It’s perfectly legal to lean on unconstitutional decrees, regulations, and systemic maneuvers within government agencies to push for gender inequality against men, alongside the chauvinistic antics of certain women, female-led advocacy groups, and those "special interest" organizations targeting the male gender.

That’s just not how language works, I guess.

I really can't be bothered to type out that whole massive sausage of a sentence every single time.

I mean, why is it that when we talk about racism, we’re actually allowed to just use the word "racism," rather than having to say

"...unconstitutional decrees, regulations, and systemic maneuvers within government agencies aimed at racial inequality for Black Americans, combined with the chauvinistic actions of certain white individuals, white-led groups, and various 'special interest' organizations targeting Black Americans."

?

So, I suppose what I'm wondering is... what would be the actual analogy (in my specific case) for terms like "racist behavior," "a racist," "a racist decision," or "a racist law"?

Thanks in advance for a precise answer, if one even exists.

Look, being a moderator isn't about acting as your personal grammar coach or settling your linguistic debates. As far as my colleague and I are concerned, as long as you aren't breaking the subforum rules, you're fine. Besides, if you actually want to get anything useful out of this platform—which is supposed to be about meaningful discussion—it’s probably better to actually explain your ideas in detail rather than just cramming your entire grievance into a single word.

The issue you're tackling is pretty niche and relatively new. Instead of just stirring up drama, maybe try using this space to actually define the concept. If you can build a term that people actually recognize, you might actually leave a mark. I mean, even a massive concept like racism didn't just pop into existence overnight.

If you're asking me? I'd call it:

Đ

silentridge3 said:That’s not really a phrase.

I can't be expected to type out that entire paragraph every single time.

Why is it acceptable to just use the word racism instead of

"...unconstitutional orders, regulations, and actions within the system (state agencies) aimed at racial inequality against Black people, alongside chauvinistic behavior from certain white individuals, white organizations, and 'so-called' groups toward Black people."

?

What would be the equivalent analogy (in my case) for phrases like "racist action," "a racist," "a racist decision," or "a racist law"?

Thanks in advance for a precise answer.

Everything here is crystal clear; you can go ahead and call a Taylor Swift by her actual name without it being labeled "feminism." Before that, though, we have neo-Nazism. Just as a general, non-personal observation: you simply can't talk to the users on this World Economic Forum like that. I am fully in favor of sanctions for anyone using that kind of language, especially when it's user-to-user. Broken Windows Theory, applied to basically every debate on this site, means they die instantly—it's best to steer clear of all those Nazi analogies.

Not that I enjoy agreeing with the administration, but it looks like we're getting snow again today. 😁

Christian Taylor3 said:Everything here is perfectly clear, I suppose; you can go ahead and call Anne Hathaway by her actual name without it being labeled "feminism" again. Before that, though, it was neo-Nazism. Just as a general rule, not a personal jab: you simply can't talk to people on Reddit like that. I’m totally in favor of sanctions for anyone using that word, especially when users are interacting with one another. Godwin's law, regarding pretty much every debate on this site, is essentially an instant death sentence—it’s best to just steer clear of all those Nazi analogies.

Not that I’m trying to disagree with the admins or anything, but it looks like we might get more snow today. 😁

Wonderful. Since you clearly have so much to say about this whole thing, I assume that besides your standard "Godwin's law" bit (which, if you ask me, most people cite quite inaccurately)...

...you might be able to help me find a better way to phrase things.

Thanks in advance. I’m not looking for more lectures on what I’m forbidden from saying; rather, I’m searching for a proper term that I *can* actually use. When I say "proper," I mean something concise and conversational—maybe a single word or a short two-word phrase—something versatile enough to function as a noun, adjective, or adverb depending on how it's used. And, oh, it should probably actually relate to the subject matter too. So, something like "đ" definitely won't work.

So, basically:

What’s the right term for systemic actions (like laws, regulations, or media coverage) as well as individual ones (like a specific person or an organization) that aim to demean men or practice gender-based discrimination against them?

Again, thanks for the help.

The Backfire Effect of Equality.

Laws and social initiatives aimed at improving women's status in society—which, I guess, often end up resulting in discrimination against men instead.

George Sanders37 said:Backfire equality.

Laws and actions meant to improve women's status in society that actually end up discriminating against men.

Could you maybe elaborate a bit on this "backfire equality" phrase?

At first glance, I guess it seems totally vague regarding what it’s actually referencing (not that I'm an expert or anything). A fitting term should probably point directly to the subject matter, you know, giving an immediate hint about what we're discussing:

a) "gender-based"
b) "anti-male"

Besides, from this brief description, it feels like so many segments of the issue aren't being covered—it's like most of the actual problems don't fit under that umbrella at all.

For instance, how would you include the fact that in 99% of cases, custody goes to mothers while child support goes to fathers during divorces (in those instances where both parents actually want the kids), especially when the systemic activity of certain judges and social workers—which is basically illegal, de facto and de jure—doesn't actually fix any past inequality women faced in that regard (since women haven't exactly been "losing" children in divorces just to have things "corrected" in reverse now)?

Or, how could you fit someone like Bill Maher into this expression, when he sits there on Anderson Cooper's show at 6:30 PM on ABC and flat-out claims that all men are scumbags and lowlifes, while Anderson Cooper just smiles pleasantly and doesn't react at all, leaving kids watching at home to soak it up, and the Gender Equality Ombudsman stays silent (even though she’ll jump to act if a firefighter at some small ceremony says, "congratulations, you've become a man")? In what way does Bill Maher’s comment on Anderson Cooper's show, combined with the ombudsman's silence, attempt to "improve the status of women in society"?

So, I suppose I'm talking about deviant, harmful, wicked, or even illegal occurrences and behaviors directed toward the male gender, rather than anything about improving the status of women.

Look, there’s actually a specific term for this called "sexism". But hey, if you really feel like what we're talking about is more of an outright hateful stance, then go ahead and use "misandry."

silentridge3 said:Great. Since you clearly have so much to say about all this, I assume you’ll be offering me more than just the standard "Godwin's law" (which everyone brings up, even though it's actually a total misfire)...

Godwin is widely accepted today—unlike that unfortunate "feminacism" nonsense. Like I said, it's better to steer clear of all those Nazi analogies (and no, I didn't make that up; it's just how people communicate on internet forums). Besides, equating feminism with Nazism, while following heated debates over whether radical feminism can easily be labeled "feminacism," is still a stretch. That kind of thing isn't accepted anywhere. Just the other day, someone basically killed God in Bret Easton Ellis because he was being slightly too soft on certain issues, and honestly, they deserved it: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/node/134648

The whole issue is that you users on this forum have also started using that ugly little slur. Why is it so hard to grasp that forum users, by default (due to anonymity, regardless of gender), are better protected than public figures? In other words, if the only thing you did was call some George from the morning news "feminacistic" (and actually explained why), we wouldn't even be having this conversation. You can't really tell anyone to "go outside and tie your shoes on the left side of the road", let alone brand them with some Nazi label. What are we even talking about here?

..help in finding a suitable term.

Thanks in advance. I'm not looking for more answers regarding what I'm *not* allowed to say; I'm looking for an appropriate term that I *can* use. When I say "appropriate," I mean something short and conversational (a word or a two-word phrase), something versatile enough to handle different grammatical forms. And, of course, something that actually points toward the subject matter. Using the letter "đ" is definitely not going to cut it.

So:

How should one describe systemic actions (laws, regulations, media) or individual ones (a person, an association) aimed at humiliating and sexually discriminating against men?

Again: thanks in advance for the help.

Just invent something constructive, but please, leave those miserable Nazi analogies out of it.

silentridge3 said:What’s the "approved" term we're allowed to use now for all those unconstitutional orders, regulations, and systemic moves by government agencies aimed at stripping away men's equality? Or even just the chauvinistic behavior from certain women, female associations, and those "special interest" groups targeting the male gender?>

Thanks in advance for the terminology.

Is it my turn?!

man-hater-lady🤷 man-hating laws, man-hating, maybe man-hater... actually, that last one kind of rolls off the tongue.😁>

Feminism gets defended, while homophobia just doesn't...

Homophobia is such a much more offensive term because—besides being insulting—it actually implies there’s some kind of phobia or illness involved...☕

Christian Taylor3 said:Besides, you're equating feminism with Nazism,

That is just completely wrong—actually, it’s diametrically opposed to the truth.

The term "feminacism" and the word "feminism" aren't really the same thing at all; they're distinct concepts. I guess you could say that the existence of a term like "feminacism"—which describes something deviant—actually serves to protect the reputation of the neutral, or even positive, concept of "feminism."

Think about it for a second—if I were to take all these deviant behaviors (things like chauvinism against men, misandry, judicial bias, and so on) and label them all under the umbrella of "feminism," wouldn't I actually be doing more harm to women in the long run?

From where I'm sitting, maybe 99% of women have absolutely nothing to do with this whole mess; they aren't feminists, nor are they anything worse. And within that tiny 1% who call themselves feminists, not all of them are man-haters. But there *are* man-haters out there, and I suppose they deserve their own specific label—one that definitely isn't "feminist."

On the flip side, the issue isn't just about individual women harboring hatred toward men. Beyond just the feeling or attitude of misandry, there’s the actual, tangible way people act toward men—directly, publicly, and systematically—as well as the entire structural framework that makes it possible. It’s kind of like how Nazism wasn't just an individual ideology, but also a full-blown social and legal system; we see that same cross-section here, stretching from an individual's heart or mind straight into unconstitutional national strategy or chauvinistic laws.

I wonder what you think about this: how do those countless American fathers feel when they are effectively stripped away from their children by the actions of women through the SYSTEM (...the ease of divorce, lawyers advising women, the total freedom to make false accusations, "express laws" involving detention, or social workers and judges who seem to just "wash their hands" of the situation while labeling a father as "terrible" regarding child support...)?

Maybe they are looking for a "politically correct" term for the very SYSTEM they are trapped in? A system where they don't even have anyone to turn to, because the only entity they can complain to is the very same system that is orchestrating the whole thing...

Should we call it a "feminist politician" who pushed those laws through Congress, or "feminist judges" and social workers who handed down unfair rulings, or perhaps a so-called "feminist advocate for equality" who doesn't give a damn about fathers or this "feminist divorce system"...

...or would saying any of that actually be an insult to feminism itself? Wouldn't it be better to find a deviant term for deviant behavior?

Christian Taylor3 said:Just come up with something constructive, maybe, just please stop with those unfortunate Nazi analogies.

I actually started this thread so we could all sort of together brainstorm what that thing actually is. That specific term.

I really don't want to go on a guessing game here, only to have the moderators step in again to lock the whole thing down and hand out penalties.

If you guys happen to know the unwritten rules about what isn't allowed, maybe you could tell me what actually is.

Feminandrizm?

Maybe the moguls can help Gugi find a fitting nickname so people finally stop picking on him. How about calling them slaves?
In her book Alcestis on The Poetry Circuit, Erica Jong says that you don't need to beat a good servant—they just end up whipping themselves with the lash of their own tongue. Honestly, what kind of insult could those women possibly throw at him that would be any worse than the ones they deal to themselves?

So, yeah—Rob seems like the perfect name. 🙂

We already have established terms like "radical feminism" and "militant feminism" floating around out there, so I really think you should lean into that direction when searching for the right label.
Maybe something like "hyper-feminism" or perhaps "extreme feminism" could work?

I was just about to type out—for instance, radical feminists and such—but I see someone beat me to it.

By the way, why does he insist on obsessing over the same thing fifty times across three different threads😕 when the original topic is locked anyway?

silentridge3 said:I started this thread so we could together brainstorm a specific term. You know, that one phrase.

I’d really rather not go on a guessing game here, only to have the mods swoop in again to lock the thread and hand out penalties.

If you all happen to know what's strictly off-limits, maybe just tell me what's actually allowed.

Femizandrizam?

Why bother reinventing the wheel when the term already exists: misogyny. And it’s definitely unconstitutional—and honestly, that goes for misogyny too, especially when you're talking about high-ranking officials in the executive or legislative branches. It’s not like the European Court of Human Rights isn't busy overturning rulings like the ones you're mentioning. Once we're fully integrated into those international systems, we can expect even more corrections coming from the American courts.

Time for a little bit of political drama:

silentridge3 said:What’s your take: how do you think all those American fathers feel when they’re basically erased from their kids' lives because of how the system works for women? We're talking about things like the ease of getting a divorce, lawyers coaching wives, the total freedom to make false accusations, "fast-track laws" that land guys in jail immediately, and social workers or judges who just don't give a damn about the truth while slapping "horrible father" labels on men during child support hearings?

There are actually specific sub-forums for topics like that.

They aren't called Gynecocracy.