[jayko]

What suffering? Did they fight in the front-line or plough fields old day long? The handful of males at the top didn't make ALL men not suffer, neither did make ALL women suffer. Royalty women had better lives than the 99% of men throughout history. That's revisionist history at it's finest and the same BS reasoning the writer of this blogpost has.

[kace91]

Well, feminism is about freeing people from gender based discrimination, so it also includes freeing men from those societal expectations (like being the only ones to be conscripted / go to war).

But at least in the specific issue addressed in my message (someone's opinions and talent being ignored due to their gender) I think it's hard to argue that women have historically gotten the short end of the stick.

[jayko]

Feminism is about women's rights. Whenever men rights groups(or egalitarian groups for the matter) fight for men's rights - like increased domestic abuse shelters, parental rights, custody rights etc. - they find feminists lobbying in the opposition.

I agree that women have historically gotten the shorter end of the stick in this area. But that's hardly classified under suffering - especially in an era where the barrier of entry for women in everything they feel marginalised in has been lowered artificially to accommodate them.

[yakshaving_jgt]

Feminism means many different things to many different people.

The reductionist statement made is usually "Feminism is just about equality" — a claim quickly invalidated when you consider the Swedish Feminist Initiative political party had as official policy in 2014 that men and women will earn the same money for the same work, but men must now pay more income tax than women to address historical imbalances.