The rise of masculinism (3/3): Nine misogynistic propaganda arguments debunked

Claiming to rely on science, statistics or just first-hand stories presented as proof, masculinist propaganda spreads many ideas that might seem plausible at first glance. But this glib mix of distorted figures, poorly analysed studies and patchy rhetoric collapses in the face of hard evidence.

Studies and statistics in hand, FRANCE 24 dismantles some of the main arguments commonly pushed by masculinist movements.

• Argument 1: 'Just as many men as women are victims of intimate partner violence'

What the propaganda says:

This argument paints intimate partner violence as “symmetrical” or “reciprocal” – that is to say, that just as many men as women experience it in their lives. If this is the case, the argument made by masculinist movements goes, pointing the finger at men as the sole perpetrators of this kind of violence is blatant “misandry” – a prejudice or hatred/hostility towards men.  

What the facts say:

Almost one in three women across the world – some 840 million people – are subjected to violence at the hands of their current or former partner, or face other forms of sexual violence from someone other than their partner, over the course of their life.

Within the European Union, 17.7 percent of women experience the threat or reality of physical and/or sexual violence throughout their lives at the hand of an intimate partner. This number grows if we take psychological violence into account, reaching 31.8 percent of women, according to figures published by the Fundamental Rights Agency in November 2024. 

In France, 84 percent of people experiencing intimate partner violence in 2024 were women, placing the number of male victims in a clear minority. Women also represented 98 percent of those who had experienced sexual violence. 

And while men also experience intimate partner violence, the structure of that violence is far from symmetrical. Intimate partner violence against women tends to be repeated more than that against men, and the broader context of male domination within society often means that the long-term consequences of that violence fall heavier on women.

“The structural inequalities that still persist in society and the learning of a culture of stereotypes contribute to the foundation on which intimate partner violence is built,” the Citizens and Justice Federation said.

The Canadian NGO SOS Violence Conjugale, which offers shelter as well as information, outreach and reference services to people who have experienced intimate partner violence, wrote in an article that it is also important to draw a difference between the violence of the aggressor – in most cases, a man – from the violence of someone defending themselves, sometimes called “reactive violence” or “violent resistance”.

What we need to understand:

Speaking about gendered violence doesn’t mean “forgetting” men who experience intimate partner violence. It just means accurately describing a massive phenomenon in which women remain far and away the main targets.

By claiming that intimate partner violence is largely “symmetrical”, this argument turns the balance of power on its head and erases the systematic nature of violence against women, instead framing it as a straightforward conflict between individuals.

“This argument of the symmetry of violence allows people to trivialise or even deny violence against women … and ultimately to deny the very existence of a heteropatriarchal system, a hierarchical system that gives privileges to men and oppresses women,” wrote Quebecois sociologist Louise Brossard.

• Argument 2: 'Women lie about violence to destroy men’s lives'

Variations: By accusing men of violence, women “are looking for fame” or “want to tear down men’s careers”

What the propaganda says:

Accusations of rape, assault or intimate partner violence are largely built on lies and used as a weapon to make money, gain legal advantage or destroy a man’s reputation or career. 

What the facts say:

Most research on the subject agrees that the false rape allegations are rare, ranging from two to eight percent of charges filed depending on how the study is conducted.

Roughly three to five percent of rape or sexual assault charges are dismissed as false or misleading after investigation, the French ACI criminal law firm said.

According to the UK’s Channel4 fact-checking services, a British man is 230-times more likely to be raped than to be falsely accused of rape.

Read moreThe rise of masculinism: Violence and misogyny online (1/3)

In fact, the problem is largely the opposite than that described by masculinists – a massive percentage of violence against women never gets reported. According to the French justice ministry, “four out of five women impacted by violence don’t file charges”.

Meanwhile, the many controversies around male celebrities accused of sexual violence these past few years somewhat undercuts the idea that men accused of rape or other forms of sexual assault would see their career fall apart as a result.

“In general, the careers of wealthy or powerful men who are accused or even convicted of violence are not impacted that much,” said researcher Stéphanie Lamy, the author of “The Masculinist Terror”. “Especially if they are white.”

What we need to understand:

Spinning a few highly publicised cases into a general rule is a disinformation strategy. 

False accusations exist, and they should be dealt with and punished. But they remain an incredibly small minority, dwarfed by the scale of very real violence that women are subjected to every day, whether it’s reported or not.

• Argument 3: 'The justice system is biased against men and fathers'

What the propaganda says:

Judges are biased towards mothers, and fathers are systematically robbed of custody of their children.

What the facts say:

It’s true that in France, after a couple is separated, the child’s primary residence is still largely that of their mother (around 70 to 80 percent of cases). But in most cases, this is the result of an amicable agreement between both parties (around 80 to 85 percent of cases), not a decision handed down against the father after a bitter fight in front of a judge.

What’s more, cases of shared custody have been rising steadily for more than 20 years. If a father asks for shared custody, the request is granted in 86 percent of cases, as podcaster Cédric Rostein pointed out on social media.

Several studies have shown that most custody decisions favour the person who had already been most responsible for the child’s care before the separation rather than open favouritism towards one gender over another.

What we need to understand:

Masculinist narratives distort reality to conceal very real problems that mothers face in the French justice system: unpaid child support (in 25 to 35 percent of cases), mothers who bear the mental and material burden of raising a child alone, the struggle to have family violence recognised by a court of law.

These movements paint family courts as “pro-women”, neglecting to mention the fact that women are left disproportionately poorer after a separation and remain over-represented among those most vulnerable to violence.

• Argument 4: 'Feminism is destroying society, the family and even desire'

What the propaganda says:

Feminism is responsible for the “crisis of the family”, declining birth rates, celibacy and male sexual frustration.

What the facts say:

As for the family, the data shows above all that the rise of feminism coincides with a decrease in forced marriages and child marriages, as well as a decline in intimate partner violence in countries that invest heavily in pro-equality policies.

And when it comes to desire, investigations into marital satisfaction show that the most stable couples are often those in which the domestic division of labour and manner of communicating are shared in the most equal way.

Read moreThe rise of masculinism: From obscure online forums to ballot boxes (2/3)

What we need to understand:

The argument that a given movement is “destroying society” has long been a staple of counter-revolutions: it was used to argue against the abolition of slavery, the right of women to vote and the expansion of civil rights.

Enduring inequalities are presented as necessary for “the survival of civilisation”, despite the fact that data show that the most equal societies are also the most stable and prosperous. 

• Argument 5: 'A woman who has already had multiple sexual partners can no longer become attached to just one man'

What the propaganda says:

A “good” woman is supposed to have little or no previous sexual experience.

The “bodycount” theory is based on a pseudo-scientific argument built around oxytocin, a hormone linked to emotional attachment. With each sexual encounter, the theory claims, a woman will “release” a certain amount of oxytocin that will “bond” her to her sexual partner. A woman who has had “too many” sexual encounters will exhaust her stockpiles of oxytocin, leaving her unable to form further bonds or become securely attached to a future partner.

What the facts say:

The body synthesises oxytocin continuously throughout a person’s life. There is no serious scientific study that suggests that having a higher number of sexual partners has any negative impact on the production of oxytocin for women, or its effect on them. 

What we need to understand:

This argument is built on a double standard: male sexuality is considered neutral or praise-worthy while female sexuality is considered degrading for women. 

This pseudo-scientific theory also justifies the control of both the body and private life of women, as well as pathologising women who have an independent sexual life.

• Argument 6: 'Women have too many privileges'

Variations: “Feminism has gone too far – women now have more rights than men do”

What the propaganda says:

Feminists have gained “too many” rights: protective laws, hiring quotas, public policies based on gender – men are now at a glaring disadvantage.

What the facts say:

Economically speaking, it’s a hard case to make.  According to figures published by Equal Measures 2030, more than 2.4 billion women and girls live in countries scoring “bad” or “very bad” in terms of gender equality.

At this rate, the report reads, “no country [of the 139 examined] is on path to reach gender equality by 2030.”

In France, women still make less than men – even in the same job – and their annual income is on average 22 percent lower, often due to interruptions to their career caused by having and raising children.

Despite this, women still shoulder the lion’s share of unpaid domestic and care work, are less represented in positions of political and economic power and continue to be the main victims of sexist and sexual violence.

What we need to understand:

The “privileges” denounced by masculinist movements are really efforts to correct a massive imbalance between men and women, not an attempt to put women in a dominant position over men.

• Argument 7: 'Laws around consent have gone too far, you can’t even ask women out anymore'

What the propaganda says:

Trying to build a “culture of consent” will make “everything” punishable under the law: coming on too strong, giving someone a kiss, a harmless misunderstanding – we’ll all become crippled by paranoia.

What the facts say:

Recent laws related to consent do not criminalise flirting, but sexual acts without free and informed consent. They replace the logic of “Did she try to fight?” with “Did she clearly say ‘yes’?”

Studies show that what is being targeted by these laws is not one-off misunderstandings, but persistent patterns of harassment, pressure and duress, whether explicit or implicit – all things described by those subjected to them as clearly unwanted. 

Several investigations into the sexual lives of young people show that teaching consent improves the quality of relationships while reducing the risk of violence – none of which stops people from flirting.

What we need to understand:

The refrain that “you can’t even ask women out anymore” only serves to delegitimise the basic idea that a woman’s desire counts just as much as a man’s.

• Argument 8: 'Men are the real victims'

What the propaganda says:

Men will be crushed by feminism, abandoned to suffer alone with their own burdens (higher rates of suicide, increased risk of struggling at school and experiencing unemployment) while all the money goes to women.

What the facts say:

While there are very real mental health problems that impact men more than women – including higher rates of suicide, addiction and violence against other men, research suggests that these are strongly connected to norms traditionally considered masculine such as an unwillingness to ask for help or higher readiness to take risks. 

Masculinist narratives use these very real struggles to attack feminism rather than questioning the worldview that underpins them.

What we need to understand:

Masculinism weaponises real distress by turning it against women rather than challenging its structural causes such as precarity, toxic masculinity and a lack of appropriate public policy measures.

• Argument 9: 'Femicides are just individual crimes rather than a systematic problem'

What the propaganda says:

The murders of women are tragic individual events, but there’s no connecting line between them. To frame them as “femicides” is just ideological.

What the facts say:

In 2024, 83,000 women and girls were intentionally killed across the world, including roughly 50,000 who were killed by their intimate partner or a family member, according to UN Women. To put it another way, 137 women and girls lose their lives every day at the hands of their companion or their kin – murders that are “often the culmination of repeated episodes of gender-based violence”.

Every year in France, almost 120 women are killed by their current or former partner. On November 20 alone, four women were killed by their former partners. Official reports show the same factors repeating over and over: past instances of violence, a recent separation or a refusal to respect judicial protection orders.

These figures call for a structural interpretation: to view these murders not as individual outbreaks of violence, but as the tip of an iceberg of gender-based and intimate partner violence. 

What we need to understand:

Reducing femicides to simple isolated tragedies allows masculinist movements to deny the systematic character of male-perpetrated violence and ignore the collective responsibility of aggressors. 

By depoliticising these crimes, this argument blocks any kind of ambitious political response and perpetuates the myth that “feminists are exaggerating” and that “men are the real victims”. 

This article has been adapted from the original in French.