Outspoken male "feminists" are hypocrites

Bebopclown

I've seen a pattern emerging this year where popular male feminists have been outed as sexual predators.
First Matt Hickey was found to be catfishing women into his apartment and tricking them into having sex with him. Now Devin Faraci has been accused of fingering a woman against her will.
Devin Faraci was a real piece of work, he was the main one causing a **** storm over the new Ghostbusters remake, accusing anyone of not liking it as being sexist and mysoginistic.

Personally I really don't trust anyone who calls themselves a male feminist, they have some agenda going or they are trying to cover up some shady ****. They use feminism as a way to belittle and bully people online.

Widdershins

I dunno about predators but every self declared male feminist I've met has been strange.

Dravokivich

You want patterens I've noticed that Sexual Predators masquerade as whatever will get them closer to their intended targets.

Tombo2001

So you've cited two examples of this......one in seattle, one in Hollywood.

There are 8 billion people in the world, circa 3 billion adult men.

This is a pattern?

Bebopclown

Bebopclown wrote: »

Devin Faraci has been accused of fingering a woman...

Woah woah woah there.

That's the news, right there.

When did that make a come back? I thought it went out of fashion around the time of grunge!

kunst nugget

OMG! Not Matt Hickey and Devin Faraci!!! :eek: I mean those guys are like… em… eh… who are they?

Also, is two a pattern?

Trent Houseboat

Hey OP, can you change the thread title to Two Outspoken Male Femenists are Hypocrites
Otherwise it looks like you're making a lazy generalisation.

Tombo2001

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Hey OP, can you change the thread title to Two Outspoken Male Femenists living in a different continent across an ocean 9000km away are Hypocrites
Otherwise it looks like you're making a lazy generalisation.

Added in some extra detail there.

kunst nugget

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Hey OP, can you change the thread title to Two Outspoken Male Feminists, that no one (outside of a couple of people surgically glued to Twitter) have heard of, living in a different continent across an ocean 9000km away are Hypocrites
Otherwise it looks like you're making a lazy generalisation..

Added more detail.

Gee, the more I look at it, the more frightening it becomes.

kunst nugget

Do you know what the funniest thing about googling 'Male Feminists' is? Seeing how much they are hated by feminists…

Mr. Incognito

Male Femanist ?

Isnt that an oxymoron?

There are people who see other people as equal and there are sexists.

Femanism is just another form of sexism.

El_Duderino 09

Widdershins wrote:

I dunno about predators but every self declared male feminist I've met has been strange.

That's not surprising, considering how you feel about feminism.

I mentioned that I'm make and feminist on a thread before. You made some pretty wide reaching decisions about me based on that information alone.

One poster told me I'm only doing it (treating people fairly) in a pathetic attempt to get women to have sex with me. I mentioned that I'm in a relationship so they said I must be with a dominant woman and I'm puzzywhipped. Then someone asked if I'm gay.

So if you're using me as one of the male feminists whose only a feminist so I can sleep with women, while in a relationship with a dominsnt abusive bint, and gay. I must be a strange character. None of it's true of course, but that hardly matters

kunst nugget

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

It's a movie from the 1980s starring Arnold Swartezenager

Hahaha…

Pat Mustard

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

It's a movie from the 1980s starring Arnold Swartezenager

Arnie fights off a troop of male feminists, whooping and hollering from the trees.

Mickeroo

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Arnie fights off a troop of male feminists, whooping and hollering from the trees.

"I ain't got time to bleed but I respect those who must do it once a month"

Such a quotable film.

Pat Mustard

Mickeroo wrote: »

"I ain't got time to bleed but I respect those who must do it once a month"

Such a quotable film.

"There's something out there waiting for us and it ain't no man"

What a film.

kunst nugget

Mickeroo wrote: »

"I ain't got time to bleed but I respect those who must do it once a month"

Such a quotable film.

'You're one... *ugly* motherfúcker! But we are still all beautiful in our own ways and none of us should ever be body shamed or ridiculed for our appearance!'

ThinkProgress

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's not surprising, considering how you feel about feminism.

I mentioned that I'm make and feminist on a thread before. You made some pretty wide reaching decisions about me based on that information alone.

One poster told me I'm only doing it (treating people fairly) in a pathetic attempt to get women to have sex with me. I mentioned that I'm in a relationship so they said I must be with a dominant woman and I'm puzzywhipped. Then someone asked if I'm gay.

So if you're using me as one of the male feminists whose only a feminist so I can sleep with women, while in a relationship with a dominsnt abusive bint, and gay. I must be a strange character. None of it's true of course, but that hardly matters

I did sense something a touch strange about you myself tbh...

Now I know you identify as a male feminazi... I can now put you neatly in that box, alongside all the other oddballs. :P

Modern feminism is essentially just an excuse to be hostile towards males... So for a man to identify himself as such, it's indicative of a hatred of his own kind... Or deep routed confusion! (Prob both tbf)

El_Duderino 09

ThinkProgress wrote:

Modern feminism is essentially just an excuse to be hostile towards males... So for a man to identify himself as such, it's indicative of a hatred of his own kind... Or deep routed confusion! (Prob both tbf)

I don't come across any of that unless I look for it on the internet. Is it something you come across in your actual life?

iDave

The OP needs time in a safe space to consider his toxic masculinity. His generalisation has triggered me.

Hard to tell what this thread is about other than someone finding hypocrites in our species (shock horror) and then making the hyperbolic jump from "These three people were hypocrites" to "Those who claim to share the same ideals these hypocrites claimed to have must therefore also be too".

Personally I avoid the term "feminism" like a plague. I simply have no idea what it even means any more. I am someone who treats people as individuals not as categories - and I am someone who works against different groups being treated differently for no other reason than some arbitrary attribute like skin pigmentation - sexuality or - yes gender.

If that makes me a "feminist" so be it - no issue with that. Probably won't be rushing to self apply the label any time soon either way. Certainly not if it forces people - with a hot nerve that goes off at the word - to assume I am gay, a sexual predator, or whatever the hell "pussywhipped" is meant to even mean.

ThinkProgress

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't come across any of that unless I look for it on the internet. Is it something you come across in your actual life?

I have done, yes. I've seen it occasionally in a workplace environment.

Some men in positions of power, will display a strong dislike/distrust of other men... But will view women as not being a threat.

I believe a lot of it stems from this kind of mentality... It's more a hatred of other men, rather than liking or respecting women!

I've never met a male feminist that was capable of treating both men and women equally and fairly. (Although, in their own heads I'm quite sure they didn't see themselves that way)

CdeC

I don't really like the word feminism. To strive for equality it must be made with input from all people.
If a sign for a feminist meeting is put up guaranteed that 99% will be women. We are moving into a new age of gender equality. I think we need some new terminology.
Ps: I do not have a problem with feminists per se just I think the word is a bit outdated in my opinion. I would consider myself someone in favour of gender equality.

The King of Moo

A feminist is someone who believes in equal rights for, and a lack of discrimination against, women.
It just seems reasonable for most normal people to be feminists.

However, two of them are somewhat hypocritical, so I guess that's it for feminism. It had its day, and made some useful changes, but it clearly can't carry on after this.

What would Emmeline Pankhurst do after finding out that Devan Faraci fingered a woman? I think she'd want to see feminism ended once and for all, out of sheer embarrassment.

SterlingArcher

The King of Moo wrote: »

A feminist is someone who believes in equal rights for, and a lack of discrimination against, women.
It just seems reasonable for most normal people to be feminists.

However, two of them are somewhat hypocritical, so I guess that's it for feminism. It had its day, and made some useful changes, but it clearly can't carry on after this.

What would Emmeline Pankhurst do after finding out that Devan Faraci fingered a woman? I think she'd want to see feminism ended once and for all, out of sheer embarrassment.

So you sit outside a court and protest at women getting very lenient jail terms solely because they are women.

Or let me guess... you cherry pick the " equal rights".

Pat Mustard

The King of Moo wrote: »

However, two of them are somewhat hypocritical, so I guess that's it for feminism. It had its day, and made some useful changes, but it clearly can't carry on after this.

You might think that feminism does not serve equal rights any more. You are correct. However, if you look at the goals of certain feminists, you will see that they have every intention of carrying on.

Look at this article about US Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg:

So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I'm sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the supreme court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there'd been nine men, and nobody's ever raised a question about that.

She would like to see an all-woman United States Supreme Court.

She says there have been nine men in the US Supreme Court, previously. She is correct about that. However, she not looking for equality now. She is looking for something else.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally I avoid the term "feminism" like a plague. I simply have no idea what it even means any more. I am someone who treats people as individuals not as categories

Exactly.

If that makes me a "feminist" so be it - no issue with that. Probably won't be rushing to self apply the label any time soon either way.

I long disassociated myself from the label as for me it's gone full retard on a few levels. One of my main issues would be that the archetypal "woman" that modern feminism describes is a weak willed emotionally driven easily "triggered" perpetual potential victim girl woman forever stunted in teenaged angst. An archetype a society should be protecting for their own sake rather than giving them more responsibilities. These are not the vast majority of women I've known(or would deliberately associate with). The joke is this delicate flower "woman" is also an archetype of old stylee victorian chauvinism. The irony seems lost on the vocal feminists.

There's far too much polarisation now anyway. The mannists or whatever the hell they're calling themselves can be as bad. They certainly have appropriated the daft feminist tactic of ever decreasing daftness of jargon and sub groups. Though they were an (over)reaction to an existing toxic mindset and worldview of perpetual victimhood, we want all rights, but feck all responsibilities of modern feminism. Especially as it was and is impacting real world politics and policies.

Now if someone of college age plugs into either of these polarities I generally think play ball. Part of such an age is to be extreme and heartfelt while you tease out the grey areas of the world, but if you're much beyond 30 and still thinking like that, you need your head read IMH.

As for men saying they're feminists; I have generally found they're usually sound lads, but under informed about the main tenets of the modern politic and naively reckon "sure it's all about equality isn't it?". Hell most women I've known that use the label do so in an equally generalist and a la carte fashion. The sad sacks of men using the label hoping for the ride are generally the minority IME.

osarusan

Pat Mustard wrote: »

However, she not looking for equality now. She is looking for unfair advantage.

Out of interest, what is the unfair advantage that you think she is looking for?

Letree

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You might think that feminism does not serve equal rights any more. You are correct. However, if you look at the goals of certain feminists, you will see that they have every intention of carrying on.

Look at this article about US Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg:


She would like to see an all-woman United States Supreme Court.

She says there have been nine men in the US Supreme Court, previously. She is correct about that. However, she not looking for equality now. She is looking for something else.

Well i suppose if its OK for her to want an all woman supreme court then its equally fine to want an all male supreme court. I'd hope she wouldn't complain if one of her male colleagues came out and said that.

Richard Hillman

It's a similar pattern to child-groomers. They tell their victims that they are different to all of the rest, that they understand you and your feelings, and they all have the ultimate intention of having sex with the person they are telling these things to. Even if it is subconscious, it has the same intent.

Another type to look out for are those men that need to advertise that they think it is wrong to hit a women. For normal people we dont need to advertise it, it is the done thing. For these folk, they have so much pent up aggression against women (both physically and emotionally) that they think it is an achievement not to hit women. And again, ultimately it is to enhance a womens view of them with the goal of having sex.

You wont see a male feminist in an all male environment.

El_Duderino 09

ThinkProgress wrote:

I have done, yes. I've seen it occasionally in a workplace environment.

Some men in positions of power, will display a strong dislike/distrust of other men... But will view women as not being a threat.

Are those men you're referring to, male feminists? We're they feminists to begin with or does this behaviour make them a feminist?

ThinkProgress wrote:

I believe a lot of it stems from this kind of mentality... It's more a hatred of other men, rather than liking or respecting women!

Is any man who is unkind to other man a feminist? Either I missed the point of your anecdote or you're working from your own definition of 'feminist'.

El_Duderino 09

CdeC wrote:

I don't really like the word feminism. To strive for equality it must be made with input from all people. If a sign for a feminist meeting is put up guaranteed that 99% will be women. We are moving into a new age of gender equality. I think we need some new terminology. Ps: I do not have a problem with feminists per se just I think the word is a bit outdated in my opinion. I would consider myself someone in favour of gender equality.

The change in word meaning does seem to have passed me by.

SterlingArcher wrote:

So you sit outside a court and protest at women getting very lenient jail terms solely because they are women.

No because I have a job and I've never sat outside a court protesting any sentence. I do support gender equality in things like prison sentences and child custody though.

Pat Mustard wrote:

She would like to see an all-woman United States Supreme Court.

Clearly said as a counterbalance to prevailing wisdom. Every female on the supreme court is suspected of being a token woman. Asking how many women is enough implies there should be a number of women cherry picked to fill the quota and then you can get back to the real business of picking proper male judges.

Good answer but I suspect it was lost on some. Triggered easily are we? (I don't really know what that word means because it has never come up in my real life)

Wibbs wrote:

I long disassociated myself from the label as for me it's gone full retard on a few levels. One of my main issues would be that the archetypal "woman" that modern feminism describes is a weak willed emotionally driven easily "triggered" perpetual potential victim girl woman forever stunted in teenaged angst. An archetype a society should be protecting for their own sake rather than giving them more responsibilities. These are not the vast majority of women I've known(or would deliberately associate with). The joke is this delicate flower "woman" is also an archetype of old stylee victorian chauvinism. The irony seems lost on the vocal feminists.

All that from the term 'feminist'. You don't know about me because I only talk about this stuff on the internet. The rest of the time I just treat people fairly and get on with life. What you said in that quote is not only off the mark but betrays a fairly blatant confirmation bias (and lack of awareness of that bias).

Wibbs wrote:

As for men saying they're feminists; I have generally found they're usually sound lads, but under informed about the main tenets of the modern politic and naively reckon "sure it's all about equality isn't it?". Hell most women I've known that use the label do so in an equally generalist and a la carte fashion. The sad sacks of men using the label hoping for the ride are generally the minority IME.

That sounds like me alright. I never encountered any if this guff in real life. Maybe you do. One poster said it manifests in men seeing each other as more of a threat than women in work. Maybe it's all happening under my nose and I don't see it.

Do you see it in your life or mostly just on the internet?

kunst nugget

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The rest of the time I just treat people fairly and get on with life.

This would be what I do and it's what everyone out there should be doing as well. I wouldn't label myself as a male feminist as it seems to be attracting more and more negative connotations from both sides of the fence with each passing day. I wouldn't have the time or inclination to try and justify my position that I'm not saying it because I'm trying to ingratiate myself in the eyes of women in my life in the hope of getting a shag.

ligerdub

Society has long since progressed as much so as that it should basically kill off the feminism movement.

It should have evolved into a gender quality movement (you may argue it is, but it is clearly with a slant towards positive discrimination towards women, and ignoring issues where men are slighted), but it hasn't. It's a very clear-cut thing for me. If you're a man or woman it doesn't really matter, if you're aligning yourself as a feminist then you're a lowlife. This is a movement which puts forward the idea that women should have equal status in the workplace (not equal opportunities), as well as other quota driven agendas (only in certain industries mind you), whereas it ignores issues such as child custody rights and criminal justice issues.

Interesting that this movement has increased in volume in an era where it is clear that women are being given a leg-up in employment opportunities and the narrative of promoting women to high power positions is bordering on fanaticism. I'm not surprised there are men out there looking to align themselves with the feminist movement, they are after all merely aligning themselves with the power group in society. If you are not inside you are outside. It has nothing to do with a moral compass or right-side of issues.

Hopefully this aggressive movement we now call feminism is seeing its dying embers in this growing hostility towards men. When people realise they sided with the wrong people we'll see them flock back to normality.

Pac1Man

Imagine if we still had to hunt for our food and defend our villages? These BS topics just wouldn't exist. Humans in a modern society have no true purpose anymore.

I miss 5000BC. Life was so much simpler back then.

desertcircus

Nothing like the word "feminism" to trigger the waves of absolute garbage from pontificating blowhards convinced that they're smarter than everyone else for hating feminism.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Clearly said as a counterbalance to prevailing wisdom.

Clearly, she wants an all-woman Supreme Court. That's what she said and that's what is clear.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Every female on the supreme court is suspected of being a token woman.

Source please.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Asking how many women is enough implies there should be a number of women cherry picked to fill the quota and then you can get back to the real business of picking proper male judges.

You imagine the implications made by an unidentified questioner in relation to a question which has no source except by reference to the statement which purports to answer it. Complete fantasy.

animaal

Feminism is not about equality, it's about the furthering of womens interests.

Any particualar feminist may also believe in equality, but that doesnt mean feminism equates to a belief in equality.

E.g. a person could believe that all positions of power should be held by women, that women are mentally stronger than men, that women should have preferable treatment in the workplace or elsewhere. This person might be described as a feminist, even though what they are advocating is hardly equality.

It's not a bad thing that a group should lobby for their own interests - all groups tend to do so. But it should be recognised for what it is. Pretending it's about equality and rainbows is an attempt to frame any criticism of the movement (or of the aims of its members) as being unreasonable.

The King of Moo

My favourite part of every thread on feminism or sexism:

"If you believe in equal rights then why don't you campaign for fathers' rights, eh 'feminist!?'"

"I do actually. Just last week I attended a protest outside the High Court. I believe that fathers are discriminated under family law in this country."

"...
...
...
... yeah, well why do you call yourselves feminists then, that's sexist!"

Winterlong

Pac1Man wrote: »

Imagine if we still had to hunt for our food and defend our villages? These BS topics just wouldn't exist. Humans in a modern society have no true purpose anymore.

I miss 5000BC. Life was so much simpler back then.

To hell with that. They had no smart phones back then.
Getting a date was easy tough...provided you had a club.

Outlaw Pete

I've never met, nor ever read about, a male feminist that wasn't extremely sexist in word and deed. Every single one of them pander to women and treat them in ways they would not treat men. Very few them declare themselves male feminists because they believe women should be treated equally. What they really believe is that women should be treated better and do so... superficially at least. Main reason being of course is that there are huge societal pay offs for doing so... even on the interwebs.

Obama is good example of how in larger society men are pandering to women. Look at this recent nonsense:

As a parent, helping your kids to rise above these constraints is a constant learning process. Michelle and I have raised our daughters to speak up when they see a double standard or feel unfairly judged based on their gender or race—or when they notice that happening to someone else. It’s important for them to see role models out in the world who climb to the highest levels of whatever field they choose. And yes, it’s important that their dad is a feminist, because now that’s what they expect of all men.

According to him all men are expected to be feminists now. Not egalitarians, but feminists ffs. If that's now evidence of society being grossly manipulated by those at the wheel then I don't know what is. Young men are blind to it though. They are docile. Jumping through whatever hoops they have to in order to get young women's approval and attention. It's now 'right-on' for men to identify as feminist. The feminisation of western society is in full swing and most are blind to it. I don't however blame feminists all that much. For me the men who agree with them are a much bigger problem.

Dr Jakub

What kind of eunuch describes himself as a male feminist in these man hating days of third wave feminism?

Special Circumstances

desertcircus wrote: »

Nothing like the word "feminism" to trigger the waves of absolute garbage from pontificating blowhards convinced that they're smarter than everyone else for hating feminism.

I don't remember that quote.

I prefer the "get to da choppa" bit tbh.

ThinkProgress

Wibbs wrote: »

As for men saying they're feminists; I have generally found they're usually sound lads, but under informed about the main tenets of the modern politic and naively reckon "sure it's all about equality isn't it?". Hell most women I've known that use the label do so in an equally generalist and a la carte fashion. The sad sacks of men using the label hoping for the ride are generally the minority IME.

I think you're guilty of underestimating them. They might be irrational or deluded at times, but they're far from stupid or ill informed... in my experience!

Male feminists tend to be the types that have generally felt inferior to other men most of their lives... they're not comfortable in male dominant environments, because of that inferiority complex!

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are those men you're referring to, male feminists? We're they feminists to begin with or does this behaviour make them a feminist?

Is any man who is unkind to other man a feminist? Either I missed the point of your anecdote or you're working from your own definition of 'feminist'.

You can label them whichever way you wish, but they frequently align themselves with the feminist agenda (or equal rights employers as they would prefer to term it)... but their motivation is remarkably similar - they dislike men!

The feminist movement is not picky about where they draw support from... weak-willed men with some misguided view of equality, or power hungry men looking to keep other men down!

Whether you self identify as a 'male feminist' or you just use feminism to further your own agenda, what's the difference?

Pat Mustard

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I don't remember that quote.

I prefer the "get to da choppa" bit tbh.

This one is my personal favourite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXjfvx-k1Ms

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All that from the term 'feminist'.

Yep.

You don't know about me because I only talk about this stuff on the internet. The rest of the time I just treat people fairly and get on with life. What you said in that quote is not only off the mark but betrays a fairly blatant confirmation bias (and lack of awareness of that bias).

Oh really? So modern feminism isn't positively soaked in victimhood? I dunno what feminist literature you're reading. The basic tenet almost always comes down to "women are always victims, men are always to blame", or swap out "men" for "patriarchy" if the anti male angle is to be dialled down. Oh and patriarchy hurts men too. Even when men are getting it in the neck it's still the fault of men. Nice. As for this drivel in the public eye there is the risible and bereft of logic campaign that suggested men should stop other men being rapists. Even if it had any basis in common sense it would still mean that apparently I'm (all)my brother's keeper and have to protect my sister while I'm at it. Dunno where the equality is in that stuff. Oh and I'm somehow to blame if someone I know sexually assaults a woman. Get off the stage. There's plenty of that nonsense where that came from. The 1 in 4 sexually assaulted "statistic" is a complete nonsense. As is the so called pay gap. And for me anyone describing a liberal western society like Ireland as a "Rape culture" is a certifiable loon. "Trigger warning", which I have read on this very site BTW, is equally daft when addressed to apparent adults.

Do you see it in your life or mostly just on the internet?

I've come across it in conversation alright. It's become more common over the last few years as we seem to have imported the extreme nuttiness of American Reddit think spilling into the mainstream. "Rape culture" is just as daft as "cuck".

desertcircus wrote: »

Nothing like the word "feminism" to trigger the waves of absolute garbage from pontificating blowhards convinced that they're smarter than everyone else for hating feminism.

Hang on. My ears are burning.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Clearly, she wants an all-woman Supreme Court. That's what she said and that's what is clear.

Ah here. Now's not the time to explain how language works. Suffice to say that the literal meaning of words, isn't always the full extent of meaning.

Pat Mustard wrote:

Source please.

Look up news coverage of Sonia Sotomayor circa mid 2009. Pay attention to use of the word 'empathy' It was patched on to as a maternal feature and made her untrustworthy.

Pat Mustard wrote:

You imagine the implications made by an unidentified questioner in relation to a question which has no source except by reference to the statement which purports to answer it. Complete fantasy.

The literal implication of the question is that there is a right number of women on the court. Maybe you think there is a right number of women but the intelligent answer is that the best people should be appointed.

She took a stupid question which implies a bias to ask, and answered with a bias in the opposite direction. It's amazing that your upset about the answer but didn't even notice the ridiculous nature of the question.

twill

desertcircus wrote: »

Nothing like the word "feminism" to trigger the waves of absolute garbage from pontificating blowhards convinced that they're smarter than everyone else for hating feminism.

When you just can't make it to that Donald Trump rally, After Hours is always here...

Zillah

I'm a feminist from the 1970's. That's what I mean when I say I'm a feminist. The current batch of hyper-strident, tumblrite, professional victims do themselves and the movement more harm than good. They've ruined the term entirely, giving chauvinistic goblins ample ammunition for demonising all kinds of feminists, just like we've seen in this thread.

ThinkProgress

desertcircus wrote: »

Nothing like the word "feminism" to trigger the waves of absolute garbage from pontificating blowhards convinced that they're smarter than everyone else for hating feminism.

Translation: they're smarter/better informed on this subject than me... I shall take my leave of this discussion, for fear of being humiliated.

CdeC

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It's a similar pattern to child-groomers. They tell their victims that they are different to all of the rest, that they understand you and your feelings, and they all have the ultimate intention of having sex with the person they are telling these things to. Even if it is subconscious, it has the same intent.

Another type to look out for are those men that need to advertise that they think it is wrong to hit a women. For normal people we dont need to advertise it, it is the done thing. For these folk, they have so much pent up aggression against women (both physically and emotionally) that they think it is an achievement not to hit women. And again, ultimately it is to enhance a womens view of them with the goal of having sex.

You wont see a male feminist in an all male environment.

I think this is grossly unfair. I think we need to acknowledge that not all heterosexual men are sexual predators.
Fair enough they may meet a partner through their social leanings. If a guy is into a majority female activity is he only doing it t try and get laid?
You would see a male feminist in an all male environment but he might keep a lower profile