It’s almost like people ignore men’s issues and scapegoat them at every opportunity for the sake of women.
Men will never ever get the benefit of the doubt, but when we try to demand it we are just crybabies.
Welcome to society. Frankly, it’s malagency (mis-assignment of agency, specifically in a fashion that often makes men responsible for things that happen to them even when they really aren’t and often absolves women of that responsibility when they really should have it) all the way down.
Malagency as a lens predicts reality better than a lot of other gender focused lenses. “What would happen if women are believed to be less responsible for what happens than they really are and men are believed to be more responsible for what happens than they really are?” tends to map to reality better than “What would happen if everything in society were created by men to benefit men at the expense of women and to oppress women?” Especially once you stop looking narrowly at the top few percent of men, where the two lenses give similar results.
and the cops saw a man fighting a woman and shot the man by default.
Something like 95% of people shot by police are men. This of course is not discriminatory on the grounds that men are evil, violent savages unlike every other group that are disproportionately shot by police who are innocent victims of oppression.
It’s the US, we put presidents and Founding Fathers on our bills. Harriet Tubman is neither, so of course we’re not putting her on the twenty.
Instead we should compromise with historical precedent and put Obama on the twenty - he’s both a president and a black historical figure and he’ll piss off the people pissed off by the idea of Tubman on the twenty even more. It’s a win all around!