I don't want to get into the feminist/leftist perception of modern Western culture as 'patriarchal' and deeply anti-female even though my little 'theory' stems from my belief that this conception of society as being built on systematic anti-female discrimination and misogyny defies all of the available evidence about Western cultural norms, especially in 2026 (so the whole point of this is to consider alternative explanations as to why anti-male disdain is so common). I was just wondering why so many women and feminist-minded people have such hatred and disdain for men as a category of people and where that might come from (I also don't understand a lot of red pill misogyny. I can understand some of the prejudice that men and women might have toward the opposite sex, I might address that later). I've been thinking lately that there is a natural male privilege that I might not have really appreciated, emotionally, for most of my life ('natural male privilege' as in, all other factors being perfectly equal and not considering cultural and societal norms; because frankly I think that women's suffering/happiness is more or less given greater consideration in modern Western culture at least, and most of the world is Westernized to a significant degree, Sharia-run Islamic societies might be the only modern exception to this that comes to mind or that I'm aware of; men's lives will be easier) and I'm wondering if that accounts for some of the man-hating culture or the perception of women as the underdog that this culture is largely rooted in. This is probably ridiculous and sounds as though I'm accusing them of penis envy but I'm just playing with ideas.
-Women have periods. From what I've heard, menstruation can be excruciatingly painful or stressful although the degree to which it is seems to vary from woman to woman. Some women's periods are so crippling it makes keeping a steady job difficult for them. Some women with irregular cycles might go through something like 2 weeks of hell then three weeks of peace before another 2 weeks of menstruating again. I don't want to go into detail and I obviously know so little about women's periods to begin with but I imagine that being effectively sick for 3-7 days every month could put someone in a really vulnerable position in a preindustrial society or a world of constant danger and insecurity and without the modern comforts enjoyed by most people in modern developed countries (or in the affluent areas of third world countries). Men are lucky to not have periods.
-If women want to reproduce, they must put up with being effectively sick for 9 months and several hours of excruciatingly painful child labor. If men want to reproduce, they only need to orgasm. This is wild. To be completely honest (as someone who more or less thinks that the culture of denying men as men custody can be really harsh and unfair and I'll resist the urge to go off-topic regarding certain child support laws), if all other factors are perfectly equal and perfectly equal joint custody wouldn't be an option for whatever reasons I understand giving the mother primary custody by default. I could also completely understand why women would want their children to have their last name considering what they go through to bring them into the world.
-Women tend to live longer but after menopause they actually age worse than men do, apparently they're more likely to be in poor health in their old age and suffer various issues at a higher rate. Some study showed that middle-aged/elderly men's actual age matched with their biological age around 31% of the time but it was something like 53% for the women. Most people might not be aware of this and unlike the first two points it's a matter of correlation, whereas only biological women menstruate and only biological women can get pregnant.
One thing I've noticed (I am not putting anyone down, in fact my mother is the kindest person I know of and I have her partly in mind) is that women, on average, seem more likely to 'manipulate' others into considering their welfare than men tend to (men might generally care more about rights or 'respect,' which is about emotional validation but 'alpha males' will typically not frame a grievance with 'disrespect' in hedonistic terms even though that is really the only coherent defense you can make for critiquing someone for not showing 'respect.' If you are a high-value person, that remains true whether other people acknowledge it or not, the need for the acknowledgment is a need for validation; so you can feel good about what you're convinced is undoubtedly true). Women are more likely to complain about someone forgetting their birthday, not asking how they are when they're sick, insensitivity from a romantic partner even, etc. Women seem to be more likely to critique others for not considering their emotional well-being (I never wish my father a happy birthday or a happy father's day, although my mother wants me to, and I can't see him complaining about it, and to be clear my mother is unambiguously the more compassionate and better parent). It's not hard to imagine how natural selection might have favored a tendency for women to nurture cultures that consider and cater to their well-being.
The welfare of a baby or small child and the welfare of the mother are closely linked so in prehistoric settings when life would have been so fragile and insecure, maybe the people who prioritized women's welfare were more likely to propagate their genes (a man's genes live on if he sacrifices himself from his pregnant wife or the mother of his newborn infant who needs their mother's milk, a woman's line come to an end if she sacrifices herself for her husband. Her best bet at keeping her child healthy and safe is if she keeps herself healthy and safe when her children are at their most vulnerable). It's possible that feminism (and traditional chivalry which I think is closer to feminism than leftists might want to admit. The difference between conservative protectiveness of women and leftist feminism seems to be that leftists justify their protective attitudes about women through the idea that they are the 'underdog' in terms of being a socially marginalized class and not just, from a biological standpoint, the fairer or weaker sex in need of masculine care. It is really surprising that leftists will often prioritize transgendered women over biological women in some scenarios or non-white cisgendered men over white women) stems from this in-built hyper-vigilance about threats to women.
I don't understand a lot of red-pill prejudice against women either. I've never understood the hatred toward promiscuous women. A lot of 'incels' resent women for having supposedly unrealistic standards without even necessarily being put down for not living up to them (it sucks if someone you like only wants men who are 6 feet tall and have a 6-digit annual salary but it's not an injustice against you). I could understand if the complaint is that women don't like truly compassionate and sympathetic men because that's not just about personal rejection, it implies that they don't value compassion or sympathy as a moral virtue (if I took offense to white women saying that they wouldn't date black men because they don't want t be robbed or beaten the issue would be more with the stereotyping and not so much with the personal rejection per se).
It's a similar thing with men being too affectionate since affection is related to the psychology of valuing someone's happiness or generally wanting what you think would benefit them (so it implies moral virtue if you think that people should love others in the biblical sense), on top of de-valuing men's happiness if they find emotional intimacy with someone pleasurable. 'Nurturing' falls under sympathetic and compassionate which everyone should be. I can accept that women, on average, might be more compassionate and nurturing but I've never understood people who see nurturing as inherently feminine and they don't think that they're slighting men in claiming that they're less compassionate or loving. You'll hear 'conservative-minded' or pro-gender roles women say something like, "we each have our strengths, you're strong and assertive but I'm more loving and nurturing," and it's crazy to me how they don't think that they're being insulting because they don't seem to think that caring about the happiness/suffering of others, which implies being 'nurturing' circumstantially, is moral. Both men and women stereotype women as more nurturing and loving, mind you. As much as I truly despise feminism, I think I would have an easier time getting along with a woman whose attitude was "yes, I'm naturally more nurturing and loving than you but that's definitely something that you should work on because everyone should be a loving, nurturing person" than a pro-gender roles woman who thinks that being a loving, nurturing person is what she "brings to the table" in terms of romantic appeal or per her proper role as a woman. If I were to tell at least some of these women, "yeah, women aren't really that bright. They're nice but they're definitely not the sharpest tools in the box, that's what I bring to the table as a man" it will immediately strike them as off because they think that there's something unflattering about being less intelligent but they don't seem to put two and two together and consider that if everyone should care about the suffering of others, women are morally superior to men insofar as they are more 'nurturing,' so they're presenting men in an unflattering light when they claim that they are less nurturing or compassionate. That's not even the best analogy since I wouldn't be discouraging women from developing their intellect. Of course, there are scenarios where 'touchy-feely nurturing' doesn't help people, snakes probably don't care about being petted or coddled; for example, but that is circumstantially what compassion requires. Just as it can require being assertive, confident and strong).
I could also understand resenting women for being turned off by vulnerability in men because it implies a lack of compassion for them, that might be pushing it though because while I do think that it implies a lack of sympathy for men sexual relationships are ultimately transactional and people are motivated by self-interest in pursuing them, if they're acting on raw attraction (so maybe I'm wrong and a straight woman/gay man can have the deepest compassion for a man who is suffering despite being romantically turned off by the fact that he's not strong enough to spare himself his pain). Both sexes cheat at nearly the same rate (not that I think cheating is inherently immoral but it can be callous and negligent and obviously most people will resent someone for it if they agreed to be contractually monogamous and they think that we have a responsibility to respect the autonomy of others and not just their emotional well-being). If 99% of men or women are x it is still fundamentally irrational to condemn the statistical outliers for the crimes or moral failings of the majority, and if they are unambiguously male or female then they are proof that this undesirable behavior or trait isn't inherent to maleness or femaleness (so we can't treat them as honorary women or men) so I'm not saying that I think it's rational (men hurt men and women hurt women daily so why single out one group); only that I can understand where the need to protect oneself through some kind of group profiling could come from relative to my values (so resenting men or women because you believe that they're sadistic, uncaring or inconsiderate- in short, that they don't value women's/men's happiness or maybe the happiness of others in general). One thing I've never understood is how feminist-minded women (as opposed to conservative women whom I tend to see as interchangeable with feminists in many areas) seem to resent men for playing the condescending 'savior' role or wanting to run things when average women's preferences select for men who take on leadership roles (feminists themselves will occasionally admit a preference for 'patriarchal' men as some quirky nuance, even as they complain about 'patriarchy' which taken literally is just male leadership), you'd think vulnerable and weaker men would have more of a reason to resent women for selecting 'alpha males' who are incentivized to dominate and subjugate them as a means of maxing their sexual marketplace value (you can't have 'leaders,' which can definitely be a benign thing, without followers, and with the worst interpretation; without someone who is dominated or subjugated by the stronger man. So if the assertive man who can shut down another man, with or without physical coercion, or guide him in some way is more attractive for that reason then the weaker man is less so and, it seems to me, has much more of a reason to feel humiliated by stereotypical women's preferences than women do to be bothered by stereotypical men's preferences, at least in terms of personality).
All in all, even though I obviously cannot claim to be unbiased on the matter, I genuinely just don't understand what reason women in modern Western culture have to resent men as an abstract class of people.