Can a movement built on contempt really be better than one built on equality? If the other side were right, then a society that simply hated men would out-perform one that fights for women's rights alongside men's dignity. But that's absurd: misandry offers no positive program, just resentment. Feminism at its best corrects actual power imbalances and invites everyone into the fix. It can be flawed, sure, but a flawed equality project beats a pure grievance project every time.

Here's a number: the WHO estimates about one in three women worldwide experience physical or sexual violence, mostly from partners. Misandry doesn't move that number at all. My opponent says comparing a movement to a prejudice is a category error. Fair. But if that were true, then the answer is obvious: feminism is the one with a program, misandry is just a mood. One builds shelters, laws, and coalitions; the other tweets. So yes, they aren't equal, and that's the point. The equality project is better.

Here's a stat worth chewing on: countries that rank highest on gender equality also tend to score highest on men's reported life satisfaction. If feminism were bad for men, that line would run the other way. My opponent says the comparison is a category error, and fine, they're not equal. But if that were true, then the answer just falls out: one side built shelters, laws, and hotlines; the other built nothing but resentment. So if misandry is better, we'd have to say a mood outperforms a movement. That's absurd. Feminism wins by default.