Feminism makes a fundamental assertion, no matter what flavor of feminism you read, it is always asserted that
men are to blame because they do things.
The mirror image of this assertion is that
women are to blame because they don't do things.
When you are dealing with a series of unfalsifiable assertions, arguing facts is pointless. Nobody who builds an ideology on unprovable ideas gives a damn about truth, facts, or reason. They only want power. When you are dealing with an animal you have to house break it. You train a puppy not to crap on the floor by rubbing its noise in its own shit, and that is how you house break a feminist too.
When you insult a man you can call him by various different insults; douchebag, dumb-ass, idiot, coward, creep, weirdo, perv, fool, fag, etc. Each of these insults defines a standard that is implied to have been violated, and most are unique. "Douchebag" implies that a man is not supposed to be carelessly inconsiderate. "Dumb-ass" says that he should be smart. "Coward" asserts that masculinity should involve courage. "Creep" says that a man should be smoother with women. "Fag" requires that he be heterosexual.
The essential characteristic of masculine insults is their uniqueness; every insult implies a unique moral standard for the male sex. If you call a man a creepy, douchey, asshole faggot, you are implying that he is (a), not smooth with women (b), inconsiderate and self-centered (c), unjustly mean, and (d) takes it in the ass. You have insulted the man in 4 unique ways.
Women's insults are completely different. All insults for women imply that she is either insane or a whore; none of them are unique. If you say that a woman is a skanky, slutty, over-stuffed psycho-whore thundercunt, all you have done is use five terms to call her a whore and three terms to call her crazy.
Insults are gendered. You would never, for example, call a woman an asshole. Unless you are a misogynist, you would never call her a coward or a pussy, even though you can call men cowards, dicks, or assholes — or all three. Referring to men by their obscene body parts is fine, (dick, asshole) but referring to women by their body parts is verboten, (cunt, piece-of-ass) or simply not done (asshole).
A woman cannot be a creep, weirdo, asshole, fag, douchebag, or perv, even though in real life most women are assholes, and lots of women are will creep through your phone while you are in the shower, or have fag relationships with other women.
A man cannot be a cunt, (outside of the UK), but he can be a cunt in the UK, because the British.
The essential difference between male and female insults is that all insults for men imply accountability. Calling a woman insane is completely different. Madness implies exemption from moral accountability. That is why the insanity defense exists. To be insane is to be unaccountable. All of these insults for women imply madness and therefore exemption from moral responsibility. Women are exempt, and this causes countless harmful negative social effects.
Men are accountable.
Women are exempt.
If women are exempt they will be perceived as less competent than men, will be perceived as victims in cases when men are not perceived as victims, and society will be eager to convict men who commit crimes against women, and to acquit women who commit crimes against men.
If women are exempt, they will be perceived as less competent and reliable than men, and indeed, will psychologically internalize the standard of exemption and discount their own abilities. Their performance will suffer because they either don't think of themselves as being capable, because no one else thinks they are capable, or because the lower standard let them slack off, or all three. Women will rise to a standard, but because the standard is essentially non-existent for them they will rise to a lower standard and accomplish much less, if anything at all.
With no standard to live up to, women will be paid less, promoted less, will accomplish less, and will get away with more, be regarded as victims for trivial reasons, be treated like children, etc., etc., etc.
Basically all the phenomena you observe with the "double standard" in our society will occur. Society will precisely reflect the current order in every way.
Reality is recursive, and so the standard of exemption will both create all the behavior you see, and the interpretation of that behavior in the human mind.
Because women are exempt and men are accountable, women (and the entire society) will interpret all of the disparities and disadvantages women face through the lens of exemption, and will blame men for women's lack of progress. Women are exempt, remember? How can they be blamed for their own failures? If women are paid less it must be men's fault. If women perform less — men's fault. If women are promoted less, start businesses less, get loans less — men's fault.
Men will notice all of this, and a profound hatred and jealousy will develop in some men, especially men who are not sexually successful. These men pay all the costs of women's exemption and receive none of the benefits. This jealousy will be called "misogyny." Exempt women will enjoy rubbing their exemption in the faces of unsuccessful men by emasculating them, calling them "insecure."
Men want something that women have, something between every woman's legs, and are frequently willing to bend the rules in the hope that exempting women from moral responsibility will win them the favor of women, and give them the thing they desire. It doesn't work. Women just interpret lenience as low quality.
Since men are held accountable and women are not, men will be convicted at higher rates for identical crimes. Indeed, exemption will inform the very definition of rape. Which is;
"Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
The definition, of course, makes the male role in the sex act guilty. I say male role, not male sex. If a lesbian penetrates her girlfriend with a dildo she can also be found guilty under the law, if consent is not obtained or possible. Similarly, if two gay men have sex, only the penetrator can be found guilty. It is the masculine role that is guilty, though because women are exempt, lesbians generally won't even have the police called on them, and because prosecutors, juries, defense attorneys, cops, and judges are all believers of exemption at the unconscious level, in practice they will go easier on a butch women than a man in an equivalent position. This means that in practice only straight and gay men can be guilty of rape, and only the one who penetrates. Lesbians engaged in sex in the masculine role will not really be convicted most of the time.
So the law is not technically biased against the male sex, but it is biased against the male sexual role — against the male gender.
In such a monstrously unjust society man will naturally have anger issues, since exemption violates everyone's fundamental sense of fairness. Women who lack empathy will take pleasure in rubbing exemption in men's faces, and there will be lots of women who lack empathy, since they are exempt from having empathy towards the male sex, (but not the female sex). Exemption will also make many women hate their own sex, and prefer male bosses over female bosses. Who would you rather have as an employer? Someone you can hold accountable or someone you cannot?
The rage that exemption induces in the male sex will be labeled "toxic masculinity," as a way of shaming men for their natural reaction to injustice. Because society is used to holding men accountable it will have far less empathy toward men than women. Men will actually have more empathy towards women than reverse, but everyone will believe it is women who are the empathetic sex.
Society will let men die homeless in the gutter while fretting over the smallest sexual harassment towards women. In short, the whole society will have a backwards perception of reality. Their implicit belief in female exemption is creating all the phenomenon which they observe and compulsively misinterpret.
At one point there was a "double standard" for men and women. After birth control, the requirement that men be good providers and women be good mothers evaporates, and the double standard collapses. This is interpreted as a moral victory for women's rights, and not as a mere outcome of technological corruption. As usual, humans over-estimate their free will and capacity for controlling their circumstances. Exemption is the "single standard" for men only, that replaces the double standard that used to exist. Wait for sex robots to abolish the single standard. Then the idiots will interpret it as a moral victory for men's rights.