In the English-speaking World of 2018, men experience many forms of gender discrimination ranging from trivial to severe. One of the most severe examples of discrimination is wrongful convictions of innocent men. Many men are convicted of sexual offenses and sentenced to decades in prison on an accuser's uncorroborated testimony alone.
In many cases, conclusive evidence of the defendant's innocence is obtained after conviction, yet the judges and prosecutors keep innocent men in prison. Such cases are documented in ``Blind Injustice: A Former Prosecutor Exposes the Psychology and Politics of Wrongful Convictions" by Mark Godsey. Many judges and prosecutors consider keeping innocent men in prison a lesser wrong then undermining the public trust in Criminal Justice System by overturning convictions.
One of the most trivial examples of anti-male bias is the Social Media's approach to men's issues. Almost every Social Media platform from Facebook to an obscure forum contains many Liberal and a few Conservative members, who consider every mention of discrimination against men to be a moral crime. In most online communities, posters who bring up these issues lose status. Some posters guilty of Compassion for Men are subject to personal attacks, or campaigns of online bullying. On some boards they are banned. Sometimes the two approaches are combined -- the posters who offend SJWs are first subject to a bullying campaign, and then banned when they respond.
It can be argued that serious and trivial issues are not related. Comparing them is like comparing a bolt to a skyscraper or comparing a biological cell to a tree. That may be the case, but without cells there are no trees, and without bolts there are no skyscrapers.
Would severe injustice against men have been possible if there was no trivial injustice? Had there been no deeply entrenched prejudice against men in modern English-speaking World, the cases of obvious injustice would have provoked an outrage. At first a case would have been mentioned in a few tweets or a few Facebook posts. Then some of those who read the story would have retweeted it, re-posted it on their Facebook feed, posted it on Reddit. Within a few days, outrage would have swept the Social Media, and the facts would have been known to tens of millions of people.
Cases of severe injustice can bring Social Media Avalanche. For instance, when Cecil the Lion was killed by a poacher, several petitions for jailing the culprit appeared quickly reaching 1.2 million signatures. When severe injustice happens to a man, the response is very stifled. There may be a petition with a few thousand signatures. The case may find resonance within Manosphere, but it will find little resonance on general Social Media.
At first, it may be posted on a few forums, subreddits, and Facebook groups dealing with general news. Some regular members will agree that the case is indeed unjust. Some SJWs will insult OPs for focusing on injustice against the Privileged Oppressors. Some of the arguments may be lost by SJWs with the majority of members agreeing that the case in question is indeed an example of injustice against men. But the vast majority of posters will understand, that the whole topic of discrimination against men is very controversial. They will be happy to leave such discussion, and extremely few would be willing to put themselves into the center of even a minor controversy by retweeting or re-posting the message. As a result, only a few thousand people will be aware of the injustice, and only a few will protest.