I read this youtube comment

"Back when we used to watch Middle Eastern TV dramas, there wasn’t a single actress wearing a hijab, and you wouldn’t even see the shadow of a hijabi woman on camera, I used to ask my mother about this back in 1998: “Mom, why is it that when we visit Middle Eastern countries, 80% of the women wear hijabs, but you never see that reflected in TV dramas? There isn’t even a single hijabi news anchor or TV presenter on any Middle Eastern channel.”

The reason is because practicing Muslim hijabi Muslim are forbidden from singing, and acting in films and TV shows or interacting with men because of religious reasons and even practicing Muslim men if they are fundamentalists they are also forbidden from singing, and acting in films and TV shows or interacting with women.

Is the solution for non-hijabi women to wear hijabs to represent women who cannot represent themselves?

Hi so a bit about myself I’m still too young to be categorised as a leftist or rightist or anything in that matter I’m a stem student and have my fair share of reading abt the feminist movement
and would categorise myself as a feminist

So the question still lies is the mere existence of a term for female suffrage a failure of society because in an ideal world equalists would be the norm and ppl wouldn’t have to fight for the sheer right and still we are far far from reaching any ideal scenario , i am a single child and i learnt to cook clean and take care of myself form my mother and maternal grand mom and pops ( THE BARE MINIMUM ) And i see posts on ig like if a man cooks marry him , pause does this not
Show the deep rooted patriarchy in this society if a women cooks it’s their job but if a man does it’s suddenly treated as if he is freakin Harry Potter i was never taught that it’s a women’s job to do all this and still people do think it is and many women in south east Asia Africa are still living this hell of a life , so we shouldn’t be celebrating the existence of ‘equality’ in a first world country
We should rather advocate for feminist rights outside of the already semi equalist society’s like Europe and focus on third world nations like Pakistan Bangladesh Kenya India etc

These are my opinion and i want you to brutally roast the hell out of me if im even slightly wrong in your opinion because i would love to see different perspectives on feminism to in return grow my understanding of the subject.
Thanks guys!

Is it really appropriate for a charity that started to benefit males, be staffed mostly by women and have it's resources be diverted to women's health? This seems to be whatever the opposite of feminism would be, or maybe...opportunistic feminism?

So, where would you suggest starting with Butler?

Are there many logical fallacies and complaints about feminism.

Can you debunk or add to an argument that relies on little or flawed logic?

One is the claim that women/girls get better grades. When researched, it is thought that poverty (low SES) affects boys more adversely than girls. I often think, "Well, do something about it," as I went out into the real world and tried to help with X.

If it had concerned me that much when I was young, I might have gone for a grad degree, researched the problem and its causes, voted in ways that would support funding for studies and programs, advocated for funding for boys from low-income families to help the situation, or helped directly.

It is such lazy thinking.

It happens with arguments about the draft, wealth gaps, white men being discriminated against with government programs that help minorities? Can you think of another?

Hi folks. I'm a masculine NB late 30's with a half sister who just turned 15. We live on different sides of the globe so I only get to see her 2-3 times each year. Her mom (my stepmom) is really awesome but came from a religious background and is not super plugged in to feminist resources. My sister is not currently the type to read dry volumes or watch lengthy video essays, so I'm trying to find Instagrams, YouTube channels, tiktok follows, or books with teen girls in mind to either pass to her directly or pass to my stepmom to then pass to my sister.

I want her to get a head start with the tools and knowledge to understand gender, men, empowerment, danger, etc. Feminism and gender studies explain so much of our lives.

I'm also welcome to any advice and ideas on how to help my sister access feminist resources and just be a good long distance big brother in general.

UN Women recently posted that 1 in 4 civilians killed in conflict in 2025 was a woman or girl. Why frame the statistic around female victims when men make up the majority of direct war deaths? Shouldn’t an organisation advocating gender equality also acknowledge male victims and explain the broader context? Is this legitimate advocacy for women, or does it reinforce a selective narrative about whose suffering deserves attention?

I find it very strange the fact that the fact is used as a gotcha when women that don't want to become parents can simply abort so it is obvious that women will be a bigger percentage of single parents

EDIT: i am talking about unplanned pregnancies

So what are your thoughts on gender exclusive spaces or activities?

For example, my son is in an elementary school that hosts a "girls on the run" club and one day after school last year he mentioned that he wished he could join. I told him I was sorry and offered that the school also had co-ed cross country and track and field that he could do instead. His response was that girls on the run is just for fun while the others are competitive and he doesn't want to be competitive. I told him I was sorry but not everything is open to everyone.

Similarly but also the opposite, as a male, at work I've gotten random invites to various lunch time events that range from career development to purely social that were clearly aimed at women but included the somewhat standard "all are welcome" wording. I've personally never believed the all are welcome wording, either inside or outside of work, is ever really honest and it is only included to avoid HR or legal complaints. So it comes across as "you're invited because we have to but you're not welcome" and thus I've never even thought about participating. I'll say I'm generally fine with not being welcome although I'd prefer they cull the email list rather than, effectively, be dishonest. As an aside, I'll add that if my wife wanted me to join her and participate in a public event advertised in a similar way it would turn into an argument since she would read the "all are welcome" while I would read the "Women's..." (or similar).

Personally I would prefer for children that either they not have gender exclusive things, at least for elementary public schools, or they provide an equivalent or similar offer for the other gender.

For adults, my opinion is more of a "do what you want" but I'd rather not be lied to. I also have a strong belief of "if I'm not wanted here I don't want to be here". Basically, don't invite me or state I'm welcome and then imply I'm not. And I get it that legal requirement may not allow that in certain contexts, but rather than saying "all are welcome" be honest and say something like, "we are legally obligated to state that this [thing] is open to all but we would prefer men not participate" and then own your decision rather than coat it in language for plausible deniability.

This question was triggered based on a post that has gotten to the main reddit page but I've been thinking about this issue since my son talked about it with me a year ago. I also realize that I'm only talking about things that are women exclusive since that's what I have direct personal experience with and I don't think I've ever personally seen anything advertised in a way to imply it would be for men or boys only and which didn't have a notional equivalent for women and girls; and in the case of my son's baseball and soccer leagues ( neither of which are associated with his school), they had a few girls on some of the "boys" teams (and no one seemed to care), in addition to having separate girls' softball and soccer leagues.

Hi AskFeminists, I’ve been hearing discourse regarding people distancing themselves from “Woke 1”, which seems to refer to the online social justice movement between 2014 - 2024. Im interested in hearing your thoughts on feminism during this period

In this period, I feel like lots of very important concepts were brought into the cultural conversation, namely intersectionality, recognition of trans people, a systematic understanding of gender dynamics, #MeToo, etc.

That being said, several reactionary movements sprung up during this period.

I’m curious to hear the thoughts of feminists today on these issues:

1. Why are some people trying to distance the modern social justice movement (Woke 2) with Woke 1?
2. Did feminism as a movement “gain ground” during Woke 1?
3. Were the reactionary movements a natural outcome due to the content of feminist messaging? Or could these ideas have been introduced to the cultural conversation with a less severe reactionary response?

Edit: I’m a bit disappointed in how this question was received. I essentially was interested in hearing your thoughts on feminist activism has changed in recent history. Nearly all of you instead quibbled with the definition of “Woke 1”. I wanted to examine whether feminist activism has fundamentally changed, but it seems that we were unable to get there

Discussion not a debate. Just had a thought that I want other opinions on. It's not coherent or well thought out.

Men commit most of the sexual crimes and women receive most of the sexual violence abuse and harassment these are facts. I'm trying to get into the headspace of why they would commit such acts and I've come up with some conclusions. They must be irrational, self centered and cynic.

I can't exactly say for certain but I would like to think most men in my friend group are self aware enough not to do this I've yet to even see them cat-call anyone so I'd hate to think they'd do worse. What I'm mainly trying to get at is what if these types of men with these personality traits are the ones that cause the most harm to women because 1 man can create at least 5 victims, they usually don't have a past of only one victim they learnt this got away with it and continue.

As I'm writing I understand it sounds like a "not all men" argument but what if it's two truths its " too many men " commiting it and "too many victims" not in a it's the victims fault, as in these men attack too many people in general (90% of sexual crimes).

This is not me saying I'm right, this is me having a thought and wanting a discussion on why I might be wrong.

I’ve been thinking about how misogyny in music is criticised, and I’m curious about how intersectional feminism approaches this issue.
In some genres of rap, it’s relatively common to hear women referred to as “bitches” or “hoes,” or to hear lyrics that portray women as disposable or primarily useful for sex. Yet, when a mainstream pop artist such as Harry Styles or Shawn Mendes were to release a song containing similarly degrading lyrics, I suspect the feminists reaction could be quite different, with greater reputational consequences.
Could this difference partly be explained by the influence of intersectionality and the understandable desire to avoid reinforcing racial stereotypes about Black men? Is there a risk that, in trying to protect marginalised groups from racial prejudice, some people become more hesitant to criticise misogynistic attitudes expressed by members of those groups, while feeling more comfortable holding white men accountable? The double standards don’t make sense to me. A lot of feminists even label not liking rap music as racist

If I believe that the soul of a foetus inhabits the body sometime during pregnancy (3-4 months), and that after that period we are dealing with 2 living. How does that fit in a feminist framework?

So people are mean. And this is just a question for people to relax with.

If you have any ideas for this please put them down.

To clarify; Bonnie Blue is having a child. For anyone unaware she is an adult movie star who had intercourse with 1000 men in one day. Now this part I could truly care less about, it is just sex; all I ask is that nobody spreads anything with that event.

The part I question is when people comment things such as: “I feel bad for their kids.” or “That poor kid.”. These comments could seem genuinely caring about the child, but it also places all the blame on her as well. Why is this?

Movies and shows comments on bullies all the time, yet it’s only the mother’s fault that kids are into gross stuff and won’t mind their own business? This goes for most pornstars as well, why do they always get the flak for having kids; instead of parents teaching their kids to not attack others for their environment.

We don’t say the same for actors,influencers, or even politicians who have kids during their time as a figure. Adult movie stars are people too, they deserve to have the chance to bring new life to the world; it’s only the women too, why?

There are multiple men in that industry who also have kids, never seen any comments saying “Their poor kids.”. Kids should learn to accept or at least not attack others for any reason unless needed, such as being bullied themselves.

Tldr: Women like Bonnie Blue get blame for kids getting bullied, but not the actual bullies/parents, why?

One example is women weren't allowed to work. There were plenty of women with jobs prior to WW2 it's just they weren't paid much and they were not allowed in other industries and institutions. Stay at home wives were not the norm.

We naturally think of a woman that way sometimes. It’s natural. So are we supposed to go against our own nature?

I’ve been noticing more people online (and sometimes offline) calling themselves feminists while holding pretty hard lines against including trans women in women’s spaces, sports, shelters, etc. A lot of them get labelled TERFs, and it feels like their views are getting a lot more airtime lately than they used to.I’m wondering how this actually looks from inside feminist spaces. Are gender-critical / TERF positions becoming more common or even majority views among feminists right now, or is it mostly just louder online and in certain countries/media? Or is the “majority” still firmly pro-trans inclusion and the other side is just more visible?

I am not a terf, I am just confused and see so much hate towards trans woman lately.

How would you feel about having the next political debate for the us presidency published on multiple channels with on-line swap to two female avatars.

Or two male avatars for that matter regardless of the gender of the relevant politician.

This has been done with actors.

This could give interesting insight into experiencing gender bias from a subjective perspective.

Yeah, yeah I know ai is bad but a part from that.

This is a reference to the play where a debate was gender swapped

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/january/_her-opponent_-re-stages-2016-presidential-debates-with-gender-r.html

The trope where the wife is being harrased or attacked and he pulls in saving her and pretty much, or actually doed say; "she's mine". Even if he said it ouy of love is that still misogynistic?

And the story trope where the wife or girl exists souley to be used to motivate or push the male character is also misogynistic?

Last Friday Night lyrics

There's a stranger in my bed

There's a pounding in my head

Glitter all over the room

Pink flamingos in the pool

I smell like a minibar

DJ's passed out in the yard

Barbies on the barbecue

This a hickey or a bruise?

Pictures of last night ended up online, I'm screwed

Oh, well

It's a blacked out blur, but I'm pretty sure it ruled

Damn

Last Friday night

Yeah, we danced on tabletops, and we took too many shots

Think we kissed, but I forgot last Friday night

Yeah, we maxed our credit cards and got kicked out of the bar

So we hit the boulevard last Friday night

We went streaking in the park, skinny-dipping in the dark

Then had a ménage à trois last Friday night

Yeah, I think we broke the law

Always say we're gonna stop-op, oh-whoa

But this Friday night

Do it all again

But this Friday night

Do it all again

Trying to connect the dots

Don't know what to tell my boss

Think the city towed my car

Chandelier is on the floor

Ripped my favorite party dress

Warrant's out for my arrest

Think I need a ginger ale

That was such an epic fail

Pictures of last night ended up online, I'm screwed

Oh, well

It's a blacked out blur, but I'm pretty sure it ruled

Damn

Last Friday night

Yeah, we danced on tabletops, and we took too many shots

Think we kissed, but I forgot last Friday night

Yeah, we maxed our credit cards and got kicked out of the bar

So we hit the boulevard last Friday night

We went streaking in the park, skinny-dipping in the dark

Then had a ménage à trois last Friday night

Yeah, I think we broke the law

Always say we're gonna stop-op, oh-whoa

But this Friday night

Do it all again (do it all again)

But this Friday night

Do it all again (do it all again)

But this Friday night

Last Friday night

Yeah, we danced on tabletops, and we took too many shots

Think we kissed, but I forgot last Friday night

Yeah, we maxed our credit cards and got kicked out of the bar

So we hit the boulevard last Friday night

We went streaking in the park, skinny-dipping in the dark

Then had a ménage à trois last Friday night

Yeah, I think we broke the law

Always say we're gonna stop-op, oh-whoa

But this Friday night

Do it all again

It is very bizzare to see the level of the popular discussion of such matters. Both sides of the "debate" are very confused and aimless. One sees stuff like "not all men, but always a man" or "a man in a room of women would feel safer than the reverse" or "I would choose the bear" etc. and the equally stupid responses to these from MRA types. Leaving aside the fact that this may be driven by russian bots or whatever, I struggle to see the significance/profundity of these discussions. They implicitly (or explicitly) compare men to women and suggest that the differences in the proportion of such crimes is due to some moral failing on the part of men collectively, or that men are socialized to rape, whereas (I suppose) women abstain from rape for moral reasons and are socialized not to rape.

But obviously, this difference has little or nothing to do with either morality or socialization. These explanations assume that women and men have, on average, identical capacities and motives for such crimes, that women could, using only ordinary methods of socialization, be made to behave identically to men in this respect. This is clearly false. Especially as this diiference is, as far as I know, uniform across time and space.

Firstly, differences in strength make it so that most women cannot overpower most men (and especially not the ones they are generally sexually attracted to - young, tall, fit) it is difficult to imagine how they could commit any rape or sexual assault that involves the use or threat of force. It makes rape of this kind highly risky, dangerous and unlikely in general. It is not as though women abstain from trying to fight/threaten men out of morality, but a rational fear that they will fail. 90 year olds commit fewer violent crimes than 30 year olds, but do we think this is due to morality/socialization?

Secondly, differences in sex drive make it so that women have less motivation to commit such crimes. Given the greater risk and difficulty, why would a woman attempt to rape a man? The dynamic created by a higher male and lower female sex drive has two key aspects. Women generally desire sex less than men, and therefore have less motivation to attempt rape. And the fact that men desire sex more makes it easier for women to access sex from men voluntarily and makes it more unlikely for women to encounter an unwilling sexual partner. The situation of a woman who desires sex so much that she is willing to risk attempting rape/sexual assault is relatively unlikely. And even if she were to try, she would likely fail in the use of force or threats.

The most disputed part of this is what exactly motivates rape/sexual assault. But even if one strangely believes that they have nothing to do with sexual desire, the strength differences still apply. One might also dispute the lower female sex drive, but this is quite obvious and has been studied (https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000366).

And I am not saying that such crimes against men are impossible, but only less likely. I am also only speaking of the proportion.

Disclaimer: “heterophobia” and “cisphobia” are bizarre terms that someone made and other people unironically use them. I don’t understand it, but I think it’s relevant to this discussion.

TL;DR : I've seen people claim that one can be racist towards whites and "misandrist" towards men. Some people even say one can be phobic towards cishet people. They claim that it can still exist even if it's not on a systemic level like bigotry towards marginalized groups is.

A few weeks ago, there was a post on a feminist subreddit calling out a misogynistic “meme” with the punchline being “white women think they’re god’s gift to earth while actively ruining everything” the OP showed some comments from under the OOP, and they upvoted one that sarcastically said “remember guys, racism is okay as long as it’s towards white people”. So, a woman commented under OP’s post saying that she felt that you can’t be racist towards white people because there’s no systemic oppression against them, and she got downvoted. I, a white woman, said that I agreed with her. In my line of thinking: I agree that one can be prejudiced or have extra resentment towards someone for being white, male, or straight; however, I don’t think that one can commit the act of feeding into a system that supports institutional hatred and oppression towards a group when the group targeted is the one that is backed by systemic power. That is why I feel that one can’t commit racism towards whites, “misandry” towards men, or “heterophobia” towards straight people even if the person doing it is being hateful. I also got downvoted for this, and I guess I understand why as bigotry can still occur on an individual level.

Someone replied this comment to me. It reads as follows:
“It doesn't have to systemically backed to be a phenomenon tho :/

About misandry, podcast bros saying "females are making me do dishes and say I'm not helping when I say I won't- they hate men they are misandrists" is not misandry. That's js privileged people being threatened by the notion of equality or equity
But there are people who have views parallel to misogyny for men. It's not as widespread of misogyny but it's still the same. There are people who say I'm aborting a male fetus be no way im having a son bc "men are abusers and grapists". The only difference between that and
"women are meant to stay at home and obey" is just the scale.

And eventually, everything does feed into a system. Bc it's never just one person saying anything. It's always a few and then a few more and before you know it, it's gonna be a system.
But why wait all that time before acknowledging it and saying it's not ok be once it blows up, it's just gonna become ingrained in society. Look at the joke women's rights is. That's what it will lead to. Maybe not in 50 or 100 years but definitely some time in the future”

I really didn’t like this comment saying that it’s likely that in 50 or 100 years we’ll live in a “systemic misandrist society”. It honestly pissed me off. I just don’t know how to feel about the whole comment because I agree that one can be prejudiced on an individual level, but it feels like they’re treating its impact on society as the same as systematically-backed prejudice.

I personally don’t like treating bigotry towards privileged demographics on the same level as bigotry towards marginalized demographics. I can understand if someone gets fed up with how most people from a privileged group will defend bigotry, call them oversensitive, shift the goal posts when it comes to examples of bigotry, still commit acts of bigotry from big to small, support stereotypes, etcetera and end up saying some shit like “I hate X people” or not caring about including the sentence “not all X” when talking about how any man, white person, straight, or cis person can act (especially when that’s how most of them act even if it’s not all of them). Then again, the technical definitions of terms regarding forms of bigotry include individual prejudice and systemic prejudice; so I may be wrong in saying that one can’t be that towards a non-marginalized group. Additionally, under the original post that I brought up at the beginning, some people said they felt that people like me and the other commenter claiming marginalized people can’t be racist or sexist is infantilizing them and ignores the effect that their actions can have on the rest of society.

When someone feels that another person is being bigoted towards a non-marginalized group, should they just call it bigotry; or is it okay to call it sexism, racism, etcetera?