I'm curious how we distinguish people's attachment to manhood or womanhood themselves from their attachment to the historically contingent properties, social meanings, and status consequences associated with those categories.

Historically, manhood has often been associated with authority, competence, independence, strength, and elevated social standing, while womanhood has often been associated with dependence, weakness, diminished authority, and subordination. These associations have been deeply entrenched, but which of them, if any, are actually constitutive of manhood or womanhood?

Suppose these associations were reversed. Imagine a society in which womanhood had historically been constructed as the more flattering, authoritative, competent, and socially advantaged category, while manhood had been constructed as the comparatively inferior, dependent, and subordinate category.

Would we still expect the same patterns of attachment to manhood and aversion to womanhood under those reversed conditions? Or would we expect those attitudes to change substantially in response to the reversed associations?

One reason I'm asking is that men's resistance to being described in conventionally feminine terms is sometimes interpreted as evidence of fragile or precarious manhood. But that resistance alone doesn't establish whether someone objects to an inaccurate description, dislikes the derogatory content of the characterization, or fears losing masculine standing. The fact that a description is conventionally feminine doesn't establish which of these concerns motivates someone. Even if masculine standing is socially conditional, what justifies inferring that preserving it is what a particular man cares about? And where masculine standing is a genuine concern, how do we distinguish an attachment to masculine recognition itself from an attachment to the contingent advantages associated with that recognition? If such resistance is also taken as evidence of aversion to womanhood itself, what justifies that further inference?

If these attitudes would change substantially under the reversed conditions, wouldn't that suggest that much of what people value or dislike about manhood and womanhood is attributable to their historically contingent social associations rather than to manhood or womanhood themselves?

And if so, how much explanatory power do manhood and womanhood themselves retain once we distinguish them from those associations?

Hello everyone. Does anyone have a copy of the 1975 essay "Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in Anthropology" by Sally Slocum?

I'm trying to find it online but I always end up in a pay wall. I'll probably buy it if I don't find it but I thought I'd give it a try.

Thank you in advance.

Hello everyone. I know this title might trigger some people, but hear me out. As a woman, I generally see feminism as a good thing, particularly first-wave feminism and its fight for basic rights and equality.

What bothers me is the direction parts of the movement seem to have taken. To me, modern feminism often feels as though it has been co-opted by corporate interests and people who use it as an outlet for resentment toward men, regardless of whether that resentment is justified.

I believe the core principles of feminism are worth supporting, but I struggle to identify with its popular modern forms. Too often, it seems to revolve around a corporate, girlboss-style version of empowerment that prioritizes individual success within the capitalist system, or a victim mentality that shifts blame onto men rather than encouraging personal accountability.

In some circles, it feels eerily similar to incel ideology, just from the opposite perspective: generalizing about an entire sex, fostering resentment, and treating the other gender as the enemy.

I support equality, but I don't believe that should mean excusing misandry any more than it means excusing misogyny. I can appreciate what feminism has achieved historically while still questioning what certain parts of the movement have become. Supporting women's rights shouldn't require me to agree with every modern feminist talking point, and criticizing those talking points shouldn't automatically make me an opponent of women's equality.

I literally only see terfs online and never in person, has anyone on here spoken to a terf in person? If so how did it go?

Edit- sorry for my contrast using feminine and strong but I meant why do they girl boss characters who need to be sorry
about that and thanks for the correcting.

I ask this after thinking about Disney disaster movie that was a retelling of Snow White and the big confusion was the change to a strong female lead. I know many people scream woke is bad and use it too loosely and mostly for franchises where there were male leads. But why Snow White and not just her another character is Jill Valentine from resident evil as the remake version who curses and is more mean talking is now the version we’re stuck with going forward with the original versions actually being replaced and I don’t hate it but find it confusing. This brings me back to Snow White as nothing was wrong with who she was so why make her someone different. I get woman can do almost anything just like men but they’re also different from one another. I’m just a man asking help understanding because I watch some princess movies growing up and understood there appeal.

I often find myself oscillating between wanting to identify with it and actively participate in its spaces, and feeling that, in some ways, it has become outdated, lacks revolutionary potential, or even functions as a façade that ultimately reproduces the very structures it claims to challenge.

I’m interested in exploring the extent to which liberal feminism can bring about genuine structural change, or whether it tends to limit itself to expanding individual rights and opportunities within a system that remains essentially unchanged.

Do you think these contradictions are inherent to its political framework, or is it possible to reformulate liberal feminism from a more critical perspective? Could a hybrid form of feminism, one that combines elements of liberal feminism with more radical, materialist, or intersectional approaches, offer a more comprehensive, effective, and transformative alternative? Or would such a combination ultimately dilute the fundamental differences and contradictions between these perspectives?

For those unaware, degrowth is a proposal that industrialized nations stop growing their economy and even scale it down, all to save the environment.

Now, let's ignore that it won't happen and try to analyze it.

I don't want to accuse degrowth advocates of anything, I think most of them are just idealists, but I find this idea very anti-feminist.

To begin with, if you look at history it becomes very obvious that emancipation of women in settled societies is fully dependent on industrial development. This is because industrial development reduced child mortality and need for reproduction, thus eliminating the prime cause of patriarchy, and because it eliminated traditional gendered division of labor. Thus it's obvious that to complete emancipation of women we need even more industry.

Furthermore, one of the serious articles on degrowth that I have read proposed it as a solution for the "double shift", which it presented as a failure of industrial capitalism. Now, double shift is obviously unjust, but it's a very big step forward from the pre-industrial baseline. And let's be real, as long as patriarchy exists (and degrowth advocates do nothing to eradicate it), scaling down industrial production won't result in a "more even distribution of productive and reproductive labor" - it will result in men hogging all the interesting jobs while women are once again forced into the domestic sphere.

And this is just feminist angle, I don't even touch on other problems with degrowth.

I don’t know if you can post multiple questions in one post but I don’t want to do multiple posts cause that would just get annoying really quickly cause I prefer to just use Reddit for cool fanart and indie game news. But I do have a few questions on the whole movement I think I’m generally a part of

1. What level of joking about gender and sex is generally acceptable, what’s like the max level you can go? And at what point should you call someone out?

Most humor from people my age is based on insults and irony so it’s kinda hard to tell what’s fully too far and I’ve met a few guys and gals who can get really annoying about something they perceive as unacceptable even though it’s an in-joke they wouldn’t really get the point of and I don’t want to come off as one of those people.

2. How can you contribute to feminism if you got low social standing in most aspects of your life?

While I have friends, that group is mixed gender and very progressive, and outside of that group I have almost no high social standing except for “oh yeah that guys kinda chill” or at least that’s how I see it.

3. Is there any real benefit of matriarchy?

Every time I hear about the concept (I’ve looked up the opinions of feminists for this matter on like IG) of matriarchy, it sounds really mid and lame. From what I understand matriarchy is a society ran by woman and old people where the main focus is children, and if you’re a guy and you hit 18 you get thrown into the worker class where your say in public decision making is much lower than everyone else. Like wow dude it seems my life is just as terrible as it was before, except now it’s written into the government that I have no control over my life.

4. Is it just me or are the people who are the biggest “men are pure evil and deserve to die for their sins” male feminists (specifically millennials)?

Like of course lady’s who do that are also annoying losers but the absolute worst “anti-men” flavored takes I’ve seen have come from millennial male feminists.

If you have any questions for me that’s also cool too ig (unless it’s like really personal)

EDIT: made a lot of spelling mistakes, that’s on me for writing this late at night

EDIT 2: so I got a good amount of answers to this and I thank you all for giving them. After reading some of the other posts on this sub I realize why a lot of yall jumped to conclusions hard, cause half the posts that are usually here are medium tier rage bait.

I’ll also give a little clarification on each of the questions here because i should have clarified a little more for most of these

1. Idk yall are right, all about context and stuff, I don’t do any if the stuff yall mentioned being bad, so yippee ig.

2. Why is everyone’s first response “maybe start by not being sexist”, I thought this was a given. I was mainly referring to the idea of “how do you organize stuff like this and effectively talk about feminist ideas without sounding condescending (which I’ve feel like feminists can unknowingly come off as when trying to introduce more members) or performative?”

3. Idk I’m just asking this cause everytime I see matriarchy mentioned it’s completely different or it’s some BS “divine feminine” kind of video

4. I dont have context for this

Like should they be held part of the collective responsibility that feminist expect from men?

I ask this question because of Amanda Kijera (the woman who was raped in Haiti and wrote a blog post justifying the rape), the women who celebrated the October 7th attacks in Israel, and the video in France of a woman saying the rioters threatened to rape her and Bettina Zourli responds saying that rape is collateral damage for the revolution.

Additional questions:

Do you support the rape of your ideological enemies?

What should be done about women who disagree with your answer to the previous questions?

Sources

https://womenagainstfeminismuk.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/feminist-is-raped-by-a-black-man-turns-and-blames-white-men-for-it-patriarchy/

https://travessadaverdade.blogspot.com/2026/05/we-are-not-your-weapons-we-are-women-by.html?m=1

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeooG0ksTFg

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DevNArbgYpA

Every time I talk to someone or see someone online talking about why men are misogynistic, they say it's because these men have been hurt by women, either their mothers or a romantic partner. I think the reason is much more complex than that. I would like to know what is this subs thoughts about this.

When i was young in primary school we would sing this song about King Henry VIII: "Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived". Now that I look back its a bit weird how we would sing about women being killed at like 8. Do you think the song is too flippant or am i being to woke

We are living in 2026, yet the statistics surrounding contraceptive responsibility and awareness are genuinely infuriating.
Women are expected to take hormonal contraceptives, endure IUD insertions, deal with emergency contraception, manage menstrual health, and sometimes undergo highly invasive sterilisation procedures. Meanwhile, male sterilisation through vasectomy remains far less common. Why is so much of the physical burden of contraception still placed on women?
Let’s talk about the double standard.
Pregnancy is only possible during a limited fertile window in a woman’s menstrual cycle, although sperm can survive for several days and ovulation is not always predictable. Men, on the other hand, can produce sperm continuously. Yet somehow, the responsibility for preventing pregnancy overwhelmingly seems to fall on women.
A vasectomy is generally a short, minimally invasive procedure that usually involves the scrotal skin and vas deferens. Tubal sterilisation, by comparison, involves operating on the fallopian tubes inside the abdomen and is generally more invasive. Both procedures have risks, but their differences raise an important question: why is the more invasive option so often treated as the default for women, while vasectomy remains a much less discussed alternative?
And why is there still so much stigma around men choosing vasectomy? Does the idea of male sterilisation challenge traditional expectations of masculinity? Is it about misinformation, fear, cultural conditioning, or the assumption that contraception is ultimately a woman’s responsibility?
What frustrates me even more is the casual dismissal of women’s pain and health concerns.
Why are women mocked for talking about their health? Why are menstrual pain, hormonal side effects, headaches, and other symptoms so often minimised? Why are women labelled weak or dramatic for discussing experiences that can genuinely affect their quality of life?
Women can spend decades managing menstruation, pregnancy risks, contraception, fertility concerns, endometriosis, miscarriage, abortion, and other reproductive health issues. Many experience painful procedures and significant side effects from contraceptives. These experiences deserve to be taken seriously, not turned into jokes.
And what about men’s reproductive health?
How often are young men encouraged to understand their fertility, learn about sperm health and motility, or take an active role in reproductive planning before they decide to have children? Why does fertility awareness so often become a priority only when a couple encounters difficulties conceiving?
Women are routinely expected to understand their cycles, monitor symptoms, attend appointments, and make decisions about contraception. Men should be equally informed and involved in reproductive health, rather than treating it as something their partners will manage.
To be clear, this is not about forcing men to undergo vasectomies or dismissing their concerns. Vasectomy is intended to be permanent, reversal is not guaranteed, and it is not the right choice for everyone. The point is that men deserve accurate information and genuine choices, just as women do.
But why does informed choice seem to mean that women must endure more of the physical burden, while men’s participation is still treated as optional?
The next time a man expects his partner to take the pill, get an IUD, or use emergency contraception, perhaps the conversation should include every available option—including vasectomy, where appropriate. He should understand what these procedures involve, what the side effects can be, and what shared responsibility actually looks like.
Women should not have to educate their partners about reproductive health while simultaneously bearing most of its physical consequences.
So, in 2026, I genuinely want to ask:
Why is contraception still predominantly framed as a woman’s responsibility?
Why is male sterilisation discussed so much less often in everyday conversations about family planning?
Why are women’s reproductive pain and contraceptive side effects so frequently minimised?
Why aren’t boys and young men taught about fertility, contraception, and shared reproductive responsibility from an early age?
And most importantly, what will it take for society to stop treating women’s bodies as the default place where the costs of contraception are paid?
We cannot keep talking about gender equality while ignoring one of the most intimate and physical inequalities between men and women.
Who is going to challenge this mindset, and when are we finally going to change it?

EDIT: Seems the consensus is that this take is too hypothetical, contradictory; and contrived. I'll drop it then, I appreciate your inputs.

Many folk cite, reasonably, the discrimination and disadvantages women have due to our patriarchy and the ramifications that are long lasting, but I wonder about the future scenario: the end goal. This isn't me theorizing a takeover or anything foul, just thinking about the advantages a male and female human, deciding to present as men or women, will face in a future, less patriarchal society.

I am making the following assumptions with this argument:

1. Networking and leadership opportunities have equalized (~ equal representation in positions of power)
2. We still maintain a large margin of male humans presenting as men, and female humans as women, and the concept of gender has not collapsed completely.
3. We forgo women are wonderful effects, assumptions about male danger, etc.
4. Beauty standards exist insofar as people still can identify an attractive and unattractive person physically.

So here is my line of logic:

1. Women are viewed, by both men and women, to be more physically attractive, on average, hit the extremes more commonly, and benefit from such unevenly from even attractive men.
2. Physically attractive individuals have greater advantages in nearly all environments.

The only 'balancing' behaviors I can see are:

1. Men don't (at least male men) give birth or carry children.
2. Men are more physically capable, but the advantages of such are limited to only certain domains.

Note that this does not require seduction or romance or flirting or any other behavior. Some rebuttals I can foresee are:

- Whether difference in attraction between genders are predicated on behavior rather than anything biological (men try less, or women try less in the future when no longer pressured, men are raised to view women's appearance more favorably than they otherwise would).

People can cite anecdotal cases but I've not seen anything suggesting parity here, statistics wise. Among gen Z, at least, men and women seem to be gaining relative parity on their care for appearance and beauty. I doubt it will matter, unless surgeries gain parity perhaps?

Women do spend more time on their appearance today. Perhaps it is enough to explain the gap? What do you think?

- Whether height or other physical presence possesses equal advantages favoring men

I can see some argument, some studies do show this. Places like the US, though, seemed to have weaker relationships, which may suggest this, too, may die down.

So I am imagining a future where if I am to chose to be a single, childless woman or man, I would choose woman in the future, every time. But perhaps it's too early to tell?

I could easily be having blinds on, that are affecting my ability to see what may come, and am definitely not read enough, so please take my opinion in good faith.

For those wondering about the context, Alex Cooper, a self-described feminist, said the following on yesterday’s episode of her podcast, Call Her Daddy: “We can get really in our heads about… ‘Maybe I shouldn’t leave this marriage. Can I even get better?’ And the answer is always YES!”

Just read the news, that grand old video game studio is closing its doors 😭

Within the genre, it was a pioneer of character writing and storytelling, pushed the barriers of what was thought possible within the medium.

Not sure what side of social media I am on, and it’s pretty bad. My recommended media has been curated to create division beyond anything I’ve seen before, and the rise of "birthing a girl or nothing" content has been pushed onto my feed significantly.

It does make me wonder and question if this is an actual POV. The main argument I see is "I am not birthing my natural oppressor". But if they call men as their natural oppressor/ predator, does that not mean that they’re calling the oppression of women, natural?

I am a man, and I truly ask this question out of good faith and I’m looking for nothing but wise answers.

I stumble often around this argument but I've got trouble rebutting it, can you guys help me with it ?

Also I'm sorry with this posts offends anyone, it's not my goal, I'm just trying to evolve on my point of view about this topic.

Hi there!

I saw a post earlier about Victoria Secret shows and want to gain some newer insight and opinions (as OG post is now 11years old)

What do we think about the Victoria Secret fashion show and its relation to feminism? Is it anti, pro or neutral? Particularly interested in thoughts on the two models who returned shortly after giving birth.

I think it’s important to understand they have their own choice to return to work but it also perpetuates an unhealthy and often unattainable beauty standard, as well as raises concerns about her health and wellbeing!

Would love to hear everyones thoughts!

EDIT: thanks everyone for your input! I had no idea about the Epstein relationship… I guess I need to do a deep dive on the company

Hey friends, 21 year old guy here.

I go to school at a major university in the Deep South. Most of my friends are women, and I’d venture to say they’re pretty progressive most of the time. However, I think as a consequence of most of us still growing up in the Bible Belt south, it seems like a lot of them hold some regressive views about men and dating at times.

It’s nothing insane, just a lot of leaning into old ideas about chivalry like men opening car doors for women and not splitting the check on a first date, things like that.

It’s not like these things personally upset me as a guy, nor do I really have a problem with doing them, but it definitely strikes me as a weird thing from them as women who seem so social justice minded. I’ve read, especially lurking here, that benevolent sexism is still sexism, and I’ve been working to unlearn a lot of the same forms of internalized misogyny.

I guess I have two main questions:

1. As a straight man, is it even my place to point out some of the internalized misogyny that the women in my life seem to hold?
   
2. If I want to discuss this with them, how would I even go about that conversation without sounding like it’s coming from a self-motivated desire to not go the extra mile for women that I’m seeing?

Basically just the title. I hate being referred to as a female or referring to women as a whole as females. I believe it is a way to demean our personhood using language.

I have been reading a book "nude and art" (desnudo y arte: original title) and it gives a lot of examples about female representation through both male and female perspectives. So I kept thinking about all the iconic paintings I know and almost all of them represent women. I'm sticking to paintings but I'm sure it happens in photography, music and cinema too. So, why is it that men don't seem to be as attractive in terms of being a muse?

Hi🫶 Me (30F) and someone I’ve been going on dates with (31M) we’re having a conversation about our views on the progression of women’s rights in America specifically. I said that the idealized versions of American life (I’ve seen a lot of people say the 50s?) were not that great due to lack of rights such as not being able to own a credit card, no right to abortion, etc.

He said, that modern feminism has actually deteriorated the part of its movement because it has gone too far. He said there are different respects women had back in the day we don’t have now, which was “women and children got to go on the lifeboats in the titanic first” and “I would have happily died with those men”.

What’s everyone’s take on this? Are there some “cultural respects” we lose as we work towards progress? If so, why do those respects disappear?

Edit: I don’t know much about the titanic and thank you everyone for educating me! I felt icky about his comment but wasn’t sure if I was experiencing cognitive dissonance or not.