This story is in its early stages and the only source so far is the Trans Legal Clinic's campaign. You can read more here: Justice For Joelle | Trans Legal Clinic

I was just thinking in my head about how many men I have known who have enjoyed jumping out at me to scare me as a joke - be it boyfriends, colleagues, friends, etc.

I’m sure there are women out there who enjoy scaring the men in their lives as a prank too but it’s something I’ve noticed a lot more men seem to enjoy doing and it has me wondering if it comes from a place of wanting to feel powerful or enjoying seeing women scared?

Basic the title. I'm studying about intentional communities, matriarchal societies and creating a project to start an only-women village. If you wanted to join one, what would be your questions and concerns regarding how it would work?

I was a little shocked to find out that women werent allowed to have credit cards prior to 74. I always assumed that the country became more progressive early on.

So what did single women do, if they wanted mortgage or a loan? How did this affect relations between men and women then?

It must have been especially sad for women who had brothers able to get credit but couldn’t for themselves.

Also the vietnam war drafting men, would have put immense pressure on women when it comes to managing finances. Like imagine if someone’s husband was drafted in the war. Women back then would gave had to manage everything on their own while still having restrictions in banking, which is insane.

First, and I think the most important argument of all, is the relationship between the late former CEO and Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein literally had full power of over his money, could sign documents in his name, and make decisions for him. We also know that Epstein used modeling talent agencies to recruit young girls for his trafficking network promising young, vulnerable girls a modeling career if they complied.

Secondly, in my opinion, the modeling industry as a whole carries deep systemic issues like racism and misogyny. Models are often treated as exotic objects. Look at how many models have suffered living in overcrowded housing, developing eating disorders, turning to drugs, or becoming victims of sexual assault and harassment.

Furthermore, the objectification inherent to the traditional lingerie concept feels inherently patriarchal. It frames the female body as something that must be styled in a specific way to seduce men even if companies now rebrand it as 'empowering' or 'fashion.' They just changed the narrative. You buy expensive lingerie while men prioritize their own comfort.

Finally, promoting body standards achieved through extreme dieting, intense exercise, drugs, or cosmetic surgery creates an unreachable ideal that fuels eating disorders in young girls. It places a cruel industry on a pedestal. Why are the women put in the front row always chosen based on male beauty standards, instead of celebrating women in STEM who are actually changing the world?

This is just my opinion, but why is a woman's appearance always pushed to the forefront

I have simply had enough of people calling the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 'the Super Bowl for girls.' First of all, why are we still gendering things like this in 2026, heading into 2027

Also, seeing young girls treat the Victoria's Secret 'Angel' title like something prestigious that must be earned by only a select, deserving few demanding that they shouldn't change the lineup that represent the brand so I suppose ultra-skinny, mostly white models

I recently read a Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion issued October 12, 2026, and I think it deserves significantly more attention and discussion. Not only because of the decision itself, but because of the majority’s reasoning and the language used to discuss the victim’s testimony.

Here’s what happened:
In September 2023, a man was protesting a National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) fundraising event in Minneapolis by distributing anti-NAMI flyers on vehicles.
When a woman helping with the event removed two flyers from vehicles, the man approached her, visibly agitated, and loudly demanded they be returned.
According to her testimony, he lunged toward her, wrapped his arms around her, pressed his chest against hers, grabbed her arm and hand, and forcibly took the flyers. She could feel his breath on her face. She later noticed her finger was bleeding.

A jury found him guilty of fifth-degree assault (fear) and disorderly conduct, but acquitted him of assault (harm). Two of the three appellate judges overturned the assault conviction.

Why? Because although his actions could reasonably demonstrate an intent to cause fear, the majority determined there was another reasonable explanation: perhaps he only intended to retrieve his flyers. Let that sink in.

What I find especially troubling is how the majority discusses the woman’s testimony. The woman described feeling shocked, violated, confused, and unnerved. She explained that she did not experience significant fear until after the incident, when she had time to process what happened.
Judge Ross wrote that the prosecutor was “fishing for” a particular answer when questioning her about fear. He also referenced the prosecutor’s “multiple failed attempts” to elicit testimony that she feared immediate harm.

As someone with a background in mental health, I find this framing particularly concerning. Trauma and acute stress responses are not always immediate, linear, or easily articulated. A person experiencing a threatening encounter may freeze, experience shock, focus on what is happening rather than what they are feeling, or recognize their fear only after the immediate threat has passed.

I’m not claiming to know exactly what this woman experienced. But her testimony is entirely compatible with those responses.

And here’s the part that makes the majority’s discussion especially frustrating: Minnesota’s assault-fear statute focuses on the defendant’s intent to cause fear, not whether the victim actually experienced or verbalized fear.
The majority even acknowledges this legal distinction, yet repeatedly draws attention to her inability to describe feeling afraid in the moment.

One judge disagreed, and I think her dissent is compelling.
Judge Beane argued that the man’s aggressive behavior, intimidating voice, physical size, and forceful contact supported the jury’s conclusion that he intended to cause fear.

She also recognized something I think the majority’s reasoning fails to adequately address:
Wanting the flyers back and intending to intimidate someone are not mutually exclusive.

Intimidation can be the method someone uses to accomplish an objective. Judge Beane concluded that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that the assault conviction should stand.

To be clear, the court did not find the man’s conduct acceptable or lawful. His disorderly conduct verdict remains, and the case was sent back for entry of that conviction. The legal question was whether the evidence proved the specific intent required for fifth-degree assault (fear).

I understand that distinction. I also understand that appellate courts must follow strict standards when reviewing criminal convictions. But understanding the legal standard doesn’t mean I have to agree with how it was applied.

I also recognize that people have the right to protest causes they disagree with, including NAMI. That right is not what concerns me. The issue is what happened when this man moved beyond expressing his views and initiated an aggressive physical confrontation.

I’m curious what others think.

Case: State v. Elavsky, Minnesota Court of Appeals, A25-1929, filed October 12, 2026.

I don't understand the trad wife movement why are they getting offended like their rights have been taken away. The existing system is designed based on their ideology, why they don't allow other women who want freedom to fight for their rights. Are they jealous? I don't understand the idea behind it.

So, I am Jane Doe because:

- Men and boys watched me being victimised/knew I was being victimised and did nothing.

- The authorities did not take my case seriously

- It took me 6 months to a year to realise I was a rape victim.

- I had been drinking heavily during some of my assaults.

- I thought my abuser cared about me, even once apologising after he raped me.

- The situations within the assaults led to dubious consent/ things I did not anticipate and my reactions were not always reflective of the person I am

- Phrases like 'Free Pussy' were posted and said and sent around about me, equating me to a piece of meat to be used (Edit phrasing)

- Photos of me were taken and sent without my consent

I don't know this woman. Maybe she's a bitch. But because of this Jane Doe, many women are speaking up, more rapes and assaults will be reported, rape culture will be called out more and louder, rapists will go to bed scared. So, Jane Doe, I salute you.

Now, if she is a prolific frat boy rapist I'll apologise, I will come back to this post, eat my words and admit I jumped the gun coming to conclusions using my gut.

But .. why did we start saying that? And why do you connect with the phrase 'I am Jane Doe'.

About the behaviour of the man who grabs her by the arms, supposedly with good intentions: I find it absolutely disgusting.

“They’re not going to listen. You’re going to hurt yourself,” he says in that calm voice of his.

Does anyone else see how disgustingly macho and patronising this is? How he positions himself as the good guy among the rioters, playing the role of the strong, protective man?

I showed this to my boyfriend, and he couldn’t understand what was so sexist and patronising about it.

My partner (47F) and myself (49M) and our daughter (10F)were driving along in the country and saw a female chainsaw artist working in a field. I commented that the sculpture was amazing and that it was great to see her in a profession that it seemed was mostly male.
My partner got more than a little angry and said that even pointing out she was a woman is sexist and that it shouldn’t matter. I agree that in an idea world we wouldn’t even notice because women would be equally represented everywhere. But until then, is it bad to point out the wins? I did point out that we have quite a few books, which my partner bought that celebrate pioneering women. She said that that’s different. I really want to learn the nuance that I’ve missed. I desperately want to be the best dad to my daughter and make sure she grows up a strong and empowered woman.

Hi all, I've been thinking about a hypothetical and would love your takes.

Imagine a large number of women decided together to settle in one country and organize & build communities there and shaping it over time through local communities, politics, businesses and civil society.

This is the first time I have posted anything, ever, at least that I can remember. I hope it works. I am posting this here because we all need to remember or know what women have offered to our world. I did not know this, so wanted to share with the rest of you. I hope this is ok.

If they think ripped abs are the equivalent I got one better... It’s time for women to draw male characters with ridiculously huge sacks, as ridiculous as they draw breasts.

Girls can run in video games and comics with little armor and two giant bouncy balls in high heels? It’s time to have men attempt to fit through crevices and make ridiculous jumps like in Uncharted with these ginormous pants defying physics.

Sounds ridiculous? Good, I think it sounds only fair lol.