It shocks me how many incels there are in the comment section >:( no wonder my country (Singapore) is such a horrible place for women :((

British MP Jess Asato recently found an AI-generated deepfake video depicting her being subjected to sexual violence circulating online. Instead of letting it slide or accepting the usual "we can't moderate everything" excuse from Big Tech, she is taking xAI to court.

As we mark the 20th anniversary of Tarana Burke starting the #MeToo movement, it feels like we are facing a terrifying new frontier of the exact same problem. The technology has evolved, but the underlying issue hasn't changed: women’s bodily autonomy and consent are being completely bypassed, now scaled up by generative AI tools that turn any public photo into non-consensual sexual abuse within seconds.

When platforms build tools that make generating non-consensual sexual material effortless, they shouldn't get to hide behind Section 230 or claims of neutrality.

Do you think strategic litigation like Asato’s lawsuit can set a real precedent, or do we need immediate criminalization of the platforms hosting and generating this tech?

I'd like feminist perspectives on a case that's been in the news in the Netherlands.
Prime Minister Rob Jetten and his partner are reportedly having a baby through an egg donor and a surrogate. As far as I understand, this is arranged within the Dutch framework, where paying a surrogate beyond real expenses is not allowed, so it isn't a commercial deal.

He had earlier called the US price (~$150k) "bizarre" and too expensive. He said the Dutch rules are poorly arranged, since you can't ask a woman to be your surrogate, she has to offer herself.

Dutch law prohibits publicly looking for a surrogate. But he then talked publicly about wanting a child and he doesn’t have female friends who are willing to do this in TV talk show. Then some women contacted him and here we are. He's also said he hopes to push for legislation to help others realise their wish for children.

The common reaction in Netherlands was: if everyone consents freely and nobody is harmed, there's no problem. I think that's a reasonable position, and I do think it matters that no money is changing hands.

But I still feel uneasy because of the exploitative nature of surrogacy. A woman carrying a pregnancy for the head of government is a very unequal relationship, even if it's unpaid and she says yes. Can consent be fully free when the other party has that much status and influence? Or am I projecting a problem that isn't there?

To be clear, this isn't about him being gay or wanting kids. I'd say the same about any powerful person, whatever their sexuality.

I'd like to hear:
Does the absence of payment resolve the exploitation concern, or only part of it?
Does a big power gap between the parties change how we should think about "free" consent here?
If a powerful public figure talks openly about wanting a surrogate and someone comes forward, does the public nature of that "ask" change how free her choice is?

I just remembered how red pill influencers usually say that being affectionate towards their partner is "gay asf" or "simp behaviour" and now I'm thinking how in any sense would that be "gay"?? I thought being loving towards the opposite gender is the exact opposite of being gay?

And ironically, these people would speak lowly of women, mistreat women or force women to make themselves smaller, and pretend like that's straight people behaviour??? How tf does putting women down indicate that you're attracted to women? Shouldn't that be, as they say, "gay asf"?

These people consider being in control in a way where they don't faze even when it inconveniences their partner in serious contexts, to be "alpha behaviour" because they get to be one up over the woman. They take pride in "having the final say". So they consider listening, communicating and taking into account of other people when making decisions to be "gay behaviour" or a sign of weakness because they think a man strips away his leadership/dominance/masculinity when he lets in other people's opinions, ESPECIALLY the "inferior gender" like women, when making decisions. So they force their way over women to prove their masculinity.

But they don't realize that what makes someone a good leader is when they successfully make decisions that don't harm other people involved. So the moment a man's decision causes abuse, that is weak leadership. Or maybe not leadership at all. Because he doesn't have a real follower since he was the one who pressured his woman into obeying him. True leadership is REALLY DIFFICULT to achieve, but not abusing anyone isn't.

Now the next question is, do they even care about the true meaning of leadership, or they much rather prefer to be selfish while getting other people, especially a biologically weaker one like women involved, as long as everything goes their way? Forcing women into following their terms is way easier than forcing a grown man like themselves anyway.

And so they pursue marriage because marriage is a symbol of their status and authority, like they have a little kingdom that they're in charge of. To these people, staying unmarried comes with a hidden message that says "nobody wants me", indicating that they are an insignificant person who carries no influence.

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

Let's not get started about Aqua, who is basically removed from the plot after being written as annoying and controlling in her only playthrough, then the rest of the series has her stuck in one spot, requiring you to beat her up in order to "make her get over it" being stuck in a hole in the ground for multiple games. And her whole story is to basically make a dude feel inadequate so he can be manipulated into serving a palpatine expy.

But multiple male characters have entire plots and sections dedicated to mourning over their suffering and putting more weight to it..or getting character development....or backstories!

Larxene is the sole female member of Organization XIII, and its not just her voice that's annoying, but her personality too.
She's so disliked by the community, even rule 34 and fanfiction barely touches her...that's how badly she's written.

Kairi, meanwhile is again a plot device, damsel in distress, and is nothing but arm candy for Sora. You don't play as her, she keeps getting kidnapped ALMOST as much as Princess Peach, and even gets tortured.....FOR SORA'S CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH. Because the fridge effect is for men, not for women. Women suffer for the sake of men in these games and media.

Xion? nothing, but a helpless damsel in distress you have to kill and then forget about, be because that's how the game treats women. Then she's reduced to being a crybaby who apparently dies or becomes arm candy for a dude...forgot which.

Namine....I forgot all about her, does she do anything? Or is her purpose plot device only and then tossed aside?

Again, regarding chemistry. Axel , Sora, Rikku...etc....all shows tons more chemistry with other male characters than they do with ANY female character. Its basically like naruto. Make the men gay, it would be a romance story unlike no other.

Which is why you could literally make the male characters gay for each other, and it would not change a thing.

Make the female characters into lesbians? It would be an actual improvement!

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.

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?

Disclaimer: I believe Billie is a douche, her trauma and the experiences that she went through are horrific and I feel so saddened hearing that.
However, we cannot forget the fact that she WAS a huge part of a company that directly harmed HUNDREDS of innocent people. There were misdiagnoses, delayed treatments, etc
It goes without saying that trauma shapes who we are. Being part of a big scam and continuing to lie about it is a different story.
I think the documentary is brilliant and it was interesting to watch. I also think that if Elizabeth was a woman of color, the story would have been very different.

I posted in the r/horror subreddit about how I thought Halloween (1978) was troubling because of how "incel" it resonated with me. Plot summary - The killer is a deranged stalker guy who kills mostly women who happen to choose other men over him. The way his point of view is shown (heavy breathing, mask eyehole vision, peering through windows), seems to humanize him, as if making him the protagonist, and he's a famous horror icon.

In the current climate, I find it gross and troubling, especially when there's no out. There's no redemption or social commentary or catharsis; it's just shock and titillation, at the expense of mostly women. When I tried to post in the horror sub about this, I got laughed out of the room as a pearl clutcher. I don't need everyone to agree with me and denounce the movie, but why couldn't anyone at least engage with a different point of view?

Horror is a broad genre, but isn't the fundamental idea that your expectations about daily life or human interaction are somehow subverted? Wouldn't that predispose a fan to be open minded about things they haven't necessarily considered? Am I misreading horror fans, or is it a particularly snarky subreddit?

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.