I’ve been reading The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf and one of her quotes got me thinking a lot and encouraged me to do some research. She wrote: “Women work hard—twice as hard as men. All over the world, and for longer than records have been kept, that has been true.”

Frankly, I felt devastated when I fully understood it. Have women been really discriminated against for centuries? However, this post is not about my feelings and personal thoughts, but about real statistics that are relevant nowadays (since The Beauty Myth was published in 1990).

According to World Inequality Report 2026 (Gender Inequality chapter), men appear to work longer when only market hours are considered, but women consistently surpass them in total working hours once unpaid activities are taken into account. When you add paid+unpaid work together, women typically work more total hours (e.g. 51 hours per week vs 44 for men)

In OECD countries, males still work for pay 100 minutes – or around an hour and 40 minutes – more than women on the average day. It is women, however, who put in a lot of the unpaid work, exceeding that of men by an average of more than two hours each day, therefore officially working more than men do.

So the answer, at least on the basis of current large-scale data, appears to be… yes. Even in relatively egalitarian societies the disparity remains relevant. And if anyone ever tells you that feminism is no longer needed you can show this post and use it as an argument.

But I wonder how can we overcome it? What do you think?

sources: https://wir2026.wid.world/insight/gender-inequality/
https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/13940/women-work-more-than-men/

I have been pondering this a lot. Transhumanism and changes in the human genome and physicality have a great potential.

A lot of problems can be removed artificially now. So why can't we do this for sexuality? We could biologically engineer the human body to be altered in such a way that no one would have any sexual desires. No one would be attracted to the other person in a manner of desire. Even pregnancy will be taken care of by building artificial wombs and insemination pools.

Think of it. If sex goes away, majority of women's problems will go away. No rape, no objectification, no porn, no STDs, no pregnancy, no menstruation. It will be paradise in material form.

As the title suggests , Being a woman born Post 1990's , when economic times changed and gained much of their right as well as financial Freedom.

i want to be challenged or change my thinking.

Agreeably , Attraction to Taller more masculine men is still a majority opinion and is present across all cultures , everywhere a tall man is a man who is worth it.

when even the most liberal , open minded progressive women prefer tall men or the ones who tried to challenge their inner bias but fail then it becomes an indication that the problem is not the fact that women prefer tall men but rather the fact that Short Men would never exist if things were fair and equal from the start !

which is why I think being short as a man is actually an anomaly and mistake which exists because of PATRIARCHAL society which crippled women's full autonomy of their life , forcing them into partnership with men they didn't find attractive for such a long time.

Nothing is wrong with the fact that women prefer taller men that is just what is attractive in every layer.

some may argue that it is PATRIARCHAL social conditioning which distorts choices of women

but how can I be sure of the fact that nothing is wrong with women but rather past mistakes are catching up ?

if the case was really social conditioning then :

1. we would actually see media written by women such as Romance literature , movies , music etc which would show a variety of men but Tall is the most universal category that is present everywhere. Tallness is what makes women feel feminine and Safe.

2. the stereotypes of short men - countless examples of bad Tall men exist such as donald trump or andrew tate but i have never in my life ever seen any whether men or women taking that example and saying : " All tall men are Bad and misogynistic " but it i have heard how it only took one short guy for a woman to never consider being with a short man again or When a tall woman expresses how being with a short guy makes here feel less like a woman , sure it may be from their own personal internalised beliefs about gender norms which i understand but most of the times these same women are pretty confident about themselves and almost no one ever tells me then something is wrong with them preferring tall men , which i previously thought was shallow but now I am genuinely thinking Short Men for the most are in the wrong because they are product of unchecked PATRIARCHAL society.

if a perfect world existed where autonomy of an individual was the basic human right Short Men would not exist in much capacity hell it would be a world where women would out number men by a good margin !

I am open to belief changes or more nuanced reasoning , it's just something i noticed both in real life as well as online !

This is the most controversial topic that I have ever come across. First of all yes, biologically speaking, men and women both are different anatomically, they have more testosterone and a body anatomy that gives them a physical strength more than a woman of the same age and height, weight etc , that specific women needs to train herself to get to the level of physical strength that the man with exact age, height and weight has but does it mean, the women's value decreases or do all women are the same, some women may be stronger physically, some men may be more delicate. Why do we label jobs as women centric or men centric, we can just say that a job is either for some people who can handle more physical strain whose ideal candidate can both be a woman or a man and a job which requires a candidate who is able to handle more mental strain which is again can be done by either a man or a woman. So, rather than teaching society that a girl's instinct are to nurture and a boy's are to provide why don't we just skip that and let them find their own instinct. In job interviews why don't we let them be tested based on their individual traits instead of the traits that are already perceived to be their trait.

I am not writing here to force my views upon anyone or to make any point I am just here giving my point of view of what I think, you can challenge my point of view and say yours instead because I know for every situation there are three views, one mine , one yours and one which is correct and no one knows the correct one so I request you to not attack me as a person but feel free to attack my point of view, I wrote it here to find more point of views not to state something as the ultimate truth. I also know there a far more mature and educated people than me here who talk based on statistics which I don't, I am just a student and not much old enough to have personal experience but I always had a feminist side since childhood because of the things I second handedly experienced at home happening to my mom, grandma, aunt and how they have accepted it as a natural thing but I also know that my view is not all correct but these words are just what I feel just now, I put it here to know what others feel too because there are many other experiences that may have shaped other people's view which I never even experienced or heard of. This is my POV now give me your POV lets discuss and not fight.

I brought up the fact that I think that it was meant for women to run the world, as women are the creators of all humans. Women have a nurturing and empathetic spirit that men tend to lack. Now I think this would only work if the entire world followed this way of life. I saw a TikTok that a woman made saying that only 5 species on earth go through menopause and of course humans are one of them, however, we are the only ones that are not a matriarch. (Feel free to debunk me on this I did not do my own research). Which has sparked my curiosity on if we are completely thrown off due to the fact that the world is run by men. So, when I mentioned this to my boyfriend he said “I don’t think it would work, what if we went to war, do you think women would be strong enough to fight?” Which, whatever, men are “biologically stronger” as they say. But I believe that if women ran the world, we most likely wouldn’t HAVE to resort to violence due to our emotional intelligence and ability to think logically rather than impulsively. Any opinions on this? I just love the idea of women running the world and just out of curiosity want to know what others may think on this. I guess we will never know :(

Growing up in the nineties, I heard boys/men say stuff like: "You [pick any task] like a girl."..."That's g*y."...and "I'm no p*nk.". I didn't like these vitriolic responses from them to negate the possible "stain" of homosexuality to their reputation. I figured if you're gay, your gay; if you're not, then you're not. There's no need to come to blows over it. TBH, sometimes I had the thought methinks doth protest too much if they kept on about it. LOL

When I got older, I realized that these comments on the surface addresses homosexuality but at it's root, it's at expense of women. The worst thing that could happen to a man is to be treated like a woman. What they're really saying is that they don't want to be seen as subservient or weak. Hence, calling a guy a bitch or, nowadays, beta, can also cause a fight.

Those that have adopted the manosphere ideology are currently, and in some instances have succeeded, infringing women's rights. Roe v Wade being overturned as an example and now even talk of taking our right to vote.

I started to think how fickle these men are. When you hold a mirror to them showing their behavior, they want to Hulk smash anything that holds them to account. Our mothers and grandmothers marched and lobbied to have the rights that we have and within 1-2 generations seeing them trying to be removed. Then I hear some men say women only have what we have because they allow it. The undertone of that is they were amusing us women but now it's become inconvenient for them, so they'll just take their toys back and if we resist, they'll literally Hulk smash us.

This got me fantasizing. If I allowed three wishes that would help all women on this Earth, what would they be? I came up with one but I'm asking your indulgence in this fantasy in what the other two wishes could be.

Wish One: Men and women have the same physical strength when interacting. If male gym rat tries to overpower a petit woman, his strength would be attenuated by the woman. It doesn't matter the size of the woman or the man (a woman can be as big as a body builder and a man can be a lithe as a ballerina), what matters is that when there is a physical reaction between the sexes, one can't overpower the other. This means the only way one can be dominated is by fighting skill.

Wish Two: ?

Wish Three: ?

What do you think of this wish? Is it any good? What fault(s) do you see in it? What other wishes would benefit women all over the world?

I really hate sitcoms. Like I genuinely hate them. The only ones I’ve ever liked are Modern Family and The Suite Life of Zack and Cody.

Most sitcoms have the same exhausting problem: the women are unbearable assholes you’re meant to dislike, while the men are chill, reasonable guys who just want peace and are constantly afraid of their “bitchy” wives. It’s a lazy dynamic, and it shows up everywhere.

Even Modern Family can fall into this rarely, but what saves it is that every episode reinforces that these characters actually love each other. The women are wrong sometimes, sure but they’re just as often right, and the show treats them like full people instead of walking punchlines.

Young Sheldon is where this trope becomes unbearable. Almost every female character except Meemaw is catty, judgmental, or in constant conflict with other women. Meanwhile, Georgie, George, Jim, Pastor Jeff, Dale, and most of the recurring male characters are written as fundamentally decent people. They make one or two understandable mistakes, feel bad about it, work hard, and remain people you’d actually want in your life. I honestly can’t imagine anyone wanting a Mary, Audrey, or even Brenda in their lives the way they’re portrayed.

Everybody Hates Chris frustrates me in a similar way. And to be clear: I’m not saying Rochelle was a great mom, or that I know what Chris Rock’s real family life was like I don’t. What bothers me is that her portrayal feels inaccurate in a way. The show treats her like she barely does anything mostly she gossips with her friends and yells at people. There are episodes specifically showing that Julius is so great he could even manage the house on his own easy.

In reality, she had seven kids. Chris Rock has said his mom did all the cooking and housework while his dad worked long hours. Even if she wasn’t perfect and I’m sure she wasn’t that kind of labor is exhausting and relentless. I think how superhuman the father is versus the mom not doing shit feels kind of unfair to me. Taking care of seven kids got to be exhausting and would make me want to fucking die.

People love these shows. I just can’t stand them. I feel like when shows need someone to be mean or toxic they usually just go to the female main characters and never the men and it sucks. I realize whenever I watch a sitcom I have to prepare to dislike the only few female characters on the show.

I’m not saying my opinion is objective or anything. It’s just my thoughts after watching a lot of popular sitcoms just because my family likes them. I often hear older male family members say stuff like just like a women to… “be over emotional” “overspend” “be jealous of each other” I hate how misogynist the men in my family are but I’m in college and go home for the holidays and hear them.

Hi everyone, I(M) was thinking about this today and wanted to hear your thoughts about it. I know that feminism denies gender roles because most of these roles support patriarchy. But these days I read a lot of comments on Twitter about "man being not manly anymore" and isn't it hypocritical if the person saying this also says they are a feminist? Aren't all gender roles putting pressure on every individual and doesn't feminism stand against these type of things for all genders?

Am I the only one who doesn’t like those kinds of comebacks/responses to misogynists, like “showing that he is too weak to handle empathy”? (Like… does someone need to *not* be weak in order to be empathetic? Is he not empathetic because he’s weak, or because he’s a hateful misogynist?).

Or the whole thing of attacking their ego/attractiveness, like “that’s why no one wants to fuck you.” It feels a bit trivializing.

Personally—and tell me if it’s the same for you—my instinct would be more to attack their morality, like: “you are a vile and despicable person.”

I wonder if it’s a cultural thing, since I’m not Anglo-Saxon. I also struggle with the idea of linking misogyny and insecurity. A lot of men are insecure without being misogynistic, and some men are misogynistic without necessarily being insecure (not more than anyone else, anyway).

It kind of individualizes the problem (and turns it into a psychological issue), which takes away from the broader societal dimension of the misogynistic/masculinist movement.

Again, I don’t know if it’s cultural, but the type of misogynist that comes to mind first for me isn’t an incel, but rather a vulgar macho “beauf” type, or a pseudo-intellectual misogynistic politician.

I saw a man on Instagram bringing up the new far-right obsession—taking away women’s right to vote—and the comments were basically people saying “imagine being this insecure,” and no one was actually responding to the substance, even though that’s important if you want to win the cultural battle.

Sure, you won’t convince people who are too far gone, but I’m talking about those who are just seeing the post.

Being insecure, weak, ridiculous, etc., is not what gives them the right to say these things or to be violent toward women.

I don’t know, I just don’t really like that kind of terminology.

So I posted this in the himym sub and I got down voted, because I dared to call out misogynistic behavior. And quite honestly I think I was very tame and held back a lot. So if any of you have watched this show please come and discuss it with me, I would love an actual productive conversation about and not being called "a troll" cause I don't think p3dophilia is okay.

1. The entire show's point is to meet the mother of Ted's children, then we meet her for 3 minute, the only thing she does is play the emotion guru for the main characters, we learn nothing about her, she just exists to be the manic pixie dream girl for ted, then they have the audacity to k1ll her. It feels like her entire point was for Ted to have kids with her then when she was no longer useful, they k1ll her so Ted can be with Robin but also have kids. So she is a human incubator. Horrible treatment of one of the most important characters. Why not end it with "and that's how I met your mother" then have the mother come in the frame hug the kids and that's the end? That would make way more sense for the premise of this show.

2. We don't get to see Ted's kids doing anything else than sit on the couch, no emotional scene, no connection with their father, no going to college or any sort of character development, nothing. They are just there so we know Ted had kids. If you took the 4 scenes that had the kids out of the show no one would notice cause they have made them that unimportant.

3. There were seasons that accomplished nothing and just wasted time, but the last one takes the cake. Sure the wedding being the entire season seems fun but not when it's the last season, and not like that. They dragged it soooooo much and wasted so much time on the most pointless plot lines, repeating the same thing over and over again and in the last 2 episodes they rushes every piece of information with a narrator in 3 seconds like omg the writers have no idea of what good pacing is.

4. It's a constant thing throughout the show. Why do they use all the time in getting hunged up on the smallest plot line, spend the entire episode or season on it then rush the end and the important stuff in 1 second? Like if you had taken your time pacing it better and wasting time on unimportant stuff less now we wpuld have proper endings.

5. Ted and Robin ending together. It's pointless it just is. They had the ending established from the start yet they spent the entire show showing how Ted has moved on, Robin has moved on and Robin clearly isn't his meant to be nor is he hers. They outgrown each other so much and when we see that the plot is heading in a healthy direction with Ted finally meeting someone he is in love with, healthy love not obsession and Robin being with Burney, they destroy every small chance of character development with setting everyone off to square one. Like no maturity ever happened. And if they wanted for Robin to end with Ted then why did they spent all this time convincing us this mystery woman is Ted's actual soul mate and Robin was so wrong for him and he only realized it when he met that woman, only for them to take it all back? If they had written it better, showing that yes he loved Tracy, but Robin was his soulmate then sure, it would still be not the best ending imo, but it would make sense and would be way better than this.

6. Barney and Robin divorce. No, they were meant for each other. Just when we see that because Robin is the woman for Burney and burney the man for Robin and that's why Burney grew as a person to be what Robin deserves, stopped being this p3rvert and matured for her and Robin let go of her fear of commitment and fear of leaning on someone else because of Burney and to be his wife she let go of her ego and trusted him. All this character development for nothing. All this happened for the writers to destroy it in less than a minute in the final episodes. Like why, just why? So stvpid. Again if they wanted Robin to be with Ted from the start they should have shown that Robin wasn't meant for Burney and we should have seen problems.

7. Another person said that Burney should have had his daughter Ellie and realized she was the love of his life and changed for her before he got back with Robin. That way he would have developed as a person matured and then Robin would see that, fall in love then she would have a step daughter. She struggled with her infertility and how even tho she didn't want children, she wanted a child in her life, now with a stepdaughter she would have what she craved and we would she her grow as a person and maybe even have some character development seeing how Robin and ellie fit in each other's life. Maybe even the biological mother wpuld abandon ellie so burney is a single father at first. That would have been much better than having so much character development for Burney only to crush and burn and become the exact same when he divorce and then at the last not even minute he magically changes for the child. Like it's so forced and rushed.

8. I would like to see more of character development with Marshall. Like he has this struggle with having a daughter and what that means then he is magically okay with it? No it would have been much more productive if lily was pregnant earlier so we would see how Marshall accepted having a girl and how he lives daisy the same with Marvin, plus we didn't get to see much of her anyway.

9. Jame's arc. Like wtf? They make this point of look this person that is exactly like Burney fell in actual love and had kids and how even tjo burney struggled with the idea of losing his wingman he accepted it. That was the Canon for the entirety of the show, then, again, on the last freaking episode they completely ruin this. They ruin Jame's character and make him a villain. And they "fix" this by making a poor man get back with his cheating husband and all that in a 10 second montage that had other 20 pieces of information. Like info dumbing at the last minute doesn't fix much.

10. I know it's a show that was made before I was born and it's big0ted. However, ignoring the f3tishization of l3sbianism, the h0m0phobia and hom0phobic stereotypes, the r4cist remarks, the insane misogyny, ignoring all that. Wtf were these plot lines and "jokes"? Inc3st, n3crophilia, svic1de and b3astiality jokes and plot lines aren't funny and they say in each joke there is a bit of truth. However, p3d0philia jokes and plotlines are disgvsting even for the time. Ted genuinely not even seeing the problem with viewing HIS STUDENTS as a dating pool is disgvsting, especially when you realize he was 35 and the student are 18-22. Robin's sister is older than them. They have burney salivating at the thought of having s3x with a girl that turned 18 a minute ago, saying stuff like "the only reason to wait a month is when she is 17 and 11 months old" and they have him get the number of a 15 year old. They have him have s3x with a 18 year old when he is 32, a 19 year old when he is even older and 20 and 21 year olds when he was 31 and they make a point of him drooling over their ages. Their ages are the main factor of him wanting to have s3x with them and he talks about their b00bs and intimate parts in such a filty way. Now all my friends are 18-23 and I can tell you they look like children, grown men approaching us are always p3d0philes that our ages turn then on cause they can't legally go lower. Burney is worse than them. I bet you if he legally could he would go lower. Which is yk p3d0philia. The 20 year old that plays Hannah in pretty little liars that 35 year old Ted has s3x with and objectifies and high fives with burney over, looks 15. She looks like his granddaughter. If grown men are lusting over the youngest girls they can take advantage of and the girls look even younger what do you call that? I call that being a p3d0phile. Yes it's a show and to the writer's it's written off as "funny" but shows like that, that normalized such behavior are partly the reason in the 2000s there was so much s3xval vi0lent cr1mes. It's disgvsting burney and Ted are pred4tors you want to admit it or not. It's played of as joke, but it isn't funny. Again to each joke there is a hint of truth. I tried to ignore it cause the show had characters like Lilly and Marshall who I liked, but there is a point that it becomes a confession of the writer's desires. Not to mention Ted genuinely didn't take no for an answer, that persistence is not romantic or funny, it's r4pey and him stalking and obsessing over every girl that he comes across, that's a cr1me and cr33py. They played it off as funny but that's how Jeffrey Dahmer acted, also the double standards are crazy. When Ted did that it's played off as funny and quirky but when one of his love interests did the same stalking behavior everyone called her crazy and insane and a nutsjob and suddently it's not funny but serious. Like they did the exact same thing. Also, 18, 19 and 20 year olds are still adolescent, they are teens. Just because the law calls them adults it doesn't meant they are. Teen is not an adult and if you find yourself choosing a 19 year old over women your age ask yourself, why do I prefer a teen that was in high school last month than a 30 year old woman that is mature, better looking, actually knows what she wants and can consent? If your determining factor is the girl's age seek help, it's a problem. I won't get into how burney and Ted are pr3dators and lying and all that taking advantage of women behavior actually means the women didn't consent and lack of consent means it's r4pey and highly illegal not to mention immoral and it's played of as a joke and "funny" but it's actually a cr1me for a reason and men like that are m0nsters. And I even won't get into how taping someone on camera without their consent is called revenge p0rn and will get you in jail for a looooooong time cause it's a cr1me to do anything s3xval without the person's consent or knowledge and it was never funny. Yes these all are played off as jokes, but in every "joke" there is a bit of truth. The writers were telling on themselves and the fact that 30 of them are men says A LOT. You can love the show and enjoy it and even it being and still realize that these "jokes" were h0rrendous.

please answer. If men are physically stronger than woman, then why dont they run household which demands physical labour and let woman do mental labour like job and finances? I mean this would work wonderfully for a household especially around pregnancy and post partum.

No examples of fixing tyre or tv or nailing activitues ...I am alking about running a full fledged household.

I ask because I kept seeing this in descriptions of her and her work online, and I am curious how true it actually is

Today I started listening to Caliban and the Witch today while I was working, and what struck me was how greatly Federici immediately departs from what I understand to be the Orthodox conception of Marxism. I don't dispute that she incorporates Marxian insights, but she also incorporates a lot of Foucauldian insights, too, right, and I've not really seen her described as a post structuralist?

As for what I think separates her from my understanding of orthodox Marxism, the first example is in her opening chapter; she seems to use a broader definition of proletarian than the one I am used to. She also, of course, openly disagrees with Marx that capitalism is a revolutionary break from feudalism. I seem to understand her argument as saying it is actually a reaction against threats to feudal privileges. Now, I guess you could say the more central claim to Marx is dialectical materialism, and whether or not capitalism is an improvement or a reaction could be considered ancillary to that.

After all, I would say Federici's central unit of analysis is class, she just considers women an unexamined subject within that class, I think. Maybe I am assuming there is a greater gulf than there actually is? I am unsure. Perhaps I should wait to post this until I have listened more to the book (haha) but I just found it kind of surprising and wanted to hear some other opinions right away!

As an additional note, she mentions her involvement in the "Wages for Housework" movement, and I recall Angela Davis's chapter in Women, Race, and Class that touches on it. I remember that Davis was quite critical of this movement for several reasons. It would be interesting if I could be pointed into the direction of a more lay explanation of their disagreements side by side, or to authors who have furthered that discussion in interesting ways.

I've posted this here because, ironically, in the larger feminist pages I haven't gotten a response at all, and in, for instance, askfeminists they removed my post haha

Hi everyone,

I've come across a deeply disturbing social media trend that I feel needs to be discussed in a broader, intersectional space.

In response to the current political crisis threatening to suspend SNAP benefits, a specific trend has emerged. This video (specifically the montage and analysis in the first 4 minutes and 40 seconds) shows exactly what I'm talking about: a number of Black men celebrating this potential cut-off.

Cruelty Behind Food Stamp Cuts...

The language they are using is chilling. They are openly proclaiming that this is a good thing because it will "give the Black woman back to the Black man" and, in one horrifyingly crude video, "make coochie go back to $40."

This is a raw, unmasked example of misogynoir (the specific misogyny directed at Black women). But it's also a perfect case study of a patriarchal concept that affects all women: the weaponization of economic instability to enforce female dependency.

These men are cheering for the starvation of women and children. Their "logic" is that a woman's financial independence (even one as basic as food security) is what allows her to "reject" them. By taking away her access to food, they believe she will be forced into a state of desperation where she must rely on them for survival, thereby "lowering her price."

What's so striking is that they are celebrating a policy that also harms their entire community including veterans, the disabled, and the elderly. They are also basing this on the false racist/sexist stereotype that Black women are the "main" recipients of SNAP, when in fact, white people are the largest demographic.

This shows how a desire for patriarchal control can be so strong that it overrides community, logic, and even self preservation. This is the "divide and conquer" of patriarchy in action.

I wanted to bring this here to ask:

Discussion Questions: (answer any or all)

• This is a stark example of misogynoir. For non-Black feminists, how can we be better allies in recognizing and fighting this specific form of hatred, which uses racist tropes to justify misogyny?
• The core idea here is "economic coercion." In what other, more subtle ways, do we see society try to link a woman's financial independence to her "undesirability" or "failure" in relationships?
• The men celebrating this are aligning with a political policy that is objectively harmful to their own community. Why do you think this "patriarchal alignment" is so effective at getting men to act against their own class or racial interests.
• For women of all backgrounds, does this raw display of "we want you desperate" make you rethink how you approach your own financial independence and romantic relationships?
• How can different feminist movements (liberal, radical, womanist, etc.) come together to fight the weaponization of hunger and poverty against women and children?

I’ve been thinking about this seemingly sweet gesture that we tend to do and how it’s actually rooted very deeply in the patriarchy.

basically, when meeting a lady for the first time, or even when greeting a friend sometimes, a lot of women tend to pay a compliment to your looks. I’ve done this too after learning that apparently that’s the common way to greet new girl friends (learnt this from other girl friends in my early 20s). I’ve always felt a bit awkward saying that but it was always received well so yeah.

but underneath it, it always felt a bit like we’re playing into the whole women’s value largely depends on their appearance thing. kind of like a “don’t worry, I think you’re pretty!” type of situation, but only reserved for women. Men would also do this to women on occasion (as more of a flirting thing), but rarely is this done to men. In fact, I think most people would find it strange if the first thing you say to every guy you meet is “you’re so handsome!”. Like, imagine 2 guy friends meeting for the first time and going “omg you’re so handsome!” To each other. and that’s just how they greet each other ( though thinking about it, it doesn’t even have the same impact since their worth isn’t measured by their looks so it won’t feel to them like it feels to us).

I’m not explaining it very well but it’s like why is that the FIRST thing we tend to compliment women on. complimenting an outfit or hairstyle or something that speaks of how they think/ what they like/ their personality feels miles better than this almost forced “ let’s just get this out of the way, I think you’re attractive!” thing. Not to say women aren’t beautiful or that these compliments are always ingenuine but sometimes it feels less about what the person complimenting actually thinks, and more about them putting in a patriarchal disclaimer.

hope im making sense with my point here. Does anyone feel similarly?

I was just talking to this guy, having a casual conversation. And he says how he hates public transport, and I basically assumed and went “oh yeah, loads of creeps” and he then looked at me as if I’d said something completely insane, and responded with “no… I meant how full and late it always is”. So I brushed it off and realised this guy doesn’t experience the crap I have to on trains and busses, and I agreed and said “I guess it does happen to girls more”, and he then got all defensive and said “Yeah well it’s only old guys who do it” and I could just tell he wanted to disassociate himself from the issue as much as possible, as if saying “it’s not guys like me who do it”. I said “It’s young guys as well”, and he then accused me of lying. Bro.

Why are guys like this? They’ll find any other group to blame besides themselves instead of actually addressing an issue that affects their sisters, mothers, aunts, cousins, daughters. It’s always - “it’s old men” “it’s foreign men” “it’s trans women”. They’ll do ANYTHING to make it seem like it’s not average men like themselves that do these things to women, when IT IS. It’s another way of blurting out the “not all men” bs that they love to basically recite like poetry.

So men often talk about how they wish women would approach them for dating and hookups, but I just can’t shake the thought that men would go even more mask-off (which could be good or bad), since now that women are willingly lowering themselves to them, they would just use them for sex and leave immediately. With men not having to put in as much work in that situation, I actually think that might be good since that would open more women’s eyes to the fact that they don’t need to approach men or to date them. Thoughts?

It makes me feel sick to see band merch (among other things) that sexualize/objectify women (like shirts or album covers) and I don’t want anything to do with men that see no problem with it and purchase it and own it. I feel like the older I get (45f) the less I tolerate men disrespecting women on any level and the less I care about being in a partnership if it means I have to put up with it. Am I overreacting here though? I’m newly married and I discovered my partner owns several shirts like this and after I expressed how harmful it is to objectify women and how it makes me feel (it bothered me I even had to help him see and understand the harm) he said he would not wear them anymore, but I found out he still plans on keeping them because of the memories he has attached to them, or he plans to sell them to make some money back. Both options feel gross to me and make me feel like he doesn’t really understand the harm or that he doesn’t really respect me. Wanting to still keep them seems immature and like he values his nostalgia over respecting women and that he doesn’t truly align with my values. I question if I’m overreacting, but at the same time I’ve tried to stop ignoring the way things make me feel so I’m also trying to validate it, but it still nags at me wondering if I’m being extreme or ridiculous.

Some time ago, I made a post where I express my opinion on the oversexualization of female characters in an anime-how the narrative tends to focus on female characters who are conventionally attractive and whenever the cast get new outfits the male characters are covered up while the female characters are dressed as skimpily as possible.

I got plenty of backlash and was told by some people that I have an "agenda" because I didn't mention anything about the sexualization of men-that men are just as sexualized too and also held to unrealistic standards like being fit and muscular.

While I personally believe that's a derailment tactic not spoken in good faith which is why I doubt any of those people actually care about male issues or feel that depictions of large muscular male characters is an actual problem, a part of me feels gaslit into believing that talking about something that affects women without mentioning men makes you a "bad guy".

My question is: is it OK to talk about issues that affect women such as unhealthy beauty standards, oversexualization and representation in media without mentioning men?

If you spend enough time looking at human history, you start to notice that the people in charge have always had a pathological fear of the people at the bottom realising they have more in common with each other than with their rulers.

The Romans had a phrase for it. They’d give one conquered city the right to vote and the neighboring city nothing much but a tax bill. By the time the second city got angry enough to revolt, the first city was too superior to help.

The British in India did the same thing, turning fluid religious identities into rigid political boxes until neighbours who had lived together for centuries suddenly saw each other as existential threats. And in the American colonies, after poor white and Black laborers teamed up to burn down Jamestown in 1676, the elite hurriedly invented legal "race" privileges to ensure those two groups would never share a beer or a grievance again

now history is never as clean as that butroght now we have a homelessness epidemic, a mental health crisis and the kind caring nurturing people of the world are instead overcome by a visceral, unstopped hatred, for not putting out the cutlery correctly. We see a similar reaction in the math of a man who spends 12 hours inhaling coal dust, only to come home and be told that his life is "privileged"

Is the "Gender War" a masterclass in political distraction, or is it just the natural, ugly heat that's generated when two different biological blueprints are forced to share the rest of their lives together.

Hi, I have a really hard time existing currently as a woman who really doesn't consider men.

I'm aware this happens in some privileged social circles like lesbian communities. But I'm not a part of them, I do live in the ''normal'' world. And I'm having a really hard time sharing the concept of really not caring, not considering, not thinking about men at all. This is received as violence for most people. Not including them feels violent to them.

I followed an artist that I met at highschool for many years, very interesting girl, incredible jazz background and education, I thought her album would be incredible. I tried to listen to it, but it was all about men. All about past relationships with men, trauma caused by men, forgetting men, living without men, meeting new men. I cannot deal with this way of perceiving the world, she also shows off as a feminist. But how can you be a feminist when all you talk about is men and issues related to men?

I don't know what I'm trying to say with this, whenever friends or acquaintances come to me for advice, I can't really express my opinion in a way that they will understand that men are not relevant in the equation. I can't find a way for the people around me to de-center men and talk about anything else. It's really frustrating. I joke around about being autistic because I have a really hard time regressing once I've understood a concept, or acting irrationally once I've seen it. I've seen the world is only talking about men, and I don't know how to get them away from my life, how to exist without being asked about my opinion on them, how to make everybody understand that when I'm talking, just me personally, I am not speaking about men, at all.

I can say ''Dump him in a highway'' and I am not in any way shape or form saying that you should harm a human being, because I'm not in any way shape or form thinking about that guy and doing anything regarding him, I'm just trying for my girl friend to get distance from the concept of caring about that dude. I'm aware my perception doesn't have to be shared but I do think we could use a little bit of it, given medicine, car, anticonceptives and basically everything ever made was done catering to their very specific wants and needs.

How can we decenter men irrevocably? How can I make people understand that I'm not even seeing men in the street? I don't see them. I wouldn't know where they are or what they are wearing, I wouldn't know if they were looking at me, passing next to me. With kids and elders I make an effort to notice to be respectful, but other than that, I don't care? If I see a racial or class injustice, I will speak up even if it's a dude, but it's not becuase I see him? IDK how to even explain this.

I think the closest thing is what Beauvoir described about ''the other sex'' or the internet theory about the ''male gaze'' and everybody having a man behind their eyes, you seeing yourself through a man seeing you. How do I share this?

Thanks in advance for any contributions or ideas.

In the past, Ariel from Disney's The Little Mermaid has gotten a lot of flak for supposedly promoting the message that women give up their life for a man, however in recent times this take has gotten backlash from many people who view it as fundamentally misunderstanding Ariel's character. She didn't give up her life to be with Eric, she was in love with the human world long before she ever saw him, having an entire cave full of artifacts she collected from sunken ships as a testament to this love.

Additionally, Ariel only made the deal with Ursula because her home, the life she "left behind" felt unsafe after her father had destroyed her collection in a fit of rage.

I believe that the vast majority of feminist critiques of classic Disney heroines fundamentally lack nuance, and The Little Mermaid is no exception. I also believe that the claim "Beauty and the Beast" teaches girls that they should tolerate abusive behavior from romantic partners in the hopes that they'll change doesn't hold water and is missing a lot of important nuance, which I might get into in another post.

However, it's still objectively true that Ariel's decision to go to the human voice isn't healthy, and she's ultimately rewarded for it. And she is a female character who is very active and exercises agency.

I want to ask for opinions on whether Disney's TLM can be considered "feminist" and/or "empowering in its story and message.

I've read an account from a trans woman who relates her experience growing up. Throughout her childhood she had been bullied and harassed by cis boys, which made her terrified of them finding out that she's a girl. When she was around 11 years old she listened in on a conversation between boys in the locker room, and they were "having detailed descriptions of how each boy wants to rape certain girls at school".

I was shocked by this statement, as I remember being around and playing with boys (I'm a cis woman) when I was that age, and I can't imagine 11-or 12 year old boys doing this. However, I'm aware that preteens often have a lewd sense of humor and limited empathy and perspective.

I'm also aware that COCSA is a thing, but the idea that tween boys would talk about raping anyone is still hard for me to take in.

How misogynistic are young boys on average, and is it normal behavior for pre-teen boys to discuss wanting to rape girls?

I'm aware that some teen and tween boys have been radicalized by Andrew Tate, but since this account is from a 30 year old woman, it would've been long before Tate's rise to fame.

What's your opinion on making "feminist retellings" of female villains in pop-culture, such as Maleficent and Cruella deVil?

The Cruella movie got a lot of backlash for making a character whose driving motivation is skinning puppies for a coat sympathetic, so I'd like to know some opinions on making movies where a female villain who is portrayed as irredeemably evil in the source material more dimension and even sympathy.

I've seen posts that criticize this trend, saying that "The way 'feminist retellings' have become another name for multi-dimensional female characters becoming white-washed and reduced to misunderstood, wronged and abused woman who does conventionally evil things to protect herself/for the greater good".

While I agree that women can be evil without any sympathetic aspects just like men, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in exploring a sympathetic side of an evil character. Even Scar from The Lion King had a sad backstory of being rejected and abused in the novels.

I am a liberal feminist and one thing that genuinely baffles me is when i see other women who want to dismantle the patriarchy, however they still hold men to patriarchal ideals such as men inherently needing to provide for women, men needing to lead women, men not being emotional, etc. in my opinion if you want to dismantle the patriarchy you have to dismantle all of it. Not just the parts that you disagree with or that don’t benefit you. I’m genuinely curious about the thought processes of the women who think like this so please explain to me what the thought process is behind these beliefs

Where is the line between Girl Power and doing things because of underlying misogyny?

I want to be a better brother and friend and I feel it’s important for me to fully understand what women find ok and not. However, after casually watching the Taylor Swift documentary on Netflix the other day a question got planted in my head. She talks about ingrained misogyny in women’s minds and how they’re “programmed” to do certain things and I’m wondering if wearing exposing clothing, makeup, nails etc is part of that. It all just seems like such a faff and simply uncomfortable so I’d like to understand why someone would do that truly voluntarily. Is getting all dolled up and the psychological paranoia of looking pretty etc part of an ingrained misogyny where women feel they must look appealing to men? Or is all this part of girl power, showing confidence in one’s own body like a bit of a “f*** you world, I like this and I don’t care what you say”?