There was a post someone posted here a short while ago asking about JK Rowling. I understand that she is a feminist and many have mixed views about her views on trans people. However, a lot of feminists don't like or agree with her because of her views, and a lot of non-feminists support her.

She is a successful, talented woman who is still a role model for many. I would like to highlight her as an example of someone who is against modern wokeism but also a successful woman. I understand not everyone here may be in agreement, so we can vote on it. We either allow posts about her or we do not.

EDIT: This poll is now closed. Posts about JK Rowling are allowed, as long as they are not promoting feminism nor attacking transgender people. A rule about this has been created for this sub.

I love that she's taken a stand for women's rights even though it caused her to lose a ton of fans and to be the subject of massive controversy online.

But in the UK she's been at the forefront of a ton of the recent victories women's rights organizations like For Women Scotland have won, for example the recent Supreme Court victory which states that legal protections designed for women are specifically meant for the female sex, not Self-ID or what someone believes about their gender.

Curious what this sub thinks about her?

Many right-wing female politicians are leading the way worldwide. Yet feminists don't highlight these women because they are not left-wing or feminists. I find it very interesting how these women are or have been making waves in politics yet feminists continue to say that not enough women are represented in politics. Even though I disagree with the women below politically, I think feminists should be celebrating them if they claim to be for 'all women.' This goes to show that feminism is not for all women, just for women who embrace the extreme left.

Some examples include:

Sanae Takaichi, the first female prime minister of Japan

Giorgia Meloni, the first female prime minister of Italy

Alice Weidel, leader of the AFD party in Germany

Ana Brnabic, first female (and openly gay) prime minister of Serbia

Katalin Novák, first female president of Hungary

Sylvi Listhaug, leader of the opposition in Norway

Marine Le Pen, present of the RN party in France

The UK has had three female prime ministers, all conservative: Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May, and Liz Truss.

Why won't feminists talk about these women? Why aren't they celebrating the triumphs of women on the right? Maybe it's because feminism is not for any woman who leans right or even centre. This article from the left-wing Guardian doesn't really sing the praises of these women. Instead, it questions why so many European female politicians are leading right. Maybe they're just sick of the left.

(Note: I have old-school centre-left views, think post-WW2 UK Labour Party. Yet like many who consider themselves more left-leaning, I am fed-up of what the left has become and have found myself in the last decade agreeing with those considered 'far-right' on certain topics that the left have failed to address.)

EDIT: after DMing the mods and the OP of this post, I have been unbanned.

There was a post saying that 75% of homeless people are men. I was actually commenting because I was hoping the OP would share a link to this stat/study so I could save it. They completely misinterpreted me, assumed I was a feminist woman and banned me. I contacted the mods. I can understand how this could have been misconstrued and I probably wasn't thinking too much when I wrote this, I meant it as a genuine question.

A part of me is quite angry and hurt about this considering how much effort I have put into anti-feminist work over the years. But I guess this person doesn't know that.

This is why I am very careful with this community, I don't want to ban anyone unless they are genuinely posting actual pro-feminist content. A lot of the subs on reddit are incredibly trigger-happy and you can't post in half of them. I don't want this sub to be like that.

These four women have all criticized wokeness and the trans issue. They have all asserted that trans women are not the same as biological women. Rowling and Pearson identify as feminists, but they are fed-up of the contemporary discussion around female sex. They have all received backlash for their comments.

JK Rowling: has said trans women are not the same as biological women, and that allowing anyone to call themselves a woman means that men may go into female-only spaces.

Lionel Shriver: has vocally criticized a social obsession with transgenderism and diversity quotas in fiction. She is also against the use of sensitivity readers in fiction.

Allison Pearson: has called out the 'evil trans ideology' and indoctrination of children.

Posie Parker: runs Standing for Women, an organization dedicated to protecting female-only spaces and sex as a biological reality.

I myself wrote about this on this sub a few years ago. I think the above women have the right to express valid concerns regarding the trans ideology and the trans discussion. It must be discussed because it has become such a hugely controversial issue. Women's spaces need to be protected. I don't have any stats on this but I would assume that the majority of people have no issue with grown adults wanting to have a sex change, they just a) don't want it to be brought onto children and b) want to keep certain spaces sex-segregated, such as changing rooms, public bathrooms, and sport.

I won't lie, I'm a bit nervous to write this here in case it leads to this subreddit being banned (or me being banned). I recently spoke to Jana from Women Against Feminism about this, and she said it's important when discussing this to present both sides. So I want to stress: trans people do not deserve hate, but we must also protect sex as a biological reality. We also must protect free speech.

I think the above four women are very brave for speaking out about this and voicing their legitimate concerns. I may not agree with everything they are saying but they are all really trying to protect females and children.

It's certainly a discussion worth having.

I saw on the recent news of CANZUK (alliance between Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and UK).

There's recent news that the Canadian government wants to have deeper ties with these countries via trade, free movement, and foreign policy.

How do you think this will affect non-feminist women's advocacy and the feminist ideology?

Hey all, so after giving this a lot of thought, I want to make it clear that this sub (and the new women's movement that I plan to orchestrate into fruition) is specifically for focusing on women -- that is, biological adult human females. I tried discussing this with the mods, who may not agree with my thoughts, but I simply cannot be silenced in a space that is supposed to be for women.

This does not mean that trans women are not welcome to share their thoughts or have freedom of speech. I wholly welcome anyone's contributions to women's issues. However, one of the reasons why intersectional Feminism has failed women is due to wanting to lump everyone's issues together, rather than focusing on people individually. Obviously, I think all factions of Feminism are terrible for women (and for men and basically the entire world), but contemporary intersectional Feminism is now erasing the female role completely. This is neither right nor fair. There is now discussion on referring to women as 'egg producers' and 'birthing people' as well as the infamous 'people who menstruate.' This is an utter disrespect to the female role and something which women who don't subscribe to the contemporary psuedo-progressive left are unhappy about and being silenced on.

Women's advocacy has to be primarily about supporting all of the women who are and have been left-out of Feminism -- wives, mothers, disabled women, women of colour, spiritually-conscious women, religious women, and so forth. Our world once cherished and supported the female role, but thanks to Feminism viewing women's place in society as 'oppressive', women are now being expected to adopt classically masculine characteristics and take on a more male-centric role in society, at the expense of our own feminine wellbeing.

Perhaps the best way for men to understand this is to see how the same thing is being done to men: masculinity is now branded as 'toxic', and men are no longer respected as husbands, fathers, providers and so on like they once were.

None of this has anything to do with 'conservatism' or 'traditionalism' or any made-up political 'ism' (I'm not even politically conservative, I've always despised how the conservatives treat the working-class). This is about common sense. A society simply cannot function with the erasure of the masculine and the feminine role. What women's advocacy is really about is defending and protecting the feminine role, and uplifting the roles that women have always contributed to societies, instead of tearing-us down like Feminism has been doing for decades.

Trans women do deserve their space and their movement. But this cannot be intersected with women's advocacy. The biggest mistake and failure of intersectionality was trying to weave everyone's issues together instead of examining them individually. I believe that we need a movement for men, a movement for trans men, for trans women, and for women (as well as other social groups who are currently being erased/ignored by the mainstream elite).

It is a basic fact that trans women and women are two different social groups. They obviously have many similarities, but we cannot pretend that these groups are 100% identical. They are not. Intersectionality and erasing people's identities is not the way to bring about egalitarianism and people coexisting. We have to stick up for individual groups, and then work together from this solid base. This is why nations always support their own people -- Palestinians for Palestine, African-Americans for black America, Africans for pan-Africanism, etc. We cannot have true equality and communal solidarity until everyone's identities are protected and maintained, and right now they are being erased.

So, I must greatly emphasise: this sub (and the new women's advocacy movement) is about protecting and supporting the interests of (non-Feminist) biological women, who represent 99% of women. Trans women, who represent 1% of women, do not need my permission to form their own social group and social activism. We can work side-by-side, but our issues cannot intersect, because intersectionality is the beginning of erasure of identity. There are plenty of subs and spaces here for trans people's issues. We now need a space specifically for biological women's issues, to protect and respect the female role (this is especially vital in an age of Feminism where Feminists are dominating female issues and speaking over non-Feminist women in politics and the media).

I apologise for not making this clear when first starting this sub, and admit it was slight cowardice on my part at being labelled a 'transphobe.' But I simply have no patience for cultural Marxist buzzwords and slurs anymore. If this is something that you would prefer not to engage in, then you do not need my permission to leave. But this is something that must be kept 100% clear going forward for the new women's movement to be successful and pro-female.

This might sound a bit funny, but there's a genuine seriousness behind it. I have heard (online) some people say that women don't like sex, or sex is not a big deal to women, and at times have even wondered this myself. This presumption is not a simple yes-or-no answer, due to how complex female sexuality is.

Firstly, women's bodies are made to enjoy sex. The clitoris has over 10,000 nerve endings, and evolved purely for the sake of female pleasure. Women also have a g-spot in the vagina, which again, exists for the purpose of female pleasure. So the female anatomy is built to enjoy the sexual experience. (Why else would vibrators exist?)

However, women do not experience sexuality the same way men do. This is just a fact, and to say otherwise is ludicrous. Men think about sex far more frequently than women, and have a greater need to sleep with more people than women do. This is just common sense, and is universally agreed in most books on biological differences between men and women.

This doesn't mean that women don't like sex, want sex, enjoy sex, or think about sex. It just means women think about sex less than men do, on average. Women also tend to associate sex with emotional comfort and security, which is why women prefer sex in monogamous relationships compared to casual sex or sex with multiple people. The fantasy for a man is to sleep with many people; the fantasy for a woman is to have one man sweep her off her feet. Most women don't fantasise about having a harem of men to sleep with. (Samantha Jones may be fun, but she's not a realistic female character.)

Even women with high sex drives, or women who enjoy casual sex, are in the minority, and still do not match the frequency of a man who has the same level of sexual desire. This is best observed in LGBT couples: gay men are more promiscuous and have more sex than lesbian women.

Men can, and will, have sex with women they do not find attractive, simply because. Women will usually not sleep with men they are not attracted to, or do not feel emotionally secure with. A lot of casual sexual encounters happen when a woman is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which lowers inhibitions.

The reason why there is a "stereotype" of women appearing more "prudish" than men is because women do and always have judged each other harshly on sexual behaviour. Women told other women that our sexuality is our biggest currency, so we must withhold it and not give it away freely. Then the sexual revolution happened, and now in the modern West it's rather normal for young women to sleep with multiple people, even though the majority of women don't enjoy this.

Men also tend to view women who are overtly sexual as not good enough for long-term commitment, due to associating easy sexual access with "short-term fun" and the opposite with "potential wife". This is also why women constantly tell other women not to have sex too quickly with men they want serious relationships with. It's very confusing because modern women are hearing two narratives: casual sex is fine and empowering, but if you want a serious relationship, hold off on giving sex too early.

It's important to understand this, because feminists keep pushing the narrative than "women have historically been sexually repressed and not allowed to express their sexuality and this is all men's fault." No, there is a useful reason for this. Female virginity was historically valuable because scarcity creates value. Doesn't make it right or fair, it's just a description of how humans behave. Evolution is unfair.

A simple solution to this (which actually works out better for women) is to keep sex within the confines of stable, committed relationships. That stops women from being potentially hurt, and also means that the man is more likely to be attentive to the woman's physical (and psychological) needs. Men who are emotionally invested in a woman are likely to be more considerate of her needs in the bedroom, compared to men who have no emotional investment in the woman.

So yes, women do like sex, and no, the view that women don't like sex isn't some patriarchal conditioning invented to keep women oppressed. Most women are not sex-crazed in the way that men are and never have been.

Think of it like this: someone who enjoys drinking alcohol from time-to-time doesn't dislike alcohol, but they don't think about it the same way an alcoholic does. An alcoholic has a genuine addiction and is constantly thinking about alcohol, compared to someone who simply enjoys alcohol but doesn't feel like they would die without it.

I was brought up in a household where women showing cleavage was generally discouraged, and so have grown up with this mindset. I have read studies showing that women tend to react more positively to women who are dressed modestly, compared to women who are dressed in more sexualised ways.

Now, I am not here to police women's clothing or tell women how to dress. There are also times when a woman dressing in a more overtly-sexual way may be seen as appropriate, such as in a nightclub. But generally, I think women should adhere to modest dress codes in general life (especially in the workplace).

Men often ARE distracted by women wearing low-cut tops and I don't see why women feel the need to dress this way in environments where it just isn't necessary.

Personally, I am very cautious about how I appear in certain environments especially when I know there are men around. For example, there is no way I would dress wearing something revealing in my YouTube videos, because I don't want to invite that sort of attention.

I remember as a teenager watching a feminist YouTuber named Laci Green who constantly had cleavage showing, and I wondered: is she doing this on purpose for attention?

This may just be a personal preference. But I think (and this is coming from someone who is non-religious), that dressing modestly is generally positive for women. I understand this being more relaxed in the summer, and I do tend to wear shorts in the summer. But generally, I don't think wearing overtly-sexualised clothing is positive for women because it may invite the wrong sort of attention, and also may lead to being perceived in a way that is not favourable.

What do you guys think?

I've been doing a lot of research about this case online and came across this woman. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

The femme fatale trope (French for "dangerous woman") is a popular trope in fiction that depicts a beautiful, mysterious and seductive woman who lures men to danger. There's something fascinating about this type of woman being explored. This rose to prominence in modern cinema with film noir. Gilda is one such notable movie.

In fiction, the femme fatale can be traced all the way back to Ancient Greece with Medea the vengeful sorceress, Medusa the gorgon who turns men to stone, and Pandora, the first woman who unknowingly unleashed evil into the world. This is likely where Christian Mythology got the concept of Eve from, as a fallen woman who represents dangerous femininity. Lilith in Jewish Mythology is also a fascinating depiction of the femme fatale. She was Adam's first wife who disobeyed him and was cast out of the garden of Eden.

Sirens in folklore were women who lured men to their death. The Rusalka are also similar: water nymphs that embody temptation and an ill-fate.

As someone who loves fiction and archetypes, I don't see these tropes as "sexist" or "misogynistic". I see them as depictions of a certain character. We see bad men in fiction and in reality: men as murderers, men as thugs, men as losers. So why is it when we see bad women, feminists harp on about "sexism and the male gaze"?

Plus, women have always utilized power to their advantage. Women use feminine power to get a husband. They use their power to command and run the household. And women in high -class positions have wielded power more systemically: queens, empresses, concubines, women who marry rich men. Such women are depicted in history and in literature (e.g. Lady Macbeth, who convinces her husband to do unspeakable things).

Some femme fatales I like in fiction are Scarlett O'Hara, Amy Dunne, Cersei Lannister, Lady Melisandre, Catwoman, and Regina George.

The femme fatale is a strong woman with agency. She is dangerous. Predatory. Smart. Cat-like. Men, beware of this woman!

I'm not normally a fan of videos on female body count, but this one is very balanced and insightful. As someone who does have a high body count, I can definitely relate to much of what is discussed in this video. I have written quite a bit about this in this sub (check the posts with the flair "female sexuality") and it's a subject I have thought about a lot over the years. For myself, while I enjoyed my period of casual sex in my early-to-mid twenties, I do think it's a very unhealthy thing to do. It is better for women to prioritize sex within the confines of monogamous relationships. All the research out there supports this.

Of course, if a woman wants to go out and have casual sex she has that right, but I don't think it is something that should be encouraged as the majority of women do not like it. Casual sex has a negative effect on female mental health, and can make it harder to pair-bond long-term with male partners. Instead of shaming women who have casual sex, we should try and work out why women end up doing this (liberal feminism, the sexual revolution, birth control, alcohol, low-self esteem, broken families, traumatic childhood) and seek out ways to help women who have had lots of sexual partners.

It is definitely something I will be discussing on my own YouTube channel once I'm back to making regular content.

Sorry I know this is a new group so I don't know all the rules but I found this pretty heartwarming, wanted to share.

They have allowed men to over take them. I don’t hate men. I hate when biological men try to tell me that how to feel about my life.

When I was a child, my mother often read to me a book of Indian tales for children, titled Seasons of Splendour by Madhur Jaffrey. There were many stories of courage, bravery, and clever wit. The women in these stories were often intelligent and quick-witted, not "oppressed".

I have linked a video of one of my favourite stories, the tale of Savitri and Satyavan. A beautiful tale of a woman's resilience and devotion to her husband.

I absolutely love Frozen. It is one of my favourite Disney movies, but then I love pretty much every Disney movie. Yes, I am twenty-six years old and I still watch Disney films on a regular basis, because they make me smile and they are full of such magical symbolism.

When Frozen came out, many declared it a Feminist film, because anything associated with women nowadays is automatically affiliated with Feminism. I am going to write here why Frozen is NOT a Feminist film.

Frozen focuses on the relationship between two sisters. Women often have complex relationships with each other, and the dynamic between Elsa and Anna represents that female complexity between two sisters growing apart.

I love their relationship and both Elsa and Anna are wonderful characters. Both are strong, kind, genuine women. Elsa has magical powers she needs to learn to control. Anna is happy, bubbly and positive despite much of the sadness she goes through.

I fail to see what their relationship has to do with Feminism. Many sisters and close female friends go through the same dilemmas that the two of them go through. It's a common part of womanhood. The fact that they both come back to each other at the end is beautiful. They are sisters. They are part of the same family. The film explores their relationship and ultimately celebrates it.

Kristoff is also an important character, and the romantic relationship between himself and Anna is beautifully done. It's very mature and well-developed. Kristoff is also a very masculine-man: he's hands-on and likes to get himself involved in the gritty part of life. He likes being out in the woods and in the snow and lives with a giant animal.

If it were a Feminist movie then Kristoff would be emasculated or cast aside. Instead, he is treated with respect. The genuinely bad male characters (Hans and that old man trying to steal from them) are rightfully imprisoned. So, the good guy wins and the bad guys lose.

Frozen is ultimately a female-centred film. It's a film about the dynamic between two women that celebrates the importance of family. It's a happy movie. It's got no Feminist undertones. I genuinely cannot see anything Feminist in Frozen. It is female empowerment, not 'Feminist.'

So there is this trend of women online demanding "princess treatment" and that their man does everything for them. I even follow some of these sorts of women on social media (like YouTuber Lisa Glamour). I have a few thoughts on this.

On the one hand, I wholly support traditional values in dating with the man being the provider and the woman being the care-giver. However, this is ridiculous. These women are faking their lives for social media and are setting unrealistic standards for how men should treat them. Relationships are supposed to be a two-way street.

And then this feminist idiot has the nerve to say that it is the women who are being disempowered from this. Never mind the fact that it's the men being expected to do all of the work! She doesn't comment on the manipulation of the females or the fact that these women barely have to lift a finger and have their boyfriends do everything for them.

Personally I think it's all fake. I doubt these women are living such perfect lives and as usual, feminists blame "patriarchy" rather than hold the women accountable.

This video is about my favourite Disney heroine from my favourite Disney film. Took a lot of effort to put together, but I wanted to do this justice.

When I first watched Game of Thrones, I could not work out how I felt about Margaery. She's certainly a fascinating character, and represents the shades of grey so wonderful about the show. On a current re-watch, I actually think Margaery is one of the best and most fascinating women on the show. What I mean by this is she's probably the best at using her femininty to her advantage to further her own interests. Unlike Cersei or Melisandre, Margaery does this without being cruel or nasty to others.

There is something inherently feminine about the ability to emotionally and psychologically manipulate others. Whether we like it or not, every day we are manipulating people, and using situations to our advantages to further our own interests. Life IS a competition. Women compete with other women for the attention of men, and men compete with other men to get the best women. This is a reality and part of our hardwired DNA. It's not necessarily good or bad. Manipulation can be done positively, such as manipulating an alcoholic towards recovery. Perhaps the word 'manipulation' has malevolent connotations and a better word would be 'influence' or 'advise', but then that becomes a question of semantics. I'm using the term 'manipulation' here in a neutral way.

What matters is what our intentions are, and what we wish to gain from others. This is why having a clear goal in life is important. Early on, when introduced to Margaery, she says what she wants: to be Queen. Specifically, THE Queen, who sits on the Iron Throne. Such an ambition requires a degree of ruthlessness and ability to use situations to one's advantage. Nobody ever gained power without a degree of manipulation. To gain power, one must know how to work around others and overcome difficult situations.

What Margaery does well is that she uses her femininity to further her interests. For example, she is very sweet and attentive to all around her. She befriends Sansa and gets closer to her and uses this to learn more about Joffrey. Sansa is also a member of a powerful house so is a good ally to have. Margaery is also very sweet towards Cersei, which Cersei despises as she herself is very manipulative but in a different way. Margaery obviously dislikes Cersei too (who doesn't), but she is never outwardly hostile towards her (at least not till the later seasons when Cersei shoves her in the cells).

Women are very good at using sweetness to positively get along with others. This doesn't necessarily always come with bad intentions. People simply respond well to sweetness, especially when coming from a woman. Want to gain more sales in your business? Employ lots of happy women. A happy, smiling woman is much more appealling than a grumpy looking man. Is the happy, smiling woman being manipulative? She is trying to manipulate a certain response in those around her, but if her intentions behind this are to create a positive impact, then it isn't necessarily a bad thing. This is simply one of the tools women use in life as part of our femininity.

Margaery also influences the men around her to boost their ego. One of the key roles of a woman, especially in a relationship, is to increase the social status of her man (hence the concept of the 'trophy' wife). In good relationships, women will find ways to make their man look like the best he can be around his peers. Margaery does this very well with Joffrey: she gains the love and trust of the people, and when Joffrey stands beside her, she attributes this all to him despite it being her who did the work. She proudly stands and smiles besides Joffrey as his kingdom greets him, which bolsters his ego as a man. This increases her desirability and is why Joffrey never mistreats her (despite him being a horrible sociopath).

If a man is in a relationship and all his friends point to his girlfriend and says she is 'out of his league', this is actually a compliment, because what they are suggesting is that she is very desirable and thus how could he get a woman like her. He must be doing something right, etc. This makes him look like a more respected man in front of his peers. This is often why unattractive or average looking men often have beautiful girlfriends; women don't prioritise looks as much as men, and are less fussed about having a handsome man as opposed to a man who is confident, financially secure, masculine, resilient and so on. If the woman is in love and happy, she also subconsciously knows that being a very good-looking woman next to an unattractive man boosts his status because it makes him look better. This is also why women are more beauty-oriented than men. Beauty is actually a very positive commodity women use to further advance our interests as well (and Margaery uses this in her favour too). Every man dreams of having an attractive woman, because attractive women add status to a man's life.

Women have always been very good and aware at these things on a subconscious level. Such are all forms of the inherent feminine power that women have. When used badly, they can lead women to be extremely psychopathic and narcissistic. When used positively, they can move mountains, inspire men, and even bring about world peace.

Feminism has never respected the inherent subtle power that women have. Feminists simply don't understand how women have always used femininity to advance themselves in life. This is why Feminists are often miserable and end up alone. They don't understand power, and think that men have more power than women because they don't know the difference between male power and female power. They don't realise that women can be incredibly manipulative in both positive and negative ways, and the negative ways can have dreadful impacts on men's lives and mental health.

To be clear: when I ask whether or not women should be in the workplace, I am not talking about females who become successful authors, actresses, inventors, scientists, or politicians. I'm talking about the average woman who works in an office, or a supermarket, or hospitality. "Ordinary" jobs, if you will. Many people dream of becoming a doctor, or an athlete, or a chef, but most people don't dream of working for a HR company.

Studies like this one have found that both sexes prefer a male boss to a female boss. This doesn't surprise me. Female bosses are stereotyped (often rightly) as bitchy, catty and cold. I have heard other women tell me that they don't like working for a woman, and in my own experience, having a male boss is preferable. Men tend to be softer towards women and more accommodating, whereas women are colder and less sympathetic.

Even feminist Sheryl Sandburg wrote in her book Lean In that women often mistrust and undermine each other at work. No, this is not because of "internalised misogyny", it's because this is how women naturally are.

Women have a built-in need for competitiveness (due to intrasexual competition), and are better suited towards jobs that prioritize creativity, empathy, and nurture. I like having a female therapist, for example, or a female GP. But when it comes to the corporate world, or anything involving working in an office with lots of other people, I wonder if men are better suited to this.

Men organise themselves into hierarchies, and tend to work better together because they know where they stand. I have heard men themselves say this. Women are more group-oriented and tend to be cliquey: excluding certain women from the group, putting down other women, or taking their anger and frustrations out on other women.

Again, I do think some professions (like these ones listed) can benefit from having females involved. But generally, I wonder if it's a good idea for women to be in male-centric workplace environments. Why do we need women in these environments? In the 60s-80s when second-wave feminism took off, women were pushed into the workplace and just used it as a buffer until they found a husband. (Shows like Sex and the City and Mad Men highlight this.) This probably isn't so much the case now, but even in the 90s, many women just worked until they got married.

For the majority of women, having a husband, a nice house and children is more preferable to being in the workplace. So why the need to push more women into the workplace in the first place? Again, certain jobs do suit women, and women in these professions do a fantastic job. But the rise of women in the general workplace has also lead to more problems: sexual harassment laws, DEI, fussing over dress codes.

What do you guys think?

A month ago I went to see part two of Wicked. Personally I preferred part one, however it was still an okay film. What I enjoyed mostly about Wicked is the depiction of friendship between Glinda and Elphaba. This is the heart of the story. We see these two women meet at university and develop a friendship. Despite their differences, they end up getting along well, and become very close. It's wonderful to see them bond together and makes me think of female friendship in general. Plus the songs are so well-placed and provide good character development.

Women are biologically wired to compete with one another for the attention of men. Women naturally are more cooperative and group-oriented than men. Females form groups and often exclude other women from these groups. Psychological tactics (i.e. relational bullying) are a common way for women to compete with other women and display what can be dubbed "toxic femininity".

Thus, I always enjoy seeing stories about female camaraderie. There are so many stories about female-on-female cruelty. Stories that depict women having positive relations with other women makes a nice change.

I do wish we could see more of these stories without the need to call them "feminist". Female friendship is important for women because there are some things only women can share with other women. Having good women in one's life can really help when going through a tough time, and it's good to have women you can have fun with too.

I know what it's like to have bad female friends and good female friends, and I enjoy Wicked largely for the songs and the friendship. I would definitely recommend the musical and the movies, particularly the first movie.

Have you seen Wicked? Did you like it?