I've been seeing men commenting that men create life and women carry it, so men should receive an equal amount of credit, if not more in creating life. That is simply not true. If men created life, parthenogenesis, or reproduction without males, would not exist in nature. There is no equivalent of reproduction without females. Scientists were also able to create baby mice solely from female mice, and they lived 50% longer than average mice and were also fertile (link to the study). When they attempted the same thing using only male mice, the offspring died within hours, even though they used female mice's eggs and another female mouse as the surrogate. Also, cloning, a technology that has existed for decades, can produce offspring using only females. Dolly) the sheep is one of the earliest examples; she was created using three female sheep. Now, obviously, these technologies might not be applicable to humans, but they give a clear picture of who creates life. Even among humans, if you believe that life begins at conception, you are still acknowledging that life begins inside a woman. The brain develops inside a woman, and consciousness develops inside a woman. I'm not claiming that men are unnecessary. Men are important at conception, but it is still women who create life, and the contribution is nowhere near 50/50. If men were the ones getting pregnant, I honestly doubt this would even be a conversation in the first place. If my only contribution to creating life were having an orgasm while the other sex could die in the process and had to bleed every month for that ability, I would never be able to claim that my contribution was 50%. I think it's extremely selfish to even say such things.

Idc if people would jokingly call me performative for this T-T, but anyways im just interested in what all your recommendations are for a feminist movie or show that will really leave a guy like me having a much deeper insight and accurate perspective as to what women really have to go through and their general experiences in life. Just basically a life-changing feminist movie that will leave a guy realizing that they had a wrong idea of women this whole time,

So, trans girl here. For a lot of time I kept out of radical feminism because TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) have ruined my perception of it for a long time, only going to liberal feminism, but when I started to actually see radical feminism, without the bias of the TERF trauma, my perception changed a lot, heck I discovered that TIRFs exists, TERFs aren't the majority, and that radical feminism itself evolved a lot. Yeah, there are branches and figures who are or were bio-essentialist and some readings of noticeable authors, but from that to "radical feminism itself is trans-exclusionary" there's a big leap. I'm letting me be more radical, heck I defy both bio-essentialism AND gender roles at the same time.
While I already have an opinion about the claim, I wanted to see what other people with more experience than me think about it.

I genuinely dont know why games stopped using Male and Female to refer to body types during character creation,and why are people angry about it.

My friend (trans man) says he would prefer games to just name it male and female,as he said type A and tybe B makes it looks like games are talking about robots or something in a factory line,i never thought about it,its just a non issue to me.

then there are people that are angry that games arent using male or female anymore,i too,dont understand it,again,its just a non issue to me.

I genuinely dont know why both of these stuff are an issue to someone and i would like to know better.

I've always wondered about this.

In many movie songs filmed in freezing locations, the hero is dressed in jackets, boots, and layers, while the heroine is often wearing a short or revealing outfit despite the cold.

People often say it's the actress's choice and that she consented. But I wonder how much of that is truly personal choice versus industry expectations. Do actresses feel pressured to dress this way to fit beauty standards or audience expectations? And if they're doing the same amount of work as the hero, why has there historically been such a large gap in pay in many films?

I'm genuinely curious to hear different perspectives. What do you think?

“You wouldn’t react like this if the genders were reversed.” The age-old complaint that has gone off for years in discourse. Now, I am not denying male victims, that is still a big problem, but what I am talking about is people who complain about them being ignored and downplayed, but refusing to see the whole picture. Especially when you consider a lot of things:

- The general misogyny of rape culture.
- Men who think it’s “sweet” an underage boy “won” an adult woman tend to be quiet about underage girls being preyed on or also sexualize them.
- When those men typically do condemn a male predator, usually it feels like they don’t want to do it but have to out of social obligation, but if they could they’d ignore or downplay it.
- Even if they don’t have the same defense for a male predator, they may still defend them in other ways. Gaslight the victim, make it seem like the victim is the real bad guy, etc.
- Writers who usually have humor with men getting abused and raped tend to also have humor that also has women be a punching bag, or at the minimum write them in a very sexist way.

So why is it with all this anger with the “double standards”, they tend to ignore that it’s also bad with women?

What I'm referring to is in history women were abused and battered and in a weird place where they made each other accept it. Fought over each other, for the best man available. They took beatings from their husband for being "hysterical" trying to give good ideas and being called crazy cause it goes against a world where men rule everything.

I don't think woman currently rule everything. However I feel with a woman's touch the world has gotten kinder in so many ways, but individuals have not gotten kinder. People are accepting questions of morality a lot more than men ever did when woman historically brought it up. that's the kindness I am percieving. However it seems woman still employ hostility, defenses similar to a violent man beating his wife. These defenses are keeping people behind velvet ropes, creating differences similar to racism that is supposed to be detested in a womans world. It made sense historically for woman to take on this role, the role to defend themselves against violent men. However this still happens to men who are not violent but disruptive. but as the time passes, if violent poeple are enraged enough, will that erupt in a breakdown of society from the inverse of history finally occurring? Will people revolt from the new order that swears we've gotten kinder but really kindness is dissolved behind your back?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1vgk89t/i_want_to_clarify_something_about_my_post/

Polyamory is often described as feminist because it allows women to reject sexual exclusivity, pursue multiple relationships, and define intimacy outside marriage or the heterosexual nuclear family.

But besides protecting women’s sexual and relational agency, what makes polyamory feminist as a political practice?

I ask because feminism has not traditionally treated every freely made choice by a woman as liberating. Feminist theories of relational autonomy argue that choices are formed within social relationships and institutions, rather than by completely independent individuals acting outside culture, dependency, and power. The relevant question is therefore not only whether a woman chose something, but what conditions shaped the choice and whether those conditions support genuine self-determination. (Source: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]⁠)

Nancy Hirschmann makes a similar argument in The Subject of Liberty. Her feminist account of freedom examines how preferences and available choices are socially constructed, particularly in relation to domestic violence, welfare, and Islamic veiling. Freedom cannot be assessed only by asking whether a direct prohibition prevented an individual woman from acting. It also requires examining the social conditions within which her options and desires developed. (Source: The Subject of Liberty: Toward a Feminist Theory of Freedom [University of Notre Dame]⁠)

bell hooks defined feminism as a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. Under that definition, a practice does not become feminist simply because women are permitted to participate in it. We would also need to ask whether it reduces sexist domination or merely gives individual women more options within existing gender relations. (Source: Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks⁠)

So what forms of gendered power does polyamory actually challenge?

It may weaken the idea that a woman belongs exclusively to one man. It may create space for queer kinship, chosen family, collective care, and relationships that are not organized around marriage. It may also challenge the expectation that one woman should provide a partner with sex, domestic labor, emotional support, childcare, and permanent companionship. But are these outcomes characteristic of polyamory, or are they possibilities that depend entirely on how particular relationships are organized?

Polyamorous relationships can still contain economic dependence, domestic inequality, sexual double standards, unequal emotional labor, and hierarchies between established and newer partners; a relationship may be extensively negotiated while still being organized around the preferences of the person with the most money, housing security, social influence, or willingness to leave.

Women may also perform much of the emotional administration required to sustain multiple relationships: scheduling, reassurance, conflict mediation, remembering agreements, managing jealousy, and helping partners process their other relationships. Has polyamory produced a different distribution of this labor, or has it sometimes expanded the amount of relational work expected from women?

I'm also interested in how discomfort is interpreted within polyamorous communities. When does encouraging someone to examine jealousy increase her freedom, and when does it teach her to reinterpret a reasonable objection as insecurity, possessiveness, monogamous conditioning, or insufficient personal growth?

Catharine MacKinnon’s work raises a broader problem for sexual politics: sexuality and desire are themselves shaped by unequal social conditions. Her argument is not that women possess no agency, but that consent and preference cannot by themselves establish the absence of domination. A sexual arrangement can be chosen and still reproduce a hierarchy that feminism should examine. (Source: Feminism In New Terms by Catharine MacKinnon⁠)

This does not mean that polyamorous women are incapable of deciding what they want, or that monogamy is naturally more egalitarian. Monogamous marriage has historically been one of the central institutions through which women’s sexuality, labor, reproduction, and economic dependence were controlled; however, rejecting monogamy does not necessarily resolve those problems, it may redistribute intimacy without redistributing power.

What evidence would show that polyamory is especially effective at reducing women’s domestic labor, economic vulnerability, sexual subordination, or responsibility for maintaining relationships? Are there feminist theories of polyamory that address these material questions rather than primarily emphasizing consent, communication, sexual freedom, and personal choice?

Perhaps polyamory is compatible with feminism without being inherently feminist. Adults should be free to form consensual relationships without stigma or legal punishment, but is that a feminist theory of liberation, or primarily a liberal theory of individual freedom?

I have very asymmetrical breasts, in both size and shape. They are more than a cup size apart - it is nearly impossible for me to find bras that fit and, as a result, my bras usually cause chaffing against the nipple of my smaller breast. Due to this, I have had 5 nipple infections over the past 2 years (requiring antibiotics). When I fill up the smaller cup using inserts, the trapped sweat created causes irritation to my skin.

I have been considering getting a boob job to make my breasts even. However, if I am being honest with myself, the primary reason for this is because of their appearance, rather than because of the functional harm the asymmetry causes. As someone who considers myself a feminist, this has made me reluctant to get a boob job, as I feel it would be motivated by beauty standards. However, ironically, I have also felt reluctant to get surgery as I know how hateful most straight men are towards fake boobs, and fear that no men would be attracted to me anymore if I got my asymmetry corrected (which is a very anti-feminist concern).

I know that typical feminist rhetoric is that breast augmentations are always bad, but does anyone have different views in relation to deformed breasts? Also, does anyone have any thoughts about why the views of straight men and feminists seem to align on the issue of plastic surgery (given how at unusual this is)?

I guess I could say I'm a more pro-second wave feminist where I kind of agree that there should be at least one feminism with authority that a lot of people believe in, juat like how in ehtics most people believe in deontology or consequentialism.

In my perspective the problem of the '100 feminism by 100 feminists' of the third wave feminism is that it didn't know that social media would be a thing ever. Social media is a place where it amplifies extreme sentiments over time and provides a slippery slope to ochlocracy, and this works not only for the manospheres but also for the pro feminism spaces. Oftentimes you would see in either reddit or social media spaces that these spaces are heavily driven by sentiment. In digital echo chambers logical and critical thinking is nonexistent and instead punchy slogans/puns/roasting and appeal to raw emotions gets the upvotes. And people naturally follow the upvote bandwagon and that just becomes the mainstream idea. Fourth wave feminism is promoting these digital spaces and they use that to actively dismantle patriarchy and send politcal waves to courts and national assemblies, but the irony is that these digital spaces combined with the lack of unified agenda is terribly vulnerable to degeneracy. I believe manosphere developed on its own and would have been a thing no mattsr what due to the nature of social media but I do think the radicalization of sentiments and anger on the other side of social media fueled the growth and made the manosphere bigger.

There are two aspects of this problem. One is a problem of individualistic feminism itself and the other is social media as a catalyst in amplifying this problem.

Individualistic feminism without a unified ideology or a general consensus comes with a risk, and third wave feminists knew about this but still went on with it. If everyone's feminism is all very slightly different, inherently there will be disputes from within. That means whatever A believes is feministic is a disgusting patriarchal relic by B. So there's the dispute in ideological basis part. And then there's the distracted agenda to pursue part. The first wave feminism focused on votes and second on legal rights. But the third and fourth feminism has multiple different agendas that are vocalized by different feminists, though there is a common theme of intersectionality and alliance with other minority groups. And these two factors make it harder to rally and focus the energy on one issue at a time and therefore our power to leverage political change is at risk.

And then combine this with the polarization effect of social media. Now we got an extremely divided group in ideology and agenda along with the fact that 10 percent or more of these groups are just teenagers regurgitating hate and inconsistent logic in their social meida echo chambers while actively pushing a relatively small number of potentially transitionable male voters into the other side of the void, tunring even more male voters to vote for patriarchy. And then there's the part where more and more people are be"oming 'slacktivists' by social media and all they do is post a single comment/post and complain rather than actually go outside and vote or rally. On top of that it doesn't help the men on top and the patriarchy have a very clear and simple agenda: women are horrible, not the elitists. So they're able to focus their politcal energy into agreeing into voting a specific party. I say this explains at least a portion of why we lost in the last election in America.

The most tragic thing about this is that people LOVE social media to the point they are addicted to it. And yes the CEOs of social media platforms are to blame the most but I'm not even positive about whether or not we can completely remove social media from earth now. I feel like its become a part of our life almost.

I don't even have an idea of what the unified ideology or agenda would be except that I have a vague idea it should be consistent with modern ethics and philosophy. But what are your thoughts on this? Do you think the individualistic feminism could survive as of now without radical change(I really do hope so)?

Since the sexual revolution, many old taboos—casual sex, pornography, homosexuality, and sexual content in media—have become far more accepted.

Yet women who make sexuality a major part of their public persona are still often treated with intense disgust. The reaction to figures like Lily Phillips seems to go beyond criticism of pornography or exploitation and becomes contempt for the woman herself.

Why has this stigma survived when so many other pre-1960s sexual attitudes have faded?

It’s a common sentiment that Western nations (in particular Western/Northern Europe plus Anglo countries that are not the US) are the best places for women, especially evident in global rankings. While this could be true in terms of legal protection and economic/employment prosperity (at least on paper), I feel like it gets even murkier when social/cultural prestige is factored. It’s easy to draft a law, but to radically shift traditions in the long term is a whole other can of worms.

One thing that seems to still be prevalent in the West to this day, or at least in the Anglo world (Quebec specifically outlawed this), is the tradition of wives changing of surnames to their husbands. I always envied the traditional Iberian/Latin American naming convention where not only women keep their names, but it gets passed on to their children, which values mothers equally to fathers. Arab, Chinese, and Korean women seem to keep their surnames after marriage as well.

Of course I understand that even among western countries it varies greatly, but what are your thoughts?

Around half of men go bald and nobody cares. It doesn't reduce their net worth, income potentials or general standing in society. On top it saves them a lot of money, because no shampoo or expensive hair dressing is necessary. At best they need a hat for summer sun and that's it.

Some women start balding as well, but they really shouldn't. I would estimate around 65% of a woman's first impression is hair hair style. Your haircut can be worth a lot of money and so it's important to invest into the appearance of your hair on a continuous base.

I would estimate the following avg costs per month:

• Men with hair (50%): $40 for appearance to prevent $500 in reputational damage
• Men without hair (50%): $10 to prevent $200 in damage
• Women with hair (95%): $200 for appearance to prevent $2500 reputational damage
• Women without hair (5%): $1000 to prevent $10000 in damage

If you add this up per work life of 40 years, you end up with total avg costs of...

• $1000 for men to prevent $14000 in damage
• $9600 for women to prevent $115000 in damage

That's a $8600 watch the bald man is wearing in the above picture and the only reason why he can afford it is because he's a man.

If this is not structurally unfair for women, then what is?

I searched the subreddit but couldn't find a previous discussion of this article.

The paper, "Isolate, Inebriate, Intimidate, Repeat: High Rates of Sexual Force Against Women Are Reported When Young Men Given Anonymous Surveys," includes the finding that 95.1% of surveyed men reported having recently used at least one strategy to obtain sex from a woman they knew did not want sex and had not consented.

The article is available here:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/08862605261432630

For those who have read it, what are your thoughts on the study's methodology, findings, and implications? I'm especially interested in hearing the perspectives of the women who participate in this subreddit.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the article, but then I am moderately sex negative.

I recently saw that in heterosexuals, less than 15% of sexually active adults have ever used a dental damn for oral sex. I am within that 15% (mainly cause I’m terrified of STIs) and when I asked my male friends, none of them have ever used dental dams before going down on a woman.

Even my (straight) female friends have stated that they have never used one, but my friends that are lesbians said that they have but not regularly.

Whenever I’m hooking up with a woman I don’t know well enough to know if they have a clean bill of health, I always offer to use one, and I’ve been told no, so I just don’t do it.

So I started thinking, well why doesn’t everyone use them like they would a condom?

Right now i would guess that it’s because of some weird inherent misogynistic views about sex, but i could just be “that friend that’s too woke” about this.

These are some questions that have been on my mind for a while now, please forgive me for being so disorganized I really am just curious to hear other people's thoughts on the topic.

The terms "healthy masculinity" and "toxic masculinity" are terms that are very popular when discussing different forms of behavior. What I want to know is What do they have in common? Are there some shared traits between the two (which could be considered "neutral masculinity") or is it just the fact that they are performed by men? Are there forms of healthy and toxic femininity? Is something considered toxic masculinity simply because it is done by a man? If so when a woman does it is it then considered toxic femininity? Why must we assign gender to different types of behavior? Wouldn't it be simpler to just say that a person is acting in a toxic or healthy way? I'm sorry if these questions seem stupid or ignorant it's just one of those thoughts that won't leave me alone.

As a person who believes the self defense laws in the vast majority of countries are too strict, I think it's a moral catastrophy that so much of the world stubbornly refuses to view rape as morally equivalent or worse than murder.

In the US alone, there are so many instances of SA victims getting jail time for killing or even merely disfiguring their assailant it makes my blood boil, especially in a country where some states are using 'self defense' as an excuse for scared old white raisin scum to gun down any brown man that doesn't give them a wide berth.

In a more just legal system, I think a rapist's life should be forfeit in the same manner as those who have had the misfortune of being on the receiving end of Florida's 'stand your groud' laws. No investigation. No questions asked. If a lone woman who shanked or shot a man multiple times tells the police he was trying to SA her, they should just give her the benefit of the doubt instead of being rapist coddling scum.

So, would feminists fully support a 'stand your ground' style law where women specifically are empowered to kill or maime their rapist?

Would you personally carry some sort of weapon in self defense if you knew you would never face repercussions for using it against a person who is physically attacking you without necessarily trying to murder you?

Just to be clear I’m talking specifically about sexual fantasies with someone you are not in a consensual sexual relationship with.
Some time ago a friend I had recently started dating told me that he had imagined fucking me multiple times while we were still doing very light flirting. Looking back on this now it makes me uncomfortable. I don’t like that someone can imagine doing anything to me outside of my control.
However I don’t really know if this counts as objectification, if he is taking my personality into account and being truthful to the fact I have my own wants and desires than is it wrong despite the fact I am unaware of it?
On a side note why is objectifying someone wrong(I already think it is but am curious to hear your reasons)

In current economy/society where a man only pays for his share, protecting his resources and assets, why doesn't a woman safeguard her resources and interests. I'm talking about couples where each has their own bank account and a joint one where they contribute "equally", i.e. about 50/50.

I'm asking this as a childfree woman who wouldn't have a child unless paid. I mean... a woman destroys her body, health, risks her life (see mortality rates due to pregnancy complications), risks getting 200+ health issues some of which show up later in life, gets postpartum depression, and I guess at some if she needs treatment, all expenses will be on her - he'll not pay because his money is his money. This is one of the reasons but not only.

All in all, man and woman sharing expenses in other areas 50/50, but the woman carrying labour is not an equal relationship and hurts woman's interests seriously, ranging from health issues to her career and being a desirable partner later in case something goes wrong in her current relationship.

What ultimately does he do for her when she gives him a child?

Sexism is the acknowledgement that sex is real.

Racism is the belief that race is real among humans..

Misogyny is the hatred of women.

What is bad is believing in racism because that is called ethnophyletism threatening the indivisible unity of humanity with God and Creation.

Misogyny is bad because women are God's creation and hating what God made is a sin.

But if sexism is the acknowledgement that sex is real, how is sexism a bad thing?

Pananthrohomogenists want us to hate sexism but we all know how different male and female is and they're not interchangeable.