Anyone know examples of any larger companies/corporations/cooperations/collectives founded and run by women or predominantly by women thriving in contemporary business life?

I’m looking for self sustaining organizations with large scale cooperation & coordination of 500+ people towards a common purpose.

I’m not looking for non-profit organizations like church or charities that needs to be supported with some kind of good-will contribution but rather organizations where the main purpose is collaborative net produce of something a smaller organization wouldn’t be able cope with.

Do you have some good examples? Perhaps feminist scholars have described such organizations?

Such organizations might be role models for a considerable part of future “business life” or whatever you may call collaborative creation of what is needed. It may not necessarily be businesses as we understand it today but could be in a different societal organization.

I did spend a Sunday afternoon trying to find some but nothing substantial came up.

So I recently opened an account on Threads, and for some reason what I was seeing (idk why their algorithm was feeding me this) was a lot of men asking the ether, "why am I still single? I don't have any debt, I own my own home and car, I have a good job, etc...."

This got me thinking, because these guys seemed to be clueless to the idea that women can also have jobs now, all on our own. Like yeah, I (a single woman) would definitely want to date someone who had their financial life together....but this is like baseline. Women are going to want more than that in order to choose one guy out of everyone and say "you sir, I want to see YOU with your clothes off." (Or: I want to spend my life with YOU and have your baby.) Etc.

We care about things like emotional intelligence. Are you supportive and kind? Are you 100% committed to doing 50% of the housework and emotional labor? If we have kids, is it automatically assumed that I take the career hit or are you gonna step up and volunteer to scale back on your dreams? Do we share interests? Do we make each other laugh? Is there chemistry? Are we wildly attracted to each other? Do you care about my orgasm? Et cetera and obviously these things will be different for everyone.

My sense of things is that there are some guys who have not caught up to the idea that women can have their own jobs and finances now. Like they really seem to be struggling with the idea that women are full adults with their own financial independence, and they think having their own job and house is all they need to attract a partner.

And in a way it makes sense. Like before the 70s we couldn't have credit cards or bank accounts in our own name without a male co-signer, and a lot of jobs were not accessible to us. We were literally shut out of financial adulthood and resources if we weren't married. So in that time, yeah, many women probably had standards that revolved around those baseline things. The fact that men can no longer expect to attract a mate just by resource hoarding is a really new thing, culturally speaking.

I think a lot of these guys are the ones who wind up voting for Trump, because he's trying to roll back women's rights and independence and promising to bring back a world where these men can "make enough to provide for a wife and kids" (I have heard Trump supporters in my own life describe it like this). And of course keep that wife under control because she has fewer options and no fault divorce is gone.

It seems pretty clear in how Trump supporters talk about women and relationships, as if they can't fathom women having jobs outside the home. For instance when reacting to that Julia Roberts ad about a woman voting secretly for Harris, Charlie Kirk said "I think it’s so nauseating where this wife is wearing the American hat, she’s coming in with her sweet husband who probably works his tail off to make sure that she can go you know and have a nice life and provide to the family, and then she lies to him saying, ‘Oh, yeah, I’m gonna vote for Trump'"...absolutely no consideration that women can also have jobs. There are loads of examples like this (Harrison Butker comes to mind) (waves hand to indicate the entirety of the tradwife phenomenon)

I've seen essays about how Democrats should try appealing to these disaffected men who aren't making enough to support a family, but I'm not sure how they'd do that without sounding sexist. If the message is "hey guys, if you want to make enough to provide for a wife and family, vote for me" it sounds a bit sexist because women also want to make family-supporting money. It's not just exclusive to guys. We don't want to go back to a time when only men could have jobs.

And Democrats already talk about improving the economy in gender neutral terms but that doesn't seem to be reaching these guys because what they care about is not just improving the economy for everyone, but restoring male primacy.

What do you think?

Edited to add because I think this is important, obviously this take of "women never had jobs and men were the only ones who worked" is oversimplified because women have worked outside the home throughout history. It's mainly about an idealized (based in nostalgia about white and middle class stereotypes) daydream these guys have about what it used to be like than reality. Although the part about women having a lot less financial recourse over all, and less freedom and ability to leave a bad relationship prior to the Civil Rights Act (in the US) is probably more accurate.

Science is about the process, it's not about the conclusion.

Do you think that science is turning into a religion and weaponised by people making up science facts to back their ideology?

In the UK, 70,330 rapes were reported to the police in 2021-2022, only 1378 resulted in conviction. This is a report-conviction rate of 2%.

What do you think the standard of evidence should be to reach a conviction, should the alleged perpetrator have full anonymity before conviction, if so would there be legal consequences if the alleged victim made a public statement accusing the alleged perpetrator?

Should it require a unanimous deicison from the jury, a simple majority or something in between?

For this, I don't want to focus on economic constraints but rather the burden of proof.

What do you think would be a realistic report-conviction rate benchmark that could be achieved.

A husband who desperately wants a child, whose wife's pregnancy fails and she can't get care, faces not only the loss of a child but perhaps also his wife. A 17-year-old boy's condom fails and his girlfriend and baby need him. A dad learns his young daughter was raped and will be forced to carry the child. While the women in these examples are impacted much more severely, these men's lives are changed. How can men and women partner to fight for reproductive freedom?

I'm not asking this from a MRA or MGTOW point of view. I was just reading from some articles when I ran into one that states 71% of UK men faced victimization from women in some form.

The paper is "Male Sexual Victimization by Women: Incidence Rates, Mental Health, and Conformity to Gender Norms in a Sample of British Men", and the data seems legit to me.

I guess I'm just asking that if the victimization rate of men from women is so high, is it incorrect to approach r*pe/SA as a gendered violence from men onto women? As far as I'm aware, that is a common belief of many feminists.

Obviously, this is just from a Western standpoint. Other countries with more strongly entrenched patriarchy and fewer human rights will have different stats.

The context is in case the female is married with a male partner and not single

I've seen men and women argue this in comment threads, usually with women using the rebuttal that men cause the most accidents, and men will respond with "yea but we drive more."

I thought about it more, and then I realized, why the fuck does it matter? Let's say men are more coordinated and make better drivers. Ok? Good for them!

I feel like some women are caught up in trying to prove themselves to the male population, especially with things that don't really matter. And I totally get it. It's the natural effect of having been told we can't do something or aren't of value. And in a way, we have to prove ourselves to benefit our own success and progress, wouldn't you agree? I just find the whole driving argument pointless.

What do you ya'll think?

We shouldn't have to prove that we are good at the same things as men to have value. I'm certain we all know this, but I know some men don't think that way.

What's funny, is although I'm a good driver and parallel parker, I've bumped quite a few curbs within the last few years 😂 why is that even a stereotype with female drivers?

It's safe to say that the Iranian government is not popular among feminists, in that regard they share their opinion with the foreign policy hawks, who wish to topple the Iranian government through covert means (sending money arms and ammo to opposition groups and offering money to Generals who'd have the means to orchestrate a coup). Do you agree with this?

If you oppose it how do you think can conditions in Iran for women change?

To cite the Wikipedia page on the subject:

"The women-are-wonderful effect is the phenomenon found in psychological and sociological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women when compared to men."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect?wprov=sfla1

It is something that I personally don't really hear about when it comes to gender equality so I wonder what is the consensus (if there is one) around it and it's potential implications.

Spoilers****

I loved it and bought it right after seeing it.
This movie painted a picture of women's experiences that gave me a new understanding. It made me furious, it made me feel trapped, and it shocked and terrified me.

The most infuriating parts are when the film captures subtle and nuanced sexist comments that are so nuanced and subtle it's hard to articulate why their sexist. Therefore, one can't easily call a guy out, without sounding like one is making it up and overreacting. I wanted to punch the TV.

If that's what y'all experience, yikes.

It's clearly a feminist movie made by feminists but it wasn't a man bashing movie. It even abstractly explains some of why men are the way they are.
I highly recommend.

I'm still in highschool and don't have a lot of perspective on this, can someone explain please. (I'm a dude btw)

I read through the rules first, so I hope this is ok to post, otherwise sorry.

I'm 15 and afab. My voice is like... pretty average? Medium pitch, can go low sometimes, nothing special.

When I talk to certain groups of people, my voice becomes quieter, softer, higher pitch, maybe more vocal fry. It's like what people call the fundy baby (or is it baby fundy?) voice, but I don't know if I can apply that term for myself because I haven't been raised religious at all. My accent also becomes whiter, I talk slower and more hesitatingly, and I use more standard English grammar as opposed to our local dialect.

This happens when I talk to adult men, white people, some teachers, girls I'm intimidated by, and my few guy friends.

I don't think this can be attributed solely to (idk what to say, just yanno, being a woman in general?) I would say there's definitely some other aspects: race is one. Whenever I see white people with British accents especially, I get this weird urge to sit up and be on my best behaviour and prove I'm "one of the good ones". My friend called it the "colony memory" lmao. Maybe this has something to do with autism as well, as me and my father suspect we have autism. However, it's definitely also a gender thing.

I am aware when this is happening, and I would really like to stop, but I don't seem to be able to. I want to stop lowkey colonising my own speech for white people and men. I especially feel guilty about making this voice to my guy friends, as it feels like I'm keeping my real self from them, which I shouldn't cos we're friends. But it's totally involuntary. It makes me cringe and I'm also afraid of being called a pick-me-- I swear I'm not doing it as some kind of weird seduction tactic, and if I could stop it I would.

Does anyone else experience this? I would really appreciate any insight from a feminist perspective

Edit: thanks for the helpful comments guys. I feel like maybe I didn't properly get my idea across, that's on me bc idk how to explain this. I feel that there's a difference between regular code switching which I do all the time, and whatever this weird voice thing is. One of the differences is that for regular code switching I feel normal, and for this I feel... uncomfortable, both with the voice and often with the person I'm talking to. I don't know how to explain this better, but thank you all anyways

Oh yeah and also I'm not a black American (shoutout black Americans). My country is Singapore, where we're multiracial-- not quite as tolerant as our media says we are but definitely more than America and such. So in my country I think most people code switch on a regular basis, and it doesn't really have the same stakes that, for example, it has for black Americans. That's why I feel a strong difference between my normal code switching, which is just slightly changing my accent depending on who I talk to, and this voice which feels just awful. Not to say my country doesn't have racism, it has quite a lot, but just to clarify yk

Hello everyone. So for the longest time, I’ve objectified women and seen them as trophies to be acquired for sexual gratification. I’m scared of women and I’ve fell for the incel/red pill thinking and I constantly base my life around my sexual desire to mate with a woman.

I’ve also had problems with constantly sexualising every woman I meet in my head, and I feel hurt and angry every time I lurk this sub cause it makes me feel guilty for just existing and being an oppressor. I don’t even know what’s right and wrong anymore because it feels like everything I do might be seen as misogynistic by others and this leads me to be scared of even engaging with anymore, let alone women in public.

Am I a misogynist and if so how should I deal with this and fix it? Asking for serious advice

My intention for coming here is really not for dating advice, but rather to ask why there's such a double standards and difference in response to dating for women and men.

So I posted this scenario below online, because I needed advice:

B and A had casual sex 2-3 times. It wasn't anything serious; although, B did get the impression that A might have wanted something more, because A chased after them before they had sex, tried to invite them out, eat breakfast etc. However, they only wanted to hookup, so they declined these invitations. Furthermore, A tried to have deep conversation with B, but they kept things surface-level, because they didn't want anything more.

They lost contact for a period. But once they saw each other, they would casually flirt. Nothing serious.

One day at a party, B attempted to hint that they might be open for more. A told B it would've been different if B had told them sooner, but A was already exclusive with someone else. A and the person they were with became serious, and they dated for 3 years.

Now, they've broken up, and A wants to date B. A tells B that (s)he didn't think B wanted anything more than casual sex, until they told them they were interested. A tells B they were always a little interested, and wondered if they'd be open to dating them.

Now, the thing is, when I posts B from a woman's perspective: People say that if A comes back, he just wants sex. That B is second choice, and that B shouldn't date him. That B is desperate.

However, if B is a man and A is a woman, people say that B and A should date, and that A should feel lucky that B even came back, and that B has treated A like the second option.

What I've noticed is that there's a strong assumption in these reactions that men always want sex, while women always want relationships. This is a common stereotypical gender role. However, something I also noticed a lot, based on this scenario, that suprised me, is that people are very concerned with women being the second choice and their worth, but they don't judge men as harshly (or even consider them it). They also don't think women should take men back, because it means "he didn't really want her". Or they assume he should have chased her harder. However, if the genders are reversed, none of them have these expectations. Why do you think people responded so differently when you changed the genders? Why is being second choice and worth scrutinized so heavily for women, but not men? Why are women considered desperate, but not men? What do you think?

Some online stranger (male) called me a misandrist because I only watch/interested in women’s sports. I am a butch lesbian if that matters. How does that make me a misandrist?

Recently, been seeing a lot of talk online about how "ugly/average men have to work harder for women" "women only makes rules for average/ugly guys" or "women go further for hot guys." This kind of goes hand-in-hand with men complaining about being the "safe" option, or the women they're with wanting to take it slow, or not being open to kinks even though they did it with their exes, or whatever.

(I don't hang out with the kinds of men who would spew manosphere talking points irl, so I don't know if it's just an online thing or if men are really buying into it)

Is this a new manosphere thing that's being pushed, or has this particular brand of misogyny been floating around already? And if it is a newer trend, does anyone know where/how it started?

I've always been curious about this topic because I can never find anything concrete as why sex negative feminism is considered a regressive idea.

As an outsider looking in, it appears to me a little odd that in a general sense of the term, feminism is about empowering other women to live as they see fit but I cannot understand why sex negative feminism is viewed in somewhat of an opposite light.

Today, I watched this YouTube video about the danger of traditional wife Tiktok influencers and the negative effects of religion.

https://youtu.be/JXRhm6te-Fg?si=qWYLV5tPZbBM2N6Q

In the video, she explained that many young girls became inspired to be a traditional wife because the influencer romanticizing and painting traditional wife life in a unrealistically good way without explaining the downsides and risks of being one. Then she showed a comment that a 14 years old girl want to be a traditional wife because of this and now it's a trend for some women on tiktok to mock feminism (which is ironic because their freedom of speech was granted by feminism movement). How much do you think this will effect future women and is there any way to overcome that?

I don't know if people care about this topic anymore (last threads I saw about this here were dated before the pandemic), and I hardly imagine this is the most pertinent issue for feminism right now. (Obligatory go out and vote if you're American and fit all the qualifications.) But I was personally wondering about this idea that men have more hobbies/more diverse hobbies/more productive hobbies than women (or perhaps, just the unspoken idea that they're more interesting human beings), and had a few questions as to feminist analysis of this idea.

1. How would this idea potentially connect with other things that are true about women's circumstances? For example, a lot of women have less free time than men... or do they? Do women do other things with their free time? I know volunteering's more common with women than men, plus domestic labor.

I also get the sense that men are more "carefree" in both childhood and adulthood tbh. Yes I know they have their own problems, but in terms of just being left to their own devices or encouraged to do stuff that isn't chores/service orientation, I think men definitely get a better deal. I see a lot of boys being encouraged to explore their environment, focus on their own interests, generally be self-actualized individuals, etc. while girls are pushed towards activities that kind of train them for gendered labor and general servitude. And a lot of men seem to put aside extensive time to focus on individual development (hobbies, time with other men, etc.), while women often donate their time to causes benefitting other people, or just basic maintenance stuff... Or is this not generally the case?

2. How does it play into stereotypes? I think I saw a comment from someone about people saying women just laze around/be shopping, or that they have consumptive/unskilled hobbies while men have productive ones. (Even stereotypically-speaking, I personally know a lot of women who bake or make clothes as a hobby, but that's just me 🤷‍♀️. I think those would be considered unskilled or wasteful by many men, though... I think "uniqueness" or being "hands on" is a big thing for them, although there are of course instruction manuals that can basically spell out how to build a PC or fish or code or whatever else men typically do in their spare time just like for many "feminine" hobbies, so it couldn't really be "skill" that's the differentiating factor.) I honestly think this is some offshoot of the "women are boring, men are quirky" idea that somehow emerged with the idea that quirkiness is something women try hard at, so just another attempt at framing women as lesser individuals. (Because women mustn't be allowed to win at anything valuable, neither "creativity" nor "rationality", nor even "morality", depending on the context...)

I also think this idea might be related to the greater variability hypothesis for differences between men and women, although there seemingly hasn't been much research done on that particular idea, so it seems like another "just so" story that people want to push to validate their sexist world views. But if you try to point out that there are many, many men who just have the same traveling, hiking, porn, Reddit hobbies, you might be told that the men who do have varied hobbies are way more interesting in theirs than women. Usually with confidence, for some reason. WHich brings me to my next question...

3. Is there any empirical evidence for this? For women having fewer hobbies, or less productive/more consumptive ones (especially the shopping thing, because I think that's definitely up in the air), or... well, more "unique" is hard to measure, but tbh having unique hobbies might be a sign of multiple types of privilege (because who can afford to do certain things, or have access to certain facilities, except those who had well-resourced parents who also encouraged them to explore their interests instead of training them to do certain things). Honestly, something that kind of bugs me about this idea is that men are very confident about it, and seem to take pride in the idea that they're more interesting human beings than women, but just base it off of their own experiences. (I seriously envy how men can seemingly just say things and have even baseless judgements taken as seriously as established but disagreeable facts--benefit of the doubt for being considered inherently dignified/human, I guess. That sort of confidence in trusting your own judgement and putting your opinion everywhere, plus default respect from others, is a privilege many of them seem to be ignorant of despite the irony of arguing with women about it and other gender-based issues. But I guess that's a different topic.)

It's such a tiny thing to study, so I imagine there isn't any actual research funding that would be going into it. At the same time, though, it's annoying how men just push this idea and get that default credibility boost so the idea just becomes unchallenged and eventually accepted. Who knows, maybe some entity actually did some credible research on this, but I doubt it and would like to hear about it if they did.

3. What do you think the point of this idea is? I can kind of get why men harp on not being able to express their feelings, or why they complain about women supposedly picking the "top 10%" (or whatever) of men, because they evidently gain something from it. (Whether it's true or not is something else.) But this hobby stuff just seems like such a nothingburger, even if it happens to be correct. It wouldn't really mean much for crucial things like employment or emotional well-being like the other things. It has no relevance even to the availability of dating, and that seems to be a primary concern with men in regards to gender relations. It seems like such a petty, malicious thing to think about, so I wonder if there's literally any gain for men to believe this. It wouldn't be "okay" if there was, but it would at least make their motivations understandable and not like some villain caricature who has to show that they're evil all the time, in literally every way.

just curious to see other opinions about this, my boyfriend is dressing as a “sexy cat” for halloween (fishnets, skirt, ears) and i feel that it’s a little bit of a mockery. the justification is always the whole fuck gender roles thing, and i love that, but it is absolutely never a sexy masculine costume or a nonsexual female costume. because of that i can only interpret it as a joke where the punchline is looking like a woman. idk!!!!

So I'm asking if feminists hate men in general or if it's just some of you? Do y'all agree with Misandry or do you oppose it? Are men to blame for all of your issues? what are your reasons for being a feminist.

Would you marry a man who want to be a househusband in a trad wives sense? He is a handsome and muscular man (Or a man with pretty/cute boy type of face if you prefer that.), will stay at home, obedient, submissive, and can cook, clean, and raise the kids. He won't work and won't leave the house without your permission unless emergency. You hold all the authority in the household. I'm asking this because I'm curious how a lot of women feel if the trad role is reversed. Would you like it?

Edit: Thanks for people who answered my question and I'm sorry if I offend anyone or look like I'm trying to undermine feminism or painting feminism in a bad way. That's not my intention at all and I know than the men haters are not the majority. I just curious if women think if the traditional roles are reversed, would women like it or not and will they abuse their power or not. I apologize to people wno are offended by my questions.

I am thinking of this ad by Progress Action Fund and Defend the Vote SuperPAC's

https://x.com/Tpsmyth01/status/1852074245943132377

To get something she wants from your spouse or any man. Is this empowerment? Is this ethical from the feminist point of view?

I’ve noticed this and it’s not just on Reddit, but other platforms as well. When it comes to feminist subjects, why do people turn it into a “people” issue, instead of what was originally the talking point, which is WOMENS issue.

For example I was on threads earlier, and a man claimed he finally understood that women can’t always just prevent themselves from getting raped. A whole bunch of ppl including women, commented saying “people in general have to prevent themselves from being assaulted”

It bothers me that people do that. Those conversation was originally about WOMEN being in danger, NOT PEOPLE in general !

I've always wondered about this. Throughout my life no one ever taught me that women aren't as smart as men or as capable as men. I sometimes catch myself in moments where I think things that aren't true in my head, but these things seem to be explained by how society treats women, like discouraging them from STEM and stuff.

But what about statistics where men are more likely to talk over women, or how men sometimes think a woman doesn't know something that she does? Or ignoring when a woman says something and listening when a man does? I probably do this to some extent, but it's not as if anyone taught me to do so. So where do I (or men in general) get it from? Am I able to unconsciously tell I'm treated differently?

Ive got lots of troubled young kids, and they just absorb everything around them. But as their teacher they are crazy influenced by my behavior and characteristics.

I try my best to be a good role model. Im always telling them about my emotions, even going out of my way to show sadness and describe its natrual occurrence in my life.

Similarly I'm trying to connect self worth with internal gifts and treasures. I use a Hawaiian Kumu as my inspiration for this

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L8efSW6Biog

But I want to see if there is any advice or criticism this lovely community could offer.

I am particularly worried about these students, but particularly girls getting on social media in a few years. I'm kinda old and came up before the internet. Any kind of stuff I could do to build their resilience, and self worth.

It feels insane to protect these kids so much from any kind of physical danger, and then just willy nilly expose them to a toxic cesspool of psychological violence.

Or am I way off?

Thank you for advice. I wanna help these kids and im worried.

Edit: from what I see in the comments, egalitarian is someone who believes everyone should be equal but doesn't fight or protest to make sure people are equal.

Though I'm wondering if this is part of being egalitarian or just a trend found in egalitarians and if there's a different difference between them and feminists.

https://youtu.be/tSw04BwQy4M?si=DTSX-b3UkqJK_eCF

Link /\ /\

Short description, it's about how the left are abandoning men and that Harris/Walz are eager to get mens support.

Edit: I saw another post a few months back and it asked "it's seems that men are being radicalised towards the right, which affects women's rights". So I'm curious how people feel about shoeonhead's video, in relation to the left abandoning men and thus affecting women's rights.