I recognize that this could be a fraught conversation and I am genuinely curious of all opinions, as I have not been able to find much external sources on the topic. It seems that we are regressing politically in regard to gender liberation, despite a majority of women identifying as feminists (Barroso, 2020). I think this is for a number of reasons, like the individuality of the prominent revival of liberal feminism and the lack of any sort of large scale political organization. But I am also wondering, does including everybody in feminism dismiss accountability and dilute political strength?

First, there is the general theory that men are heavily subjected to gendered limitations. Does the emphasis on male repression from the patriarchy dismiss individualized oppression by men? I have experienced men in my life who argue that they are oppressed by the patriarchy because of toxic masculinity and have used this to dismiss their own misogynistic behaviors, instead vaguely blaming the "system". Is this widespread? Have you experienced it too? Is it a cultural problem or are the men I talk to just allergic to accountability?

I am also concerned that the emphasis on intersectionality can dilute the focus on gender in feminist contexts. I am concerned that in the age of social media, feminists are expected to bear the brunt of inclusivity. People (particularly online) seem to be very concerned about whether or not feminist movements are inherently transphobic, racist, ableist, etc. I have not noticed the same reaction to anti-racist, queer, or ablist movements online but I acknowledge my privilege could be getting in the way there. I have only heard Crenshaw's work on intersectionality referenced in regard to feminism, but not as commonly referenced in anti-racist activism. Why is feminism expected to speak for women across all social identities when other social justice movements are not held to the same standard?

Theoretically, if leftist movements are separated like they were in the 1960s and 1970s, would we see more of a directed front in activism? I know those movements weren't perfect in their unwillingness to cooperate with each other but they made legal strides we have been struggling to uphold since then, regardless of the popularity of social justice. Is the emphasis on total inclusivity dispersing political weight and diluting our political power? I would love any peer-reviewed sources on the subject if you can think of any.

For example, I saw a study about men being less likely to accept a soft no from a woman than another man (can't find it now though :( There's also stats that are more widely passed around like the orgasm gap and workplace retention especially in STEM. But what stats do you think should be more widely known or shared

This is something I'm musing on today. Over the past few years there has been a huge upsurge in online feminist content encouraging women to be secure in what they desire in a relationship, being more demanding in what we want romantically/sexually, and also calling out misogyny and poor behaviour from men in the dating world. I absolutely love this, and greatly support more women being aware of how hetero relationships do not often run in our favour.

Now you can see all this, and yet when a woman expresses desire for a partner/relationship (completely normal way to feel in this relationship-oriented world), a common retort is 'there's someone out there for everyone' and stuff to that effect. And yet, seeing poor relationships around me in real life and online, all the content mentioned above, I have come to the conclusion that there are simply not enough men who are boyfriend/marriage material can match up with the number of women who want a relationship/marriage. Yet why do we constantly try and comfort single women by suggesting that there is?

For me it seems like a simple numbers game - some women get lucky and find a good guy, and some don't. The definition of a good guy will vary between women of course, but there are commonalities. Social media content of 'meet cutes' and promoting relationships, where you see constant comments: 'I need this one day' 'me and who'. To me it seems like patriarchal propaganda, and a way to set women up for disappointment - that beautiful love they dream of will never come, because there are simply not enough men willing to fulfil it with us.

As someone who has entered my 30s moving on from this mindset that everyone will find love eventually, after a huge amount of discomfort figuring it out, to me it seems like a (mild, somewhat unimportant in the scheme of things) feminist idea to encourage women to move away from this constant 'waiting' for a good hetero relationship that isn't statistically likely to happen, to the extent that they don't live their lives to the fullest. What do you think, and what can we do to be more honest and truthful for other women who are in that painful cycle of romantic longing set up by patriarchy, that may never be satisfied?

I have been noticing an increase in cases where women's knowledge, worldview and legitimacy of arguments are called into question or outright denied.

As a result, I'd like to read more articles, blogs and peices of discourse (academic or non academic) about the various issues surrounding epistemic injustice and how it can be tackled. I don't mind if it's YouTube videos or a podcast episode. I want to clarify some of my own thoughts about this issue of women's claims being treated with distrust and suspicion, or dismissed as exaggeration, attention-seeking and dramatic behaviour in a way that men's claims typically are not.

I was reading "Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement - Anuradha Ghandy" and in the Marxist feminism section a contrast between both terms (Capitalist Patriarchy and Patriarchal Capitalism) was shown to exist (p80-81), with Heidi Hartmann being the proponent of Patriarchal Capitalism in her article "The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism" and some other scholars disagreeing with her dual systems theory and proposing an integrated systems theory of Capitalist Patriarchy, Iris Young is said to be one of them.

I didn't quite get the distinction between the terms properly it seems, because I find myself unable to think of mutually exclusive examples which fall into one and not the other concept. I tried ChatGPT but it seems confused too as it switches examples between them.

As someone without an in-depth knowledge of the history of feminist stances, I was curious: have there been key issues that have been significantly rethought? Or at least, issues around which views have become less unanimous?

Thanks in advance for your answers. And I apologise if my question is too theoretical and motivated by curiosity, rather than a question about actionable steps we can take to concretely help the feminist cause.

It often feels like expressions of female rage don’t reach the people who most need to hear them (like misogynists) and instead circulate within communities that already support feminist ideals. One striking example is the 4B movement, where it seems that frustration and criticism are often directed toward allies within the feminist movement rather than outward toward broader societal structures.

This dynamic raises a question: If allies within the movement are met more frequently with criticism than appreciation, could this alienate moderate individuals who might otherwise support feminism? Without recognition for their efforts, some may feel there’s little incentive to stay engaged when they’re only reminded of toxicity.

With this in mind, do movements like 4B risk punishing those who stand to lose the most in their role as allies of feminism, rather than effectively challenging the systems and individuals who uphold misogyny?

I’ve been reflecting on how access to resources and opportunities can vary so much depending on where someone lives, especially in rural areas. For women in these communities, participating in feminist activism or accessing support might come with unique challenges, whether it’s a lack of nearby resources, limited internet access, or cultural barriers.

I’d love to hear your thoughts! What specific obstacles do rural women face when it comes to engaging with feminist movements or finding the support they need? And how can the feminist community as a whole do a better job of reaching and uplifting women in these areas? Any insights or personal experiences are greatly appreciated!

Title says it all

Asking in good faith, I myself am a woman (trans).

EDIT: I do not approve of a man manipulating anyone in any way.

They said people don't think about women in the same way other cultures do, and actually women beating men up is common.

I wasn't sure this was true, but could not respond because I am not familiar with Ukrainian society. What do you think about this?

I was doing an inspection at a university and I saw a poster that claimed this. I thought this was very strange. I just want to clarify that I’m a man that absolutely supports equal rights for women but I just don’t get that statement.

I thought they used blue liquid for the ads to show how absorbent the pad was. Light blue is easy to see through but not completely clear. If blood red colour were used, it would be harder to see through. I’ve seen the same liquid used for diaper ads.

I just don’t see how this is sexist but you’re free to correct me if I’m wrong.

This is something I’ve been thinking about for awhile, as many feminists find that women in these professions are exploited, so do you feel the same way for the inverse?

I often find myself thinking that the divide between how society sees men and women is much wider than for example the one between white and black people. That's not to say women are necessarily more oppressed than black people, just that there seems to be something unique to the gender dynamic.

Maybe it's because even outside of what's broadly considered sexism, men and women are still understood to be and look different? Maybe this is all in my head because I'm white-passing where I live, I don't know. I just feel like it's much easier to conceptualize that a black person is perfectly equal to a white person, than that a woman is perfectly equal to a man.

For example, if you took a random popular movie script, it would be much less jarring to switch everyone's race than to switch everyone's gender. I think we have a lot more "this [category of person] wouldn't/shouldn't act like that!" biases (conscious or not) that are socially acceptable for gender than for race.

Or, it's common to see people talk about things like "what women want" or "what men want" in a way that doesn't happen for other categories (perhaps because of how heteronormativity created this whole thing of not understanding the gender you're supposed to pursue) — and while sometimes those generalizations can be valid, their prevalence reinforces that humanity is split into two starkly different types of people.

And then I feel like this makes it extremely normalized for men to not treat women as true equals in day-to-day life or relationships, because genders are still seen as having different roles to play, or different characteristics or preferences, so they can be treated differently (and then "differently" often becomes "worse" for women).

Again, I think it's easier for a white man to see a black man as someone they should treat exactly the same as they would like to be treated, than it is for men to have the same "empathy through identification" with women, because women are seen as a whole 'nother type of creature.

P.S.: Also, some people have such a hard time wrapping their minds around non-binary people because we're so used to applying gender-based templates to everyone. We can't conceive of someone as just a human being, we need to see them as either fitting the "male template" or "female template" — so of course we also struggle to see and treat binary/cis people as just human beings.

Its capitalism, many of their bosses and right winger/red pill propaganda that is preventing it.

People often frame feminism as women vs men, but I think something that does harm feminism is that a not-insignificant proportion of women disagree with it, which maybe isn't the case with other liberation movements. I hear a lot of strategies formulated about converting non-feminist men (have feminist men talk to them, etc) but what about women who don't agree with feminism? What are some effective strategies you or someone else has used to convert them? And what kind of non-feminist were they? Have you used different strategies based on the type of non-feminist woman?

Also, what are your thoughts on converting non-feminist women in general? Are they of similar priority as non-feminist men?

I’m a straight girl who doesn’t like it when female characters are tokenized in any piece of media as the “eye candy” while the male characters aren’t. However, I usually think it’s fine when a piece of media sexualizes both genders equally (their body parts are flaunted, or are wearing sexual outfits). I am also used to seeing lots of people enjoy or post/repost nsfw artwork where male and female characters either have exaggerated proportions, are having the main focus on their body/body parts, or are wearing a sexualized outfit. There are some nsfw artworks that don’t include the latter examples that I listed, but will just show two characters straight up having sex together, whether they be existing fictional characters (aka shipping art), OCs, or Self-insert art (usually a faceless character having a sexual moment or just sex with an OC or existing fictional character). I looked at previous posts on this subreddit for some opinions on nsfw art or sexualization of characters in general.

One user said: “It's always objectification when the characters have no profile, aka. no intrinsic reason to do the things they do, no set of values, no agenda. Pleasing others is not it. Why do they wear the things they do? Why are they running around naked? Why do they have sex they way they do? - all these are rhetorical questions. If the only answer is: because it pleases the reader, it's objectification.”

Another user: “Im prepared to take the downvotes on this one but if you're creating/designing a woman to be the object of your sexual desire then that is, by definition, objectification. Therefore it is sexist, although I'd argue not as bad as actual pornography with real women. If you're having to question whether what you're doing is toeing the line between sexist/not sexist then chances are you don't feel too good about it and it probably is sexist. You're basically asking "is my method of objectification ethical?" and I'm not going to tell you yes. You're 18 -young- try interacting with women and girls more and don't stay in your house all day drawing explicit images of them.”

I don’t completely disagree with these comments, but honestly I’m feeling that this would imply that all nsfw art is technically objectification. Even if the character does not have ridiculous proportions, there are artworks where you’re meant to look at the character and find them attractive. When a character is wearing a sexy outfit, even if they are wearing it because they want to, they are also wearing it because the artist finds it pleasing to the eye and wants their audience to as well. Even if you’re drawing fanart of existing fictional characters, if you’re drawing them to be hot and attractive (or posed in a sensual manner) or having sex with another person (shipping art) that would technically be objectification. The problem for me is that I like to see soft nsfw art sometimes or ecchi-esque stuff, or a character(s) purposely drawn in a “sexual manner” (even female characters for more of a power fantasy thing). I’m thinking that if all nsfw art is objectification then I should just quit it altogether. I feel like a complete traitor. At the same time, so many people of all genders and sexualities like nsfw art to express sexuality and desires, so I can’t completely shame someone for liking certain kinds of nsfw art. We shouldn’t be overly-reliant on nsfw artwork to get sexual gratification, and should go out in the world and meet real people. But at the same time people like to use nsfw art of fictional characters as an immediate remedy for sexual feelings since it takes time to grow a relationship with someone. I searched across Reddit some more and found one post from a lesbian subreddit, and it talked about how they struggle between pointing out when objectification is wrong, but also being attracted to sexualized characters (you can go see the post on r/actuallesbians, it has “gaymer brain” in the title). A lot of the commenters were discussing their opinion on the difference between a character being presented in the right way as sexy and when they’re being objectified.

One commenter said (talking about Nier Automata): “I think the difference is twofold: 1: 2B feels more like appreciation than exploitation. The creator of the game is an unapologetically horny dude who just likes looking at hot women. His thought process wasn't "Hot woman sell games", his thought process was "I like looking at hot woman" 2: The dudes aren't treated differently. They're just as hornily presented. 3: The design doesn't compromise on her character. Optional NO 4: It actually looks good. Unlike most tiddy-ninja bs”

The statement “I just really like girls/I like looking at hot women” began swirling in my head. I found another post on this subreddit from a straight guy asking if it’s hypocritical of sexualization in media while also being aware of how it affects society as a whole. He gave a ‘good’ example of a sexual female character with Bayonetta because she owns her style and wants to send other people a message about herself. But then he went into how in mmorpgs he will play as a female character and give them jiggle physics or ridiculous features for fun. He also mentions games like Black desert online, Final Fantasy 14, Lost Ark, and Stellar Blade where the female characters are sexualized but have no personality. He said that it doesn’t affect his view of real life women and ended the post with a summary:"I enjoy looking at video game boobs". A popular comic artist on twitter by the handle of @idolomantises also made a tease at the idea of creating a character for the sake of just being hot. The comic had one OC talking about how they designed a character whose sexuality is connected to her backstory, and then another OC with a drawing of a hot character who simply says “She’s hot.” Is the justification of “I like hot people” ever justified? When would it be, and when would it not be? Even if an artist draws characters that don’t have exaggerated proportions or even are unconventionally attractive in a sexual manner(or doing sexual acts), can those depictions also be harmful in certain contexts?

I’ve seen people post artwork of men and women having their chest squeezed, or someone burying their face in a person’s chest. Or characters posing in a sexual manner or having their figure accentuated by an outfit. Sometimes there’s art where a character’s butt is focused on or accentuated. Is it possible for people to express their sexual desires towards the human form (or any humanoid character) without attaching those depictions to real life standards? Or “disassociate” fictional characters from real life people? I definitely think too much consumption of nsfw art leads to altered perception of reality, but if I see someone posting or engaging with nsfw art once in a while, does that also count?

I hate certain types of harmful fetish content that people will spread, and I hate when a specific gender is sexualized in a piece of media without the presence of other characters of the shared gender who aren’t sexualized and especially if the other genders aren’t sexualized equally as them. But I never thought too deeply about the ethics of fictional nsfw art until recently. So what are your opinions on sexualization in general?

How did everyone’s Thanksgiving go this year? Anyone else find themselves navigating some tense political conversations around the dinner table?

I’m curious to hear about how others handled the holiday this year. For me, it was a bit of a mess—my liberal boomer mom got into a shouting match with all the Trump supporters in the family, and things got heated. They ganged up on her and shouted her down while she politely tried to stand up for herself. Sickening to witness.

My sister, who actually majored in women's studies 15 years ago, seems to be stuck in this weird "both sides", "I'm not in politics" stance, and her husband, an RFK Jr. supporter and former Trump supporter, isn’t helping the situation. It felt like a nightmare navigating the political divides, especially when it's family you love but can't seem to agree with on anything.

Anyone else struggle with similar family dynamics? When my brother in law started shouting at me that "ivermectin is NOT HORSE DE WORMER", I took that as my cue to leave and I walked out.

I'm thinking Christmas will be a quiet affair this year. I'd love to hear what you all went through and how you survived the day!

PS: I received a note on my door inviting me to a neighborhood meeting to discuss how we will come together to face the "challenges" that lie ahead with the Trump Administration. Has anyone else received these notes? I was on the fence but after last night, I will be attending for my own sanity.

The question more or less answers itself, but I know there were some exceptions to the rule (like Hypatia of Aelxandria, a philosopher), however, they did so breaking the law and with the willful acceptanc eof male relatives, pretending to be men, or caliming to occupy their posts with some sort of alleged complicity, even with this exceptions the vast majority of women and men kept repeating the same proccesses depsite being different individuals with different convictions and bleeifs, except for some common ones, I know this implies History, Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Psychology, but I'd be grateful for someone to respond a deep-but-accessible answer (preferibly if contianing access to other sources). I guess it started with culture and then formalized via the State, and which maybe some assumptions mad eby people because the backgorund's influenc ein their beliefs might have helped, but that's all I know.

I don't like the word "patriarchy". I think it's divisive. I'm sure a majority of my fellow men agree with this sentiment. It puts all the faults of society on the backs of 20 somethings innocent men who have nothing to do with all the (perceived) faults of society in today's age.

In the olden times life was tough for men and women but at least they were united fighting against the whims of life and the handful of men who were in positions of power. The lives of the elites were much more comfortable (which includes the women who were the wives of the men in power)

The pendulum has already swung in favour of women in society. I wonder when the popular opinion shifts too. This has serious real work consequences for men which include economic disadvantages and the redistribution of wealth from men to women. E. G.: 1. College attendance and graduation levels now favouring women. Buuuuuuut massive amounts of scholarships for women only 2.The welfare state redistributing wealth from men to women (in Norway men pay more in taxes than they receive back in welfare. Women on the other hand receive 1.2 million more in welfare than they pay in taxes over their lifetime. 3.Women out earning men in their 20s to 30s by 1000 dollars a year. DEI hiring disadvantaging men still exists though.

We don't have a patriarchy. We never had a patriarchy. We had a society favouring men economically now we have a society favouring women economically.

Edit:

My question is: Why do feminists insist on using the term patriarchy even though it alienates men and the assumption of a patriarchy can't be true in today's western world?

I (a man) am struggling a little bit to understand this. From what I've heard in the past, according to feminists both men and women are negatively affected by the Patriarchy. It says women have to be a certain way and men have to be a certain way, and pushes restrictive gender roles on people. I've experienced this myself as a man.

There also seems to be a general belief that despite this, women have it worse. And from what I can see, this does appear to be the case. They face issues ranging from casual sexism to genital mutilation. There are also things like a pervasive "rape culture", issues of sexual/domestic violence, as well as societal pressure to "settle down" and keep to the domestic sphere.

Something else I hear is that men are the oppressor group and women are the oppressed group. This is where I start having trouble. Like I said, I agree that women are very probably being more negatively impacted by the Patriarchy than men are. But what the Patriarchy is actually doing to women doesn't seem meaningfully different from what it's doing to men except when it comes to the degree, basically. Presumably what separates the oppressed from the oppressor group isn't just "we're disadvantaged by the system to a greater extent than the group - therefore we're the oppressed and they're the oppressors". But I'm struggling to see then, what is the main difference between the way the Patriarchy affects women and the way it affects men, such that it "oppresses" women, but merely "negatively impacts" men.

It's clear to me that women were oppressed (in Western countries) when there were legal structures in place designed to prevent them, as women, from expressing social and political autonomy. So is the argument then that something like this is still happening, just more covertly? The fact that the US has never had a woman President would suggest women are still finding it hard to gain actual political power (although that said - in my country the majority of Parliament is female). But is this just because politics is thought of more as a "male" career? Again, this doesn't seem meaningfully different from hairdressing being thought of as a "female" career. So female hairdressers are more prevalent. This is probably bad and Patriarchal, but still the same forces are at play in both cases. Except hairdressing is less prestigious, I suppose? I've just started to think out loud here though - to return to the main point, I think the issue might just be my confusion over the term "oppression". Hopefully there's a simple answer to this?

If a man slept around throughout his 20s and then decided to settle down with a demure career focused woman with a high paying job once he hit 30, you all would be calling out that man as manipulative and a predator for abusing the relationship experience power imbalance.

However when a woman does the same behavior to a man, you would call out the man for being insecure and a misogynist for caring about her past and how the past shouldn’t matter.

Link to major new article discussing it:

• https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/abortions-rose-roe-overturned-why-rcna181094

Do tou think thar society holds prejudice against women that like to dress up or present a non- conventional style?

Do you think that, in certain professions, they are regarded as less intelligent or less efficient?

What is your take?

I want to know indices can be used to measure sexism and I came accros the differential between labor force participation rates between men and women, what are your thoughts on this?

I was reading Yuvals Hararis Sapiens - A brief history of humankind, and it was great - until he started reflecting on the patriarchy. He states that there have never been a true matriarchy, and that there must be a biological reason for this. He begins pondering various ways in which men might be superior leaders, although he ends this part of the book on the fact that we don't know exactly what it is about men that makes them superior.

I was so shocked to read this that I haven't finished the book. As you might know, this book is a bestseller, highly rated, so this casual but extreme statement took me by surprise; especially coming from a gay, jewish man. You'd think he know better than to believe that some humans are inferior.

However, this also got me thinking. I come from an indigenous background that was matriarchal before they were christened. I have done some research and it seems a lot of indigenous societies share this matriarchal background, but this isn't accepted by historians such as for example Yuval Harari. Why is that?

As a woman, I often notice casual sexist comments or behaviors in everyday situations... whether it’s at work, in social settings, or even just online. Sometimes, these moments catch me off guard, and I’m unsure of the best way to respond without making the situation uncomfortable or escalating things unnecessarily.

I want to get better at addressing these moments in a way that’s clear, respectful, and actually makes people think. How can we point out these issues effectively without alienating others? Are there approaches that work better than others when it comes to friends, family, or strangers?

I’d love to hear your advice or personal experiences on how to handle these situations, especially when you’re trying to balance speaking up with keeping the peace.

Male here!

What i want to ask is that i have seen few videos on the internet in which they showed the short street interviews of girls and guys. When asked about their body count- for girls it was percieved bad to have it that high-4 to 15- and for boys, though some were high in their body countm i couln't help but notice how they said**"since i'm man, that doesn't matter".** i'm not talking about any need for equality or accountability. i wanna ask you what would've influenced the people being okay with men being with high body counts. And what makes girl's look bad in this regard

i first had the opinion since many women are dressed a bit openly(revelaing 10 to 80 percent of their bodies) and boys are mostly dressed more modestly, so they are percieved devoid of any bad intention or that it may prove their innocence and however i found women a bit more arrogant which i thought ruins the image of the female gender as a whole.

I would love to have your opinion on this matter as i am open to learning what you think about this issue in hopes to expanding my view of thought.

Hi everyone! I wanted to ask about topfreedom as it relates to feminist perspectives on body autonomy and societal norms. I’ve observed women practicing topfreedom while swimming or sunbathing in Austin, where this seems culturally normalized. This observation made me curious about how such normalization intersects with feminist perspectives on body autonomy and equality.

How do feminists view the normalization of women being topless in public spaces compared to men? What challenges or benefits do you see in advocating for this equality?

I’m asking this in good faith and want to hear perspectives rooted in feminism without debate. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Men and women do exhibit biological differences that make them more suited to particular roles and professions that ultimately contributes to the idea of gender roles in society. I.E. men predominate fields that are more labor intensive whereas women predominate fields that emphasize care giving roles. That isn't to say men and women can't do the other's jobs, it's just statistically true that there seems to be a preference based on sex. Women make up roughly 29.3% of Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting professions for example but also occupy 74.4% of Education and Health Services.

Does feminism outright reject gender roles in society still or does it have some semblance of acceptance towards it? If it does still reject gender roles, why? If it does have some acceptance towards it, is the idea of an egalitarian society then actually realistic?