I've been thinking about something and i'd like your opnion on it.

I always see feminist saying that society sees them as less human than men, but it also seems that society views women as kinder, gentler, etc... While acknowledging that men are capable of horrible deeds, but society also realises that men can potentially raise above those dark impulses.

I wonder if the ascription of only positive human traits (such as kindness, gentleness, care etc...) is what stops society from recognzing the full humanity of women? Perhaps it needs to realise that women are capable of horrible deeds, while having the capacity to raise above them, instead of viewing women as harmless automatons? After all, isn't what makes us human is both the capacity for evil and capacity for good?

I am not arguing that racism and misogyny did not play a massive role in why many voters didn't vote for Harris, at least subconsciously. I also am not equating liberals with leftists, nor am I suggesting all liberals think this way. But many liberals do think this way.

It's no secret Trump did well with traditionally Dem demographics. He won about half of Latino voters and a majority of Arabs (and I believe a majority of Muslims generally). He improved among all minorities, including black people (though black people voted Harris by like 90$).

But I've noticed this trend in the wake of the election of liberals pinning the blame on pretty much every group except white people, the only major racial group that voted for Trump by a majority. They are pinning the blame on Latinos even though most Latinos voted for Harris.

They're even pinning the blame on black men despite 80% of black men voting for Harris, just because there was a slight shift in the black male vote in favor of Trump this year (8 pts I believe). They pin the blame on Arabs for not voting for the administration that actively gave weapons to a state that is genociding their people.

But the group getting most of the blame from these (mostly white) liberals are definitely Latinos. I keep seeing the same narrative on Reddit, Bluesky, Twitter, etc.: Latino men are toxic misogynists who didn't want to vote for a woman.

They bring up the word "machismo" even though they barely understand what that word means and the different connotations it carries in Spanish, they call us sexist for not using "Latinx" and degendering our language.

Never mind the fact that 40% of Latinas voted for Trump, or that the top issue in polls for Latinos was the economy. No, liberals do not want to engage in any introspection as to why they lost. Instead, blame the minorities. American white supremacy is so entrenched that even liberals can't escape it.

I'm seeing posts of white liberals hoping Latinos get deported, that we should halt Latino immigration, that Latinos are racist and sexist, etc. They're saying similar things about Muslims as well.

But none of these white liberals mention the fact that there have been about 12 female heads of state elected in Latin America and about 9 in the Muslim world. I might be off by 1 or 2, but it's about a dozen each. How many have been elected in the United States? Zero.

Notice how its brown people getting blamed, but white people are special little individuals who cannot be judged as a single group. Us minorities are monoliths who must think the same, white people are special little pog champs who must be judged as individuals.

Another narrative being spread about Latinos is that we love dictators and caudillos, and that's why we voted for Trump (again, most Latinos voted for Harris). This completely ignores the fact that many of those caudillos/dictators were installed or supported by the U.S. during the Cold War as part of Operation Condor, even before that as well.

It ignores the fact that most Latin American countries are democracies. Again, white people voting for Trump doesn't indicate anything about white society, but all of Latino society is implicated despite most Latinos voting for Harris.

Do you finally understand why Dems are losing POC support? (and yes I'm aware that many Latinos are white, this doesn't negate the fact that they still face ethnic discrimination). It feels like Dems are demanding our vote, and if we don't vote for them, we deserve to be deported and shut out of the country, to be mocked and ignored, to deserve whatever we get, etc. It feels like an abusive relationship.

It's not an excuse to vote for Trump, but I can definitely understand why Arabs and Latinos don't feel enthusiastic to vote for Dems. If I'm being totally honest, it feels like white liberals hate me as a Latino. I think minorities are often more comfortable with the in-your-face racism of Republicans than the two-faced dishonest cowardly racism of liberals.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of a Latino for a sec. You came from a country that the U.S. installed a dictator in, your family had to flee, you grow up here and vote Dem when you turn 18, your parents vote Dem and then vote Repub for once because the economy sucks and they're hopeless, then white liberals accuse your entire ethnic community of supporting caudillos and dictators despite most of those dictators being installed by the U.S., they accuse you of being backwards misogynists despite most of your community voting for Harris and Latin America already having elected 12 women as heads of state despite the United States electing 0, they accuse you of being patriarchal sexists for not allowing people who don't know any Spanish to forcibly change your language against the will of your community despite the countless times you've explained to them why "Latinx" is impractical and doesn't make any sense, they call Trump's border wall a literal monument to white supremacy during Trump's term and then immediately start supporting the wall and building more of it during Biden's term (showing they never actually cared about us), etc.

This would radicalize any Latino into hating Democrats. I've never voted Republican and never will, but the liberal reaction to the election has made me hate liberals and the old guard of the party more than ever before. These people are out of touch and hate us. I am convinced most of the higher up Dems and libs in media don't personally know a single Latino. They live in gated communities in the Northeast that are 98% white and 2% African-American, the only Spanish they've ever heard is from that Despacito song, and the only Latinos they come across are the ones that mow their lawns and clean their schools and offices. They do not respect or care about us at all.

So now it's time for the question portion. I'm feeling very mad at liberals for how they've been talking about minorities recently, but especially Latinos, so I just want to ask these questions to make sure it's not me who's taking crazy pills. Some people here are liberals, some aren't, so I just want to see if there are any liberals left who don't despise us.

1. Should immigration from certain groups be reduced or even totally stopped if it means less future Republican voters? Again, most Latinos voted for Harris, but let's just say most voted for Trump. Would it be justifiable to stop Latino immigration if that were the case, even if they were fleeing poverty, violence, or oppression? (in many cases as a result of historical U.S. policy toward the region, at least in part). There are liberals who are saying we should stop Latino immigration, and to me it basically reveals that they don't respect us as humans or care about our safety or rights, they just view us as political pawns. It's political objectification (maybe that's a dumb thing to call it, but it's what it feels like). Human rights are supposed to be unconditional: if a refugee shows up at the border fleeing violence and tyranny, we don't ask them whether they'll vote blue or red. I remember a time when liberals put "no human is illegal" as a yard sign or bumper sticker.

2. Are Latinos sexist for not using "Latinx" as the default term for Latinos and for not degendering the Spanish language? I'm aware that "Latinx" was coined by a queer Latino (or Latine, I can't remember the gender of the author, just that they were queer) and that the term is frequently used by non-binary Latin people. However, that doesn't negate the fact that the popularity of the word is dismally low among Latinos (I believe it's like 3%) and that the people who most aggressively push the word are white liberals who don't know any Spanish. These are white liberals who likely don't personally know many Latinos, they just know the Spanish language is gendered with a built-in preference for masculine gender, they know the word "machismo" exists and thus assume there's some intrinsic misogyny in the Latino community, and they probably sincerely think the word is popular with young Latinos. I think when news outlets use the word, it's not necessarily out of malice, they probably just aren't familiar with Latin culture and assume the word is a popular hip word with young Latinos or whatever, but that's the problem: they just assume that. Time and time again we've had to explain to them why the word is impractical: it's unpronouncable, it doesn't make sense, there are already pronouncable alternatives such as "Hispanic", "Latin", and "Latine", it's unpopular in the community, etc. Again, I don't have an issue with individuals choosing to identify as "Latinx", but what I'm against is people using "Latinx" as the default term for the whole community or demanding that we must use that term for ourselves and that we're chauvinistic sexists if we don't. Is it too hard for liberals to just ask us what we personally want to call ourselves rather than forcing a word onto the whole community? I don't understand how gender neutral language is considered an indicator of misogyny or lack thereof when the majority language of Iran is a gender neutral language (Farsi). It just doesn't mean much. Latin women don't mind being called Latinas, they don't mind being called "trabajadora" or "presidenta", it's just not something we tend to think or care about. If we want to change our language, we'll do that for ourselves on our own terms, thank you. It's not for anyone else to decide.

In the wake of the last election, there's been a lot of discussion on young people's swing towards conservatism. I've been disappointed in the "reflection" that has happened within feminism. It seems like whatever parts of feminism or socially progressive politics that are now losing trust or declining in popularity are being attributed not to movement feminism, or the honest to god leftists who champion those ideas most, but liberal feminism (or white feminism, choice feminism, etc).

I consider myself strongly liberal, and in that, not a leftist. I am also a man. I'm seeing "liberalism" getting the blame within feminism, that I believe the left deserves more. As far as girl [noun]s, or girlification, are discussed, radical feminists will say they arose out of a reaction to girlboss liberal feminism. Then they double down and say it's all just marketing to sell pink stuff, but it is salient because the young women who were sold on liberal feminism don't want to man-ify themselves to compete at a high level in a capitalist world.

The world, be it capitalist or socialist, is hard to live in. Material scarcity exists, and in a free society people trust others with more masculine traits to manage their assets at a higher level. My philosophy would be that women were given something of a raw deal at the outset of defining these traits, and the characteristics that were assigned to be feminine ideals were always going to be impractical for independence. The original feminine archetype is someone dependent, so you can't keep all the attributes of that archetype and expect to thrive in a world where there is more power in independence.

A message that "women should be feminine, dainty, cutely weak, have no need to provide for themselves, etc and still climb to the highest rungs in society" is a hard sell because those attributes aren't conducive to self reliance or competition. Saying that the whole economic mode of production needs to change to accommodate women's abilities doesn't reflect well on women. It implicitly communicates that the people women want to be are intrinsically unfit to be making big moves in the professional or political world. This notion leads people towards conservatism. If women believe that they should want to be hyperfeminine pink bimbo(reclaimed) #girlies and that the man's world is too hard for them to play in while maintaining those characteristics, then they are likely to believe women should be in the home because it's where they can maximize their own happiness. It instructs them that they would be more empowered to realize their peak femininity, thus their happiness and self expression, by finding a provider and homemaking.

Liberal feminism, however, continues to champion women who find a balance between the feminine archetype they hold dearly and the practical reality of what kind of person you need to be to find success in the world. It also tells them that they don't actually have to perform femininity if they don't want. There will be tradeoffs, but they make the choice that maximizes their happiness. Personally I think Kamala benefitted from being seen as a courtroom shark and a tough prosecutor, and if she was like a younger blacker Elizabeth Warren in a Barbie costume, we may have lost by a lot more. I say "we" but if you're too left to consider yourself a Dem then go ahead and exclude yourself from that.

In short: to say that girlboss liberalism has failed, and that it needs to be replaced with pink socialism or bimbo socialism is to totally miss the mark on what the latest segment of our societal dialogue is telling us. It is unhelpful in trying to get a grip to prevent further rightward shift in Gen Z.

Or am I just out of touch. I keep hearing that young men are going through awful things.. Jobs are harder to get, student loans are getting higher, third spaces lack.. People are getting lonelier, depression is rising.. But this isn't something exclusive to young men. Every time I try to talk to them about it, it's exhausting. Some of them beg me to abandon my feminist ways and act like I'm horrible for even thinking about feminism. I have been called horrid things all my life online yet young men act as if it's only happening to them. I really don't feel bad about it, it's the internet. So many of them act as if they have it much worse than everyone else. I honestly feel like i'm just not getting something here, haha.

I understand that feminist analysis aims to critique gender through observable generalised patterns of thought and behaviour within society. But, how uniform are those patterns? If feminism describes a bell curve, how steep or shallow is that bell curve perceived to be? What proportion of people are 'average' when it comes to gender? How strong is the correlation between gender identity and thoughts/behaviours associated with that gender?

I know feminism is about groups, not individuals, but often seems to come with a grain of salt, reminding us that these are generalisations, that human beings are nuanced individuals and not everyone is the same. Are there any parts of feminist theory which explore this asterisk in greater detail? Ultimately, how do we relate our own individuality within systemic social patterns?

Whilst this first paragraph is not exactly relevant to the question, I'll include it in order to state what prompted this thought.

I've read quite a few anecdotes from teachers (even at the college/university level) about how male/female relationships are breaking down at schools, and not just in terms of early romance. Apparently boys and girls are struggling to carry conversations, are awkward during even basic interactions, and are voluntarily self-segregating unless forced together via class projects.

Whilst I'm sure this doesn't go for every classroom there seems to be a growing climate of discomfort, even fear, between young people. If things are really that bad it makes me wonder if the days of gender segregated schools had a value. Something I imagine was especially beneficial for young girl's safety. However I'm curious if you would consider this old practice anti-feminist or not.

Hi, guy here. Recently I was at a bar and I approached a woman who was sitting at the bar with her friend and I asked if I could buy her a drink. She said that her and her friend were just about to order drinks and that I could pay for their drinks if I wanted to, which I agreed to.

We had some very short small talk while they waited for their drinks (e.g., names, where they are from, what they do etc). However, after they received their drinks (it only took 1-2mins for them to get their drinks) I tried to continue the conversation but the girl who I initially approached said "thank you so much for the drinks, but honestly I just want to talk to my friend, I'm not really interested in anything, we really do appreciate the drinks though, thank you". I was quite annoyed by this a said "why did you let me buy you drinks if you weren't interested?". She said that "buying someone a drink doesn't entitle you to anything, you offered so we accepted". We had a small argument about it, until I was asked to leave by the bartender for "bothering' them.

What is your opinion on this? Do you think that women should reject a drink if they are not interested?

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 (mid-60’s, gay) am concerned by a situation, but neither my daughter nor my two best friends share my PoV.

This is the second season of the PWHL (Professional Women's Hockey League) and tonight was the inaugural game of the season.  It is being broadcast in French and in English on two major Canadian sports networks, in fact.  So far, sounds great, right?  But, on the French-language network, the very first ad, right before the start of the game, was a (probably) 20-second spot for a new brand of men's underwear. It is the same ad that has been inundating their broadcasts of the men's hockey games, which I also watch.

I perceived this as a subtle message to remind viewers that despite this audience likely being 90% (or more) women of ALL ages and gender identities/sexual orientations, 'men dominate and don’t you forget it’.  I am very aware of the money that goes into advertising and how carefully it is targeted to the broadcast’s audience.  To START this broadcast with THIS particular ad feels very targeted to me.  It would have been different if it had been in amongst the rest of them, later during the broadcast. There have been ads for a popular soft drink, and several other more gender-neutral products and services since then.  In fact, later on, there was an ad for a major Canadian retailer spotlighting their 'sports for kids' efforts, and I exclaimed to my spouse 'That would have been the perfect ad to start off with.'

My PoV is that it's the little everyday things like this that go unchecked/undiscussed that young girls see that blind them to the fact that this world is still run mostly by men with women being a second thought.

My daughter’s (40’s) PoV is that there are bigger issues to worry about and that it was probably an oversight rather than a conscious decision.

My friend’s (my age and same sexual orientation) PoV is that there are probably some men watching, and many of the women watching will have husbands and boyfriends. My friends grew up in the area where we all now live, which is rural/small city, whereas I grew up in a major city and they likely have had little feminist influence from the local culture.  When I asked a local social worker if there were any feminist organizations in the area she laughed and said “Here? Not a one”.  

Maybe my feminist sense is more fine-tuned, seeing that I was reading ‘Ms. Magazine' at 12-14, and ardent feminism seems to be more on the wane from my own personal experience.

ETA (for clarification): the ad showed no 'man candy' IMO*; the main spokesperson a fair amount, a man tugging at his fitted boxers briefly, and a lot of visuals of the briefs in 3D, rotating around, showing how they allowed space for the male anatomy, etc.

*though I suspect I'm not a very good judge of this

So, am I upset at nothing/over-reacting?  I would really like some feedback on this.

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.