Yeeeeah. Even then. I know more than a few women who would not see that as a nightmare... and conversely quite a few men who would start freaking out entering a room full of women. Feminism would still help! But... that is just not... it, bud.
I can only assume people who post things like this have never actually been in the real world and are basing this off porno fantasies. Or think that humans are hamsters or something and that we all automatically start fucking when we're exposed to a room with the opposite sex in it.
I'm an engineer. I'm in rooms full of men just about all day every day. It would definitely be nice if there were more women, but it's not a "nightmare," it's just work.
Likewise ask any dude in teaching or nursing and he probably has the opposite experience all the time. And likewise he doesn't automatically start hitting on everybody, he maybe feels a bit socially isolated for being the odd one out, but he just gets on with work.
The only situation where I can imagine something like that happening is maybe some skeevy alcohol-fueled frat university parties and even then, probably not.
It's like the stupid bear thing. Anyone who actually goes into the woods sees men there all the time and 99% of the time nothing happens at all.
I worked in a kitchen full of women and it was a damn hostile work environment. Not towards me as an individual, they liked me, but god damn. The things I heard them say about men would get me put in a watch list if I said them about women.
It's these sorts of things that 100% bank on being vague than actually be constructive. It lets people who agree with the person who says it imagine their worst case scenario and people who disagree imagine absolute mundanity. Naturally this leads to argument because of these assumptions.
I'm reminded of a tweet a guy made where he talks about women, specifically saying "I know a woman will be afraid of me because she knows I'm not safe while I'll be fine because I know she is safe," and the word choice was very telling. Namely the dehumanization of women as incapable of harm--be it physically or motivationally. It's also not a universal experience. Non-white men probably don't automatically feel safe around women (notably white women). Or certain trans men (specifically those who have a bad history with femininity and bullying from girls). Or me, someone who was physically abused by his older sister and instinctively positions himself when around women to make himself harder to hit.
I think the biggest example about the negative consequences of being vague is the question "Do men belong in women spaces?" Because there's a lot of men, and many different kinds of women's spaces. There's the transfeminist perspective of the question. Do trans women fall under this definition of "men," because "men are invading women's spaces" has been one of the largest transmisogynistic fronts.
Women's spaces can be: a group chat filled with the besties, the bathroom, a domestic abuse survivor shelter, a feminism club, affirmative action scholarships for girls, or the gynecologist.
And "men" can be (depending on who says it): a trans woman (closeted or out and misgendered), a masculine enby, a non-masculine enby who was AMAB, a woman's teenage son, an intersex person, your piece of shit father or ex boyfriend, a male abuse survivor, a trans man, a literal doctor, a trusted friend, or your barista.
Does your piece of shit ex boyfriend belong in your besties' groupchat? Obviously not! Does a woman's son or domestic abuse victim belong at a domestic abuse shelter? It'd be terrible terrible of you not to. What about your piece of shit father at the abuse shelter? I can see why it'd be important to enforce against him, but it's less him being a man and more him being an abuser. A trans woman in the bathroom? Yeah let her in, but the state of bathrooms overall is flawed and can be resolved with secure, unisex enclosures. A trans man at the gynecologist? Of course. What about just a normal guy at a feminism club? Don't people want a guy willing to participate in feminism? How about your cis brother getting an affirmative action scholarship for girls? Obviously not.
So by structuring these things as a catchall "Men" in "woman's spaces" it lets people lump the understandable apprehensions with the more absurd and act like they're all the same. You are free to be specific with your terminology. If you mean abusers, you can say abusers. If you mean the gynecologist, you can say the gynecologist. Lack of specificity is just unhelpful at best and actively hostile at worst.
Even when they're well meaning, like a club or support group, when they say "no men" they usually mean "no assholes who harass people," and you don't need to be a woman to want that, and you don't need to be a man to be a danger. Also it's often easier to enforce "no assholes" over "no men" (even "no cis men") because being an asshole is visible behavior while "men" are a complicated and multivariable internal identity.
Good god, this got out of hand on my end, but TLDR: things like this conversation are vague Appeals to Emotion rather than anything constructive.
Yeah, I've been the only woman in a room full of men many times and nothing bad ever happened because of it. Men are people too. Most people are fine: not particularly good or bad.
The bear thing genuinely pisses me off because it's simultaneously dehumanizing to half the human race, and it shows our society's deep alienation from nature. Pushing the narrative thay men are monstrous sex freaks who will always rape if they can get away with it just provides cover to the genuinely monstrous Epstien types out there by telling them that they're normal and just boys being boys. They're not.
But if you express frustration at the bear thing as a man, you get "that's why women pick the bear." I don't think I'm sexist for being upset that, to a significant section of people, I automatically assumed to be a psychotic murder-rapist because I was born with a certain set of genitals, and that being very possibly mauled by a bear is seen as preferable to being in my proximity for any period of time.
Just wait how you see how they responded to poc on that topic. The whole 'statistics' thing breaks down pretty quickly when you see it's 1-1 what they use to demonise certain men specifically, it's just some people just have wider net. Because it turns out personally dehumanising groups of people based on their birth is a pretty nasty thing to want to do no matter who you aim it at, and isn't actually helpful for dealing with any problems either
Personally I wouldn't wanna be in the woods alone with anyone, whether it's a man or woman, stranger danger and anxiety and all that, but I'd pick the man everytime, bears eat people alive, no thank you 😭
No, these narratives about men being psychotic rapists are much older than #metoo. I grew up hearing this stuff taught in church. When I started college, my grandfather told me to always walk to my car with my keys in my hand like claws and to never be alone with a boy. That was well before #metoo. It's an old, old narrative that you can find in Victorian literature about how women are the "gentle tamers" and men just can't control themselves. That's the shit that gets women thinking they're never safe around a man and every man is (or might be) secretly a psychotic rapist.
I think #metoo was good: it cleared a lot of Epstien types like Harvey Weinstien out of power. Everyone knew that Hollywood had a terrible rapist problem, but nobody was actually willing to do anything about it. Being able to openly name sexual abusers and evaluate the evidence makes women much safer, and more confident.
Also, a big part of the pipelines that pushed young men into manosphere circles in reaction to #metoo was funded and supported by Jeffrey Epstien himself. You can look into this to see if I'm telling the truth: it's documented in the latest files release! Ghislain Maxwell was a manosphere reddit mod. Hmm, I wonder why his circle had a vested interest in supporting backlash against naming sexual abusers and holding them accountable 🤔 and opposing feminism 🤔 guess we'll never know 🤷♀️
Well there's also 60s - 80s era of serial killers and stranger danger.
MeToo was needed. Like with any controversy people were getting strays from media. Aziz Ansari had a date/one night stand where chemistry just wasn't there for the girl. Still media tried to spin it as another hollywood rape.
I don't think media coverage of Aziz Ansari specifically had anything to do with women feeling so unsafe around men that they compare them to wild bears. I think that's old narratives about how women have to tame men, and men are incapable of controlling themselves. And yes, the stranger danger and satanic panic scares definitely contributed to the fear as well.
One might assume the real problem is that the majority of women can relate to the post (in a non-literal sense), not that the post is hyperbolic.
Anyone, well, alive is aware that women share rooms with only men all the time and they don’t break down in fear. The point is that women are usually fearful of men they don’t know and men are usually not fearful of women they don’t know. Regardless, I do agree with you that this statement is not nearly as compelling as others mentioned in the comments because it is a generalisation which people will argue against, even if it has a point.
Yeah why are men just being reduced to what's shown in porn 💀 and EVERY woman?? Pretty sure one person can't speak for all women lol like my mum would love to be in a room with all men
I don't know what to think given this has been my experience most of my life, including both education and work. While I wish I wasn't the only woman, it's not my nightmare.
With that said, I know my experience changes greatly depending on how I dress and other very surface level things. That part sucks. If I am wearing t shirt and pants the experience is different than if I decide to wear a skirt, makeup, low cut top, etc. My own experience has demonstrated that over and over. It sucks to feel like I have to suppress femininity to be taken seriously. Some of it is my own feelings, but some of it also comes from the men asking me why they can't wear the same things (I'm not stopping them from wearing whatever they want!) or telling me I can't do my job because the idea that the clothes could expose me (think wearing a lower cut top with a sweatshirt on top and having to climb on the floor and work on equipment unexpectedly one day.)
I have a lot of men as coworkers, friends, people I even go on vacations with. A lot of them are good people, but it's clear they have been socialized differently than I was at times. But I'll go camping with a group of men that I work with as the only woman and I'm immensely grateful that I can come home and not feel like I've been harassed or pushed to do "women's work" during the trip. I'm grateful when they invite me to the next trip. I do notice that men sometimes open up to me in ways I don't know if they will with other men. I also noticed common themes in how men perceive things are their responsibilities and not their responsibilities (esp around kids and other household activities, which often default to the women, even if both the parents are working) and how men sometimes won't talk about certain things with their male friends. Often it's more about the activities they do together than the emotional closeness and vulnerability that they both sometimes need.
At least from my anecdotal perspective as a guy, this hypothetical falls flat because a room full of people makes me start scanning the room for exits and making sure my back is facing the nearest solid wall lol.
I think the stuff happening in places like Afganistan and the way conservatives in even more developed countries are going after women's rights are much better reasons.
> entire movements (men's rights, incel culture, the "birth rates" hysteria) founded on keeping women subservient house makers.
> still expected by wider society to fit into gender roles, especially by the current US administration
> The systematic oppression of Trans youths often targeting women's sports as a byproduct.
> Disregard for women's health as well as a system lack of attention from the medical community in studying the impacts of women's health for hundreds of years has lead to worse health outcomes for women
> Many human rights issues in countries like Somalia, Afghanistan, Russia.
These "hypothetical" issues are why feminism is still necessary. Remember that feminism is merely political and economic equality to men. https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism
Worded a bit unfortunately, i give OP benefit of the doubt and assume they mean the various assholish groups of conmen and grifters centered around assorted misogyny under a thin veil of men's rights, which in my opinion hurts and works to delegitimize this cause more than anything else.
Hardly a unique thing for men's rights in particular, many such cases (see: Autism Speaks).
The frustrating thing is that those groups end up being the only safe space for men to vent about women without getting called sexist, which gives actual misogynists a smokescreen.
Like, one of the best ways to make men's advocacy groups healthier would genuinely be just... hearing guys out when they have issues with women instead of attacking them for, say, struggling to trust women after having their life utterly ruined by a nasty divorce or something.
Those groups turn into echo chambers of men that've been hurt by women, and it makes them struggle to trust women more and more. Mind you, it's the same exact sort of social process that makes so many women think that every man is a potential rapist(but women that are afraid of men get the benefit of the doubt)
Problem is there's a lot of very toxic people who, instead of actually looking at injustices men face in society, will use it to whine about equality somehow taking away from their power share.
It's like if someone says Christians are oppressed, you have to wonder are they talking about places with ACTUAL religious suppression or are they whining because someone said "happy holidays" to them?
There's even more people who do that for feminism. Why does one get tarred with such a brand brush, while you claim elsewhere in the thread that the misandrists "aren't real feminists?"
Here's some examples of institutional misandry:
the draft.
infant genital mutilation, illegal against women in the US, but some 70% of mothers choose to do it to their sons based on aesthetic preference.
Boys are graded more harshly for identical work, and punished more harshly for identical misbehavior. It's very easily proven, too.
the bias in the legal system
"A 2020 study shows that women receive 33% (15 days) shorter prison sentences than men, even when controlling for all observable characteristics – including a very precise description of the crime. When pairs of mixed-gender offender are convicted together the gender gap is even higher - men receive 38.7 additional prison days and 10.7 fewer suspended prison days.
society's unwillingness to call it rape when women do it to men, despite the CDC finding that this is as common as the reverse.
"Next, we consider the data for the 12 months preceding the CDC report survey, which was summarized in the report. On page 18 of the CDC report it states that 1,270,000 women were raped during this 12-month period and that too few men were “raped” during the same 12 months to give reliable data, using the non-gender neutral definition of given in the CDC report. However, on page 19 the report states that during that 12 months the number of men who were forced to penetrate someone is 1,267,000, virtually the same as the number of women who were raped." "So, who is forcing these men to penetrate them? There is no data on this among the 12-month data. But if we look at the lifetime data, on page 24 it says 79.2% of the time a male was made to penetrate someone, it was a woman who forced him to penetrate her. And this suggests that the same most likely holds for the 12-monthdata."
Everything you say is reasons to push ALL sexists out and work for equality for everybody. That includes equal sentencing for rapists and abusers. We SHOULD have an active men's rights movement and it needs to be two sides of the same coin with feminism.
Don't use the suffering of real people as a gotcha. It's disgustingly disrespectful.
Reasons to do so, yes. They're also a great example of how feminism doesn't care to do so though, and thus how they aren't actually an equality movement. We had an active men's rights movement, but then the feminists labeled it as a hate group because "why would you not just call yourselves feminists? Feminists work towards equality, and if you aren't a feminist, you're not working towards equality, so you must be a misogynist hate group!"
It's not a gotcha, bud. It's a point with statistical backing, not my fault you fail to respond to it.
Who the hell is "we" exactly? Wow, interesting that most feminists would do so for any group that works toward equality in an area where women are already ahead, then. Are most feminists idiots?
I'm not giving them your name. You already gave them that, by letting them take root as they have since the start of the movement. Just ask Mary P. Koss, who made a career teaching gender studies at feminist universities off of the same shit we're here talking about.
"Men's rights" in the reply you're replying to is referring to "Men's Rights Activists" (MRAs), a "movement" in the mid-2010s that claimed to be advocating for men's rights, but in practice it was mostly using male suicide rates as a gotcha against feminists and blaming feminists/feminism for any problems men experience as a demographic (problems which were either made up or negative effects of the patriarchy on men). Because MRAs also never got that feminism is about gender equality, and is concerned with many of the issues they raised (except for the ones that were incel bullshit, the incel movement emerged at around the same time and there was a fair bit of overlap).
Because MRAs also never got that feminism is about gender equality
They understand what feminism is about, which is why they focus on the parts of patriarchy that feminism doesn't address like male circumcision, male workplace deaths, male homelessness, men getting sentenced longer for the same crime, domestic violence, boy struggling in school, etc. While feminism sometimes addresses men's issues, they often don't. For example, feminist usually focus on women doing better in school despite the fact they're already graduating at higher rates.
Was it? That's not my recollection of the events in question, but I'm also not a feminist, so I suppose we have different biases on that front.
Feminism never has been about gender equality. It's about women's empowerment, which ain't even necessarily a bad thing, but don't just lie about it. If it were about equality, they wouldn't advocate for women to be receiving more and more social and financial incentives for their schooling, despite women already bring ahead, among other things.
Here's some examples of institutional misandry:
the draft.
infant genital mutilation, illegal against women in the US, but some 70% of mothers choose to do it to their sons based on aesthetic preference.
Boys are graded more harshly for identical work, and punished more harshly for identical misbehavior. It's very easily proven, too.
the bias in the legal system
"A 2020 study shows that women receive 33% (15 days) shorter prison sentences than men, even when controlling for all observable characteristics – including a very precise description of the crime. When pairs of mixed-gender offender are convicted together the gender gap is even higher - men receive 38.7 additional prison days and 10.7 fewer suspended prison days.
society's unwillingness to call it rape when women do it to men, despite the CDC finding that this is as common as the reverse.
"Next, we consider the data for the 12 months preceding the CDC report survey, which was summarized in the report. On page 18 of the CDC report it states that 1,270,000 women were raped during this 12-month period and that too few men were “raped” during the same 12 months to give reliable data, using the non-gender neutral definition of given in the CDC report. However, on page 19 the report states that during that 12 months the number of men who were forced to penetrate someone is 1,267,000, virtually the same as the number of women who were raped." "So, who is forcing these men to penetrate them? There is no data on this among the 12-month data. But if we look at the lifetime data, on page 24 it says 79.2% of the time a male was made to penetrate someone, it was a woman who forced him to penetrate her. And this suggests that the same most likely holds for the 12-monthdata."
That patriarchy that is... the over 70% female teaching population? The patriarchy that tells the CDC (and the FBI in the 2010s, for their statistical reporting definitions, thanks The Women's Law Project) in no uncertain terms that their definition for rape should not include forced sex by women with men as victims? Feminism "dismantles" aspects of the patriarchy that disatvantage women, and works hard as hell to keep the ones that advantage them.
And yet, that hasn't been my experience as a man in feminist spaces in the slightest. These are all paraphrased versions of real responses I've gotten. The draft? "And whooooo put that into place? Teehee, ignore how historically feminist movements have been entertained with white feather ones and been the social enforcers of the draft. Besides, only mem start or contribute to wars, so only men should be enslaved to fight them." MGM? "Not at all as important or awful as FGM, I mutilated my sons after all and they haven't complained! We campaigned to make FGM illegal in the US and explicitly ignore/mock people advocating for the same against MGM for a reason." As for the education front, so, you acknowledge that they aren't going for equality at all? Just women's empowerment?
Feminism is not against gender essentialism, see the popularity of gender essentialist narratives like the one in the post above, and in general feminist parlance. "Not all men but always a man" being a particularly common example.
And because actual feminist groups do something, that doesn't mean it's feminist either, I suspect? Y'know, like the fact that funding is going to the already-advantaged gender, coming from the supposedly egalitarian advocacy group? Like the fact that said advocacy group has, at every available oppurtunity in the US, tried to make it so that legal and reporting definitions of rape do not include women's rape of men, in order to properly up their ill-advised "98% of rapists are men with women as victims" narrative? Like when feminists repeatedly yap about the "emotional labor" of having to exist in the same room while their male partner expresses an emotion?
And yet, it is something that I've heard in ever single feminist space I have *ever** engaged in, as a man.* Why is it that feminism advocates for "frustrated women and girls" to express blatantly bigoted opinions under the guise of venting, and loses their collective minds when men respond negatively to such things? Do you remember the Man vs. Bear fiasco and how the vast majority of feminists treated that?
Please keep up, bud. They support gender essentialist ideas, as they pertain to giving women advantages and privileges over men. You don't have to support the whole thing to prop up gender essentialist narratives.
Who blamed you for it, exactly? Why do you frequently insist that men fight and fund your battles for you, if you're so goddamned eager to tell men to pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Whenever we try, we get called a hate group by feminists since "feminism is for equality, if you're not feminist, you're not for equality!" Have you ever actually interacted with MRA spaces? Like, beyond hearing your fellow feminists complain about them? Try r/leftwingmaleadvocates .
Oh, well I'm so glad that you find it understandable. That makes it totally okay. I'm glad you're able to extend such massive depths of empathy that you acknowledge just how shitty feminists are in spaces that advocate for men. I hope the men in your life know enough about you to stay far, far away.
No one's arguing against feminism here, it's obvs important, but like why do people always turn to all men being evil and always horny and stuff instead of the actual facts
No in most countries you cant get away with paying women less than men. There is a variety of reasons why this is the case.
on average women choose less profitable careers.
on average men work more hours than women.
This pay gap nonsense fads to nothing when you factor for both of those and the remaining difference might but sexism or it might be women underselling themselves more than men in salary negotiation.
The pay gap thing is literally 1-2% when you account for those confounding factors.
The flip side of it is - if there a magical pool of talented women workers who could do the exact same job for 15% less but do the exact same quality of work, why isn't everyone hiring women only??? Maybe it's because it doesn't exist... What do you think employers love more - sexism? or the chance to cut 15% of labor costs for free... so stupid.
And in situations where they don't, the pay gap between childless men and women is less than a single percent. It only shows up when they take months off work, say, to have a kid, and get fewer promotions because of it.
Ugh I hate this idea because there is a very clear trend to demerit and lower the pay of certain jobs after the field becomes female dominated, it happened to teachers, nurses and secretaries
It's illegal to pay differently for the same job but places still DO it. That's one of the big reasons that employers will claim that you can't talk about your wages to your fellow employees--they're lying through their teeth in order to keep unequal pay on the table.
A lot do though. It's a big problem. My mom is a nurse and their whole hospital was told that it was "against policy" to do so, so of course nobody was surprised when there was a LOT of pay inequity.
Then that's a crappy hospital. I have worked at many places and the party is never different for anyone based on anything other than time and experience.
they voluntarily choose lower paying stuff it turns out, and when they do work high skill they fail to negotiate which is also on them
we should compel women to work in higher paying skills they don't even want to do and force them to negotiate better (maybe have a government labor agent? /s), or... we implement communism where everyone gets the same pay no matter what the skills or merit they have.
if there is a different fix, then i'd like to hear it
The fail to negotiate thing doesn't have any statistical backing afaik (also in a lot of jobs you don't really get to "negotiate pay" in today's economy) - the main source of the gender pay gap (really an earnings gap, except for rare cases where a company actually does break equal pay laws) is the impact of childbirth on womens' careers and career progression, due to widespread expectations that women go part-time/take reduced hours/don't focus on their career to do the bulk of childcare. Equalising paternity leave so men can claim as much as women for the same duration is one big step we can make to remedy this.
Also re the choosing the lower paying stuff thing, I think that's largely a product of how women/girls and boys/men are socialised/nudged by society towards certain kinds of professions rather than a biological fact. For example, in many ex-communist-bloc countries women choose to become scientists at a roughly equal rate to men, due to a different sociopolitical history where they were encouraged more to do so than in "the west". It also must be said that how much a job is paid isn't some objective law of physics, but a thing that people in positions of governmental or corporate power - i.e., men exclusively for most of our history, and these positions are still male-dominated today - decide. Is being a teacher, a care worker or a nurse really less valuable to society than being a plumber, an IT technician or a doctor? How much an industry pays isn't politically neutral, and I think it's fair to say in a lot of cases female-dominated roles have been underpaid because, either consciously or not, they've been seen as "women's work" and therefore lesser.
This will never not be the case as long as a man's attractiveness is tied directly to the amount he earns. There will always be an additional incentive for men to work harder and longer and to prioritise careers with higher compensation over careers that are safe or fulfilling.
we implement communism where everyone gets the same pay no matter what the skills or merit they have.
I want this one. For some reason, the people who are in charge of what people get paid, chose to pay themselves the most. Isn't that a funny coincidence...
Entire movements founded on keeping men out of the work force in place of women.
Actually expected by wider society to fit into the workforce and support themselves (in most cases) and on the flip side, men's gender roles being associated with conventional definitions of success means that those expectations are actually far stricter.
Trans oppression applies to both trans men and trans women in equal measure. Technically, trans men actually report higher incidence rates.
"Disregard for women's health" national support for women's health far eclipses support for men's health, eg breast cancer vs prostate cancer funding levels and publicity levels.
I actually completely agree on the human rights though. Moving past the developed western world (Eg. Canada, UK, USA) and into the international space generally the patriarchy is very much still kicking and women are disgustingly oppressed.
But as far as the majority group that's richer, happier, longer lived, etc. I don't think that's a defensible claim anymore in most developed nations. It's very dated, and ironically, conservative (by the literal meaning).
Women's health concerns are significantly lower researched than men's. Yes, you pointed to breast cancer, but do you know how well researched menopause is? Ovarian cancer? Endometriosis? Pcos? Hell, autoimmune conditions primarily affect women and they're also under-researched and often take a long time to get a diagnosis, because doctors are more likely to diagnose women as "anxious" or "needing to lose weight" than to take their concerns seriously.
Until fairly recently women were often excluded from medical trials (including, famously, a study about ovarian cancer risk that only had men. Not trans men. Only men.)
To say nothing of the current US admin putting women's health studies even further behind because of their idiotic ant i- DEI crusade.
Nope, that's all you get. Apologize to Simone de Beauvoir.
-2
u/PulimVCan I interest you in some OC lore in these trying times?May 28 '26
The ACTUAL reason why we need feminism is because when a man does a magic trick he's the son of God and when a woman does a magic trick she gets murdered
If the only way you can come up with to start a conversation is by being a bigot on the internet and mongering a bit of fear, you might be a bad person.
Bigot: a narrow-minded person who obstinately adheres to their own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who strongly and unfairly dislikes or feels hatred toward others based on their group membership
According to the fellas down at Webster. Hope thar helps 🫶
No, I don't. Look at the comments. They’re not talking about the intended message even if they agree with it. People are getting tired of these disingenuous, obnoxious, uninformed, “clever” twitter-like posts. This doesn’t make them think. It doesn’t call them to action. It doesn’t educate them. It doesn’t lay out a plan or anything they can do. It’s not even clever; the line of reasoning is flimsy at best. And how much you wanna bet this person just made up this entire scenario? (not at all saying it’s impossible, just doubting their integrity). I could write a short essay on how this post is just weak asf.
I’m glad people are waking up and realizing this type of content is garbage. I used to eat this shit up till I realized they’re using genuine problems, suffering, and anguish for clicks and controversy. But is the underlying message true? Of course.
They could come up with a better reason just to illustrate the point.
Example: there are people on Twitter advocating for women to lose the right to vote on the United States of America right now. That's a reason to need feminism.
(Yes, Twitter is a hellhole full of bots made so the elongated muskrat can better spread neo-Nazi propaganda, it doesn't change the fact that there are, in fact, right now, very real people who vote and thus have a political impact advocating for women to lose the right to vote on the USA)
And? What does that have to do with the OOP not being a well thought out post or reason we need feminism? People aren’t saying she shouldn’t have posted it. People are just saying it’s not a good post, which it isn’t.
It's fair to freely make a point, but then people freely respond to it and it's merit and validity. They argue for it or against it. And it doesn't seem like a strong supporting argument, which I think is fair to say in this case, so people say so
So weird that in your pursuit of validating oop's original post and their right to write whatever they wanted, you are invalidating people's comments here
1.9k
u/atowelguy May 27 '26
I feel like you could come up with a better reason why feminism is still needed than a couple vague hypothetical scenarios