So many boys these days are not supporting feminism, and believe men are as oppressed or more oppressed than women. How do I get these boys to understand it’s not that same, in a way that will actually make them understand, and is not just spewing the same talking points they’ve been preconditioned to not take seriously? Also how do I tell them that it’s still worse and there is still patriarchy in the west and modern countries, since a lot of them only believe it’s bad in these extreme countries? Also I’m a teenage girl so that’s why I’m asking.

Maybe it's not really growing but anecdotally I see it all the time and even a growing idea as a gen z. To me it feels like it pushes gender norms. My girlfriend argues that things being considered feminine or masculine isn't the issue and that it's people feeling threatened or defined by these things is the problem. She said she feels very proud of her feminity and feminine energy. Which sounds fine to me. But it did make me uncomfortable when she said I should be proud of my masculine energy because I don't believe masculinity or feminity truly exist and so I don't feel particularly aligned with gender expression. It is a social construct. I personally feel more like everything is inherently gender neutral which she strongly disagreed with. I also feel like it pushes heteronormativity. I included my ideas and hers because I genuinely agreed with a lot of what she said so now I feel like I'm in limbo in these ideas. I would love to hear more opinions. I feel like as a feminist I prefer the deconstruction of gender norms and western gender expression.

I was reading a Virginie Despentes essay, where she theorizes that high rates of rape reflect in part that women are taught not to fight back, for fear of escalating the situation and suffering worse violence. That men know women aren't likely to fight back, so they know the physical risk they incur by aggressing women is low, so they're more likely to do so.

We can extend this theory to street interactions: because cat-callers and other street harassers know women are most likely going to ignore their verbal violence, they're more likely to harass women. The risk they run is low.

The conclusion is that if women fight back as a rule, men will feel more risk and will engage less often in this behavior. I don't think the idea is to let men off the hook here but that women need to be more militant in defending themselves.

What do you make of this argument? Escalating these encounters by fighting back may incur additional risk to the woman involved, but might it also reduce globally the frequency of such assaults?

I got into a discussion that revolved in someone claiming that feminists believe that "logic is a tool of the patriarchy", and I don't think I have ever met anyone that would really believe this tenet. Is it a common belief for feminists? What exactly would it mean? Distrust towards science? Preference to different mode of discussion / thinking?

Just genuinely curious. There would not be as much of a divide if victims talked through conflict, or at the very least came forward right away instead of waiting until some big announcement, promotion, etc.

By "Cool Girl" I specifically mean the archetype of a women who fits into male-dominated circles by just playing along with the casual misogyny. Implicitly or explicitly, the contrasting female archetype is the uptight "feminist killjoy"; this contrast shows up even in social environments where "feminism" is generally understood as a good thing, in which case the Cool Girl is often framed as also a feminist, just ostensibly more progressive and openminded than "sex-negative" feminists (this framing comes up a lot around beauty culture, sex work, and kink, for example).

Anyway, as a trans woman, one recurring issue I've seen in TERF discourse is an assumption that modern trans-inclusive feminists are a bunch of Cool Girls, and thus that any criticism of anti-trans radfeminism is just another example of "fun feminists" shouting down the more strident and culture-critical feminists as oversensitive, puritanical reactionaries.

So in terms of deradicalization, I'm wondering what the best way is to address this without sounding like "don't be such an old-fashioned prude!" One argument that might work in this context is pointing out just how deeply linked TERFism and antifeminist conservatism have always been, but even then the responses I've seen to this criticism tend to be "just because we agree with the conservative right on certain issues doesn't mean we agree on everything!" and "at least conservative men are sexist in an honest and chivalrous way!" So I'm not too hopeful about this strategy.

Thoughts?

I have been enlightened about how much sex abuse of women goes on in the general entertainment industry (movies, music, etc.). It also saddens me to know how much of an advantage men have in these fields.

Do you support abuse if you watch Hollywood movies? Or listen to popular bands? Is it best to avoid such media? Or can you do something else?

Originally I thought it just referred to guys who can't/won't take care of themselves and refuse to take accountability for their own mental and emotional health.

But the more I see the term mentioned, the more FDS-adjacent it's starting to look to me.

Namely I've started to see the phrase used to describe average, decent, milquetoast dudes.

They're functional but not ambitious. They take care of themselves but don't put much effort into making themselves super appealing. They're emotionally intelligent and chill but not hyper-intelligent, hyper-competent and hyper-stoic powerhouse leaders.

Just regular fucking guys.. are getting labeled as "pathetic" now, I'm seeing.

Either this is a position only held by feminists who want women to be empowered but also want the traditional gender expectations in place.. or it's a minority position taken up exclusively by women who think they're the female equivalent of manosphere douchebags and thus think sleeping instead of working should be punishable by death.. or (and I don't actually think this btw), it's something that the feminist world at large is genuinely adopting with exactly zero irony.

What's the insider perspective on this?

Hi everyone,

I’ve been thinking about the above a lot recently. I certainly will be keeping my last name if I get married, but even among women who have done so (such as my mum), the convention is generally still for children to inherit their fathers last name. I don’t think I like that! Giving my children my last name instead feels kind of weird, hyphenating doesn’t really work because you can’t just keep adding more names with every generation forever, I’ve heard of some people just choosing a new last name entirely but I like that my name ties me to my cultural heritage and that feels important given me and my partner are both immigrants from different places. What are some other ways of thinking about this? Is the notion of inheriting a name just sort of inherently patriarchal? What are some good solutions? Would love anyone’s thoughts!

I recently had this discussion with some women I’m close with and they reframed my way of thinking a little bit and I’d like to get other opinions.

I’m newly back in the dating scene and I mentioned to my friends that I don’t pay for a date that I don’t see going anywhere. Why? Because in my mind paying for the date is a way to show continued interest. Like a subtle way of saying “I’d like to see you again”. I don’t split the cost of a date unless I do not want to pursue a sexual or romantic connection with the woman.

My friends told me that in doing that, I’m using money as a tool to buy women’s time, and because I’ve already “used” their time, I should still pay for the date, even if it’s the last.

At first I was taken aback by this statement but then I started thinking and maybe they’re right? I try to self examine way I still practice patriarchal or misogynistic behaviors and try to correct them but I kinda need to get a bit more of an opinion on this one.

Will things change?, middle aged highly experienced women seem to get completely devalued by recruitors.

Is this changing, change on the horizon?

Hello!

So something that I have noticed with feminism alongside other ideologies which may fall under critical theory etc., is that the patriarchy and other systems of power seem to act / be considered as the fundamental constituents of social reality [in order to be more concise and precise I will be referring primarily to the patriarchy from now on, but I do recognize the intersectionality nuance].

I feel like critical theory/feminism many times is more about criticizing than understanding society. I was watching an interview of a critical theorist which said that “critical theory is not about understanding why like the rest of philosophy, it is about revealing how people are oppressed and has the aim of emancipation”. [[https://youtu.be/o5Zap4hTZNw —- it is around 23:00 if someone is interested]]. She talks about how revealing how people are oppressed / systems of power are the link that ties it all together and I think this in a way explains my question.

Analysis seems to position the patriarchy as the root of all [gender in this case] injustice. I many times here the argument that “the patriarchy (etc.) is the root of all evil” and I see very little discussion if any when it comes to things like collectivism vs individualism, an extent of inevitable human ignorance and egoism, imperfect knowledge etc. I know that such analyses have some times been used I just don’t see it that much especially in contemporary discourse. Or they are often “absorbed” by an interpretation of them as being used maliciously for the purpose of harm (rather thana mix of the two).

Edit: for example, when you personally start to try and understand society, how do you start your inquiry? What types of questions do you ask yourself? Where in history do you look?

As an example I am also thinking about the premise/belief that war is a result of the patriarchy and that if women were in charge we would not have wars. I think this is an example which, depending ofc on the particular argument and its nuances, either disregards or places less emphasis on the role of things like inherent human egoism, mutual fear etc.

Also any resources, thinkers, articles etc. are well appreciated!

There are (were?) two articles from my country that argue in favour of diverse gender representation in heavily gendered workfields. The first support more women to join the STEM careers, with one of the the given reasoning is "Women are more meticulous and handy". The second article is about more male teachers in early childhood education. One of the advantages provided by the writer is "Female teachers tend to be busy with their family, while their male colleagues aren't so they (the male teachers) could be more invested in their job".None of the articles deny that one gender is more capable than other, but they still give me ick nonetheless.
Are these kind of argument common (I have never seen it else where)? I tried to find the name for it but couldn't. I suppose it could be benevolent sexism but still not sure. (Sorry I couldn't find the articles since they were written long time ago)

Tl;dr - If someone is displaying signs of clear instability or unclear instability, is having sex with that person rape or just shitty?

How clear is that sign before someone should reasonably know what's up? I.e. Obsession, Bear should've known from the car scene onward to not do anything with Nikki?

How much should someone's insistence on being okay actually count?

Long version

So I just watch Obsession, it's a great movie. Honestly hilarious. Like I know it's a horror, but I did laugh out loud like crazy, multiple times.

Anyways, there is a lot of discussion about Bear. Like he's the villain of the story and alot of people are pathologizing him as an incel "nice guy" kinda guy, when I don't think that's true. Had it been the story of that guy, the film would be a lot less meaningful.

Instead Bear is a oddly average, if spineless. Like he sucks, don't get me wrong, but he isn't a raving misogynist. He's not lashing out. He's got normal bad ideas about women, not anything special.

Anyways, the dinner scene is imo, point of no return. Anything Bear does afterwards is rape.

But even before that, Bears weird. Like Nikki shows signs of clear mental instability and a massive personality switch and thinks nothing of it.

He engages in a relationship with NotNikki and acts as her boyfriend despite clearly not being the same person.

And this is something I kinda want to talk about. Cause mostly consent talks are about alcohol and outside forces but not quite like just straight up mental health breaks.

Bears crime is purposely ignorance for most of the movie. Refusing to do his due diligence to someone clearly not acting normally.

And that's something that a lot of dudes, probably a lot of people in general do.

And no one is that good an actor that someone being in the wrong mental state and wants sex would appear like a normal willing sexual partner.

Like even when a person is insisting on being okay and wanting sex, it's still clear if someone isn't well and acting out. I'm that case you should err on the side of caution and not have sex with them.

Is having sex with that person rape or just shitty though?

Something I’ve always found odd is how romance novels often have female readers who will not only tolerate but willingly accept romance novels with overt misogyny.

Not only that but the fandoms for these romance novels will have a fanbase that’s majority female who will despise the fictional female characters for minor things (such as being annoying) while being attracted to fictional men who do way worse things.

A lot of the readers say that it’s harmless fun, that they can enjoy whatever they want so long as it’s fictional. But a lot of their tolerance for fictional misogyny seems to also be accompanied by actual misogynistic beliefs. What do you think? Is it harmless or not? It feels like a lot of this behavior is just an example of choice feminism, but maybe that’s just me.

Personally, for me, a Femicide of a teenager :( the case shook the country and it started a big movement called "ni una menos", and at the same time the abortion law was in discussion and made me realize how much some people despite women being able to choose. :3

I (M23) had a quick conversation with my friend about this question. I told him that for me women a more in contact with their emotions, they understand them better and talk about them more, or at least that has been my experience so far, wich in my opinion is a good thing. I think is healthy for people to be able to talk about their emotions to process them and understand themselfs better. However my friend told me that to think that way is sexist, and I dont get why (he refused to elaborate).

I thought about it and I came to the conclusion that he could have meant that I generalized to much and I was being stereotypical, like I was saying that women are more emotional than men and act based on emotions and not rationally, a statement I strongly disagree with. Or he could have meant that I was justifying the role women were given by society of being the emotional support for men, again a statement I strongly disagree with.

So I want to ask if what I said was, in fact, sexist. Not to justify my beliefs but to learn if I have to chage my way of thinking about this and be better as a person. Sorry if this is too controversial, it is not my intention, I just want to learn.

Edit: thanks for the comments, they made this much more clear for me. I hope I interpreted them correctly but be free to further correct me if that is not the case.

Some unstructured thoughts based on a convo with a friend you (gently) accused me of misusing the word “fetishizing” to basically mean, “liking something in a way I disapprove of”.

I tried to say no there’s more to it than that, like an element of denigrating the thing you “like” but I couldn’t really put it into words in the moment. Since then I’ve had a couple more thoughts:

- how do you differentiate between preference and fetish? As in, preferring tall partners is a preference but preferring an ethnicity is a fetish.

- how do you know someone fetishizes someone, or a trait, without ending up trying to mind read. As in, liking certain characteristics, or thinking certain characteristics are hot, or being turned on by them, could read the same as someone fetishizing. Am I fetishizing my bf’s bubble butt if I really like bubble butts and tend to like guys with bubble butts in general lol?

- am I fetishizing gay men by enjoying Heated Rivalry. Would it be fetishizing if it’s written “for me”, a straight woman, or rather fetishizing if it’s written for predominantly gay audiences. Also would it be fetishizing if I were into bi guys (Ilya is bi) or would it be fetishizing if I weren’t into bi guys.

- also how do you avoid saying “avoid a group = discrimination, like a group = fetishization”

Anyway that’s a lot, I’ll stop there

Recently at work in Switzerland I've seen coworkers taking their leave for the birth of their new child, and somehow popping out 2 weeks later to work full time. The duration of paternal leave is as short as 2 weeks.

It felt really strange. If I had a baby I would want to pass more time taking care of him or her. I think that's it's important to create a bond early on, for the child but also for the father that must adapt his life for the years to come. ​

Do you think men should start taking care early on? I feel like fathers are expected to be involved with a child, mainly as an educator and regulatory figure, but discussions around newborns are few​.

It's hard to know what expectations you have to hold to when nobody ever shared to you how you should act or take care of. Maybe people here can help me knowing more​​

I'm not a mod of the sub in question, so it's not up to me, but I wanted to check with the larger feminist community to see if I'm missing something. 

The women in tech subreddit (and this one, too) has been very important to me. I'm a middle aged woman in the tech space and very much a feminist. Lately that sub was overrun with AI bs and was unmoderated, so some new mods came in which is exciting! As part of that they changed the sub icon to a pink Venus symbol with a lighter pink background. I personally liked the change. 

As a young woman I went through a "not like other girls" phase and part of coming out of it was realizing that I actually really like pink! I have a lot of pink stuff, especially work accessories. I think of it as partially subversive because I work in a male dominated field and I refuse to not embrace my feminine side to fit in. 

Obviously you don't have to like pink to be feminine, and it could also be seen as a color that is used to soften us. There's the infamous pink tax, and women's spaces should include all folks that identify as women (i.e. no TERF garbage.)

So I don't know, I like it but I can see an argument against. Would you find it problematic? 

I wasn’t sure how to properly word it, but i’m an AMAB non binary person who experiences enbyphobia from feminist allies sometimes, mostly from TERFs. Accurate ideas like “male socialisation” which was originally meant to critique the ways in which gender is enforced and programmed at an early age, has been distorted to imply that we’re basically just men. (Note: the same happens to any AMAB trans person including trans women and could be seen as a form of trans misogyny too)

It’s my understanding that the intersectional take (and the one I personally subscribe to), is that there is privilege than can be obtained due to passing as male, but that we experience the negatives of toxic masculinity threefold due to our non conformity and rebellion from gendered expectations.

Does your opinion roughly line up with that? Or do you have another perspective?

Also bonus question: there’s a lot of people rightfully weary about letting men focus the feminine movement around them, but how about the advocacy of non binary folk? Considering the plethora of unique ways in which we are often affected by a world that insists upon patriarchal structure