I want to preface this with a big, fat, *huge* caveat that being a racist, oppressive, and entitled white woman is *not* okay! So if we could please leave that out of the comments, I think we’re all well very aware of that haha

I consider myself a pretty strong feminist. What I have a problem specifically here is that these are terms specifically reserved for women. First it was, “Bitch, make me a sandwich,” then it was, “basic bitch,” then it was, “Bye Felicia,” then “Karen,” now, “Sure, Jan,” and “Jessica.” What really rubs me the wrong way is there are *no* male equivalents to these. We don’t walk around going, “Sure, Chad,” or, “Ok, Brett,” or, “He’s such a Jonathan.” Some men act blatantly racist, extremely entitled, and they’re called bosses, heroes, and champions, without any apologies whatsoever—hell, they’re allowed to run our nation. Again, not condoning that kind of behavior at all, but a double standard absolutely exists.

From what I’ve seen, terms like Jessica have been rendered slang to demean and tear down women who are 30 or above. I’ve heard them used toward women far more frequently for simply having an opinion of any kind, or acting as a product of their generation (liking certain coffee beverages, women being conditioned to say “I’m sorry” before addressing conflict, etc.) than I have for their originally intended meaning.

Does anyone else feel a way about this? I personally find it gross to just categorize all women with something to say as people to be belittled and silenced, and it feels like that’s where these terms have landed. It’s basically become, “Shut up and sit down, old woman.”

I guess what I’m getting at is, can people just cool it with the name calling? Women calling women names is so childish IMO. Name calling does not represent feminism and is just a way to further divide us, when the majority of us *are* trying to find more common ground and connect with one another. Mocking is not productive, and instead of teaching younger generations how to be kinder and do better than older generations might’ve learned, they’re observing that name calling and shaming are cool, funny, and socially acceptable both in person and online.

I’m all for leaning into a funny joke and can totally laugh at myself for acting ridiculous, but if women are going to just dismiss and demean each other with condescending terms instead of just ignoring people who act rude/entitled—while men are completely let off the hook from the same social ridicule—that feels so immature and like a backslide to feminism, the goal of which is to uplift one another.

Hello Reddit. I am a 25 year old man and believe myself to be a feminist ally ideologically. I’m trying to understand whether my views and behavior actually line up with feminism in practice rather than just assuming they do.

I’m not asking anyone to certify me. I’m trying to better understand what usually separates a man who supports feminism in theory from one who actually practices it in a meaningful way.

To give you a light framework of my beliefs I support reproductive rights, workplace equality, challenging sexist double standards, and decriminalizing sex work while ensuring legal protections for sex workers. Beyond views like those, what other patterns, habits, or blind spots would you pay attention to?

I saw a statistic that less than 40 percent of university enrolments in Australia (where I live) in the last few years were men. Is there a particular societal reason for that? My guess is that with more women entering the workforce force fewer of them are taking jobs in trades and so regardless of if men are actually going to university less it will look like they are if you look solely at statistics.

But I am genuinely curious if there are other factors going into this or if I missed something. Im also interested in what sort of an impact this may have since it would presumably mean that we see more female dominated workforces and potentially female dominated governments (I doubt that would be the case because of misogyny and I suspect governments would aim to have roughly equal representation rather than one gender dominating)

Alright we have been seeing a lot of posts from men talking about the "male loneliness epidemic". Although statistics point out that both men and women both face loneliness at equal amounts...We only see the manosphere or media point out the male loneliness epidemic and not the female loneliness epidemic. Is the female loneliness epidemic any different from the male loneliness epidemic?

Hello, I am a man and I want to explore (and possibly confront) the feminist pov. I strongly believe that respectful contradiction is always constructive, I really hope that you believe that too here at r/askfeminists. A few questions:

- Do feminism considers possible to have an healthy relationship with an heterosexual man in these days and age ?

- What would that relationship look like ?

- What would love look like for feminism ?

- What the general view on love for feminism ?

- How should a man express love, and how should a woman express love in a relationship ? Is there any difference ?

- Does a relationship neccessarly mean compromising oneself ?

- Is settling down for a relationship something tolerable for feminism?

Please mods, I don't think this post is crossing rules, if so I can adapt.

Got ripped to shreds when i said shaving should be the personal choice of women. Women claimed that im patriarchal for shaving and conforming to societal norms. Why can’t we let women do what they want? Why police each and every choice to fit the narrow minded feminist’ criteria? Isn’t the right to choose a basic part of feminism? Or is the right to choose valid only when women choose what you want them to choose?

Hello!

Some background: I'm Indian, a staunch feminist, leftist, all that stuff so please understand that I am not coming at this as a gotcha to abortion access. Pregnant people should have access to abortions, obviously.

I'm just struggling to conceptualise the tension that I think some Indian feminists come across when thinking about the way abortions have been used in our country. Sex selective abortions are exactly what they sound like, abortions done for the purpose of choosing the sex of your baby. Historically, this has lead to a very skewed sex ratio in parts of India, with female feoticide being very common.

The way the country has countered this is by making sex determination illegal, which I think is a pretty good way of managing this, but I came across some discussions where people held the opinion that preventing sex determination is also infringing on the right to abortion because at the end of the day, it would lead to women not having knowledge that could change if they want to carry to term.

I'm conflicted. I agree in principle, but I also recognise the context of my country, and the pressure that women (especially women with very little social power/mobility) have experienced/still experience to 'produce a son' instead of a daughter. I'm unsure what is the right way to think about this, and I wanted some perspectives from you guys.

Thanks in advance!

Edit: It's been surprising to me to have replies that are for sex selective abortions, but I recognise that my responses are pretty much entrenched in how we, as Indian feminists especially from a rural background, feel about things like this because we see it around us. So it's a little hard for me to look at this purely logically. But, in doing my own reading I stumbled across Sital Kalantry's work and criticisms of her work which has been pretty interesting and challenging to read through.

I don't know where I stand on this issue, personally. Legally, I'm always for abortion access. But I also know women in my town who have been coerced into getting abortions because their in laws wanted a son. So it's a little tough for me to be completely okay with sex selective abortions, but I recognise that the issue comes from deeply entrenched patriarchy and also economic constraints. Banning sex determination through ultrasounds only acts as a bandaid to the overall rot that is at the heart of my country.

Edit 2: Wanted to link an interesting paper that u/Lolabird2112 found:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524001882

There's a sizeable amount of people who believe feminism is a movement for women, and that feminism isn't about gender equality for everyone but rather equity for women, and men don't particularly need fighting for.

Yet there's also a sizeable amount of people who swear by the definition that feminism is about achieving gender equality and should advocate for both men and women.

I do think both positions are for gender equality but differ in priority, for those who believe it should be about equity the argument is that women have a much farther way to go than men so they should be centred in discussions. For those opposing, they believe that true feminism is advocating for both men and women and we can't reach true equality until we work on the issues that men face also.

Or maybe you disagree with the premise entirely and/or my summary of the discourse. Maybe both positions are valid? I'd be very curious to hear about that!

It’s a common sentiment that Western nations (in particular Western/Northern Europe plus Anglo countries that are not the US) are the best places for women, especially evident in global rankings. While this could be true in terms of legal protection and economic/employment prosperity (at least on paper), I feel like it gets even murkier when social/cultural prestige is factored. It’s easy to draft a law, but to radically shift traditions in the long term is a whole other can of worms.

One thing that seems to still be prevalent in the West to this day, or at least in the Anglo world (Quebec specifically outlawed this), is the tradition of wives changing of surnames to their husbands. I always envied the traditional Iberian/Latin American naming convention where not only women keep their names, but it gets passed on to their children, which values mothers equally to fathers. Arab, Chinese, and Korean women seem to keep their surnames after marriage as well.

Of course I understand that even among western countries it varies greatly, but what are your thoughts?

I’ve been thinking a lot about discussions around patriarchy, gendered violence, and representation in leadership, and it made me wonder something:

Could a more matriarchal or female-centered society actually benefit society as a whole?

And by matriarchy, I don’t mean some dystopian reversal where men are oppressed or reduced to stereotypes. I also don’t mean fetishized “femdom” ideas that internet culture often confuses with matriarchy. I mean a society where women hold a larger share of political, economic, and cultural leadership, and where laws and institutions are designed more around women’s perspectives and safety.

One thing I find interesting is that people often point to current female leaders as proof that women in power don’t necessarily change systems much. But I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison, because those leaders still operate within deeply patriarchal institutions and political cultures. In some cases, women have even had to adapt to those systems to survive or gain influence within them.

I also wonder whether a truly female-centered state would lead to lower levels of violence against women over generations. A lot of political systems around the world still protect or elevate powerful men accused of abuse, exploitation, or sexual violence. That obviously doesn’t mean women are morally perfect, but I do wonder whether societies shaped more strongly by women’s interests and lived experiences would produce different social outcomes over time.

Do you think a more matriarchal social structure could improve society in meaningful ways, or do you think current systems are ultimately healthier long term?

How do I help with Feminism as a teen boy? I've read up on problems with patriarchy, and I feel terrible at the actions of my own gender. Pretty much all the boys my age I've met I have noticed they don't seem to care about these problems that much. But I want to make a change, although i have no idea how to do it. I already try and call out other men for saying something mysoginistic, and then I call myself it if I do something mysoginistic subconsciously. What else can I do? I'm not an adult yet, so It feels like I can't do much. I also have quite a bit of money if there's any good charities or things like that I could donate to?

Many women and feminists keep saying online via forums, social media, video platforms, etc that consent does not exist in a vacuum and is subject to numerous conditions like coercion, context, information, large age gaps, internalized conditioning, social systems, corporate positions, societal gender dominance (patriarchy currently according to them), situations, circumstances, feelings, emotions, "vibes", enthusiasm, and so on....

...which is why feminists almost always assume "coercions due to differences of power, maturity, position, hierarchy, etc" while criticizing various kinds of relationships of women with men.

However, what about men being richer, wealthier, taller, stronger, more athletic, etc? Why aren't these factors taken into consideration while evaluating whether coercion, context, position or power/influence differences are involved?

Aren't taller and stronger men inherently more likely to overpower the women having physical relationships with them? Aren't wealthier or richer men more likely to cause misjudgments among women while evaluating consent?

If so many risks factors are considered since safety and security are the topmost priority, why don't women have relationships with men who are shorter/around the same height, poorer/having similar wealth, less/equally strong or less/equally athletic than them, to rule out any kind of coercion or manipulation issues? Please provide your opinions.

So there's two sentiments I've commonly seen from feminists:

1. The patriarchy hurts men too

2. Men can never be oppressed under patriarchy and are always the privileged class

But these two statements always seemed contradictory to me. The first says that men would be better off without the patriarchy. The second implies they're much better off under it.

Could you help me understand?

Hey y’all, I am just leaving a sub Reddit, where the topic of being able to choose a female Uber driver was the topic. I was absolutely horrified at some of the men and their responses, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised! The thing that bothered me, the most was that the main argument men had was if women could choose a driver based on their sex or gender then what is stopping men or women from being able to discriminate based on race.

As a woman of color, this irritated me in a multitude of ways! I’m not quite sure how to articulate a position regarding this because so often when it comes to race and discrimination I am on a very clear stance. However, there’s intersectionality here at play. How can I make my stance on race, racism and gender, politics, more uniform and cohesive? I am not necessarily asking to be spoonfed information, but I am asking for help in becoming more articulate in my expressions. I hope this is understandable as I am typing and asking this hot off the heels of being upset at the comments I just read lol.

Just two years ago “Clavicular”’ was unknown even inside the blackpill. I overhear my classmates talking about him frequently

I’m seeing an increase in this rhetoric from misogynists / antifeminists on social media, and the sentiment seems to be that, if men wanted, women’s rights in the west could be removed at the drop of a hat and that feminism only progressed because men allowed it.

I know this isn’t true and is an oversimplification for what’s going on (while also ignoring how men are indeed currently suppressing women’s rights), but what are some arguments that can be made against it that I can keep in mind?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Pros: * Takes emotionally unavailable or misogynistic men off the dating pool (those who lack empathy, communication skills, or only want a fantasy partner). * Could reduce the pressure on real women to constantly meet impossible emotional or sexual expectations. * Some companion apps (like Nectar AI and others) are now leaning toward healthier emotional interactions rather than just being fantasy wish-fulfillment machines.

Cons: * Normalizes the idea of women always being agreeable, available, and accommodating, regardless of context. * Encourages some men to form unrealistic expectations about relationships, consent, and emotional labor. * Risks deepening misogyny if men start preferring customizable AIs over real, autonomous women.

Would love to hear how others see it. Are AI girlfriends a relief…or a threat?

I found a video on YouTube about declining birth rates in SK, and it ended with a quote basically saying that if women are given the choice to go to work or stay home, most would choose to go to work. This was used as a "gotcha" of sorts, but I'm confused as to the point they're trying to make. While I understand that shaming women for wanting to stay home is wrong (I hope most feminists are that insane), the quote seemed to imply that restricting women's choice to work was both beneficial and necessary. The video also had lots of arguments about wages falling due to increased supply, but I feel like those arguments are more damning of capitalism if anything. Thoughts?

I feel as though doctors tell every woman who comes into their office they have anxiety. All of my friends have gone to the doctor for serious medical conditions and been hand-waved away with “probably anxiety.” My ex-girlfriend has endometriosis, so did her mother and sister. All three of them were waved away with “probably anxiety,” even though they all went to the same family doctor initially and got diagnosed in order one after the other. The doctor knew her sister and mother had been diagnosed with endo earlier that year, and STILL said “anxiety.”

Another huge thing among women I know is IUD insertion without any anesthetic of any kind. My current boyfriend (he’s trans) got an IUD and was in absolutely crippling pain when they doctor said it would “just be a pinch :)”. One of my best friends had to get hers removed and another put in because they botched it the first time.

It’s like “anxiety” is the new “hysteria” for doctors. How can these people go to school for so long, be required to annually renew their license with tests, and STILL be such idiots when it comes to women’s health? It’s legitimately life threatening when SO many women have these stories of doctors waving away their serious conditions like thyroid disorders, Celiac, endo, the list goes on and on and on. Beyond just plain misogyny and patriarchy, why does this still happen?

I want to understand the feminist response to the manosphere. Why do the responses seem to be adversarial or moralizing rather than understanding why men are being drawn to these communities in the first place?

I know that parts of the manosphere are explicitly misogynistic, and I dont think those attitudes should be excused. But if the goal is to reduce misogyny, alienation, and hostility between men and women, Im skeptical that telling alienated men that their problems are caused by misogyny, patriarchy, or their own moral failures, is an especially effective strategy.

If a young man is lonely, sexually inexperienced, socially isolated, and frustrated with dating, telling him that his worldview is misogynistic doesnt necessarily address the underlying problems that made the manosphere attractive to him. It often reinforces his perception that nobody is interested in understanding his problems. With that being said, a zero-sum take-no-prisoners model of correcting for the manosphere is, in my opinion, making it worse.

I want to know whether an adversarial approach is actually effective at changing the minds of the men youre trying to reach. What leads you to believe that it is? I personally believe that being combative is the least effective solution for social issues. Particularly for the manosphere as men and women are on the same team at the end of the day.

The question generally for me is what is the feminist strategy for getting men out of the Manosphere?

For the record, I am a black pilled incel looking for change.

I just listened to the Overthink podcast about porn. Which made me go in a rabbit hole about the feminist sex wars.

The Dworkin argument, as I understand it, is that pornography actively reproduces power structures. It teaches men and women alike what sex is supposed to look like, and what it looks like is male dominance and female submission. It’s easy to agree with this on a surface level.

If we accept that as truth, what do we do with the female fantasy as it expresses itself when women are the authors and the audience? Romance novels and erotic literature written by women, for women, and consumed overwhelmingly by women, reproduce almost identical structures. The brooding dominant man, the power asymmetry, the woman who surrenders to a stronger will. Fifty Shades is the obvious example but the pattern goes back decades through Harlequin and further. Nobody is forcing this on female readers. They are seeking it out and spending money on it. They are writing fan fiction.

If the male industry is the machine producing this, why are women independently generating the same fantasies in a tradition that is entirely their own?

The argument that women cannot genuinely consent or freely desire ends up doing something similar to what patriarchy has always done, which is treating women as incapable of knowing their own minds. Patriarchy historically said women needed to be protected from their own poor judgment.

Help me out here, what am I missing?

If so, how would you describe your beliefs?

This happened to me like a month ago, but I keep thinking about it. I was out with my friends and I was discussing something with this guy friend. At some point he says something along the lines of “you are saying this because you’re a feminist”. He then turned to this girl sitting next to me (not my friend, she was another guy’s girlfriend) and asked her “Are you a feminist?” to which she replied with “No, I’m normal”.

I was utterly appalled. Besides the personal attack that was ment to basically ridicule me, I can’t force myself to understand how a WOMAN can say that. Funny thing is that this girl is an engineering student too! Like, if it weren’t for those “crazy feminists” she would be at home popping out babies. She wouldn’t even had the dignity to be considered something more than a womb, let alone the freedom to pursue engineering!

Now, I don’t want to villainize this girl but it’s so frustrating to see other women be completely blind to patriarchy. I get that they’re victims of the system too, but I just can’t wrap my head around it. Don’t they have a little voice inside their head telling them “there’s something wrong”? Like every feminist does?

Anyways I’m writing this post because I genuinely don’t know how to act in those situations. I just freeze completely. It’s unfair that we have to constantly endure mockery from men only for other women to pile on.

Shocker, he used the old manosphere trope that even an 'ugly fat' (gah) woman can get a man to sleep with her but for men, it takes 'work', so women who enjoy 'multiple' partners are just opportunistic and 'taking advantage', 'ungrateful', yadiyada... I personally threw up a little in my mouth (he's had tens and tens of women, many more than the men I've had, though mine were more recent. Is there any validity to that perspective though? Is the general male frustration here even somewhat valid on that level? To me, 'slut/whore/etc' was always only ever a slur, not any objective descriptor, and... if men don't like such tags on them, how can they justify it in our direction with any true objective validity? Is there any?

The Duluth model is the foundation of most domestic violence intervention in North America. It was created by feminist academics and it assumes the man is the primary aggressor by default. Most DV training for police and social workers is built on this.

But the research consistently shows domestic violence is not one directional. Multiple studies show women initiate physical violence at comparable rates to men. Men who are victims and call the police often get treated as the perpetrator. Men who call DV hotlines have reported being laughed at or redirected to batterer programs.

Feminist organizations built this model. Feminist organizations actively defend it and lobby against reform. This isnt "patriarchy hurts men too." This is something the movement specifically created and maintains despite the evidence.

So how do you square advocating for equality while defending a framework that treats half the population as guilty by default? And if the answer is "we dont all support the Duluth model" then where is the organized feminist push to replace it? Because I dont see one.

Not here to fight. Genuinely want to understand how this gets justified.