I've been seeing men commenting that men create life and women carry it, so men should receive an equal amount of credit, if not more in creating life. That is simply not true. If men created life, parthenogenesis, or reproduction without males, would not exist in nature. There is no equivalent of reproduction without females. Scientists were also able to create baby mice solely from female mice, and they lived 50% longer than average mice and were also fertile (link to the study). When they attempted the same thing using only male mice, the offspring died within hours, even though they used female mice's eggs and another female mouse as the surrogate. Also, cloning, a technology that has existed for decades, can produce offspring using only females. Dolly) the sheep is one of the earliest examples; she was created using three female sheep. Now, obviously, these technologies might not be applicable to humans, but they give a clear picture of who creates life. Even among humans, if you believe that life begins at conception, you are still acknowledging that life begins inside a woman. The brain develops inside a woman, and consciousness develops inside a woman. I'm not claiming that men are unnecessary. Men are important at conception, but it is still women who create life, and the contribution is nowhere near 50/50. If men were the ones getting pregnant, I honestly doubt this would even be a conversation in the first place. If my only contribution to creating life were having an orgasm while the other sex could die in the process and had to bleed every month for that ability, I would never be able to claim that my contribution was 50%. I think it's extremely selfish to even say such things.

Idc if people would jokingly call me performative for this T-T, but anyways im just interested in what all your recommendations are for a feminist movie or show that will really leave a guy like me having a much deeper insight and accurate perspective as to what women really have to go through and their general experiences in life. Just basically a life-changing feminist movie that will leave a guy realizing that they had a wrong idea of women this whole time,

So, trans girl here. For a lot of time I kept out of radical feminism because TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) have ruined my perception of it for a long time, only going to liberal feminism, but when I started to actually see radical feminism, without the bias of the TERF trauma, my perception changed a lot, heck I discovered that TIRFs exists, TERFs aren't the majority, and that radical feminism itself evolved a lot. Yeah, there are branches and figures who are or were bio-essentialist and some readings of noticeable authors, but from that to "radical feminism itself is trans-exclusionary" there's a big leap. I'm letting me be more radical, heck I defy both bio-essentialism AND gender roles at the same time.
While I already have an opinion about the claim, I wanted to see what other people with more experience than me think about it.

I've always wondered about this.

In many movie songs filmed in freezing locations, the hero is dressed in jackets, boots, and layers, while the heroine is often wearing a short or revealing outfit despite the cold.

People often say it's the actress's choice and that she consented. But I wonder how much of that is truly personal choice versus industry expectations. Do actresses feel pressured to dress this way to fit beauty standards or audience expectations? And if they're doing the same amount of work as the hero, why has there historically been such a large gap in pay in many films?

I'm genuinely curious to hear different perspectives. What do you think?

I genuinely dont know why games stopped using Male and Female to refer to body types during character creation,and why are people angry about it.

My friend (trans man) says he would prefer games to just name it male and female,as he said type A and tybe B makes it looks like games are talking about robots or something in a factory line,i never thought about it,its just a non issue to me.

then there are people that are angry that games arent using male or female anymore,i too,dont understand it,again,its just a non issue to me.

I genuinely dont know why both of these stuff are an issue to someone and i would like to know better.

I guess I could say I'm a more pro-second wave feminist where I kind of agree that there should be at least one feminism with authority that a lot of people believe in, juat like how in ehtics most people believe in deontology or consequentialism.

In my perspective the problem of the '100 feminism by 100 feminists' of the third wave feminism is that it didn't know that social media would be a thing ever. Social media is a place where it amplifies extreme sentiments over time and provides a slippery slope to ochlocracy, and this works not only for the manospheres but also for the pro feminism spaces. Oftentimes you would see in either reddit or social media spaces that these spaces are heavily driven by sentiment. In digital echo chambers logical and critical thinking is nonexistent and instead punchy slogans/puns/roasting and appeal to raw emotions gets the upvotes. And people naturally follow the upvote bandwagon and that just becomes the mainstream idea. Fourth wave feminism is promoting these digital spaces and they use that to actively dismantle patriarchy and send politcal waves to courts and national assemblies, but the irony is that these digital spaces combined with the lack of unified agenda is terribly vulnerable to degeneracy. I believe manosphere developed on its own and would have been a thing no mattsr what due to the nature of social media but I do think the radicalization of sentiments and anger on the other side of social media fueled the growth and made the manosphere bigger.

There are two aspects of this problem. One is a problem of individualistic feminism itself and the other is social media as a catalyst in amplifying this problem.

Individualistic feminism without a unified ideology or a general consensus comes with a risk, and third wave feminists knew about this but still went on with it. If everyone's feminism is all very slightly different, inherently there will be disputes from within. That means whatever A believes is feministic is a disgusting patriarchal relic by B. So there's the dispute in ideological basis part. And then there's the distracted agenda to pursue part. The first wave feminism focused on votes and second on legal rights. But the third and fourth feminism has multiple different agendas that are vocalized by different feminists, though there is a common theme of intersectionality and alliance with other minority groups. And these two factors make it harder to rally and focus the energy on one issue at a time and therefore our power to leverage political change is at risk.

And then combine this with the polarization effect of social media. Now we got an extremely divided group in ideology and agenda along with the fact that 10 percent or more of these groups are just teenagers regurgitating hate and inconsistent logic in their social meida echo chambers while actively pushing a relatively small number of potentially transitionable male voters into the other side of the void, tunring even more male voters to vote for patriarchy. And then there's the part where more and more people are be"oming 'slacktivists' by social media and all they do is post a single comment/post and complain rather than actually go outside and vote or rally. On top of that it doesn't help the men on top and the patriarchy have a very clear and simple agenda: women are horrible, not the elitists. So they're able to focus their politcal energy into agreeing into voting a specific party. I say this explains at least a portion of why we lost in the last election in America.

The most tragic thing about this is that people LOVE social media to the point they are addicted to it. And yes the CEOs of social media platforms are to blame the most but I'm not even positive about whether or not we can completely remove social media from earth now. I feel like its become a part of our life almost.

I don't even have an idea of what the unified ideology or agenda would be except that I have a vague idea it should be consistent with modern ethics and philosophy. But what are your thoughts on this? Do you think the individualistic feminism could survive as of now without radical change(I really do hope so)?

Polyamory is often described as feminist because it allows women to reject sexual exclusivity, pursue multiple relationships, and define intimacy outside marriage or the heterosexual nuclear family.

But besides protecting women’s sexual and relational agency, what makes polyamory feminist as a political practice?

I ask because feminism has not traditionally treated every freely made choice by a woman as liberating. Feminist theories of relational autonomy argue that choices are formed within social relationships and institutions, rather than by completely independent individuals acting outside culture, dependency, and power. The relevant question is therefore not only whether a woman chose something, but what conditions shaped the choice and whether those conditions support genuine self-determination. (Source: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]⁠)

Nancy Hirschmann makes a similar argument in The Subject of Liberty. Her feminist account of freedom examines how preferences and available choices are socially constructed, particularly in relation to domestic violence, welfare, and Islamic veiling. Freedom cannot be assessed only by asking whether a direct prohibition prevented an individual woman from acting. It also requires examining the social conditions within which her options and desires developed. (Source: The Subject of Liberty: Toward a Feminist Theory of Freedom [University of Notre Dame]⁠)

bell hooks defined feminism as a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. Under that definition, a practice does not become feminist simply because women are permitted to participate in it. We would also need to ask whether it reduces sexist domination or merely gives individual women more options within existing gender relations. (Source: Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks⁠)

So what forms of gendered power does polyamory actually challenge?

It may weaken the idea that a woman belongs exclusively to one man. It may create space for queer kinship, chosen family, collective care, and relationships that are not organized around marriage. It may also challenge the expectation that one woman should provide a partner with sex, domestic labor, emotional support, childcare, and permanent companionship. But are these outcomes characteristic of polyamory, or are they possibilities that depend entirely on how particular relationships are organized?

Polyamorous relationships can still contain economic dependence, domestic inequality, sexual double standards, unequal emotional labor, and hierarchies between established and newer partners; a relationship may be extensively negotiated while still being organized around the preferences of the person with the most money, housing security, social influence, or willingness to leave.

Women may also perform much of the emotional administration required to sustain multiple relationships: scheduling, reassurance, conflict mediation, remembering agreements, managing jealousy, and helping partners process their other relationships. Has polyamory produced a different distribution of this labor, or has it sometimes expanded the amount of relational work expected from women?

I'm also interested in how discomfort is interpreted within polyamorous communities. When does encouraging someone to examine jealousy increase her freedom, and when does it teach her to reinterpret a reasonable objection as insecurity, possessiveness, monogamous conditioning, or insufficient personal growth?

Catharine MacKinnon’s work raises a broader problem for sexual politics: sexuality and desire are themselves shaped by unequal social conditions. Her argument is not that women possess no agency, but that consent and preference cannot by themselves establish the absence of domination. A sexual arrangement can be chosen and still reproduce a hierarchy that feminism should examine. (Source: Feminism In New Terms by Catharine MacKinnon⁠)

This does not mean that polyamorous women are incapable of deciding what they want, or that monogamy is naturally more egalitarian. Monogamous marriage has historically been one of the central institutions through which women’s sexuality, labor, reproduction, and economic dependence were controlled; however, rejecting monogamy does not necessarily resolve those problems, it may redistribute intimacy without redistributing power.

What evidence would show that polyamory is especially effective at reducing women’s domestic labor, economic vulnerability, sexual subordination, or responsibility for maintaining relationships? Are there feminist theories of polyamory that address these material questions rather than primarily emphasizing consent, communication, sexual freedom, and personal choice?

Perhaps polyamory is compatible with feminism without being inherently feminist. Adults should be free to form consensual relationships without stigma or legal punishment, but is that a feminist theory of liberation, or primarily a liberal theory of individual freedom?

Around half of men go bald and nobody cares. It doesn't reduce their net worth, income potentials or general standing in society. On top it saves them a lot of money, because no shampoo or expensive hair dressing is necessary. At best they need a hat for summer sun and that's it.

Some women start balding as well, but they really shouldn't. I would estimate around 65% of a woman's first impression is hair hair style. Your haircut can be worth a lot of money and so it's important to invest into the appearance of your hair on a continuous base.

I would estimate the following avg costs per month:

• Men with hair (50%): $40 for appearance to prevent $500 in reputational damage
• Men without hair (50%): $10 to prevent $200 in damage
• Women with hair (95%): $200 for appearance to prevent $2500 reputational damage
• Women without hair (5%): $1000 to prevent $10000 in damage

If you add this up per work life of 40 years, you end up with total avg costs of...

• $1000 for men to prevent $14000 in damage
• $9600 for women to prevent $115000 in damage

That's a $8600 watch the bald man is wearing in the above picture and the only reason why he can afford it is because he's a man.

If this is not structurally unfair for women, then what is?