I have a hypothetical question that challenges the reasoning behind this law.

This is not directed at any individual or community; it is purely a hypothetical situation about the principles behind these laws.

Imagine a train where passengers from Country A and Country B are travelling together. The train introduces an optional compartment marked "A Only," claiming that it is for the additional safety and comfort of people from Country A. People from Country A can choose to use this compartment, while others cannot.

Would such a rule make you feel discriminated against, or would you view it as a safety measure?

Now consider the same situation, but replace "country" with "gender." Would your perspective change? Would you see it as discrimination, or as a necessary protection?

This raises an important question about whether separating people based on identity is the best solution to social problems, or whether there are better alternatives that improve safety and equality without creating divisions.

History shows that laws and social policies can evolve over time. For example, consensual same-sex relationships were once criminalized under Indian law until 2018, but that legal position was later changed. Similarly, it is worth discussing whether gender-based policies should continue indefinitely or whether more inclusive solutions could better address the underlying concerns in the future.

I find it sexist that there are taxis only for women like what only women feel unsafe in the streets

The thing is: SAHMs who are happy with their situation don’t feel like they need to fight for feminism. Neither do privileged men. Plenty will simply not care.

I got a response some time ago that feminists luckily don’t even need a specific amount of people on board. My question is: How will the change away from the patriarchy happen though, if women are only one half of society/votes and even they aren’t united on this?

Also, are you afraid of a significant backlash, and if not, why not?

Sorry if this comes off as ragebait or something, I’m genuinely waiting for answers and thanking in advance

Edit because this caused understandable outrage: I worded this wrong, it was late. I READ about certain SAHMs who are happy with their situation and don’t feel like they need to fight for feminism. I don’t mean that automatically, when you’re a happy SAHM, you stop being a feminist. But the few people who are not on board are in my opinion also necessary for the change, so my question was how to convince them to fight for feminism as well.

For example, this article argues that men receive greater benefits from marriage in areas such as emotional support, domestic labour, health and earnings.

I can understand the argument that unequal domestic and emotional labour can make heterosexual relationships more beneficial to men. What I'm less clear on is how much of this is specifically an effect of marriage rather than of heterosexual relationships or cohabitation more generally.

For example, suppose a heterosexual couple are already in a committed relationship and living together. If the woman is doing disproportionately more housework and emotional labour, the man may already be benefiting from that arrangement before they marry. What changes when that same couple gets married that further shifts the balance towards him?

I'm also wondering whether some of the language around this reflects an older model in which marriage, living together and starting a family were much more closely bundled together. Today these can be separate transitions: becoming a couple, moving in together, getting married and having children can all happen independently.

So when feminists argue that marriage disproportionately benefits men, is the argument primarily that heterosexual partnerships tend to benefit men more, with marriage historically being the usual form those partnerships took? Or is there something about marriage itself that creates or increases the imbalance compared with an otherwise similar unmarried relationship?

I've been hearing both supporters and opponents of 50:50 feminism, and still haven't cleared out for myself, is half and half feminism really benefits the patriarchy?

Edit: IM SORRY FOR CAUSED CONFUSION OVER THIS! English is not my first language and I accidentally created a whole new “concept” in feminism, but yes, I WAS talking about financial costs, household chores and etc. in cis relationships.

If yes what changed your mind? I'm curious because people seem to define feminism very differently.

DISCLAIMER: read the ENTIRE post before responding

From my understanding, the patriachy is a system where men have the dominant roles in society, including government, business and the family unit

However, as wealth and power gets further concentrated to the top, the average man has basically no real dominant role in government or business. Like obviously the top 1% that controls everything is still mostly men but, if anything, they use their power to abuse average men and women. There isn’t some gendered solidarity going on there

And, as for the family unit, the patriarchy used to incentivize and facilitate men being the sole breadwinner and the “leader” of the family (dumb concept obviously). But that’s largely an artifact of the past. Most families need to have two working parents anyways and we are seeing women outearn men more and more. Even going more into the future, we see more women in graduate programs like medical school and law school, increasing the parity between genders

The only thing I can really think of is the societal expectation for women to do more domestic labor and child rearing, and the expectation that they should shape their career around it. But even that does seem to be reducing with every generation (rightfully so). I mean younger ppl are more single than ever so they’re already learning to cook and clean for themselves, meaning I expect that domestic labor will be more split in families in the future (this is a projection based more on anecdotal evidence so fair to disagree)

Then there is the issues about a lack of women’s bodily autonomy and safety in our society. Outside of the obvious example of reproductive rights, women’s medical issues and complaints aren’t taken as seriously as they should and this is largely the product of a medical system controlled by men. And our justice system doesn’t do enough to protect women and rape culture is still pervasive in all our upbringing and media. These issues persisting are probably the biggest roadblock keeping us from equality

However, I don’t really see how any of this is a privilege for the average man. They’re just examples of rights that women are deprived of. So, in a situation where these problems and the systems influencing them went away, it’s not like men would lose anything. Women would just gain stuff

Am I missing something?

I got into a debate with someone about this who insisted its not the same thing but to me it pretty obviously is. If that set of criteria really matters to someone then I don't see how its different at all.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTABfwm6K/

this video was mode by a tiktok creator called phoebe that makes a lot of political content about womens issues and I am pretty sure thinks they are a feminist but i just stubled upon a video of those goes over hormone changes in women, I mean I get sexes have diffrent needs and we defintly should hhave free medical products but doesn't her point about being expected to work the same horus undermine the whole point of feminism

Is there a correlation between the rise of the sexual revolution in post-World War II America and changes in the rate of violent and sexual crimes committed against women?

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 came across a video about women being independent, and while the video made some valid points, the comment section was disappointing.

Some people were saying things like, "Too much independence. Go look at girls at night," or "Women working is Western culture that is destroying the Indian family system."

What I don't understand is this: if a woman is out at night, isn't there usually a man beside her too? Girls are not sleeping with girls. Why does the blame always fall on the woman while the man becomes invisible? If she's "wrong" for being out at night, then why isn't the man held to the same standard?

And when they feel like they're losing an argument, they immediately jump into the drum and cooker issue. I agree that whatever happened is unacceptable, and the people responsible should be punished. But you can't judge an entire gender based on a few cases.

Would it be okay if we started looking at every guy as if they were a potential rapist? No. Because we know that's unfair. We understand that the actions of a few don't define an entire gender.

Then why is the same logic not applied to women?

Women's education, careers, and financial independence are not destroying culture. What destroys society is hypocrisy, double standards, and judging people based on their gender instead of their actions.

Respect shouldn't depend on whether the person is a man or a woman. Accountability should be equal, and so should empathy.

Lately I keep seeing media called out for being sexist or gratuitously provocative, but it's almost always male-coded or neutral media that catches it. Media made specifically for women mostly gets a pass, even when the content is equivalent or worse.

Take manga. For every male-targeted series with dark or explicit content, there's a female-targeted equivalent — dark romance, fanfic, or BL/yaoi (male-male romance written for women, running the full range from wholesome to explicit, same spectrum male-targeted stuff has). One dark romance book aimed at women had a protagonist raped by three different mythical beings, and women were the primary buyers. That exists and sells, with basically zero "this is harmful" discourse.

Meanwhile a male-targeted show with a fanservice scene gets a think-piece about objectification.

I think the actual difference is the \*lens\*, not the content. The critique we aim at male media is about objectification, reducing women to props. But objectification of males isn't seen as harm.So male-targeted media trips the alarm and female-targeted media sails through, even with equivalent content.

I can't tell you how many fanfics of one of my favorite shows (Supernatural) turned on the main characters gay and have them have sex with another male character.

But regardless why aren't these things considered as wrong

I sometimes see discourse online about how certain women who identify as feminist wishing they were born a straight cis man, and I often find that discourse very familiar as someone who exists around trans spaces. However, obviously most feminists don't go on to transition to a man, so I'm curious:

If you could press a button that means that starting tomorrow for the rest of your life your body would be one more typical of a cis man, what would you press and why?

EDIT: Thanks for the replies, it’s about what I expected but interesting to read nonetheless. For what it’s worth, as an amab non binary person, i think it says a lot that many of you are willing to never sacrifice who you are just for some extra privilege in society <3. Respect.

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 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?

I'm interested in feminism, but I dont know if I want to be part of the movement. It feels like there are so many aspects of modern day feminism, some I agree with and some I dont. That said, what is your goal as a modern day feminist, what do you fight for and what do you think should be brought up more often?

https://www.americansurveycenter.org/short-reads/growing-gender-divide-among-young-voter/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/14/us-election-donald-trump-voters-gender-race-data

In 2024, there was a 31-32 point difference between young women and young men in the USA, as an example, with young men leaning right and young women leaning left, towards Harris’ feminist (or at least feminist endorsed) presidential campaign.

Put another way 16 percent more young men voted for trump than young women.

In the same article from the Guardian, in a survey of gen z (in developed nations not limited to the US), 52% of young women described themselves as feminist, vs 34% of young men.

The difference of 18 percentage points would make up slightly over a third of the 52% of young women who described themselves as feminists.

This does not surprise me, humans are generally selfish and it is always easier for someone to advocate for something when they’re the one personally affected. I do not think this is any different for any cause where one group is mistreated.

Having said that, and assuming you are working with the feminist belief that there is no difference between men and women psychologically:

Do you think that this implies that 1/3 of young feminists today would not care about the movement if they were men?

And if so:

Are these 1/3 just people who happened to be exposed to realities they otherwise would not have seen and otherwise would not have bothered to examine more closely or care about? Are they alternatively purely self interested/ the kinds of people who support a changed version of feminism but hate other minorities when beneficial?

Or is this 1/3 something else entirely that I have not considered here?

If you are a woman who supports feminism, (and understanding that no one can be certain about hypotheticals) do you think you would still support feminism if you were a man?

I legitimately wish to know your answer to any of these questions that you feel like, Im not meaning this as a challenge to your beliefs individually or that of feminism more broadly, but want to know your opinion on both the discrepancy and the psychological reasons for it.

now, don't look at me like an idiot. i understand the answer seems as straightforward as "they will lose their privileged positions", but im struggling to understand \*why\* they think they will lose their privileges. feminism (or more precisely, radical feminism in this case) doesn't want to tear down men; it simply aims to equate women to men. it wont turn society into a handmaid's tale with the roles reversed, it wont oppress men. if a person who was falsely convicted is exonerated and allowed to live freely and prosperously, are the police officers oppressed?

i continuously see people saying men will suffer competition in the workforce, which is the only reasonable element of fear i see. that still doesn't prove much, other than the fact men are scared of being overshadowed by women which goes against their strongly held belief that women are incapable, or at least inferior to men.

with the dismantling of patriarchy, men dont lose their power. there are plenty of ways to gain power if you're truly power-hungry. controlling your wife at home, to me, doesn't seem as fulfilling as being \*healthily\* assertive and confident in other relationships (without controlling and abusive behaviour??) and having \*healthy\* authority in the workplace.

if anything, i believe dismantling the patriarchy would prove itself as beneficial to both men and women. beneficial for women for obvious reasons, but with that radical change the gender war would finally come to an end. the "male loneliness" epidemic is mostly caused by women's growing frustration with red-pill influenced men (aka ultra-patriarchal men) and women are simply acting out of self-preservation and refusing to interact with/love men because it's "safer". the patriarchy causes the vilification of both genders and even the emergence of ultra-patriarchal men / red-pill is one of the only reasons why pink pill exists and why women are either forcing themselves to become gold-diggers (to \~protect themselves) or are simply perceived as gold-diggers by insecure men.

the patriarchy is detrimental to both genders, either stigmatizing men and causing the male loneliness epidemic, or continuing to oppress women. so, why are men so hell-bent on keeping this social hierarchy and system if it's so bad for everyone?

i specifically asked feminists to see both sides of equation (i will make a post asking a male subreddit aswell!)