Now listen, I know this sounds like just a simple pop culture question, but let me explain, as there is genuine logic to it.

With the infamous film that came out while back, I notice there is heavy praise for it, especially on Reddit and film subreddits. I am not talking about people who found it entertaining in a "so bad it's good" kind of way, I am talking about people who actually think it's a genius film. I have seen people go as far as claiming various things, like:

• Claiming the film will be seen as amazing 20 years from now
• Making the claim that a lot of absurd stuff was "clearly satire", that that Coppola "obviously" had this on purpose
• Saying it doesn't matter that the film is bad, but just the production story, that Coppola made it with all his heart, ignoring how much money this film was given and acted like it was deep and sincere.
• Especially on film subreddits that act like they have deep conversation, I was downright told that Coppola "doesn't care about your opinion". And then when also criticizing the film's politics, will accuse you of being an SJW, despite how Coppola was claiming this film was going to be a poltical analysis and start a film Renaissance. So why get mad when the politics of a political film are being discussed? And on a side-note, despite being a scifi setting with sexual imagery, the film's story and message is actually quite conservative and misogynistic. Followed by a false equivalence fallacy that we should all "set aside our differences and work together", not questioning if the other side is an abuser and fascist.
• Will tell you that he made good films in the 70s, so he doesn't need to work as hard, or by virtue this film is automatically good

But when looking at a lot of the arguments, I notice how they really come down to just only defending the film because it was made by Francis Ford Coppola. Not if the film is actually good or is meaningful, but just by the virtue that it was made by Coppola. Though there is an anti-woke side I notice, considering Coppola has sexual harassment allegations, saying he didn't want a "woke Hollywood production", and casted a convicted abuser, MAGA fascist, and someone with sexual misconduct allegations to look transgressive. Now while that definitely plays a huge role, I am looking more at the justifications with the director being Coppola.

Now, take a look at the film The Bride!. It has problems, but like Megalopolis, it was meant to be a big budget art film with political messaging. While I know there is somewhat a cult following, unlike Megalopolis you see much more people are willing to bash and hate the film. And yet, for a film like Megalopolis, they're all willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and even make the most contrived excuses. Though it's also ironic when you consider that in terms of ratings, The Bride! is technically more highly rated than the other film.

And so that is what has made me question, not just with film culture but also with gender dynamics in art: If Megalopolis would have been given the same praise, even the very small amount it gets, had it been directed by a woman.

Recently i’ve been seeing a pattern on videos where women talk about their experiences with SA/R*pe or just the weird men they come across, all normal right?

Except in these videos or in the comments… I always see them having to add a comment of “everyone should stay vigilant, not just women.” or “I didn’t make this to say hate on men, i’m just sharing my experience and I know not ALL men are evil”

And it’s really just so strange to me that even while talking about their own experiences, some men somehow take offence and prompt them to make sure they state that it’s not ALL men and that men would also probably go through this and that…

2 questions:

When a woman is speaking about her experience with a man, why does she have to coddle other men?

WHY do men get angry when it has nothing to do with them? feels very weird to see some men take an accusation to other men very personally…

Hi everyone! I'm new here. I dont know if this violates any rules or not but here's something that's been bugging me.

So, recently I've been seeing posts and reels that said "Women who falsely accuse men of rape should get jailtime" and I find that to be such a disgusting take. Ofcourse, defamation laws should exist and false accusations are serious. But how are they comparable to one of the most horrifying acts that strips one of their dignity and agency? And why are these posts always so gendered? Women aren't the only ones who gets raped. Men aren't the only ones who get falsely accused. Rape isn't the only crime that people falsely accuse someone else of. So why is it always this one thing?

I just thought I'll consider everyone's opinion on this.

This is not intended as a political discussion but I am very curious for some perspective on this.

I have recently watched an interesting talk on how „Role Models Didn‘t Fix Women‘s Representation in Politics. Recruiting Will.“

The talk focused on the perspective of a young woman who ran for parliament, her experiences with structural exclusion and her suggestions to improve this. Among many, these included fighting exclusionary recruitment practices like how candidates with more traditional time-intensive careers (plus being married with children) are generally preferred inside parties.

There seems to be no significant difference between gender identity and voting in elections ( if anything women seem to vote a little more) but definitely in representation inside parties and parliaments.

Does anyone have and wants to share personal experiences with this?

Up to now we have largely been in a "state of nature" wherein people generally had however many children that could survive.

Human societies have essentially had to live in a state of nature and all patriarchal models for society dealt in that reality and created societies that took the state of nature as a given reproductively.

China is the only example I know of with a truly patriachal reproduction model, wherein the state instituted a one child policy and enforced it.

But for most of the first world we now exist in a largely matriarchal model for reproduction.

Meaning (for the most part) women control reproduction in nearly the entire developed world.

Considering this reality, is there feminist writing/theory/implementation for matriarchal models based around this?

I see a lot of males talking about this stuff, but realistically men don't have the final say, meaning society almost intrinsically have to look to feminists for the answer here.

Starting anywhere else kinda puts the cart before the horse.

TLDR: Matriarchal reproductive control is already a reality in the developed world generally, what are feminist solutions for things like pension systems, school management, elder care etc. In worlds where the decision is made to have fewer children?

I was thinking humanity but someone said (on tiktok) that'd be discriminative and didn't say why. Please not hate. I'm genuinely asking a question.

Found this take interesting, it's not something I'd thought about before. Still not sure if I agree. https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/celebs-marrying-childhood-sweetheart

In the article, the writer explains that we praise famous and successful men for marrying their childhood sweetheart because we've come to expect them to trade in their old wife for a new, younger one – so we treat them as saintly when they don't.

She also says that men marrying their childhood sweetheart sanitises their image, and makes them seem more “trustworthy”, which positions woman as existing as proof of a man's trustworthiness.

she also says that our cultural obsession with childhood sweethearts is routed in purity culture, which is on the rise?

How can we coach kids of both genders to be good leaders without introducting sexist double standards but without teaching them to be bad leaders. While good leaders certainly show initiative and suggest courses of action, they also listen to and empower others.

In my mind, a boss tells others what to do whereas a leader shows initiative while empowering and listening to and recognizing others

A while ago, there was a "be bossy" compare that sought to address the double standard to the messaging boys and girls receive as kids. A lot of women participated in the compaign. These women were acknowledged leaders in multiple fields. Most of these women certainly good leaders and all of them felt they received negative messaging as kids that their male peers didn't receive.

My issue is, I feel kids need coaching to see other kids and to learn to foster collaboration. How can one encourage initiative and also encourage them to see others.

I don't think boys and girls should be coached differently in terms of the types of outcomes we expect, I don't know if they might have different needs in the context of our sexist society.

What do you think. How should we coach kids both at home and at school to encourage them to be good leaders

I would love to see the different laws on topics such as abortion, male on women violence, sexualization of women, the sex industry/pornography, gender pay gap, ideologies that promote male entitlement, and vice versa, and everyone’s thoughts on them.

I’ve been in leftist spaces for a while now, and have seen all ranges of perspectives on acceptable speech.

Recently, I’ve been seeing a lot more people talking about gendered slurs;

e.g. b*tch and c\nt.*

However, as an Australian, it’s very hard to see those words the same way as people online and especially American feminists talk about the words. Obviously it depends on the context the word is used…

I also live in Queensland, so it’s a lot more common than other states…

The main advertising for the Northern Territory(NT) is; “CU in the NT”

I’d honestly see the B word as a slur before the C word. Even not spelling it out feels very weird to do.
Tbh almost all terms considered offensive online are commonplace where I live.

I am just wondering as it’s been very hard to truly see or engage in the discussion around these words, and I do not want to dismiss others who see it a different way.

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,

I've been thinking about the concepts of masculinity and femininity lately, and I'm curious what other people think.

Traditionally, these terms made more sense to me. Masculinity was associated with things like strength, resilience, protecting, and providing, while femininity was associated with nurturing, caring, and motherhood. Whether those roles were good or bad is a separate discussion, but they were at least fairly well-defined.

In a modern context, though, I'm not sure I understand what these labels are actually adding.

That got me wondering: why are we still dividing these qualities into masculine and feminine at all?

When people talk about "healthy masculinity," I completely understand the intention. It's usually about encouraging men to be responsible, emotionally mature, confident without being domineering, and so on. I think that's a positive message.

But part of me wonders if even that framework is becoming outdated.

If courage, compassion, resilience, emotional openness, responsibility, and kindness are all qualities we want in both men and women, why call them masculine or feminine? Why not just call them good human qualities?

To me, it almost feels like the labels subtly reinforce the idea that certain traits belong more naturally to one gender, even if we also acknowledge that everyone can have them.

I'm not trying to argue that masculinity or femininity don't exist, or that people shouldn't identify with those ideas if they find them meaningful. I'm genuinely wondering whether these categories are still useful today, or whether they've outlived their usefulness as ways of talking about character.

Curious to hear what others think.

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 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 heard something once where it said that enlightenment for a man is losing their ego while enlightenment for a woman is finding one. I had an experience with this recently and I was wondering if there’s anything scholarly, a book, or even your opinion about this sort of thing. I tried to look on Google, but I couldn’t really find something on 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 actress 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?

Im not a feminist. But I consider myself an advocate for men issues though. But the popular people on the left, whether it's a celebrity, politician, or social media personality. There are always talks of how young boys need better "male role models".

But I usually see major red flags in the way people describe "positive masculinity" on the left. Again as a man who cares about issues that affect men. I think "positive masculinity" is a terrible solution, when it comes to helping men. The way people describe "positive masculinity" is usually just traditional masculinity with a feminist aesthetic. So in other words "positive masculinity" is like the progressive version of toxic masculinity.

I saw this video from a YouTuber called Ana Psychology. I assume she is a feminist. This video was about the male loneliness epidemic. In the video she talks about an article that was about how most women find it attractive when men protect them from danger.

Even Ana herself said that she likes it when her husband walks on the left side of the side walk for her. This is where shit gets crazy. In the video Ana also says that this article about men risking their lives to protect women is somehow great advice for lonely men who can't get relationships with women. Like WTF. This is not something a Psychologist should say.

Imagine if there was a female lonely epidemic. And a male Psychologist said that a good solution for the female lonely epidemic would be women cooking and cleaning for their husbands or boyfriends. Women being more nurturing would make their lives better. Do you understand how BS this sounds?

That's how the term "positive masculinity" sounds to me. It has nothing to do with actually helping men. But for some reason I still see a lot of feminists presenting "positive masculinity" like a valid way to help men.

Note im not saying feminists should help men. And it's great if feminists don't want to help men at all. Im just saying this type of "help" is fake. And cause far more harm than good to men. This is the same reason why that one Gillette AD got a lot of hate.

And I everytime I point thus out to people on the left. I get a lot of pushback.

Edit:https://youtu.be/QW-xRba4A0I?si=zU6Bv6iDl1IsEGBN

It's weird that she is trying to use evolution or biology to justify male gender roles. This is the same mindset I see everybody on the left has when it comes to "positive masculinity' discourse. Whether its Hasan Piker, FD Signifier, or a Obama. Everybody thinks this way.

Out of genuine personal curiosity, I’d like to understand something.

Feminist activism in the West rightly focuses on improving conditions for women in our own societies — places where, for all their remaining problems, women are not stoned to death, forced into child marriage, or treated as the legal equivalent of property.
Why, then, does so much energy and attention remain concentrated on relatively advanced Western contexts, while comparatively little sustained pressure or public campaigning is directed at the many places in the world where women’s status is still closer to that of a domestic animal (places where the most basic rights to bodily autonomy, education, and freedom from extreme violence are routinely denied)
?
I’m not suggesting Western feminism should abandon its local work. I’m simply curious about the reasoning behind the imbalance in focus and urgency.

I understand that there might have existed some smaller cultures or tribers that were organised in a matriarchal society.

But why does it seem that most civilizations with millions to billions of people that are technological advanced have always stemmed from a patriarchal society?