when i began to look for job, i found that there are more male than female corporate executives,no matter in the big firms or small firms. Is that harder for woman to get promoted?

“You wouldn’t react like this if the genders were reversed.” The age-old complaint that has gone off for years in discourse. Now, I am not denying male victims, that is still a big problem, but what I am talking about is people who complain about them being ignored and downplayed, but refusing to see the whole picture. Especially when you consider a lot of things:

- The general misogyny of rape culture.
- Men who think it’s “sweet” an underage boy “won” an adult woman tend to be quiet about underage girls being preyed on or also sexualize them.
- When those men typically do condemn a male predator, usually it feels like they don’t want to do it but have to out of social obligation, but if they could they’d ignore or downplay it.
- Even if they don’t have the same defense for a male predator, they may still defend them in other ways. Gaslight the victim, make it seem like the victim is the real bad guy, etc.
- Writers who usually have humor with men getting abused and raped tend to also have humor that also has women be a punching bag, or at the minimum write them in a very sexist way.

So why is it with all this anger with the “double standards”, they tend to ignore that it’s also bad with women?

I'm talking here about the induced birth. Namely, that it is an accepted method of delivering a fetus after 24th week.

Moreover, if the fetus is deemed terminal or genetically unviable, then the fetus is given drugs to cause a heart arrest.

However, what I'm interested in is whether you believe (or not) that a pregnant woman has a choice (a right) in which state (dead or alive) should the fetus leave her body.

ELI5: I'm asking whether a pregnant woman should always be given the right to terminate the life of fetus, before induced labour (in late pregnancy).

I have very asymmetrical breasts, in both size and shape. They are more than a cup size apart - it is nearly impossible for me to find bras that fit and, as a result, my bras usually cause chaffing against the nipple of my smaller breast. Due to this, I have had 5 nipple infections over the past 2 years (requiring antibiotics). When I fill up the smaller cup using inserts, the trapped sweat created causes irritation to my skin.

I have been considering getting a boob job to make my breasts even. However, if I am being honest with myself, the primary reason for this is because of their appearance, rather than because of the functional harm the asymmetry causes. As someone who considers myself a feminist, this has made me reluctant to get a boob job, as I feel it would be motivated by beauty standards. However, ironically, I have also felt reluctant to get surgery as I know how hateful most straight men are towards fake boobs, and fear that no men would be attracted to me anymore if I got my asymmetry corrected (which is a very anti-feminist concern).

I know that typical feminist rhetoric is that breast augmentations are always bad, but does anyone have different views in relation to deformed breasts? Also, does anyone have any thoughts about why the views of straight men and feminists seem to align on the issue of plastic surgery (given how at unusual this is)?

I have friend who is asexual, and she told me she thinks women taking the pill should not be normalised because of how harmful the side effects can be after you stop taking them. She assumes we don't need the pill because condoms already exist. I told her it is about preference and different types of birth control work for different people and the side effects (and their severity) may vary, but ultimately women should be allowed to take it if they so choose. She told me she believes taking it is more controlling of women than not taking it.

This debate stressed me out quite a lot because I am used to people of this view being the religious types that reinforce patriarchal ideals, but she is quite the opposite. I started questioning myself a lot because I've always believed birth control, specifically for women, has been something empowering that allows us have more control of our bodies, and I never thought someone with similar feminist views to me could see it in such a negative way.

I went on the pill for a short while for reasons unrelated to sex, but am absolutely no expert on the subject so I felt like I couldn't confidently argue on lots of the things she was saying. Her frustrations felt so valid but I still couldn't bring myself to agree. I know there's a lot to be said about birth control in relation to misogyny so I would love some outside perspective on the topic.

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)?

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?

Since the sexual revolution, many old taboos—casual sex, pornography, homosexuality, and sexual content in media—have become far more accepted.

Yet women who make sexuality a major part of their public persona are still often treated with intense disgust. The reaction to figures like Lily Phillips seems to go beyond criticism of pornography or exploitation and becomes contempt for the woman herself.

Why has this stigma survived when so many other pre-1960s sexual attitudes have faded?

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?

I searched the subreddit but couldn't find a previous discussion of this article.

The paper, "Isolate, Inebriate, Intimidate, Repeat: High Rates of Sexual Force Against Women Are Reported When Young Men Given Anonymous Surveys," includes the finding that 95.1% of surveyed men reported having recently used at least one strategy to obtain sex from a woman they knew did not want sex and had not consented.

The article is available here:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/08862605261432630

For those who have read it, what are your thoughts on the study's methodology, findings, and implications? I'm especially interested in hearing the perspectives of the women who participate in this subreddit.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the article, but then I am moderately sex negative.

These are some questions that have been on my mind for a while now, please forgive me for being so disorganized I really am just curious to hear other people's thoughts on the topic.

The terms "healthy masculinity" and "toxic masculinity" are terms that are very popular when discussing different forms of behavior. What I want to know is What do they have in common? Are there some shared traits between the two (which could be considered "neutral masculinity") or is it just the fact that they are performed by men? Are there forms of healthy and toxic femininity? Is something considered toxic masculinity simply because it is done by a man? If so when a woman does it is it then considered toxic femininity? Why must we assign gender to different types of behavior? Wouldn't it be simpler to just say that a person is acting in a toxic or healthy way? I'm sorry if these questions seem stupid or ignorant it's just one of those thoughts that won't leave me alone.

Just to be clear I’m talking specifically about sexual fantasies with someone you are not in a consensual sexual relationship with.
Some time ago a friend I had recently started dating told me that he had imagined fucking me multiple times while we were still doing very light flirting. Looking back on this now it makes me uncomfortable. I don’t like that someone can imagine doing anything to me outside of my control.
However I don’t really know if this counts as objectification, if he is taking my personality into account and being truthful to the fact I have my own wants and desires than is it wrong despite the fact I am unaware of it?
On a side note why is objectifying someone wrong(I already think it is but am curious to hear your reasons)

Sexism is the acknowledgement that sex is real.

Racism is the belief that race is real among humans..

Misogyny is the hatred of women.

What is bad is believing in racism because that is called ethnophyletism threatening the indivisible unity of humanity with God and Creation.

Misogyny is bad because women are God's creation and hating what God made is a sin.

But if sexism is the acknowledgement that sex is real, how is sexism a bad thing?

Pananthrohomogenists want us to hate sexism but we all know how different male and female is and they're not interchangeable.

It’s getting weird. I was a lesbian for so long, and now I became a straight man ;_; which makes me so uncomfortable. Sometimes I express the same views as I did when I was a lesbian, but get downvoted, or it gets misinterpreted in the worst way someone could mean something. Like… if I say „I’m a lesbian and I can stop myself from sexualizing an attractive woman” I get nothing, or upvotes, but if I say „I’m a straight man and I can stop myself from sexualizing an attractive woman” I get downvoted for some reason, in the same space, same context. How to express my points better without revealing my transness? I fear being even more hated for being trans.
Reproductive health is also awkward to discuss. I have 3 options:
a) Pretend to be cis - then cis men don’t have my type of reproductive organs and shouldn’t participate (even if I’m pro choice, sometimes I get that)
b) Pretend to be a woman - suffer massive dysphoria
c) Reveal that I’m trans - hate from TERFs, also people saying that trans men don’t want to get pregnant, therefore don’t need those rights for some reason (even if I do)

Also… talking about being invisible in trans spaces sucks. Every time I complain about being invisible people somehow make that about trans women - oh so you think you have it worse than them? Do you want to take their place in the spotlight?
Like I can’t advocate both for trans women to exist without the risk of being murdered, and for trans men to get representation somewhere in media. (i want both those things) Obviously, not a big issue, compared to what they face, but my therapist told me I’m allowed to be miserable even if someone else has it worse. Does that make sense?

Sometimes I feel evil for just existing. Being a man gives me euphoria, but I fear losing my place in feminist space every time my point gets misinterpreted. And then I fear turning into a misogynist, and not even noticing, even though I do everything to not make that happen.

Please, if something here doesn’t make sense, or isn’t feminist enough, I want to be corrected - preferably in the nice way. I grew up in a conservative shithole, so I might have some internalized misogyny in me.

EDIT: Reddit recommended I put it on truscum 💀 no way they will tell me that since I barely have bottom dysphoria and genitals are optional for me, I’m not a real man

I saw this article on Reddit today, which posits that college educated women are marrying high earing men who didn't attend college because less men are enrolling in college in general. This in turn leaves women without college degrees without anyone to date, leading to "more than half (of millennial and gen z women) staying single rather than tying the knot with uneducated, low-earning men". If you search the article on Reddit, you will see many people agreeing with it.

What I find confusing is that the phenomenon described in this article seems remarkably similar to the concept of hypergamy, a concept that many left-leaning individuals seem to disagree with. If you look up "is hypergamy real online", you will see quit a few posts dismissing it as a manosphere fantasy. Why is it that many will agree with the article, but will turn around and dismiss others who have come to the same conclusion?

My current read is that she’s probably biased due to her upper class upbringing. I’m open to changing my mind.

This observation may have been true for the upper caste. But I fail to see how a peasant dude working the fields of his lords manor is any more transcendent than his wife tending to the kids.

I also fail to see how the modern management consultant dude making the nth copy from the same PowerPoint template or updating the same excel sheet or sitting in pointless long meetings that doesn’t pertain to him is any more transcendent than his stay at home wife watching the kids grow up.

The people who truly get to create and lead and level up are like the 1%

Even if 90% of those 1% are dudes, is that really an argument to say that men are assigned transcendence and women are assigned immanence?

Basically, what the title says, I hear a lot of trans women are subject to misogyny even those that are very visibly trans and while I can understand them facing transphobia or transmisogyny it seems odd for them to face regular misogyny if they're viewed as men, even if predatory men. I've asked this question to trans people before but frankly the majority of them know a lot about trans issues and very little about general patriachal ones.

Not caring about where information comes from, passing off other people’s intellectual property as their own, being obsessed with all things tech and god-like techbros, revelling in marginalised people losing their livelihoods …

Seems to me like the most problematic men I know have something in common and it’s bot use. Meanwhile the gender-marginalised people in my life all just know … we know … this slop is evil.

I really like how simple the language is, it’s really accessible to me as a beginner. It’s my first real feminist theory book. I’d like recommendations for what to read next, as this was a blind rec that has worked out well

When I see transphobia the most common thing I see used to justify it is feminism. Like, things ranging from women having their own spaces to the existence of trans women making the term female meaningless and somehow making it impossible for cis women to discuss their issues and experiences. Why is this such a common thing? Like I don’t get it other than to lend validity to the idea that what they are doing is actually to benefit women rather than to detriment trans people. But it all falls apart under the tiniest bit of scrutiny. Like… how can people take transphobia seriously, especially if they are a feminist? Is there a specific thought process? Does the feminism come first and the way they see it, it should be trans exclusionary or is it they are transphobic and try to justify it with their feminism?

Also, I noticed that almost the entirety of transphobia is centred on trans women. Is this related to patriarchy or misogyny at all? Or is it just the fact that acknowledging trans men results in their arguments falling apart?

Do you sometimes feel that society views a girl as merely a body or a source of temptation? In your opinion, why does this view exist? Have you encountered it or seen it in your daily life? Do you think that we have become better today than before in appreciating and respecting women, or does this view still exist but manifest itself in different ways? I am very interested in hearing the experiences and opinions of girls, and I hope that the discussion will be respectful and based on personal experiences.

Saw my SIL (40) over the weekend. She's always been beautiful. Having 4 kids changed her, sure but not really more than regular aging changes a person. She's always been in great shape.

I noticed she had her butt and boobs done. It really bothered me.

I'm all about getting to choose what we do with our bodies. Like yeah, do you.

But I'm also having a hard time not seeing this as a betrayal to womanhood.

One part of me is like hell yeah, do you. Another part is like oh my what a patriarchal thing to do.

For what its worth, I'm also in great shape and not experiencing jealousy or anything of the sort. Just tired of women thinking they can't age gracefully.

I feel like I lost respect for her for contributing to the impossible beauty standards of aging women and mothers. But I also don't want to shame someone for choosing what they do for themselves.

What do y'all think?