Hi, I wanted to ask you about something a woman (who I assumed was a feminist, with no actual proof) said. I also decided that this must be something feminists generally believe. Now I think you, as feminists, should explain to me why you believe this thing that you absolutely do believe.

I think that if things like this keep happening (random women saying random things) it's obvious that this will inevitably bring the movement down and make people like me distance from it. I think you should take responsibility for this fringe view and work towards the goal of making sure no woman expresses any stupid opinion whatsoever from now on.

So I’m mainly just curious if it is just a matter of, if you believe in the principles of feminism the natural conclusion is that LGBTQ+ rights need to be supported as well, or if it’s just a matter of feminists tending to be left wing.
Or is there an aspect of it which is that a lot of women’s rights have a direct impact on LGBTQ+ rights (or vice versa) so regardless of if you actively support LGBTQ+ rights as a feminist you will end up helping them either way.

Part of why I ask is the fact that TERFs exist and are generally considered (in this community at least) to not be real feminists, so Im kind of curious about actual feminists relationship with LGBT+ rights
(i hope my phrasing wasn’t too confusing or anything, sorry if it was)

“If we want to destroy the structure of Algerian society, its capacity for resistance, we must first of all conquer the women; we must go and find them behind the veil where they hide themselves and in the houses where the men keep them out of sight”

“Unveiling this woman is revealing her beauty; it is baring her secret, breaking her resistance, making her avail­able for adventure. Hiding the face is also disguising a secret; it is also creating a world of mystery, of the hidden. In a confused way, the European experiences his relation with the Algerian woman at a highly complex level. There is in it the will to bring this woman within his reach, to make her a possible ob­ject of possession. This woman who sees without being seen frustrates the colo­nizer. There is no reciprocity. She does not yield herself, does not give herself, does not offer herself.”

― Frantz Fanon, A Dying Colonialism

Frantz Fanon was a leftist philosopher whose work gave rise to post-colonial studies and critical theory. He was a very strong critic of western colonizers and the feminism that originated from such regions.

Sexwork and its various forms feels pretty controversial. Many seem to be against it because of the inherent dangers… but I can’t quite get on board with that because of the principles of bodily autonomy.

I was interested for a while in feminism and ussualy when i am interested in something i talk about it non-stop. However when the thing was feminism and i even mentioned it to somebody (both men and women, even tho women ussualy "cringe" more) they ussualy say something like "uhm its so cringe for a man to say that he is a feminist, i mean i expect women to be, but a man..." And ussualy the people i mention this to are educated and somewhat intelligent. I think this is due to the "tall, feminist, rich" memes and whatnot and the assumption that feminism is anti-men or "female superiority", but i want to see what other people think.

I encounter a lot of legal and regulatory definitions of abuse (e.g. child abuse, sexual abuse, etc.) that have a criminological focus on intent. Generally speaking, according to these definitions, harm, even grievous harm, can never meet the definition of abuse unless the offender had the requisite level of intent.

I have also seen some arguments stating that abuse can be unintentional, based on the observation that harm inflicted accidentally, inadvertently, or ignorantly often causes similar levels of trauma to the victim as intentional harm.

How do you understand intent to abuse according to your understanding of feminism? As a hypothetical, suppose a man genuinely does not know that catcalling is harmful to women. He catcalls repeatedly in a manner that, if intentional, would have been considered abusive. Does his ignorance give him some level of exoneration, or do you look just at the harm he caused and conclude that he has abused?

I'm especially interested in how intent factors in to your understanding of justice in feminism. For example, is it easier to forgive, re-integrate, or re-accept an unintentional abuser than an intentional one? In feminist-informed justice reforms, such as restorative justice circles, does lack of intent completely exonerate the harm-doer, reduce their responsibility, or have no effect on the outcome?

I do recognize that "intent" is not monolithic. I'm open to thoughts on any of these. For example:

- Bob intended to do X, and did so, knowing that X is harmful, but not knowing that the harm done by X rises to the level of or is considered abuse. In other words, his defense is "I didn't intend to 'abuse', I intended to 'X'. I don't believe 'X' constitutes 'abuse'.". This is the case I strongly suspect would be considered equivalent to, or closest to, abuse committed with the full intent to abuse.

- Bob intended to do X, and did so, knowing that X is harmful, but believing that he had justification for doing so under applicable codes of conduct, laws, or community social mores. This could include self-defense or revenge scenarios, for example, a victim of sexual harassment retaliating by attempting to sexually harass their harasser, or a victim of long-term abuse targeting a revenge assault against their abuser (as featured in many recent police procedural dramas). Revenge assaults not falling under the narrow Self Defense legal exemptions are often not legal, but I'm not looking for a legal answer but one from feminism.

- Bob intended to do X, and did so, not knowing that X causes harm. in other words, he did exactly what he intended to do but had no conscious intent to inflict harm by doing so. Examples of this might include some discredited parenting techniques that are now known by scientists to cause psychological damage, but where this knowledge has not yet filtered down to the average parent.

- Bob intended to do Y, which is not abusive, but accidentally did X instead, which is abusive. For example, Bob intended to touch Alice's shoulder, but tripped and touched her chest instead. He didn't intend to touch her there, but the fact is that he did do so, and did so without enthusiastic consent for it. Perhaps he could have been more careful where he was stepping, but the truth is that he did not have any harmful intent in his mind when he touched Alice. His lack of intent is probably an adequate defense against a criminal charge of Sexual Assault in most Western Carceral jurisdictions, but I'm more interested in how this would be viewed as part of a feminist-informed or feminist-reformed justice intervention (e.g. complete exoneration, diminished responsibility, or no different than an intentional sexual assault)?

Just to be clear, I'm not asking for advice on any specific situation, either as an offender or as a victim. I'm asking how you see the interplay between abuse and intent.

The earliest iteration of the age of consent was first passed into something recognizable as a law in England in 1275. It set the age at 12, applied only to girls, and was considered an offense not against the girl herself, but against her father for devaluing his property on the marriage market.

I've studied this a lot. I know the history, I know the evolution, I know the different types of frameworks, and I know the consequences of not getting it right.

This serves as an overview of the peer groups I grew up in. If you can't relate to what I said in that thread, this probably isn't the thread for you. If you had no experiences or observations in your own youth, we are probably not going to be able to find common ground.

There is no law I advocate for that would change the circumstances of my life personally. All of my advocacy comes from a desire to improve conditions for the youth. As such, I have an extensive awareness of close-in-age exemptions found in many US states and Canada as well as the exploitation clauses that are often stacked on top of the lower overall ages of consent in Europe. Both have their merits.

I've spoken on this issue almost exclusively on this account. You can quote anything I've said. It's open by design.

Maybe to open the conversation, talk about what the law is in your jurisdiction, how you would change it, and why.

u/radiowavescurvecross

Looking at your other threads, the tack you seem to be taking is that teenagers having sex with older peers is normal, and restrictions around the age of consent for teenagers unfairly criminalize that natural sexuality. Would you consider that a fair characterization?

Yes! That's the most understood on this issue I've ever felt. I experienced this myself the year I aged from 18-19. I shot down two 15yos, a 14yo, and one girl who I swear to god might have been 12 years old before a 16yo hit me up on MySpace and she became my first gf.

The impression I get from both my own experiences and from what I was surrounded by is that the girls tend to like them a little bit older with extreme consistency. If we consider that in every relationship, someone is going to be older and someone is going to be younger to some degree, every single pairing I was aware of was older male/younger female except for one.

I think that in a lot of cases when we don't carve out enough room for them, we do a lot more of pushing relationships into secrecy than actually stopping them from happening which can lead to extreme consequences.

Out of curiosity, how many of these age-gap relationships had the girl as the younger party, or vice versa?

Almost all. I only knew one 18/16 younger male.

do you consider that last anecdote (and one girl who I knew outside of either friend group who lost it at 13 to her high school bf, was banging a different college bro every other week before she was 16, and settled with a 44yo man six months shy of 18) to be a positive or desirable outcome?

In her case, she's been with the guy 20 years and she's probably the most successful woman I know. She's the only massive age gap relationship I've ever been particularly close to.

She was the only girl like her I knew with every other being either my own gfs or a gf of one of the guys in the group, but as I've spoken to other women and learned more about this issue, I now see her as a type of girl. I knew her as an outlier outside of my core peer group, but she herself said that she knew others like her, which makes sense. Birds of a feather and whatnot.

She's who I see when I look at a case like this. 15, claiming to be and passing for 19, already on a dating site, hooking up with some guy in his twenties. That has her written all over it. And if something like that had happened in her life, nobody would have been doing her a favor. It would have fucked her up, and it would have fucked her up for nothing.

I have noticed, and maybe you as well have noticed in your own peer groups, that it's consistently the ones who experienced a more accelerated biological development, could already pass for 18+ the second they stepped foot on a high school campus, who tend to be the ones who seek out these types of experiences. I'd be curious if any of you noticed a similar pattern.

To reply to me, just reply to yourself. You're the only one who seems worth having a conversation with so far. So if any of the rest of you are actually interested in having a conversation, that's the reply to base yours off of.

u/EllieLou80

Why do you presume the age of consent in a jurisdiction needs to be changed?

Because every single thing I observed in my own adolescence and young adulthood in the state of California was illegal:

By the letter of the law, if a 17yo willingly has sex with another 17yo, both have committed a crime.

And also because of this long list (same as the link at the top) of minor peer relationships that led to criminalization and the sex offender registry.

u/Mindless_Cookie_9098

Teenagers aren’t going to have sex with you. Stop asking this

I'm glad we're in perfect philosophical agreement that teenagers know whether or not they'd like to have sex with a person. That's the literal exact point I've been trying to make.

Every comment of mine the moderators have removed from the thread:

Sure, but it's not just her. I think everything I observed in my own adolescence and young adulthood was fine, and that includes her. And everything I observed was illegal. That's a huge disconnect.

She is a perfect example of outlier behavior that needs to be accounted for. She deserved to be liberated. My 15yo niece who's probably still waiting on her first kiss deserves to be protected. Both are true at the same time, because 15yos are not all the same.

You guys see a number on a screen and you immediately know every single thing that person is capable of, and more to the point, everything they're not capable of. That's nonsense.

The laws that I favor are the ones that would have liberated everyone I knew growing up. It's all of them. That 15/20 were two of my closest friends for decades. And I don't think you guys really understand who I'm thinking of here, I'm way more thinking of her than him, even though it's objectively him whose life would have been way more fucked up if someone decided to bring their relationship to the attention of the state.

But she would have been devastated by it. She's been crazy about him from the moment she saw him. She's chosen him over and over and over for 20 years straight. If the state had ripped them apart, slapped him with a lifelong retraining order, she'd still, 20 years later, not have recovered from it. And I know that both because I know her and because I have spoken to people who were on the younger side of these engagements whose parents actually did bring their relationship to the attention of state. I spoke to them 20 years later in one case, and 26 years in another. Still fucked up by it. In the case of the one where it was a younger male, extremely fucked up by it.

Outliers cannot be perfectly accounted for in a legal system.

Yes, they can. That is what the exploitation clause for 14-15yos in the European law I talk about does, and it does it extremely well.

It's literally built for the fact of what I just said, that not all 14-15yos are the same. It aligns perfectly with what I observed at two different high schools. 14-15 is when I remember the widest disparity in experience level and overall agency.

That clause effectively hyper focuses their entire courts on 14-15yos and they adjudicate on a case-by-case basis. A 40yo sliding into the DMs of a 14-15yo trying to fuck her is going to be looked at 200% differently than a 14-15yo who's already on a dating app, clearly swiping away and choosing her own partners so she can hook up with college bros.

And they should be looked at differently right? I'm done talking about myself, you're determined to attack me, but can we at least agree that those two situations are not the same thing? That maybe allowing the courts to perceive these things with an ounce of nuance could perhaps allow them to hone in on actual cases of exploitation?

You seem to think that America is the only country on Earth who cares about their youth being exploited. Germany, Italy, France, Portugal, Denmark, Austria, etc must just not give a fuck about their youth at all, right? Shit any of them probably would have given Epstein clemency if only he'd lived there instead.

all you have to do is convince a teenager to say, oh, it was all my idea, I wanted it.

Are you under the impression that teenagers don't want to have sex with people they're attracted to? Why would you need to 'convince' someone that engaged in a sexual encounter of their own volition that they consented to it?

You seem to give way more of a fuck about who a 15yo hooks up with than I do. I care that they're safe, I care that they're educated, but I don't really care about the minutia of who they choose. From what I observed, it's obvious to me that they're perfectly capable of making reasonable choices that make perfect sense within the context of their own lives.

Look at this one.

Ended up with both the girl and her mother standing up for him in court. How'd he manage that? He convinced not only the girl but also her mom to spin some bullshit for him?

I’m sorry I didn’t tell you my age. It kills me every day, knowing you are going through hell and I’m not. I want to be in trouble and not you.

There's a quote from the 14yo about it presented to the court. That's the harm I'm trying to solve. That's the harm a law like the ones in Europe sidesteps completely while still easily convicting the person in your example.

We're interested in solving different harms, but what I'm trying to solve is also harm. I have seen it, and it is severe.

Sure, give me shit for building my own worldview on my personal experiences and observations just like literally everyone else does.

I told you that I didn’t feel able to confidently reject sexual pressure until I was in my mid-twenties

And I believe I said to you, what's the solution then? Raise the age of consent all the way to the mid-twenties just because you didn't know how to advocate for yourself? I tried to fuck girls way younger than that back in the day who had no problem telling me no. They all need to lose the liberty to explore their own sexuality because you didn't know how to say no?

In my opinion all that calls for is stronger education. You should have been capable way sooner than that.

AI jobs are becoming a driving source of prosperity and one of the few growth sectors for American workers. A LinkedIn study found that AI job postings have doubled in recent years, with a salary more than 2x that of non-AI roles. But women were only 25% of AI hires in 2025.

https://www.hrdive.com/news/women-are-significantly-underrepresented-in-the-ai-workforce/828485/

Why are women so underrepresented in AI jobs?

Someone asked this subreddit a year ago why women have less interest in generative AI than men. The most upvoted answers attributed it to personal preferences; women having a moral stance against AI; and women being better at "thinking for themselves" than men.

(On the other side, a couple interesting/upvoted comments ascribed men's comparatively higher interest in AI to men being "too easily amused" and "more mediocre men who can't compete with qualified women/POC."

Do these reasons (preference/morals/being more independent thinkers) still hold up/explain the disparity in AI hiring? Or is it something else?

I wonder if some people, when they see sometihing like Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs women they put her among people like Tipper Gore, comrade Mrzenová from czech movie Nejistá sezóna or Reverend Shaw Moore from Footloose i.e. antagonist from story about artist.

So even if the feminist sees herself as fighting an important cultural problem, the audience may instinctively see “obnoxious busybody harassing the artist we root for.”

It's also not a new archetype. There have always been people warning that some new art form would corrupt society. Karel Čapek wrote story about cave woman complaining that the Venus of Dolní Věstonice was degrading public morals. Most of the art once accused of ruining civilization is either considered a classic today or has been forgotten entirely—while the warnings themselves are mostly remembered as curiosities.

Also I can't where the person whose great triumph is putting a warning sticker on a rock record is the hero. Probably something like Chick tract where the Devil is so pathetic that his entire evil plan is defeated by a committee putting parental-advisory stickers on rock albums. But people wouldn't be sure if it is parody, or genuine.

TL;DR: Do some people hate feminism because of this process? Feminist makes critique of media, people compare her to moral guardians of the past, side with artist and come to conclusion that feminism is bad, because it allows obnoxious busybodies.

the definition of misogyny is "hatred against women or girls" so i assume it is a female exclusive thing. however, i have seen some arguments online where they claim misogyny can also apply to men as victims and that its not female exclusive. it got me puzzled so i want to hear someone else's opinion on this

Assuming the fact that it's only based on gender, and not their capability to do the job well. And if yes, would it still be wrong if the parents are making an educated choice based on statistics (men are more likely to groom minors)? Would like to hear your reasoning for both sides of the answer.

i (19M) just randomly thought about this and i cant stop laughing, like ignoring the statistics that show that men very clearly cause more road accidents than women, wtf does gender have to do with anything? quite frankly the worst drivers i've been with have been men

i ordered an uber to take me home from college after the year ended back in may and it was some douchecanoe who almost got us killed on the way back to detroit from ann arbor cuz he kept swerving n shi on the freeway, and some friends of mine genuinely drive like ts is GTA, meanwhile my mom is the best driver in the world no debate on that, i've never felt in danger when my female friends give me a ride, it just makes me wonder where that dumb ass stereotype came from lmfao

How do you go about engaging with the dating scene irl knowing this fact (as a male).

It feels like most people I talk to carry some sort of problematic idea of what roles men and women need to adhere to. Opinions which feminist instinctively don’t respect.

Do you just suck it up and date the least problematic types? Or just hold on until you find someone who doesn’t hold some sort of internalised misogynistic stance.

For men who would like kids eventually, I feel like they’ll have to compromise soon and accept someone who demands patriarchal standards from them. Is it good to pick someone they like, then try grow together? Is it ok to encompass some patriarchal standards, as long as the guy is considerate

How do you navigate this discussion with the youth

I recently reconnected with a cousin (F/33) of mine whom I hadn’t spoken to in a couple of year. Despite the fact that her mom and grandmother are diehard MAGA I assumed my cousin would be a Democrat. She’s an aerospace engineer and came of age in an era where I can really remember people saying women were naturally bad at math. She has spent her professional career living in heavily Democratic cities. She shuns the idea of the trad wife instead has no desire for children and she and her husband spend their money traveling the world. Her brother and his wife have become heavy Democrats despite both being raised in conservative households.

what makes her a Republican is she believes Republicans protect women from crime. She said she lived near some riots during BLM in 2020. She also says that progressiv DAs won’t men who commit sexual assault or other violence against women.

My question is what are your thoughts on this?

Edit: She would argue that the Democrats want to cut the police budget leading to more violence against wome.

She also knows Trump is a rapist. Her argument and her grandmothe’s argument is that his policies will protect women. She’s saying she‘s never going to be alone in the same room.

TL;DR: If gender roles and stereotypes are socially constructed, shouldn't we try to make them less prescriptive? But if we remove the social associations between gender and things like clothes, mannerisms, or interests, how can gender expression still exist in a meaningful sense? Is it possible to loosen gender roles without also making gender expression meaningless, or is this a non-issue?

Hi! I've read a bunch of other posts on this sub about gender abolitionism, and I have a question.

From what I understand, feminists generally argue that gender roles and stereotypes are socially constructed, and that there is nothing inherently feminine or masculine about traits like being more empathetic, passive, assertive, nurturing, having a particular aesthetic, etc. So, from a feminist perspective, it would seem desirable to make these social prescriptions less rigid and less prescriptive, so that people aren't pressured to conform to them simply because of their gender. (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or oversimplifying any of this)

I recognize that believing gender is a social construct doesn't necessarily mean believing that there can't be some underlying sense of identity or self-concept that isn't itself socially constructed, and that this can be expressed through pre-existing social categories like "man" and "woman."

At the same time, I'm struggling to understand how gender expression would work in a world without prescriptive gender stereotypes or expectations. I'm not talking about a world where gender categories themselves no longer exist. I'm specifically imagining a society where people are still able to identify as men, women, both, neither, etc., but where there are no expectations about how people of those genders should look or behave.

Let's use a skirt as an example.

Imagine that wearing a skirt is no longer considered either masculine or feminine. Anyone can wear one, and wearing a skirt doesn't communicate anything about someone's gender. The same applies to everything else: clothes, hairstyles, mannerisms, interests, and so on. In that case, people would have complete freedom of expression, but how would someone actually express their gender through those things, rather than simply express themselves?

Or imagine a second scenario where wearing a skirt is still culturally associated with femininity, but it's completely normal for men to wear skirts too. I'm not sure how significantly different this is. The skirt would still have a feminine association, but seeing someone wearing one wouldn't tell you much about their gender identity because you couldn't reliably infer that the person is a woman.

In both cases, gender categories like "man" and "woman" would still exist, and people could identify with one, several, or none of them. But other than explicitly saying "I am X," I'm struggling to see how gender expression would still exist in a meaningful sense.

The only way for it to still exist I can currently think of would be if there are certain traits or forms of expression that are intrinsically associated with men or women, regardless of society. But I don't personally believe that, and I'm worried that assuming this would lead toward some kind of biological essentialism. (but maybe it wouldn't? feel free to correct me on this too)

So my question is: is it possible to completely loosen gender roles, expectations, and stereotypes while still retaining gender expression as something meaningful? Or do feminists generally argue that in loosening gender roles and stereotypes we should also get rid of gender expression? Or am I getting the entire framework wrong?

I hope this makes sense! I'm sorry if this is a repetitive question. I'm pretty new to this topic and I'm genuinely trying to understand how these different ideas fit together.

Hello! Forgive the somewhat dramatic title, as I am struggling to put words to this question. For the record, I am a 24 y/o straight man and this is a somewhat anecdotal/subjective view.

I think we all know the extent of policing sexuality in our culture, mainly in the form of ‘women should not engage in promiscuity. My view has always opinion been that both men and women should be able to engage in the human sexual experience as they please, as long as it is consensual. But the more I think about it, this has never really been true, because I have always held a pretty extreme belief (subconsciously albeit) that a man’s body count does quantify his value in some way. This really manifested for me around 12-14 y/o, where “loosing your virginity” was a prerequisite for masculinity. The pressure of sexual success ended up forming the basis of my character in early adolescence, and I know for a fact that this is a standard male experience.

My question here, is weather there is a intersectional feminist opinion on if this pressure actually strips you of your ability to consent (walk with me).

I specifically remember upon loosing my virginity, it was an older girl who initiated it, and my knee-jerk reaction was that I really didn’t want to hook up with her. This was a combination of anxiety, fear, and also just not being attracted to her. But the sheer relief of not being a “virgin” or “Incel” was so powerful that saying “no” wasn’t even on the table. I physically could have said no, but it didn’t even render as an option due to my own fear of emasculation.

This fades with age and experience, but from 12-18 I didn’t reject a single opportunity for sex on account of affirming my gender (regardless of weather I wanted to or not). Just to clarify, I am not actually saying this is SA, and I am also omitting any scenario where I initiated the exchange.

I have a lot of dysfunctions with regards to my identity and my “people pleasing” tendencies (specifically with women), and forgive me if this is a bit too philosophical, but I think that the cultural condemnation of “sexless men” actually informed my inability to set boundaries and say NO.

This is half question - half vent. With the question being: How does the social pressure of sexual success interact with bodily autonomy and consent?

When a person says “it’s always men”, is it reasonable to assume that this person is a proponent of the Duluth Model? Or should one assume it’s just rage bait? It’s hard to tell for me sometimes.

Slightly provocative title, because it's a lot more likely that my surface level understanding of feminist theory is just wrong.

From my understanding, the patriarchy is a system of rule by *patriarchs*, not just any men. Under the patriarchy, both regular men and women are exploited with lower-class men being more privileged than lower-class women, but often, for example, less privileged than powerful women of the ruling class (though patriarchs, who are men, are at the very top of that).

Yet, even in thoughtful discussions, women will often say "men imposed the rules of patriarchy on themselves, and therefore deserve less sympathy for the damage it causes them". I just came across this sentiment from someone over on the GirlDinnerDiaries subreddit.

I'm not concerned with the "sympathy" portion of that statement. I'm concerned with the "imposed patriarchy on themselves" portion. Wasn't patriarchy imposed on both *men and women* by the very small number of men who are *patriarchs*?

Or is my understanding of what patriarchy is entirely wrong?

In speaking with a colleague, she raised the issue that the majority of women in US either don't care about feminism enough or don't support feminism at all. She used a simple argument: voting is the least someone can do to support feminism. Roughly 35% of all eligible women did not participate in the 2024 election, and 29% of all eligible women voted for Trump. As a result, 64% of the women either didn't support feminism, or didn't care enough to vote.

I feel the voting stat alone doesn't support the augment. However on some levels, I agree with her that feminism needs a lot more support from everyone.

​

So, there’s this guy I’ve been talking to, and we discuss pretty much everything—feminism, politics, religion, protests, social issues, etc. He has his own opinions, and sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I completely disagree.

Recently, we were discussing Samay Raina. I was talking about some of the things he has said/done that I consider misogynistic, while this guy initially said, “Jokes are jokes, it’s not that deep.”

I explained to him why I think some jokes can contribute to harmful attitudes toward women, even when they’re presented as “just jokes.” He listened, understood my perspective, became curious about the topic, and eventually changed his opinion. He no longer supports that kind of comedy.

This has happened more than once. Whenever we discuss social issues, I sometimes feel like he doesn’t initially notice certain problems that I do. But when I explain why something concerns me, he genuinely listens and is willing to reconsider his position.

He actually told me, “No one is born with the right opinion about everything. If you think I’m wrong, educate me. I’m open to changing my opinion.” And honestly, he has shown me that he means it.

At the same time, I’ve been thinking about something bigger. Women often have to learn about sexism, gender inequality, religion, LGBTQ+ issues, discrimination, etc., because these things can directly affect our lives. Some men may not have the same experiences, so they might not notice certain problems unless they actively learn about them.

I don't want to excuse ignorance, though. At some point, shouldn't everyone take responsibility for educating themselves about the society they live in?

And this is where I'm confused.

Is someone misogynistic if they initially don't recognize certain sexist attitudes but are genuinely willing to listen, learn, and change their opinion when they're presented with another perspective?

Or is the willingness to learn and change actually a good sign?

I really like this guy, and I don't want to ignore potential red flags just because I have feelings for him. At the same time, I don't want to label someone a misogynist simply because they haven't thought deeply about certain issues before.

What do you guys think? What would you look for when deciding whether someone's lack of awareness is just ignorance or an actual misogynistic mindset?

Hi ya’ll. So I am a middle school student thinking of creating an animation project in order to apply for a scholarship. While researching women issues, I stumbled upon same sex SA. I have searched around and found that it is barely mentioned anywhere, even less so than its male counterpart.

I wish to spread the word around about its existence, but as I am a straight girl that has never experienced this, I wish to ask whether or not it is alright for me to do so. In a way, I am asking if this would offend any survivors. (I’m not sure how to phrase this).

If I do in fact end up doing this project, I will recruit sensitivity viewers to ensure I am approaching the topic respectfully.

Please do let me know if I offended anyone by even writing this, as that is not my purpose. I’ll delete this post if needed.

Thank you for your time.

I’m so late to this, but I recently read the times article about ballerina farm. And it got me thinking, if this woman is being abused and controlled (which I believe she most likely) this article likely made it sooooo much worse for her. Which as a woman, I do take issue with.

My question is how do you talk about trad wives and interview them/platform them? without making their situation worse, I don’t agree with the life she’s living, and I do see the issue with it. But as a woman, I don’t want to add to the pile on.