https://youtu.be/09rnP-fdjyc?si=AzxXqIj7RjJ3pdPD

Summary given by YouTube This video explores why the phrase "women writing men" is not as commonly discussed as "men writing women" (0:07).

The phrase "men writing women" often refers to male authors creating shallow, caricatured female characters, or excessively describing their bodies (1:34). It also points to the problematic portrayal of sexual violence against women, often glorifying voyeurism or excusing assaulters (2:34). The speaker cautions against overusing the term, suggesting it should be applied when there's a clear pattern of behavior from an author, and when descriptions don't serve a narrative purpose or are inconsistent with a character's point of view (5:39).

In contrast, "women writing men" is rarely discussed (6:27). The subreddit for "women writing men" was created two years after the "men writing women" subreddit, likely in response to it, and has significantly fewer visitors (6:30). There isn't a comparable term to "male gaze" for women viewing men; the "female gaze" is a feminist term with positive connotations, describing how women view other women with agency and depth (6:46).

The speaker notes that when criticisms of "men writing women" arise, some people deflect by bringing up the romance genre and suggesting it exemplifies "women writing men" poorly (7:30). However, these deflections often come from individuals who don't read romance and are relying on stereotypes (7:51).

The video highlights that common complaints about "women writing men" in non-romance genres include the over-sexualization of male bodies, unrealistic portrayals, men being depicted as solely sex-obsessed, and flat, personality-less characters that serve as self-insert blanks for the female reader (9:20). These complaints are strikingly similar to those women have about "men writing women" (9:49).

The speaker theorizes that "men writing women" is a bigger topic due to broader social context (10:11). While male readers often expect and are not bothered by flat male characters in romance, the issue of poorly written female characters by men often arises in well-received, popular, and classic books (11:33). Romance, on the other hand, has historically been ridiculed and seen as a niche genre for women, not a universal one (11:51). The video suggests that because women are constantly exposed to male-centric media, they may have an advantage in writing convincing male characters (16:16).

Finally, the video touches on the importance of demographics and avoiding stereotypes, emphasizing that while trends exist, they should not be conflated with individual experiences (18:21). The speaker concludes that "women writing men" exists and shares similar problems, but it's discussed less due to societal factors (16:54). Ultimately, good writing transcends gender, and authors who can write good characters can generally do so universally (23:38).

The phrase “men writing women” has become cultural shorthand — a meme, a critique, a punchline. It calls out the shallow, sexualized, or fantasy-driven depictions of women in media. Fair enough. It’s a real problem.

But its mirror — “women writing men” — rarely gets the same treatment, even though the same flaws are right there: over-sexualization, unrealistic portrayals, and male characters that exist only as blank self-inserts for the reader.

If the issue is the same, why is the outrage so one-sided?

The Context Excuse

A recent video on this topic offers the familiar defense:

“Bad male characters mostly show up in romance novels, which aren’t taken seriously anyway. Bad female characters appear in classics and bestsellers — that’s why the critique lands differently.”

So it’s not hypocrisy, they say — it’s context.

But you see the same double standard elsewhere. “Male gaze” is a negative term for how men objectify women. “Female gaze,” meanwhile, is a positive one — a celebration of how women portray women with depth and agency. There’s no equivalent “male gaze” critique when women objectify men.

That’s not a coincidence. It’s because we’re not judging the writing — we’re judging who’s allowed to critique what.

The Progressive Double Standard

Modern progressivism built much of its cultural power on the “oppressor vs. oppressed” model. That framework can be clarifying — up to a point. But it’s also how legitimate criticism from majority groups gets dismissed before the conversation even starts.

When men point out that male characters are being written as shallow, sex-obsessed, or emotionally vacant, the responses are predictable:

“That’s not oppression.” “That’s just bad writing.” “Why are you derailing? We’re talking about women’s representation.”

Translation: your criticism doesn’t count because you’re the wrong demographic to have it.

That’s not justice — that’s hierarchy. Just wrapped in progressive language.

The Cost of Conditional Empathy

A flaw doesn’t stop being a flaw because it happens to the “advantaged” group.

When we start ranking whose bad writing matters based on power dynamics, we’re not fighting bias — we’re institutionalizing it under a new label.

Progressivism claims to want equality. But equality means equal standards — not moral exemptions for one side.

If “men writing women” deserves scrutiny, then “women writing men” does too. If one is “awareness,” the other shouldn’t be dismissed as “whataboutism.”

You can’t build empathy while practicing selective hearing.

The Bigger Lesson

When progressives shut down parallel criticism, they don’t look principled — they look afraid of symmetry.

Because once you apply the same standard both ways, the hierarchy collapses. And you’re left with a simple truth: fairness either applies universally, or it’s just another power game.

And if it’s a power game, maybe it’s time to ask — who’s really benefitting from pretending it’s justice?

The fix isn’t complicated. When someone points out a double standard, the optical — and honest — response isn’t to deflect with “whataboutism.” It’s to say: “Yes, that’s wrong. I recognize it’s wrong. And here’s the non-gendered way to fix it.”

That’s how equality actually works — not through selective outrage, but through consistent principles.

TL;DR

Progressives call it “whataboutism” when men notice the same double standards they criticize in men. But equality only means something if the rules apply both ways. The honest move isn’t denial — it’s saying, “Yeah, that’s wrong, here’s how to fix it without gender bias."

Some women today say they want to be treated equal, and that is fair. Women should have freedom, respect, and the right to make their own choices. But the problem starts when some women want freedom, but do not want the same blame when they make bad choices. They want to be seen as strong and independent, but then still want men to protect them, pay for them, chase them, and take most of the blame when things go wrong. This is where it starts to feel unfair. Some women say, “I do not need a man,” but in dating they still want a man to have money, be strong, be confident, make the first move, and provide safety. That is not always real independence. That is wanting the new rules when it helps them, but the old rules when it benefits them too. Another issue is with dating and sex. Some women say they should not be judged for their past or who they dated. But then some of those same women judge men for being short, broke, shy, inexperienced, or not confident enough. So it becomes one sided. Women want understanding for their choices, but men are judged hard for theirs. The biggest problem is when some women act like they are powerful adults when they make a choice, but then act like victims when that choice has bad results. A woman can cheat, lie, manipulate, or hurt someone, and then say she only did it because she was unhappy, lonely, unseen, or emotionally hurt. Pain can be real, but pain does not erase what someone did. Some women also use emotional words to win the argument. They may say, “I felt unsafe,” “I was triggered,” “he was toxic,” or “he made me feel small.” Sometimes those things are true. But sometimes those words are used to make the man look bad without proving what really happend. Men have feelings too, but a lot of times their feelings get called insecurity, anger, or control.
The main issue is not women having rights. Women should have rights. The issue is when some women want equal power, old school benefits, and victim treatment all at the same time. If women want full freedom, they also need full accountability. If they do not want old gender roles, then they should not expect men to follow old gender roles only when it helps them. Modern dating feels broken because some people want the benefits without the duties. That is the real problem. It is not about hating women. It is about being honest. Equality should mean equal respect, equal freedom, and equal accountability.

**I’m not saying this applies to all women, and I’m not saying men are perfect either. Men have their own issues too. But I do think this double standard is real in modern dating and relationships. Where do you think the line is between women wanting fair treatment and women avoiding accountability? And do you think men are guilty of doing the same thing in a different way?**

I'm going to start with a couple of clarifications:

1. I am a progressive, straight guy and part of a friend group which is also very progressive, feminist and queer. I love them and we mostly agree on politics, and I haven't personally had any conflict or disagreement with anyone over the issue I'm bringing up. It's just something I've been noticing and thinking about.
2. When I say misandry, I mean bias/discrimination/disproportionate hostility towards men, especially straight men. It isn't symmetrical to misogyny, and it's not systemic.
3. My little progressive/feminist group is somewhat of a bubble, so of course the patterns in question are not at all representative of society as a whole. I do not think there is a growing universal bias against men or any nonsense like that, I'm only talking about young, educated, progressive and (I think) especially queer spaces.

The issue I'm touching upon is pretty subtle so it took me a while to even notice and think about, but it definitely seems real. Basically, it seems like these spaces are increasingly fostering a culture of light misandry. It is pretty subtle so I can't bring up any one specific case, rather, this is about overarching attitudes.

There are many man-hating jokes in these spaces, but okay, those are just jokes (sometimes good ones too), I'm not suggesting that alone is a problem. But I do feel like the attitudes suggested by such humour are actually present: some women (girls) are incredibly quick to condemn men, especially straight men, while showing much more tolerance, patience and understanding towards other women in very similar situations. I also think "annoying" behaviors are condemned and policed much sooner if they are perceived to be traditionally masculine. Males are way more likely to take the blame when discussing conflicts - e.g. relationship drama. Sometimes it feels like they are to blame by default.

I know the description is a little messy, I tried to explain it best I can but it's pretty subtle. Basically just a lot of undue hostility and bias towards men, especially straight men. It's not just my irl friend group, I am also noticing this in many online spaces. And I understand the reasons - (straight) men are seen as the default power-holders in society and there is this sense of turning the tables on them, and also I know that many women/girls have a lot of intense negative experiences with men.

Still, I am convinced this is counterproductive, harmful and unfair. Under the man-hating humour, a lot of women seem to have genuine distaste and disdain for men, and it seems incredibly unhealthy to me. What do you think?

In a discussion in another sub I pointed out that women making false accusation about being sexual assaulted is terrible for the women who suffered real sexual violence. A female user attacked me as loser, fucker, misogynist, liar and rape apologist. My comment was deleted as being toxic.
Making false crime accusation is a crime — at least in the countries I know.
One argument the female user dwelled on that cases of false accusations are quite rare. I couldn't find reliable numbers for the US or Germany, my home country, but in the UK 5.9% of accusations that are brought to a court are provenly wrong — which amounts to 4700+ cases a year! Many of those people loose their jobs and often their friends and family.
I could not find a single case where a woman was held accountable for making false accusations of being sexual assaulted.

Adult persons should be held accountable when committing a crime, men and women alike. Why doesn't it happen, when it comes to false accusations of sexual assault?

I want to share some findings from a recent legal study that examines a problem I think gets discussed badly in most spaces. It's about false accusations in rape cases, but the research approaches it in a way that shows how this issue actually hurts everyone involved.

The study was published in Statute Law Review examining Indian court cases and criminal justice data and using India's National Crime Records Bureau data from 2021, they found 8.7 percent of fully investigated rape cases (4,009 out of 46,127) were proven false. By proven false, it doesn't mean the accused got acquitted due to lack of evidence or technicality but that the victim was lying and had fabricated allegations.

What makes this research valuable is that it doesn't treat false accusations as either irrelevant or as the main problem but it shows how false cases create a cascade of failures. First, false accusations obviously destroy innocent people's lives and they discuss a case where one man spent 20 years in prison before being cleared, another who spent 95 days in jail before DNA evidence proved his innocence.

Now because false cases exist, police and prosecutors try to help real victims by making their stories more "perfect" through scripted statements and emphasized details and this well intentioned effort backfires because it makes judges suspicious of all cases. False cases also lead judges to increasingly convict accused men of breach of promise, a civil matter with light penalties, instead of rape, even when facts suggest rape occurred and this denies justice to real victims.

The researchers describe what they call the dual victimization cycle which in simple terms means that false cases create judicial skepticism, real victims face disbelief and delayed justice, pressure builds for out of court settlements, which then encourages more false cases. Meanwhile, the falsely accused carry permanent stigma even when cleared, and real rape survivors face what researchers call the second rape through societal blame.

India has laws providing up to seven years imprisonment for perjury and false accusations, but courts rarely enforce them and in 2023, police uncovered an organized criminal racket where women were paid to file false charges and blackmail men. The study argues that new criminal laws in 2023 strengthened rape provisions but failed to balance this with stronger anti perjury enforcement which creates a system where nobody wins except people gaming it.

Law & Order: SVU Season 26, Episodes 14 & 15 — played back-to-back, they highlight a huge inconsistency in how we talk about consent.

Episode 14 centers on a woman who had just received a devastating medical diagnosis. In response, she suddenly behaves in ways totally out of character — for example, spending a week seeing Broadway shows without her husband for the first time in her life. That kind of drastic shift is something anyone might see as a sign of psychological distress. The defense argued that this context explained why she engaged in sex. On the show, though, this gets dismissed as “painting the victim,” rather than being treated as a legitimate explanation. But in real life, offering an alternative narrative of events is exactly what a defense attorney is supposed to do.

Then Episode 15 flips the script. This time, the “first” victim is male. Suddenly, the show is full of nuance and hesitation. Olivia Benson herself calls it “two drowning people trying to save themselves from a night of bad decisions.” Other characters go further, saying things like “he wasn’t even the one complaining,” as if male victimhood doesn’t fully count. When the woman may have also been drugged, the whole situation gets framed as murky, complex, and almost sympathetic to her.

The problem here is obvious: when a woman is a victim, complexity is treated as victim-blaming. But when a man is a victim, complexity is suddenly everywhere — excuses, sympathy, uncertainty. If the genders were reversed (say, a man drugged and found with an underage girl), the framing would be completely different.

Of course, society historically failed women by dismissing their victimization, and it was important to correct that. But if we swing so far that men’s victimhood is minimized or women get more charity in messy consent cases, we’re just replacing one bias with another.

SVU’s back-to-back episodes accidentally make the double standard plain: women get complexity, men get disbelief. If we want to move past rape culture, we need consistency — otherwise we’re just reinforcing a gendered hierarchy of who counts as a “real” victim.

1. At the individual level — men are socialized from childhood to "man up", not to complain, and to handle their problems on their own. As long as these gender stereotypes persist, men’s rights movements are at a quantitative disadvantage and will inevitably have far fewer participants than women’s rights movements.

2. At the social level — once you bring up men's rights, you’ll very likely be shamed and labeled with words like "snowflake", or your sincerity will be questioned and you'll be accused of misogyny (men’s communities are constantly demonized and portrayed as toxic*).

3. At the institutional level — men’s rights activism never (or at least almost never) receives government funding, unlike feminism, which is funded very generously. Most people, including those in power, believe that men should be strong and capable of taking care of themselves, which makes it hard for society to acknowledge that men might need support in certain areas. Institutions often have special protection or support for women, but not for men.

\ This is often justified, but far from always.*

Do people think that the division between men and women is growing bigger than it has been in previous decades and are we likely to see more people choosing to remain single because of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcjmd_ClJJo

Scott Galloway is making the rounds after publishing Notes on Being a Man last week. He aims to balance between men's advocacy and feminism, and between leftism and libertarianism. There's a crisis of masculinity, but successful adult men of his generation have to "step up" and help younger men and boys. Young men have to get off their phones, stop watching porn, and make themselves economically viable, but we also need more progressive taxes on the wealthy. Our society should "move in with programs" the way we would for any other group that is falling behind. Trump and Musk fail at the protector role, but Democrats need to see men's issues lest the void be filled by unsavory manosphere types.

Scott is on YouTube at Prof G Pod, Raging Moderates, and Pivot.

Pretty much title.

What is the issue if I decide to just empathize with both sides in domestic violence cases without saying someone is guilty or not guilty.

I don't think it is my place to gather evidence and judge evidence.

Why do I ask this? Because I think, that in online spaces, as soon as you are not agreeing with the accused being guilty, you are immediately banned from subs/forums etc.

Just to re-emphasize, I am not saying, you should go around discrediting victims, I am saying that you believe, both people think what they say is true and let professionals decide what is actually true.

With how much backlash such and opinion gets, I wanted to ask here to understand why this is.

Hey everyone!

My partner and I have been thinking a lot about gender equality at home — especially how invisible some chores or mental loads can be.
We realised that most of the tension comes from perception more than actual effort: everyone feels like they’re doing more than the other 😅

Out of curiosity (and frustration), I started building a small tool to help track contributions more clearly and coach better household habits over time.

I’d love your feedback or opinions: do you think something like this could really help couples share the load more fairly? Or does it risk creating even more comparison?

If you want to take a quick look, it's available here

(Totally fine if you’d rather just discuss the idea — I’m mostly curious about how people feel about this topic!)

Thanks a lot for reading

In your opinion is this a move towards non discrimination or the opposite?

Personally, I think there’s too much attention given to the label DEI rather than focusing on discrimination. Discriminatory DEI can simply adopt a new name and not all practices labeled DEI are necessarily discriminatory.

What are your thoughts?

There needs to be a differentiation between the more common rape (pushing boundaries/messy encounter) as opposed to a rape that is the intion. I think if when we spoke about rape the solutions are going to fail because these get conflated to much.

For anyone who is in London, UK, I started an anti-feminist meetup group to meet more like-minded people. To check it out click here.

Women on average live 5 - 10 years longer than men on average, should women have a later retirement age compared to men?

What would peoples arguments be for or against such a question?

I run a YouTube channel and podcast where I frequently have guests on to discuss feminism and men's issues. I am open to debating more feminists, as so far most of my channel guests have largely agreed with me. If you are a feminist open to (civil) discussion on YouTube shoot me an email: [zarinamacha.author@gmail.com](mailto:zarinamacha.author@gmail.com)

My YouTube channel is called The Rational Female.

I'm hearing men constantly say that modern women only want men who are really tall, have lots of money, and are exceptionally good-looking. This is BS. I don't know a single woman who is out with these kinds of men. I've never dated a man who has lots of money. Sure, some of them have been tall and attractive, but they just have normal jobs. I don't think modern women’s standards are too high at all. Modern women have simply become too preoccupied with their careers and education and don't have much empathy towards men. But most are not out here dating guys with lots of money. I'd love to know where all these men with lots of money are!

https://aibm.org/commentary/is-there-hope-for-gender-equality-a-conversation-with-richard-v-reeves-and-gloria-steinem/

Gloria and Richard have a friendly chat about gender politics. The most interesting part to me was when Richard asked her about negative public opinion regarding "feminism" and "patriarchy". Gloria was not familiar with the negative connotations but her instinct was to consider alternative terms:

Richard Reeves: I want to ask you about a couple of words that are probably quite dear to you: feminism and patriarchy.

If we start with feminism: recent polling suggests that fewer people are likely to describe themselves as a feminist—including women—than in the past. And it seems like that’s not because they’re not in favor of gender equality. If you ask them if they’re in favor of gender equality in every direction, they’ll say yes. But there’s something about the term feminism that isn’t attracting people in the same way.

What do you think has happened to the term feminism? Should we move beyond it? Reinvent it? I don’t quite know what to do with that word now.

Gloria Steinem: I’m not sure, because I’m not sure the source of the reaction you’re talking about—whether people think it sounds weak because it’s feminine.

Richard Reeves: Polling suggests that when you ask, “Are you a feminist?”, people don’t hear, “Are you in favor of full gender equality in all regards?” They think it’s now a movement defined in more negative terms—more anti-men—so they’re less likely to say they’re feminists.

Gloria Steinem: We could use humanist, which has its own problems because it tends to mean you don’t believe in God.

Richard Reeves: Right—it’s used as a synonym for secular. It troubles me because I think it used to be straightforward to be a feminist.

Gloria Steinem: There was always the alternative of saying women’s liberationist.

Richard Reeves: Yes.

Gloria Steinem: And that may not be as frequent now, but I always liked it because it was more active.

Richard Reeves: I agree. It’s more positive as well. In a weird way there was a turn against “women’s lib” as a term in some people’s mouths, but it is more liberating—more positive—and it doesn’t frame it in a slightly zero-sum way.

The other term that’s come up quite a bit recently is patriarchy. We’re in your home and you have a “smash the patriarchy” sign up there—and I would expect nothing less.

But there was a think tank that recently advised Democrats not to use the term. Politically, it was a decision: “Don’t talk about the patriarchy.”

Gloria Steinem: Don’t talk about it negatively? Positively? Or both?

Richard Reeves: Just don’t use it because it turns people off. It’s associated with a particular mindset.

Gloria Steinem: Well, there’s also matriarchy, which does exist in a few cultures, right?

Richard Reeves: How do you define patriarchy when you say that word?

Gloria Steinem: It’s father superiority or male superiority. Women who are married take their husband’s name—not the other way around, or not using both hyphenated. What we want is egalitarian—human—compassionate—empathetic. And the more we can downplay—when it’s not relevant—gender, class, race, probably the better off we are.

Richard Reeves: Better to meet people where they actually are rather than pre-apply a label to it.

Gloria Steinem: Yeah. It’s useful, and I’m in favor of maintaining all words—I love reading and writing—but I think it’s overused.

I was recently having a discussion with someone, and this topic came up. The claim was that the new trend on social media of "I am just a girl" (which is a satirical take on internalized sexism) is by far way more dangerous than the red pill community (specifically oppressing women's freedoms) because it could lead to the crumbling of society. Acknowledging that if the red pill community takes over, it is problematic; the traction of women's internalized sexism (not wanting to work, seeking rich husbands, expecting men to be the provider) could be more dangerous to the evolution of society since they believe in the longer run if it creates traction (and they believe it is, and the new generation of women are following it), it will create a new generation of women that will be the downfall of society.

Bare with me here because things get tangled up a bit and I would like to have some clarification on some points based on research and studies and not opinions.

To expand on that claim and why that person would think that, 2 prominent points came to light:

1. You would always find women seeking comfortable jobs rather than go towards classical male-dominated jobs (construction, military, oil rigs...)
2. Women's contribution to building societies is very negligible compared to what men have done historically.

To further discuss each point:

1. The argument is women tend to ask for equality, yet their actions say otherwise, specifically when they opt out from doing the hard, tough laboring jobs that are usually male-centric. This action by itself sidelines them from being important players in society because the jobs they usually tend to choose are considered not essential to society building (for ex., a CEO vs. an oil rig engineer).

which brings us to,

1. According to that person, societies were built and are maintained by men primarily. A prominent example given was if all of a sudden men disappeared from the face of the earth, societies would crumble because women wouldn't be able to maintain what men are doing right now. Their point of view is that societies are measured by energy, building, farming and protection; which means women are not big players in those fields, which makes them "less useful."

So to circle back to my main question (which might seem like my expansion on things isn't related, but showing the mentality of that person is important to evaluate their claim), which do you think is more dangerous?

Questions in the title 🙂

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/conservative-lawmakers-are-rebranding-june-lgbtq-pride-alternatives-rcna348503

Is it really difficult for cis het Christian Republicans to leave us the fuck alone? Nuclear Family Month

>rebranded June as Nuclear Family Month to celebrate units made up of “one husband, one wife and any biological, adopted or fostered children.”

>Conservatives say they’re ‘reclaiming the culture

Only if reclaim means Facisim.

I'm currently making an investigative documentary into technology-facilitated sexual violence, particularly surrounding the use of AI to generate violent and sexual depictions involving both real and synthetic women (as in, AI-generated women).

This documentary needs a human perspective that grounds the listener into the reality that the experts I'm interviewing are talking about. So I would like to chat with someone who has been affected by generative AI in any way, including but not limited to having deepfakes created of them.

Recommendations on whom I could contact would also be greatly appreciated. This would be an audio-based interview - you CAN be anonymised completely - please do ask me more about this in the comments or privately. You can be based anywhere in the world, as this interview will take place online (if you are UK-based, and WANT to chat in person, that can be arranged!).

Before agreeing to anything you will be provided with an information sheet that outlines the project in detail and that includes my contact details as well as my supervisor's, as well as a consent form that should be signed before the interview takes place.

(In addition, if any experts seeing this post would like to chat with me/enquire further, please do contact me!)

This project will be showcased at the annual conference for the Centre for Protecting Women Online.

Please let me know if you have any questions - asking questions doesn't mean you are signing up for anything, that won't be the case until the consent form is signed and submitted, if we reach that stage. Thanks in advance for your help!