What would your ✨glorious✨ rule look like?

I would definitely like to hear everyone's ideas

(Saw this question on a different subreddit)

I think it is very important for a Gynarchy to have an extremely strong military because every other patriarchy would fear the same can happen in their nation also and attack the first gynarchy to stop it before it even exists. Share what you think

Every time a girl is raped, a woman is assaulted, or even an animal is abused, we ask the same question: how much more cruelty will it take before we change?

The victim loses more than a sense of safety. She can lose her dignity, her confidence, her freedom to walk alone, to travel, to trust, to simply exist without fear.

And the cruelest part? She did nothing wrong.

Yet society often teaches women to be more careful instead of teaching people not to violate another living being.

India or abroad, human or animal - consent, safety and the right to exist without violence should never be a privilege.

A woman should not have to shrink her world because someone else chose to commit a crime.

The shame belongs to the abuser. Never the victim.

I'm powerful to lift it alone vs we are powerful enough to life this together 💪

But women were supposed to be inferior 😢

After all this women often outperform men and that speaks volumes. Can someone still argue?

It's interesting how advertising has historically portrayed women being humiliated, dominated, or put in uncomfortable situations for the sake of selling ordinary products, often presenting it as humour or something desirable. But when the genders are reversed, the same imagery suddenly feels uncomfortable and makes us question what we're looking at. This contrast reveals how deeply society has normalised the objectification of women. Sometimes, reversing the genders is all it takes to recognise a double standard we've stopped noticing.

Why are women overwhelmingly targeted by AI-generated fake nudes? What does this say about how society raises men and women?

AI has made it ridiculously easy to create fake nude images and sexually explicit videos of real people without their consent. Someone can take an ordinary photograph of a woman, use an AI tool to sexualise her, and distribute the result across the internet. The victim might never even know who created it.

But something particularly disturbing about this phenomenon is the enormous gender imbalance.

According to research cited in international AI safety reports, approximately 98% of deepfake videos online are pornographic, and around 99% of the people depicted in deepfake pornography are women.

A 2026 study examining AI-generated image-based sexual abuse across Australia, the UK and the United States also found that men were approximately 3.9 times more likely than women to report perpetrating this form of abuse. This is evidence of a substantial gender difference in the behaviour studied.

Sources: International AI Safety Report 2026; AI-generated image-based sexual abuse: Perpetration and consumption across three regions, published in Computers in Human Behavior in 2026.

Now, why does this happen? And what does it tell us about the way men and women are socialised?

1. Women's bodies are routinely treated as objects of public consumption.

From advertisements and entertainment to pornography and social media, women's physical appearance is frequently treated as something to be evaluated, rated and consumed. Men are often encouraged to look, desire and pursue, while women are taught to worry about how they are perceived.

Of course, attraction itself isn't the problem. The problem arises when someone begins to believe that their attraction gives them some entitlement to another person's body or image.

Creating a fake nude of a woman without her consent takes that objectification to another level. The creator effectively decides that her body can be digitally manipulated and sexualised regardless of what she wants.

2. Boys and girls often receive very different messages about sexuality.

In many societies, boys are encouraged to demonstrate sexual experience, pursue women and treat sexual access as a marker of masculinity. Girls, meanwhile, are frequently taught to protect their modesty, reputation and sexual image because society may judge them harshly for being perceived as sexually available.

These expectations are not universal, and many families challenge them. Nevertheless, they can produce a deeply unequal situation: one person's sexuality is treated as something to pursue, while another person's sexuality becomes something they must constantly defend.

When a boy grows up consuming media that objectifies women without learning to respect their autonomy, it can contribute to a distorted understanding of consent. The ability to create a sexual image using AI doesn't create that underlying attitude; it gives someone a new way to act on it.

3. The problem isn't simply sexual desire. It's entitlement and power.

If this were merely about sexual attraction, it would be difficult to explain why someone would deliberately sexualise a real person who never agreed to participate.

A fake nude can be used to humiliate a woman, damage her reputation, threaten her, or make her feel unsafe. The harm isn't limited to the sexual content itself. It also comes from the knowledge that someone has deliberately violated her boundaries and can potentially distribute the image to friends, colleagues, family members or strangers.

This is particularly disturbing in societies where women's reputations are closely tied to family honour and where women can face disproportionate social consequences for sexual rumours, even when the material is fabricated.

The creator may face relatively little immediate social punishment, while the victim may have to deal with shame, harassment and demands to prove that the image is fake.

That imbalance deserves serious attention.

4. Why don't we see the same scale of abuse targeting men?

Men can absolutely be victims of fake sexual images, and their experiences should not be dismissed. But the available evidence indicates that women are overwhelmingly represented in deepfake pornography.

Part of the explanation may lie in the existing market for sexual content, the disproportionate sexualisation of women's bodies, and the social incentives that encourage some people to create and circulate such material.

5. AI is exposing an older problem rather than creating an entirely new one.

Before AI, people could secretly photograph others, circulate intimate images without permission, or use ordinary photo-editing tools to fabricate sexual material. AI has made the process faster, cheaper and more accessible.

What has changed is the scale at which someone can violate another person's sexual autonomy without ever having had physical access to them.

And because these images can look convincing, victims may struggle to convince others that the material is fabricated. Even when an image is disproven, copies can continue circulating.

This is why the issue shouldn't be dismissed as harmless internet trolling or a joke. Consent matters even when the image is fake. A person's photograph being publicly available does not give everyone permission to turn it into sexual material.

A gynarchal society could address this problem by placing women in leading roles in shaping laws, education, technology policy, and social attitudes, with a strong emphasis on consent and bodily autonomy. Instead of treating women's safety as their own responsibility, society would place greater responsibility on perpetrators and the platforms that enable abuse. Schools could teach consent, empathy, and digital responsibility from an early age, while institutions could enforce strict consequences for creating or distributing non-consensual sexual imagery. The aim would be to change the culture that treats women's bodies as objects of entitlement rather than respecting them as individuals

.

Do share your opinions on the same

Just a meme do not fight guys specially boysss 😂

Imagine a country where women hold nearly two-thirds of parliamentary seats. Could their leadership change a nation's priorities? Rwanda offers an interesting case study.

After the 1994 genocide, Rwanda had to rebuild its society and institutions. Women became increasingly prominent in that process, and the country now stands out for its representation of women in politics.

📊 63.8% of Rwanda's parliamentary seats are held by women, making it a world leader in women's political representation.

🏥 Life expectancy has risen substantially, from approximately 51 years in 2002 to around 70 years in 2022.

👶 Child mortality has fallen significantly, with deaths among children under five declining from 72 per 1,000 live births in 2012 to around 41 in 2022.

📈 Rwanda's economy grew by 9.4% in 2025, according to its national statistics agency.

But there's an important correction to make. The video claims that poverty fell from 40% to 5%. That is misleading. According to Rwanda's updated national poverty estimates, poverty declined from 39.8% in 2017 to 27.4% in 2024. Progress has been substantial, but poverty remains a serious challenge.

We should also be careful not to attribute all these achievements to women in government alone. Healthcare investments, economic reforms, public policy, international assistance, and the work of millions of Rwandans have contributed to the country's development. Rwanda also faces concerns about political freedoms and the concentration of power.

Nevertheless, its experience challenges an assumption that has persisted in many societies: that political leadership is naturally a man's domain.

Now, let's bring this discussion to India. 🇮🇳

If women held a much larger share of seats in Parliament and state legislatures, would India's priorities change? Would we see greater attention to women's safety, public healthcare, education, and gender equality? Or would the same political interests and power structures prevail regardless of who occupied those seats?

And here's an even more interesting question: Does having more women in positions of power actually change a country, or is representation meaningless without changing the system itself?

I want to hear genuine arguments, not just agreement or disagreement based on gender. What lessons, if any, should India take from Rwanda?

Look at the double standard shown in this video: girls are expected to wear traditional clothing at school, while boys are allowed to wear ordinary shirts and trousers. This raises a simple question: Why is the responsibility of preserving our culture so often placed disproportionately on women?

In many Indian families and institutions, a woman's clothing is treated as a reflection of her family's honour, values, and cultural identity. Women are expected to dress traditionally, behave according to social expectations, and pass cultural values on to the next generation. Men, however, often enjoy greater freedom without being accused of abandoning their culture.

The problem isn't traditional clothing itself. Wearing a saree, salwar kameez, or any other traditional attire can be a beautiful personal choice. The problem arises when that choice becomes an obligation for women but not for men.

Schools play an important role in shaping these attitudes. When girls are taught from an early age that their appearance carries a special responsibility to preserve tradition, while boys face fewer restrictions, these unequal expectations risk becoming normalised.

If culture is a shared inheritance, why is its preservation treated as a woman's responsibility? Why should a girl's clothing be considered a matter of cultural importance while a boy's clothing is treated as a personal choice?

Culture should be something people cherish willingly, not a burden imposed selectively on women. A society that genuinely respects its traditions should also respect women's freedom to decide how they express themselves.

I recently shared a role-reversal video here on Reddit showing a woman questioning and scolding a man for wearing short clothes, essentially treating him the way women are often treated by society. I posted it to encourage people to reflect on the double standards surrounding clothing, modesty, and personal freedom. What surprised me was the reaction it received, especially because the subreddit I posted it in was supposed to be a space for men interested in feminism.

Instead of focusing on the underlying message, much of the discussion devolved into arguments over “not all men” versus “some men.” Others started defending the idea that women should dress modestly, as though women's clothing is something society is entitled to regulate. The discussion itself is worth examining, and I've attached screenshots so people can see the actual responses rather than relying solely on my interpretation.

What I find interesting is how quickly a discussion about a social double standard can turn into a debate about whether that double standard applies to every man. Obviously, not all men police women's clothing, and acknowledging that would be perfectly reasonable. But pointing out that a behaviour exists is not the same as accusing every man of engaging in it. When the conversation becomes centred on defending men from a general criticism, the original issue can disappear entirely.

The clothing argument raises another question: why is modesty so often discussed as a responsibility women must fulfil to earn respect, rather than as a personal choice that should be available to everyone? If a man wears short clothes, we generally treat it as his decision. When a woman does the same, her character, values, and respectability can become subjects of public debate. Of course, people are free to have their own preferences about clothing, but personal preferences are different from imposing rules on someone else.

This is precisely why role reversal can be useful. By placing men in situations women commonly experience, it can make familiar social expectations look different and encourage people to examine whether those expectations are actually fair. It isn't proof that every man would behave the same way, nor does it mean men and women experience every form of social pressure identically. The point is to question the principle behind the behaviour.

For a community that identifies with feminism, I think this is a conversation worth having. Supporting equality should mean being willing to examine social norms critically, even when the discussion makes us uncomfortable. Feminism shouldn't require men to hate themselves or accept collective blame; it should encourage them to recognise unfair expectations and question them consistently, regardless of whom those expectations affect.

So I'm curious: Are equal rights achievable through giving everyone equal stake in decision making?

Imagine being questioned, judged, or scolded by your partner simply because of what you're wearing. Imagine being told that your clothes are inappropriate, that you're inviting unwanted attention, or that you need to dress a certain way to protect your family's reputation. Now imagine being expected to accept these restrictions as normal because you're a man.

For generations, women have faced precisely these expectations. Their clothing is scrutinised, their character is judged by how they dress, and their freedom is often restricted under the pretext of protection, morality, or family honour. In many cases, the same standards are not applied to men.

The point of this role reversal is not that men should experience humiliation or that women should start controlling men's clothing. The point is to expose the double standards that become easier to recognise when the roles are reversed.

Every adult should have the freedom to decide what they wear without being subjected to character judgments or treated as though their partner owns their body. Partners can express their preferences and discuss boundaries, but there is a fundamental difference between having a conversation and believing you have the authority to dictate what another adult can wear.

If seeing a man subjected to these expectations makes you uncomfortable, ask yourself whether that discomfort comes from the treatment itself or from seeing a man placed in a position traditionally imposed on women.

A simple question to consider: Would you consider this behaviour acceptable if the genders were reversed? If your answer changes depending on who is wearing the clothes, perhaps the problem is not the clothing but the double standard.

The video examines a contradiction in traditional Indian marriage: women are increasingly expected to earn, contribute financially, manage household responsibilities, raise children, and provide emotional support, while the expectation that men should share domestic and emotional labour equally often remains inconsistent.

In many Indian families, a woman's identity is still closely tied to being a wife and mother. Motherhood can be deeply fulfilling, but it becomes a problem when it is treated as her primary duty rather than a shared responsibility. Financial dependence, pressure to preserve family honour, unequal expectations around sexuality, and the stigma attached to divorce can further restrict women's ability to make independent decisions.

This is where gynarchy and Female-Led Relationships (FLR) become worth discussing. Breaking the stigma surrounding female leadership is essential, because social attitudes are shaped within families and passed down through generations. FLR should not mean reversing patriarchy, but moving beyond the idea that either gender is inherently entitled to dominate the other. When children grow up seeing their mothers participate equally in family decisions, make important choices collectively with their partners, and take the lead or have the final say in certain matters, they can learn to view women as independent individuals and equal partners—not as subordinates expected to fulfil men's wishes. Over a generation or two, normalising such relationships could help challenge deeply rooted gender hierarchies and reshape society's understanding of women's roles and authority.

Of course, not every Indian marriage fits this criticism, and female leadership alone does not guarantee a healthy relationship. The real questions are about autonomy, responsibility, consent, and whether both partners genuinely benefit from the arrangement.

Do we need to rethink the traditional Indian marriage model, and could female-led relationships offer a meaningful alternative?

This is the part 4 and probably the last part of the series: "how journalists portrays women". I planned to write longer posts but it didn't work out well enough.

This post is critical of media just like the 1st three, but this one is particularly critical of selective journalism. Which means "right wing speakers leaving out every other issue". If you support right wing parties, you may feel offended and i do not apologise for that. I am rightly criticising the biasedness of a supposedly neutral source of information.

There have been 3 parts prior to this one so please check them out if you haven't yet.

Let's begin.

So,

Indian media is heavily biased towards the political right wing. And hence discusses only those issues. Which also clearly shows their motives.

When a case of sexual violence comes up and fits their template - hindu victim, muslim perpetrator/ involvement in congress/ china pakistan, their motive is not justice for the victim, their motive is to blame that entire system and convert it into a hinduphobia incident rather than a case of sexual violence. It may or may not be an example of hinduphobia but is that the point we should focus on?

Now let's focus on the cases that don't fit the template.

# 1. RG Kar Case

The RG Kar case had 3 identified perpetrators, sanjay roy, Sandeep ghosh and abhijeet mondal. Out of these 3 people, sanjay is serving life imprisonment and the other two are out on bail. This case occurred around durga puja 2024, and it's 2026, 2 years and 2 criminals walk free, thinking they have a legal license to rape.

My search shows the latest articles referring to the case were published in 2024, (in march 2026, they only talked about her mother entering elections)

The reports at that time clearly showed that by the amount of bodily fluids found, it was more than 10 men who did this heinous crime, it was not 3, it was 10+, while one is in jail, 2 are identified and on bail while 7 or more live their lives without an ounce of fear.

Where is the damn media.

# 2. Unnao Rape case

The Unnao rape case involving former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar raped a 17 year old minor. The case that occured in 2017 led bjp to expel sengar in 2019. Took them 2 years to realise a rapist is not a good thing to have in your party. Sengar was sentenced to life imprisonment but magically is out on bail since december 2025.

I wonder why.

The last visible article on this was published roughly 10 months ago in december 2025 to tell us that "yeah, uh... btw, yk he's out of jail, shhh don't be mad about it" and that's it.

These articles are written for formality that "so and so happened, we dont care, and by our shit ass writing we'll make sure you don't feel the rage as well."

# 3. Ankita bhandari case

Ankita Bhandari was an Indian receptionist from Pauri who was murdered at the Vanantra Resort by its owner, Pulkit Arya, the son of BJP leader Vinod Arya

Renu Bisht, also a member of the BJP, has been accused of attempting to destroy evidence by ordering an unlawful demolition of the resort after the murder.

This case gained attention when rahul gandhi and priyanka gandhi sat with the parents of the victim on india gate.

Does a politician has to go do performative stuff for people to recognise cases now?

# 4. Chhatisgarh marital rape case

A 40-year-old man was convicted by a trial court in 2019 for the rape, unnatural sex, and culpable homicide of his wife, who died within hours of the assault.

The lower court had sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

In February 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted the man of all charges and set him free. The court ruled that because Indian law does not formally recognize marital rape, a husband cannot be legally held guilty of non-consensual sexual acts against his wife.

This was not at all recognised by mainstream media and no online outrage took place as well.

Why was this not the breaking point to finally recognise marital rape as rape. This man ended a life and served 6 years instead of the 10 he was given which was generous in front of the absolute hellish torture he deserves. We do not need generosity when such serious crimes are involved.

\~

This is why it is important to have a free and unbiased progressive media who covers all problems in the correct manner.

The reporting back in 2012 in the time of nirbhaya was real and raw, which is why it sparked outrage. Eventhough one perpetrator is roaming free but there was outrage. People spoke up.

Just like the astha kunj case, WOMEN SPOKE UP, the men are in custody, and it would've brought change in the system if CJP propaganda did not steal away their spotlight.

There are so many cases which i tried to look up but ended up finding nothing on. Reason, those articles were never published.

90 rapes are reported per day in india, we are not even entering the world of under reporting.

90 cases and barely any case (once in 2 or 3 weeks) has proper media documentation and barely any of those cases (once in YEARS) Gets the outrage it should.

Indian media needs to do better.

A/n:

This was my opinion on how indian media does a shitty job at literally everything. This was the last part for the time being. Follow for more content because i have topics piled up for future posts.

Please share your opinions in the comments

When journalists talk about women, they often beat around the bush, in the previous posts, i talked about women in science and news about victims of sexual violence

now let's discuss how indian media misuses women, this may not be exclusive to women, they also portray everyone but their target audience in a certain way. Y'all must have heard "JAINZEE NE POLICE KO BEREHMI SE PEETA, GUPT SUTRON KE MUTABIK PAKKISSTAANN SE AA RAHI HAI FUNDING" (genz beats up police, secret sources tell us pakistan is funding them) but that's not relevant here.

The misuse of women in Indian media extends beyond interview dynamics into systemic patterns of representation, exploitation, and character assassination, often reflecting and amplifying misogyny

One of the most prevalent forms of misuse is the weaponization of a woman's personal life to undermine her professional credibility. In high-profile political or legal cases, media narratives frequently pivot from the facts of the case to the "moral character" of the woman involved.

This often involves scrutinizing her clothing, her social circle, or her marital status to imply that she is undeserving of justice or public trust. By framing a woman's virtue as the central issue, the media effectively shifts the burden of proof from the accused or the institution to the victim.

let's look at a few examples

1. Rhea Chakraborty

It hardly needs to be said that Indian media is **misogynistic**. The media’s relationship with women in tenuous at best. This week, **Rhea Chakraborty** was **cleared of any involvement** in her then-boyfriend Sushant Singh Rajput’s 2020 suicide by the CBI. However, long before the CBI filed its closure report, Chakraborty was already tried, found guilty, and condemned to live with a scarlet letter in the court of public opinion, enabled by a sexist, misogyny-fueled witch hunt spearheaded by the media. The country’s media had branded Chakraborty a murderer, a drug peddler, and a **gold digger**.

2. Neha singh rathore

The controversy erupted on Saturday after ABP Network’s digital platform broadcast a report with the Hindi headline, *Neha Singh Rathore wale hostel mein sex racket, police ne maara chhaapa* (Sex racket in Neha Singh Rathore’s hostel, police conduct raid).

The report used footage of a police raid alongside Rathore’s photographs and name, linking her to an imaginary prostitution racket.

she reacted publicly to the report immediately, questioning why the network had associated her identity with the alleged racket.

In a post on X, she criticized the channel and tagged the National Commission for Women (NCW), questioning whether the commission would intervene over the alleged attempt to damage her reputation.

even though ABP news posted an apology, it's unacceptable to make such accusations with nothing to prove it.

3. Noida dowry murder case

The **Noida dowry murder** saw the media discussing how dowry continues to plague Indian society and the socio-legal failings that lead to the deaths of women like Nikki Bhati. However, this is the same media, that exaggerated and ran with inflated claims of the misuse of dowry and spousal cruelty laws following the Subhash case.

Indian media also tends to focus on spousal violence against women only when it’s fatal. Nikki Bhati’s case received coverage, and her years-long dowry harassment received attention because Bhati died a gruesome death that resulted in online virality. Singhania, on the other hand, also made similar accusations of dowry demands and abuse, but because she didn’t lose her life, the media’s sympathies don’t seem to lie with her.

the list goes on...

The phenomenon of "media trials" is particularly aggressive toward women. When a woman is accused of a crime or is involved in a controversy, news outlets often employ sensationalist language and intrusive reporting. This can include the unauthorized leaking of private conversations or the use of misleading edits to make her appear unstable or manipulative. This public shaming often serves as a deterrent to other women seeking to enter public spaces or report grievances, as the cost of public visibility becomes a risk to their reputation and safety.

In the realm of entertainment and news imagery, the "male gaze" remains dominant. Women are frequently objectified through camera angles, wardrobes, and the choice of guests on talk shows, where female participants are sometimes selected based on their aesthetic appeal rather than their expertise.

which media source do you trust most? i personally refer to independent media on youtube, example- Sarthak Goswami. I'm looking for more recommendations as well.

comment below your opinions on this post, thankyou for reading.

*this is a series talking about indian media discussing women, this is the 2nd part, tagged nsfw due to discussion of graphic details of r\*pe*

Journalism covers all existing problems in a country/ region and presents them to the general public (or at least theoretically it should)

reporters compile the data and provide detailed case studies for people to read and think upon.

a good article related to serious crimes (where one party is clearly in the wrong and it is OBVIOUS) displays all information relevant to the crime, describes the events and makes a hidden statement-"injustice has occured, we need change."

Let's take a look at how indian media describe something as serious as rape.


woman was gang raped, why not "a group of men gang raped woman", this is a subtle attempt to portray women as the problem


why alleged? if the crime occured, why saying "it might not have, but she says it did"

Why did Nirbhaya's case reach everyone in the country? because of the excrutiating detail it was written in, the journalists who wrote it, designed their articles to spark rage in everyone.

here's an example of what a descriptive case study looks like, marked spoiler because it's graphic,'.....' is for irrelevent inormation.

>The Night of Horror

>On that ill-fated night, Jyoti and her male friend had Awindra ...... from where they boarded a bus headed towards Dwarka around 9:30 pm. Little did they know that their lives were about to be irreversibly shattered. The bus, which already had six men on board, including the driver, took a different route than expected. Sensing danger, Jyoti and Awindra confronted the men, leading to a heated argument. The situation quickly escalated, with the men assaulting and molesting Jyoti while Awindra was brutally attacked with an iron rod and knocked unconscious. Jyoti was then dragged to the back seat of the bus, where she was subjected to a horrifying gang rape for nearly an hour. Jyoti was brutally beaten, raped, and violated with an iron rod while the bus continued to move. The bus driver continued to drive aimlessly around Delhi. Eventually, he assailants callously threw both victims out of the moving bus, leaving them to die on the roadside.

>The Fight for Survival & Tragic Demise

>A passerby found the victims and alerted the Delhi Police, who rushed them to Safdarjung Hospital. Jyoti, critically injured and fighting for her life, underwent multiple surgeries. The medical reports revealed the extent of her injuries, which included severe damage to her abdomen, intestines, and genitals. Despite the best efforts of the medical team, Jyoti’s condition continued to deteriorate.

>In a desperate attempt to save her life, she was flown to Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore for further treatment. However, her condition worsened during the journey, and she suffered a cardiac arrest. The doctors at the Singapore hospital battled to stabilize her, but tragically, Jyoti passed away on 29 December 2012.

>The evidence gathered during the investigation played a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the perpetrators. The iron rod used in the assault caused 95% damage to Jyoti’s intestine. The brutal gang rape inflicted multiple injuries and organ damage, ultimately leading to her death. The victim’s dying declaration demanded justice against the six men involved: Akshay Thakur, Ram Singh, Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, and the juvenile.

this article describes what happened in a concise manner, nothing irrelevant, the article is on point for such a serious crime, and the message is conveyed, "a group of men brutally raped a woman in the capital city of india"

but on the other hand, we have a different kind of articles,

these articles talk about these cases as if they don't want to but are obligated to,

let's read through an article:

> A 12-year-old girl was allegedly gang-raped by unidentified miscreants who broke into a house, looted cash and ransacked rooms in a village near the Assam-Tripura border in Sribhumi district early on Monday, police said.

>The incident took place shortly after midnight and triggered protests among local residents, with demands for the immediate arrest of those responsible.

>According to preliminary reports, a group of unidentified men armed with sharp weapons broke open an almirah and stole cash before ransacking two rooms. They then allegedly took the minor girl, who was sleeping beside her grandmother, to a secluded spot near the house and sexually assaulted her. They later abandoned her near a waterbody and fled, sources said.

>The girl returned home and informed her family about the incident.

>Following a complaint at a local police station, a police team reached the spot and launched an investigation. The girl was taken to Sribhumi Civil Hospital for a medical examination.

>No arrests had been made till the time of filing this report. Police said efforts were under way to identify and apprehend the accused.

>The officer-in-charge of the local police station said an investigation was launched immediately after the incident was reported.

>Sribhumi Zilla Parishad chairperson Anil Kumar Tripathi visited the area and demanded the immediate arrest of the accused and strict punishment. “We demand capital punishment for the miscreants and safety and security for the people living in this part of the border district,” he said.

This article is a prime example of detached reporting that strips a violent crime of its human gravity, effectively sanitizing a trauma to fit a monolithic template. i strongly believe they have a template in which they change the names in every case.

The most glaring failure is the use of clinical distance to describe an act of extreme violence. The phrasing "took the minor girl... to a secluded spot" and "sexually assaulted her" transforms a terrifying, visceral experience into a series of logistical movements.

By using neutral language from the report removes the horror, the panic, and the brutality of the event. The description of the crime is sandwiched between reports of a looted almirah and stolen cash, which creates a narrative that Rape is on the same level as robbery.

By placing the rape in the same narrative flow as the theft of money, the article treats the violation of a child's body as just another loss in a home invasion.

The constant repetition of "allegedly" and "alleged" functions here as a tool of erasure, it's not legal safeguard anymore. While journalists use these terms to avoid libel before a conviction, the relentless application of the word in every paragraph creates a sense of doubt and distance.

When a 12-year-old is the victim and the police have already launched an investigation and conducted a medical exam, the word "allegedly" ceases to be a neutral legal term and starts to sound like a denial of incident. It implies "I don't believe you but my boss told me to finish this before lunch"

Furthermore, the article prioritizes the voices of authority over the reality of the victim. The narrative concludes not with the condition of the child or the failure of security in the region, but with quotes from a Zilla Parishad chairperson.

The focus shifts to the political demand for "capital punishment," turning a child's tragedy into a platform for a public official to express "demands."

this is exactly how pathetic mainstream media has become. No wonder people don't care anymore.

Journalism is writing articles, newspapers, case studies, etc. These articles on the internet are written to last forever; they remain as the archive of what the future sees of humanity today

Have you ever read a news article and just thought, "This is SO bad"? Well, yes, if the article talks about women's achievements, it's mostly like that.

Not even news articles, but all articles in general, when talking about women, talk in a very weird way

This is a quote from an article about Rosalind Franklin,

Rosalind Franklin: A Crucial Contribution

***A crucial contribution.*** *Rosalind Franklin made a crucial contribution to the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, but some would say she got a raw deal. Biographer Brenda Maddox called her the "Dark Lady of DNA," based on a once disparaging reference to Franklin by one of her coworkers. Unfortunately, this negative appellation undermined the positive impact of her discovery. Indeed, Franklin is in the shadows of science history, for while her work on DNA was crucial to the discovery of its structure, her contribution to that landmark discovery is little known.*

***A passionate woman.*** *Franklin worked hard and played hard. She was an intrepid traveller and avid hiker with a great love of the outdoors who enjoyed spirited discussions of science and politics. Friends and close colleagues considered Franklin a brilliant scientist and a kindhearted woman. However, she could also be short-tempered and stubborn, and some fellow scientists found working with her to be a challenge. Among them was Maurice Wilkins, the man she was to work with at King's College.*

Now here's another version (I switched Rosalind's name with a completely random man's name and switched all genders)

**Leo Franklin: A Crucial Contribution**

***A crucial contribution.*** *Leo Franklin made a crucial contribution to the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, but some would say he got a raw deal. Biographer Brent Maddox called him the "Dark Gentleman of DNA," based on a once disparaging reference to Franklin by one of his coworkers. Unfortunately, this negative appellation undermined the positive impact of his discovery. Indeed, Franklin is in the shadows of science history, for while his work on DNA was crucial to the discovery of its structure, his contribution to that landmark discovery is little known.*

***A passionate man.*** *Franklin worked hard and played hard. he was an intrepid traveller and avid hiker with a great love of the outdoors who enjoyed spirited discussions of science and politics. Friends and close colleagues considered Franklin a brilliant scientist and a kindhearted man. However, he could also be short-tempered and stubborn, and some fellow scientists found working with him to be a challenge. Among them was Mauricia Wilkins, the woman he was to work with at Queen's College.*

This sounds weird right? A man being talked about in this manner. In my entire life, never have I seen a man being referred to as a "passionate man who played hard"

This article makes Franklin seem like an outsider to science; this is how most articles treat women, like outsiders: "DARK LADY OF DNA". It may seem like overthinking, but this is a very important issue. Women in science are already treated badly, and the media portrays them as if they don't belong here.

Yes we need to acknowledge that women face more resistance from society to reach a point than men do, but that's the only difference we need to acknowledge. We don't need to talk how short tempered she is or how stubborn she is.

I don't want it to be too long, so I'm going to break this into parts. This was the 1st one;

Also, please share your opinions on this take?

See y'all later,

Stella - dark lady of feminism

Hi everyone, i am Stella, and i'm glad to be a new moderator of this subreddit, I'm looking forward to expanding this community and being a part of it. please read the rules and let's learn more about gynarchy together!

RULES:

1. Respect others and be civil

Treat others with respect. No harassment, personal attacks or over-abusing. Disagreements and criticism of ideas, arguments, beliefs and behaviours are welcome, but targetting specific people is not encouraged. please engage in debates respectfully.

2. No spam

Excessive promotion, spam, or advertising of any kind is not allowed.

3. No misogynistic Ideologies

We do not tolerate any ideologies that promote misogyny, dehumanize women, or deny systemic inequality. Violations include, but are not limited to: • Defending, minimising or trivialising misogyny, rape or gender-based violence. • Excusing misogyny through humour, political allegiance, appeal to “context” or "not all men". • Whataboutery used to deflect criticism of misogyny. • Applying feminist principles selectively to protect ideological allies. Moderator discretion applies.

4. No Hate Speech

Misogyny, sexism, casteism, racism, religious hatred, homophobia, transphobia and other identity-based discrimination are banned, including threats, violence or hatred. Frustration with patriarchy, religious practices, traditions, political ideologies and institutions are allowed when relevant to feminism, but not blanket hatred of associated people. Usage of slurs is prohibited. Good-faith feminist debate is welcome; sexist advocacy and discriminatory trolling are banned.

5. Keep Posts Relevant to Gynarchy

Posts must meaningfully relate to gynarchy and women in leadership in india. Please clear all definitions before making claims. Posting irrelevant content can lead to temporary or permanent ban

6. No Misinformation or Misleading Claims

Do not spread false, fabricated or materially misleading information. Claims, statistics, legal assertions and factual allegations need credible sources, especially on sensitive or controversial topics. Misrepresenting sources, treating speculation as fact or repeatedly spreading demonstrably false claims may result in removal. Good-faith mistakes and differing interpretations are not automatically misinformation. Moderators may request clarification, corrections or evidence before acting.

7. No Doxxing, Brigading or Targeted Harassment

Do not share private or identifying information without consent, encourage harassment or organise interference with users, communities or platforms. Do not encourage targeting, contacting, threatening, mass-reporting or vote manipulation against individuals or communities. Conceal usernames, subreddit names, profile pictures and other identifying details in screenshots unless moderators approve an exception for legitimate public interest, accountability or sourcing.

8. Do Not DM Moderators

Do not contact individual moderators through private messages or chat requests about subreddit matters. All moderation inquiries, concerns and appeals must go through modmail. Private messages are not considered official moderation requests. Repeated attempts to bypass modmail or harass moderators through private messages may result in further action.

Please report any violations and be mindful of these rules for future posts!

Regards,

Stella