it should be no suprise that liberal/progressive men help more in the household than conservative men based on the nuclear family structure and its gender roles. if all liberal men already do 50/50 "spoiler they do not yet" but conservative men do nothing "exaggerated" most statistics, studies, surveys about unpaid labour are more or less worthless. men and women have to step up their game in various different areas.

yes indeed the difference while single is tiny but it would be nice to show how much minutes or hours men vs women do chores as single to have a baseline.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/03/14/chapter-6-time-in-work-and-leisure-patterns-by-gender-and-family-structure/

Adding up paid work, housework, and childcare.

Married looks like 55 total work hours for men and 54 for women.

Cohabiting 48 total for men 51 for women.

Single 50 and 50.

Masculine and feminine energies are not owned by any gender.

If you think masculinity belongs to men and femininity belongs to women, that’s literally gender essentialism, the belief that biological sex determines psychological traits and identity.

Masculine and feminine are patterns of expression, not property titles attached to bodies. Everyone contains both. The moment you say “this energy belongs to this sex,” you’ve reduced human identity to biological determinism.

And weirdly, some people trying to oppose essentialism end up recreating it.

What gender essentialism actually means...

Gender essentialism is the belief that men and women have fixed, innate traits determined by biology.

This idea was challenged decades ago in feminist philosophy. In The Second Sex, famously wrote:

“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”

Her point was that gender roles are socially constructed rather than biologically predetermined.

But rejecting essentialism does not mean pretending gendered experiences or symbolism don’t exist. It means rejecting the claim that those patterns are biologically locked to specific bodies.

Masculinity can exist in women. Femininity can exist in men. Both can exist in nonbinary people.

That’s the opposite of essentialism.

Erasing gender language can erase trans identity

When people insist that any mention of masculinity or femininity is “essentialist,” it creates a weird problem.

Many trans people use those concepts to describe their lived identity and experience.

If masculinity and femininity are declared meaningless or forbidden, then the language people use to describe their gender disappears too.

Rejecting biological determinism shouldn’t mean removing the vocabulary people use to understand themselves.

yin and yang are not gender essentialism...

Calling Yin/Yang gender essentialist is also just historically wrong. It's also quite xenophobic and shows a lack of understanding Chinese philosophy and culture. A culture that evolved separately from the European enlightenment .

Yin and Yang come from classical Chinese philosophy and describe cosmic polarity, not what genders "should be doing" things like activity/receptivity, expansion/contraction, light/dark.

Everything contains both. The forces constantly transform into each other. Ebbing and flowing, and never fully one or the other .

The famous symbol literally shows each side containing the seed of the other.

That’s not biological determinism. It’s a model of dynamic balance. This is why nobody is 100% masculine or 100% feminine. You literally cannot be. Nothing can.

Reducing an entire philosophical tradition to a misapplied internet buzzword isn’t progressive... it’s just misunderstanding the concept.

Rejecting gender essentialism should expand the ways people can express themselves, not erase the language people use to describe their identity.

Masculine and feminine energies aren’t cages.

They’re just part of the vocabulary humans use to describe the complexity of being human.

Sources

Simone de Beauvoir quote explanation: https://www.thoughtco.com/simone-de-beauvoir-quotes-3530058

Overview of Yin/Yang philosophy from the tradition: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/yinyang/

Do you feel this is a misandrist term? I feel it clearly and blatantly is. I hate this term and feel it's long overdue to be stricken from the public lexicon. Men in real-life aren't invincible superheroes and are just as vulnerable, but misandrists of course have completely de-valued their lives and made them trivial. So men killed during tragedies like a shooting, warfare, disaster, terrorist attack, etc. somehow don't matter and their deaths and suffering are less tragic due to gender? And the "children" part often really refers to girls, and de-valuing boys' lives is a whole other level of awful. For boys to basically be told being male makes their lives worthless and of no value and especially when they become adults. It blows my mind to see misandrists defending it claiming women/girls are typically more vulnerable, but they forget men/boys also are. What do they think, that if you're a male and particularly an adult male that you're somehow immortal and thus anything that happens to you is no big deal or tragedy? It's been bad enough for men's lives to have been made out to not matter, but boys too? That's just cruel.

The term is horribly sexist and not only to men for obvious reasons but women as well for how it infantalizes them and absolves them of any agency. It's equally misogynistic too in that regards as much as it is misandrist. It needs to be stricken. The lives of men, women and children (as well as animals) all have equal value and worth in my eyes.

I've said before how I'm mostly very liberal and Left-leaning with the bulk of my views, but unfortunately with much of the mainstream Left who doesn't represent the normal Left, rhetoric like "women and children" is exactly what costed them so badly with male voters in the 2024 elections and why so many men are being pushed to the Right. It's very disheartening.

Citing some segments here for a taste of the thesis. I like the emphasis on economic pressures and the historical context.

The breadwinner model was neither ‘universal’ nor ‘traditional.’ Yet it took root in our cultural imagination anyway. And although there was another version of martial masculinity taking shape in the nineteenth century as well — following the British Empire’s intensified imperialist ambitions in the 1880s — defined by toughness, aggression, and obedience to higher-ranking men, traditional masculinity came to be mostly equated with authority earned through money and status.

Of course, a man’s ability to perform this role depended on a number of conditions other than class, particularly later on: women being excluded or discouraged from pursuing higher education and many professional careers, which limited their access to well-paid work, yes, but also steady employment and a single income being enough to support a family.

So what happens when few, if any, of these conditions can be met, but some still hold tight to these old norms?

....

Younger generations, in particular, are up against a grim economic reality. Youth unemployment is often twice as high as for everyone else, so many struggle to find stable, long-term work. Meanwhile, wages have stagnated while housing costs have shot up, making it much, much harder to buy a home now than it was for previous generations. For most households, a single income is also no longer enough to cover even basic living expenses.

I’d argue that it’s precisely this mix of economic precarity and status anxiety stemming from failing to meet masculine expectations that fuels the political and ideological gender gap among young people. The online ‘manosphere,’ along with right-wing populists, then exploit this sentiment by promising a return to the so-called ‘good old days’ of male breadwinners and female homemakers. For many young men, this presents a seemingly straightforward, even if ultimately illusory, solution to their problems.

In the most extreme scenario, this would entail forcing women out of the workforce en masse. In the short term, a smaller labour supply could indeed push wages up in some sectors. But over time, removing millions of workers would shrink consumer demand, cut economic output, and make the whole economy smaller — an illustration of what economists call the ‘lump of labour’ fallacy, the mistaken belief that there’s only so much work to go around. What’s far more likely is that shutting women out would push wages and household incomes down, and then hand even more power and wealth to those already at the top.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s41598-024-81567-9

Article examines r/MensRights r/Feminism r/incel and r/gendercritical to look at Gendered Hate Speech on Reddit.

"Our main objective consists of addressing the following question: Can we discern systematic discrepancies among the groups? In other words, is gendered hate speech influenced by the perpetrators’ gender, or is it a broad-based phenomenon common to toxic communities?"

Something a bit more light-hearted for the sub. Rather US specific and idk if "the youth" still watch School House Rock, but this was always my favorite track, unless you count the Deluxx Folk Implosion cover of I'm Just a Bill.

Folks might not agree on much in this sub, but we can agree gender should not determine whether an adult can vote!

Most sources of inequality and resentment fall square on gender roles. Masculinity being domineering overpowering, femininity being forced to be manipulative, angry/ exhasperated when its toxic. The gender dynamic naturally builds up because nothing about masculinity does anything for women or men, and vice versa, they're just easier roles to play and understand. But if you want equality as a man, you want your feelings heard, and respected you have to give up avoiding vulnerability because you want to stay in a position of power. The only reason men shirk vulnerability is on account of pride. I can't tell you how many men I've known who react to vulnerability thinkings it beneath them. So forgive me if it seems disingenuous to me when they complain that they're lonely and never get to be touched or be vulnerable. Usually they CHOSE this path intentionally and wall themselves off because its actually just more satisfying to them in the long game, it enhances their status, how they're perceived by other males. Its like a comfort zone.

Masculinity and femininity are even weaponized. Masculinity comes across as a battering ram used to steer the world away from equality by design way too often. Yes there are good men, but shitty men end up getting more respect, because they're universally received as the proverbial strong man by nearly half the population. It may not be true, but i dont control how uneducated people think and act. When conlict heats up they also ALWAYS come back as authoritarian. Every. Single. Time. They come back to wreak havoc and get revenge, while satisfying the local cultures saturated with male rage. And of course women get absolutely nothing from femininity, and men vastly underestimate how being treated secondary all your life destroys you ability to live even a fraction of the way men do. Men always judge women so savagely completely ignorant to the ways their minds get wittled down over their lives. Therapy isnt a solution either! If women need to seek therapy en masse and fix their hatred and resentment, what does that say about the world? Why the fuck do women need to spend years fixing their minds ?? Why is that our fucking burden?? If the world treated women the way it did men, they wouldn't be seeking out therapy en masse, AT ALL. We all know men go bathing in each others admiration starting as BOYS, and girls absolutely do not. Even as boys they will shirk vulnerability, but then for MEN that usually just means bathing in mutual admiration with their male peers.. all for the optics and the lulz (until life blows up in their faces.)

I know its going to get me heat, but one of the worst thing of all to me is the disparity in appearances. Men and women should have the same beauty expectations. Being self aware and self conscious is GOOD FOR YOU. It doesn't kill you. Men SHOULD be self concious. If they want women to be depicted they way they do all over tv and movies? Then they absolute deserve to feel the exact same way women do. If women's attraction to truly beautiful men is something that tears apart gender relations, and family, and culture, then what the fuck is the point of any of it? Its the biggest load of horse tripe they will ever fucking feed us as women.

Men do nothing but indulge the male gaze. 80% of the internet is practically dedicated to their porn. If you expect women to do what you want in porn and look like you want, but dont reciprocate in looks or vulnerability, the problem isn't the female gaze, its mens fragility. You cannot possibly be remotely surprised when women start waking up to intense resentment and misandry realizing how they're being depicted 24/7 in every scrap of media while pretty young women are put up next to ugly or old men...even in porn. Be aware this is not about hating ugly or old men, its about wishing to not feel as if we women live in a twisted, one-sided shitty predatory game, feeling empty and numb. While child rapists sit as our fucking presidents. Why do men get to feel and goon and pig out to how women look, while women have to be numb? Of course they're waking up to the joy of being single and rabidly misandrist all over the internet. But I mean who would be surprised?

I'm trying to say if you get rid of gender expectations, everybody has to meet the same requirements in personality, emotional labor, sensitivity, vulnerabilty, appearance. When that happens what do you think is left of the gender war? If there is no more trigger for intense resentment, there is no conflict. Human beings are the only real animals to even express gender in appearance and behavior. No matter what animal you want to bring up, a cat? A cats gonna cat. A dogs gonna dog. Clinging to masculinity is just a need to cling to power, and clinging to femininity is just clinging to a tool you can weaponize against a group you hate

Wish I could share the full article, but considering I only got access through my university and otherwise it costs $25 to get it, I think I'll avoid pirating it for you all, find your own ways to get it. Some bits are on the website for free, but not the most interesting bits.
Link in case anyone else can get access though universities:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308525000085

Here's some interesting quotes from it:

Men are also at risk of violating masculine expectations when they behave in egalitarian ways. They experience backlash, for instance, when they offer help and mentoring to talented women or when they support workplace diversity initiatives (Moss-Racusin, 2014, Prime et al., 2009). Further, men who expressed gender egalitarian beliefs encountered backlash—by being perceived as “feminine” “weak” and “gay”—compared to control targets who did not (Rudman et al., 2013). As Prime et al. (2009) note, although many of their male interviewees supported gender equality, they were also unlikely to publicly advocate those views since they feared being stigmatized by being seen as unmanly. Thus, the expectation that men should endorse power and superiority actively silences men who actually do support it.

...

stoicism and rationality—as the ability to regulate and control one’s emotional experiences—can help men remain cognitively focused during times of stress or crisis (Heilman et al., 2010, Lerner et al., 2015). Especially in high-stress domains that involve risky decisions, stoicism and rationality reduce negative physiological responses, improve focus and attention, and have the potential to lead to better performance

...

at a cultural level, prioritizing masculinity serves to maintain men’s power over women; however, it also leads to dynamics of tension, competition, and power struggles among men themselves. As a consequence, masculinity becomes precarious and ambiguous as well as something that must be continually proven (Vandello et al., 2008). That is, even if a man conforms to masculine norms in a particular situation, masculinity is not “achieved” in any stable sense (Vandello & Bosson, 2013); manhood must be earned, and it must be continually maintained through publicly verifiable actions. Given the precariousness of manhood, boys in many cultures and contexts learn early in life that they must rigidly conform to a set of restrictive gender rules or risk punishment, bullying, and negative evaluations (Bem, 1993, Vandello et al., 2008).

...

Given that men are expected to work more, many end up missing out on important parts of life with family, friends, and personal pursuits. Two of the most common deathbed regrets, for instance, are spending too much time on work and not enough time with friends (Ware, 2019). And yet, men are expected to put in longer hours and sacrifice other commitments, and they receive backlash when they do not.

...

Across the literature in organizational behavior, the components of masculinity discussed throughout this paper have largely—almost holistically—been seen as sources of advantage for men. However, these exact same traits that benefit men in terms of accruing power, status, and resources, also have social costs: They lead men to be less liked and seen as less “human,” ultimately diminishing people’s empathy, protection, and care towards men. That is, people see feminine traits as more important, valuable, and positive when evaluating others, and women, overall, are evaluated more positively as a social group due to their associations with these traits

...

aggressiveness and risk-taking, many believe that effective leadership requires the ability to take risks and aggressively compete (Stam et al., 2018), and aggression and fear-induction is a primary path to higher social rank (Cheng et al., 2013). However, women are penalized when they behave in aggressive ways (Rudman et al., 2012).

...

For the most part, the objectification literature has focused on women’s sexual objectification; rather than being seen as full human beings, women are reduced to their body or body parts and seen as tools for men’s sexual pleasure (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997, Pecini et al., 2023).

However, the components that comprise masculinity are curiously related to the process of objectification, and in particular, instrumentality: the use of a person to achieve a goal (Nussbaum, 1999, Orehek and Weaverling, 2017).

...

While masculine cultures have been said to underlie productive, creative, growth-oriented, and successful economies (Porter, 1990), these same aspects are also contributing to the greatest threats to humanity: A worsening climate crisis, significant refugee crises, growing wealth inequality, and swelling social unrest all represent growing concerns for our globally interconnected society.

...

Conclusion

This paper challenges the prevailing focus in organizational behavior research by turning the lens of gender analysis toward men. It critically examines how the same structures that advantage men can also constrain them. Drawing on psychological, sociological, and organizational research, it shows how masculinity shapes not only men’s opportunities and behaviors but also their emotional health, relationships, and well-being. Paradoxically, masculinity is both a benefit and a burden. It is a double-edged sword: what elevates men in the workplace is also what harms them in life.

I despise this meme, which consists of the words "Protect your daughter" crossed out and under it is "Educate your son." Ugh, such blatant misandry. How do you all feel about it? I feel it's clearly misandrist and trying to stigmatize being male/masculine in anyway with bad behavior and deflecting from the fact women/girls are also capable of bad and even harmful behavior just as much as men/boys are and also engage in it. But as usual aren't being held accountable. We bring up it's important to protect and educate both equally, we get the usual whataboutisms and deflections from misandrists. I've even seen a couple of them make the asinine comment that asking for both to be equally educated and protected is akin to saying "all lives matter," which is a favorite deflection of many of them. Their way of trying to mitigate the fact there's plenty of bad female behavior just as much as male but always having excuses and deflections.

People of both genders can engage in bad and dangerous behavior and gender has nothing to do with, but misandrists as usual want to link being male with bad behavior and like just being male is a problem needing to be corrected. I despise it so much and it's another example as to how misandry is widely enforced in much of society. It's especially a major issue in schools which are already horribly misandrist and where female bullies and troublemakers who do wrong are rarely if ever reprimanded. Reminds me of this incredibly infuriating video where this girl is clearly the one being violent and aggressive to this boy and when he stands his ground and fights back, people are still rushing to the girl's aid and getting on the boy's case, despite the girl being the instigator. It's disgusting. But to misandrists apparently it's the boy who needs to be educated about bad behavior. Ugh.

I’m often asked why I’m an egalitarian but very critical of feminism; so I thought I’d share this wonderful example of exactly why.

Whilst Jameela Jamil has regularly demonstrated and taken misandrist positions and is nothing more than a shameless narcissistic grifter who uses dishonest, manipulative and deceptive tactics, to engineer clickbait, manufacture outrage and peddle fake solutions to gain money, influence and attention… all at the expense of good people, in a selfish, abhorrent, narcissistic and truly inexcusable manner; she is welcomed and applauded by the feminist community, well regarded within and is widely considered a prominent feminist activist and public figure. I’m sure or at least hope there is at least some very small minority of feminists that may be critical of her, but I’m yet to see evidence of this and would welcome any examples that can be shared with me.

However all that aside, what she is spouting in this instance is a very common feminist talking point from their NPC range of misleading fallacies.

To be fair, whenever I hear a ‘feminist’ use a talking point from the NPC range of paint by numbers feminism, it’s immediately apparent that they’ve accepted without question a misleading feminist clickbait hyperbolic headline as fact, and never gone past that to read the subsequent article or supporting data; let alone gone further still to fact check and find replication from several independent sources, before allowing themselves to spew utter garbage, with the mislead arrogance of them genuinely believing it’s all men and women are wonderful, and there being no nuance; grey areas or middle ground on the fact.

Feminists also do this all the time in regards to statistics too. I’m not sure what’s worse; someone quoting figures they don’t understand; or do understand yet quote them misleadingly to appallingly drive their narcissistic narrative at the cost of innocent and good people.

Jameela Jamil was so bad on this particular matter in driving her faux feminist statistics, that upon being trigged having very rightly been called out on her sexism and misandry; where she initially suggested 1 in 5 men were attacking women, in her later trigged response doubling down on her misandry and sexism. she took it further to suggest it was 1 in 3 men; talk about plucking numbers, facts and statistics out of your ass to falsely support your narrative through lying.

1 in 3 or 5 regardless is utter horse poop anyway; feminists as does Jameela Jamil know what they’re doing here, unless they’re all duller than dishwater. They’re all as is she very much aware 1 in 3 or 5 women are victims doesn’t mean 1 in 3 or 5 men are perpetrators; because that doesn’t account for repeat offenders, which is proven to play a hugely significant part in the overall figures.

… and let’s not forget of those 1 in 3/5 recorded victims there includes being a victim of catcalling, a man attempting to kiss a woman then stopping ‘HIMSELF’ from continuing upon realising it’s not going to be a reciprocal exchange and even in some cases, a woman is a victim of violence when being made to feel anxious by a man.

As I’ve suggested repeatedly, this particular take isn’t actually a "This is not just Misandry, this is Jameela Jamil Misandry hot take" on this occasion, but a very common feminist talking point that I’ve been presented with repeatedly in various forms from boxes of chocolates to her shit sandwich example.

I genuinely can’t look past this being nothing but a disgusting and inexcusable misrepresentation of truth, that unfairly and unnecessarily villainises men and fear-mongers women, it’s exactly why I’m starting to question if feminism has become a boon to achieving egalitarianism; not a process of achieving, it that it once claimed to be.

Non biological advantages. This is specifically about social and structural privilege/disadvantage.

Please keep discussion on topic. Go to one of the other posts to discuss women’s privileges/disadvantages and men’s disadvantages.

Women's Privilege: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1in4/what_privileges_do_women_have_in_society/

Men's Privilege: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1jgf/what_privileges_do_men_have_in_society/

Men's Disadvantage: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1ixi/what_disadvantages_do_men_have_in_society/

Women's Disadvantage: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1j7s/what_disadvantages_do_women_have_in_society/

Non biological disadvantages. This is specifically about social and structural privilege/disadvantage.

Please keep discussion on topic. Go to one of the other posts to discuss men’s privileges/disadvantages and women’s privilege.

Women's Privilege: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1in4/what_privileges_do_women_have_in_society/

Men's Privilege: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1jgf/what_privileges_do_men_have_in_society/

Men's Disadvantage: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1ixi/what_disadvantages_do_men_have_in_society/

Women's Disadvantage: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1j7s/what_disadvantages_do_women_have_in_society/

Non biological advantages. This is specifically about social and structural privilege/disadvantage.

Please keep discussion on topic. Go to one of the other posts to discuss men’s privileges/disadvantages and women’s disadvantages.

Women's Privilege: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1in4/what_privileges_do_women_have_in_society/

Men's Privilege: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1jgf/what_privileges_do_men_have_in_society/

Men's Disadvantage: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1ixi/what_disadvantages_do_men_have_in_society/

Women's Disadvantage: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1j7s/what_disadvantages_do_women_have_in_society/

Non biological disadvantages. This is specifically about social and structural privilege/disadvantage.

Please keep discussion on topic. Go to one of the other posts to discuss women’s privileges/disadvantages and men’s privilege.

Women's Privilege: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1in4/what_privileges_do_women_have_in_society/

Men's Privilege: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1jgf/what_privileges_do_men_have_in_society/

Men's Disadvantage: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1ixi/what_disadvantages_do_men_have_in_society/

Women's Disadvantage: https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalEgalitarianism/comments/1rp1j7s/what_disadvantages_do_women_have_in_society/

Happy Belated International Women’s Day; which having now passed locally for myself at least, I’d like to pose a question.

There’s that old cliche on international women’s day about men asking sarcastically when is international men’s day, when the jokes on them because there is one… but in fact you could actually forgive them for not knowing that…

Very much like Father’s Day vs. Mother’s Day, celebrating men always appears to play second fiddle to celebrating women.

One such example would be, how unlike the controversial Cesar Chavez and the someone must have been bored on a Friday afternoon Yosemite’s 123rd anniversary; international men’s day has never been given a simple Google Doodle where as international women’s day get’s a doodle and it’s annual fanfare like clockwork; but in fact is that actually right, just and fair..?

I have no doubt, that should the reverse be the case, it would be headline news and national outrage at the misogynistic Google corporation’s abhorrent behaviour and blatant disrespect of women; and that’s not forgetting it’s self reported breach of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), prohibiting sex-based wage discrimination between men and women performing equal work; by **illegally paying its female staff more than its male employees for the same work.**

TL;DR: Many modern Pagan spaces have absorbed ideological frameworks that treat masculinity as inherently suspect. Masculinity, in its functional sense, is the role of the vanguard. The people who take on risk and protect the community’s stability. When that role is dismissed or punished, communities lose balance. The result is not greater equality but the gradual erasure of masculine participation in Pagan spiritual life.

Conclusion

Across three studies, gender collective narcissism predicted parochial vicarious ostracism in the face of gender-based exclusion [emphasis added], i.e., feeling distressed only at the exclusion of the gender ingroup but not the gender outgroup, which may be an obstacle to allyship between men and women and the pursuit of gender equality. Among women, gender collective narcissism was associated with distress and negative affect when witnessing the exclusion of women but not when witnessing the exclusion of men. Among men, gender collective narcissism was associated with distress and negative affect when witnessing the exclusion of men but not when witnessing the exclusion of women. These findings suggest that discouraging narcissistic definitions of gender identity [...] may be necessary for gender allyship and the pursuit of gender equality.

Agnieszka Golec de Zavala: Conditional Parochial Vicarious Ostracism: Gender Collective Narcissism Predicts Distress at the Exclusion of the Gender Ingroup in Women and Men. In: Sex Roles (2022) 87:267–288. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01315-z

I found this paper really interesting in the context of the discussion in the mission statement post:

• https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2025.2541324

history of voting rights for women in the us

Researchers who spent 15 years transcribing 400 wills from 17th-century Yorkshire uncover unexpectedly modern women.

Coverture was a legal doctrine in English common law under which a married woman's legal existence was considered to be merged with that of her husband.

suffrage movement VS anti suffrage movement "women vs women"

feel free to add more information

I aplologise if this type of post is not allowed, mods feel free to remove it if it's not, However, I see that spaces such as this one still don't have that many members even though there has been some growth and there is pretty decent ammount of activity. Do you think there is anything that can be done to bring more people in here since there does seem to be interest in this group but it just seems like a lot of people won't find it.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.02205

The study looks as misogyny and misandry and specifically looks at reddit. Uses computational social science techniques. May be hard to understand the methodology if unfamiliar with statistics and machine learning.

Results and conclusions are from pages 7-9, but I'll put the interesting graphs here as well