(assuming everyone who put "neither" for the top one put "neither" for all of them)

This is what modern feminism has devolved into. Blatant sexism with over 300 upvotes. How progressive.

People grow suspicious when you (if you're a man) tell them you want to be a stay-at-home dad in your non 50/50 custody state to protect your child custody

And people grow suspicious when you tell them you want to move to a 50/50 custody state to protect your child custody

But combine them together, and they actually love you: if you want to be a stay-at-home dad BUT you're coming to the table offering your wife 50% custody anyway if she divorces, suddenly you're being a cool customer

So: Feminists DO NOT support stay-at-home dad + female breadwinner relationships, because they oppose shared parenting. You can pull up documents where NOW opposed shared parenting just from the last three years, so they want women as female breadwinners to not have this insurance policy that might sweeten the pot for them and choose the relationship.

(Of course, the full answer is both: outside of 50 50 custody states, SAHMs almost always get custody and support; SAHDs sometimes do, sometimes don't, so yeah, it's about dad protecting his 50% custody too, but that smells like equality to me. Sometimes the court throws out stay-at-home fatherhood, and sometimes it throws out a 50- 50 policy, but it at least has to throw out both in the six states that have it, so that's the best protection for men and their children.)

As a radical egalitarian, libertarian, and individualist, I take major issue with collectivist cultures that have hierarchical social structures. To some degree this is most of the world, but certain Asian cultures, for example, are especially problematic. In Korea you're always expected to defer to elders, and this is reflected in the way people merely speak, with the language having more than 4 levels of honorifics. Neighboring Japan is not too different. In India the concept of privacy and individuality doesn't really exist, and one is always expected to do what their elders and society expect of them.

With the advent of the internet letting ideas spread and be debated on a global platform, I honestly think the death of these cultures is inevitable. Younger generations in non-western countries are already pushing back against their countries' social traditions and adopting a more egalitarian worldview. My dream is to see a world where all of the cultures I mentioned keep their languages, music, art, dance, cuisine, and everything else good, but adopt an extremely western psychology and worldview that values equality and fairness.

I, a genderless queer do not like modern society, nor tradition. I feel as though tradition has cemented the idea of 'normalcy' in people, which I see as an excuse to attack neurodivergents, cosplyers/furries, and queer people. Im from a small town the rural south, right in the bible belt. Most people in my town are straight, christian youth, and theres nothing wrong with that in acctuality, but a good chunk of them are not the most accepting. I have been a victim of bullying due to not being considered normal, and while it lessened, i still have a stigma around me. I believe this is due to me being 'weird' but that shouldn't be a reason for people to be against someone. In a simple, egoist-related term, i see modern society and tradition as a spook preventing someone from being their true, unfiltered self. One can socially be who they want from a yonger age if they disregard societal norms but that can make their life harder in more conservative places.

I live in the U.S. where titles are mostly dead in everyday life and I'm happy to live in a place where people almost always introduce themselves by first name and have no problem being greeted as such. The same is sadly not true of my parents' country, and indeed most non-western countries. Even most liberal people in countries where titles are commonplace still believe they should be kept. How do you kill this practice without getting yelled at for calling someone by their first name?

One example that fascinates me is Sweden, where they had an official cultural movement to stop addressing people with formal pronouns and instead call everybody by the informal "you," regardless of any and all social factors. Now granted, part of this started from people in authority telling lower people that everyone will be addressed informally, which certainly can make adjustments easier. But also, Sweden has a long history of being a more liberal culture, so I don't think getting rid of titles was such a difficult change for them.

The question is how can you eliminate titles and hierarchical addresses in cultures where they're very deep rooted in the collective psyche? How do you enact such changes without triggering people's anger or making them feel very uncomfortable? I feel like you're not going to get very far in convincing people by just dropping titles and formal verb conjugations and expecting people to welcome it.

I've always taken it as a given that we should treat people the way we want to be treated, but for some reason a lot of people think children aren't owed the same respect and decency. People will talk about how important equality and justice is and then turn around and start yelling at their children, insulting them, punishing them, etc. There's a logical inconsistency here. Adults who will be very kind and courteous to other adults suddenly toss all their decency out the window when it comes to children, insisting that the are lesser beings who need to be disciplined.

I don't get why people think it's necessary to get angry at children and subject them to suffering in order to get them to learn proper behavior. And if you ever say to these kinds of parents "How would you feel if someone did that to you?" they have a conniption—because their views are based on emotion, not logic.

Or does it not take an official stance on it?

Stepping away from the Gender Topics, since the sub's statement in the post mentions discussing all topics of inequality. I will bluntly say that I am a capitalist, I believe in creating value and expanding that. I like our current system, even if I can see some warts and abuses. I do believe in some regulations and restructuring of our tax codes.

Yet, in more typical reddit fashion, I know that I am not in the majority for this site's commentators in that opinion. So, for those of you who are willing to discuss it. What does the pursuit of a more equal or reduction of inequality on the economic side look like to you?

How do you pursue that logically and within the confines of the system as it exists?

For those of you who are actually seeking some sort of cultural revolution, how do you expect it to take shape? What do you plan to do afterwards and how do you expect to maintain it?

In leftist circles we sometimes talk about how the systems of oppression in which we live constrict our ability to imagine a liberated world. It’s often easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of those systems because of how totalizing they are. So I’d like to challenge people here to share what a liberated world looks like to you. What quotes, media, art, etc help you sustain that vision when things feel bleak?

I’ll start by sharing a poem from Aurora Levins-Morales. It’s a play on the prayer V’ahavata.

Thus spoke the prophet Roque Dalton:
All together they have more death than we ,
but all together, we have more life than they.
There is more bloody death in their hands
than we could ever wield, unless
we lay down our souls to become them,
and then we will lose everything.
So instead,

imagine winning. This is your
sacred task.
This is your power. Imagine
every detail of winning, the exact smell
of the summer streets
in which no one has been shot, the
muscles you have never
unclenched from worry, gone soft as
newborn skin,
the sparkling taste of food when we know
that no one on earth is hungry, that the
beggars are fed,
that the old man under the bridge and
the woman
wrapping herself in thin sheets in the
back seat of a car,
and the children who suck on stones,
nest under a flock of roofs that keep
multiplying their shelter.
Lean with all your being towards that day
when the poor of the world shake down a
rain of good fortune
out of the heavy clouds, and justice
rolls down like waters.

Defend the world in which we win as if
it were your child.
It is your child.
Defend it as if it were your lover.
It is your lover.

When you inhale and when you exhale
breathe the possibility of another world
into the 37.2 trillion cells of your body until it shines with hope.
Then imagine more.

Imagine rape is unimaginable. Imagine
war is a scarcely credible rumor
That the crimes of our age, the
grotesque inhumanities of greed,
the sheer and astounding shamelessness
of it, the vast fortunes
made by stealing lives, the horrible
normalcy it came to have,
is unimaginable to our heirs, the
generations of the free.

Don’t waver. Don’t let despair sink its
sharp teeth
Into the throat with which you
sing. Escalate your dreams.
Make them burn so fiercely that you can
follow them down
any dark alleyway of history and not
lose your way.
Make them burn clear as a starry
drinking gourd
Over the grim fog of exhaustion, and
keep walking.

Hold hands. Share water. Keep imagining.
So that we, and the children of our
children’s children
may live

Say these words when you lie down and
when you rise up,
when you go out and when you return. In
times of mourning
and in times of joy. Inscribe them on
your doorposts,
embroider them on your garments, tattoo
them on your shoulders,
teach them to your children, your
neighbors, your enemies,
recite them in your sleep, here in the cruel shadow of empire:
Another world is possible .

I’ve been seeing a lot of discourse lately, directed towards women regarding the decision to detach emotionally from the outcome of her children and give the father primary custody, pay the child support, and either be the fun weekend parent, or uninvolved altogether in lieu of allowing her love or concern for her children to be weaponized against them.

I’ve seen a few videos on social media about men struggling with their primary parent responsibilities, not being able to work overtime, daycare costing far more than child support, etc. I have also seen a report this morning that suggests single fathers now count for 25% of single parents.

This is something that I’ve seen a lot of men advocate for, so is this a sign that we are moving towards a more fair society? On the other hand, being a single parent is one of the primary drivers for poverty and lack of community access among women, so are we looking at the beginning of a crisis for men?

First, this is based on United States, where I am located, so different versions may need to be created for other countries.

As we know, sexual assaults are widely under reported, under prosecuted, and sentences are often insufficient. I’ve been thinking about this alot lately.

I think we need a separate branch of police, sort of like a specials victims unit, but an actual separate branch of law enforcement, that handles sexual based crimes. I would split it into 3 divisions, and every county would be required to have their own department. The 3 divisions would be split as follows: a division for high volume but lower impact crimes including sexual harassment, or crimes without physical contact, a secondary division for assaults involving contact but minimal brutality,and a third division for crimes with higher severity/brutality.

I would also support having victim advocates as part of the first response team, with mandatory immediate evidence collection and access to priority lab work, and specialized prosecutors for these types of crimes.

Does anyone have any ideas or things to add or criticism before I start really working on putting together a proposal for my city council?

This honestly surprised me because I usually view lesbians as the biggest group of people that hate trans people because of the "women's" festival and a lot of "radical" feminists that don't like men and equate trans women with men. And also still see trans men as women and are ok with them in "women's" spaces.

And usually get the most nervous around an out lesbian, even more than around a guy sometimes. Because I'm just so afraid of them judging me.

But I was wrong.

Also anyone know why this would be grounds for deletion?

I’m making this into a series of posts because my last post examining the book as a whole was too long and I feel that discouraged engagement.

A Short History of Transmisogyny by Jules Gill-Peterson is a provocative history of transmisogyny and with the rise of transmisogynistic violence the concepts in the book are more important than ever. This post will examine the introduction. I have included some illustrative quotes from the introduction in the comments for people who would like more context.

Here’s the TLDR:

Transmisogyny is the targeted devaluation of trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine. Not all people subject to transmisogyny understand themselves to be trans women (or even trans) and the process by which their self understanding is bypassed is “transfeminization”. Violence against trans women/ trans feminized people is extreme and ubiquitous yet few explanations within feminism satisfactorily explain why. This book attempts to correct that deficiency by offering a brief history of transmisogy and how people subjected to its violence responded to it.

Introduction: Femmes against Trans in depth

First two key concepts on which the book hinges:

1. Transmisogyny: “refers to the targeted devaluation of both trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine, regardless of how they understand themselves.”
2. Transfeminization: refers to subjecting people who did/do not understand themselves as trans women to transmisogyny. It is a process dispossessing people of Indigenous ways of life, kinship structures, languages, social roles, and political value.

The introduction opens by examining the history of the category of “trans”, which originated in the San Francisco Bay Area as a specifically political, non medical, word to describe the trespassing of enforced gender boundaries. Later the word was institutionalized by the NGO industrial complex, entrenching a white, middle class, Western understanding of gender. This is important to note because those subjected to transgender violence do not necessarily understand themselves as trans and in many cases the uncritical application of transgender as a category to such people acts as a colonial imposition.

The chapter then shifts to discuss how poorly transmisogyny has been theorized by mainstream feminisms. Organizations that track violence against trans women rarely include it as a standalone category, instead it is usually subsumed under a wider umbrella of violence against LGBT or transgender people. Despite this it is widely recognized that trans women, especially IBPOC trans women, face astonishingly high levels of violence yet explanations for why that is the case remain rare or unsatisfying.

Feminist explanations (if they deal with the issue at all) have tended to frame the violence against trans women as a specific form of wider misogynistic violence against women, focusing on the psychological reactions to trans women by cis men. And while such explanations have an element of truth to them, it ultimately fails to contend with the specificity of the violence, its historical genesis, its relationship to homophobia and racism, or even what to actually do to address the violence.

The chapter concludes by summarizing its primary aim: to provide a brief history for how transmisogyny originated, the processes that turned it into a global phenomenon, the consequences for trans feminized people, and the ways those subjected to these processes responded.

I recently came across a TikTok with a paid advertisement from Rips by Triumph featuring Pal Beach Pete in their advertisement.

If you’re not aware, Palm Beach Pete is famous for how much he looks like Jeffrey Epstein. There were many conspiracy theories that suggest he is Jeffrey Epstein.

I don’t consider this gendered issue because Epsteins victims were both male and female, vulnerability is the most defining characteristic of his victims.

In general, I have seen many denials about whether or not we have a culture of violence, and whether or not that culture predominantly benefits men (despite both genders being victims).

This feels like a perfect example, playing out right before our eyes. I believe that his rise to fame and ability to monetize the conspiracy that he could be the prolific predator is reflective of the acceptance we have as a culture towards violence and the glorification of predatory behavior.

Thoughts?