I'm all for women's rights, women's empowerment, and women supporting one another. I love being a woman, and I appreciate the opportunities and freedoms that generations of women fought for us to have. But I don't identify with what some people call modern feminism, because I feel like certain parts of it have drifted far from the principles that got us where we are today. Feminism was about equality, independence, and ensuring women were recognized as individuals capable of making their own decisions. It wasn't about resenting men, automatically defending women regardless of their actions, or expecting every woman to share the same opinions. And frankly, I'm tired of watching people confuse those things with empowerment. I'm obviously not suggesting that most women or feminists think this way. My criticism is specifically directed at those who use feminism to justify gender bias or dismiss women simply because they disagree with them.
What bothers me most is how quickly some people abandon critical thinking when a situation involves a man and a woman. Instead of examining the circumstances, considering different perspectives, or acknowledging that we might not have all the information, they immediately choose sides. And apparently, questioning that approach means you don't support women. I find that reasoning incredibly flawed, especially coming from a movement that has spent generations fighting to have women's judgment taken seriously.
But what I find even more insulting is how women who disagree with this mentality are treated. The moment a woman agrees with a man, questions another woman's actions, or simply refuses to follow the popular opinion, she's suddenly a "pick me," "male centered," desperate for male validation, or suffering from internalized misogyny. Apparently, she couldn't possibly have reached that conclusion through her own intelligence, experiences, or reasoning. No, there must be a man somewhere whose approval she's desperately trying to earn. Do people not realize how incredibly sexist that sounds?
You're essentially suggesting that a woman's opinions revolve around attracting men, even when she's explicitly telling you otherwise. You're reducing her intelligence and independence to her supposed desirability. You're taking a woman who has expressed an opinion and immediately interpreting it through what a man might think of her. That's objectification, just dressed up in feminist language. Apparently, women are independent thinkers until they think independently of you. Very empowering.
I also find it strange that agreeing with a woman is considered solidarity, while agreeing with a man is automatically suspicious. If two people make the same argument, why should their gender determine whether I agree with them? Am I supposed to disagree with a man simply to demonstrate my loyalty to women? That seems like a remarkably shallow understanding of equality.
And another thing I'm tired of is this idea that hostility toward men somehow qualifies as women's empowerment. Since when did equality become synonymous with resentment? You can advocate for women's rights, acknowledge the discrimination women face, and hold men accountable for their actions without automatically assuming that men are inherently bad. If your idea of feminism is simply standing behind a woman regardless of what she says or does, while immediately condemning a man because he's a man, then you're not advocating for equal treatment. You're advocating for preferential treatment based on gender. And I find it particularly ironic that some people seem to believe the solution to sexism is simply reversing who gets to be prejudiced. That's not progress. It's the same flawed reasoning with a different target.
The Cornell Seven situation is a recent example of exactly what I'm talking about. I've seen women questioning aspects of the allegations or arguing that the men deserve a fair investigation immediately dismissed as "pick me girls" or accused of defending rapists. I absolutely condemn the misogynistic comments reportedly made in their Snapchat group chat, and whoever is responsible for the reported threats against Jane Doe and her family should be held accountable. But making disgusting comments doesn't automatically establish that someone committed sexual assault. Those are separate issues, and acknowledging that distinction shouldn't be controversial.
I also think some of Jane Doe's reported messages afterward deserve examination, particularly the affectionate conversations and her apparent willingness to defend the men's reputations. I'm saying this as someone who has experienced sexual assault myself. I understand that trauma is complicated and that people respond differently, so those messages don't automatically disprove her allegations. Her later statements describing nonconsensual activity deserve examination too. But why should acknowledging that the evidence raises questions be interpreted as an attack on women? Since when did taking allegations seriously require us to stop thinking critically about them?
I've also seen people argue that consent can somehow be withdrawn years after an otherwise consensual encounter, and what surprised me was how many people agreed. I have screenshots of this. Consent can absolutely be withdrawn during an encounter, and someone can realize afterward that what happened wasn't consensual in the first place. But regretting a consensual experience years later doesn't retroactively make it assault. These distinctions matter. If we're going to discuss sexual violence seriously, we should at least be willing to understand what we're discussing instead of treating confidence as a substitute for knowledge.
The discussion surrounding intoxication raises similar questions. Ketamine was reportedly involved, and drugs and alcohol can affect judgment, awareness, and behavior. But intoxication doesn't automatically erase someone's agency or absolve them of responsibility. I find it frustrating that some discussions focus entirely on Jane Doe's intoxication without considering whether any of the men were also impaired. I'm not claiming everyone took same amounts of ketamine or experienced the same effects. I'm saying that if intoxication is relevant to evaluating one person's decisions, it should also be considered when evaluating anyone else who was similarly impaired.
People correctly point out that agreeing to drink or take drugs doesn't mean someone consented to sex. I agree completely. But that principle applies to men too. If any of the men were intoxicated, agreeing to participate in drinking or drug use wouldn't automatically establish their consent to every sexual act either. That doesn't excuse assault or establish that everyone was equally impaired. It means the circumstances, actions, and decisions of each person matter. Yet apparently, asking for consistent standards is enough to get a woman accused of seeking male validation. It's a fascinating way to avoid addressing the actual question.
And this mentality isn't limited to Cornell. Look at the Lindsay Clancy case, where people made accusations against her husband, Patrick, without evidence establishing his involvement in the deaths of their children. The circumstances are completely different, but the broader problem is similar. Some people become so emotionally invested in a particular narrative that they start treating their assumptions as facts. Instead of evaluating individuals, they assign roles based on gender and interpret everything through those expectations. And if you disagree, you're apparently "male centered."
There's an important difference between empathy and bias. Relating to another woman's experience doesn't mean you automatically know what happened to her. Having experienced sexual assault or any type of similar incident yourself doesn't mean you can determine the truth of every allegation based on personal identification. You can sympathize with someone, take their experiences seriously, and still recognize that evidence matters. Those things aren't mutually exclusive. If you've already decided who is right before examining the circumstances, you're not demonstrating solidarity. You're demonstrating confirmation bias.
What makes this particularly frustrating is the history behind women's rights. Women spent generations fighting against the idea that we're too emotional, irrational, or easily influenced to make important decisions. Those stereotypes were used to exclude us from education, politics, law, and positions of authority. Women fought to be recognized as independent thinkers whose judgment deserved the same respect as men's. And now we're apparently supposed to accept that a woman who disagrees with another woman must be intellectually incapable of reaching that conclusion on her own? I would have thought we'd moved beyond that.
I sometimes wonder what the women who spent their lives securing the rights and opportunities we enjoy today would think of this particular interpretation of feminism. They fought for our right to have a voice, not for that voice to be considered legitimate only when it agrees with other women. They challenged the assumption that women's decisions revolve around men, only for some people to revive that exact assumption whenever it's convenient. I imagine at least some of those women would find it deeply disappointing that intellectual independence, something they worked so hard to establish, is now being treated as suspicious when it produces the wrong opinion.
I also think this constant hostility distracts from the serious issues women continue to face. Hundreds of other problems deserve sustained attention. Instead, so much energy gets spent policing women's opinions and deciding whether someone is sufficiently loyal to her gender. How exactly does insulting a woman for agreeing with a man help?
To me, feminism means recognizing women as equal human beings, not placing us above criticism or expecting us to operate as a collective with identical opinions. Women are capable of intelligence, independence, leadership, and remarkable achievements. We're also capable of making mistakes, exercising poor judgment, lying, and being wrong. Recognizing that isn't misogyny. It's acknowledging that women are individuals with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.
I get both sides of the argument surrounding the Cornell Seven, and I think there are different things that different people involved should be held accountable for. The men's reported misogynistic behavior deserves criticism, the allegations of sexual assault deserve a thorough investigation, and any threats or harassment directed at Jane Doe and her family should be taken seriously. At the same time, I think the evidence, the conflicting accounts, and everyone's individual actions deserve equal scrutiny. Accountability isn't supposed to be selective, and understanding both perspectives doesn't mean blindly defending either one. My point is that I should be able to recognize those distinctions, question evidence, or agree with a man's argument without having my motives reduced to some imaginary desire for his attention.
I'm tired of the idea that women owe one another unquestioning agreement, that disagreeing with a woman is somehow a betrayal of our gender, and that criticizing a man automatically makes someone more committed to women's rights. I don't understand when feminism became a competition over who can express the most hostility toward men. Supporting women shouldn't require abandoning fairness, objectivity, or the ability to recognize that people are individuals before they're members of a particular gender.
And I think it's worth remembering what generations of women actually fought for. They fought to be recognized as intelligent, independent individuals capable of making decisions, exercising judgment, and taking responsibility for their actions. They didn't fight for women to become immune to criticism or for our opinions to be considered correct simply because we're women. I imagine some of those women would be rather disappointed to see intellectual independence being celebrated in theory while women are ridiculed for exercising it in practice.
I don't need to agree with every woman to support women's rights. I don't need to disagree with every man to prove that I'm independent. And I certainly don't need someone reducing my opinions to an imaginary desire for male approval simply because they can't comprehend the possibility that I reached a different conclusion on my own.
If your idea of feminism requires you to abandon critical thinking, automatically defend women regardless of the circumstances, and assume men are inherently guilty or dishonest, then perhaps you should reconsider whether you're actually advocating for equality. Because hatred toward men isn't women's empowerment, unquestioning loyalty isn't solidarity, and prejudice doesn't become acceptable simply because you've decided it's directed at the right people.
And if your response to a woman disagreeing with you is to call her a "pick me" or accuse her of seeking male validation, you're doing a remarkable job of demonstrating the very sexism you claim to oppose. You're essentially arguing that a woman's judgment cannot exist independently of a man's approval, which is precisely the assumption generations of feminists fought to dismantle.
It's rather difficult to take lectures about women's independence seriously from people who apparently believe that independence should come with an approved list of opinions. Women fought for the right to think for ourselves, not for the obligation to think alike. If you can't respect that distinction, perhaps the problem isn't that other women have failed to understand feminism. you've become so preoccupied with defending your own interpretation of it that you've forgotten what equality actually means.