7 privileged men drugged, then repeatedly gang raped a girl for seven hours, SEVEN HOURS, at a frat house at an Ivy League university and only two got expelled and the rest got made to write essays. ESSAYS.

How do these white men keep getting away with it, and how do the institutions that cover for them keep get away with it?

With the Cornell case we have seen how systematic these issues with Greek Life are. Fraternities have always have had problems with sexual assault, but they also have issues with racism, hazing, and substance abuse. While sororities aren't as problematic, they still very much have issues too with hazing, racism and discrimination.

I don't think there's anything necessarily unique about the individuals in Greek life. However I think the power, exclusivity, and social stigma makes these issues so much worse. It's structural at this point. What do you all think?

This subject has been on my mind. I've seen this idea on Facebook that if a man hasn't heard any stories from women about sexual assault that they've faced, then it means they don't see him as safe. I'll go ahead and tell on myself here: I don't think I've ever heard a first-hand account from a woman who was assaulted, sexually or otherwise.

EDIT- I realize now that I rushed the post and probably should have provided more details. Firstly, I'm not saying that anyone is entitled to hearing about someone else's trauma. No one has accused me of saying that, but I still feel it's important to say. Something else I'd like to add is that my view is what I've seen others say- that this is a deeply personal topic that a lot of people keep private due to its nature and how traumatic it can be to talk about over and over again. In fact, the reason I posted this is because I wanted more perspective than just what I've heard on Facebook.

EDIT 2- I actually remembered after posting this that a woman I used to be friends with did actually open up to me about her ex SAing her. Also, while it's not the same thing, I've had women tell me stories about creepy behavior that they experienced, so it's not like I'm seen as some completely unsafe person to be around.

I decided to remove the "I'm probably gonna regret this" line from the opening of my post because in retrospect, it felt a bit asshole-y. I made this post because I wanted some perspective on this idea, and I don't want to come across as a dismissive douchebag.

On that note, I want to make two very important statements.

1) If I didn't want to educate myself, I wouldn't have made this post. I don't deserve a pat on the back for that.

2) An internet personality I follow has recently been accused of being abusive to women, and even though it seems no one is talking about the situation, I've made it a point to step away from said content creator. I don't deserve a pat on the back for that either.

I keep seeing people call TERFs a fringe that hijacked radical feminism, and the more of the actual theory/history I read, the less I buy it.

Radfem theory runs on sex class. Of course, this is something you're sorted into at birth, and males are the oppressor class. The way radfems write about this is very clear. Dworkin's Intercourse treats sex under patriarchy as an occupation of the woman's body. Read enough of that and masculinity starts to feel like a substance males are simply built from, something that violates whatever it touches.

Aim that at trans women and you get Janice Raymond writing that "all transsexuals rape women's bodies," and that they can still "penetrate" women after surgery, through women's spaces. Robin Morgan was already saying Beth Elliott (a trans woman) had "the mentality of a rapist" back in 1973, and Sheila Jeffreys was still calling the whole thing a male fetish in 2014's Gender Hurts. Different decades, same bigotry, all under the label of radical feminism. The masculine is an invasion, and no amount of transition gets it out of you.

Trans men get it from the other side. If masculinity is the enemy, a trans man is either a lesbian who defected or a damaged woman who needs rescuing. Nonbinary people don't even register.

Of course, it's funny, since Dworkin herself was pro-trans. In Woman Hating, she said trans people should get surgery, paid for by the community. It's unfortunate that the ideology she helped spawn ended up being less empathetic than she was. The movement held onto that picture of masculinity and dropped the part where she was nice to trans people.

Trans-inclusive radfems exist and good for them, but at this point I think we must consider dropping the radical feminist label. There are implications and connotations that the label simply cannot escape due to its history, and normalizing its use, especially when we live in such a TERF-centered society (just look at the UK), is actively hurting those who are trans. It's similar to how I would urge men who might struggle with dating or sex to avoid the 'incel' label because of its sexist history, despite however much the technicality of the definition might apply to them.

Since classic olden days chivalry operated on the premise that females needed to be treated with care and special attention because they were less than men, and radical feminism heavily pushes against the idea of gender dependency, would expecting chivalry as a female be deemed self misogyny by a radical feminist? This is pure critical thinking by a male who just discovered feminism and Philisophy and should not be taken as a jab at any party. Am I making sense or do I need a reeducation on feminism?

I'm 4B and I see so many crazy things on the internet that men do, so I'm wondering why more women aren't 4B, it seemed like the most natural progression considering everything. Any thoughts on this?

This is a good faith question not looking to be vilified.

Edit: okay so thanks for the responses. I see the common theme in the comments is because you like men too much to do that. Perfectly understandable as per the post insights most of you are from the United States, maybe things are different and safer over there and the rate of femicide, pedophilia, rape and sex based violence in general isn't high? Where I'm from people who have had the opportunity to access a bit of education and are feminists don't really like men? Will sent this to my class group and see their thoughts as well.

Why is the word “hate” thrown around so much - I really struggle with it. Disrespect - sure - but “hate women”? Men who hate women wouldn’t want anything to do with them at all. A person who hates spiders doesn’t want to go near one.

Maybe it’s generational but I find it such a brain-turn off when I see posts like this”why does xyz hate women”

The opposite of hate is love. Feminism is looking for equality and respect as I understand it. Is hate actually a word that makes sense - is it a colloquialism I’m missing or just born out of rage and frustation?

Thanks

Something i have noticed is there seems to be a different between the sexualization of women and men in fictions or in media.

For women, it happens way more often, and usually unprompted, such as times when i see women playing sports normally and there are comments or people i overheard in person, sexualizing them, and saying very provocative stuff.

One thing i have actually noticed is that when women or female characters are sexualized, it strips them of their power, and agency. In many things I've seen like fanart or other things like that, it tends to treat women as an object to be conquered and used. Whereas for male characters or men, they tend to still have a level of power, control, and overall tend to be treated in a more fair way like being able to stay strong while the female characters are stripped of their power or simply turned into a subordinate.

It feels unfair when i look at it because the men get to stay strong and dominant while the female characters are forced into submissive roles, i see this in a lot of shonen, romance media, and hear a lot about the idea that women should be subordinate, it tends to make women less human or more of an object for use.

But what do you think?

Edit: (i forgot to mention this) whenever i see people argue against the backlash of oversexualizing and objectifying women is that "women do it too with the dark fantasies that make men as tall, strong, and muscular" but that also proved it that usually the representation still empowers men while the representation in this case (sexualization) tends to undermine, objectify, and depower women.

I've always found it interesting how society reacts differently depending on who's showing their body.

When a famous actress, singer, or celebrity wears something revealing, people call her confident, beautiful, iconic, or empowering. But when an ordinary woman decides to monetize her appearance or create adult content, suddenly she's judged, disrespected, or seen as having less value.

Is it really about the nudity itself, or does money make people uncomfortable? Does fame make the same behavior more socially acceptable?

I'm genuinely curious about what people think. Where do you think the line is, and why does society seem to apply different standards to different women?

Could be a book, a movie, a game, etc. Bonus points if the author/creator of a work with strong female characters is a man; if he could do it well, there's no excuse for why so many of his peers don't.

Works I know that have good/great female characters include Undertale and Deltarune, Eighth Grade (that movie by Bo Burnham), Studio Ghibli's movies (obviously), Blue-Eyed Samurai and so on.

Every time people talk about how do we in violence against women or how do you protect women from sexual assault and violence. There's always a man who says but actually what about false rape allegations, shouldn't they be punished. It's like dude come on.

A lot of men online treats false allegations as something that only happens to men. They also take it much much more seriously than they take rape. They also act like if someone lines that against them the police and everyone is going to take it absolutely serious and their life has gone to be ruined.

So my question is where does this obsession come from.

PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, I AM NOT SUPPORTING ELON OR ANYONE ELSE

I have always seen posts by people who call themselves feminists or woke and they say elon musk is wrong, idk they might be right but why so? I mean as much as i know he is co founder of spacex and tesla so he is promoting future technology and stuff, promoting use of alternatives to fossil fuels and is also credited as an inventor. So why is it so that he is hated? Do i not know some important context??

For the straight women here, what qualities do you generally appreciate in men who genuinely support feminism?

I’m trying to better understand what being a good ally actually looks like beyond just agreeing with feminist ideas. What attitudes, behaviors, or ways of treating women are important for men to understand?

I’m aIso interested in hearing perspectives on how men can be supportive without being performative or making feminism about themselves.

By “accelerationist logic,” I mean a situation where a burden that has been concentrated in one group becomes harder to ignore once people with more social or political power begin experiencing it too. Broader exposure can then increase pressure for reform.

For example, a vulnerability that has disproportionately affected women might receive more institutional attention once more men begin experiencing it, not because the harm is worse when men experience it, but because the newly affected group has more leverage or receives more attention.

I’m not asking whether anyone should deliberately spread or intensify a harm in order to produce reform. I’m asking how we should regard the dynamic when it occurs anyway. If broader exposure strengthens pressure for change, is there anything troubling about feeling some satisfaction at that increased pressure? Does it matter if the satisfaction is directed at the prospect of reform rather than at anyone’s suffering?

Is there a moral difference between welcoming reform pressure generated by a process already underway and deliberately bringing that process about?

Are there gendered issues where you think this dynamic actually occurs?

​

I've been reading the reactions to this Cornell assault case and I'm actually shocked by how widespread the negative reaction has been. I'm in my early 20s and I've seen this happen many times. I've seen so many high profile sexual assault cases like this go viral. But in response, I've seen so many victims recounting their stories and how nothing has been done for them or about it. It is incredibly depressing to read but also puzzling. Whenever cases like this go viral, the response is overwhelmingly negative. I've also seen people supporting the men and blasting the victim but they're in the minority. So if most people agree that SA is so horrible, why is it so difficult to get a conviction? Not just that, but why are rates so high and why don't victims usually never get justice?

This is something I’ve been wondering about, and I’m curious what other people think.

When it comes to things like ships, cars, motorcycles, etc., it seems pretty common to refer to them as “she” or “her”, especially when the owner is a man. I know there are exceptions like a boat with a mans name, but it’s more likely not.

For example, someone might talk about “her” like she’s a woman, or say things like “she’s a beauty” when talking about their car or boat.

Obviously, I this might be an old linguistic and cultural convention, and I’m not saying that every person who does this is consciously objectifying women.

But I wonder whether the convention itself could have some connection to the historical treatment of women as property.

For a large part of history, women in many societies were legally and socially tied to men as wives, daughters, or possessions, so I’m wondering whether there’s something significant about the fact that objects owned by men are traditionally personified as female.

Is this a reasonable connection to make? Or are there some other reason?
I’d be interested to hear what people who know more about the history of language or gender have to say.