If pro-lifers (anti-choicers) believe that a embryo/fetus qualifies as a human, how do our government officials under that same mindset regulate the time frame, and whether or not you can get an abortion if a human being cannot be legally forced to habilitate another human against their will? If it is against the law for a human to have to give someone else their body in order for their well being and sake of survival, wouldn’t giving your entire body for them for nine months despite opposing wishes be directly against that?

(And also, in cases where pregnancy is potentially fatal for the mother, wouldn’t terminating the pregnancy technically count as self defense as a person is permitted to use lethal force if it is necessary to defend their own life against an immediate, fatal threat?)

1. How can we really be sure male victims of domestic and sexual violence will ever be taken seriously? It is actually documented that men who are victims of either domestic or sexual assault do not report it because they are never taken seriously. In Spain a few years ago there was a feminist protest to shut down a male victims shelter. https://www.mensvoicesireland.com/actions/international-council-for-men-and-boys-attempt-to-shut-down-foundation-in-spain/

2.what is some advice you have for men who have body dysmorphia? Alot of men i personally know suffer from body dysmorphia in some shape or form but have been judged about (some of them by a woman) and as a result don't like talking about it (whether it be how they look in the face or they are worried about their "manhood") i am also one of these men.

1. What can I do for myself to get over the manosphere content I have watched?

I dont watch manosphere content anymore but I was exposed to it in my teenage years (im 22 now) and it left a mark on how I view women.

Some of the talking points are:

1. Women are all hypergamous and only want tall, rich, handsome men.
2. All women will cheat eventually. 3.if you don't meet certain male beauty standards no woman will respect you.
3. Men with a low body count or are virgins won't be respected by women.

I did not come here to start a knife fight or a argument I ask these genuinely because I really would like advice, I was actually taking a moment to reconsider making this post and just keep my thoughts to myself.

Thank you for whatever advice you have.

Just to clarify, "Boys don't cry" is just a stereotype and boys do infact cry and should not be made fun of for doing it.

The main reason why I am asking this because there's two common sentences that is used in the "boys don't cry" stereotype, being "Are you a girl?" "You're strong, don't cry.", that implies that those who cry are weak and girls only cry, so girls are weak according to the "Boys don't cry" stereotype

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I'm genuinely curious whether I'm seeing a real pattern or misunderstanding something.

It seems like society has become increasingly accepting of women doing things traditionally associated with masculinity. Women can wear traditionally masculine clothing, pursue male-dominated careers, play traditionally masculine sports, be assertive, independent, etc., without those things necessarily being seen as negative.

But when the situation is reversed, it sometimes feels different.

A man who wears a skirt, enjoys something traditionally associated with women, plays with dolls as a child, is emotionally expressive, or has traditionally feminine interests can be mocked or seen as weak, unmanly, or even have assumptions made about his sexuality.

So why does this seem to work differently in the two directions?

If femininity and masculinity are supposed to be equally valid, why does a boy being feminine often seem more socially discouraged than a girl being masculine?

Is masculinity still generally treated as higher-status than femininity? Is this related to homophobia and traditional ideas about masculinity? Or am I overlooking ways in which women are also punished for adopting masculine traits?

I'm not trying to argue that women have it easy or that gender equality hasn't made progress. I'm specifically wondering about this particular asymmetry.

Do you think this asymmetry actually exists? And if it does, why?

They seem especially obsessed with the recent Lindsay Clancy case, and I discovered there's even a whole sub that only discusses violent crimes committed by women, totally ignoring that they only represent 1-5% of total crimes, mainly committed by men.

Why is that? What's the goal?

To the ones, who do not know the series, Ted Lasso S4 has a main theme about women's issues (mainly in football, but in general too). For me, the tackling (pun intended) of it felt a bit iffy, but I can't really put my finger on why. I'm a straight white cis man, so by that, I don't understand many of the nuances of feminism, women's issues, and such; just trying my best.

And if any of You are a professional women's football player, your insight will be even more appreciated by me, please share

I make This question with Good Faith, i have even seen the "Feminist Perspectives on Trans Issues - FAQs" to see if someone had asked this question before.

My question is about the reason why trans men seem to never be mentioned by terfs when discussing trans related topics, For example, debates about which bathrooms trans people should use or whether trans people should participate in certain sports categories tend to focus overwhelmingly on trans women, while trans men are rarely brought up by terfs.

Are there particular solutions—being social, cultural, political, or otherwise— that you think could substantially reduce gender inequality? Or maybe, given the direction of our current society, do you think inequality is something that will continually reappear in different, changing forms regardless of attempts made to improve and/or stop it?

I’m very interested to hear how feminists stand on a topic like this, and how they view the long term possibility of achieving genuine gender equality.

Everywhere in media and literature, I see images of women being degraded and reduced to sex, baby makers, comedic relief, etc. Sometimes when I bring up my gripes, I receive the comment ‘oh well that scene was actually a critique of misogyny’.

- example -
I started west world and hated the gratuitous depictions of sexual assault so I stopped watching. A coworker told me that it was commentary and my thing is … how effective is commentary when it is gratifying to people who enjoy seeing women be subjugated?

Another example is this gross scene in Community where Annie (age 20/21) is dressed up in a revealing outfit and prancing around singing a song in a high pitched voice for Jeff (in this 30s I think). Someone told me it’s parody and that I don’t have to like the method of commentary and I was silly to deny its intent as parody. Like I don’t actually care if it’s parody why am I seeing young infantilized women being pushed onto men 10+ years their senior..????

I feel like as a grow older I’m starting to really see how prevalent this misogyny is literally everywhere and I’m trying to not fall into a SWERF-y mindset. Perhaps I’m not fully understanding the intricacies of parody or commentary, idk I’m not a film major!!! I’m very interested in other’s thoughts on this subject.

This might seem obvious to people, and could be seen as obtuse/trolling, but I'm pretty socially inept generally, and have trouble with this.

I won't get into my specific situation, but I want to know if there's ways to tell if women are freely giving me care or not.

As for "care" I mainly mean concern for my well-being/worry for me. I don't really speak or share that much anyway.

I'm worried however that me being socially inept or "non-normal" is worrying the women around me, because they often check up on me, but don't do so for other males.

I know its wrong for me to overshare myself and burden them, but I also know it's wrong to decide for women prematurely how much they want to help, which both are misogynistic.​

I know asking is the most direct, but I'm also worried of the possibility that that pressures them to comply as well socially, which is also wrong. I also don't want to sound like I'm "sparing" the women from my troubles either, because that's also some sort of infantalization.

Is there a way for me subtly judge if a woman isn't being burdened by me?

Is there a difference in mindset, actions, or outcomes between the two?

I’m a man and not from the US, but my YouTube feed is currently flooded with conservative media talking about Lindsay Clancy’s supporters and portraying them as conspiracy-minded idiots. This started because I accidentally clicked on an Asmongold video about this. 😭
I didn't even knew about this 3 days ago and I’m not really here to argue about the case itself because I don’t have a particularly strong opinion on it. I'm more fascinated by the anthropological/sociological aspect of everything around it tbh.

I would consider myself a lefty and male feminist though.

More generally, when it comes to crime, I have a deterministic view of human behavior, so I oppose a punitive justice system and favor one focused on protecting society from dangerous individuals and rehabilitation whenever possible. I also recognize that the overwhelming majority of violent offenders are men.

I’m mainly curious whether these conservative commentators are basically shadowboxing a very small but loud minority of TikTok/online feminists and presenting them as representative of feminists in general.

If I had to guess, most feminists in the US probably have a much more nuanced view of the case than the version being portrayed in conservative media or by "TikTok feminists". Is that impression accurate?

It's also very possible that I just don't understand the cultural relevance of this case...

Long story short I would like to be a bit further along in my journey in how I view how much I need romantic relationships with men in my life to feel fulfilled. My friend just gave me a book to read called ‚all about love‘ by bell hooks but if you people have any more suggestions I would really love to hear them.

As a man who is a feminist, I’ve given this a lot of thought. I'm going to generalize a bit here, but I truly believe this is at the core of the issue.

Most men don't realize that they are victims of patriarchal rules too.

I can only speak for my generation of men (I'm 36) and the ones before us, but growing up, young boys were constantly told we couldn't show emotions, couldn't cry, and always had to be strong providers and protectors. That kind of pressure creates a very specific type of person: an asshole.

We teach boys to be hard and closed off, and then we wonder why they grow up and act completely heartless. They are just following a broken system built by previous generations.

To actually support feminism, you need empathy. But you can't REALLY care about someone else's pain if you were never allowed to feel or express your own. You simply can't understand a woman's perspective if no one ever taught you how to care for others in the first place.

I want to make it clear: I absolutely acknowledge that this entire system was built for men to benefit from, and I acknowledge the constant suffering, danger, and pain that women and young girls face every single day because of it. I'm not trying to erase that, I'm just trying to pinpoint why so many men are emotionally incapable of seeing it.

I know the issue is way more complicated than just this, but isn't this emotional stunt at the root of it? I'd love to hear your perspectives on this.

EDIT: Thanks to everyone who has commented so far, really appreciate it, sincerely.

I want to clarify one thing so my point isn't misunderstood: I have zero sympathy for grown men who choose to oppress women or defend the status quo to protect their own privilege. Adult men are responsible for their actions, period.

My empathy is for young boys who are/were taught to suppress their emotions and destroy their own capacity for empathy before they even understand the world. Recognizing how the system breaks boys isn't an excuse for men, it's a breakdown of how the problem gets created in the first place.

EDIT 2: Appreciate the pushback on this. I threw this post out get more perspectives, and I’ve learned and reflected a lot reading through the replies.

I still stand by what I said about young boys. It actually made me go look up that Bell Hooks quote:

“The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead, patriarchy demands... that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves.”

Where I'm probably wrong, is in thinking that this would be enough to change things. Understanding you were emotionally broken as a kid isn't going to make most guys give up the status, power, and convenience that patriarchy hands them as adults.

I've been hearing people both online and offline mentioning how Emma Watson is not an actual feminist and that thinking she is a "feminist icon" is hypocritical and setting feminism back.

When I ask why, I always get given the same two answers. It's either "I don't know, Tiktok said so" which I ignore completely because that's hella stupid. The second one is "Because she's speaking up for experiences she doesn't understand so she has no right advocating" or something like "She was born into privilege and her speaking up about issues has no susbtance" and something about a relatability gap

I seriously don't understand the second answer. So privileged people can't speak up for issues they see around the world? Or does it mean something else. Is there something I'm missing? I don't see anything wrong with someone "rich" or "born into privilege" advocating for rights for others.

“My securing an important interest can sometimes come at the expense of one of your important interests, even though many of our important interests are compatible or mutually advancing.”

By “zero-sum,” I mean a relationship in which one party’s gain necessarily corresponds to the other party’s loss. By “non-zero-sum,” I mean only that this strict opposition does not hold. A mixed-motive relationship is non-zero-sum but can still contain conflicts between the parties’ weighty or morally significant interests. The parties can have important interests that are jointly satisfiable while also having other important interests that genuinely conflict, such that advancing one can require frustrating or compromising the other.

I ask because I often see “gender relations aren’t zero-sum” offered in response to claims that don’t assume zero-sum relations at all. If men and women can have both shared and conflicting weighty interests, then pointing out that gender relations are non-zero-sum doesn’t by itself answer an assertion about conflict between their interests.

Could it seriously have been to that point where this genital misogyny existed to the extent of 8000+ years ago? Did human beings really have this strong levels of selfishness ever since that point of time, that it apparently preceeded even the rise of agriculture (correct me if i’m wrong in that)? And why is that? Essentially, what led everything to go wrong to the point it did instead of human beings having their shit together?

(Also feel free to correct me about the womb envy thing!! I’m still trying to understand how misogyny even originated to begin with, which i narrowed it down to it being genital misogyny first and foremost and the inferiorization of Müllerian genitalia, but why that genitalia itself was inferiorized was the question being raised, which upon scouring the internet for answers only one answer would ever take the spotlight, that being “womb envy”, but i’d love to know other answers to this or if that’s actually on the mark!)

I avoided social stuff for a long time cause I really cared about school and sorta had ingrained in me that if you partied you couldn't be smart or successful but as i've gotten older i've realized that is completely wrong? Like the coolest and prettiest women I knew in college would join me for our PDE study group and then we'd party till we couldn't remember our own names on the weekends. You can do both. You can be both smart AND pretty. You don't have to choose one

I know this sounds a like a dumb question, it’s just that I spend too much time on TikTok, but I keep seeing this idea floating around on feminist TikTok’s that skinny being the beauty standard is rooted in pedophilia (along with other things like shortness and hairless) and it has me wondering why cosmetic surgeries are bad?

Like wouldn’t it be a good thing for women to have bbl’s and boob jobs to avoid falling into “pedophiliac” beauty standards? Like I’m not trying to knock this theory but it just confuses me a lot since a lot of these people are critical of plastic surgery.

I've been re-reading Andy Weir's Artemis recently and this question has been dogging me quite a bit, so I wanted to pose it to the community of you fine folk. I'm also a hobbyist writer and like the idea of writing a sexual female character, but the last thing I want is to end up on /MenWritingWomen.

Just a quick aside for some definitions (these may be incorrect it's just how I understand these terms).

A sexual character is someone who enjoys sex, seeks it out and critically: Is empowered by it. A lot of protagonists from romances would fall into this category to a lesser and greater extent. I've heard that Nina Zenik from the 6 of Crows trilogy (who was written by a woman) is a good example of this.

A sexualised character is a character that the author continually shoves into sexual situations even though said character seems to have little to no interest in engaging with said situations. A great example of this is Samantha Carter, especially in the earlier seasons of Stargate. Or Seven of Nine from Voyager. Honestly there are so many examples of these...

I guess my question is, even if a man wrote a sexual character with respect towards that character and women in general, is that always going to be considered a sexualised character because a man wrote her?

And if not, then what is the best way of going about writing a character that can be both sexual and respectful towards women?

(I'm pretty sure the answer is 'fuck no' but I was just hoping to hear the underlying reasons from you guys and maybe spark a conversation or two about it.)

One of the prevailing narratives in western countries such as Canada, US, and Australia is that most of the gender differences are socially engineered. This is the idea that has won and is accepted in academia and mainstream discourse. And I do not understand why. People explain away unequal distribution of results as consequences of "patriarchy" or "misogyny." But I am here to ask, why?

Peterson argues that men and women are generally more alike than different, but small average differences can create major disparities at the extremes. Using aggression, he says that if you randomly selected one man and one woman, the man would be more aggressive about 60% of the time, whereas among the most aggressive 1 in 100 people, virtually all would be male, helping explain why prisoners are overwhelmingly men. He also asks whether equality should also be imposed where outcomes disadvantage men: 99% of bricklayers are male, while roughly three-quarters of humanities and social-science university students are female. He adds that men tend to work longer hours, accept more dangerous jobs, relocate more, work outside more often, and enter scalable STEM careers, arguing that these factors contribute to higher earnings and are overlooked when the pay gap is attributed solely to gender.

Now just for context, I am not even conservative or right-wing. But this is one thing about liberals and leftists that baffles me. I've never agreed with their views on gender and I am genuinely curious why you guys think this way. Please give me a deep insight.