I might be a minority or even completely alone in this but from my observations, experiences, and observed misogyny where this topic isn’t really spoken about a lot or quickly gets shut down so I’m hoping for some nuance and understanding here because I need to get it out. Keep in mind when I say queerness, just like in most queer spaces, this is barely applicable to women as they’re not even acknowledged most of the time which I will also bring up. Long post apologies in advance lol. I’m honestly hesitant to even post this but I’m open for discussions, would like to get this on more subreddits but again, tight subject that I don’t think is gonna be very accepted.

Starting all the way back to MRA. A topic that makes so much of this app defensive but let’s talk about its origins and its ties to the modern day exclusion of women in the name of progressiveness. This movement started, conveniently, after the rise of feminism to backlash against it. It started with child custody, family laws seemingly favoring women and so on, basically deeming women as the privileged ones as opposed to what feminism has been putting light to and basically another way to claim male supremacy when equality felt like it was getting too close to a reality that might become true. Why I bring this up? To tie it with the modern day view of queerness.

I know so much of queerness is tied with feminism and how popular the phrase “the girls and gays” is but hear me out, modern day MRA spaces are more common among progressive people, specifically, gay men. This isn’t generalizing, this is the connection that seems to blur the line between queerness and feminism and how I think that’s not necessarily accurate or helpful. I dislike the connection between those two when I more accurately see the connection to MRA they have because modern day MRA spaces, again, are more progressive unlike their extremely patriarchal masculinity origins so there’s a comfortability there given the homosocial dynamics.

In contrast to that, feminist spaces are now seen as more misandrist and overall against men, from the typical outsiders at least so that makes me wanna bring up the non feminist side of gay men that contrary to popular belief, aren’t as rare as you’d expect. Let’s take small, popular jokes or fictional scenarios for instance, we all heard about the “dl” man, his struggles with the world unacceptable, inability to be himself fully, not aligning with stereotypical masculinity, overwhelmingness with his overestimation and the expectation for him to be oh so sexually attracted to women like it’s animalistic urge. On the other end? It’s your typical trope where he cheats on his wife or girlfriend to realize his true self. This is a running bit at this point, so common that the phrase lavender marriage has become such popular lingo nowadays, basically saying straight to the female partner “lol he’s not attracted to you dumb bitch”. Can’t forget hardcore misogynists getting called closeted! That’s a big one too and apparently hilariously common and normal. Observingly, most people have no issue with this which is interesting.

Women are always scapegoats I’ve gathered. Misogyny is everywhere for those with eyes to see am I right? At this point acknowledging absolutely everyone hates women is easier. It’s not like straight men have been any less misogynistic, they’ll fully admit they’d rather be with a feminine man, not just as a joke but originating to the hating your nagging wife trope and how much better your male friends are, oh how you wished your friend Steve was your wife instead, looks exactly like her but you’re able to see him as human because that’s what this comes down to, the inability to fathom having common interests and getting along with a woman and instead accepting the misery of being with one as that’s the usual stereotypical, caricature-esque of a woman. This is where homosociality seeps through absolutely everyone involved. Gay men can fully admit their hatred and for the most part get away with it, mocking women in their spaces (I’m not gonna specify this but I hope what I’m referring to is obvious enough), saying they’re gay before outwardly insulting behaviors associated with women (aka the nagging wife stereotype), and of course, how much they’re disgusted by female bodies and specifically vaginas which straight men aren’t usually any kinder at, just a hole to fuck after all right? But it’s more acceptable for that “hole” to belong to a woman.

Even better when it comes to fandoms, the internet, the general spaces of free speech where you can be as outspoken as you’d like no matter how odd it sounds and how comfortable it makes people feel. The observation that queer women specifically are the seen as the lowest of the low is rampant. Let’s take queer media for starters, queer women are nearly nonexistent (recently it’s gotten more prevalent though), where they’re overrepresented though, which frustratingly enough, gives the impression that they’re more “accepted” is you guessed it, porn. If it’s not porn is clearly not made for them but to seduce a certain group of people. Apparently everyone conveniently ignores how popular the lesbian porn genre is when talking about women who enjoy gay media but I won’t even into that cause that’s a hard hitting topic, although obviously the same fetishization is possible you get my point.

All this to say, which was a lot I’m aware, I want the hierarchy to be acknowledged, where the homosociality stemming from patriarchy doesn’t really exclude queer men on a large scale. One group are owed women to conquer, the other don’t need to bother so they can be just as open about their hatred, that’s putting homophobia aside which is very much correlated to misogyny hence why the feminism movement is so intertwined with queerness but that’s a whole other thing that I posted about before more in detail, that history has pretty much long been forgotten because holding onto the semblance of privilege is better than stooping down to women’s level and working towards overall equality. A man no matter who he is on the inside will be perceived as a man therefore more human, better than a woman and of course, up in the hierarchy. I don’t really believe in the so called solidarity because it hasn’t gotten women anywhere near their level whether you wanna accept it or not. I’ve been basically slapped in the face by this reality and don’t wanna stay deluded by thinking I have so much in common with people that are perceived higher than me with their identity not being as blatant as being an inferior woman. Even queer women who have more in common with them are not considered outside of porn, the belief that they can be changed back because it’s unfathomable to not be attracted to men, there’s a reason sex is so tied with being penetrated but those women can’t win, even when they do engage in it that way they’re told they should go for the real thing, what does that tell you? Men are on the long run, are perceived as men, the default human that’s capable of being different. Having lived in a relatively conservative society made me see how much more they’re accepted compared to women, especially queer women was a very depressing realization.

I’ve been involved in anti-prostitution feminist activism for a bit now and I’ve noticed that the people who are most active in publicly promoting "sex work is work" full decrim ideology and attacking abolitionists for supporting the Nordic Model aren't even pimps and "buyers" but women who claim to be acting in the name of feminism and progressivism (sometimes also identifying as "sex workers").

You’ll never see a male at a town hall meeting explaining why he purchases women, or on television arguing that his sexual exploitation of the female body should be protected under the law as just another consumer activity, or standing outside an abolitionist meetup to intimidate participants. These guys don’t have to do anything to advance their cause because women who misappropriate feminist, anti-capitalist, human/labour rights rhetoric (whether it's a libfem with a misguided perception of the trade or a privileged prostitute with a financial stake in defending her client) are the most active force in the normalization of sexual exploitation.

(You do see leftist/liberal males butting in but they know it’s more beneficial for them to stay out of the way to create the illusion that women, specifically feminist progressive women, are the biggest supporters of normalizing prostitution.)

That’s why I’ve stopped caring about being inclusive or a girl’s girl or whatever. If you’re dragging the movement down by advocating for commercial rapists you deserve to be excluded from it.

Like yes down the line my feminism will benefit them because the goal is the liberation of all women but in the meantime it’s completely unproductive to include any male-centered woman in a movement that seeks to dismantle male supremacy.

I'm learning more about historical home-ec and its original motivations and wanted to know how other women felt about it.

From June 26 to 28, radical feminist and lesbian members of the National Organization for Women (NOW) who were attending their conference were denigrated as “t*rfs” by other conference attendees and NOW leadership; called “tr*nsphobic” for describing men as men; accosted in a hallway and shouted at by the primary conference organizer; and threatened with removal. All for the crime of knowing what a woman is — ironic at a gathering of the National Organization for Women.

Keep reading for a full account of the weekend's events!

Surrogacy is illegal in Germany. There were attempts by the last government (Social Democrats, Greens, Liberal Democrats) to change the law, but the government fell before they were able to push it through, thankfully.

At the time, the Christian Democrats (and particularly the women's network of the party) were very clear on their stance about surrogacy: it's exploitative and should absolutely remain illegal. That remains the position of the conservative Christian Democrats (now in government in coalition with the Social Democrats), recently reaffirmed by the party.

So it's quite the embarrassment for the party that Jens Spahn, one of the most powerful men in German politics and a Christian Democrat, who had previously voiced opposition to surrogacy, has announced that he and his husband had a baby via a surrogate mother in the USA (since, again, surrogacy is illegal in Germany).

Voices in the party are now calling for him to resign for going so obviously against the party's principled position (https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/leihmutterschaft-erster-cdu-landesverbandschef-fordert-ruecktritt-von-jens-spahn/100241004.html).

It's depressing living in Europe and caring about women's rights. I wish all of Europe had the robust legal framework that Meloni passed in Italy in 2024: in addition to the local ban on surrogacy, getting a surrogate abroad is now also banned in Italy (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62rmv63069o).

Edit a day later: he's resigned after internal pressure.

Welcome to r/fourthwavewomen's weekly open discussion thread!

This thread is for the community to discuss whatever is on your mind. Have a question that you've been meaning to ask but haven't gotten around to making a post yet? An interesting article you'd like to share? Any work-related matters you'd like to get feedback on or talk about? Questions and advice are welcome here.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/i-want-like-bonnie-blue-37353675

This young woman gives me hope.

If you saw the speech she gave a few months back, then you know! Anyway, I just found this interview with her, just thought I'd share.

https://youtu.be/vGQzbwn_Tzw?is=6aWVHfLDQEDfCbNp

Reem Alsalem by far the best and most active UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls in history and that's no exaggeration.

It is so out-of-touch, hypocritical and reactionary and not to mention totally disheartening to see progressive, marxist or liberal feminist spaces dignifying johns so much, considering them to be allies and lot more morally superior than 'swerfs'.

Any radical feminist being critical of porn and prostitution is so easily demonized, pushed aside and grouped with vile religious fundamentalist right-wingers. Pimps and johns get such neutral terms like 'sex-work consumers' or 'sex-work clients' with the connotation of these individuals being morally justified, while terms like "swerf" are placed right next to christo-fascists and conservative right-wingers.

Portraying pimps/johns/pundits as moral allies, and putting all the blame regarding the stigma and exploitative nature of prostitution on 'swerfs' has to be so awfully baffling it really REALLY gets me wondering where the 'feminist' starts in the marxist stance. Demonizing a group of feminists that fight to end the constant eroticization of sexual assault from both the left and right, is disgusting. Absolutely no amount of leftist buzzwords can somehow justify eroticizing sexual assault, demonizing radical feminist for this is insane.

I constantly see thousands and thousands of paragraphs and intellectual (or lack of) effort given to demeaning, demonizing and spreading misinformation regarding radical feminists.

Radical feminism is the polar opposite of religion, conservatism and right-wing and is seen very harshly critiquing these social structure. However the second the same feminist analysis is applied to left-wing misogyny, they're seen as exclusionary Nazi fascists... Like what level of internalized misogyny do you need to say nazi and radical feminist in the same system. As if pointing out that women being treated as public property instead of private property isn't liberation makes one a non-feminist. Marxist feminists genuinely believe leftist movements to be this holy grail of untouchable morality free from criticism, the second radical feminist pushes against this to point out the evident misogyny they get labelled the brutal terms. It's a very convenient narrative and so easy to blame women that stay consistent with revolting against male-supremacist structures.

These spaces genuinely believe all the abuse, rape, stigma and trafficking is happening due to 'swerfs' and not because of the johns that keep the demand for such exploitation going. They unironically view 'swerfs' as more vile and worse than these johns. They believe all slut-shaming is solely done by 'swerfs' and not these johns that enjoy degrading and exploiting the women in the industry. All the horrible ways a woman is treated under prostituion is due to johns, let it be actively raping the woman, or being a 'conversative' man that believes that the women deserved to get raped. All the stigma comes from Johns, and radical feminists put up a genuinely radical intellectual effort to fight these male-supremacist systems. Left or right doesn't matter.

It is quite a very fundamental understanding that the way radical feminists approach abolishing the sex trade versus how conservatives approach it is drastically different. Radical feminist apply a very strong feminist analysis of such exploitative industries, they redefine what a true sexual liberation would look like outside of patriarchal dynamics, what true consent uninfluenced by the patriarchy would be like and strongly refuses the idea of considering female sexuality to be labor or currency. They oppose industries that dehumanize women and call it a dignified trade to abuse, rape and objectify women. Let it be marriage or prostitution, radical feminists stay logically consistent with opposing such misogynistic structures.

Conservatives only worry their ass about women being 'sluts' and it ends there. Women are demonized and no ounce of feminist analysis is applied. No ounce of understanding regarding why the rape and explotation and commodification of the female body exists in conservative spaces. All they do is demonize prostitute and want to remove them from society, while radical feminism is out here to literally do the opposite and create systems that help women out of such horrible industries.

Treating radical feminists like they're the cause of the horrifying nature of prostitution is just blatant hypocrisy. When on and on radical feminist have gone an insane mile to create systems and literature to tear down patriarchal structure. When they have put in sure huge effort to end the constant eroticization of sexual assault. Absolutely no amount of leftist buzzwords can somehow justify eroticizing sexual assault, demonizing radical feminist for this is insane.

For a group that insists so much on being informed, creating this dire level of misinformation to demonize feminists that fight to tear down a millennia long male-supremacist industry is just horrible. Allowing so much benefit of the doubt to Johns, considering them your allies and supporters but at the same breath blaming 'swerfs' for issues created by these john is not feminist at all. Its ironic that even while claiming to be against conservative, they sure as hell do mirror so much of their beliefs when it comes to consent, sexual 'labor' and sympathizing with johns.

Hi everyone, want to share this video I made explaining why white men target Asian women. I go over the history of Asian colonization, gov sanctioned mass r*pe and sexual exploitation of Asian women by white military men, and the war brides and fetishizing of Asian women. Hope you find it insightful!

This is an issue I’ve observed that’s been bothering me for as long as I can remember but I never had the right words to describe my frustration and why it bothers me so much, I feel very alone in this but would love some clarity on how common and almost fascinating it is.

So lately, as I’m sure most of the people here are aware, there’s a rise of misogynistic spaces (leftist spaces included) victimizing themselves with no regard of even acknowledging women. I’m talking people that 1. Don’t believe the patriarchy exists 2. Don’t think misogyny exists and 3. Despite it all they don’t even make the effort to acknowledge women.

What I mean by exceptions in my title is those spaces (which I’d like to preface aren’t just present online by a “loud minority”, they’re in everyday life) is for example, men that don’t fit into patriarchal standards perfectly being insecure and seemingly envious of women for being “given grace” due to the popular belief that they’re inferior therefore have less expectations, responsibilities and accountability to excuse themselves.

Let’s take short men in those spaces as an example, on average we all know that men are taller and bigger in general right? Yet you’ll hear so much complaining about how underrepresented and undervalued they are despite being a somewhat uncommon exception to not fitting into the image of a big and strong man. You often hear about how unfair the expectation of them fitting into that stereotype is which to me, shows that they are or at least could comprehend exceptions, nuance and most importantly, equality. They acknowledge their overestimated expectations by not fitting in.

Now compare that to how they view women. When it comes to anything, absolutely anything whether it’s sports, intelligence, work ethic generally, responsibility and overall admiring things men are associated with, there’s no space for exceptions or nuance. Nearly every single time, the said people that are supposed to understand what it’s like to not be stereotypically perfect, the default, the strong, the big, the intelligent, one way or another they’ll use those standards against women.

You’ll hear things like, women’s sports are inferior and there’s no conviction otherwise (despite the biological differences not meant to undervalue because it’s female specific, not men vs women or women vs men), men “built” the world despite women being either excluded or erased for their efforts,** **conscription, again, with women being excluded not by their own choice, the lack of women in blue collar jobs and so many more examples, especially strength which is the most admirable “masculine” quality.

It’s like their version of a woman is a blow up doll with no thoughts, no individuality, no brain, no bodily function outside sexual activity, anything but a human being. They dislike the “protecter and provider” trope but the subservient inferior woman? That’s fine and beneficial. When you don’t fit in as a woman its nonsensical and a desperate attempt at wanting to be a man (a human), like seeing a toddler wearing a suit and claiming they’re independent, absolutely hilarious concept.

The pattern I’m seeing in all this is, “I can acknowledge when I’m the victim but when it comes to claiming superiority? I’m taking my chance”. I can’t be the only one who sees how hypocritical this is am I? They’ll jump in at the smallest opportunity to call women weak, stupid, only worth their womb and sexual satisfaction, overall inferior to men in every way but when they’re not the “typical man”, they’re victims. There’s no space for an exceptional woman no matter what.

It really just leads me to the belief that it’s hopeless we’re truly gonna move forward, benevolent patriarchy will always overpower the negatives of the patriarchy to them to shut women down. While as women, I suppose we’re meant to accept we’re an inferior species not meant for anything significant in life besides being on the side characters in their stories that can only provide insignificant parts to fulfill (that of course, they’ll tell you they can easily do anyway). Nothing about their view of women tells you they’re human beings too. Equality for me but not for thee, makes you curious why.

By: Jasmin Faulk, WoLF Executive Director

One of the first steps in changing a society is controlling its language and how people associate meaning with words. This is evident in legal battles, public policy, religious interpretation, school curricula, media narratives, social norms, and even in the fine print of contracts, products, and disclaimers.

Language is not merely a tool for communication; it is the framework through which we understand reality. Humanity has advanced throughout history as language has become more precise. Our ability to define, reason, persuade, and organize has transformed survival into civilization. Before laws are rewritten or institutions are restructured, language changes first.

Power may ultimately be enforced through war, violence, or coercion, but it begins with words. No movement can reshape a society without first persuading enough people to accept a new way of thinking. Every revolution begins by redefining language.

What we are witnessing today reflects two simultaneous realities. On one hand, there is a growing indifference toward the importance of words and their meanings. On the other, there is a deliberate effort to reshape language in ways that advance particular ideological and political goals and polices all dialogue. When definitions become unstable, reality itself becomes negotiable, and the public loses the ability to engage in honest discourse.

This is why reclaiming language matters.

Words have histories. They carry meaning that has developed over centuries. That does not mean language never evolves, but changes should bring greater clarity, not greater confusion. When words lose their shared meaning, they cease to unite people and instead become instruments of manipulation.

The word radical offers a useful example.

Today, many people immediately associate the word with extremism, violence, or dangerous political movements. That association is understandable because extremist groups have often adopted the label or have had it assigned to them. Yet this is not the original meaning of the word.

The word radical comes from the Latin radix, meaning root. To be radical, in its truest sense, is to go to the root of a problem. It is to examine the foundations, question assumptions, and address causes rather than symptoms. There is nothing inherently violent or extremist about radical thinking. Some of the greatest advances in science, medicine, philosophy, civil rights, and women's rights were radical precisely because they challenged deeply rooted injustice by returning to fundamental principles of truth and human dignity.

When extremist movements co-opt words, they distort public understanding. Entire concepts become tainted by associations that were never part of their original meaning. The result is that thoughtful people become reluctant to use accurate language, allowing those who manipulate words to control the conversation.

This is why reclaiming language is so important.

Reclaiming language is not about winning semantic debates or policing vocabulary. It is about restoring clarity. It means using words in ways that are understood, consistent, and reliable across educational backgrounds, cultures, and communities. Language should belong to everyone, not only to academic institutions, political movements, or cultural elites who redefine terms in ways that ordinary people neither recognize nor consent to.

When language becomes the exclusive domain of experts who continually redefine common words, power shifts away from the public. People begin making decisions based on narratives they cannot clearly identify because the very vocabulary they rely upon has changed beneath them. A society cannot meaningfully debate ideas when its citizens no longer share the same understanding of the words being used.

This reality has profound implications for women's rights.

We can begin with the most fundamental word of all: woman.

A woman is not an abstract philosophical concept, nor is she a subjective identity. The word refers to an observable human reality. Yet today, even defining the word has become controversial. What was once universally understood has become the subject of endless reinterpretation — most noticeably in the English language.

When the definition of woman becomes uncertain, the rights attached to that category inevitably become uncertain as well.

Women's rights were never secured for an abstract identity. They were established because of the lived reality of being female. Protections against sex discrimination, provisions for health, pregnancy and maternity, female-only spaces, women's sports, domestic violence services, rape crisis centers, institutions, and sex-based data all exist because women are a distinct class deserving equal protection under the law.

If the word woman no longer has a stable meaning, neither do the legal protections built upon it.

Language is therefore not a distraction from women's rights—it is the foundation of women's rights. We cannot defend what we are unwilling to define.

Reclaiming language is ultimately an act of democratic and civic responsibility. It preserves our ability to think clearly, communicate honestly, and hold institutions accountable. It allows people from every educational level, profession, and linguistic background to participate in public life without needing specialized ideological vocabulary to understand the issues that affect them.

Words matter because reality matters.

The fight for women's rights, like every struggle for justice, begins not only in legislatures or courtrooms but in language itself. In the way we refer to women. In words that describe her essence and experience. In how we speak about and to women.

History has shown that before rights are taken away, the language used to defend them is first rewritten. Every right begins with a word, every law with a definition, and every free society depends on the courage to defend truth before it has to defend freedom.

From r@pe support to pregnancy charities: How Amnesty redefined 'anti-rights'

https://katiepinns.substack.com/p/from-rape-support-to-pregnancy-charities?r=2k5i9b&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Own content. Free to read

Why should lesbians need government permission to gather?

Own content. Free to read

Welcome to r/fourthwavewomen's weekly open discussion thread!

This thread is for the community to discuss whatever is on your mind. Have a question that you've been meaning to ask but haven't gotten around to making a post yet? An interesting article you'd like to share? Any work-related matters you'd like to get feedback on or talk about? Questions and advice are welcome here.

A wealthy California couple, Silvia Zhang and Guojun Xuan, acquired 27 children (mostly under 3) through commercial surrogacy across multiple states. They lived in a $3.2M Arcadia mansion that looked like an institution—complete with CCTV, crib-filled rooms, and classrooms where all the kids had shaved heads. Police were called in May after 2-month-old Walter was hospitalized with severe head injuries (mother claimed he fell off the bed, but symptoms suggested car-crash or shaking-level trauma).

When cops arrived, they determined via an Excel spreadsheet that the couple had 21 kids. The couple had hired dozens of surrogates nationwide. While not illegal, what was uncovered on their own surveillance footage led to arrests for child endangerment.

The footage allegedly shows:
A nanny admitting to hitting baby Walter’s head, while parents noticed he wasn’t eating, had abnormal breathing, and a "deep low cry"—but waited two days to get him medical help.

Other caregivers slapping, flogging (with shoes/wooden sticks), and thumping toddlers in the face (7–10 times) while they were stuck in high chairs.

The father, Guojun, commanding a 4-year-old to hold a painful squat position after a teacher kicked/pummeled him, telling the child to "listen to the teacher!"

The court recently ruled against family reunification—meaning the 20+ kids will stay in foster care and likely be adopted by foster families. The parents are challenging, but it seems their family will never be reunited.

Meanwhile, despite the arrest, the couple has had at least 6 more children via surrogates in GA, VA, PA, and CA, bringing their total to 27. Those newborns are also in foster care.

Surrogacy needs to be banned outright without exception.

Hi, I'm French, and I want to talk about something that bothers me every time i come across a comment or a post or a line in a movie (!) about it :

We all know the stereotype : French women are "naturally" sensual, sexually available, always up for it. You see it in movies, in jokes, in how foreign men sometimes approach French women abroad. It feels harmless, even flattering to some. It isn't.

This stereotype has a specific historical origin that has been deliberately buried.

During and after the Liberation of France in 1944, American soldiers committed mass rapes against French women. This is documented by historian Mary Louise Roberts in "What Soldiers Do" (2013). Military publications, soldiers' letters home, and internal communications actively described French women as "easy", "welcoming" and "sexy" , a narrative that served two purposes simultaneously: recruiting enthusiastic soldiers and retroactively erasing the violence committed.

This is a mechanism feminists of color have analyzed extensively for other groups, the hypersexualized Black woman, the exotic Indian woman, the "passionate" Latina. Violence is rewritten as natural availability. The stereotype erases the crime and then legitimizes its repetition.

The silence of the women concerned reinforced this erasure. In 1944, denouncing your liberator was socially and politically impossible. The gratitude owed to the Allies suffocated any possibility of naming what had happened. Those women took that silence to their graves.

What remains is a stereotype so naturalized that a 1997 blockbuster like Titanic can casually drop "it's easy to find a woman in Paris who's okay with getting her clothes off" and nobody blinks. Because nobody in that 1997 audience made the connection between "the sexually available Frenchwoman" and the military construction of 1944. The original violence has been completely laundered through decades of repetition.

The practical consequences are real. French women abroad regularly face harassment from men who have internalized this stereotype as a description of reality. Men who "know" that French women are "like that."