Feminism must remain centered on the material realities of being female as its goal is to liberate women. Women’s oppression is rooted in sex-based biology, including reproductive capacity, sex-based violence, and the historical exclusion of females from political, economic, and social power. A movement that cannot articulate what makes women a distinct political class risks undermining its own purpose.

The reality is, feminism is not for males. It is impossible for a male to become female, and vice versa. Seeing as TERFs are the only ones to not cater to and center these males who think they’re women, they are the only true feminists.

Topic discussed several times already. I like it though so I'm bringing it up again. I like it because of my own personal story. I was 27 and my wife 19 when we met and started dating. We met in a third space, I didn't prowl around for young people, and dated people my age before she came into my life. Been together for fifteen years and married for thirteen.

People don't understand power dynamics. The existence of a power dynamic does not constitute moral failure. The exploitation of said power dynamic is what is the moral failure.

You, the reader, already agree with this even if you don't think you do. Because if the above wasn't the case then men could never be in relationships with women. Men are stronger than women. Zero serious people dispute this. There exists a power dynamic in every heterosexual relationship where the man can easily kill the woman at any time. The existence of this power discrepancy is not seen as a moral failure. The exploitation of it, or leveraging of it against the weaker partner is the moral failure (and we prosecute it).

Similarly, a power dynamic exists in an age gap relationship. It does. Nobody is denying it (at least not me). The moral failure would be the high-power partner utilizing the financial or experience gap to restrict options or exits of the low-power partner (either gender) with the intention of entrapment. If this exploitation is not done, there is no moral failure in the relationship and society must let two autonomous adults make decisions for themselves.

Note: I'm not saying you don't get to have an ick about it. You can. Nobody can tell you what to feel. What you can't do is conflate your ick with morality, because it isn't.

Everybody I've known that likes Harry Potter are usually the most insufferable people there are so many fans that make it their whole personality and if you ever have any criticisms they will berate you

As someone who's grown up with the series I've never gotten the hype around it. Especially after learning more about JK Rowling I'm not sure how other people can stomach the series - all the elitism/classist/racism in the story - and still support the series and the author

As a movement, feminism won't be able to accomplish anything meaningful unless it can answer the TERF question. There's no way it can just not answer it, as it has become the largest divide in modern feminism, and has caused massive controversies (just look at JK Rowling and Michfest). Unless the movement can overcome this barrier, it will be stunlocked into uselessness.

Nobody bats an eye if a woman walks down the street in a shirt and jeans and yet a man wearing a skirt can make some unreasonably angry, others think that the man is gender non-conforming and a bunch of people will stare.

There is functionally no difference between the two of these and yet one is normal while the other must be commented on. Why can't we just get over ourselves and let people wear what they like.

EDIT: No I am not saying men SHOULD wear skirts I'm saying if a guy wants to wear feminine clothes there's no reason to judge. It's perfectly fine if you don't want to wear women's clothes but don't judge others if they want to.

​

Men don't even understand what attractiveness means. They've convinced themselves that women want a dominant gym bro with a sharp jawline who treats them like shit. They mistake their own beauty standards and manosphere fantasies for women's actual preferences.

The infamous 80/10 rule, claiming that 80% of women only want the top 10% of men, has no credible scientific evidence supporting it as a universal rule. Attraction is subjective. Women don't all want the same men.

Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/06/the-virtues-and-downsides-of-online-dating/

A majority of adults in the EU and US are overweight (51.7% and 72.4%, respectively), yet men talk about overweight women with absolute contempt, as though they're worth no more than the dirt beneath their shoes. If these men categorically refuse to date overweight women, they're restricting themselves to a minority of the population while accusing women of being excessively selective.

Sources:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20260904-1

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm

The most blatant form of hypergamous thinking in these circles comes from men themselves: demanding women significantly younger than them, with physical characteristics associated with youth, such as thin bodies, no wrinkles, and being clean-shaven.

Many don't even understand what being well-groomed means. Showering daily and wearing clean clothes are basic hygiene, and plenty don't even manage that. Being well-groomed means taking pride in your appearance: your clothes, haircut, skincare (yes, moisturiser!), personal style, and perhaps a necklace or a subtle ring. Not everyone needs the same routine, but cleanliness alone isn't the same as making an effort.

Even the belief that women only date men for a free meal is another convenient excuse to avoid self-reflection. Women would rather pay for their own dinner than spend an entire evening sitting across from an unpleasant man. #We earn our own money.

We don't need to tolerate bad company for a plate of food.

And what has all this resentment, entitlement, and refusal to improve produced? A male loneliness epidemic. Yet instead of questioning their attitudes, these men continue blaming women for their romantic failures.

The manosphere replaces self-improvement with resentment, emotional maturity with manipulation, and genuine connection with imaginary sexual market values.

#If women are always the problem, you never have to become a better person.

Speaking for America here. I know it's just advantages from centuries of racism and sexism, but that shit is fire. I really can't even intentionally fail, I just fall upwards in everything I do because people will just be like "he's a white man; obviously he can do whatever". This isn't just other white people being racist/sexist/classist either, like OTHER RACES will literally treat me better than their OWN PEOPLE and not even realize they're doing it. I can literally have mental illness and like most the time it's cool because I'm kinda setting the tone.
And what's crazy is I'm only like 3rd generation immigrant, like literally my Mexican and Black friends, their families have been Americans for literal centuries longer than my family has, but because my family came from high in the northern hemisphere with pale skin, America is just like, "yes sir, take your place."
Like, what are we even doing, this shit is crazy, hahahahaha. Like what are you even doing if you're a white man and you can't make shit happen for your life, like how did you even manage that hahahahaha. Idk man, I don't have the solutions, I'm just saying. And yeah, I know there's other circumstances that can mess you up, sure. But for real, if you're white and a man and you have a degree and like your dick isn't tiny, I don't know how you could possibly be like "ah man, life is unfair man, like reverse-racism and shit" COME ON NOW, you won the genetic lottery.

Im not sure what people mean by "woke" as I rarely get an actual definition. But they get way too much credit (and criticism) for being progressive or promoting diversity.

The gravity falls creator alex hirsh has pointed out how behind closed doors, the network was very opposed to any LGBTQ representation. He wanted to add more gay characters but Disney wouldn't let him, and were very strict about censorship in general. The network doesn't want something that will cost them homophobic viewers.

The owl house creator really had to fight to get the amount of LGBTQ representation the show had. And indeed the show later got canceled and she hates the network so much she even tells her fans to pirate her show. She is also making an entire series that is largely making fun of Disney.

Are there any examples where the network said " we need more diversity" that didn't come from the creators?

Basically title, putting all the money in one pot shows a level of trust and companionship that is needed for a successful marriage. If you can't get there, it means there are still trust issues.

(Yours/mine discretionary cash buckets are logistics, as long as most assets are common this is fine)

Possible exceptions for second marriages/kids outside of this marriage etc

Edit: I don't mind a prenup to have insurance for pre marital assets but if you're thinking about marital assets in that way pre-marriage you're ngmi

There's a graph you see all the time that gets reposted, that says like men rate most women as average and women rate most men as ugly. And the truth is that it is that way because men just don't put in as much effort.

First there is tons of basic hygienic shit that to s of men just skip... conditioner is my favorite example. I dare you to find a men's conditioner that isn't part of a 2 or 3in1 product. They don't exist because men don't even know or care to take care of their hair properly. Meanwhile, women get made fun of for having tons of different products. But the results show.

Women's fashion is 10x better than men's. Actually most men's clothes are just unisex now really... but women have way more opportunity to customize their look in that way and it helps. If men go beyond the bare minimum in terms fashion, they're often labeled as gay. Or if it was the 2000s, a metrosexual.

Lastly, there's makeup. Men simply have no idea how even a little bit impacts your overall look. Men claim to love "natural" looks when in reality the women they claim to like *are* wearing some foundation and such at least.

And my real hot take? There's nothing wrong with that. Make-up is supposed to make you look good. Women know this, it would be a waste of time if it made you look like shit. There is nothing wrong or "artificial" about makeup that couldn't be said about anything humans do to look more attractive. You aren't better just for doing less. I firmly believe a LOT of men's self confidence issues could be solved if the stigma around men wearing makeup didn't exist and they had the freedom to experiment with it. There's nothing wrong with making yourself look pretty.

Alright, guys. This post is serious, I’m not joking. I think what is happening today in term of romantic relationships is, no brainer, profoundly influenced by the dramatic shifting modern social and economic roles in society. By the beginning of the 20th century, a new concept about marriage clearly correlated with the rising change toward individualism and consumer-driven culture emerged which is that “Marriage is love-based”. Individualism is today so deeply rooted in western societies to the point of it being radical, an individual is taught to extremely self-actualise and focus on personal autonomy and happiness from a young age—which are all not bad things— make an individual’s mindset revolve around:\“Is this fulfilling me? Is this helping me grow? Is this satisfying my needs and giving me what I expect?”*

From that point on, marriage started being seen and treated as functioning for love, even though it was not built for that. Marriage originally started as a social, economic and financial institution where a man and woman collaborate to raise kids and stay together but, not initially for love, as love developed after marriage. With the rise of individualism now, people started prioritising themselves over family (individualism over collectivism) which leads us here, to the modern day, this can be seen as the #1 reason for divorce in marriage today is being unhappy, because people enter marriage expecting love and romance, and since marriage is not originally built for that, they are surprised with the reality of it, times where you and your spouse don't have the time to spend together, lose the spark, need sometime alone, etc. which is completely normal. Marriage is built on duties, obligations and responsibilities and of course respect.

Arranged marriages that start without the expectation of love or romance have higher longevity rates than couples who cohabited or had children then, got married. And heterosexual couples are deeply affected by this because they are the building block for society. “Marriage is duty-based.” and this is harming children especially the rising divorce rates.

Blah blah blah gender war Hot Take

Women having unrealistic expectations of men and expecting them to be emotionless pay pig sentient props for their social media, causing mental health problems in said men.

Which they will then keep bottled up until they explode because they fear of not being seen as a real man

….is a result of women preaching patriarchy

Not misandry.

At the core of their bs, they are still expecting men to be the support pillars of society without complaint, and claim you’re not a real man if you can’t adhere to very strict definitions of manhood.

They reinforce Patriarchal belief that women are less capable of doing “boy things” And believe they shouldn’t need to pull their weight, learn, or take accountability for bad behavior.

It Leaves them in the position of perpetual dependent. And some toxic women like the subservient position that patriarcal social beliefs put them in, because it takes less work on their part especially if they find a “good man” to fit the role.

They want to reap the benefits of this system, yet not give away power that real feminist of the past worked to achieve.

“I turn my brain off when I’m around my man”

“Men used to go to war.”

“Pink jobs and blue jobs.”

“Man up”

“I’m just a girl”

“If he’s not making enough money just leave him.”

“As a man you should ____”

“Sprinkle sprinkle.”

“Divine feminine! We were meant to be taken care of.”

Is all patriarcal garbage repackaged as women’s empowerment.

Moving away from that and towards a more equalized social and political structure is what we all actually want here. Equal opportunities, accountability, expectations and social support regardless of genitals.

Comments saying things like:

“Men are inherently dangerous.”

“All men are rapist.”

“Men should be in a subservient position because they can’t lead without emotion”

“We should lock away all men society doesn’t need them”

“Men should only be used for breeding”

“I’d abort my child if it was a boy.”

THOSE are misandrist. They want to disenfranchise men completely and take over power, not mooch off of men.

And they directly mirror misogynistic rhetoric. And it has no traction outside of the internet.

Yes the distinction matters. Yes There is overlap sometimes but please know which one you’re actually angry at.

I think some bitter women use feminism and the patriarchy to justify their resentment toward attractive women.

There’s this weird thing where if a woman is conventionally attractive, feminine, gets a lot of male attention, likes makeup, dresses sexy, whatever, suddenly everything she does is “for the male gaze.” She’s shallow, she’s desperate for validation, she only gets opportunities because she’s pretty, and any negative experience she has with men gets dismissed because “pretty privilege.”

And I’m sorry, but sometimes it’s very obvious that this isn’t actually about dismantling the patriarchy. You just resent women you think are prettier than you, and feminism gives you a socially acceptable way to look down on them while still feeling morally superior.

Pretty privilege obviously exists. So does the patriarchy. But attractive women are still women living under it, and being attractive can actually make certain forms of misogyny and objectification worse.

Some women don’t hate patriarchal beauty standards nearly as much as they hate the women who meet them. And I think we should be able to admit that without pretending every shitty attitude a woman has toward another woman becomes feminist just because she learned the phrase “male gaze.”

I don’t get all the hype surrounding this series. It’s very good, and I enjoyed it, but it wasn’t "revolutionary" or "surprising" in any way. Around the same time, Mad Men was airing on AMC, and HBO’s golden age had just come to an end. Even Lost was more interesting to watch. I found the fourth season, in particular, to be quite embarrassing. The series already lacked any sense of realism, but that season crossed the line into the ridiculous. You can’t push the viewer’s suspension of disbelief that far, having Gus suddenly turn into an idiot, threatening a man with death only to then let him do whatever he pleases. It was a season full of "epic" moments thrown in at random, with very little substance.

The fifth season, on the other hand, was excellent; "Ozymandias" and "Granite State" were fantastic episodes. But "Felina"? It’s one of the most predictable finales I’ve ever seen on television, worthy of a 1970s police procedural. The cowboy returns to town to settle all his scores, then dies after taking out his enemy. Every plot thread is tied up in the most predictable way possible, with Jesse transformed into a saint (and then further built up in that piece of trash, El Camino). It felt like Vince Gilligan was just ticking items off a grocery list. Sure, it turned out fine, practically everyone liked it, but only because it’s inoffensive and mediocre. And the first fifteen minutes of the episode? They’re literally a joke that isn’t even funny.

if it wasn’t for la being in the united states it would easily be in the list of the top 5 most dangerous cities in the world. Theres just so much homelessness and crime that if not for it being part of the usa it would’ve gotten declared a state of emergency by the usa years ago and places like macarthur park are worse than even some of the worst parts of third world countries AND it isn’t even the worst area in los angeles. heck it’s not even the best city in southern california san diego clears it easily

Genuine question.

I often see criticism of inherited wealth or parents giving their children advantages, but I've never really understood why people seem to direct so much resentment at the children receiving those benefits.

Isn't it a pretty natural parental instinct to want your children to have a better life than you did?

For example, if two doctors, lawyers, or business owners work hard throughout their careers and then spend money on piano lessons, tutoring, sports clubs, university support, a house deposit, or an inheritance for their children, why is that viewed negatively by some people?

Most parents, regardless of income, seem to invest whatever resources they have in their children's future. Wealthier parents can simply do more of it.

I can understand criticisms of wealth that comes from exploitation, corruption, fraud, or unfair advantages. But when parents have earned their money legitimately and choose to spend it helping their own children, what exactly is the objection?

Should parents be expected to prioritise strangers over their own children? If you had the means to help your son or daughter, wouldn't most people do the same?

Interested in hearing perspectives from people who are critical of inherited wealth. Is the issue the inheritance itself, the wider impact on equality of opportunity, or something else?

The scientists, mathematicians and philosophers who built modern Western civilization and its ethical foundations were mostly atheists/agnostics. Those mathematicians, scientists and philosophers were building on work done by medieval Islamic mathematicians, scientists and philosophers. Medieval Islamic mathematicians, scientists and philosophers were building on science, mathematics and philosophy done in ancient India and ancient Greece before Christianity existed.

Religion and spirituality are very important to society in my opinion, but the whole "Judeo-Christian society" concept is literally a meme created by right wing internet media. Not even going to get into the Zionist funding that pushed this meme.

People like to claim and idealize that parental love is unconditional, but if it's unconditional, it may turn you into a bad person.

If you discovered your kid was a pedo or a serial killer and you could still look at their eyes and say that you love them despite everything, you are a bad person. No one cares it's your son/ daughter if he/she hurts others. And it's not unreasonable that some parents kick their kids out of their houses if they're mean and ungrateful to them.

I think a big reason people have kids it's because they're attracted by the idea of "Someone will be me and my partner, which is my favorite person in this world; it'll be us", because for natural reasons a lot of humans like the idea of seeing a reflection of themselves, but if that "them" turns evil, they should despise it, not love it unconditionally.

If you love unconditionally a partner that hurts you everytime, everyone will say it's a toxic relationship for obvious reasons, so why would it be different with parental love or any other kind of love?

Edit: It's my vision on love, I'm okay if you disagree: If you love someone who hurts you, that's a toxic love, and I don't think it's possible to just straight up stop loving, but stop doing so in a slow process of grief. I think true—and valuable—love can't be toxic, because love is supposed to valuable and no one who isn't poisoned values what becomes a dead weight in their hearts. That's why your duty, if that love poisoned you, is to have enough strength to cure yourself (as people who left an abusive relationship). I know emotions aren't rational, but if rationality doesn't get to your feelings at some point it will truly break you apart.

It may be I'm too idealistic about love but that's how I see it.

Cruise is more charismatic, funnier, more engaging, and has an intensity, charm, and energy that Hanks could never match.

Tom Cruise as Forrest Gump: Absolute banger. Imaging him in that Vietnam scene? Tom Cruise in Cast Away would be cinema. With his wit and humor, his desperation on the island would be palpable. Tom Cruise as Woody in Toy Story, bro, Kids would have loved his energy/bravado as woody.

In reverse tho?

Tom Hanks in Top Gun? Yeah right. Imagine Tom Hanks doing the “Show me the money” scene. Could Tom Hanks pull off the desperation, comedy, and emotion of Edge of Tomorrow? You think Tom Hanks hanging off the Burj Khalifa as Ethan Hunt?

Tom Cruise could make every Hanks role his own with more style, charisma, energy, and edge. But Hanks could never replicate what Cruise does.Tom Hanks is an actor. Tom Cruise is a movie star. Big difference.

Women are the only gender where a large majority find money attractive.

From ages 17-21, I was completely invisible due to my low tier type job. Around 23 I got my first real job and started getting women easily. The more women I have been with, the less I care about it all now. Traveling definitely helped me as well and opened my eyes.

Issue is they only talked to me since I now have something to provide or can do. ie Vacations, traveling, dinning out, shopping trips etc.

MOST feminists don't hate men. If you legitimately think that most feminists hate men and want to reverse society into some kinda matriarchal system, you've successfully been rage baited either by some bot or outdated literature. If you talk to the vast majority of feminists irl, most of them do not hate men. Most of the ones here don't hate men. There are more people in this subreddit complaining about feminists hating men than actual feminists saying anything about men.

Find a woman who is willing to meet your alignment. Why get angry because a woman doesn’t want to align with you.

You have your standards she has hers.

No one is wrong

Just for context i have been obese at a point in my life after having kids so this isn’t coming from someone who’s been thin their whole life.

It pains me when i see obese men or women (although it happens way more with women) post themselves in some type of context that they are big and the comments are either just saying how perfect their body is, or they shouldn’t feel like the need to change anything, or to ignore people and be big if they want to.

Everyone is so obsessed with affirmation that they blatantly encourage bad habits.

Not everything is just a personal preference lol, there are objective truths in this life! One of them is that being obese is bad for you!

Don’t get me started on obese children, my heart breaks for them.

has it never occurred to y'all that maybe doctors need to filter out things like children going through the same thought process as a kid who watches jurassic park once and then pretends to be a velociraptor for a week? or a rape victim who's reacting to the trauma by trying to distance themselves from the body that got abused (something very much documented to occasionally happen with people who thought they were trans).

Imagine paying thousands of dollars for permanent life-changing surgeries that remove your ability to conceive children only to later realize you were one of the above types of people all along, Cases like these are far rarer than fox news would have us believe, absolutely, but they still exist. So by insisting that it's somehow immoral to screen for cases like this, all you're doing is giving the transphobes ammo.