I think she’s an anti-racist, anti-bigotry humanist: and she should have the support of all liberty loving men and women in America.

The republicans perpetually scapegoat her out of bigotry, xenophobia, racism and sexism.

I ask this for a very specific purpose. Media Literacy classes can serve a lot purposes as in - 1.Resistance to misinformation 2. Better critical thinking 3. Probably healthier gender relations.

But I ask this very specifically in this recent trend on tiktok and X. So basically this creator flaunts her planned parenthood appointment when she finds out that the gender of her baby is a boy. And she's getting a lot of support from other women in the comments. Now, look the jokes as in " it's either a girl or abortion " or commenting - "condolenses ", " you're birthing your oppressor" aren't new and they happened in like the most obscure corners of the internet .

But this is a first time in has become a "trend" or a creator has talked about it .The reason i'm talking and it was mostly boys reacting to it. It's probably anybodys guess whether she was joking or was she being legit? I'll probably get eviscerated here but I don't think young boys should be looked at as - "future oppressors/ r@pists/abusers" . I also think that such content shouldn't be a young guys introduction to feminism.

Now I love myself some punching up jokes - jokes made at the expense of men. But I just find such content just, idk offensive.

Now am I saying that - this type of sentiment is representative of majority of feminism - No. Also, do I think such sentiment benefits the feminist movement in any way- also No.

Young people need to learn how to distinguish between an individual's opinion and a broader social trend, between engagement and genuine public support, and between criticism of a system and hostility towards an entire group of people.

But here's what I find particularly concerning: the role of social media in amplifying these sentiments. Social media platforms reward engagement. Usually the most inflammatory and polarizing content often travels a lot. And this feeds right into the ammo of redpill/manosphere guys , pro-lifers who see abortion as a morally wrong act .

There's research that shows that such education is effective.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S253038051830011X?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/1136321

Ultimately, media literacy classes won't eliminate monline polarization, but they can help young people navigate these issues more critically. They can teach students to question what algorithms amplify, distinguish fringe opinions from broader social attitudes, and recognize when legitimate criticism of social structures turns into hostility towards an entire group. The goal shouldn't be to shield boys or girls from uncomfortable opinions, but to equip them to evaluate those opinions without being manipulated by outrage. If we want healthier gender relations, we need young people who can challenge harmful ideas without developing contempt for one another.

It seems to me that to feminists, every way boys were raised is a negative for them. For example, they were taught to be more confident, so will lead to condescending behaviour and "mansplaining". They were taught less cooperative behaviour and social skills and so are more isolated in adulthood compared to women. They are taught to be more independant and ambitious, so are failing more in classrooms etc.

This leads me to believe that in childhood, sexism must impact men more than it does women, seeing as they have been raised with all these negative traits compared to women who have none, according to feminism.

I can't think of a single behaviour due to socialisation (according to feminists), that leads a negative trait in a woman, but a positive trait in a men. Is this just a massive coincidence, or is it bias from a womens point of view (ie they will view their own socialized traits as positive).

If not can there be an positive ways men are raised compared to women, that lead to better behaviour in an average man then a woman in that area.

Do they all hate women or are there those who simply accept that they can't date if that's what they think and just live on not bothering anyone?

Feels like honor and service fraternities and sororities offer cover for social fraternities who point to their origin stories as honor societies and the “good work” the Greek system does. I don’t want to punish these groups but if they did drop Greek letters to drop any association, it would be a powerful statement.

In Renaissance and Greek art, figure paintings featured just as many male figures as female figures, if not more.

however in modern times nude figure painters prefer women now and the first thing that comes to the mind of people when they hear figure painting is the female figure.

I think homophobia is one of the reasons along with the objectification of women

I find it difficult to figure out who is a safe person to be around. I have a new friend who I thought was cool at first but sometimes he says things I really don't like and I am thinking of cutting him off. I just don't know how to figure it out sooner.

Example:
" I like that you're Autistic because that means you're not crazy like other girls."

I see a lot of sourcing from feminists that a reason why patriarchy still exists is because of disparity in physical abuse statistics, but this seems like an issue that wouldn't be solved if there was true gender equality.

This is not even factoring in the fact that men and women are different physiologically and factors like testosterone could very well lead to higher aggression, but also men are in way more positions to commit physical behaviour.

The distribution of abuse in a relationship are pretty similar between the sexes (I think 2:3 in men:women), but men are simply in more positions and have more chances to commit physical abuse compared to the other way around. As well as this it can be more impulsive compared to women who need to be more premeditated (such as taking a weapon or something)

This is similar to how there are more abusive mothers than abusive fathers towards their children, this is because there are simply more mothers who are in that position and there exists a severe power imbalance, so they have an opportunity to be abusive.

So is it fair to say in a society with no patriarchy there will still be a disparity in this type of crime?

I promise this isn’t a “men have it just as bad!” post.

But I need help framing my experiences in a way that is still in line with feminism.

A lot of my friends who are women will talk about issues like being mansplained to, or having their

Ideas and accomplishments ignored at work, etc.

My problem is, I often feel like I experience the same things.

There’s a guy we work with sometimes in the freelance world who my women friends will complain mansplains to them…but he also often tells me things about how to do my job, which he knows very little about.

Or another example, my friend and I were both overlooked for a freelance job. She complained it was obvious she wasn’t chosen due to sexism (we have similar resumes). I felt like it was more that the people chosen were very self-promotional, a trait I’ve never had.

So I just have some cognitive dissonance at times. I want to support their feelings, but another part of me is saying “hey, I had that problem too.”

It makes me wonder if it’s more about issues like being loud, self congratulatory, arrogant (which often go along with hypermasculinity) at the root issue.

Again, I know these types of problems are pretty low down on the list of issues women face, so not saying at all that I am equally marginalized.

But how can I understand these two competing feelings from a feminist perspective?

Part of the manosphere/red pill/etc argument is the 80-20 'rule' in dating where the top 20% of men get 80% of women while the rest of the 80% men suffer, and ofc they extrapolate all the misogynist stuff from this 'rule'. But I feel like when they say 'women' they mean 'hot women I want to date'. They don't really count unattractive or even average (in terms of conventional standards) women as worth talking about let alone as potential dates, even though they get so mad that apparently they as unattractive men get skipped over in dating. In fact most people are average, that being the definition of the term, so is this dating problem really just made up by them specifically because they ignore every woman completely if she doesn't meet x number of criteria for 'hotness', which is what they themselves criticize women for doing? I know the problem isn't real, but may this be part of the reason they made it up?

How do you weigh wether someone should be called out or if they should be ignored so they don’t get more reach?

For example, the SNL guy. I would have never seen that shit if it wasn't shared everywhere in outrage. Then again, it's on TV, so obviously SNL and their producers need the backlash to make better choices in the future.

So I'm guessing in this case it's more useful to call it out.

There was a similar thing in my country where a "contestant" in a reality show expressed fucked up views, like women shouldn't be allowed to vote and stuff. Once again I only saw it bc it was shared in outrage.

Then again this was on a public service channel, so we obviously need to show them we're not ok with it. We don’t want our taxes to go to stuff like that.

But then he was invited to podcasts, and did interviews, and him and his gf, who defends him, both got a lot more followers online to the point they'll obviously be able to make some money off of it. That part doesn't sit right with me so idk.

How do you choose what to give engagement to?

Me and my friends were talking about relationships and how we handled disagreements. One of my friends mentioned that she would just hit her bf to make him agree with her. My other friends proceeded to laugh and agreed. One of them also said that this is a normal behavior. She is a misandrist and I assumed she had done her research. Both of their defense is men do it all the time to woman so its okay to do so. However, I always had the thought that hitting your s/o is wrong regardless of the gender. Just wanted to know if im a male centered person or if I’m even allowed to call myself a feminist.

I’ve been seeing a lot of posts where they say the patriarchy is unfalsifiable, if a man is rich it’s because of the patriarchy if he is poor it’s because of the patriarchy if he’s sad and happy it’s patriarchy. And others also say it relies on the apex fallacy where they say men are majority of military deaths and work deaths they also do majority of the hard/ dangerous jobs most women wouldn’t do. How do I respond to this?

This is not my personal opinion, but I saw a post on a feminist subreddit comparing news headlines of crimes committed by boys/men versus those committed by girls/women. The male side all used words like "teen commits (crime)" while the female side all specified "girl commits (crime)" or "woman commits (crime)".

Most of the comments were saying this is proof the media wants to make women seem more violent than they actually are, but someone pointed out that posts like this are TERF-coded since only TERFs care about the way crime is reported by the gender of the criminal. For example, TERFs often point to trans women who commit crimes and get furious when the media refers to them as a woman and complain that it's raising women's crime statistics and making women seem more violent than they really are.

Off the top of my head, I know of one hardcore TERF subreddit (I won't name it or link it) that does this a lot and pushes media conspiracies that crime reporters use trans women to raise women's crime rates, but I don't know if that's really the same thing as comparing news headlines between cis criminals.

So I asked what you would keep from the patriarchy and the unequivocal answer was nothing. So how do you distinguish what the patriarchy is responsible for and what it isnt. A few examples of good things that have occurred under the patriarchy might be space travel or many inventions of transport, medicines or electricity etc. You might think the Geneva convention, the United Nations or the red cross are good things formed under the patriarchy. So would you consider these things bad because of the patriarchy, things that would have happened anyway or they are part of another system existing despite the patriarchy?

Maybe I should add a bit the opposite way to if I talked about Hitler and Fascism or Stalin or Mao Tse Tung and communism. Would you class religion as patriarchy given the many bad things that have happened in the name of religion? Where is the line between what is patriarchy and what isnt? Following on from that if there are things that happen under the patriarchy but not because of the patriarchy is there some form of classification for them?

I'm just wondering. Like, I wouldn't think there was any gender inequality in the Stone Age.

Wiki: **Misogynist terrorism** refers to one of the most extreme manifestations of misogyny and violence against women.

I am an international male student in my first year of grad school in the US, and I am confused about American social norms around speaking up on social issues versus keeping things like personal social media light and fun. For context, it's possible I'm on the high functioning autism spectrum as well.

Recently, several female classmates posted on their Instagram stories about the fraternity sexual assault incident at Cornell. Many of their posts stated that men who stay silent are complicit, that they were disappointed so few men on their Instagram feeds were speaking out, and that men need to use their voices and privilege to support women by showing solidarity both online in terms of generally and publicly sharing and posting stories on Instagram, and supporting women offline in more private ways. I completely agree, and in wanting to be a good ally, I reposted several of these stories over a couple of days to show support.

The reactions I received were contradictory and confusing. One popular domestic male classmate told me that posting about political or social issues on Instagram shows poor social skills, because people find it annoying and prefer seeing fun, casual content like vacations or parties. He posted nothing, yet remains popular with the exact same female classmates who were posting that silence is violence. He is well-liked on campus for hosting parties and social events.

Another male classmate, who privately leans conservative privately (as a Never Trump Republican) but publicly acts moderate on campus, told me that posting five stories was weird and performative, whereas one would have been plenty. He is also well liked by these women. Meanwhile, another popular male classmate posted about ten stories on the incident and received praise and private messages from female classmates thanking him for being an ally.

When I posted, I had over two hundred views, but zero likes or messages. Later, during lunch with female classmates who were venting about men not speaking up, one woman mentioned she saw my posts. The others said that while they noticed, speaking up is the bare minimum and does not deserve praise. Later on, that same female friend told me privately that while she genuinely me speaking up, my posts were "a lot" and that I had posted a day too late compared to when the topic was trending as a popular discussion point.

An American friend from my prior job explained that unwritten American social rules often contradict stated values. He said people who are already seen as charismatic, fun, funny, attractive, or cool can post about these issues and receive praise, while less charismatic or attractive people are judged as awkward or annoying for doing the same thing.

I want to understand how liberals view this tension. On one hand, progressive discourse emphasizes that men must speak out, that silence enables harm, and that social issues affect every part of life. On the other hand, there is a strong American etiquette rule that politics and religion should remain private, that there is a time and place for serious topics, and that bringing them up on casual social media annoys people who just want lighthearted interactions, a sentiment shared even by some women, even those who say they're liberal or feminist.

I am seeking advice on how to navigate the contradiction between the moral expectation to speak up and the social expectation not to be annoying or bring politics into spaces meant for casual socializing. Thank you!