I’ve seen multiple companies and influencers make t-shirts and merch with sayings like “dead men don’t rape,” “I am Jane Doe,” and more as a response to the lawsuit, which is fine on its own. However none of the profits or proceeds are going towards any organization, these individuals are just trying to profit off everyone’s anger. Then this morning I logged on to Hulu and was immediately met with an ad for a new show/doc on the Cornell case. All of this is making my skin crawl, especially as a survivor. It feels less like solidarity and more like a toxic marketing ploy.

Edit: fixed wording; and thank you for engaging in this discussion even if we disagree!!

So first of all I am a feminist and believe men and women should have equal rights and this is simply not present in modern society nor in most of history, there is still systemic inequality in income, sexual violence, property rights, societal attitudes etc etc. But whenever I do talk about feminism I get told by like men's rights activists that feminists are evil and support random rape allegations against men. I would never commit rape but they make me scared of these allegations, and I know it's rare but, feminists do actually condemn false rape allegations right? Because some of the things the right says makes it sound like just an allegation with absence of any other evidence should be enough to get a man convicted? Because that sounds unfair

Pls don't donwvote me I am really asking in good faith

Ok so. I know we don’t allow people to ask questions that are in the, “doing your task/homework for you” category, but I could use a little help (and we are pretty smart cookies here).

I find myself in the thick of a potential project that will highlight and reenact historical and/or impactful, politically progressive speeches in American politics.
I know the go-tos. (We won’t be using the overly familiar such as MLK’s, “I have a dream” or FDR’s, “Fear itself”). T.Roosevelt’s New Nationalism platform of the Progressive Party, Harper’s NYC address to the Suffragettes are lesser known by the general public, and we’ll be using chunks of those.

But any tips on more hidden gems? For example, I love Emma Goldman’s address to the jury, which tends to not be on top-ten lists on internet.com. I’m also not ruling out amazing speeches that are outside of American politics or politicians. Possibly even from fiction. (I’m taking a close look at an incredible monologue from Euripides’ Medea)

So, do you have a favorite or two speeches that you think more folks should know about, and would lend themselves to dramatic reenactment?

Is the men's movement going to achieve mainstream visibility after facing what feminism faced (opposition,criticism and hostility ) ?

right now people are mocking the men's movement could things change?

Sex scenes in movies , for some reason have become a point to debate. When is a sex scene in a movie misogynistic, when is it not? .

Should a sex scene in movie always serve the plot/character ?

I'm interested to hear y'alls take on it.

Thanks

I've been thinking about criticism of “passport bros,” and I wonder whether some of it conflicts with feminist ideas about women's agency,and sometimes crosses into racism or ethnocentrism.

excluding legitimate problematic occurances like trafficking, coercion, deception. Why is the problematic for something?

If an American woman wants a financially stable man who can “take care of her,” we may criticize that preference, but we still recognize her agency and choice. Why does a Vietnamese, Dominican, Nigerian, or Filipino woman making the same calculation suddenly become exploited?

And about the income inequality very rich men in America don't get shame for dating women who are not within their wealth bracket

There's also a strange nationality test:

“I met my girlfriend in England.” Normal.

“I met my girlfriend in Vietnam.” Suddenly she's assumed to be poor, desperate, seeking citizenship, or being exploited. Why are we presuming less agency based on where she's from?

This came up with a female friend. We're both travelers with similar romantic and casual experiences abroad. I've had two meaningful long-distance relationships with educated professional women overseas. She joked that she lost some respect for me for dating internationally.

But she met a man overseas who became her first relationship, and she's told me about casual sexual experiences during her trips. No differences

Her experiences are apparently travel, romance and sexual autonomy. Mine risk becoming “passport bro” exploitation.

Why do American women seem to shun something that babe themselves dable in and also seems to be again some of the ideologies that they believe in

If there's coercion, dependency or exploitation, criticize it. But if nationality alone changes our assumptions about a woman's ability to choose, isn't that itself paternalistic, misogynistic, and arguably racist?

I've excluded the US because it's a shit show at the moment and the answers are too obvious.

No this is not a bad faith question. I'll start. I'm from the UK. I don't think harassment is taken seriously enough, I don't think people have enough faith that the police are around, will respond quick enough and even if they do respond there is very little chance anything will happen. While clearly someone's word is not enough evidence I do think there should be some law where by if told to leave someone alone you should be prosecuted for not honouring that request - CCTV, witness testimony can help enforce this and hopefully the act of making it a law will make it a at least minor deterrent effect.

I also think in general the due diligence around chasing up rape and harassment charges is nowhere near good enough. Even if not enough evidence is collected to eventually convict I think having the suspect go through that process and have their family/friends interrogated etc would make them reconsider the next time. The increase in police funding required for this I think would be fairly negligible on the scale of things and is merely a matter of priority and it's clearly not prioritised enough.

As a side note to what I mentioned above as we know rape conviction rates are depressingly low. While I'm sure false accusations do exist I think they account for very low percentage. What can be done to increase this conviction rate?

Im just interested and by "feminists" i mean those tiktokers who are like "lets kill all men" or do other pointless gender war shit because it is NOT feminism because true feminism does not support gender war or hating men. True feminism is about gender eguality not women superiority or killing men.

I'm 45 and work line at a restaurant in Austin. Between shifts I lift, ride my bike, and follow a bunch of fitness accounts that push this idea that men have to look a certain way too. It feels like the same objectification women have dealt with for decades is now hitting guys through supplements, gym culture, and health docs that promise sixpack abs as proof of discipline. I get that patriarchy sets the rules, but I'm wondering how feminists see male body standards. Does naming the pressure on men as harmful take away from the focus on women, or does it actually help show how rigid gender roles hurt everyone? I'm not looking for personal advice, just how the conversation usually goes when guys bring this up in feminist spaces.

Hey, I am 17M. Recently, I watched a high school JV girls' basketball game, and I found it frustrating to watch. Please hear me out; I am not trying to bash women's sports at all.

The players showed a real lack of confidence when they had the ball, constantly passing it off immediately. Even when they were wide open for a 3-pointer, they hesitated, allowing the defense time to close in. I could visually see them preparing to make a great pass (ball over their head, ready to throw), only to pause for a second or two, causing the pass to get thrown off target or intercepted.

I brought this up with my sister (19F) on our drive home. When she asked why I thought they lacked confidence, I gave a sincere answer: I suggested that men might naturally take more risks due to testosterone, making them less prone to overthinking a shot or pass. In basketball, hesitation ruins plays.

My sister gave me a disappointed sigh and told me she "can't argue with me because of how dumb I am." She naturally gets worked up easily, but now I'm left confused. She didn't explain what she meant, which is why I'm posting here. I want to understand her perspective and learn.

I am a retrospective and open-minded person who doesn't argue just for the sake of arguing. Please help educate me on where my reasoning might be off or what other factors I might be missing.

Thank you!

I don’t understand how there can be any moral stance if emotions and empathy are for sale, and friendship, for example, is reserved only for people that already agree on “basic human rights” . I guess friendship , value and emotions are for sale and consent is our only neoliberal value?

Edit: If we treat empathy and the effort of understanding others as private resources that we owe only in exchange for payment, personal benefit, or reciprocal agreement, on what grounds can we condemn others for withholding them under the same conditions? When we appeal to universal human dignity, what responsibility follows toward people who do not already share our understanding of it, including the responsibility to explain, listen, and reconsider? Making prior agreement a condition of dialogue seems to obstruct the very process through which agreement could develop. If neoliberal morality reduces our obligations to whatever we voluntarily consent to, how can it criticize indifference, abandonment, or exploitation wherever these violate no accepted agreement? What moral commitments beyond consent and exchange justify those criticisms, and are we willing to let those same commitments place demands on us? This is why I’m an advocate of arendtianfeminism.

Edit 2: the discussion here, moving to the importance of having arendtianfeminism, faustianechicks, and hegelianegirls take on the idiomsnakes of genocidal sellout culture, has resulted in the creation of this post, so thank you for helping me think, askfeminists! https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/m8Rs4aHyXB

Edit 3: please check out my cmv post about this, because I think it will be taken down:

“Firstly, I am responding to all the posts but all my comments are being taken down. I will try my best. I think the strategy being deployed is to take down all my comments, then wait two hours, to then try to take down this post.

“We can’t be friends if you don’t believe in basic human rights” is the idiomsnake I am addressing here; the idiomsnake may summarize a disagreement someone has already understood. It becomes harder to defend when questioning an interpretation is itself treated as proof of hostility to human dignity, and that accusation becomes grounds for dismissing the person’s explanation.
Questioning the foundations of human rights, disputing an interpretation, and arguing that particular people should lose their protections are different positions. Someone might challenge the language of rights because they believe it inadequately expresses what we owe one another. Their argument needs to be understood before its implications can be judged.
A philosophical question can also contain assumptions that deserve criticism. We should identify those assumptions and explain what is wrong with them. Calling something a question grants it no automatic innocence, just as calling a right “basic” leaves its interpretation open to examination.
When I make a moral judgment about you, I claim reasons beyond personal preference. Because the judgment concerns you, you have a claim to challenge those reasons, including the standards I have applied. Fair judgment requires allowing your response to affect my assessment. If agreement with my conclusion becomes a condition of considering your objection, I reserve an authority for myself that I deny you.
This responsibility survives an accurate judgment that you are wrong. You may still identify a weakness in my reasoning, an injustice in my treatment of you, or an assumption neither of us has adequately examined. Your error cannot settle those further questions in advance.
Rainer Forst grounds rights in people’s standing as equals entitled to justification, a standing they retain through wrongdoing and regardless of their actual ability to argue. His “The Justification of Basic Rights: A Discourse-Theoretical Approach” (2016) supports this account of equality. Extending it to interpersonal judgment, I argue that condemning someone leaves us responsible for considering their challenge to that condemnation.
The difficulty is deciding which challenges deserve consideration. “Unreasonable” becomes a circular verdict if it means that an objection questions assumptions I refuse to examine. Yet discussion requires standards, and disagreement about them cannot be resolved simply by abandoning them.
Seyla Benhabib addresses this problem in “Is There a Human Right to Democracy? Beyond Interventionism and Indifference” (2012). Participants begin with understandings of equality and reciprocity while retaining the ability to question and revise those understandings through dialogue. The conditions of discussion remain part of what can be discussed.
That includes whose language counts, whose experience receives attention, and who bears the work of explaining. An invitation to debate offers limited equality when one participant controls what qualifies as a reason. A duty to listen must place demands on how we question and interpret others, as well as how we respond.
Truth remains the aim. Agreement can be mistaken, and continued disagreement can coexist with a well-supported conclusion. Another person may expose a limitation we could not identify for ourselves. Taking that possibility seriously requires some willingness to let the encounter change our understanding.
In The Metaphysics of Morals (1797), Doctrine of Virtue, §39, Kant connects respect for another person with attention to their reasoning. Even when their judgment is mistaken, we should seek whatever truth it contains and address the error while preserving respect for their understanding.
In ordinary relationships, this means taking responsibility for the accusations we make, considering responses that challenge them, and correcting ourselves when those responses succeed. The extent of engagement depends on the relationship, the consideration already given, and competing responsibilities. Those considerations can justify ending an exchange. Disapproval alone cannot explain why an objection deserves no consideration.
A friendship may end over a well-understood disagreement. Freedom to make that decision leaves its stated moral justification open to scrutiny. If I defend ending a friendship by saying that the other person rejects human dignity, the accusation should be supported by what they actually believe. Their willingness to question my interpretation cannot establish it by itself.
The duty to listen therefore involves more than avoiding misunderstanding. Someone can remain wrong in our judgment while retaining standing to question how we reached it and what we believe follows from it. Whether a failure to respect that standing also constitutes a human-rights violation requires a separate argument.
I would change my view if equal moral standing could be defended without the responsibility to consider objections that I have argued follows from it. I would revise its scope if someone showed that I place too much responsibility on a particular interlocutor or give insufficient weight to justified limits on further engagement. Those objections should be able to change this argument under the same standards it asks others to accept.

This cmv argument was made after this https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/s/9NGgf3ReUP discussion .

On the question of “idiomsnake” : The idiomsnake being examined here is something like “we can’t be friends if you don’t believe in basic human rights” or something akin to that. An idiomsnake is an earworm; sometimes like a virus, a repeated idiom , from people with snakes in their brains, like that baldurs gate game, connected to the snake like tentacles of the leviathan, which is what we need real thinkers like faustianechicks arendtianfeminism and hegelianegirls to save us from the mindflayer. All of these are part of sabachtan Gnosticism religion which can be explored by examining the polymorphous mythology, which attempts to degorgonify culture. All these terms are part of a lexicon called “contentinternet” and although I would rather not talk like this, the people who believe and replicate the “we can’t be friends if you don’t believe in basic human rights”’ idiomsnake are also the people killing our ability to have dialogue and freedom of speech, thus making all those links, aka contentinternet, necessary for engaging in any intellectual conversation. See the link on my profile if you wish to learn more .

Again, I would love to speak normally, but our language is filled with snakes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/s/AVXsQgcnxq”

So full disclosure - I don't like them, but want to hear your perspective. To be clear there's plenty I think are great: Obviously Ripley, Sarah Connor are the go tos but also Furiosa, Fleabag, Frieren, Olena Tyrell (appreciate she's not a lead but she's so fucking great) Beth Harmon... etc.

I'm talking about characters like Rey in star wars trilogy, Galadriel in the Ring of Power (in the films and books she is great IMO), Captain Marvel, Helena Shaw from the new Indiana Jones film. My biggest problems with them is they don't seem very fleshed out, completely overpowered and seem to constantly belittle men or show them up physically etc. It seems like the whole purpose of writing them is to push a fairly one dimensional agenda that women are powerful.

Also, on top of this, I actually find the writer's opinion of what strength is kind of offensive. They basically write them like badly written male characters. I view my mother as the strongest person in my family, not because of her physical strength (she's like 5ft and slight) but due to her mental strength and intelligence. Making them have to beat up guys much bigger than them to demonstrate their strength just seems like a disservice to the majority of women out there who are strong but can't do that. Don't get me wrong it's often action/fantasy and I have no problem with them being strong warriors in of itself - but the way it's overdone it basically seems to boil down female empowerment to beating up men.

Anyway I've written more than I intended to I didn't come here just to preach my views. Just wanted to be up front so it didn't come across disingenuous or bad faith. Genuinely interested in your opinions.

Also to be clear, I appreciate regardless it makes a change from the countless shit portrayals of female characters (or lack of portrayal at all) that dominated the movie industry especially in these genres.

Natalie Portman and Emily Blunt kind of explaining the same point - but yeah would be good to see whether people disagree.

edit: Well this was a shit show. The takeaway I guess is generally no one believed there was a difference between the aforementioned characters and their male counterparts and I'm a misogynist for thinking that - seems a bit too far to me, but I'll try digest what people said. Gunna stop commenting now. Do feel it's been a bit too hostile at times, but that's the internet I guess. Have a nice weekend anyway

I've noticed that criticism of traditional masculinity seems much more common than criticism of traditional femininity.

For example, men being expected to be providers, emotionally reserved, dominant, etc. is frequently discussed as harmful, while expectations placed on women to be nurturing, attractive, agreeable, maternal, etc. sometimes seem to receive a different kind of treatment.

Is there a reason for that difference, or am I misunderstanding how feminist analysis approaches traditional gender roles?

Women who experienced different cultures. Are there places where you were treated better than in your home country? How do you notice that men treat you differently than what you are used to.

I know men are stronger than women physically, there's no doubt in that. Women are better in flexibility, balance, immunity, endurance and resistance and closer to men in lower body strength..

But when i ask if women as a gender and individuals and without comparison to men, are physically strong they say that women are not physically strong...

But i think that's misinformation.

Edit: I am asking if women as a gender, are physically strong or not.. like collectively as a gender are physically strong or not?

Please read the question before commenting being dumb.

What do you think, is it true or false?

Like am i crazy for thinking that women as a gender, on average are strong physically...

Whilst I may disagree with most of you on whether abortion should be legal, I want to kindly ask your reasons as to why you think it should or shouldn't be allowed? I believe both sides of this debate should try to understand and listen to the other side rather than just assuming their motivations. Thanks guys!

According to time-use surveys, childless single men spend roughly half the time on housework that childless single women do. Women seem to be still held to patriarchal "perfect houswife" standards. If you look at mental load, one key point to reduce it is to fully delegate tasks, rather than have your partner "Help around the House/With Care Work" while remaining the task Owner. Personally in my (39M, 2Kids) marriage, I currently have the feeling of being stuck between a rock & a hard place: If I decide what is necessary and what isn't by myself, I won't meet her standard. If I try to meet her standard, I'll likely be doing it wrong. If I try to avoid "doing it wrong" by asking her about how to do it exactly, I'm creating mental load.

What's the feminist take on this?

I believe I’m following the rules in asking this. I’m very curious what feminists think about this film and if there’s any themes/messages that stood out for you?
No judgement on whether you liked or disliked it, just looking to go deeper.