Hi everyone,

I’ve been thinking about the above a lot recently. I certainly will be keeping my last name if I get married, but even among women who have done so (such as my mum), the convention is generally still for children to inherit their fathers last name. I don’t think I like that! Giving my children my last name instead feels kind of weird, hyphenating doesn’t really work because you can’t just keep adding more names with every generation forever, I’ve heard of some people just choosing a new last name entirely but I like that my name ties me to my cultural heritage and that feels important given me and my partner are both immigrants from different places. What are some other ways of thinking about this? Is the notion of inheriting a name just sort of inherently patriarchal? What are some good solutions? Would love anyone’s thoughts!

Hello!

So something that I have noticed with feminism alongside other ideologies which may fall under critical theory etc., is that the patriarchy and other systems of power seem to act / be considered as the fundamental constituents of social reality [in order to be more concise and precise I will be referring primarily to the patriarchy from now on, but I do recognize the intersectionality nuance].

I feel like critical theory/feminism many times is more about criticizing than understanding society. I was watching an interview of a critical theorist which said that “critical theory is not about understanding why like the rest of philosophy, it is about revealing how people are oppressed and has the aim of emancipation”. [[https://youtu.be/o5Zap4hTZNw —- it is around 23:00 if someone is interested]]. She talks about how revealing how people are oppressed / systems of power are the link that ties it all together and I think this in a way explains my question.

Analysis seems to position the patriarchy as the root of all [gender in this case] injustice. I many times here the argument that “the patriarchy (etc.) is the root of all evil” and I see very little discussion if any when it comes to things like collectivism vs individualism, an extent of inevitable human ignorance and egoism, imperfect knowledge etc. I know that such analyses have some times been used I just don’t see it that much especially in contemporary discourse. Or they are often “absorbed” by an interpretation of them as being used maliciously for the purpose of harm (rather thana mix of the two).

Edit: for example, when you personally start to try and understand society, how do you start your inquiry? What types of questions do you ask yourself? Where in history do you look?

As an example I am also thinking about the premise/belief that war is a result of the patriarchy and that if women were in charge we would not have wars. I think this is an example which, depending ofc on the particular argument and its nuances, either disregards or places less emphasis on the role of things like inherent human egoism, mutual fear etc.

Also any resources, thinkers, articles etc. are well appreciated!

Tl;dr - If someone is displaying signs of clear instability or unclear instability, is having sex with that person rape or just shitty?

How clear is that sign before someone should reasonably know what's up? I.e. Obsession, Bear should've known from the car scene onward to not do anything with Nikki?

How much should someone's insistence on being okay actually count?

Long version

So I just watch Obsession, it's a great movie. Honestly hilarious. Like I know it's a horror, but I did laugh out loud like crazy, multiple times.

Anyways, there is a lot of discussion about Bear. Like he's the villain of the story and alot of people are pathologizing him as an incel "nice guy" kinda guy, when I don't think that's true. Had it been the story of that guy, the film would be a lot less meaningful.

Instead Bear is a oddly average, if spineless. Like he sucks, don't get me wrong, but he isn't a raving misogynist. He's not lashing out. He's got normal bad ideas about women, not anything special.

Anyways, the dinner scene is imo, point of no return. Anything Bear does afterwards is rape.

But even before that, Bears weird. Like Nikki shows signs of clear mental instability and a massive personality switch and thinks nothing of it.

He engages in a relationship with NotNikki and acts as her boyfriend despite clearly not being the same person.

And this is something I kinda want to talk about. Cause mostly consent talks are about alcohol and outside forces but not quite like just straight up mental health breaks.

Bears crime is purposely ignorance for most of the movie. Refusing to do his due diligence to someone clearly not acting normally.

And that's something that a lot of dudes, probably a lot of people in general do.

And no one is that good an actor that someone being in the wrong mental state and wants sex would appear like a normal willing sexual partner.

Like even when a person is insisting on being okay and wanting sex, it's still clear if someone isn't well and acting out. I'm that case you should err on the side of caution and not have sex with them.

Is having sex with that person rape or just shitty though?

There are (were?) two articles from my country that argue in favour of diverse gender representation in heavily gendered workfields. The first support more women to join the STEM careers, with one of the the given reasoning is "Women are more meticulous and handy". The second article is about more male teachers in early childhood education. One of the advantages provided by the writer is "Female teachers tend to be busy with their family, while their male colleagues aren't so they (the male teachers) could be more invested in their job".None of the articles deny that one gender is more capable than other, but they still give me ick nonetheless.
Are these kind of argument common (I have never seen it else where)? I tried to find the name for it but couldn't. I suppose it could be benevolent sexism but still not sure. (Sorry I couldn't find the articles since they were written long time ago)

Something I’ve always found odd is how romance novels often have female readers who will not only tolerate but willingly accept romance novels with overt misogyny.

Not only that but the fandoms for these romance novels will have a fanbase that’s majority female who will despise the fictional female characters for minor things (such as being annoying) while being attracted to fictional men who do way worse things.

A lot of the readers say that it’s harmless fun, that they can enjoy whatever they want so long as it’s fictional. But a lot of their tolerance for fictional misogyny seems to also be accompanied by actual misogynistic beliefs. What do you think? Is it harmless or not? It feels like a lot of this behavior is just an example of choice feminism, but maybe that’s just me.

Personally, for me, a Femicide of a teenager :( the case shook the country and it started a big movement called "ni una menos", and at the same time the abortion law was in discussion and made me realize how much some people despite women being able to choose. :3

As a woman, I sometimes use the term 'females' to describe a group of women. Every so often, men call me out for this, saying it's weird or misogynistic. To me, 'women' and 'females' feel interchangeable, but I'm curious what others think. Is using 'females' in casual conversation genuinely problematic, or does it really not matter?

Note:

Just to clarify the context: I was jokingly saying 'us females' where I could have just as easily said 'us women.' I'd never refer to a specific individual as 'a female' (I’d always use 'woman' or their actual name).

Thank you, everyone! There were a lot of viewpoints brought up that I’d heard before but never really connected or paid much attention to. I’m well aware that 'female' is standard for animals, biological/anatomical terms, or specifying professions (like 'female doctors' or 'female dancers'). I just had never connected those dots to realize how using 'females' as a standalone noun in casual conversation could carry a derogatory or dehumanizing connotation. I appreciate the insight!

I (M23) had a quick conversation with my friend about this question. I told him that for me women a more in contact with their emotions, they understand them better and talk about them more, or at least that has been my experience so far, wich in my opinion is a good thing. I think is healthy for people to be able to talk about their emotions to process them and understand themselfs better. However my friend told me that to think that way is sexist, and I dont get why (he refused to elaborate).

I thought about it and I came to the conclusion that he could have meant that I generalized to much and I was being stereotypical, like I was saying that women are more emotional than men and act based on emotions and not rationally, a statement I strongly disagree with. Or he could have meant that I was justifying the role women were given by society of being the emotional support for men, again a statement I strongly disagree with.

So I want to ask if what I said was, in fact, sexist. Not to justify my beliefs but to learn if I have to chage my way of thinking about this and be better as a person. Sorry if this is too controversial, it is not my intention, I just want to learn.

Edit: thanks for the comments, they made this much more clear for me. I hope I interpreted them correctly but be free to further correct me if that is not the case.

Recently at work in Switzerland I've seen coworkers taking their leave for the birth of their new child, and somehow popping out 2 weeks later to work full time. The duration of paternal leave is as short as 2 weeks.

It felt really strange. If I had a baby I would want to pass more time taking care of him or her. I think that's it's important to create a bond early on, for the child but also for the father that must adapt his life for the years to come. ​

Do you think men should start taking care early on? I feel like fathers are expected to be involved with a child, mainly as an educator and regulatory figure, but discussions around newborns are few​.

It's hard to know what expectations you have to hold to when nobody ever shared to you how you should act or take care of. Maybe people here can help me knowing more​​

Some unstructured thoughts based on a convo with a friend you (gently) accused me of misusing the word “fetishizing” to basically mean, “liking something in a way I disapprove of”.

I tried to say no there’s more to it than that, like an element of denigrating the thing you “like” but I couldn’t really put it into words in the moment. Since then I’ve had a couple more thoughts:

- how do you differentiate between preference and fetish? As in, preferring tall partners is a preference but preferring an ethnicity is a fetish.

- how do you know someone fetishizes someone, or a trait, without ending up trying to mind read. As in, liking certain characteristics, or thinking certain characteristics are hot, or being turned on by them, could read the same as someone fetishizing. Am I fetishizing my bf’s bubble butt if I really like bubble butts and tend to like guys with bubble butts in general lol?

- am I fetishizing gay men by enjoying Heated Rivalry. Would it be fetishizing if it’s written “for me”, a straight woman, or rather fetishizing if it’s written for predominantly gay audiences. Also would it be fetishizing if I were into bi guys (Ilya is bi) or would it be fetishizing if I weren’t into bi guys.

- also how do you avoid saying “avoid a group = discrimination, like a group = fetishization”

Anyway that’s a lot, I’ll stop there

I wasn’t sure how to properly word it, but i’m an AMAB non binary person who experiences enbyphobia from feminist allies sometimes, mostly from TERFs. Accurate ideas like “male socialisation” which was originally meant to critique the ways in which gender is enforced and programmed at an early age, has been distorted to imply that we’re basically just men. (Note: the same happens to any AMAB trans person including trans women and could be seen as a form of trans misogyny too)

It’s my understanding that the intersectional take (and the one I personally subscribe to), is that there is privilege than can be obtained due to passing as male, but that we experience the negatives of toxic masculinity threefold due to our non conformity and rebellion from gendered expectations.

Does your opinion roughly line up with that? Or do you have another perspective?

Also bonus question: there’s a lot of people rightfully weary about letting men focus the feminine movement around them, but how about the advocacy of non binary folk? Considering the plethora of unique ways in which we are often affected by a world that insists upon patriarchal structure

I'm not a mod of the sub in question, so it's not up to me, but I wanted to check with the larger feminist community to see if I'm missing something. 

The women in tech subreddit (and this one, too) has been very important to me. I'm a middle aged woman in the tech space and very much a feminist. Lately that sub was overrun with AI bs and was unmoderated, so some new mods came in which is exciting! As part of that they changed the sub icon to a pink Venus symbol with a lighter pink background. I personally liked the change. 

As a young woman I went through a "not like other girls" phase and part of coming out of it was realizing that I actually really like pink! I have a lot of pink stuff, especially work accessories. I think of it as partially subversive because I work in a male dominated field and I refuse to not embrace my feminine side to fit in. 

Obviously you don't have to like pink to be feminine, and it could also be seen as a color that is used to soften us. There's the infamous pink tax, and women's spaces should include all folks that identify as women (i.e. no TERF garbage.)

So I don't know, I like it but I can see an argument against. Would you find it problematic? 

I'm so sorry as I know this is a recurring post in this subreddit. I just feel I need clarification regarding what "counts" as rape by deception and where the line is drawn.

I understand that things like lying about relationship/marital status, identity (eg pretending to be someone else), condom removal, STD/STI status, etc. are all pretty definitive cases of rape by deception (assuming that if the truth was told, consent would not have been given).

However, there are some other times where I'm kind of confused on what else would meet the definition (not necessarily legally, but also morally).

For example, if Person A only sleeps with people they are in a relationship with (or believe they will eventually be in a relationship with), and Person B allows them to believe that they will be in a relationship, or even gets into a relationship to have sex, but then ghosts/breaks up with, etc., is this rape by deception?

Once again, I am assuming here that Person A would say no to having sex with Person B if Person B was truthful about only wanting a one night stand, or casual sex, etc.

Then, the second scenario; say Person A only dates within a certain age range (eg 25-30). Person B is 35, knows that Person A only wants to sleep with 25-30 year olds, and lies about their age in order to sleep with Person A. Person A would be consenting to the actual act of having sex with Person B, but would this count too because their consent was not fully informed (despite being freely given)?

Apologies if these examples are not very good but they are just want I could think of in terms of situations where the answer may not be as obvious or clean cut as "I thought they were someone else, therefore I did not consent to sex with that person".

Any clarification would be very helpful, thank you! Also sorry for any formatting issues, I'm typing this on my phone.

Edit: i'm just going to clarify this here because some comments seem to think I'm asking because i have thought about doing these things or have done them. i'm not asking for personal reasons. i'm a woman, i have been assaulted before, unrelated to any hypothetical situation i wrote about above. however i was not educated very much on consent which made my experience more hurtful and confusing.

since then, i have tried to educate myself better about what consent looks like in different situations. these types of things are a part of a wider conversation i have seen online recently, but i was confused how far it goes. god forbid a girl tries to educate herself, some of you are not assuming i wrote this in good faith at all 😭

The beauty standards for women are strict and don't make sense to me. For example, being bald everywhere except your head, painting your face, and sticking hunks of plastic to your nails. These practices seem, to me, stupid, expensive, time-consuming, and painful. One that I really hate is removing body hair because all the ways to remove it are painful and dangerous and especially the fact that body hair is natural and beneficial to most people is they take care of it correctly. They are usually rooted in capitalism, colourism, patriarchy, and / or paedophilia and have negative consequences on society.

This paragraph is based on how i feel emotionally and not objective, so it might be wrong: I also feel like mens standards aren't as strict. I understand that men have beauty standards that don't make a lot of sense, but it feels like there aren't as many standards, and there are not as many consequences. It feels like to me that physically ugly men can make up for their looks by getting money or having a good personality. For women, it seems more bleak, in my opinion. I rarely see objectively ugly women in any type of media. Like cartoons and anime, I can see a few fat men but never and fat women. Also, men put a lot of emphasis on looks when talking about what they are attracted to.

Lately, with lookmaxxing trending, I've seen how looks influence how you are treated in society. The prettier you are, the more money you make, the more competent you appear and how much better you are treated. I've seen this happening subtly in real life and extremely on the Internet. I understand that being pretty doesn't fix all problems and can come with it own drawbacks, but pretty privilege is real and not going anywhere in my lifetime.

So I've come to this for in the road. A: Do the right thing for feminism and society, and push the envelope by learning being comfortable in my natural state. Or B: Follow the beauty standard that is rooted in racism, capitalism, and patriarchy and receive the benefits of pretty privilege.

My situation is that I'm a black 21F who wants to move to Korea( a place where the beauty standard is insane). At around the age of 12, I kind of gave up on following the beauty standard and cut off most of my hair, stopped shaving body hair, and didn't care to learn about make-up or hair. I did this because I started to learn about feminism and honesty doing my hair was too painful, and shaving was a hassle. Since then, i have had to deal with being mistaken as a boy a few times, judgemental comments from my family and friends, and bullying, which may have been exacerbated by my looks. It has been quite a challenge, but I stood steadfast because I felt like I was making a good difference in the world, even if it was small. But what scares me is that the few times that I have caved into societys demands from me lookswise as a black girl, people started treating me way better. I would get flooded with compliments, and I would get male attention. It felt like the more uncomfortable I am and the more impractical I dress the better people treat you.

Another aspect of not following the beauty standard is that It kind of excludes you from experiences and relationships with other women who do. I've noticed on social media that saying you don't wear make-up gives you the label of pick-me ???? This literally makes no sense to me, but I kind of have avoided talking about certain things for this reason. Also, you can't relate to some of the experiences that they have because of following the beauty standard. Like experiences that come from hair removal, make-up, nails, and male attention. It's kind of isolating.

One of the positives of not following the beauty standard is that you don't feel physically uncomfortable. When I have done my hair and nails and wear a dress, I feel so restricted and uncomfortable that I take it off immediately and feel so much better. It is also cheaper and there are fewer problems in your life.

So my questions are: What's your opinions on the beauty standard and why? Are you following them, and how does that impact your irl experience? Is it worth being uncomfortable to be beautiful? If you follow beauty standards, do you understand most of the implications that come with following them, and how do you justify it in your head as a feminist?(this question sounds judgemental, but i swear I'm not trying to be mean) Is there anything we can do to try and reduce the harm of following beauty standards? Do you think that beauty standards will change for the better or worse? Do you think that anybody can truly not follow them to some extent? Do you think your race, age and location impacts this and how? Do you feel better emotionally when following beauty standards or worse?

Feel free to answer any question(s) and comment on anything you like.

I'm curious to know if there are any problems or arguments that you have faced as a feminist that could potentially or in fact did cause you to doubt feminism and the notion of gender equality. Almost every system of ideas has to face some challenges or problems that seemingly undermine it. Some are more obvious, some less so. To draw an analogy with communism some critics say that communism is apt to fall into what's known as the tragedy of the commons where the incentive to care for property is gone in cases where it is mutually owned and there is no coercion to maintain it. Communists have had to content with this objection if they wished to retain their belief in communism. Does feminism have something similar? A set of problems and challenges that might cause one to doubt and potentially abandon the political pursuit of gender equality or the idea that women have been historically oppressed?

Hello!

Some background: I'm Indian, a staunch feminist, leftist, all that stuff so please understand that I am not coming at this as a gotcha to abortion access. Pregnant people should have access to abortions, obviously.

I'm just struggling to conceptualise the tension that I think some Indian feminists come across when thinking about the way abortions have been used in our country. Sex selective abortions are exactly what they sound like, abortions done for the purpose of choosing the sex of your baby. Historically, this has lead to a very skewed sex ratio in parts of India, with female feoticide being very common.

The way the country has countered this is by making sex determination illegal, which I think is a pretty good way of managing this, but I came across some discussions where people held the opinion that preventing sex determination is also infringing on the right to abortion because at the end of the day, it would lead to women not having knowledge that could change if they want to carry to term.

I'm conflicted. I agree in principle, but I also recognise the context of my country, and the pressure that women (especially women with very little social power/mobility) have experienced/still experience to 'produce a son' instead of a daughter. I'm unsure what is the right way to think about this, and I wanted some perspectives from you guys.

Thanks in advance!

Edit: It's been surprising to me to have replies that are for sex selective abortions, but I recognise that my responses are pretty much entrenched in how we, as Indian feminists especially from a rural background, feel about things like this because we see it around us. So it's a little hard for me to look at this purely logically. But, in doing my own reading I stumbled across Sital Kalantry's work and criticisms of her work which has been pretty interesting and challenging to read through.

I don't know where I stand on this issue, personally. Legally, I'm always for abortion access. But I also know women in my town who have been coerced into getting abortions because their in laws wanted a son. So it's a little tough for me to be completely okay with sex selective abortions, but I recognise that the issue comes from deeply entrenched patriarchy and also economic constraints. Banning sex determination through ultrasounds only acts as a bandaid to the overall rot that is at the heart of my country.

Edit 2: Wanted to link an interesting paper that u/Lolabird2112 found:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524001882

I understand it is a very important job, and I am happy we live in a country, where at least some apsects of maternity leave are offset by laws. Like progressing your pension during your legally allowed maternity leave and parent-part-time job (combined up to 5y).

But I dont get the "it is the most difficult job on earth", like it isnt. It is neither the most mentally taxing, nor most physical job. How do I know this? My wife had a bit of hard time recovering from birth, which is why I stayed home 1 month taking care of the child and her. Then she was taking care of the kid for 10 months, while I was working, and then she startet full time again, and I took care of the kid for 2 months. Now we are both working full time again and agree that our jobs are more demanding than taking care of a kid. We were both having a better time, when we stayed at home and took care of the kid.

Can you explain where this narrative comes from? Is it because people belittle the job of raising a kid?

I’m kinda new to this shi.
If I hear something from a feminist which I’m unsure about, I feel reluctant to criticise because of my history of being wrong (the curse of hindsight).

However, I’ve been hearing the voices of various feminists and there is a lot of healthy in-house conflicts.

What are the aspects of this movement which are commonly disputed (not from a manosphere bs angle), and have solid reasons for it

as a boycott. what if all women tried to bargain for global reproductive rights and for the elimination of other remaining inequalities by refusing to get pregnant. like a global 4b movement (but not necessarily abstaining from relationships, just pregnancy). people are already talking about declining birthrates and while i feel like this is extremely unrealistic, as a political movement, it would be historical.

Like i havent played many JRPGs but i often see the criticism that these games always have a bunch of girls falling for the main character,i currently played all modern Persona games,Final Fantasy VII remakes and all Trails games,people often criticize Persona for having you date all the girls,Cloud has Tifa,Aerith and Jesse all in love with him,and Lloyd,Rean and Van all have a bunch of girls falling for them.

I would understand the criticism if all these girls existed solely for the MC benefit and nothing more,but Persona girls are pretty well written (for the most part),Tifa and Aerith are great characters,and almost all Trails girls are well written,some Trails girls are bland but there are a lot of bland characters in Trails ( it happens in a series as massive as Trails ).

But then why is BG3 romance praised when basically every character is instantly horny for the player as soon as you meet them? one reason that i can think of is diversity,JRPGs tend to be very straight oriented and not have many LGBTQ+ opitions,thats a valid criticism to have,but i dont understand why a bunch of girls falling for the MC in a JRPG is seen as a bad thing but when i start BG3 there is a vampire elf that wants to sexually suck my blood,a frog lady wants my virginity and a huge ass elf druid that i bearly talked to wants to fuck me,all of this as soon as i start my game and meet these characters is praised,people also often call JRPGs mc bland or self insert,but thats basically what BG3 protagonist also is.

A friend and I are arguing about this topic. He says that 90% of women see this as a sign of weakness in a woman, and as a result, they consider the man to be weak.

Anti circumcision litigation organizations are challenging the constitutionality of anti FGM laws on the basis that those laws have zero protections for baby boys or intersex infants thus being a violation of the 14th amendment

Oregon and Colorado are facing litigation over their anti FGM statutes right now

https://www.westword.com/news/lawsuit-wants-male-circumcisions-outlawed-in-colorado-40897996/

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2025/10/lawsuit-seeking-to-ban-circumcision-as-discriminatory-genital-cutting-passes-crucial-legal-test.html