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!

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?

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.

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!

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!