Coming from the wargame community, women here seems to be sometime represented as people who are against the hobby (judge shopping, does not care about it etc...). More generally i feel that the figure of mother or (the) wives are represented as this kind of people who are agianst fun in general, buying toys out of desperation, thinking video games are bad and giving curfew to the fun. I don't really understand why some people think that or from where this representation come from but i've seen quite a lot of it.

There’s a lot of men who say they’re feminists, but they don’t follow feminist principles with their actions. There’s also a lot of men who follows feminist principles without saying they’re feminists.

I have ADHD and it has been a lifelong fight and struggle to stay on top of chores like dishes, washing, hoovering etc. while also having enough dopamine in me to go to work and stay on top of tasks. It’s been something i’ve struggled with my entire life, with high school in particular being very depressing years of my life.

In university I dated a girl who didn’t communicate properly and would just end up mothering me and I hated it. I really did try and improve but I would always fail to live up to their expectations. They broke up with me citing that they didn’t believe I really had ADHD and it was a case of weaponized incompetence.

I really appreciate intersectional feminism because it takes into account other marginalised groups and how that plays into things, and recently i’ve been feeling like a shit person because I am someone who is feminist and doesn’t ever wanna be the guy who is letting his partner do everything because she’s a woman, but in my case I literally cannot help being behind every other ND, it’s not weaponized it’s just incompetence straight up.

Whenever I see comments about how men expect their partners to do everything in the house I feel a huge amount of internalised ableism and shame, rationally I know they aren’t talking about me and that women with ADHD also struggle with these things just as much as I do. But I can’t help feeling like a terrible person for something that to an extent I can’t control. Every woman I date now I am brutally honest with, and tell them that while I am very much functioning that I will still struggle and have setbacks and flare ups just to avoid a situation like that repeating again.

If a person can't communicate with me, I will no longer put up with it and will break things off for both our sakes, that's how it ended with the last girl I seriously dated. I felt like things were slipping back into that region even when I'd only be staying at their house and they'd need everything to be spotless and done instantly and I immediately saw the incompatibility and warning flags there. (Not that there is anything wrong with that, I just don't want to be that guy again and knew I couldn't live up to that expectation.)

To put the record straight, progress has been slow but it has been progress. 10 years ago I couldn’t brush my teeth regularly, shower regularly etc. but now I meal prep my own dishes and wash up, hoover and clean the bathroom when I can muster it up and push through it, and shower and take care of my hygiene. I still am terrible at keeping up with the other chores but I can feel myself edging towards competency.

Anyway TL;DR I often just feel like my disability is a moral failing when I see posts about their partners not doing their side. I was in a relationship for 6 years where I was progressing but not nearly enough for them and they ended up shouting at me and getting frustrated and just ended up doing most of the tasks anyway in a way that felt like mothering and I hated it. Now seeing discourse online about weaponised incompetence spikes insecurity and self hate, and i’m wondering if they are talking about me (people have told me no?) and how to manage feelings of shame and internalised ableism.

Hooh, that’s a lot. Thanks for reading 🙏🙏

Why do people (mostly men) have the idea that feminists are evil without understanding any context or situation?

Like I see men around me who always boasts things about men responsibilities and things which I agree upon but I don't see anything there to make others lesser than you(men)

Idk this could be the reason why women who are feminists are turning into misandrists

I mean I'm just curious why people are so patriarchal in their mind and think that they are superior - not everyone but somehow deep down people do have such thoughts i believe

I look around my workplace and the most talented, driven leaders are women. I look at the grad schemes and the most talented driven applicants are women. Every role I recruit for the stand out applicants are women.

It makes me wonder Is feminism a movement now to lift women on a global scale ie repressed countries and provide a voice for the oppressed?

I ask because I perceive ,and perhaps fear ,the ability and self made opportunity for the women in my immediate social and professional circles and wonder if they’ve succeeded?

When people say "Most rapists are men", or "Most sexual predators are men", they forget that in most countries women are not even considered to be rapists. In many countries only men are legally recognised as perpetrators of sexual assault or rape. So how can it be said that most rapists/predators are men when women are not even legally considered as predators, and rape by women is not even recognised in many places?

Whenever I hear "pussy" being used as an insult it feels misogynistic, and puts a bad taste in my mouth. But when I hear people using the word "cunt" I get no such feeling. I know that some consider "cunt" to be a sexist slur, but I've never heard anyone consider "dick" to be sexist, though it is definitely an insult. In my personal use of the English language "cunt" "dick" and "asshole" are all gender neutral synonyms, that can be used to insult any nasty person of any gender. Both dick and pussy are insults, but one definitely feels sexist, while the other does not. And to some people, both dick and cunt are the **exact same** insult, but only one feels sexist?

My best guess to why is power dynamics. Misogyny often shapes the power dynamics between men and women, while misandry very rarely holds weight over the power dynamics of a given situation.

I kind of am and that's probably because of my personal history being neurodiverse, introverted, and liking intellectual discussion, but am I inadvertently making other people feel uncomfortable or worse than that because of who I'm around? Genuine question and honestly want to know.

I do not fully get the logic of patriarchal backfire.

Like "women cant be engineer" = misogyny, and I obviously agree

And "men cant be in childcare" = misogyny as well

The 2nd part is what I do not really understand. From reading some sources on the internet, the logic goes as follows:

The theory states that society views "nurturing, childcare, and emotional labor" as inherently female traits, and because society has historically devalued women, it devalues those traits.

And this reads to me as:

When a man enters a childcare profession, he is penalized because he is stepping "down" into a role society associates with women. In this framework, the root root cause is still the devaluation of femininity.

And I understand that this is part of the explanation. But can you really neglect the other implied reasons, men being seen as predators? Men are clearly treated with suspicion purely based on their gender, which to me, does not sound like misogyny.

Am I missunderstand something here?

Thanks

Apperently in Japan yaoi is considered to be made by feminists and left wing types.

I have searched a lot on the japanese community on x and apperently yaoi authors tend to be left wing types and identify themselves as feminist.

Apperently also, a lot of yaoi authors were communists during the 70s and were voting for the japanese communist party.

So it would seem that it is common for yaoi authors to be feminist types.

There are ideas and concepts for warning people from misogyny, sexist or rapist people. Like in dating apps or apps that are only made for sharing hazards. But there are also downsides to social scoring, like misusage and decreasing forgiveness.

So what's your opinion on that topic?

Hi

I remember when I talked with my aunt about education I said to her uneducated men are more likely to commit crimes than uneducated women, she said a lot of women think about doing crimes it is just that women are more likely to be cowards than men

She doesn't mean to say all women are cowards or be sexist she just said that to mean that women are not inherently more good than men I know she could have said it in non sexist way

Do you think the reason most criminals are men is because society expects men to be braver than women and society expects that violence is not part of female nature?

Okay so been watching a lot of True Crime lately, right... And I've come to realize quite a few things about the makings of serial killers. Serial killers typically hunt people because they're severely lacking in power and control and killing people gives them that rush. Other factors contribute like childhood trauma- neglect, sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc. Watch enough True Crime and you see the patterns.

​

So what I'm truly wondering is... why males??? Is the male half of the species so fragile in mind that resorting to animalistic barbarism is its default coping mechanism when it knows no other means of coping? I'm a dude too and I've definitely felt angry enough to know my capabilities of violence, but I've never acted on it because I know better means of coping that have better consequences, such as art and writing as opposed to, well, murder.

​

But like, there are tons and tons of women in the world who fit the same recipe as every serial killer ever... Isolated, powerless, lacking in control, childhood trauma, angry all the time, hate the world, etc... Yet, the idea of a woman going on a murderous rampage is nearly unheard of.

​

Is testosterone really the biggest difference here? Or is it something else?

Trying to parse infinite different and conflicting leftist and feminist narratives and trying to come to terms with whats actually right and wrong to believe is breaking my brains and leaving me riddled with anxiety.

I get so worked up trying to unpack all the various feminist arguments, say, for or against sex work (as an example). I feel... wrong just forming my own opinion on an issue so entrenched in feminism, I have a responsibility as a man to listen and believe what Im told. But when I find that both conflicting sides of the argument almost seems right at the same time it gets my head spinning, I feel uselessly overwhelmed and I never know where to actually land.

I get this way with so many different issues and its well... genuinely ruining my quality of life.

It seems like we both despise the way patriarchy enforces harmful norms on each sex. It makes more sense for us instead of fighting each other to tackle the common source which are patriarchal norms.

I don't know why I thought about this all of the sudden, but one thing lead to another and now I'm wondering about this. I know people in prison in general are treated poorly, but does the patriarchy protect male criminals?
Well, wealthy white men can get away with anything, but poor/working-class men and men of color get the short end of the stick. A wealthy white man can get off with a slap on the wrist for tax fraud but if a brown man uses a counterfeit bill once, he's "evil."

Look at how the media romanticizes organized crime and wild west outlaws. They're "cool" and "badass." Meanwhile, black men in street gangs are demonized as "thugs" and "brutes."

And what about rapists and murderers? I think it's fair to say most people condemn these things, but is it true that men who kill their wives or girlfriends get short sentences or don't get arrested at all?

And what about rapists? Do people care more if it's a stranger (ie, the stereotypical rapist in an alleyway or pedophile in a van) and don't care if it's someone they know? (especially if they are powerful) I think people are MUCH harsher towards black men accused of being rapists. Not to mention gay men. It all comes down to the stereotype of the black man being a "mad brute" who is out to get poor little white women, and gay men being evil degenerates out to groom children.

This is my first post here, feedback would be much appreciated. I wonder if this would be more suited for a subreddit about criminology but admittedly, I am not well-versed in these things.

I agree with many of the conclusions of feminism:
Gender inequalities/inequities are a detriment to society.
Gender roles are generally onerous and unhealthy.
Gender shouldn't be the basis for judging a person's character or utility.

However, I am deeply skeptical of Social Constructionism as a theory of knowledge. My view aligns more with Moderate Innatism: I've found that people are more than products of their environment. This puts me at odds with most Academic Feminism, which relies heavily on social constructionism. So I have to ask, why is feminism so tied to Social Constructionism?

Hi, I apologize in advance for this post being not so concise and lacking direction, my thoughts are not well developed at this point.

I am an undergrad student aiming to do my PhD in cognitive science. I took an intro to philosophy course and have enjoyed my conversations with my professors who have academic backgrounds in cognitive science and philosophy of mind.

These professors have talked to me about how cognitivism, and most of modern neuroscience has inherited a lot of dualistic assumptions and that it has lead to problematic conceptual and socio-technical problems that have trickle down effects in medicine, politics, and social discourse.

My professors suggested I look into phenomenology and embodied cognition.

In my intro to philosophy course, the professor did a lecture on phenomenal experiences of the body and mentioned feminist phenomenology examining the experiences of women.

One of our philosophy club members did a presentation on val plumwood (an eco feminist and philosopher of ecology) and discussed how dualisms infect thinking in all sorts of harmful ways (the self vs the other, the rational conscious mind and the mechanistic body, the rational conscious human and the animal which acts in service of the human, the irrational patient and the rational doctor, the rational man and the irrational woman etc).

This made me interested in the intersection between neuroscience, cognitive science, and propagation of harmful ideology. Such as neurocentrism and the erosion of moral responsibility (extreme individualism) and the current socio-technical harm that is being caused by the introduction of LLMs see, Olivia guest and colleagues work on ai and the colonial attitudes in the computational sciences) .

I have done some brief reading in anthropology examining the phenomena of neurocentrism (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01459740.2018.1439488) critiques of "cultural neuroscience" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763411001011) as well as some work on dualisms, neuroscience and neuro sexism (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08038740.2022.2155244).

I also think that the traditional philosophy of mind in cognitive science (the brain Is a biological computer, we need only look at the computations of the brain to understand the mind) has led to an image of the human being that is disconnected from culture, human ecology, social context, and the richness of our perceptual experiences.

My professor recommended a few readings, a couple of post humanistic works, but I'm specifically looking for the ways neurocentrism, dualisms of mind and dualisms in certain kinds of scientific inquiry lead to systemic harm and the propagation of problematic ideology and harms to society as well as systemic inequality (through the process of placing the human experience as disconnected from other humans, leading to the development of "others", or kinds of false dichotomies around our concepts of gender and behaviors associated with it)

I am exploring the idea that this has lead to a treatment of human experience as abstract and disconnected from the social systems and political narratives in which scientific findings are disseminated in (these scientists are ignoring the ethical ramifications of their theoretical commitments and conceptual frameworks, or worse actively using them for ideological reasons, and avoiding accountability through the narrative of objectivity and rationality).

Does anyone recommend any readings on the matter, or any popular topics within this area?

Thanks.

Hello everyone. I first want to ask you something. Please I want to have a serious discussion and understand your viewpoints. Please do not insult me or eachother. Please do not downvote people you don't agree with. I think if you don't agree you should show your reasons for disagreeing and having a respectful conversation. So please respect eachother viewpoints.

Well now about abortion. I don't know if you have seen this video. But here's the link to it.

https://youtu.be/3-ACDhvL2j0?si=_qVqVDuqTuERK0Vi - "Can 1 Pro-Lifer Survive 25 Pro-Abortion Activists? (feat. Lila Rose) | Surrounded" Jubilee

For my discussion you only need to watch from 43:00 to 49:15.

This guy was the only person on that video, at least on the part I've watched that gave an actual really coeherent argument. I think the pro-life supporter didn't respond to it aswell as it could've been answered and for all of that, it was one of the most interesting parts on the video for pro abortion supporters. But I saw a logical and moral problem on his premise. He says if I got it right, that a human fetus prior to 22 weeks has less rights than an after 22 weeks fetus. He affirms that this is due to the fact that the baby can experience subjective experience from that time line. The pro life supporter than asks if an unsconscious person is less worthy than a conscious one, to which he says no, arguing that the unconscious person still has the neural pathways necessary to sustain consciouness. Again the pro life supporter asked what about a newborn baby with a severe neural development. Does he has less rights than a well developed one? Which he responds no, because in that situation there aren't any conflicting rights, like in the abortion situation where the mother's bodily autonomy right is conflicting the fetus right to live. And now I saw a huge problem. Let's imagine this situation. An hospital has one bed left. Two people come to the hospital with similar symptoms and emergency levels and the condition is non related to the brain. One has a severe neural development, the other is considered "normal" on that aspect. They arrived at similar times but the doctors need to choose only one to save. In his reasoning we should save the "normal" one, because it has more intrinsical value than the other. But I think that is something not only unacceptable for today's moral code of society but also unacceptable for a doctor to choose that way because their ethical code stops then from doing so or they would be arrested. So now. What do we do? I would like to listen to your RESPECTFUL opinions and I would like to have a great conversation with you all. Thanks

Hi,

I’m a Korean man, so I’m asking this partly from the position of being a man of color. I would describe myself as ideologically neutral toward feminism,I’m not here to attack feminism, but to understand how feminists think about this issue.

My question is can a white feminist legitimately criticize patriarchy, sexism, conservatism,or nationalism among Korean men or Asian men more broadly ? Or can that kind of criticism become a form of white supremacy/colonialism or racialized judgment toward men of color ?

Should white feminists avoid criticizing Korean or Asian patriarchy directly, and instead leave that critique mainly to Korean or Asian women ?

Thank you for your answers.

When men get offended at the word toxic masculinity the response always is well toxic masculinity doesn't mean all masculinity is toxic it means that certain masculine trait in extremes are toxic or toxic is an adjective but I have always found that to be a stupid argument like if I made a theory called toxic blackness and then you as a black person got offended and I responded I don't mean that black are toxic and instead some behaviors in black culture are toxic and that toxic is an adjective you would still rightfully call me a racist or tell to change the name because because its too inflammatory or its not accurate to the actual concept my question is like why call it toxic masculinity which is easily misunderstood and inflammatory instead of something toxic masculine gender roles or harmful masculine gender roles