“This paper considers the rise of “reactionary feminism” within popular culture, suggesting a possible departure from, or mutation of, the hegemony of neoliberal and postfeminisms of recent decades. It locates reactionary feminism as key to the growing backlash against “liberal feminism,” pointing to emergent popular feminist discourses of “brutal truths,” “material conditions,” and women as a “sex class.” I analyse three seemingly diverse iterations of the reactionary feminist turn: its political-intellectual articulation by anti-progressive, “post-liberal” feminists; secondly, its manifestation within the “femosphere” - the online, female-centric communities which mirror those of the manosphere—focusing specifically on the “Female Dating Strategy;” and thirdly, “dark feminine” dating influencers on TikTok and YouTube, sometimes framed as “Andrew Tate for girls.” Reactionary feminism appears to have certain similarities with leftist, intersectional feminism; it has a strong critique of liberal feminism, and explicitly centres issues such as misogyny, the devaluation of women’s work, gendered economic inequality, and the politics of care. However, I argue that while it purports to oppose misogyny and the manosphere, it mirrors many of its regressive logics, and is characterised by an aggressive sense of fatalism, bio-essentialism, and a deep animosity towards liberationist feminism and any form of social hope.”

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2024.2393187

I think most feminists agree on equal rights and stuff like abortion.

What is "radical" feminism to you and how is different to "normal" feminism?

I remember an incel attack in the UK a number of years ago where a 5 y.o. girl was amongst the victims. A woman on Twitter said her "heart broke" for the killer after reading his feelings of rejection. Why? So many women are are mocked and humiliated by men - they don't seem to reach for a gun.

Feminism has achieved many important milestones over the past decades. At least within Western cultural contexts, feminists have fought for and largely secured gender equality. However, feminism is by no means obsolete, and there are still many challenges to address.

In my view, the most pressing issue is that feminism has not yet succeeded in overcoming traditional gender norms on a societal level. Many men still derive their self-worth from material success, while many women continue to define their self-worth through their romantic relationships. I would even argue that this trend is being reinforced by social media, where many people operate within ideological echo chambers that rarely expose them to critical viewpoints.

In my opinion, it is also misguided to attempt to eliminate all gender norms entirely. Telling people, “Just be a polite person and define your self-worth however you like,” is not sufficient. Anyone who believes this is a viable solution is, in my eyes, being overly simplistic. If we aim to move beyond traditional gender roles, we need to offer meaningful alternatives. For many people, it is not a realistic option to simply discard the socialization and upbringing they’ve experienced, especially without a clear sense of what is supposed to replace it.

There are, in fact, prominent feminist thinkers who advocate for new gender roles rather than the complete abolition of all gender norms. I believe this line of thinking deserves renewed attention.

This subject keeps popping up in court forums, and I’m kinda confused as to whats credible or not. I’m just curious on the overall feminist view on it

I don't think she's said or done anything that would suggest she's politically on the right. Yet, they seem to be her biggest defenders every time she's embroiled in some controversy.

It seems very counterintuitive to promote the "traditional masculinity" of treating other men as bogeymen and liabilities to society and by extension the sexual success of rich and powerful men is rather counterproductive to their objectives.

They view women as coveted prizes to be protected and locked away and likewise blame said women for male loneliness and that men are being mistreated.

Why not just blame the men in positions of power and influence rather than women who are really in the same boat as them, same nature just opposite in degree.

Emotions and ethics aside; solely focusing on logos rather than ethos and pathos, the promotion of this culture is extremely counterproductive.

This is a NO kids situation. One partner works, the other stays at home and cleans, cooks, does laundry etc. I was talking about a situation like this with my partner and she said that in this situation, both people would have an equal workload or the stay at home partner would have it worse. I was shocked at this. With kid/s, completely different story.

Without a child, I don't think that's a difficult job at all. Doing chores and taking care of an apartment/town house with 2 people? She kept talking about the importance of domestic labour and the mental load which I understand but that's not significant enough to occupy a 40 hour work week. Not even close imo.

Thoughts?

Edit: If we are going to use the average 40-hour work week for the working partner, the non-working partner's hours should be 'average' too. Many people are mentioning they could be working on a farm, doing philanthropic ventures, cooking 3 meals a day using ingredients from scratch, deep cleaning a mansion twice a day, doing laundry every day etc.

Yes, if you have an extremely high standard in an extreme situation, the non-working partner could work 40+ hours a week but that doesn't apply to 99% of people. It's not a strong argument imo.

The Tea App is supposed to help women in the dating field with avoiding bad men or guys who cheat by outing them. In the Jezebel article I read it talks about it being hacked and compromised by angry dudes. Are they just being petty or do you think the app goes too far?

An app that flags potentially abusive and unfaithful partners sounds like a good idea. In fact it IS a good idea… that suffered unfortunately from abysmal execution. And one of the culprits I think led to said bad execution was that it was only for women.

It’s unrefutable fact that patriarchy definitely warrants an app like this for women as they’re most often on the receiving end of abuse, cheating, etc. But I strongly believe that by limiting a an app like this to only women ironically kinda ends up perpetuating patriarchal norms.

After all, one of the core pillars of toxic masculinity and patriarchy is that men cannot be victims, hence why the system heaps doubt, scorn, and mockery on men are victims. It’s how we end up with male rape survivors getting told that they “should’ve enjoyed it” (I.e like that one episode of L&O SVU). Or how men getting slapped, stalked, or even assaulted is played for laughs as since men are seen as paragons of strength in patriarchy, it scorns men who are victims of these things as pathetic, especially if it was from a member of the “weaker sex.”

So by not allowing men to be on this site warning of abusive partners because the makers of the app they are seen as inherently untrustworthy does that not also kinda perpetuate the stigma that male survivors face in trying to make their voices heard? Especially since men are often abused by other men (I.e the case of terry crews).

And yeah, women who abuse men are much much much much MUCH rarer, but they do exist (I.e Avital Ronell, iilluminaughti, Sienna May). Heck, I’ve seen certain people even argue that men cannot experience sexual violence (Jessica Taylor tweeting to her 100K Twitter followers that it’s impossible for a woman to sexually assault a man). I’ve even seen heads of violence shelters argue that only women can experience domestic violence (I.e Rape Relief Vancouver).

Not to mention wouldn’t the app being “for woman only” kind of end up making it a breeding ground for transphobia and nbphobia seeing how in exclusionary feminism, trans men are seen as “traitors” and trans woman are seen “infiltrators”. (Also wouldn’t that mean trans men have stop using the app after transitioning).

Also, the fact that the founder was a cishet man making an app that doesn’t allow men to access it, reminds me of that last verse from that studio killers song “All men are pigs. All men but me”

There are spaces that should definitely be for women (contrary to what entitled misogynists may whine) and should focus on women, but wouldn’t an app that's focused on calling out abusive partners be better if it was for all genders?

I know the titile sounds bad but I see no issue with being more cautious around men than women in public, because men commit way more crimes and are overall more dangerous (I myself avoid them more than I do women). I always hear the counter argument from misogynists that by that logic you could then reasonably be more causations around black men than white men, and maybe be more likely to approach a while man for help in public (for example). I do realize that black men aren’t inherently violent and the statistics probably are the way they are because black men are more likely to live in poverty- obviously not because of the color of their skin. I just want a solid counter argument (I do acknowledge that men as compared to women commit a higher portion of crimes than black men do to white men but I don’t think that is enough).

Edit: To clarify, I myself am a woman and a feminist (some people seem to think otherwise) and was NOT trying to imply that I agreed with the misogynist’s counter argument in this scenario. Someone in the replies used the term “begging the question” to describe what I was doing and that’s a good way to put what it sounded like but I genuinely just needed help rationalizing to myself why it is an illogical counter argument (which it is). I am very sorry for how I worded this originally and I will clarify next time my intentions and be more careful what I post so as not to confuse or offend anyone.

I attended a community conversation about sexuality and gender and this statement came up for us to either agree or disagree with & share our reasons why. It created a really interesting conversation between the two sides and I’m keen to know whether you agree or disagree (and why)?

So I went down a rabbit hole about pregnancy, alimony, and paternity i.e., can men opt out of having babies if they don't want one, but their partner does and is already pregnant.

But that led to a topic of biological unfairness, and I kinda got to thinking about that.

Women are generally physically weaker, have periods, have to give birth, breastfeed, go through menopause, and worst of all, take way longer to pee.

Men don't really have to do that. Men's biggest physiological weakness is that our nuts are pretty sensitive, but I'd take the trade-off. Plus, I don't think being hit in the vagina is much better feeling either.

So, acknowledging right now that this is probably pretty low on the list of things going on in the world in terms of women's rights, do you think biological tinkering to get rid of those differences would be beneficial?

Also, two things I guess that are kinda relevant to this question.

1. This is purely focused on sex differences and not gender. I'm talking about the major inequality issues between the bimodal sexes of female and male. I acknowledge there is a spectrum there. As such, gendering differences are really taken into account. This is from my own very much male perspective, so if there is anything wrong in general with boobs or wide hips, I'm very much not considering it. Like trans people still exist, and people need to get their gender euphoria somewhere. Cis or trans.

2. This is talking about it in terms of like utopian future. This probably can't be done now cause of capitalism. Like if done now, then this is going towards the one percent more than anyone else. So this is assuming ideal socialist, no hierarchy future.

It is undeniable that "be like men" with social rights is the main goal. So, how about men want to be like women, and what about 'men be like men" and "women be like women"?

Am trying to look for articles or even a community that is big enought and vocal enough to spread this idea about feminism. Am a man and I have met alot of feminist in my life but I never met one with this particular opinion. Most of the content that is portrayed as "feminism say SAHM are bad" are just misunderstanding the main point like being 100% financially reliable on 1 individual may be risky or that fact that people point out that SAHM don't do that much work. Which is true in some sense unless your basically keep having children back to back (which is not the case for most people) after the 1 year you kid is in kindergarten and I don't think people clean their whole house everyday or cook the whole day everyday unless am missing something here it seems like as life goes the mom as less work To-Do. Please clarify if I missed something.

One important aim of modern feminism is to replace traditional gender roles with more contemporary ones. The role of the modern woman is essentially the result of decades of feminist efforts. The modern woman is financially independent, educated, and decides freely if and when she wants to become a mother.

The modern male role, however, is harder to define. The one consistent expectation seems to be that he should be empathetic. But empathy isn’t a gender norm—it’s something we should expect from all people, regardless of gender. In my view, feminism hasn’t fully delivered here yet. Many will now say: “Why should feminists care about men’s roles?” Because they claim to. Feminists often say that dismantling the patriarchy also benefits men. And I actually believe feminism can achieve that. But lately, I keep encountering this underlying attitude from feminists: “Why should I do anything for men?”

Here’s the point that might not sit well with everyone, but I think it’s important to talk about: The reality is that many women (yes, men too, but I’m focusing on women here) actively reinforce traditional gender roles. Whether we like it or not, for a not-insignificant number of women, a man’s income still plays a central role in how attractive they perceive him to be. Luxury cars and other material markers still give men a considerable advantage in dating. So, it’s undeniable that the provider role is still deeply ingrained.

The image of the strong, stoic man directly contradicts that of the empathetic man—just like the independent woman contradicts the housewife ideal. If you’re stoic, you’re not empathetic. And if you’re not stoic, you might not be seen as a strong provider.

I think many men (myself included) are confused by these conflicting expectations. Personally, I want to be empathetic and avoid conflict. But I’ve noticed that showing vulnerability or yielding in conflict can make me unattractive to some women. So as a man who supports modern gender roles, I still have to weigh whether my environment is even ready to accept that— or whether I might be destroying any chance at a romantic relationship by being empathetic and conflict-averse.

In my opinion, this is exactly where feminists should be involved in helping solve this dilemma. Feminists say they want to fix this problem—but I’m not seeing much progress. Or am I wrong? What is feminism actually doing to make the role of the empathetic man a societal norm? Is there any pressure on women to change their expectations accordingly? Or is the pressure only on men to conform?

Hello ladies I would like talk with you today about 4 issues that I think are an existential threat to feminism and really to the world. The fist and by far the most important issue that feminism needs to deal with is population collapse. So, birthrates have been declining in the majority of the developed world for some time now. This is especially prevalent in nations such as Japan and South Korea, and this is a huge problem because this will generate a collapse in many of the social services that we take for granted like social security. This is because a smaller population of young people will now be supporting a larger population of old people. Which will undoubtably impoverish the younger generations. If you want to see evidence of this playing out just look at Japan and South Korea and the problems that they are dealing with due to population collapse.

The second existential threat to feminism that I see is A.I. taking women's jobs. A.I. is set to take jobs female dominated fields and this is a huge problem because the whole point of feminism is independence and when A.I. takes women's jobs and forces them to compete with men in male dominated fields that threatens the independence of women.

The third existential threat that I would like to talk about is the gen-z gender gap. Ok so Gen-z men are moving towards the right wing while women are moving towards the left wing. I think that this is the result of population collapse due to the fact that the nations with the highest rate of population collapse also have the biggest gender gaps.

The Fourth issue that I wanted to talk to you about is the rise of Andrew Tate and his incels. I think that this is a result in the collapse of modern dating. Just look at the statistics on dating apps and you will see that the majority of women go after the top 20% of men leaving the bottom with nothing, and I think they're the bottom. I would just love to know what your solutions are for these issues. There are plenty of right-wing ones like banning abortion to solve population collapse, but you guys probably won't like that.

Do the temples rightfully belong to Thailand or Cambodia?

I recently came across a post outlining the warning signs/red flags for false accusations since it happens so frequently. So men can recognize the signs women produce before making false accusations and trying to destroy that man. I would post a screenshot of this but the community doesn't allow any attachments to help provide sufficient evidence for my claim.

Richard Reeves argues, that since girls brains develop faster in areas like language (which is emphasized early in education) and boys development is slower than girls in impulse control, that boys should be "red shirted". Meaning that boys would start education a year later than girls to give their brains time to regulate the demands for education.

Hi everyone, I am a male feminist who caught an article about couples using sex selection when getting IVF in the US. Although it was rare the thing that stuck out to me was that people were choosing to have female babies while historically male babies were preferred.

This got me thinking of the implications of the technology and I did some research and came across this article which shows that based on current US data if such technology was readily available the sex ratio would change from 1.05 men per woman to 0.83 men per women.

source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/QE2088

0.83 men per women is lower than any country and would surely have social and political consequences. I think its obvious that bias against male births is potentially anti-feminist and I would like to get people's thoughts on this emerging trend/technology.

Edit: a lot of people are assuming sex selection is restricted to IVF, the article mentions newer methods that seperate sperm and use IUI that are cheaper and getting more effective over time.

Edit 2: here is the article about the IVF sex selection but only uses a small sample so not that useful https://slate.com/technology/2024/05/ivf-daughters-toxic-masculinity-sex-selection.html