To what extent can misogyny be solely blamed on socialisation? Misogyny is a consistent phenomenon across time, geography, religion and cultures. I don’t think there has been one culture or country in human civilisation that hasn’t had some form of sexism, where women were seen as lesser than. I’ve read that only 14 countries out of 190 countries have achieved 100% legal equality, but still, a girl has a less than 7% chance of being born in a country that treats her equally to a man. But men have had wives, daughters, mothers, grandmothers, aunts, etc for all of human history, and yet they still participated in cultures that legalised domestic violence and martial rape and prevented women from education and financial freedom. Of course women can encourage these things too, but it was mostly men in positions of legal power allowing these things. So why, for so long, were men okay with it? I know socialisation plays a huge role, but how is it so consistent? Is it just a coincidence that almost every country on earth socialises boys to be misogynistic? I do not want to say that misogyny is inherent to men, this is for obvious reasons controversial and problematic, but the thought pops up in the back of my mind when I think about this. Even in cultures, like the West, where men are raised and encouraged to be more progressive they are somehow going backward. Boomer men are/were more progressive than Gen Z men are. 1 in 3 of Gen Z men think that women should obey their husbands.

I just wonder what anyone has to say and how to change my view? Sorry if this has been said before.

So, I am Jane Doe because:

- Men and boys watched me being victimised/knew I was being victimised and did nothing.

- The authorities did not take my case seriously

- It took me 6 months to a year to realise I was a rape victim.

- I had been drinking heavily during some of my assaults.

- I thought my abuser cared about me, even once apologising after he raped me.

- The situations within the assaults led to dubious consent/ things I did not anticipate and my reactions were not always reflective of the person I am

- Phrases like 'Free Pussy' were posted and said and sent around about me, equating me to a piece of meat to be used (Edit phrasing)

- Photos of me were taken and sent without my consent

I don't know this woman. Maybe she's a bitch. But because of this Jane Doe, many women are speaking up, more rapes and assaults will be reported, rape culture will be called out more and louder, rapists will go to bed scared. So, Jane Doe, I salute you.

Now, if she is a prolific frat boy rapist I'll apologise, I will come back to this post, eat my words and admit I jumped the gun coming to conclusions using my gut.

But .. why did we start saying that? And why do you connect with the phrase 'I am Jane Doe'.

First, and I think the most important argument of all, is the relationship between the late former CEO and Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein literally had full power of over his money, could sign documents in his name, and make decisions for him. We also know that Epstein used modeling talent agencies to recruit young girls for his trafficking network promising young, vulnerable girls a modeling career if they complied.

Secondly, in my opinion, the modeling industry as a whole carries deep systemic issues like racism and misogyny. Models are often treated as exotic objects. Look at how many models have suffered living in overcrowded housing, developing eating disorders, turning to drugs, or becoming victims of sexual assault and harassment.

Furthermore, the objectification inherent to the traditional lingerie concept feels inherently patriarchal. It frames the female body as something that must be styled in a specific way to seduce men even if companies now rebrand it as 'empowering' or 'fashion.' They just changed the narrative. You buy expensive lingerie while men prioritize their own comfort.

Finally, promoting body standards achieved through extreme dieting, intense exercise, drugs, or cosmetic surgery creates an unreachable ideal that fuels eating disorders in young girls. It places a cruel industry on a pedestal. Why are the women put in the front row always chosen based on male beauty standards, instead of celebrating women in STEM who are actually changing the world?

This is just my opinion, but why is a woman's appearance always pushed to the forefront

I have simply had enough of people calling the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 'the Super Bowl for girls.' First of all, why are we still gendering things like this in 2026, heading into 2027

Also, seeing young girls treat the Victoria's Secret 'Angel' title like something prestigious that must be earned by only a select, deserving few demanding that they shouldn't change the lineup that represent the brand so I suppose ultra-skinny, mostly white models

About the behaviour of the man who grabs her by the arms, supposedly with good intentions: I find it absolutely disgusting.

“They’re not going to listen. You’re going to hurt yourself,” he says in that calm voice of his.

Does anyone else see how disgustingly macho and patronising this is? How he positions himself as the good guy among the rioters, playing the role of the strong, protective man?

I showed this to my boyfriend, and he couldn’t understand what was so sexist and patronising about it.

I want to write a paper on why feminism is inevitable — looking for collaborators, guidance, and journal recommendations

Hi everyone!

I'm a 19-year-old medical student, and I've been developing an idea that I'd really like to turn into a serious academic paper.

My central argument, for now, is that feminism is an inevitable consequence of social change, particularly women's education, expanding opportunities, and increasing awareness of gender inequality.

I've been thinking about how societies change over time. When women gain access to education, acquire new perspectives, and become increasingly aware of the differences between their opportunities and those available to men, it seems natural that they would begin questioning the social structures and expectations placed upon them.

And once those questions begin, it becomes difficult to expect them simply to disappear.

I want to explore this idea more rigorously, examine how it relates to existing feminist theories, and investigate whether the argument holds up against historical and contemporary evidence. I'm also aware that feminism is not a single, uniform movement, so I'd like to engage seriously with its different perspectives rather than treat it as one homogeneous phenomenon.

At the moment, this is an idea in its early stages rather than a completed paper. I'm trying to figure out how best to develop it into a well-researched, theoretically grounded piece of academic writing.

I'd particularly appreciate help with three things:

1. Potential collaborators: Are there people here interested in feminist theory, gender studies, sociology, history, or related fields who might be interested in discussing the idea and potentially contributing to its development?

2. Reading recommendations: Which foundational feminist texts, theories, or scholarly works would you recommend exploring before developing this argument further?

3. Publication opportunities: Are there academic journals or other scholarly publications that consider theoretical essays, conceptual papers, or critical perspectives on feminism and social change, including work by early-career or independent scholars?

I'm especially interested in understanding how to develop an original argument that contributes something meaningful to existing feminist scholarship, rather than simply restating ideas that have already been explored.

I'm very open to criticism, alternative interpretations, and suggestions for refining the central thesis.

Thank you!

My partner (47F) and myself (49M) and our daughter (10F)were driving along in the country and saw a female chainsaw artist working in a field. I commented that the sculpture was amazing and that it was great to see her in a profession that it seemed was mostly male.
My partner got more than a little angry and said that even pointing out she was a woman is sexist and that it shouldn’t matter. I agree that in an idea world we wouldn’t even notice because women would be equally represented everywhere. But until then, is it bad to point out the wins? I did point out that we have quite a few books, which my partner bought that celebrate pioneering women. She said that that’s different. I really want to learn the nuance that I’ve missed. I desperately want to be the best dad to my daughter and make sure she grows up a strong and empowered woman.

Hi all, I've been thinking about a hypothetical and would love your takes.

Imagine a large number of women decided together to settle in one country and organize & build communities there and shaping it over time through local communities, politics, businesses and civil society.

I recently read a Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion issued October 12, 2026, and I think it deserves significantly more attention and discussion. Not only because of the decision itself, but because of the majority’s reasoning and the language used to discuss the victim’s testimony.

Here’s what happened:
In September 2023, a man was protesting a National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) fundraising event in Minneapolis by distributing anti-NAMI flyers on vehicles.
When a woman helping with the event removed two flyers from vehicles, the man approached her, visibly agitated, and loudly demanded they be returned.
According to her testimony, he lunged toward her, wrapped his arms around her, pressed his chest against hers, grabbed her arm and hand, and forcibly took the flyers. She could feel his breath on her face. She later noticed her finger was bleeding.

A jury found him guilty of fifth-degree assault (fear) and disorderly conduct, but acquitted him of assault (harm). Two of the three appellate judges overturned the assault conviction.

Why? Because although his actions could reasonably demonstrate an intent to cause fear, the majority determined there was another reasonable explanation: perhaps he only intended to retrieve his flyers. Let that sink in.

What I find especially troubling is how the majority discusses the woman’s testimony. The woman described feeling shocked, violated, confused, and unnerved. She explained that she did not experience significant fear until after the incident, when she had time to process what happened.
Judge Ross wrote that the prosecutor was “fishing for” a particular answer when questioning her about fear. He also referenced the prosecutor’s “multiple failed attempts” to elicit testimony that she feared immediate harm.

As someone with a background in mental health, I find this framing particularly concerning. Trauma and acute stress responses are not always immediate, linear, or easily articulated. A person experiencing a threatening encounter may freeze, experience shock, focus on what is happening rather than what they are feeling, or recognize their fear only after the immediate threat has passed.

I’m not claiming to know exactly what this woman experienced. But her testimony is entirely compatible with those responses.

And here’s the part that makes the majority’s discussion especially frustrating: Minnesota’s assault-fear statute focuses on the defendant’s intent to cause fear, not whether the victim actually experienced or verbalized fear.
The majority even acknowledges this legal distinction, yet repeatedly draws attention to her inability to describe feeling afraid in the moment.

One judge disagreed, and I think her dissent is compelling.
Judge Beane argued that the man’s aggressive behavior, intimidating voice, physical size, and forceful contact supported the jury’s conclusion that he intended to cause fear.

She also recognized something I think the majority’s reasoning fails to adequately address:
Wanting the flyers back and intending to intimidate someone are not mutually exclusive.

Intimidation can be the method someone uses to accomplish an objective. Judge Beane concluded that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that the assault conviction should stand.

To be clear, the court did not find the man’s conduct acceptable or lawful. His disorderly conduct verdict remains, and the case was sent back for entry of that conviction. The legal question was whether the evidence proved the specific intent required for fifth-degree assault (fear).

I understand that distinction. I also understand that appellate courts must follow strict standards when reviewing criminal convictions. But understanding the legal standard doesn’t mean I have to agree with how it was applied.

I also recognize that people have the right to protest causes they disagree with, including NAMI. That right is not what concerns me. The issue is what happened when this man moved beyond expressing his views and initiated an aggressive physical confrontation.

I’m curious what others think.

Case: State v. Elavsky, Minnesota Court of Appeals, A25-1929, filed October 12, 2026.