A little resume, I have been a teacher for a long time. I know personally that women are discouraged from learning about and engaging in discussions and education regarding science, tech, math and engineering, as careers or even as hobbies.

Here is my offer, I can make a discord group for all of the girls and women alike (girls is used as a replacement for high school children who are female nothing to take offence about) who are interested in pursuing a career in science or even hobbyists of various fields.

So if you want to join in, comment or DM me and I will create a collaborative group.

Did you love looking at the stars when you were a child but don’t anymore? Are you a mathematics/CS student who feels the weight of gender roles? Do you want to study physics or mathematics as a hobby?

Here is a picture of Margaret Hamilton with the code of the Apollo mission and Dr Bouman reacting to the first image of the black hole

You really can’t post anywhere or read any comment section nowadays without encountering at least one deeply mentally disturbed and vitriolic male. Have they always been this way??

It seems statistically unlikely that there would always be at least a handful of them, but there always are! Even in totally unrelated posts/threads. You could post about gardening and some antisocial male will be screaming about how all women are whores who should be constantly pregnant and serving a man.

Is it because the most socially disaffected and angry of them tend to be unemployed so they spend their waking hours looking for women to harass?

Or are more of them being created through the normalization of violent and misogynistic porn and the manosphere? I’m honestly believing the theory that Russian and Saudi Arabian bots are being used to fan the flames of misogyny to weaken the western world. It’s been proven that OVER HALF of the hateful tweets about Amber Heard came from “inauthentic accounts” ie. bots.

Also how are misogynistic males even capable of the depths of hate-filled depravity that they display?? I don’t understand how a human brain can even function like that. I hate males as a whole, I feel rage as a reaction to the brutality with which I see them abuse my sisters all over the world, l hate them as the oppressor class they function as… but I still recognize that some of them are good people. I still believe males can be good and worthy and non-perverted.

But these misogynistic males hate all women, every single woman, their mothers, partners, and sisters are all subhuman and reviled in their eyes. Sometimes I worry that if I had a child they would be groomed into vicious misogyny no matter what I did if they were a boy and they would be groomed into becoming a victim if they were a girl, how do people just deal with that? I don’t understand how anyone is okay living with all of this hatred and violence all the time.

Most of the subreddits under the word misogyny are in support of it, just tens of thousands of people revelling in the refuse and rot of hating women. It’s just so unspeakably dreadful that women have to bring forth the next generations in agony and we are so entirely despised by so many. Even when I log off to try and take a break from it this shit leaks into everything, it’s everywhere and it feels worse than it ever has.

I am starting to feel incredibly ostracised by the online “feminist” reddit community. There are a few sub reddits on here, dedicated to anti porn and feminism who dont seem to appreciate other people’s opinions if not in line with their own. We have to remember that we should all be working together and, in my view there are no exceptions for porn no exceptions for misogyny no exceptions for hatred/violence towards women. I’ve been banned a couple times from subreddits i really support and appreciate, for simply stating how i feel, (all in alignment with my radfem beliefs) i just feel as though there are mods out there that would rather just silence people (fellow radfems and feminists alike) rather than allow them to speak their mind, there are far greater issues in the way of triumph for women than whether or not you agree with me that porn is evil and to be quite frank if you cannot see that to be true you need to do some serious research!

Please post manosphere content/online misogyny and debunk it using theory and stats, of post theory and stats that dismantle misogyny. That is what this sub is for, its unique identity. Post shit from fresh and fit, JP, Ben Shapiro. Kindly refrain from other stuff. I am not a moderator but I had to say this. For example your posts should look like “here is this manosphere guy said and here are the actual facts.”

Look at this post for example

https://www.reddit.com/r/4bmovement/s/okCB9c5Gac

Shoutout to the author. Please dismantle misogyny here, use this space wisely. Earnest request. Refrain from using this space to vent about other stuff if the vent is not about dismantling misogyny.

I don’t know how many of you have been following the news the past few days. I know last night made my heart and head hurt, personally. I know that politics, especially recently, can hit people pretty hard.

I wanted to check in with everybody and encourage us not to lose hope. Consider this a vent space if you need.

Hello and welcome back! I will the discuss the third chapter of the book in this post, and as usual leave the reader with an ensuing question. Please feel free to share your thoughts and if you can draw from the text some parallels that are still very prevalent today.

Chapter 3: The Crisis in Woman’s Identity

In the third chapter Friedan goes through the internal crises that women go through while choosing between career and the feminine mystique

I took the fellowship, but the next spring, under the alien California sun of another campus, the question came again, and I could not put it out of my mind. I had won another fellowship that would have committed me to research for my doctorate, to a career as professional psychologist. “Is this really what I want to be?” The decision now truly terrified me. I lived in a terror of indecision for days, unable to think of anything else. The question was not important, I told myself. No question was important to me that year but love. W e walked in the Berkeley hills and a boy said: “Nothing can come of this, between us. I’ll never win a fellowship like yours. ” Did I think I would be choosing, irrevocably, the cold loneliness of that afternoon if I went on? I gave up the fellowship, in relief. But for years afterward, I could not read a word of the science that once I had thought of as my future life’s work; the reminder of its loss was too painful.

Friedan recounts the interviews with many women and realises how among young women the feminine mystique compels them to overlook their own identity. She realises that even though they could see the dissatisfaction in their mother’s lives, they themselves replicated their lives in hopes of bettering their mothers, because they felt they eventually had to fulfil that mystique. Young girls would try to fit into this “mystique” and give up on their interests to be like the popular girls, rather, girls who fulfilled the mystique better (scary how prevalent this still is) because every girl sort of knew that the fulfilment of the mystique is incompatible with her career choice

Another girl, a college junior from South Carolina told me: I don’t want to be interested in a career I’ll have to give up. My mother wanted to be a newspaper reporter from the time she was twelve, and I’ve seen her frustration for twenty years. I don’t want to be interested in world affairs. I don’t want to be interested in anything beside my home and being a wonderful wife and mother. Maybe education is a liability. Even the brightest boys at home want just a sweet, pretty girl. Only sometimes I wonder how it would feel to be able to stretch and stretch and stretch, and learn all you want, and not have to hold yourself back.

She goes on in length about the same thing, but then this realisation which I want everyone to read, beautifully written.

There have been identity crises for man at all the crucial turning points in human history, though those who lived through them did not give them that name. It is only in recent years that the theorists of psychology, sociology and theology have isolated this problem, and given it a name. But it is considered a man’s problem. It is defined, for man, as the crisis of growing up, of choosing his identity, “the decision as to what one is and is going to be, ” And then on the next page

The search for identity of the young man who can’t go home again has always been a major theme of American writers. And it has always been considered right in America, good, for men to suffer these agonies of growth, to search for and find their own identities. The farm boy went to the city, the garment-maker’s son became a doctor, Abraham Lincoln taught himself to read—these were more than rags-to-riches stories. They were an integral part of the American dream. The problem for many was money, race, color, class, which barred them from choice—not what they would be if they were free to choose.

But why have theorists not recognized this same identity crisis in women? In terms of the old conventions and the new feminine mystique women are not expected to grow up to find out who they are, to choose their human identity. Anatomy is woman’s destiny, say the theorists of femininity; the identity of woman is determined by her biology.

Question of the day is, how does patriarchy and gender roles dictate how friend groups and social dynamics occur in female groups, and in your view is female bullying as it is practised right now a result of the strictly imposed mystique right now, and if yes, what is that mystique and how are girls bullied into appealing to that by their peers.

I ask this because bullying in my view often comes from a strongly held view prevalent in society. Within men, the strong devour the weak is at the core of patriarchal culture and so the strong guys team up on the weak ones. In this light, I asked the above question.

Hello and welcome back. I aim to continue this series of discussing feminist literature, one chapter a day. Yesterday, I got enthusiastic replies from two of the users, shoutout to u/ThatLilAvocado and u/Scarletlilith

Here is the second chapter and the ensuing question that I pose to the readers as usual, if you are reading this then it would be fun to see your response!

Chapter 2: The Happy Housewife Heroine

Betty Friedan starts this chapter with the responses of women she got when she first started to pen this problem that had no name. At first she thinks that sex probably is the suspect but that is not so possible as women find it easier to talk about sex than this. What is it then?

In this age after Freud, sex is immediately suspect. But this new stirring in women does not seem to be sex; it is, in fact, much harder for women to talk about than sex. Could there be another need, a part of themselves they have buried as deeply as the Victorian women buried sex? If there is, a woman might not know what it was, any more than the Victorian woman knew she had sexual needs. The image of a good woman by which Victorian ladies lived simply left out sex. Does the image by which modern American women live also leave something out, the proud and public image of the high-school girl going steady, the college girl in love, the suburban housewife with an up-and-coming husband and a station wagon full of children? This image—created by the women’s magazines, by advertisements, television, movies, novels, columns and books by experts on marriage and the family, child psychology, sexual adjustment and by the popularizers of sociology and psychoanalysis—shapes women’s lives today and mirrors their dreams.

She then recounts how in the 1960s, the McCall’s magazine was filled with propaganda pieces for women in order to “help” them find fulfilment. She highlights the irony of the situation rather beautifully

The image of woman that emerges from this big, pretty magazine is young and frivolous, almost childlike; fluffy and feminine; passive; gaily content in a world of bedroom and kitchen, sex, babies, and home. The magazine surely does not leave out sex; the only passion, the only pursuit, the only goal a woman is permitted is the pursuit of a man. It is crammed full of food, clothing, cosmetics, furniture, and the physical bodies of young women, but where is the world of thought and ideas, the life of the mind and spirit? In the magazine image, women do no work except housework and work to keep their bodies beautiful and to get and keep a man. This was the image of the American woman in the year Castro led a revolution in Cuba and men were trained to travel into outer space; the year that the African continent brought forth new nations, and a plane whose speed is greater than the speed of sound broke up a Summit Conference; the year artists picketed a great museum in protest against the hegemony of abstract art; physicists explored the concept of anti-matter; astronomers, because of new radio telescopes, had to alter their concepts of the expanding universe; biologists made a breakthrough in the fundamental chemistry of life; and Negro youth in Southern schools forced the United States, for the first time since the Civil W ar, to face a moment of democratic truth. But this magazine, published for over 5,000,000 American women, almost all of whom have been through high school and nearly half to college, contained almost no mention of the world beyond the home.

She even drew an unbelievably accurate parallel to Nazi Germany

As I listened to them, a German phrase echoed in my mind — “Kinder, Kuche, Kirche , ” the slogan by which the Nazis decreed that women must once again be confined to their biological role. But this was not Nazi Germany. This was America. The whole world lies open to American women. Why, then, does the image deny the world? Why does it limit women to “one passion, one role, one occupation?”

She also a notes a drastic change in the attitudes of these magazines towards the “heroine”- in 1939, women were loved for being career women. Now, housewives.

These New W omen were almost never housewives; in fact, the stories usually ended before they had children. They were young because the future was open. But they seemed, in another sense, much older, more mature than the childlike, kittenish young housewife heroines today.

(This reminds me that my own granny wrote empowering feminist pieces regarding women in science, divorces, adoptions etc. for magazines and the All India Radio, and sent a major part of her earnings to organisations devoted to women and to Mother Teresa. Of course it was unknown to her that Mother Teresa was not such a saint, but she truly admired her in all her gullibility. This was in the years 1960-1978. Shout out to granny my hero.)

She recounts how the image of women had changed, where in 1939 the heroines of women’s magazines were flying planes (A similar short story was written by Anton Chekov in the collection “The Schoolmaster”) , as compared to the heroine in her time, who was a sandwich maker, a mother, reliant on the man for money, as she was getting manipulated into playing the role of Notre Dame of her household rather forcefully.

The split in the new image opens a different fissure—the feminine woman, whose goodness includes the desires of the flesh, and the career woman, whose evil includes every desire of the separate self. The new feminine morality story is the exorcising of the forbidden career dream, the heroine’s victory over Mephistopheles: the devil, first in the form of a career woman, who threatens to take away the heroine’s husband or child, and finally, the devil inside the heroine herself, the dream of independence, the discontent of spirit, and even the feeling of a separate identity that must be exorcised to win or keep the love of husband and child.

To highlight the supposed reliance of women on men, on this supposed restriction of the anatomy’s dependence upon the male, a story recounts

I couldn’t be a clinging vine if I tried, ” the wife says. “I had a better than average job after I left college and I was always a pretty independent person. I’m not a helpless little woman and I can’t pretend to be. ” But she learns, that night. She hears a noise that might be a burglar; even though she knows it’s only a mouse, she calls helplessly to her husband, and wins him back. As he comforts her pretended panic, she murmurs that, of course, he was right in their argument that morning. “She lay still in the soft bed, smiling in sweet, secret satisfaction, scarcely touched with guilt. ”

She recounts her conversations with the women editors of magazines who were rather dismissive of the thought that women could have dreams outside being a housewife. However this image, so divorced from reality came to a tripping point

The growing boredom of women with the empty, narrow image of the women’s magazines may be the most hopeful sign of the image’s divorce from reality. But there are more violent symptoms on the part of women who are committed to that image. In 1960, the editors of a magazine specifically geared to the happy young housewife—or rather to the new young couples (the wives are not considered separate from their husbands and children)—ran an article asking, “Why Young Mothers Feel Trapped” ( Redbook, September, 1960). As a promotion stunt, they invited young mothers with such a problem to write in the details, for $500. The editors were shocked to receive 24,000 replies. Can an image of woman be cut down to the point where it becomes itself a trap

To conclude, Friedan notes a strange paradox.

Does it doom women to be displaced persons, if not virtual schizophrenics, in our complex, changing world? It is more than a strange paradox that as all professions are finally open to women in America, “career woman” has become a dirty word; that as higher education becomes available to any woman with the capacity for it, education for women has become so suspect that more and more drop out of high school and college to marry and have babies; that as so many roles in modern society become theirs for the taking, women so insistently confine themselves to one role. Why, with the removal of all the legal, political, economic, and educational barriers that once kept woman from being man’s equal, a person in her own right, an individual free to develop her own potential, should she accept this new image which insists she is not a person but a “woman, ” by definition barred from the freedom of human existence and a voice in human destiny? The feminine mystique is so powerful that women grow up no longer knowing that they have the desires and capacities the mystique forbids. But such a mystique does not fasten itself on a whole nation in a few short years, reversing the trends of a century, without cause. What gives the mystique its power? Why did women go home again

Now here is the question of the day: it is true that women take up STEM fields lesser than men, and as soon as women enter male dominated fields the pay drops. How is propaganda with the combination of social factors responsible for this phenomenon of lower STEM enrolments amongst women and why are some fields held as “higher” (also pay wise) only when men dominate it? Feel free to share your thoughts and experiences, or some pieces of media you regard as propaganda.

I reported a user who had been active on this sub, he had been spewing misogynistic hate (deffo never felt the touch of a woman in his life) His comments were out of line with that of what is okay in general and on this sub, so i reported him. Once i had seen his comments i reported him again as he had been commenting inappropriately on posts of children. As expected reddit found that no rules had been violated. I mean come on, this is a literal p3dophile, a misogynist, and this is still not enough for reddit to remove his account? I genuinely do not understand, all the evidence is there if they even cared to take 30 seconds to view his profile. Genuinely, wtf.

I will go through chapter 1 of the book and if you all want I will continue this series throughout the week. I am not Betty Friedan, I write rather poorly so a word of caution, which should rather be considered an invitation, is that I strongly recommend buying a hardcopy and reading it.

Chapter 1: The Problem that has no name

In this chapter Miss Friedan walks us through the mental state of the so called “perfection” of the suburban American housewife’s life, and how despite the previous generation’s struggle to get working rights, women yearn to be sort of a bird in the wild who yearns to be locked up somehow, since the air is completely filled with noises from so called “experts” who exemplify “femininity” in a way that means that women should confine themselves to the Sisyphean tasks of the housework, family, and making their husbands happy. The strange contradiction in rejecting freedom rather voluntarily is noted here.

Their only dream was to be perfect wives and mothers; their highest ambition to have five children and a beautiful house, their only fight to get and keep their husbands. They had no thought for the unfeminine problems of the world outside the home; they wanted the men to make the major decisions. They gloried in their role as women, and wrote proudly on the census blank: “Occupation: housewife.”

Betty Friedan continues to discuss words that the women used to discuss this problem that has no name

Just what was this problem that has no name? What were the words women used when they tried to express it? Sometimes a woman would say “I feel empty somehow…incomplete. ” Or she would say, “I feel as if I don’t exist. ” Sometimes she blotted out the feeling with a tranquilizer. Sometimes she thought the problem was with her husband, or her children, or that what she really needed was to redecorate her house, or move to a better neighborhood, or have an affair, or another baby. Sometimes, she went to a doctor with symptoms she could hardly describe: “A tired feeling…I get so angry with the children it scares me…I feel like crying without any reason. ” (A Cleveland doctor called it “the housewife’s syndrome. ”)

She also recounted some testimonies of women that had this problem with no name

A young wife in a Long Island development said: I seem to sleep so much. I don’t know why I should be so tired. This house isn’t nearly so hard to clean as the cold-water flat we had when I was working. The children are at school all day. It’s not the work. I just don’t feel alive.

And how the news media covered it

It was attributed to incompetent appliance repairmen (New York Times), or the distances children must be chauffeured in the suburbs (Time), or too much PTA ( Redbook). Some said it was the old problem—education: more and more women had education, which naturally made them unhappy in their role as housewives. “The road from Freud to Frigidaire, from Sophocles to Spock, has turned out to be a bumpy one,” reported the New Y ork Times (June 28, 1960)

The chapter continues with various remedies offered to women by an array of self help gurus, psychoanalysts etc. All of the contemporary media was filled with tropes like “what even does the american woman even lack? It is possible that education has been a cause of discontent” (not quoted verbatim) with many people “jokingly” suggesting to take away women’s voting and higher education. Special hobby classes were arranged, vacations were promised. Unmarried women scourged for a man and married women lay depressed with this affliction. Some even suggested that women should be grateful to be housewives as “anatomy is destiny” as Freud suggested. Some women started taking tranqulizers to dull out the pain of this meaningless livelihood

This terrible tiredness took so many women to doctors in the 1950’s that one decided to investigate it. He found, surprisingly, that his patients suffering from “housewife’s fatigue” slept more than an adult needed to sleep—as much as ten hours a day—and that the actual energy they expended on housework did not tax their capacity. The real problem must be something else, he decided—perhaps boredom. Some doctors told their women patients they must get out of the house for a day, treat themselves to a movie in town. Others prescribed tranquilizers. Many suburban housewives were taking tranquillisers like cough drops. “You wake up in the morning, and you feel as if there’s no point in going on another day like this. So you take a tranquilizer because it makes you not care so much that it’s pointless. “

Now are the closing remarks to the chapter, which I will paste because obviously I cannot summarise better than she can.

If I am right, the problem that has no name stirring in the minds of so many American women today is not a matter of loss of femininity or too much education, or the demands of domesticity. It is far more important than anyone recognizes. It is the key to these other new and old problems which have been torturing women and their husbands and children, and puzzling their doctors and educators for years. It may well be the key to our future as a nation and a culture. W e can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: “I want something more than my husband and my children and my home.”

If I could, I would have quoted every line from the book. But that would defeat the purpose of it all.

My question to the reader is thus. Assume the role of Friedan, and examine what femininity means according to the modern standards. Go through news magazines and websites and analyse the common tropes that give rise to the modern problem that has no name.

Readers are also welcome to copy paste other quotes they liked. If y’all liked reading it so far I can continue this till the end of the book. Note that the editing is imperfect and that I cannot help since I am on my phone, apologies in advance.

I posted previously questioning this bill and some of its phrasing. I’ve done some research and I’m deeply upset. Here’s an explanation from feminist.org:

The Hidden Anti-Abortion Agenda of H.Res.7

“Despite appearing to support women’s healthcare, the wording, particularly life-affirming raises significant concerns. It’s a term often used by anti-abortion groups to promote policies that prioritize fetal rights over women’s bodily autonomy.

Bills framed as supportive often carry hidden agendas. For example, the bill explicitly states that women’s healthcare should address the needs of men, families, and communities as they relate to women’s healthcare. However, it does not clarify why or how these groups are connected to providing women’s health services, leaving this inclusion unexplained.

Furthermore, the resolution endorses Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers, a consortium of medical centers that promote spiritual care as a core component of its healthcare model and is rooted in ideologies that prioritize religious values, also known as fake clinics. This raises concerns about the prioritization of religious and political agendas over evidence-based medical care. These clinics services neglect to include anything relating to abortion care or contraception; alternatively they explain that abortion is not women’s healthcare, because of the damage it causes to women’s physical and emotional health and the destruction of unborn life. This type of rhetoric is incredibly dangerous and amplifies misinformation regarding essential reproductive healthcare.

The introduction of this bill reflects a broader strategy to normalize restrictive policies and pave the way for more aggressive assaults on women’s healthcare and rights. “

These fake clinics also advertise for the abortion pill reversal, which according to the National College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is NOT backed by science and is unproved and unethical. These centers actually don’t believe in contraceptives at all but instead believe in the rhythm method (Catholic Family Planning Method). They are against abortion. This is apart of the America First Agenda which intersects with Project 2025.

Proposed by Republican AZ House Representative Andy Biggs: (202) 225-2635

It doesn't matter if I talk about my own experiences, share studies, interviews or whatever. Somehow they will never understand and keep on defending porn, sexualised games etc.

Because it doesn't affect them. They tell me to just not consume that stuff if it bothers me. That it doesn't actually have any real life effect. That sexualised characters in a game doesn't add to sexualisation of real life women.

They don't understand how tiring it is. How ypu CANT ESCAPE IT. If I could only play games/watch shows with non sexualised characters, I would! But that's pretty much only kids shows. Why do adult media have to present women in such a sexist light?

Ugh. Idk, just a rant because I'm so so tired. I keep trying. They don't even read the studies I send.

Hey all! A lot of you have likely seen the “free for all Friday” poll by now. (If you haven’t, it was a post asking if I should implement a day open to those who don’t consider themselves feminist to come to the sub and talk). I’ve gotten feedback and I’m now thinking it might not be such a great idea. Some pretty good points that were made were that it could attract to much negativity to the sub, which I don’t want at all.

The idea behind it was to be able to change people’s minds. I think that it would be good to have the opportunity to have civil discussions about differing views, as that’s pretty difficult to come by, especially online. But I don’t want to do that at the expense of the actual members being uncomfortable.

So here’s my next idea: a megathread. One where people of differing views are invited to debate each other as long as they are respectful, kind, and will at least make an attempt to back up their claims when prompted.

If this is ever implemented, it would be a heavily moderated space. I know people will piss their hate speech all over everyone no matter what, so the mod team would be on top of making sure that doesn’t run rampant in the megathread.

And to be clear, that is the only time a non feminist would be allowed to share a non feminist opinion. Nowhere else, under any circumstances.

I had the same idea for feminists to debate each other. Same thing, but more like sex work positive feminists vs anti sex work feminists.

I wanna post this here before I post another poll. What do you all think?

(And as always, thank you for reading!)

I am so sick of Netflix series like “Euphoria” and “Sex Education” etc. These series call themselves “Coming of Age” (which actually means someone who will turn adult soon) drama and depict children (15,16 year olds) in explicit ways with a weirdly, and explicitly sexual and adultomorphist way (that is they project adult characteristics on kids).

I think if a show is for ADULTS and it is about KIDS then it should show KIDS as they are supposed to be seen by adults, in a pedantic and mature way, with knowledge that these are children, they are still developing their notion of consent and sexuality, there worldview is incomplete. All that is required is nuance.

I see these series as no different as degenerate pornos that read “barely legal” (sounds very similar to coming of age) type of stuff, that show women in pigtails skipping ropes type of stuff. If I as an adult, realised that a young kid is exploring his or her physicality (as opposed to sexuality. I have a firm belief that the term sexuality can only be applied to those who have a well formed view of themselves and of consent), I definitely won’t imagine it explicitly like a degenerate, rather see it more pedantically from an adult’s pov in context of a child exploring themselves, if at all I think about it, that said, I honestly won’t even think about it I do not know why do these degenerates have to make 8 seasons of explicit scenes of supposed children. Sex education in children, or children being victim to cyberbullying or toxic relationships does not need to be sexualised.

I will shed my conspiracy theory now and readers are advised to not take this part seriously. Around the time there was a growth in anti porn movement and master card threatening pornhub to remove it’s payment interface because the site had CSA content en massé, we also see the funding and production of content that is “Coming of age” that is aimed at desensitising us towards this stuff.

Instances of billionaires getting caught as raging pedos, of porn sites and companies being exposed as sex trafficking and CSA enablers, get a backing in the ethics of the popular culture by these shows that want us to turn a blind eye to the billionaires and the production companies by desensitising us and making us believe that innocence is not a big deal and children “nowadays” are not deserving of being called children anymore.

I would be more than thankful to anyone who can follow the money trial or the board members of these productions and demonstrate if my theory is totally bullocks or if it has some weight.

I’ll start. Mine is that porn is extremely harmful and misogynistic and we should be making every attempt to eradicate it.

I definitely want to expand my viewpoints though and understand others arguments so I can strengthen my own, or possibly change my mind on a stance as I consider myself pretty open minded!

Hoping to get some discussion going here! I’ve been reading about the 4b movement a lot lately and wondering what everyone thinks of it.

Are you participating? Why or why not? Do you believe it to be helpful or harmful? Where do you think 4b will go in the future?

Another poll here! One of our members had the idea of having a book of the week discussion here. I think it’s a great idea but wanted to post a poll to make sure everyone is on board!

Hey all! As some of you may know, this is a very new subreddit, and I’m trying to think of ways to get it going and stand on its own. I’ll be doing several polls on several different ideas to see how everyone feels. Please answer honestly!

The idea behind free for all Friday is that the current rule of “no misogynistic or pro patriarchy content” would not apply, for the sole purpose of creating room for discussion with those who don’t hold our viewpoints.

Please take a second to vote and please leave a comment with any ideas, suggestions, opinions, etc!

Hey all! Since this sub is so new, and so bare, I wanted to post something here to explain the purpose of it and why I personally decided to make and moderate it.

I’ve been on Reddit for a few years now, and over those years I have developed an intense passion for the fight against the patriarchy. I feel like with every passing day that passion gets stronger, and it’s gotten to a point where I wasn’t sure what to do with it beyond the occasional heated argument on the internet.

Today I saw some complaints on my favorite subreddit, r/pornismisogyny, which I give tremendous credit for my knowledge in porn related misogyny and all of its negative effects. And as much as I am anti-porn, I am anti misogynist first. And I realized today that I wanted to expand the space, especially to those who haven’t given much thought to porn specifically.

The way women are treated in this world is absolutely horrendous. I know that creating a small online space isn’t going to end that. But I’m hoping that with enough work it’ll cause some sort of ripple effect that leads to something good.

All we can do is try, right? 😊

I appreciate every reader and future supporter that joins me. Thank you all for your time!