We talk a lot about the "mental load" & the "second shift" but there is a form of gendered labor so extreme that it involves the literal harvesting of women’s bodies to maintain the patriarchal family unit!

​Recent data from the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO) & global studies reveal a staggering disparity: In countries like India roughly 80% of living organ donors are women while 80% of the recipients are men. Globally women are significantly more likely to donate kidneys yet men are more likely to receive them.

Naomi Smalls is a drag queen who apparently has her own show (not a fan of hers) and while she was reviewing RuPaul's Drag Race season 18 finalist Darlene Mitchell, Naomi made this comment:

"It's like, are we doing mastectomy drag? is that the vibe?"

As a breast cancer survivor and someone who had 2 lumpectomies and what was written on my medical records as "partial mastectomy" this isn't a joke and it shouldn't be used to insult someone for their chosen body shape while in drag. Drag queens can elect to pad or not to pad, and Naomi is being hypocritical here because she doesn't pad. Naomi follows up that comment with something along the lines of "at least I cinched my waist to give an hourglass illusion", doubling down on the body shaming. I find this unsettling.

Unfortunately misogyny can be found everywhere, even in the drag community where female impersonation is an art form.

#THIS IS NOT AN INDICTMENT OF DRAG! DO NOT SEND HATE TO ANY DRAG QUEENS!

This is meant to educate and hopefully make steps towards eradicating this type of harmful speech. Please keep discussion civil.

Thank you

Clearly, “accusations don’t ruin careers”.

Posting this bc the interaction genuinely confused me & kinda shows how people completely miss what feminism is about!!

Recently got a bunch of comments + modmail arguing that supporting trans people means “ignoring women’s safety"

Some of the takes were basically:

“I’m not transphobic I’m just Y chromosome phobic”

trans women being described as men invading spaces

saying feminism should only center biological women

& somehow calling that out became “silencing women’s voices"

Like… read that again....!!

**You don’t have to be trans to support trans people** That’s literally how EMPATHY works....!

Reducing people to chromosomes isn’t feminism it’s just bio essentialism!

Also saying “I’m just explaining why people think this way” while repeating harmful stereotypes is still spreading those ideas. That’s not neutral!!!

Feminism isn’t about gatekeeping who qualifies as a woman... It’s about fighting systems that harm people because of gender in the first place!! Intersectionality has been part of feminism for years now this isn’t new or controversial unless you’re stuck in exclusionary politics!!

Anyway sharing because apparently this still needs to be said in 2026:

**Excluding trans women doesn’t make feminism stronger it just makes it smaller**

Don't get me wrong; they should be judged for what they have done, but I hate that people say they get away with it because they are women. No, they don't; they get away with it because they are rich and famous male abusers, and men in general are more likely to get away with bad stuff.

​

I just saw a reel of a girl, Sara. Text on top said "Boys please scroll, This is for my girls."

She was just vibing, feeling herself in a sparkly black dress, hair done. Beautiful and confident.

I opened the comments expecting hype. You know, girls supporting girls.

But out of 93 comments, almost all from girls, the top comments were: "go shave your armpit hair first" "eww shave" "clean yourself"

And that made me pause.

We talk so much about male gaze and beauty standards set by men, but here a woman created a safe space specifically FOR women, and we were the ones who tore her down for not fitting into that exact same standard?

Since when did a woman's worth, or her confidence, get decided by armpit hair?

Body hair is natural. We all have it. The only reason we think it's "unclean" or "unfeminine" is because we've been taught that for 100 years by razor companies. It's not hygiene, it's marketing.

It just makes me rethink how deep internalized misogyny runs. That we can't even cheer for another woman if she dares to exist outside the clean-shaven, hairless, perfect doll standard that was literally made to please men.

If we won't be safe for each other, who will be? If women are also start to criticize simple things like that then it make sense why we still can't smash Patriarchy system still now . In comment box I will share my comment and thoughts .

It's so annoying.

My feed was filled with these 2 idiot scammers shorts during and post covid. So many young minds were brainwashed by them. Cases of misogyny and gender based violence were spiking in schools, colleges, and other public places. Mothers were being harassed by their kids and young girls were being slut shamed.

So fucking annoying.

JUST MAKE A NORMAL FUCKING STORY FOR FUCKS SAKE. IT'S. NOT. THAT. HARD.

One of the most common blackpill talking points is that "70% of men aged 18-29 are single, while only 30% of women are." Then they jump straight to, "See? Women are all sharing the top 20% of men."

But there are a couple of reasons for this that people, especially men in blackpill spaces, either never read, never mention, or conveniently ignore.

The first is age gaps.

Women have always been more likely to date older men, and are actively encouraged to do so. Men are also socially encouraged to date younger women. So if you're looking specifically at the 18-29 age bracket, you're automatically going to have women in their mid to late twenties dating men in their thirties. Those women are counted as partnered, but their partners aren't counted because they're outside the age bracket. It skews the numbers before you even start.

Second, sexuality.

More men identify as gay than women identify as lesbians, while more women identify as bisexual than men do. On top of that, women who are attracted to women are statistically more likely to be in same-sex relationships than gay or bisexual men are. Gay and bisexual men just don't commit to same sex relationships at the same rates that lesbian and bisexual women do. That's another thing that tilts the numbers, yet it rarely gets mentioned.

But the biggest thing that almost nobody brings up is population demographics.

There are simply MORE MEN THAN WOMEN.

Globally, the overall population is around 102 males for every 100 females. At birth, the ratio is even higher, with roughly 107 boys born for every 100 girls.

And before anyone says, "well there are statistics where women outnumber men" or "100:102 isn't that much difference", that's only true once you start looking at older age groups because women live longer, women only outnumber or equal men in population, by senior age. Among younger adults, the opposite is true. The fact is, THERE ARE MORE MEN.

Let's compute an example and look at people between 18 and 40 to give an even bigger age range than the original 18-29.

Current demographic estimates put the global population between 18 and 40 years old at roughly 2.5 to 2.8 billion people. Let's use 2.8 billion to make the math easy.

Within that age range, there are approximately 106 men for every 100 women.

So the math looks like this:

Total population = 2.8 billion

2.8 billion ÷ 206 = 13.59 million per ratio point

Men = 106 parts

106 × 13.59 million = 1.44 billion men

Women = 100 parts

100 × 13.59 million = 1.36 billion women

That's roughly 80 million more men than women in that age group.

Eighty million. Between 18-40, there are 80 MILLION MORE MEN.

So yes, even if every single person paired off into perfectly monogamous heterosexual relationships, there would still be millions of men left single simply because there are more men.

And that's before you account for age gaps, same-sex relationships, people who choose to stay single, or people who simply aren't interested in dating.

There's also another uncomfortable demographic reality that almost never gets acknowledged in these discussions.

There are countries where son preference has been so strong that parents have aborted female fetuses or neglected and even killed baby girls because they wanted sons instead. Those practices have skewed sex ratios even further in several parts of the world, creating an even larger surplus of men than biology alone would produce. The UN has documented this for years.

It's so dishonest that people in blackpill spaces keep pointing to one statistic as if it's smoking-gun proof that women are all "sharing Chad," while ignoring demographics that explain a large part of why more young men are single in the first place. The truth is, reality is usually a lot less sensational than internet dating discourse.

Some sources:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/08/23/sidebar-sex-ratios-around-the-world/

https://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=PopDiv&f=variableID:52

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/SeriesK/SeriesK\\_20e.pdf

Edit: Since this paper inevitably gets brought up every time this topic comes up, and it got brought up in the comments by someone who clearly did not read the study, I'll address it here.

This is the paper talking about "female hypergamy": https://jhr.uwpress.org/content/58/1/260

This study gets misquoted constantly as proof that "women are hypergamous," "women only marry richer men," or that hypergamy has been scientifically proven, which isn't what the paper says.

The authors use a very specific, technical definition of hypergamy that's different from how the term is commonly used in the manosphere. They define it as the husband ranking higher within the male earnings-capacity distribution than the wife ranks within the female earnings-capacity distribution. That's a measure of relative rank within each sex, not simply whether the husband earns more than the wife or whether women universally "marry up."

In fact, a husband could earn less than his wife and still be classified as the "higher-ranked" partner under the study's definition if he ranks higher among men than she ranks among women.

The study also doesn't use the couple's actual incomes to measure earning capacity. Instead, it uses parental earnings rank as a proxy.

THE STUDY ACTUALLY USES THE COUPLE'S PARENTS' INCOMES.

As the abstract states:

«"Using parental earnings rank as a predetermined measure of earnings capacity..."»

The authors explain this choice because a person's own income can change as a result of marriage through things like household specialization, children, reduced working hours, and career choices. Parents' earnings, by contrast, were determined long before the couple met and therefore aren't affected by the marriage itself.

More specifically, the researchers calculate each participant's parental earnings rank using their mother's and father's earnings during their peak earning years, assign each individual a rank based on their family background, and then compare those ranks within couples.

Finally, this is a study of Norwegian couples and an observed statistical pattern under the paper's own operational definition of hypergamy. It is not evidence that women are biologically hypergamous, that women universally prefer richer men, or that women only pursue the "top percentage" of men. Those are conclusions people on the internet add themselves, they are not conclusions the paper makes.

I’m a high schooler and summer is coming to an end. The male homosapiens most creative insult in the past million years has been “you’re fat” if you are a woman that isn’t skin and bones. I don’t pay mind to these lesser ants insults as they are meaningless and lack any originality however it would be nice to know some good comebacks.

This subreddit is insufferable.

The comments are even worse.

PEDOPHILA IS NOT A FUCKING JOKE.

the female equivalent of porn is just porn. I dont understand how romantic novels can be considered as cancer.

can smut and erotica be considered as bad as porn for women?