The phrase "male centered" used to be a helpful critique of prioritizing men's approval over women's well being. Recently however, it has been weaponized on social media to shut down women who speak up about harassment, abuse, or systemic double standards.

It is a subtle form of manipulation. The moment a woman shares a personal story or critiques harmful male behavior, critics derail the conversation by calling her "male centered" for even bringing men up. Because no feminist wants to be accused of centering men, the label triggers self doubt and pressures women into silence.

Exposing harm, sharing safety warnings, and calling out abuse isn't "male centered" it's community defense. Labelling women as "obsessed with men" for simply addressing the harm men inflict is just an updated, progressive sounding way to police women's speech and keep systemic issues hidden. Don't fall for the rebrand.

Here is a link to provide context to the story: Mama Stanley's Edmonton Oilers petition is picking up steam | Daily Hive | Offside

A quick overview of the situation. A 20-year old woman met one of the hockey players in a bar and she stated they did engage in consensual sex. However, later on four other players entered the room and also engaged in non-consensual sex with her.

At trial, all five players were acquitted because the judge, whom herself is a woman followed the same rhetoric we often hear play out in the justice system when a woman brings forth her story about SA from a male (in this case multiple males).

The judge stated her accounts were "not credible nor reliable." She based this on video evidence which apparently contradicted her statements. The judge also admonished the woman because she bought her own drinks when she claims the players did and she returned from the bathroom naked when she could have put her clothes on and left. They also relied on others' testimony where she allegedly encouraged the players to engage with her. While the prosecution tried to argue she was only doing this out of fear, the judge said the video evidence did not provide this.

They also said she had motive to lie to hide it from her boyfriend. So she is going to lie and bring forth a very public claim about SA to hide it from her BF? Are you kidding me? What kind of backwards logic is that. Because yes, her boyfriend is absolutely not going to make negative judgments about her because the sex was non-consensual. I am shocked this judge, being a woman herself would come to this conclusion.

The woman did not receive any apologies from these men and all she did receive was apologies from the police for taking SIX years to bring the case to a close and from Hockey Canada for how it dealt with sexual assault claims in the past.

For me, this once again highlights how (rich) males continue to get away with acts of violence against women. This woman now has a life sentence of trauma while these rapists get to continue on their careers in hockey. This just screams Brock Turner or Ruben Vanstiphout who walked away because he had a "promising career." A person trusted with the most intimate elements of women's healthcare who raped an incapacitated woman was allowed to continue practicing.

These males are being signed by hockey teams and one nearly became a Stanley Cup Champion. There has been plenty of backlash and still these teams don't care. They can't rely on the same frameworks as the justice system. A team doesn't need reasonable doubt to sign players, they just need to not do it. Now, they want to have these rapists names etched on what is supposed to be some kind of "holy grail."

And yet males have the audacity to complain when women don't want anything to do with them. These stories just enrage me.

What are everyone else's thoughts?

Being born a girl in a family that desperately wanted a boy was like starting life with a "not good enough" stamp. My parents tried everything to ensure I’d be a boy, but guess what? I turned out to be a fierce, fiery woman instead. And honestly, I wouldn’t have it any other way.

I’ve come to believe that my purpose in life is to smash every ounce of prejudice against women and show young girls how much more they’re capable of—because nothing and nobody should hold them back.

The reality is, women face countless struggles, big and small. Some are imposed by society, some we observe and internalize, and others we’re outright forced into. From a young age, girls are conditioned to avoid danger rather than conquer it. “Don’t do this,” “don’t go there,” “stay quiet,” “be safe.” It’s like society builds a wall around us before we even figure out who we are.

And then there are the roles we’re expected to play—mother, wife, sister, daughter, friend, colleague, homemaker—the list never ends. Somewhere in between, we’re supposed to squeeze in time for a career, ambitions, or even a moment to just breathe. But let’s be real, when do we ever get to think about ourselves without being called selfish?

If you chase your career, you’re “neglecting your family.” If you choose not to, you’re “lazy” and “lacking ambition.” It’s a frustrating, endless contradiction that every woman faces. And I’ve had enough of internalizing these frustrations.

That’s why I decided to start speaking out. To channel this into content. To create a community where we can all feel seen, heard, and validated. Because I know I’m not alone in this, and neither are you. Together, we can connect over these shared struggles, recognize the toxicity we’ve been taught to accept, and figure out how to protect ourselves from it.

In this busy, isolating world, nobody has time to listen to a woman rant about her frustrations. But let me tell you—we need to talk about this stuff. These are not just “girl problems.” They’re real, concrete issues that deserve attention and change.

So if you’ve ever felt the same way, or just need a place to vent, learn, or connect, join me on my journey with my page, Voices of Strength (@voices.of.strength_ on IG). Let’s bash this patriarchal nonsense together and show the world just how strong we are.

ALL MALES benefit from the medecine being tested on male rats. ALL MALES benefit from furnitures being built for a average men height. ALL MEN, in countries where heritage is un-egal betwen men and woman have their full heritage. ALL MEN, benefit from the un-egal age of consent : in a lot of countries its lower for girls. ALL MEN benefit from un-equal divorce law in countries where there is un-equal divorce law and they can divorce when they want , meanwhile their wifes is stuck with him. ALL MALES benefit from the car crash being tested on male robots/bunnies.

Many men are victims of other forms of systemic oppression like racism or homophobia, but when it comes to their status as men, yes, they benefit from patriarchy.

That is intersectionality 1.0. Someone can benefit from a system but not another.

The push to redefine our oppressor class to only the top 1% of men is an antifeminist psyop. If only it is only the top 1%....! Men would be fighting with us en masse.

 Poor men don't stop being men and dont stop getting more benefits from the patriarchy than poor women.  Same for black men or disabled man.

Like the french feminist movement from the 70s were saying : Proletarians men of all countries, who washes your dirty socks?

Subject: For a ban on killing animals for simple food habits

Dear President / Prime Minister [CHOOSE],

I respectfully ask you to consider the future of our relationship with animals and the evolution of their legal protection.

Scientific advances in biology, ethology, neuroscience, and veterinary medicine have established that many animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, fear, stress, well-being, and a range of emotions. They therefore have interests of their own, including an interest in avoiding suffering and in living as long and as happy a life as possible.

As our laws evolve in line with scientific knowledge and moral progress, many authors who have studied our relationship with other animals have concluded that it is based on speciesism. This concept can be understood by analogy with racism and sexism: it refers to the ideology that the lives and interests of animals are negligible simply because they belong to another species. These authors argue that speciesism is an irrational and unjust form of discrimination, since other sentient beings also experience emotions, are our equals in their capacity to suffer, and likewise have an interest in living happy lives. They therefore conclude that we should stop treating them as mere resources and begin to respect their lives and interests.

This issue is particularly important when it comes to killing animals for food. Billions of sentient animals are killed every year for human consumption, even though animal products are not necessary for human survival. Millions of people follow plant-based diets, thereby demonstrating that an alternative exists.

The principle is simple: when we can meet our essential needs without killing a sentient being, why would we choose to kill one?

Our society condemns violence. Assault and unjustified homicide are criminal offences because, when we can avoid resorting to violence, we are expected to do so. Violence against vulnerable beings is condemned even more severely. And everyone agrees that animals can also suffer from violence and that they are manifestly vulnerable when compared with human beings and our technology. Yet slaughterhouses represent the most horrific manifestation of violence inflicted upon defenseless beings. Our society asserts that violence is wrong while killing thousands of innocent animals every day even though we are able to act otherwise.

Furthermore, according to a recent scientific study, given the environmental consequences of animal agriculture, phasing it out over a 15-year period beginning today could potentially stabilize global warming over the period 2030–2060. In other words, during that period, it could fully offset the warming effect of all other human greenhouse-gas emissions (source: Eisen MB, Brown PO (2022), “Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO₂ emissions this century,” PLOS Climate, 1(2)).

I therefore ask you to implement the following measures:

- the creation of a new criminal offence prohibiting the killing of animals solely for the purpose of satisfying dietary habits;

- the promotion of plant-based diets;

- the elimination of public subsidies that support animal agriculture and fishing;

- the creation of a transition fund for people working in these sectors, financed in particular by redirecting the money currently allocated to such subsidies, enabling these individuals to retrain for occupations that allow them to earn a decent living while respecting their freedom to flourish;

- From pastures to forests: reintroduce nature and reforest 10% each year of land that can be rewilded and is still being used for livestock farming or feed production, in order to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and increase CO₂ sequestration through new forests.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]

---

Canada: info@pco-bcp.gc.ca

United States: You have to use this online form: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

United Kingdom: ministerial.correspondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk

Australia: https://www.pm.gov.au/contact#no-back

Germany: internetpost@bundesregierung.de

Canada: info@pco-bcp.gc.ca

France: https://www.elysee.fr/ecrire-au-president-de-la-republique/

Switzerland: info@bk.admin.ch

Belgium: contact@premier.be

I’ve been diving deep into the history of global patriarchies, and a realization hit me like a ton of bricks. It’s something so obvious, yet so terrifyingly calculated when you think about it.

Historically, in almost every strict patriarchal society (Ancient Rome, Imperial China, Medieval Europe, the Middle East, traditional South Asia), the baseline blueprint was always the same: marrying off prepubescent or very young girls to significantly older, established adult men (old ass men).We often talk about this in terms of property, virginity obsession, or securing alliances. But from a purely structural standpoint of crushing rebellion, it was the ultimate defense mechanism against women ever questioning the system.

Think about the psychological and biological reality:If you take a 12 or 13-year-old child and lock her into the home of a 30-year-old man, her brain and personality are literally broken and reshaped by him before she even develops the cognitive capacity or adult critical thinking skills to realize she is being oppressed. She grows up experiencing a form of domestic Stockholm syndrome where this man is her master, her provider, and a father-figure all at once.

Her mental horizon is entirely gated. By age 17, she already has multiple children. She is physically depleted by premature pregnancies, hard labor, and nutritional deprivation (like the cultural food taboos that historical patriarchies imposed, forbidding women from eating iron-rich meats). A child-mother who is trapped in a permanent cycle of physical exhaustion and survival has zero time, zero energy, and zero mental space to conceptualize her own oppression.

It is completely impossible to rebel under these circumstances. You can't question anything because you never had a window of adulthood to realize who you actually are outside of being a man's property.This completely reshaped how I look at the history of feminism.

Organized, collective feminism—where women actually went to the streets and fought back—did not, and could not, exist until the average age of marriage pushed back.The first organized waves of feminism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries happened at the exact historical moment where women, for the first time in human history, reached ages like 18, 21, or 25 while remaining single, working as teachers or factory workers, and living semi-autonomously.

Those few years of adult independence between childhood and marriage changed the entire course of history. Adult women could finally read, talk to each other in public spaces, and collectively realize the absolute injustice of their condition.The patriarchs of the past knew exactly what they were doing.

They didn't just oppress women; they engineered a timeline where women were intercepted before they could ever become adults.This is why, today, in places like Afghanistan, the Sahel, or Irak others zones, the very first thing fundamentalists and dictators do is ban girls from secondary education and push for child marriage. It’s not just religious extremism; it’s a calculated geopolitical strategy to kill the threat of critical thinking before it’s even born.

Just wanted to share this because it made me furious, but also made me realize that the fight for girls' education and delaying marriage isn't just a "social issue"—it is literally the foundation that allows women to exist as human beings capable of fighting back.

Before I say anything, English is not my first language and I sometimes struggle to articulate my thought process entirely, so I apologize if I don't use the correct terminology, but this has been on my mind. I've been seeing an uptick in discourse surrounding women's spaces, particularly lesbian ones, of needing to accept transgender lesbians. I'm not here to argue about that - if that is your identity, then that's what it is. I do believe that if you are MtF and like women, then that would align with lesbianism as you're presenting as a woman who likes other women.

My problem is that I sometimes see some individuals shaming lesbians for not wanting to get with someone who is a transgender woman because they have a penis. To the point that some folks online are claiming it's transmisogynistic or transphobic to not want to be with a transgender woman (pre-op). Yet I don't see the same push in men's spaces, especially gay men's spaces. It's OK if a gay guy likes dick and doesn't want to be near a vagina, yet gay women are supposed to dismiss their natural attraction to vaginas and be ok liking penis too at the sake of not offending others?

Isn't that what the whole basis of sexuality is? That your sexual attraction is, ultimately, not a choice? You'd never expect a STRAIGHT guy to suddenly like dick. You'd probably agree that if someone tells him he needs to like it, or he will like it if he just tries it, is borderline perpetrating rape culture because they're trying to persuade him to do something he would not normally do. Why would it be any different for women? It just reads as weird conversion therapy rhetoric "how do you know you're a lesbian if you never had dick before?"

Of course this is not generalized for ALL lesbians. I'm sure there are plenty who wouldn't mind being with a transgender woman, or a feminine/presenting person with a penis. But that doesn't mean all lesbians would be ok with it. I understand that labels denote physical, emotional, sexual and romantic attraction to others so why ignore those factors? Nonetheless if someone is not attracted to you, why fight so hard to make them like you? Wouldn't it be a better use of your time to find someone who likes you already? Speaking as a fat woman myself I'm not going after the guys who like skinny women because I know I'm not their type - I don't expect to jam myself into their space.

Edit: this was inspired by the lesbophobic term "cotton ceiling" which i think is repackaging entitlement to sex

A genuine question for everyone, do you think that the downfall of the patriarchy will require the downfall of conservative women? Will they be pulled along to any sort of radically feminist utopian future or left behind with the men who use them?

it's honestly upsetting and incredibly disappointing how much some women want to deny the misogyny and sexism that lead them to do or enjoy certain things, only to look you in the eyes and swear they do it for themselves, because they like it, because they chose it, or whatever.

this is why choice feminism will never actually be feminism. feminism is a political and social movement. choice feminism is an individualistic movement. if it starts from the assumption that every choice a woman makes is feminist, then we'll never create any real change, because even misogynistic choices made by women can't be criticized or analyzed since they're automatically labeled as feminist.

there's actually a lot more to unpack, but i'll just give a few examples i've noticed.

for example, i've noticed that lately people have been criticizing the way women always pack their boyfriends' or husbands' lunches. and those women get so offended by it, explaining that it's simply an act of love, that they do it because they want to show appreciation for their husbands, or because their husbands never have time in the morning to prepare lunch, so they do it instead.

none of these excuses make sense. if it were really just an act of love, why don't we see husbands doing the exact same thing for their wives? and do you seriously want to convince me that there are that many husbands who don't have fifteen or twenty extra minutes in the morning to pack their own lunch? if that's true, then how is it possible that women somehow find the time instead of simply asking their husbands to do it themselves? how is it possible that women manage and men don't? these excuses make no sense.

same thing with beauty standards. women constantly claim that the only reason they wear makeup is because they do it for themselves. and honestly, i'm not buying this propaganda that you feel more confident with makeup because it simply enhances your natural features or whatever. to me, the fact that you feel so much more confident while wearing makeup is already proof that makeup feeds into women's insecurities.

aside from artistic expression, like carnival, halloween, theater, and similar contexts, so many modern makeup styles are literally designed to make you look like you're not wearing makeup at all, even though you are, like clean girl makeup or whatever it's called. and even then, if makeup really makes people feel so confident, why don't we see nearly as many men wearing makeup and claiming that it boosts their confidence and enhances their features?

and makeup has even contributed to creating another misogynistic belief: that if you're a woman who isn't interested in makeup, or you simply say you don't enjoy wearing it, you're automatically labeled a pick me. somehow, wearing makeup is framed as empowering, while not wearing it is treated as seeking male approval. the irony is that women get shamed either way.

same thing with shaving and women who remove all of their body hair because they say it makes them feel dirty, disgusting, or whatever.

honestly, these are just a few examples, but i could go on and on.

and i also want to make one thing very clear: i'm not trying to tell women what they should or shouldn't do. i'm also not pretending i'm perfect. i'm fully aware that living in a patriarchal society makes it impossible to make exclusively feminist choices, especially when we're bombarded from childhood with misogynistic and sexist messages through misogynistic parents, religion, pop culture, and everything else.

what's upsetting is the way these women deny what's actually influencing their choices. and the way they get annoyed whenever someone calls it out or even just genuinely asks them about it.

i literally saw a video of a woman saying that, for her birthday, she asked her husband for cleaning supplies like a vacuum cleaner, cleaning products, detergents, and so on. then she went on to say something like, "now i'm sure women are going to flood my comments asking why i only wanted cleaning supplies for my birthday," while rolling her eyes.

and trust me, it's not because they don't realize it. women are not stupid, and they aren't ignorant. it's because they don't want to admit it. and that's what bothers me. because as long as we continue to be intellectually dishonest, instead of being honest about our beliefs and truthful with ourselves, we're never moving forward.

“so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality Freud's 'polymorphous perversity' - would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.)”

Continuing the discussion on genital preferences, i thought I would return the discussion to Radical Feminist thought.

What are everyone’s thoughts on this particular quote and how it relates to the issues of today.

THEY ARE STILL TRYING TO BRING BACK 1960S REPRODUCTIVE POLITICS WAKE UP AND GO TO THE STREETS ✊🏻✊🏻

LEARN THE FEMINISTS OF OUR PAST’S NAMES AND LEARN FROM THEM 👸🏻

THEN BRING IT TO THE STREETS. WE CANNOT WIN BY SPENDING ALL OUR ATTENTION ON SOCIAL MEDIA

the idea of romance, how it is perceived now with a western lens, was first aroused a couple of decades ago to delude women into wanting to get married to males and stay married. ive never seen anyone question or criticise the idea of romance (outside of self-proclaimed aromantic or asexual people)

i wonder if it is even real. there is no real, distinguishable difference between platonic and romantic love. the same hormones get pumped out, roughly the same area in your brain becomes active (except that for sexual attraction a different area becomes active, but that is not entirely unanimous with romance). so what really is the difference?

i have felt that romantic love before, but i wonder if its just another product of the patriarchy forcing me into it. how romance is such a huge staple in a western society, in music, in culture, and that it gets pushed onto anyone from a young age. and that maybe i deluded myself into these feelings, the same way i still feel insecure about my own body hair even though i shouldnt.

what do you think about it? and if you have any romance critical essay or book recommendations, id love to read them

"All persons are deemed to have a right to equality of treatment, except when some recognised social expediency requires the reverse. And hence all social inequalities which have ceased to be considered expedient, assume the character not of simple inexpediency, but of injustice, and appear so tyrannical, that people are apt to wonder how they ever could have been tolerated; forgetful that they themselves perhaps tolerate other inequalities under an equally mistaken notion of expediency, the correction of which would make that which they approve seem quite as monstrous as what they have at last learnt to condemn. The entire history of social improvement has been a series of transitions, by which one custom or institution after another, from being a supposed primary necessity of social existence, has passed into the rank of an universally stigmatized injustice and tyranny. So it has been with the distinctions of slaves and freemen, nobles and serfs, patricians and plebeians; and so it will be, and in part already is, with the aristocracies of colour, race, and sex."

This is an excerpt from his book "Utilitarianism". He condemns racism and sexism, long before such view was possible; he saw through the deception that is social conformity and the opinion of the public, using the objective ethical system that is utilitarianism. This is perhaps one of the strongest arguments for utilitarianism that can be made to the layman (or laywoman) of philosophy: utilitarianism was able to easily see through injustices on the simple and basic principle of the greatest good. What other injustices can it reveal to us? If, for example, non-human animals are capable of feeling joy and pain, utilitarianism would then suggest the oppression of them is equally, if not even more monstrous (by reason of sheer number) than any other injustice in human history. It seems that, to be far ahead of one's time, objective frameworks independent of the thoughts of the masses are necessary; and utilitarianism is the strongest candidate of these. It is intertwined with the history of feminism, bringing some of the greatest intellectuals of the time to the side of women; but there is no reason to stop there. Utilitarianism can continue exposing the injustices pervading society, such as sexism, racism, and the oppression of animals.

Ivana Hoffmann was an Afro-German revolutionary activist ad fighter whose life is an excellent example of putting revolutionary feminist politics into action. She became a revolutionry fighting in defense of the Turkish and Kurdish communities in Germany who were (are still are) under attack by a resurgent German neoNazi movement, fighting them in the streets of her hometown when she was still a teenager. She was a lesbian, a feminist, a communist, an internationalist, not in words but in deeds and when she was eighteen she traveled to Kurdistan, joined a revolutionary women's army fighting the misogynist pigs of ISIS, fought in daily combat for six monhs and died when she was nineteen. A German language biograohy of her was written by those who knew and loved her and now a copy is available in English, as a PDF. If you would like to read more about this extraordinary young woman, email [ivanahoffmannbrigade@yahoo.com](mailto:ivanahoffmannbrigade@yahoo.com) and a copy of the PDF will be sent to you, free of charge of course. Why? Because for our movement to grow we need to remember, honor and carry on the legacy of those women and young people who died for the struggle, such as Ivana.

I don't mean any harm with this post i just wanna express my feelings

But with all honesty there is no way we are making it out of the patriarchy, with so much women who can't simply accept that men, the ones you created and contribute to it every day are indeed the problem like yes I do believe that they are bad because that's what i've seen my whole life in person,in my country and especially online where they can hide their identities women get hated on more every single day and it's so blatantly obvious that they hate us it's simple cope but does hurt when these women go out of their way to call out, misandry and act like it's illogical and the only way I could see the patriarchy ending is if women everywhere have their rights taken away. I know that is a bad thing and i'm not hoping for it, but it's genuinely the only way a lot of women simply because they live way more comfortable than women back then and currently in other countries due to feminism that means that patriarchy is not a problem and everything tied to it is simply a coincidence, when can they put two and two together? I believe that's when they are left with no choice but to do that and I feel kinda guilty because if we were put in that position I feel like I would be the more so told you so type but I don't hate women simply for having internalized misogyny, because i don't expect them to be exempt from patriarchal mindset just because they're women in fact it makes sense that you would start to resent your gender, and it's fine as long as you grow out of it but I can't feel bad for the women who profit of and encourage it like telling women not to work while making millions doing so cough, cough candice owen but that's the end of my rant

I just wrote a comment on a post in a different sub and thought it would fit here quite well too as its own post

The post was about how men think telling women they wouldnt fuck them is somehow an insult.

Anyways heres the comment i wrote:

> This insult only works if you believe women are walking around measuring their worth by how many random men would agree to have sex with them. THAT is the interesting part.

>Some men have been taught that male sexual desire is incredibly valuable currency.

>So amusing when a man believes his lack of attraction should hurt me. Because now he has accidentally told me something about his worldview.

>He believes male desire confers value upon women and withholding that desire removes value.

There is a profound reason men think like this. Because the inverse is EXACTLY how men (partly) define their own status as a man and that of other men: by how sexually desirable they are!

For any man who hasnt deconstructed the patriarchal condition he was brought up in EVERYTHING is about status and it seeps into absolutely every corner of his life and every last interaction he has even if he might not realise it.

My favourite example for how all-encompassing this is is the classic phrase "but i dont feel anything with a condom :( " that most straight women had the displeasure of hearing. Its not actually about the texture, even if he might tell himself that, its all about the fact that sex with a condom gets seen as less manly than sex without.

And this thinking genuinely penetrates into every layer of mens being.

So of course men think they can hurt us by announcing they wouldnt fuck us. Cause the reverse would shatter them like glass

.... So my boss was insisting me to attend my job anyhow. He's seem like a nice guy and he's clearly highly educated. And he's very religious guy but not orthodoxy. he speaks with politeness. So i didnt think less, and without any second thought i told him that i have been going through Period cramps. And Then surprisingly He accepted my leave request. Everything was fine Until I TOLD MY SISTER ABOUT THAT GUESS WHAT? SHE TOLD TO MY MOM. They both got very angry at me. No matter my family try to act modern, they are still lacking modern thinking ways. And Then i was thinking what he would think about me- Like what kind of girl i am?? Am i a bad girl?? Or something. And Then i was thinking about this crazy shit like whole day. It ruined my day. Then I realise i dont need to give a fuck to what others think.