r/AskFeminists

So I’m mainly just curious if it is just a matter of, if you believe in the principles of feminism the natural conclusion is that LGBTQ+ rights need to be supported as well, or if it’s just a matter of feminists tending to be left wing.
Or is there an aspect of it which is that a lot of women’s rights have a direct impact on LGBTQ+ rights (or vice versa) so regardless of if you actively support LGBTQ+ rights as a feminist you will end up helping them either way.

Part of why I ask is the fact that TERFs exist and are generally considered (in this community at least) to not be real feminists, so Im kind of curious about actual feminists relationship with LGBT+ rights
(i hope my phrasing wasn’t too confusing or anything, sorry if it was)

Hi, I wanted to ask you about something a woman (who I assumed was a feminist, with no actual proof) said. I also decided that this must be something feminists generally believe. Now I think you, as feminists, should explain to me why you believe this thing that you absolutely do believe.

I think that if things like this keep happening (random women saying random things) it's obvious that this will inevitably bring the movement down and make people like me distance from it. I think you should take responsibility for this fringe view and work towards the goal of making sure no woman expresses any stupid opinion whatsoever from now on.

Assuming the fact that it's only based on gender, and not their capability to do the job well. And if yes, would it still be wrong if the parents are making an educated choice based on statistics (men are more likely to groom minors)? Would like to hear your reasoning for both sides of the answer.

obviously as a guy if i see a space that is women only i wouldn’t try to join. but like for example i do have some hobbies that ig dont have a huge male fan base. I like crocheting, i enjoy like witchcraft (ik it sounds stupid), and a bunch of other shows, music etc that have a larger female audience.

i (19M) just randomly thought about this and i cant stop laughing, like ignoring the statistics that show that men very clearly cause more road accidents than women, wtf does gender have to do with anything? quite frankly the worst drivers i've been with have been men

i ordered an uber to take me home from college after the year ended back in may and it was some douchecanoe who almost got us killed on the way back to detroit from ann arbor cuz he kept swerving n shi on the freeway, and some friends of mine genuinely drive like ts is GTA, meanwhile my mom is the best driver in the world no debate on that, i've never felt in danger when my female friends give me a ride, it just makes me wonder where that dumb ass stereotype came from lmfao

How do you see this law? Is it good because manipulative guys should be punished, or bad because not everything can be labeled rape and they are basically labeling cheating as rape? (btw you cannot file a case against manipulative women, as men are not considered victim of rapes and sa in indian law)

TL;DR: If gender roles and stereotypes are socially constructed, shouldn't we try to make them less prescriptive? But if we remove the social associations between gender and things like clothes, mannerisms, or interests, how can gender expression still exist in a meaningful sense? Is it possible to loosen gender roles without also making gender expression meaningless, or is this a non-issue?

Hi! I've read a bunch of other posts on this sub about gender abolitionism, and I have a question.

From what I understand, feminists generally argue that gender roles and stereotypes are socially constructed, and that there is nothing inherently feminine or masculine about traits like being more empathetic, passive, assertive, nurturing, having a particular aesthetic, etc. So, from a feminist perspective, it would seem desirable to make these social prescriptions less rigid and less prescriptive, so that people aren't pressured to conform to them simply because of their gender. (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or oversimplifying any of this)

I recognize that believing gender is a social construct doesn't necessarily mean believing that there can't be some underlying sense of identity or self-concept that isn't itself socially constructed, and that this can be expressed through pre-existing social categories like "man" and "woman."

At the same time, I'm struggling to understand how gender expression would work in a world without prescriptive gender stereotypes or expectations. I'm not talking about a world where gender categories themselves no longer exist. I'm specifically imagining a society where people are still able to identify as men, women, both, neither, etc., but where there are no expectations about how people of those genders should look or behave.

Let's use a skirt as an example.

Imagine that wearing a skirt is no longer considered either masculine or feminine. Anyone can wear one, and wearing a skirt doesn't communicate anything about someone's gender. The same applies to everything else: clothes, hairstyles, mannerisms, interests, and so on. In that case, people would have complete freedom of expression, but how would someone actually express their gender through those things, rather than simply express themselves?

Or imagine a second scenario where wearing a skirt is still culturally associated with femininity, but it's completely normal for men to wear skirts too. I'm not sure how significantly different this is. The skirt would still have a feminine association, but seeing someone wearing one wouldn't tell you much about their gender identity because you couldn't reliably infer that the person is a woman.

In both cases, gender categories like "man" and "woman" would still exist, and people could identify with one, several, or none of them. But other than explicitly saying "I am X," I'm struggling to see how gender expression would still exist in a meaningful sense.

The only way for it to still exist I can currently think of would be if there are certain traits or forms of expression that are intrinsically associated with men or women, regardless of society. But I don't personally believe that, and I'm worried that assuming this would lead toward some kind of biological essentialism. (but maybe it wouldn't? feel free to correct me on this too)

So my question is: is it possible to completely loosen gender roles, expectations, and stereotypes while still retaining gender expression as something meaningful? Or do feminists generally argue that in loosening gender roles and stereotypes we should also get rid of gender expression? Or am I getting the entire framework wrong?

I hope this makes sense! I'm sorry if this is a repetitive question. I'm pretty new to this topic and I'm genuinely trying to understand how these different ideas fit together.

​

this has been a question that stuck to my mind as i have been learning more about the feminist theory:

if your partner does not want to eat cookies or go to the movies for example, it is okay to try to convince them into it as long as its not too forceful. however, for sex, any amount of coercion/convincing is considered problematic and obtaining sex by convincing your partner while they were not initially very enthusiastic is assault.

similarly, doing something because your partner wants it although you dont want to do is perfectly normal. you may not wanna go get ice cream, but your partner does, do you go along. however, again, this also doesnt work for sex as if you arent fully willing yourself then it may be assault or lead to trauma in the future. you shouldnt have sex if you dont want to, even if your partner wants to. not only sex specifically but all sexual acts in general.

now i completely agree with both of these stances, however i dont really understand the difference between sex and other qctions as sex seems to be the exception here. thank you very much.

​

So, there’s this guy I’ve been talking to, and we discuss pretty much everything—feminism, politics, religion, protests, social issues, etc. He has his own opinions, and sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I completely disagree.

Recently, we were discussing Samay Raina. I was talking about some of the things he has said/done that I consider misogynistic, while this guy initially said, “Jokes are jokes, it’s not that deep.”

I explained to him why I think some jokes can contribute to harmful attitudes toward women, even when they’re presented as “just jokes.” He listened, understood my perspective, became curious about the topic, and eventually changed his opinion. He no longer supports that kind of comedy.

This has happened more than once. Whenever we discuss social issues, I sometimes feel like he doesn’t initially notice certain problems that I do. But when I explain why something concerns me, he genuinely listens and is willing to reconsider his position.

He actually told me, “No one is born with the right opinion about everything. If you think I’m wrong, educate me. I’m open to changing my opinion.” And honestly, he has shown me that he means it.

At the same time, I’ve been thinking about something bigger. Women often have to learn about sexism, gender inequality, religion, LGBTQ+ issues, discrimination, etc., because these things can directly affect our lives. Some men may not have the same experiences, so they might not notice certain problems unless they actively learn about them.

I don't want to excuse ignorance, though. At some point, shouldn't everyone take responsibility for educating themselves about the society they live in?

And this is where I'm confused.

Is someone misogynistic if they initially don't recognize certain sexist attitudes but are genuinely willing to listen, learn, and change their opinion when they're presented with another perspective?

Or is the willingness to learn and change actually a good sign?

I really like this guy, and I don't want to ignore potential red flags just because I have feelings for him. At the same time, I don't want to label someone a misogynist simply because they haven't thought deeply about certain issues before.

What do you guys think? What would you look for when deciding whether someone's lack of awareness is just ignorance or an actual misogynistic mindset?

Feminism's core ideology is the dismantlement of hierarchy and gender roles. In which case, wouldn't this collide with the view? And yes, I am aware that gender dysphoria exists, and doing gender specific activities may relieve that.

That is not to say that trans people "aren't real", I'm not a troll and that is not my point, just to clarify. The current treatment for gender dysphoria is HRT, which validates the idea of trans people feeling as if though they are "stuck in the wrong body". In which case, shouldn't it be limited to that? (I guess you could also include bottom surgery).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958824001660

• When GPT was asked toinfer the gender of someone who wrote stereotypically masculine or feminine sentences, the errors were not symmetrical. It was much more willing to assign traditionally masculine interests or behaviour to a female writer than to assign traditionally feminine traits to a male writer. The authors interpreted this as a possible consequence of stronger efforts to challenge stereotypes restricting women than equivalent efforts concerning men.
• In moral-dilemma experiments, GPT-4 judged abusing a man as more acceptable than abusing a woman when the abuse was presented as necessary to prevent an extreme outcome such as a nuclear apocalypse.
• The asymmetry became particularly noticeable when the aggressor and victim were different sexes: GPT-4 was more accepting of a woman using violence against a man for the greater good than of a man using violence against a woman under the same circumstances.
• Interestingly, this wasn't universal across every type of harm. The researchers report the effect for abuse and certain forms of violence, but not for torture.
• The bias appeared to be implicit. When GPT-4 was directly asked to rank moral violations involving men versus women, the same gender difference did not clearly appear. Instead, it emerged when gender was embedded indirectly in the scenario.

Artificial intelligence is primarily trained on real-world data, so we can conclude that society may be moving towards more pro-female and anti-male rhetoric. Considering the increasing use of AI in job applications and recruitment, these biases could very well carry over into real-world hiring decisions.

For example, a 2025 study testing 22 leading LLMs with matched CVs found that, when qualifications were held constant and gender cues were swapped, all of the tested models favoured female-named candidates overall. Another large experiment reported that leading AI models favoured female candidates while particularly disadvantaging Black male applicants. A 2026 study likewise found that identical résumés were more likely to be judged hireable and qualified when presented as female.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17049?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13866?utm_source=chatgpt.com

One example is university admissions. A 2026 audit found gender bias favouring female applicants in several models, including GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and QwQ, when otherwise comparable applicant profiles were evaluated. Another admissions framework reported a 67% predicted acceptance rate for men versus 76% for women.

https://arxiv.org/html/2602.10117v4?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://arxiv.org/html/2509.22560?utm_source=chatgpt.com

In occupational recommendations, some models appear to reproduce an asymmetric form of gender stereotyping. A 2026 study found that most tested models preferred female candidates for traditionally female-dominated occupations, while behavior in traditionally male occupations was more mixed; some GPT-family models explicitly invoked increasing gender diversity when giving women higher scores in male-dominated fields. That can create situations where women receive an advantage in male-dominated roles without a corresponding advantage being given to men entering female-dominated occupations.

https://arxiv.org/html/2501.05396v4?utm_source=chatgpt.com

So the current evidence looks more like this:

Strong evidence of male disadvantage in some LLM hiring experiments → evidence in some admissions models → striking male/female asymmetries in certain moral/violence judgments → Strong results in education and occupational recommendations

Do we really think this is an acceptable way to move forward as a society? I dispute the notion that women are more oppressed in Western society and actually believe that women are more privileged in some areas, given how many initiatives and programmes exist specifically to support and advance them, without equivalent support being provided to men. When AI is trained on real-world data, we know that these practices are already being implemented by people within the political landscape, and AI is simply learning from that data.

I’m so late to this, but I recently read the times article about ballerina farm. And it got me thinking, if this woman is being abused and controlled (which I believe she most likely) this article likely made it sooooo much worse for her. Which as a woman, I do take issue with.

My question is how do you talk about trad wives and interview them/platform them? without making their situation worse, I don’t agree with the life she’s living, and I do see the issue with it. But as a woman, I don’t want to add to the pile on.

Disclaimer: Part of this was enhanced with AI since English isn’t my first language.

Hi, mid-thirties straight male here. I’m often asked on a first date whether I’m a feminist. I used to always say yes (although “ally” seems like the better term to me), because I genuinely believe in feminism.

However, it often seems to backfire when we eventually disagree on one of the smaller issues where reasonable people can have different opinions. I sometimes feel like I’m treated as a “traitor” or a liar for not agreeing with someone’s particular interpretation of feminism, even though two feminist women can disagree without questioning each other’s commitment to feminism.

How can I answer “Are you a feminist?” in a way that communicates that I genuinely support feminism and consider myself an ally, while also making it clear that I won’t necessarily agree with every single feminist position or interpretation?

I’m not asking because I’m looking for a way to manipulate the person receiving my answer or get a specific reaction. It’s more that lately I’ve started wondering if the question itself is becoming a bit of a red flag for me, and whether there’s something about the dynamic that I’m not seeing.

I also feel like going into this much meta-analysis of the question itself would just be exhausting in a first-date conversation. I’d rather just answer honestly and have a normal conversation about our values without having to overthink the framing of the question.

So I guess I’m wondering: is there a better way to approach this question? And is it reasonable to see it as potentially telling me something about the person asking it, rather than simply being a question about whether I identify as a feminist?

EDIT: I realize I worded this poorly. By “smaller issues,” I didn’t mean “unimportant issues.” I meant that we agree on most things, but there’s a relatively small percentage of things where we don’t.

For example:

The term “ally”: I’ve been told that calling myself an ally is a way for men to distance themselves from feminism while still getting the “brownie points,” and that it means I’m not really a feminist. Personally, I prefer “ally,” for basically the same reasons some feminists argue that it’s a more appropriate term for cishet men.

Sex work: This is probably the biggest one. I believe sex work can be okay under certain circumstances, whereas some people I’ve dated have had a much more categorical position on it.

Chivalry / paying: I’ve been told that “women already go through enough, so the bare minimum is for the man to pay.” I obviously agree that women deal with a lot of things men don’t, but I don’t agree that this necessarily creates an obligation for men to pay. I usually pay anyway, since I’m generally the one doing the inviting, but I don’t see it as a gendered obligation.

Hypothetical situations: Things like, “If you were stranded somewhere with no cars or cabs and the only place to sleep was a twin bed with your platonic female best friend, would you share the bed or sleep on the floor?” I’d share the bed. To me, that doesn’t inherently make the situation sexual or inappropriate.

None of these are necessarily dealbreakers for me, and I’m perfectly comfortable disagreeing with someone on them. What I find difficult is when a disagreement on one of these points is treated as evidence that I’m not actually an ally, or that I’m somehow pretending to be one.

Hello! Forgive the somewhat dramatic title, as I am struggling to put words to this question. For the record, I am a 24 y/o straight man and this is a somewhat anecdotal/subjective view.

I think we all know the extent of policing sexuality in our culture, mainly in the form of ‘women should not engage in promiscuity. My view has always opinion been that both men and women should be able to engage in the human sexual experience as they please, as long as it is consensual. But the more I think about it, this has never really been true, because I have always held a pretty extreme belief (subconsciously albeit) that a man’s body count does quantify his value in some way. This really manifested for me around 12-14 y/o, where “loosing your virginity” was a prerequisite for masculinity. The pressure of sexual success ended up forming the basis of my character in early adolescence, and I know for a fact that this is a standard male experience.

My question here, is weather there is a intersectional feminist opinion on if this pressure actually strips you of your ability to consent (walk with me).

I specifically remember upon loosing my virginity, it was an older girl who initiated it, and my knee-jerk reaction was that I really didn’t want to hook up with her. This was a combination of anxiety, fear, and also just not being attracted to her. But the sheer relief of not being a “virgin” or “Incel” was so powerful that saying “no” wasn’t even on the table. I physically could have said no, but it didn’t even render as an option due to my own fear of emasculation.

This fades with age and experience, but from 12-18 I didn’t reject a single opportunity for sex on account of affirming my gender (regardless of weather I wanted to or not). Just to clarify, I am not actually saying this is SA, and I am also omitting any scenario where I initiated the exchange.

I have a lot of dysfunctions with regards to my identity and my “people pleasing” tendencies (specifically with women), and forgive me if this is a bit too philosophical, but I think that the cultural condemnation of “sexless men” actually informed my inability to set boundaries and say NO.

This is half question - half vent. With the question being: How does the social pressure of sexual success interact with bodily autonomy and consent?

Lately, I’ve been thinking about what would happen if the gender gap in employment and income were permanently reversed.

Let’s imagine a scenario in which, due to structural changes such as automation, women became significantly more likely to find stable employment and, on average, earned noticeably more than men. As a result, more women would occupy managerial positions and reach the highest levels of professional and political power, while a much larger proportion of men would struggle to find stable, meaningful employment.

What would happen to families in such a society?

Would long-term relationships and marriages still form at similar rates?

How do you imagine gender roles would change, and would entirely new gender norms emerge?

How would feminist movements react to such a reversal?

And finally, how would you personally react to living in a society like this?

Hello! My name is Leyla Alina, I'm a trans woman who is really into problems in the society and I want to identify as a feminist. I didn't see a trans woman identifying as a feminist before so I kind of wondered if I can be a feminist as a trans woman. I really don't want to open the "TERF" topic as it's a problem with conservative transphobic views rather than an issue caused by feminism.

Meaning women would be in charge of a new (presumably socialist) government until a generation or two of men had grown up under this society and the young could be let in.

Hi ya’ll. So I am a middle school student thinking of creating an animation project in order to apply for a scholarship. While researching women issues, I stumbled upon same sex SA. I have searched around and found that it is barely mentioned anywhere, even less so than its male counterpart.

I wish to spread the word around about its existence, but as I am a straight girl that has never experienced this, I wish to ask whether or not it is alright for me to do so. In a way, I am asking if this would offend any survivors. (I’m not sure how to phrase this).

If I do in fact end up doing this project, I will recruit sensitivity viewers to ensure I am approaching the topic respectfully.

Please do let me know if I offended anyone by even writing this, as that is not my purpose. I’ll delete this post if needed.

Thank you for your time.

I remember plenty of times when I heard someone make a sexist comment and felt the need to address it.

When it's a man being attacked, I tend to have extra care while speaking so that I do not sound like one of those "men's rights" activists, who see their problems as above women's.

But when it's a woman being attacked, I am sometimes met with the accusation of being "performative" by women and I'm left wondering if I did something wrong. Surely I shouldn't have been quiet about it, right? I hate seeing people being treated unfairly.

Is there anything specific I should be careful about? Could there be something triggering this response, or is it something I just have to live with?