Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Misogyny seems to have changed, and not for the better

105 replies

PopstarPoppy · 11/05/2025 17:28

When I was young (last century!), casual sexism was the norm, as were things like wolf-whistling, cars hooting at women/girls in skimpy outfits and men copping a feel in bars and clubs. None of it particularly bothered me, although I can understand why it bothered others, and I don’t believe it was right. But it seems that as attitudes that were almost unconscious have been stamped out, a much more sinister, deliberate form of misogyny has taken hold. I don’t know whether the two are related, because the latter is tangled up with gender identity politics, in particular the trans debate.

In the past, as glass ceilings were broken and women branched out into careers that were previously the preserve of men, I thought the years ahead would be better ones for women. Instead, it seems that the harder women have fought to be heard and treated fairly, the more they have been bullied and undermined, by companies, by the public sector, by media personalities – and even by a subset of (mostly young) biological women.

This has been underlined by the responses of so many to the recent SC ruling – with companies and public bodies finding every way to delay obeying the law and falling over themselves to publicise their support for those who have intimidated women. And the fact that, even now, women are repeatedly told to ‘be kind’ and asked ‘how we think transwomen feel’ about issues that have a huge impact on so many biological women makes it seem as nothing has really changed since the year dot. Women are still seen as ‘lesser’. And worst of all, fewer people now seem to view that as a problem.

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 30/10/2025 10:35

QBTheRoundestOfBees · 29/10/2025 22:39

I have been thinking about this, and I probably won’t express what I think very well, but I don’t think that female biology itself is oppressive, it just is. However, the fact that centuries of legal and social structures have sought to control women because of their biology is oppressive and the fact that men have sought access to women’s bodies in various ways is oppressive. So women were considered property passed from father to husband because they were the sex that bore children. They only had a legal existence in relation to their husbands (unless they remained single). So it is these structures and social expectations which oppressed women.
Rejecting motherhood - again, if you think about the fact that there did not used to be proper childcare, that there was a marriage bar on women in the workplace, that women were (are) seen as the main carers of children with all the limitations that implies, financial and social, again, these are structural inequalities which women face on becoming mothers. Abortion - one fifth of maternal mortality was from illegal abortions and maternal mortality was itself high, childbirth itself was more dangerous than going down a mine. These are good reasons for seeking to limit motherhood or rejecting it outright.
So behind what you say there are multiple reasons why women fought against social norms which denied them legal personhood, against repeated pregnancies which could be life-threatening (maternal mortality only really began to fall in the last seventy years), and perpetrated inequality.
At the same time, there have always been groups and organisations and individuals who have fought for women’s rights as mothers and women - otherwise we would not have maternity care, maternity leave, child benefit, equal pay, NI paid through child benefit (I think).
Sex positivity- I happen to think the beneficiaries here are men. And I question how far that has actually empowered women when you look at the rise of porn culture. I also happen to think in some ways that abortion benefits men because they don’t need to change their behaviour.

I take your point about gay liberation, though.

I have come to accept that on some level and in certain ways biology is destiny: certainly to the extent that if you define 'destiny' or 'fate' as the things over which you have no choice or control: the things which are your allotment in life; the things you have to deal with.

As is implicit in your post everything has a social component because we are social creatures - so nothing is 'neutral'; everything is accorded a value or a worth, and so on. It is within this context that 'oppression' can occur - because not everything ( or everyone) is equal or the same, and different cultures accord different value or worth to different things. Males and females and male and female attributes are awarded different values.

On some level we have to accept, I believe, the basic differences between the sexes but that doesn't mean we have to reduce everything in our life or in our relations with others down to those differences. Beyond the differences there are commonalities and we all ( male and female) exist along a spectrum of different talents, skills, personality traits, characteristics, preferences which transcend sex.

Civil society aims to flatten out or de-emphasise differences in pursuit of a measure of equality of opportunity and access - but it cannot eliminate those differences altogether, and indeed it would become a bit totalitarian if that was tried or enforced, It could easily end up being dystopian. ( attempts to gestate babies outside of the womb; perform womb transplants into men; pit males against females in contact sports and so on)

Movements towards 'transdgenderism' and 'transhumanism' seek to rid the human being of its earthly limitations and attempt to overcome nature; natural cycles, and the instinctive voice of the body. The inner voice or urging which makes us just like all other creatures on earth.

I don't think that females are naturally as promiscuous as males because the potential costs of promiscuity are greater for females than for males ( even with the conctraceptive pill); and I do think that to a great extent male sexual response is wired differently to that of females - hence we see how males are far more prone to paraphilias and fetisihes, as but one example.

nicepotoftea · 30/10/2025 10:42

I have come to accept that on some level and in certain ways biology is destiny

The things that mitigate the impact of biology are not memes and slogans, but sex based rights, written down in legislation, and made concrete by policy and enforcement of rules.

ErrolTheDragon · 30/10/2025 12:29

nicepotoftea · 30/10/2025 10:42

I have come to accept that on some level and in certain ways biology is destiny

The things that mitigate the impact of biology are not memes and slogans, but sex based rights, written down in legislation, and made concrete by policy and enforcement of rules.

Well put.

Shortshriftandlethal · 30/10/2025 13:51

nicepotoftea · 30/10/2025 10:42

I have come to accept that on some level and in certain ways biology is destiny

The things that mitigate the impact of biology are not memes and slogans, but sex based rights, written down in legislation, and made concrete by policy and enforcement of rules.

I'd say those sex based 'rights' are more about (sex based) protections. These protections accommodate the differences and attempt to meet their differnt requirements. Which is why the equality act talks about 'protected catgeories and characteristics'. It is those protections which afford certain rights and expectations.

QBTheRoundestOfBees · 30/10/2025 19:39

shortshriftandlethal I don’t think I am arguing against anything you are saying in your most recent post, though.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page