I won’t lie; I cried a little when I read your comment. It’s really validating and rare to truly be seen. I do tread very carefully to be appropriate, fair, and reasonable in my responses, but I never really expected anyone to see that. I appreciate your comment more than I know how to say.

This is a tough topic because, like you said, it affects literally everyone, no matter their gender, and everyone has different experiences and opinions. I just want everyone who is forming an opinion to see as many different sides and experiences as possible to, at the very least, make an informed decision on the state of gender politics. I know that everyone has their personal biases, and no one wants to give up privileges or power, but at the end of the day, again, like you said, the patriarchy hurts all of us.

I appreciate you. <3

You definitely have a point, and there are definitely women like the one you described in the world. Men 100% deserve to be treated with equality and respect. I’m sorry that you had that experience with your former partner. It’s a garbage, disrespectful move from someone who is supposed to have your back.

But your point does ignore the fact that a majority of women have been raised by parents and by society to be subservient to men. The person who posted this originally wanted to know why women aren’t taught how to treat men, but the fact is that we are. Constantly. Whether we want to be taught or not. Most of us have learned to do this so deeply that it’s second nature. Most of us don’t even remember learning it because that’s just the way that it is.

This is for a wide variety of reasons, but most of it boils down to men having control over the world for thousands of years and women trying to find the best way to survive and occasionally excel in a world made for and by men. Remember that we used to be (and often still are) considered property. It’s taken a really long time to get as far as we (women) have. My sex has only been able to vote in my country for 100 years. That’s not a lot of time to make major changes in public perception and major societal shifts. We’ve grown a lot, but these shifts come with growing pains.

If we lived in a world where women have to be taught how to treat a male partner well, that means that society isn’t doing the teaching anymore, and while yes, women should treat men with equivalent respect, it’s still a huge improvement societally that women don’t develop ingrained subservience. The woman that you previously dated sounds like part of those growing pains. Some people are always going to take things too far because the line had not previously been defined (even though the golden rule should be pretty common sense).

Conversely, men often have to be taught this because society doesn’t do the teaching. Society is cool with men following the status quo.

Does this give a woman a solid reason to treat another human like trash, no matter their gender? No. This is the big reason why I think feminism is so important. People hear that term and think it means pro-women only, but what it really means is equality for all genders. Full equality should be the goal even if it ends up hurting women a little. For example, one of the few privileges women have that men don’t have is in the courtroom. Women tend to have better outcomes because of biases about our weakness and innocence. Feminism would be working to dismantle something like that even if it gives women an advantage.

Equality is important, but understanding women’s historical growth and struggles is important, too. Women have been taught ad nauseum how to treat men well, but some women are going to make different choices. At the end of the day, I agree with you. I just want people to remember how hard the struggle was for women to get here, understand how far we still have to go to gain real equality, and respect the societal pressures that we deal with every day.

Dude, I hear that loud and f-ing clear. I’m also someone who left a marriage without any real hate toward my ex. We were chill during the marriage and afterward. No cheating; no drama.

So when I re-entered the dating world a decade after I had previously been in it, I did not expect the amount of bitter dudes I’ve since come across. If your profile starts with you saying you won’t tolerate a woman who does ______., I’m more concerned about how damaged you are from your previous relationship than I am about whether or not we would be a good match.

I agree. To me, money only matters as far as knowing that they can also independently afford their lifestyle. I don’t need a leech in my life, but I also don’t need someone to pay my bills or add to my financial future. If you have your life together enough to hold down a job that covers your expenditures, then you have moved into the dateable category, assuming there aren’t other glaring red flags.

I’m with you. It’s a massive faux pas for women to shit in a public bathroom. You only do it when absolutely necessary. Not sure how it goes in the men’s room though. I’m also not saying that it’s healthy, but society be like that sometimes.

AOC wouldn’t win Harris the swing vote. I love AOC, don’t get me wrong, but with two women on the ticket, it’s too easy for conservatives to paint the duo as “crazy” or “radical.” Sexism remains alive and well here. People still believe the stereotypes and are easily influenced by dog whistles, especially here in the Midwest.

I hope that we get to the point where this isn’t a concern, but as it stands now, we have never had a woman in charge, and a lot of people are afraid of the unknown, so they wouldn’t like the idea of something new on both the presidential front as well as the VP front.

That’s on top of the fact that AOC is from NY and Harris is from CA. We are already irritated that a majority of people in office (and the country) ignore the “flyover” states even though we do a lot for the country (and have really cool cultural and fun places to visit, but this addendum is clearly biased). It really does matter a lot that Walz is one of us. He gets us in a way that people from the coast states don’t. That will influence a lot of votes, and two midwestern states are considered swing states - i.e. states that Harris absolutely NEEDS on her side.

Swing voters here don’t care as much about deploying the national guard. In fact, it’s lauded by a lot of people, including liberals/democrats. Midwesterners are okay with civil disobedience, but only if it’s not unnecessarily destructive or if there isn’t an attempt to gain simply for yourself (ex: looting). I’m not saying that that is what happened when the guard was deployed or that it’s a realistic or correct belief, but in reality, the media painted it that way, so people believe what they were told. So, very few here are holding something like that against him.

I don’t know of anyone in my region who would consider Walz to be truly controversial, and certainly, they think of him as way less controversial than AOC. They might disagree with Walz’s policies or opinions, but they don’t think he’s controversial. Here, AOC’s painted as a pot stirrer and a crazy lady. To reiterate, I don’t agree with this view of AOC, and I respect her immensely, but it would be foolish to ignore the fact that a lot of other people do agree with it. Walz, because of his race, age, cultural background, and experience, is a thousand times more electable than AOC when you’re looking at it from a national perspective.

Wow, that is a very cool concept. I, too, would like to back this.

That’s probably true, but, at least in the US, nothing will really move forward without the populace backing it (or not knowing about it to begin with). Otherwise, those politicians will never get elected again, and whatever climate policy they created will be negated by the new politician.

So it seems like she’s trying to go the route of getting the populace backing first, and then she’ll have that strength to draw on when dealing with politicians. A bunch more people at that point would be also calling for change, so she wouldn’t have to do much convincing. The fear of losing their political standing would be the impetus for change.

In my particularly weird corner of the world, we are still trying to convince people that climate change is real. I can’t imagine how much the deniers would freak out if their elected official backed something that they think doesn’t exist.

Usually, they say it, but not directly to you. The attacking woman will tell another person in the group, and that person will usually tell the target woman what was said by the first woman just “because I thought you should know.” Very, very rarely is it said directly.

I also have seen a lot of people pull the move of talking too loud about things they hate about the target woman on purpose so that the target woman hears it, but can’t really confont the attacking woman because she “should mind her own business.”