This is not accurate as written. Sonam Raghuvanshi is accused, not “fully convicted.” Bail does not mean acquittal, and it does not mean the court decided she is innocent. From what has been reported, the bail was tied to procedural flaws in the arrest documents, and the trial is still ongoing. That is a due process issue, not proof that the law is automatically soft on women.
@the_psyche_lab I support gender-neutral laws. What I don’t support is pretending the legal system is some magical safety bubble for women. Men can be victims, women can be victims, and the law should protect people based on evidence and harm — not gendered resentment.
@iamMayurChouhan That’s not what feminism means. “Women don’t need men” does not mean men have no value. It means women should not have to depend on a man for survival, safety, money, identity, or basic rights. Wanting men in your life is beautiful. Being forced to need one is not.
@AbbyJohnson This is exactly why people say the movement is not just “pro-life.” If there is no compassion for the living woman — her body, her health, her circumstances, her future — then the concern was never really about life in the first place.
@ian_bruh1 Nothing says “pro-life” quite like openly celebrating forced pregnancy as a weapon against women’s independence. Very normal. Very loving. Totally not proving the feminist point.
@last______born Feminism did not make women miserable. It gave women the option to stop choosing relationships that made them miserable. That distinction seems to make certain people very uncomfortable.
I understand feeling politically homeless.
A lot of people are frustrated with both parties.
But painting entire groups with the worst possible brush is part of why politics feels so broken.
You can criticize Democrats, Republicans, foreign policy, lobbying, war, abortion laws, guns, and gender policy without turning every issue into a sweeping caricature.
@sarahdactyl123 That’s like calling someone “pro-divorce” because they don’t want divorce banned. Supporting the right to make a decision is not the same as celebrating every possible outcome.
@PhrogPollen This argument only works if you pretend “human biology” and “legal personhood with rights over someone else’s body” are the same thing.
They’re not. A fetus can be human without the government being entitled to force a woman to remain pregnant.
@RuggedRyan_ So your issue is not actually “hypocrisy.” It’s that you think a woman’s outfit matters more than a man choosing not to assault someone. That says everything.
@BugattiBoblo@marimbalex27@meishato Or maybe every couple should decide what works for their own home instead of pretending all women or all men want the same thing. Providing matters, and so does the unpaid labor that keeps a household running.
Respectfully, this proves individual strength differences exist- not that women are less valuable or should be boxed into certain roles.
Yes, many men are physically stronger than many women. Nobody serious is denying biology. But society does not run on pea gravel alone.
Women also work, build, repair, lead, create, raise children, manage homes, care for elderly parents, run businesses, teach, nurse, organize, problem-solve, and keep families alive in a thousand invisible ways.
Also, plenty of women do physical labor, mechanical work, landscaping, farming, military service, construction, and home repairs. And plenty of men cannot or do not do those things either.
Strength is real. But using it to dismiss women’s contributions is where the argument falls apart.
Calling women “leeches” while claiming men are the only ones who make the world go round is exactly the kind of disrespect people are pushing back against.
Women work, raise children, care for families, build businesses, teach, heal, lead, create, and hold entire households together every single day. A lot of that labor is ignored because society benefits from pretending it doesn’t count.
You don’t have to like every woman’s opinion, but reducing women to “leeches” says more about your view of women than it does about women.
Honestly, neither of those sounds ridiculous.
Men should be accepted as stay-at-home dads if that works for their family. Caring for children and running a home is real work, not “women’s work.”
And if a country is going to have a draft at all, then yes, the conversation should be about fairness, bodily risk, and equal responsibility- not using it as a gotcha against women.
Equality does not mean pretending men and women are identical. It means not forcing people into boxes based on stereotypes. Different strengths exist, but they are individual, not automatic job assignments handed out at birth.
Wanting to see yourself in your child is one thing. Treating skin color like a requirement for family, love, or belonging is where it gets ugly.
Children are not custom orders. Mixed families exist. Adoption exists. Stepfamilies exist. Genetics are complicated. And a child’s worth is not measured by how closely they match a parent’s skin tone.
Calling that an “agenda” sounds less like a question and more like discomfort with families that don’t fit one narrow picture.
Maybe women didn’t “become masculine.” Maybe they just stopped living their entire lives around what men personally find attractive.
Women have always had different personalities, styles, bodies, jobs, interests, and ways of existing. The difference now is that more women are allowed to choose comfort, practicality, strength, careers, pants, short hair, muscles, independence, or whatever else without asking permission.
Femininity is not disappearing. Control is.
A fetus is biologically human. That part is not the whole debate.
The actual question is whether one human being has the right to use another person’s body against their will. We don’t force people to donate blood, organs, bone marrow, or anything else- even to save another life.
Pregnancy is not just “existing.” It requires someone’s body, health, risk, labor, and consent. That matters too.
Atheists aren’t “so hateful.” Some people are hateful.
Questioning religion, disagreeing with beliefs, or pushing back against hypocrisy is not the same as hate. It’s just uncomfortable when someone doesn’t share the same worldview.
Maybe the better question is: why do some people label disagreement as hate instead of actually listening?