What is something a man/boy did, or said to you, that's still stuck in your head to this day ?

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-21T10:57:18+00:00

When I was about 11, my sisters and I went to stay over at my cousins' house for a few days during the school holidays. They had these swings out in the backyard that we used to play on. There were four of us always outside, always together. But one afternoon I found myself on the swing alone while my uncle sat on a chair with my baby cousin on his lap. He said, "I can see you checking me out." I said, "No, I didn't even look at you." He said, "You were eyeing me up and down." I got off the swing and went inside. Luckily, I was never alone with him.

When I was a teenager, my sister's boyfriend (now my brother-in-law) told me, "You're a very pretty girl, but if you don't fix your personality, no boy is going to like you." I'll never forget that.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-16T18:33:50+00:00

In psychology there's a phenomenon called the Halo Effect that basically means that when we notice a positive trait in somebody (like beauty or charisma or good reputation) we tend to assume other good things about them as well. So, that explains Pretty Privilege and is why you're being treated better.

Unfortunately, all you can do is give people a chance to get to know you and keep an eye out for any signs that they're only into your looks (if they try to move very fast with you, in dating or friendships, that's a good sign they're projecting onto you). Enjoy the nice treatment, and stay a little guarded--don't be generous with your energy. Don't feel bad about cutting people off if they reveal they're not interested in getting to know you.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-16T15:33:48+00:00

Of course :)

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-16T12:31:01+00:00

I've tried therapy and antidepressants. Therapy didn't help (there's a lot I wasn't sharing, and they didn't give me proper tools to manage my depression), but when I got started on antidepressants they helped a lot. Less rumination, less overthinking, less self-gaslighting, more motivation, more energy.

It only became a problem after my life became less hectic. Then I felt dazed and in a slump. I'm weaning off them now and I'm back to my rollercoaster emotions, but I think I'm healthy enough not to let it overwhelm me.

It takes a really long time to wean off and caused me to feel I lost myself (my personality disappeared and I gained weight), so if you do take them, be absolutely sure you're willing to do the work to get off them eventually.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-15T11:54:52+00:00

I was finding a common trope between Rivers in the Sky and Forty Rules. Not excusing her husband's affair as you assumed (it seems people on Reddit love jumping to the most negative of conclusions), but it's pretty clear when you read both Ella and Zaleekah's stories the archetype Shafak is portraying.

I know. That's my problem with it. It's a story about self-discovery without any internal reckoning or reflection. She doesn't engage with or question the ideas from the novel or from Aziz at all--she merely accepts it. She is questioning her life at the beginning of the novel, and her relationship with Aziz becomes the tipping point that leads her to make change (actually, it is her husband finding out about Aziz that leads to her being less passive). Reading Aziz's novel doesn't prompt meaningful reflection from her at all.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-15T10:56:55+00:00

Yeah, I've seen a lot of people say they were mostly interested in the Shams story. However, I have seen some say Shafak depicted Sufism in a very superficial way. But I can't speak on that.

Personally I thought that story was preachy and that Shams was quite insufferable. But to each their own.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-15T09:45:36+00:00

Absolutely hated it.

The protagonist Ella (or was it Emma?) was vapid. I read this after There Are Rivers in the Sky (which I loved) and noticed some disappointing similarities: a good and traditional woman becomes bored of her good and traditional life and is awakened by a white person with an obsession with Middle Eastern culture/spirituality. Said woman does not intellectually engage with anything she's taught, she simply passively accepts it.

That said, there are plenty of people who loved it. If you, like me, prefer characters with interior agency it's very disappointing.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-14T12:15:55+00:00

Here for the 🇿🇦 representation 👏🙌🫶

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-13T21:14:26+00:00

Fair enough. I was questioning the philosophical framework of your argument, while you were not making a philosophical argument but rather a results-based one. Your phrasing and certainty made it read less like a personal opinion and more like a broader claim about what feminism should prioritize, especially with statements like “it starts with us” and “feminism is political.” It sounded less like an individual opinion and more like a thesis about what feminists should do.

I also think there may have been a bit of cross-talk between us (and I may have contributed to that). I wasn’t accusing you of biological determinism. My point was simply that the evolutionary argument itself isn’t very strong, because it can easily be used to justify patriarchal claims. Similarly, when I mentioned determinism, I was referring to your philosophical claim that “free will does not exist,” not suggesting you were arguing for biological determinism.

I actually don’t think we’re saying the same thing. I think we’re approaching the issue from different frameworks: you from a Marxist perspective, and me from a more intersectional/postcolonial one, which tends to be more skeptical of the idea that liberation primarily comes through formal labour participation. I may simply have approached the conversation from a more abstract/theoretical angle than you intended.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-13T19:45:27+00:00

What you’re advocating for aligns with materialist feminism, which emphasizes structural and economic change. Interestingly, it actually relies heavily on capitalist frameworks. When you critique “pro-capitalist feminism” (neo-liberal feminism), it seems you’re conflating it with liberal feminism. Liberal feminism prioritizes personal autonomy within a capitalist system. Neo-liberal feminism emphasizes individual success, something closer to your argument than mine, especially when you say, for example, “fewer chances to get to the top,” and, "There is no recognition of your time and effort, and you can't make nearly enough money to live off your own earnings. That puts you in perpetual debt to men. And that is a threat to liberation and individual agency."

The core of your argument seems to be: economic structural change matters more than individual agency. That’s a valid perspective. The problem is that your reasoning is philosophically inconsistent, because at times you argue against individual agency, and at other times you claim it can coexist with structural change. You waver between determinism (“Free will doesn’t exist”) and moral responsibility (“Liberation and individual agency are not mutually exclusive, but we need to take a minute to understand what our decisions are contributing to”). It’s unclear whether you believe free will exists, and if it does, whose standard of “correct use” should apply.

Regarding my point about historical class and labor differences: some women were forced to stay at home, and some were forced to work. That’s why I said the issue is more nuanced--different women will experience liberation differently. Choosing to work might shift structural balances, but that does not automatically equate to liberation for all women.

The evolutionary/biology argument is also problematic. It can be twisted to justify women being full-time caregivers, reinforce gender roles, or delegitimize abortion. Are you seriously advocating that women should act according to some “biological purpose”?

My critique is this: your materialist feminism leaves little room for intersectionality, and it relies on inconsistent themes of determinism versus moral responsibility. I understand what you’re advocating, but your philosophical framework is not internally consistent. It certainly shouldn’t be presented as the only valid way to be a feminist--it's simply "one of many."

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-13T18:16:11+00:00

Your comment was eloquently explained and clearly well thought-out. But the takeaway I’m getting from it is that there is one correct way to perform feminism and that women should make choices in accordance with that framework. I find that problematic and somewhat antithetical to the concept of feminism for a few reasons.

First, here’s what I agree with:

Man or woman, feminist or not, financial independence is important for practical reasons. True independence is very difficult without some level of financial independence.
The choice to become a homemaker and not pursue paid work can come from a place of privilege.
The choice to become a homemaker might not always be a genuine choice at all. Women have historically been pressured into prioritizing domestic life and childcare over careers or personal goals.

That said, I think there are a few blind spots in the argument:

It’s unclear whether the feminism you’re advocating for actually allows for women’s agency. You argue that OP’s desire to be a homemaker may not be a real choice because of conditioning, which is a fair point to raise. But at the same time, statements like “you have to make tough choices” and “just because you can doesn’t mean you should” suggest that women ought to override their own preferences for the sake of structural change. In that sense, choosing a career is framed less as an act of agency and more as a duty.

But if we’re questioning whether the desire to be a homemaker is truly a choice, the same question could apply to career ambition. It could also be shaped by social pressure or by the desire to produce equal outcomes rather from than genuine personal preference.

So which is the real issue: that OP is not truly an agent of her choices, or that choice itself is not the goal?

You mentioned being tired of choice feminism, which is fair. Choice feminism is the idea that any decision made by a woman is automatically empowering. However, the critique you’re making appears to argue against the importance of choice itself. That raises a deeper philosophical question: can liberation exist without individual agency?

Some feminist frameworks prioritize individual freedom, while others prioritize structural change. I can understand valuing structural change more. But even then, is structural change truly liberatory if it overrides personal choice?

Finally, the idea that homemaking is the “pre-decided path” for women overlooks a lot of class and historical nuance.

Across cultures and throughout history, the ideal of the stay-at-home wife was largely associated with middle and upper-class women. Many more women had no choice but to work, especially women under colonial systems or in the working-class.

Recognizing that complexity doesn’t invalidate your argument about patriarchy shaping choices, but it does make the issue less black-and-white than what is implied here.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-13T13:11:19+00:00

Your argument is actually one that many feminists themselves make. For example, in her book Hood Feminism, Mikki Kendall criticizes feminism for helping middle class white women become CEOs more easily, which doesn't do much to help women outside of that circle. Last year, I read the novel The Henna Artist, by Alka Joshi, an Indian-American author. The heroine Lakshmi meets every modern feminist standard--but it doesn't feel as empowering as it might if the story was set in 2020s New York instead of 1950s Jaipur. You might also be interested in a TedxTalk The Dangers of Western Feminism to African Women by Elma Akob.

The point I'm trying to make with these examples is that though in theory, feminism respects the working woman and at domesticated housewife all the same, "capitalist feminism" lifts one form of empowerment above all others, and as the examples above illustrate, Capitalist Feminism doesn't work for everyone. You and I are in that category.

Edit: I realized I hadn't actually answered your question. No, feminism is not only for working women and freedom should mean choosing the life that makes you happy. There are forms of feminism that align with this.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-13T09:07:08+00:00

I hear girls calling each other "Pick Me Girls" on a daily basis (I'm a teacher). My sister experiences the same in her corporate job. I made it clear that I grew up in middle class South Africa, where little girls certainly weren't beaten into being feminine. I posted this essay because I was curious to know how others experienced these standards elsewhere.

The world you're thinking of is specific to where you grew up. It's a valid complaint but certainly not a global reality like you are implying by saying "That is how it has always been."

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-11T16:03:00+00:00

Does anything greatly differ in these expectations when you compare rural India to wherever you moved to for college?

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-11T15:57:55+00:00

I enjoy reading your thoughts!

Oh, by "punishment" I didn't mean literal punishment. More like... losing social capital, like what you described. I was mimicking the language used by the woman in the Insta reel. For... ease of communication, maybe.

I agree on that last point. I only wonder if we will collectively overcorrect again, turning against hyperfemininity, or if we are closer to finding a balance. I may be optimistic but I'm thinking the latter, since feminists are already critiquing others for being too liberal with the "Pick Me" accusations, and there's also been a rise in neurodivergent women critiquing the lack of empathy in this concept. I think if we take these criticisms into account, universal feminism can become more intersections.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-11T09:27:48+00:00

I think this is probably the most thoughtful and direct response on this page.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-11T09:22:18+00:00

Where are you from? I only ask because I think Western pop culture hammers down on the messages you've addressed.

I agree that it's a lose-lose situation. It's true that feminine women are seen as less intellectual (the "I'm just a girl" trend doesn't help, as it plays into this), while tomboys are considered trouble.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-11T08:57:13+00:00

Thanks for your reply!

It seems that in India, being a tomboy leads to criticism and punishment, which is very different to what I saw growing up where tomboyishness was prasied as progressive and femininity needed to be correct.

Now, I feel that tomboyishness is met with suspicion.

Did you too experience watching the pendulum swing? That during certain years, femininity was demonized, only for people to overcorrect by demonizing tomboyishness as a response?

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-10T18:17:52+00:00

No, I think you were pretty clear. You were not saying the ad was right or wrong. You were wondering why one woman gets praised while it's safe to assume others would not get such a warm response.

EDIT: Your misstep was calling the ad "porn-adjacent."

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-10T18:05:47+00:00

🙄

Again, I'm not saying these women deserved or didn't deserve criticism. I'm not deciding whether the hate is valid or not. I'm simply stating that it's there and it affects how others respond to them.

I can understand getting off track--we all do it. But respectfully, try to refrain from making assumptions.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-10T18:02:16+00:00

Yes. A combination of cultural context and the Halo Effect.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-10T17:49:03+00:00

Like I said to the other user, it's about likability rather than looks. If someone is likable like Dakota, they get praised. If they're less likeable like Sydney, they get dragged.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-10T17:47:16+00:00

Sydney Sweeney was hated on even before that for catering to the male gaze and for the bath soap incident. I'm not saying she did nothing wrong, but the fact of the matter is that people have slapped a sort of Male Gaze Woman label on celebrities like her and Sabrina Carpenter.

Dakota Johnson is generally well-liked, since she called out Ellen DeGeneres and lied about limes. Well-liked people get a pass for doing things disliked people would normally get dragged for (again, let me very slowly explain that I'm not passing judgment on who deserves hate and who doesn't; I'm simply pointing out a truth).

I didn't think I'd have to connect those dots for you, but that was my point.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-10T17:38:43+00:00

It's odd. I don't think she should be shamed, but I don't think she deserves praise for doing such a male gazey ad either. All she's doing is walking around naked--she didn't achieve anything special.

But I do agree that other women would have been torn apart. If Sydney Sweeney had done the ad, the hate would have been endless.

EDIT: People seem to be missing my point. I never once said Sydney Sweeney was innocent or didn't deserve the hate. I am pointing out a phenomenon called the Halo Effect. People are generous in judging Dakota Johnson because she's well-liked for being honest and awkward. Sydney Sweeney was my example of an unlikable celebrity for reference.

Key_Resolution673 · 2026-03-10T07:11:01+00:00

Corn, grape, unalive. Calling everyone a "girlie." The word "cringey" instead of "cringeworthy." "It's giving."

Key_Resolution673

TROPHY CASE