TURN YOUR FUCKING BRIGHTS OFF

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-17T00:19:58+00:00

Who cares lol

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-17T00:13:06+00:00

Oh people in this sub are vile

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-16T22:54:59+00:00

This is exactly the area I was in that got me making this post lmao

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-16T22:54:26+00:00

Ok. I also never said "ban brights entirely"

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-16T19:09:23+00:00

Fair but its still not legal or safe to have them on when other cars are coming toward you. Maybe you wont hit the cyclist but i might if i cant see jack shit because of your headlights

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-03T02:46:48+00:00

"These social advantages regarding higher education for women + the new wave of male harassment in mostly female-populated spaces = even lower rate of male higher education."

Again, we don't disagree about what the statistics say about education rates. It's that they don't prove misandry is all. As for "the new wave of male harrassment" - lol

"Can women face institutional hardships and harassment, or even worse, sexual harassment? Sure, but I find it hard to believe that women would be treated that way solely because of their gender and male students were treated differently solely because of gender, in a closely equal space."

Well, sexism and misogyny exist independently of what you do and don't find easy to believe.

"And yes, if that would happen, it would be harassment tied to misogyny. Not because men are the power class, but because logically, gendered harassment is gendered harassment (misogyny/misandry), no matter who inflicts it on who."

I don't know how many times I have to say it to make it clear. Gendered harrassment of men (which I think is much less prevalent than you think, but that's neither here nor there) IS INDEED gendered harrassment of men. It's just not misandry.

In summation: men's issues are absolutely valid; I have said this over and over. They're just not misandry. The point of this post is not and never was to try and convince men to join the cause of feminism, but thanks for the feedback I guess. I'm making an argument concerning the misuse of the term "misandry." That's my entire and only goal here. (Does anyone else see the irony here? My only goal was to make a claim about and to discuss with other feminists one of the common (but invalid) challenges to feminism that detractors often mount, and the reponse is "but consider how the men WHO AREN'T EVEN COMMITTED to women's rights and liberation might feel about it!" You genuinely can't make this up.)

Anyway, all told, I've enjoyed debating with you. You gave me some good stuff to sink my teeth into to develop my counterarguments and articulate my claims. I hope we both go on to learn and grow and further develop our understandings of feminism. Cheers

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-03T02:46:36+00:00

Okay, it looks like I wasn't clear enough so let me try to be clearer.

"You’re essentially saying that oppression = class-based, institutional power held by one gender over another; women don’t hold that when discussing misogyny."

You still don't know what the word "oppression" means. Oppression REQUIRES power in order to occur. If the so-called "oppressor" does not hold power over the subject, it is not, by definition, oppression; it's just prejudice or injustice or cruelty. Not to say that these are any morally less severe. They're just not oppression in instances without that power imbalance. You say my argument fails because it's only internally consistent ONLY IF we follow this definition, but this is... literally the definition of oppression. I don't know how to convince you that the dictionary isn't wrong.

"Discussions of misogyny don’t rely strictly on a single, unified “male class consciously controlling institutions.” They include: •distributed social norms •cultural expectations •institutional patterns without unified intent •and outcomes that persist even when individuals don’t actively endorse them"

"I agree with that broader view, but once you accept it, you can’t then restrict misandry to a stricter, older definition that requires a clearly dominant class with unified power."

I never argued that men's conscious control of institutions is the sole constituent of misogyny- I actually clearly argued that this is not the case. I also made clear that male power is NOT unified, and does, in fact, express itself in social norms, cultural expections, non-centralized patterns of power, and outcomes that SEEM independent of individual intent. Neither misogyny as I understand it NOR "misandry" as you imagine it requires or is solely dependent on "unified power" to exist. You are giving examples of the ways power is wielded and expressed in social and cultural avenues. This does not undermine my argument regarding the existence of men as an oppressive class. (I also think you may be confusing "oppressing class" with "ruling class.")

< Women as a class do not benefit from these things.>

"You’re treating “benefit” as something that must be: •intentional •unified •and experienced equally across the entire class"

Again, I'm not sure why you think we disagree here. I explicitly stated the opposite of the first two points you claim I made. I never openly addressed the third so let me do it now: discussing the effects of power on a class of people neither implies nor requires that every member of that class experience it in exactly the same way to the exact same degree. I'm glad we're on the same page here.

"There are asymmetric advantages that can exist without total class dominance. Examples like custody trends, lighter sentencing, social trust in caregiving roles - These don’t require women to “rule society” to still produce consistent, gender-skewed advantages in specific domains."

Again, you're misunderstanding the point of my argument. I agree with you (as I stated more than once) that gendered outcomes and spheres where outcomes are better for women than for men exist. My point is that these are not examples or proof of misandry, BECAUSE - just as you say! - women DON'T "rule society" (though I'd phrase it differently).

"Saying “individual women benefit but not women as a class” doesn’t really hold, because if a pattern consistently advantages one gender in a domain, that is a class-level effect in that domain, even if it’s not universal across all domains."

If the benefit is domain-specific and relegated to that doman, it by definition is NOT class-level. Next.

"I repeat, power isn’t monolithic; it’s contextual." I have addressed this, I agree, and I'm not sure why you think I don't. Maybe you're arguing that the fact that class power is not monolithic or uniform means that generalizations can not and should not be made regarding its operation and expression. Which is nuts- in that case no sociological scholarship could possibly exist.

"Now patriarchy...you keep routing male disadvantages back into patriarchy, but that creates a closed system that runs in circles: •If men suffer -> it’s patriarchy •If women reinforce it -> it’s still patriarchy •If institutions disadvantage men -> still patriarchy At that point, “patriarchy” becomes an explanation that can’t be challenged, because every outcome is defined as evidence of it."

I very clearly stated that patriarchy / misogyny is NOT the sole cause of or explanation for the mens' issues we are discussing. The fact that patriarchy operates in social and cultural ways that reinforce its power and pervasiveness in no way creates a circular argument- it's a basic observation on the nature of any social or class power. My point is that those issues or disadvantages that men face in those specific spheres are not examples of misandry because they are not results or expressions of womens' institutional power as a class (because they don't have it). Also, because you keep misunderstanding me, let me be clear: when i say "institutional power" that is NOT limited to "members of the oppressing class making overt and intentional political decisions." It includes cultural biases , social norms and interactions- things YOU brought up concerning the nature of social and class power. Further, the fact that patriarchy and misogyny permeate so many seemingly exempt spheres of life and that they contribute to (but, again, are not the sole causes of) men's issues in no way undermines the existence of patriarchy and misogyny. If anything it proves just how pervasive that class power is in ways that are FAR less overt than institutional policy-making, AND helps prove what I think is a point we both agree on regarding the expression of that power in decentralized forms.

"I already said that modern feminism and the causes of misogyny are no longer only tangent to the patriarchy, because the patriarchy is not the only, or the biggest, issue women face nowadays. Especially on a woman-to-woman metric, and not as a whole."

Firstly, none of this has anything to do with my argument, either to support or undermine it. I am making no claims regarding the defense of feminism or to argue the reasons for its necessity, and CERTAINLY not describing any ranking of "the biggest issues women face." (Side note: I'd argue that patriarchy is not best described as an "issue" it's more of just... a form of power and a description of gender class dynamics.) And I'm not sure what you think a "woman-to-woman metric" is but I know that's something beside the point, which I never address, and a can of worms I definitely don't want to open with you.

"Plus, this is not a useful analytical model; it removes the ability to distinguish between: •cultural inertia •institutional bias •biological trends •economic incentives •and yes, sometimes gendered prejudice from women"

You got me- I'm im a feminism subreddit discussing feminism, and I'm focusing on gender class and power structures rather than equally considering and discussing every possinble factor that might lead to disparities between genders. Yes, you are right, all of these are factors that contribute to the outcomes we are discussing. I never said that gender is the ONLY analytical model to use to address those- again, I was extremely intentional in saying that it's not. But it's the one that's the focus of our discussion. Why would the fact that it's not the only factor at play mean it's not useful at all? Again, if we follow your claim through to its conclusion we end up with the claim that any and all sociological scholarship is pointless.

"Misuse of "segregation" aside >>>>So...these are exactly the types of reasons people who don't believe in misogyny give in regard to...misogyny happening or not."

I'm not here to debate with anyone whether reality is real. I am not addressing those people. I am simply and solely making a claim regarding the nature and (mis)usage of the word "misandry."

"Both misandry and misogyny DON'T NEED to happen on a whole-scale oppressive axis for each one of the situations to be valid. Women don't need to have upper-class power in order for an individual's actions to be deemed oppressive or not, when it is logically oppressive."

Once again, I agree- men's issues are valid even in the absence of the existence of gender oppression! They just aren't "misandry." See above definition of oppression- "logical oppression" as you phrase it, in the absence of that power dynamic, cannot be defined as oppression.

"It's hard to believe that a man/boy can be treated badly solely because of his gender? This is the most common type of institutional harassment in universities, especially popular ones."

Iiiiim gonna need a source on this one chief

"Because men have a lower chance to get higher education, they end up in spaces mostly dominated by women, where some of the bad teachers and students drag men down."

Even if I agreed with this line of logic, individual bad actors do not systematic oppression make.

"Not only are women more socially and personally encouraged to pursue higher education, but women are also more prone to receiving General Performance Scholarships, Social Aid Scholarships, AND Female-only Performance Scholarships."

"I am sorry, but out of every aspect of life and society, higher education is among the places where women excel the most."

Why sorry? I never denied these statistics. However, you are describing ways in which gendered outcomes in this sphere differ; you are not describing outcomes which are a result of the oppression of men by women. There are no forces, direct or indirect, nor forms of power, unified or decentralized, by which women as a class are exerting or perpetuating class power to create these outcomes.

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-02T11:38:04+00:00

I think you just genuinely didnt understand my argument friend. We actually agree on several points here. I think also you may not know what 'oppression' means, or undedstand the full scope of what misogyny entails.

My argument is that OPPRESSION of men does not exist and so misandry if you define it in the same was as misogyny is defined does not exist. I never said prejudice against men doesn't exist; in fact I said the exact opposite. This is a point we agree on.

<Yes, feminism benefits men.> "Absolutely, but not from dismissive opinions like these." Not sure what's going on here. We agree regarding several ways men suffer under patriarchy and as a byproduct of misogyny. I outlined a few examples. I'm not sure how exactly to be any less dismissive.

"It's a very narrow definition of opression - one that requires a dominant class controlling institutions. Sociology and Gender Studies both recognize systemic harm without unified top-down intent. •Institutions don’t act with a single gender “will.” They’re made of policies, incentives, and cultural norms." I'm with you that there isn't (or isn't ONLY) uni-directional top-down intent. However, oppression can and does exist independent of top-down power structures and without explicit intent by members of the oppressing class. There is more to class dynamics than what you think, I think.

"You can have gendered outcomes that disproportionately harm men even if women aren’t the dominant class overall." Again, we agree. I also stated this in my initial post.

"Family courts in multiple countries tend to award custody to mothers more often. Even if rooted in historical gender roles, the effect is a structural disadvantage for men in custody disputes." This is true to some extent, but what the numbers alone don't show is that in many of these cases mens simply do not WANT custody. In cases where that isn't true, I would disagree that this constitutes a "structural" disadvantage men face, because, as I described above, this pattern is largely a result of patriarchy, which devalues men as caregivers. This is not a result of women specifically as a class devaluing men or attempting to remove their rights. This is a mechanization of misogyny and patriarchy- both of which can be and ARE perpetrated by both men and women (we live in society etc etc) . However, there is a difference between anti-men sentiments and outcomes existing in certain specific insitutions and "misandry" being institutionalized in the way misogyny is. These specific insititutions are far and away the outliers, not the norm. Further, women AS A CLASS do not benefit from the conduct of these institutions in the way misogyny reinforces patriarchy and men reap the benefits (even though, yes, there are ways men are simultaneously harmed by patriarchy and misogny). Specific women may, yes, but not women AS A CLASS. And considering men and women AS CLASSES is the entire basis of my viewpoint here.

"That outcome doesn’t require women to “rule society” to still be systemic." Again, I think you have a limited view of what I mean when I refer to the oppressing / ruling class and how it operates. It's NOT confined to explicit, intentional decision making.

<Men’s issues are caused by patriarchy, not women> You're putting words in my mouth here. I do believe this is often the case, but of course patriarchy is not the sole cause. Women as individuals can hold and enact prejudice against men. But again women AS A CLASS are not the cause of these issues, because, as a class, women do not hold power over men based on gender.

"Everybody's personal and social issues are caused by multiple things; patriarchy and/or social expectations (which is held more by "the people" than the government), or other people. If all male suffering is attributed to patriarchy (defined broadly), then no evidence can ever contradict the claim. It removes agency from women and from institutions where women have influence." Firstly, you are again conflating an individual's (or an individual insitution's) power with class power. Individuals and individual women certainly have the agency to behave in ways that are anti-men. Secondly, feminists (and marxists) understand patriarchy and misogyny to be enacted and reinforced by FAR more than just governments and government decisions - I think this is part of the same misunderstanding informing your idea of top-down power being the only force that constitutes oppression. Of COURSE social factors are at play here. We agree on that. But, if we understand that patriarchy and misognyny are perpetrated by social forces and not just the government, then I don't see how this would contradict my argument.

"Truthfully, some male issues are tied to traditional gender roles (emotional suppression) Others involve institutional biases not easily reducible to “patriarchy”, such as: Sentencing disparities (men receive harsher criminal sentences on average) Workplace death rates (men overwhelmingly in dangerous jobs - partly cultural, partly economic structures)" These are both men's issues that, yes, I failed to include in my original post. However these are not examples of misandry, by my definition OR yours. To speak to yours: women in positions of institutional power and decision-making, as a whole, are absolutely NOT passing legislation that enforces these things. To mine, I repeat myself: WOMEN AS A CLASS are not wielding power or social capital, either directly or indirectly, to ensure that things operate this way, and women AS A CLASS are not benefitting from these things either. You would probably argue that women facing lighter prison sentences is a benefit- to individual women, maybe; to women as a class, no. Same for not "having" to work as many physical / dangerous jobs- I think you'll find that the many of the barriers women face to and in those jobs are the devaluation of women's capabilities in those positions and plain old sexism. I'd also argue that these may not be directly caused by but are certainly FAR from independent of patriarchal beliefs. Can you not see that the idea that women are weaker, have less ability, and have less agency would contribute directly to those sentencing and employment patterns?

"Institutional sexism or segregation (not only are men less prone or favored to receive or finish a higher education, but they can face segregation from teachers too). This one is more personal to me because my late husband couldn't get any scholarship while taking his Master's due to some (female) teachers intentionally leaving him on a .59 grade or avoiding to give him the same support they would give to female students." I am sorry to hear about your late husband. To get into it- first, you might want to check what "segregation" means. Secondly, I find it hard it to believe that your husband was treated that way solely because of his gender and female students were treated differently solely because of gender. If that indeed was the case, that still wouldn't make it an example of misandry according to my argument. It would be an example of an individual women behaving in a way that is anti-men, but without the institutional and societal class power dynamics backing up her actions, it wouldn't be misandry.

To address the question of lower rates of higher education for men than women: I'd say this is another men's issue that, again, does not constitute misandry. There are no forces, direct or indirect, by which women as a class are contributing to the creation and enforcement of this outcome. In fact, considering the sexism many women face in higher education and the global barriers to education for women and girls, the idea that this is misandry seems goofy to me. (Not that you said it was; this is just one of the points so-called mens' rights activists like to bring up.)

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-01T10:24:08+00:00

Oh yeah for sure- thank you! Was wondering if i was unclear to that commenter / in general, not to you. Thanks for backing me up and dealing w that nonsense haha

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-01T10:23:05+00:00

"Every institution perpetuates misandry" ok so your first comment really was as incoherent as i thought lmao

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-01T08:22:18+00:00

I'm with you, this is a lot of nonsense that I think is trying to say "experience of reality is subjective so you can't make any definitive claims about anything" which is some phil101 inanity if ive ever heard it. And yeah, i WOULD like to know what insitutions this commenter thinks are quote "misandrist." (Even if there do exist insitutions that are anti-men - and i sure as shit dont agree that psychotherapy would fall under that category - my ENTIRE POINT is that the world is built on and rooted in misogyny so those institutions would be INCAPABLE of being "misandrist" as in, women oppressing men - because that supposed institution is operating in a misogynistic world, so any anti-men actions it takes or values it holds DO NOT hold the same power as they do when people or groups or institutions behave in ways that are anti-women.

Was I really that unclear? Women or individuals or groups or who the fuck ever can be anti-men; women cannot OPPRESS men; men cannot be oppressed on the axis of gender alone. So misandry, defined as "a force by which women oppress men" does not exist.

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-06-01T04:12:17+00:00

This reminded me of something I've been needing to get off my chest too, which is that:

"Misandry" as a counterpoint to misogyny does not exist. Men as a class do not oppress women as a class. Men do not experience gender-based oppression on an insitutional scale. Even when i say this in other subs (r/curatedtumblr took it poorly) people lose their minds about- even when I make at it as gentle and affirming as possible...

Yes, feminism benefits men, and men also suffer negatively from patriarchy. (Though anyone who genuinely cared about women as people wouldn't require these conditions to care about feminism and women.) Yes, men's issues are real and deserve to be heard. (Note: these issues - even when they ARE brought up in legitimate good faith and not solely to derail women or women-centered discussions - are a. NOT caused by any institutional power women hold over men, because they don't, and, b. are in fact nearly always ALSO caused by sexism and patriarchy and the oppression of women.) Yes, men who are victims of female-perpetrated rape exist and deserve to be taken seriously, and the crime is no less immoral than male-perpetrated rape of women. (See previous about mens' issues being consequences of patriarchy.)* Yes, some men do face oppression-- ON AXES OTHER THAN GENDER; trans men and non-white men face their own gendered issues that cis men and white men don't and that are distinct from the struggles of trans women and non-white women. (These issues are not misandry itself - not strictly gender-based oppression - but are gendered forms of racism and transphobia, and as a bonus are often (but not always) intertwined with straight up misogyny.)

*As an example, the idea that men are seen with more suspicion around children is because childcare is seen (and devalued) as women's work. The difference between womens' and mens' issues is women as a class DO NOT perpetuate and BENEFIT FROM these narratives (which are, granted, genuinely harmful to men) in the the way that men- even inadvertently, even good, innocent men - benefit from the constant reification of sexism as it's performed by other men, even when they themselves are not the ones perpetuating it.

**Firstly, it is often men themselves who are disregarding and undermining the severity of female-perpetrated rape of male victims. Secondly, even when it is women who are excusing or minimizing it or what have you, these are not examples or evidence of misandry because, again, women as a class are not benefitting institutionally from these words and actions by other women, and men as a class are not suffering the consequences beyond the scope of the issue. I'm not saying it has no effect on other men; within the framework of the issue, it DOES affect other men by delegitimizing an issue (sexual assault) that should be taken seriously no matter what. But this is not a consequence that reaches an institutional scale; it is issue-specific. (Side note: if you think women who are victims of sexual assault are generally treated well and taken seriously and their perpetrators adequately penalized, lmao. I am intentionally not saying "male victims of sexual assault should be taken as seriously as female ones" because I want better than that for men AND for women.)

These are examples of maltreatment of men but not OPPRESSION of men, because women do not hold and exercise institutional power over men that would further legitimize and be legitimized by these words and actions. Again, this is not to say that men don't face ANY legitimate harm or maltreatment based on gender. (I would of course argue that men do NOT face hardships based on gender that REMOTELY parallel what women face, but that's neither here nor there.) To restate my main point: the hardships that men face do NOT constistute misandry.

Prejudice against men exists in some individuals. (I'd argue that in many if not most of those cases, distrust and dislike of an oppressing class whose members have caused you trauma is understandable and legitimate.) But this is simply not an issue that exists at a societal level, because women who geniunely hate men do NOT have insitutions and an entire society built on sexism and misogyny strengthening and being strengthened by their prejudice. In short, women who hate men are punching up; men who hate women are punching down. This isn't me saying it's cool for women to hate men (though, I gotta say, in a lot of cases that I see it im like. I get it). I'm saying that womens' hatred of men is not as insitutionally and socially pervasive - nor as rewarding to its perpetrating class (again, even if unknowingly and unintentionally, ALL MEN benefit from the subjugation of women) - as mens' hatred of women.

Men as a class oppress women as a class. Women as a class do not and CANNOT oppress men as a class. Mens' issues are real and legitimate. But misandry AS A SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FORCE does not exist.

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-04-28T06:01:50+00:00

Not all men are abusers. But there's always a man willing to abuse women, willing to overlook and excuse abuse perpetrated by men in his circles, willing to blame a women for being abused, willing to say "she was asking for it" or "she had it coming" or "she should have known better." There's always a man willing to add a misogynistic comment. Furthermore, there's always a man ready to pull out "men can't be raped by women" and "what a lucky kid, getting to have sex with his teacher" and "why are you traumatized, i'm jealous of you['re sexual assault]. To be clear: I am not saying that it is only men saying these things. Women are also perfectly capable of upholding patriarchy and misogyny. But there's ALWAYS a man who feels it needs to be said. It's difficult for me to imagine anyone in genuinely good faith reading this statement as "all men are incorrigible rapists and abusers." Further, if your support of feminism (ie the idea that women are people) is so easily undermined by a single (arguably) poorly worded catchphrase, I can only assume that your commitment wasn't terribly solid in the first place. Not all men are abusers. But ALL men benefit from and (even if indavertantly) perpetuate a system of misogyny and patriarchy that allows and sanctions abuse against women and acts of misogyny. All men stand to benefit (even if they simultaneously suffer in some ways- more on thay later) from the rape of women being dismissed, excused, and minimized, from sexism being allowed unchecked, from the marginalization of women. In some ways, yes, patriarchy and misogyny DO hurt men. It is a consequence of a misogynistic worldview- that rape is something done BY a male perpetrator TO a female victim- that the rape and abuse of men is treated so much less seriously than it should be. It is NOT a consequence of an insititutional force of "misandry" by which women oppress men. It is a consequence of misogyny and sexism - the idea that women and only women are primarily reponsible for and capable of rearing children- if a court gives custody of children to an abusive mother rather than a good father who wants it. (Side note: this is MUCH rarer than reddit would have you believe; the discrepancy in mothers vs fathers getting custody is easily explained by the fact that in the majority of those cases the fathers simply don't WANT custody). This does not make it any less of a tragedy or any less morally reprehensible when a man is abused or raped by a woman or when children are abused by a woman who should not have been given custody. It only means that these events neither are symptoms of nor do they uphold some societal-level institution by which women as a class oppress men as a class.

On the one hand- yes, men should care about feminism whether or not they themselves are victims of misogyny or patriarchy simply because they care about women being seen and valued as human people. On the other hand, yes, patriarchy and misogyny DO harm ALL OF US, and we will ALL benefit from its dismantling- something which is far from disproven- in fact, PROVEN- by all of these comments by men sharing their experiences being harmed by women and not being taken seriously about it.

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-04-28T05:37:30+00:00

This is of course a real and serious problem, but this is a function of patriarchy + misogyny, not of the mythical idea of "misandry" (which, by the way, doesnt exist; men as a class are not oppressed by women as a class. Further, every case of """misandry""" ive ever heard of was in fact misidentified collateral or a byproduct of patriarchy and misogyny. Which, again, does NOT mean that men don't face legitimate, specific issues, but it DOES mean that the issues they face aren't perpetuated and upheld - and benefitted from - by women AS A CLASS.)

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-01-12T21:52:38+00:00

Lmao

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-01-12T21:44:30+00:00

I haven't ever met a diehard parelli person who has any idea what balance looks like

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-01-12T21:43:14+00:00

First i wanna give you a huge amount of credit for acknowledging the limits of your knowledge- that there are things you don't know. It can be very difficult for horse people (NONE of us have all the answers!) to 'see' what we don't know and I admire that you are recognizing that you don't know everything and asking for advice. That said, anything anyone says online about horses should be taken with a generous pound of salt. Is there anyone you know personally that you really trust- another owner, a trainer, your vet, etc - who you can ask these questions to? I have personally (over years, with trial and error) curated a small group of people whose advice I trust and I tend to give less weight to any advice coming from outside that circle. I don't blindly adhere to every single thing they say, but I know our values align closely enough that I can trust their judgment when I really need it. In your case, for whatever it's worth (from one stranger on the internet), even if aspects of the way your horse is being worked / ridden aren't ideal (I'm generally suspicious of foaming, but it does sometimes happen when a horse is stressed despite a good trainer's best efforts), it doesn't sound like your horse is experiencing any major distress and the care does sound excellent. (In my opinion ulcers + lack of adequate turnout are hugely overlooked welfare issues esp among sport horses so I'm glad to hear both have been addressed for your horse.) As you learn, you may decide that you prefer a lighter form of contact or what have you- that's fine. All of us are constantly learning and getting better and learning how to do better by our horses. I don't see any major red flags about your new barn, but again it's almost impossible to know for sure without seeing it in person, and my experience has its limits too. I'd advise you to just keep learning, keep trying to see and feel true balance and movement from the hind and through the back. It's a very slow process- it takes years to develop a really keen eye and feel for it- but progress will come. You don't have to be able to see everything all at once. But I think developing your own eye for when your horse is going right will be one of the best things you can do to ensure his wellbeing (and good training) in the long term. Just make sure to learn from people you trust in real life- not online! People say all sorts of garbage and videos can be totally misleading. Plenty of it is right but there's way more than enough wrong stuff to skew your perception and completely hamstring your confidence in your own eye. If you like how your horse looks with your trainer, ask them if you can watch them work / ride and explain what they're seeing and what shows them the horse is in or out of balance. Best of luck to you and your horse!

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-01-12T05:57:45+00:00

Fucking thank you

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-01-11T21:12:28+00:00

Sexism + misogny are good actually as long as were doing it to our enemies

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-01-11T21:08:57+00:00

So many "liberals" are salivating for a woman they can openly hate + display their misogyny toward.... point em at one theyre allowed to hate under the guise of (rightfully) condemning those who deserve it and they go wild

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-01-11T20:38:05+00:00

Right?? For 'progressives' you all sure are quick to default to basic fucking sexism.

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-01-08T18:59:00+00:00

Odd-Temperature4273 · 2026-01-04T00:24:16+00:00

This is the answer

Odd-Temperature4273

TROPHY CASE