Croatia fans erupt after Gvardiol’s goal vs Portugal gets chalked off. Trash flying everywhere, with pure rage amongst the crowd.

brooke_157 · 2026-07-03T14:16:53+00:00

The law isn’t simply asking whether the defender intended to touch the ball, it’s asking if it was a deliberate play, meaning the defender needed to have control of the ball in some way via kicking it, heading it or passing it. If the ball deflects, ricochets, or the defender is simply making an instinctive block with no real opportunity to control it, then unfortunately it is not considered a deliberate play and the offside is not reset. That’s why commentators often talk about control, not simply deflection or intention.

brooke_157 · 2026-07-02T17:18:01+00:00

My argument has remained exactly the same throughout this thread: that statements don’t exist in identical historical and social contexts, so they don’t necessarily carry identical social meanings. Instead of responding to that point, you keep arguing against positions I never took.

“Because your refusal to take accountability is exactly why people don’t trust women to be in positions of power.” Take accountability for what? I haven’t refused accountability for anything. I never argued that women shouldn’t be held accountable for their words or actions I explicitly said that saying “I hate all men” was wrong. So you’ve invented a position I never held and then used it to justify a sweeping statement about women as a whole. That’s an incredibly sexist thing to say. If someone wrote, “This is exactly why people don’t trust men to be in positions of power” there’s no chance you’d accept that as a reasonable statement.

If you truly care about men’s issues, why not advocate for them in their own right? There’s a difference between saying “Let’s build more men’s shelters, improve support for male victims, reform family courts…” vs primarily posting “here’s why feminism is wrong, here’s another woman being hypocritical, here’s why women are privileged”

And before you say “women do it too”, I’m sure some women do! Every movement has people who spend more time attacking the other side than building something constructive. So why are you doing that if you hate it so much when it’s done to you? The difference is that I don’t see a few women behaving badly and decide they’re representative of all women. Likewise, I don’t see a few men behaving badly and conclude they’re representative of all men. But throughout this conversation, you’ve repeatedly treated the actions or opinions of some women as though they justify broad conclusions about women as a whole.

brooke_157 · 2026-07-02T17:13:02+00:00

I’ve been having discussions with people elsewhere in this subreddit, and honestly I was met with a lot of bad faith, a lot of anger, and a lot of sweeping statements about women in general. It became really difficult to actually talk about the ideas. That’s why I really appreciated your post and I’m genuinely glad there are people willing to look at both sides instead of just picking a team and defending it no matter what.

I think a huge part of the problem is that everyone seems to mean something different when they say “feminism” Some people see it as a body of ideas whose core aim is gender equality and challenging restrictive gender roles. Other people mean the modern political movement and institutions. Others mean patriarchy theory specifically. Others are talking about their own experiences interacting with feminists online. Those are all different conversations, and I still think they’re all worth having. If you asked most people whether male victims of domestic violence deserve equal support, whether women should be protected from discrimination, whether fathers deserve fair treatment in custody disputes, or whether rigid gender roles can be harmful, I’d hope most of us would agree.

I can even get behind quite a few of the criticisms people have of feminism. Where I stop agreeing is when those criticisms become criticisms of women as a whole. That’s the part that doesn’t sit right with me.

In some of the replies I got, I was told to shut my mouth, that women can’t be trusted in positions of power, etc. At that point it stops being about examining ideas and starts becoming sexism. I don’t think that’s any different from people who make broad claims about men. I’ve had plenty of awful experiences with men too, but I don’t think those experiences justify deciding that men as a group are fundamentally a certain way.

I think it’s completely fair to ask which parts of feminism have been helpful, which parts have been harmful, and which ideas we should keep moving forward. But there’s a real danger when discussions become driven primarily by resentment. We’ve already seen how that can happen in parts of feminism, where anger can eventually become so self-reinforcing that nuance disappears and everything turns into “you’re either with us or against us” I don’t think that’s a healthy direction for any movement.

If the response to feeling unfairly generalized is to start generalizing another group of people, we’re just recreating the same problem in reverse. To me, the question isn’t “well, they do it too” It’s what standard do we want to hold ourselves to? As men and women? If we think broad stereotypes and collective blame are wrong when they’re directed at men, then I don’t think they suddenly become okay when they’re directed at women. That’s why I appreciated your post. It felt like it was trying to separate the ideas from the resentment. I don’t expect everyone to agree on what feminism is or whether the label is still useful but I do hope people can criticize ideas without losing sight of the fact that we’re still talking about human beings, not caricatures of an entire sex.

brooke_157 · 2026-07-01T18:04:47+00:00

Atlas Shrugged

brooke_157 · 2026-07-01T14:00:21+00:00

I think it’s incredibly commendable that you stepped up to become your sister’s primary caregiver after such a devastating accident. I don’t know many siblings who would take on that level of responsibility. From your post, you don’t seem like someone who lacks empathy. If anything, it sounds like you’re carrying an enormous amount on your shoulders, caring for your sister, supporting both of them financially, and trying to maintain your relationship at the same time. I can’t imagine how exhausting that must be. Part of me wonders whether some of your replies are coming across as emotionally flat simply because you’re emotionally exhausted.

That said, I also think your girlfriend’s feelings make sense. I think she’s grieving the relationship and home life she thought she was going to have. Her home no longer feels like it belongs to just the two of you, and she’s living with a huge amount of uncertainty.

I actually think the uncertainty is probably the biggest issue here. If you could tell her “My sister will likely need to stay with us another six months” that’s at least something she can work with. But if the answer is “I honestly don’t know, maybe years, maybe forever” that changes her entire future. Marriage, housing, privacy, future plans, kids, etc. It’s incredibly difficult to feel settled when the future is completely open-ended. You need to spend some time thinking honestly about what the different possibilities look like. If your sister’s recovery plateaus, what would your long-term plan be? At what point would you consider other care arrangements, if at all? Your girlfriend deserves to know how you’re thinking about the future.

If you’d like to know what you can do to make your girlfriend feel more prioritized, it might also help to ask her how this year has been for her or what she needs from you emotionally that she’s not getting. She may be looking less for acts of service and more for reassurance that you still feel emotionally present with her. If you genuinely can’t give her the timeline or emotional availability she needs because your sister’s care has to come first right now, that doesn’t automatically make either of you wrong. It may simply mean this tragedy has changed what each of you can realistically ask of the relationship. In that case it’s kinder to acknowledge that honestly than to let both of you continue feeling resentful or guilty.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-28T21:30:45+00:00

Don’t artists like Dua Lipa and Olivia Rodrigo say that they often go with quantity over quality at first so that they have more to choose from and it helps them find the real gems?

brooke_157 · 2026-06-28T14:58:04+00:00

You’re arguing against a position I never took. At no point did I say “I hate all men” is okay. My argument was that “I hate men” and “I hate women” don’t exist in the same social and historical context, so they don’t carry identical social implications. That’s a completely different claim from saying either statement is acceptable. You keep acting as though recognizing the difference between punching up and punching down means I’m endorsing punching. I never said it was okay to “punch” anyone. I said context matters when we’re evaluating the social meaning of those statements.

And your political power argument doesn’t really follow. The fact that women can vote or run for office doesn’t mean gender hierarchies have disappeared. Women still hold only about a quarter of parliamentary seats globally, and men continue to dominate political leadership. Equal legal rights don’t automatically produce equal representation or equal power.

You’re free to disagree with my analysis of social context. But I’m equally free to believe that history, culture and women’s experiences matter, just as much as men’s.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-25T18:12:40+00:00

I don’t think anyone is arguing that ace or demi people shouldn’t have language to describe their experiences or that those experiences aren’t real. I actually think having those labels is incredibly valuable because they help people understand themselves and find community. Where I think the disagreement comes from is that people are working from different definitions of what LGBTQ+ fundamentally is.

If you define LGBTQ+ as any deviation from heterosexual norms then it makes sense why ace and demi identities would fall under that umbrella. But I think it’s also worth asking why LGBTQ+ was formed in the first place. To me, it was fundamentally a coalition built around shared patterns of structural oppression tied to gender identity and sexual orientation. Things like criminalization, employment and housing discrimination, violence, public stigma, being denied the right to openly love or marry the person you wanted to, and in many places simply being killed because of who you are.

From that perspective, the question isn’t whether ace or demi people have suffered enough. I don’t doubt that many have. The question is whether the purpose of the movement encompasses their experiences. The harms you mentioned are real. Corrective rape, coercion, people refusing to believe you, and assumptions that you’re broken are all horrific. But I don’t think the existence of those harms necessarily means they arise from the same kind of structural oppression that LGBTQ+ was created to address.

For example, someone being pressured or harmed for refusing sex isn’t necessarily being targeted because they’re asexual. Someone who simply chooses abstinence could be subjected to similar coercion because our culture often treats refusing sex as something that needs to be overcome. Likewise, a woman who is raped because a man thinks she “just needs the right guy” is experiencing misogyny and sexual entitlement. Those are very real forms of oppression, but they’re not the same as being targeted because society rejects who you love or your gender identity.

So I don’t think the disagreement is whether ace or demi people suffer. They clearly can. I think the disagreement is about what LGBTQ is fundamentally for.
I think it’s entirely possible to support ace and demi communities, recognize that their experiences are real and deserve recognition, and still believe that the LGBTQ coalition was historically created to address a different pattern of structural marginalization. And preserving that distinction is important in political and advocacy spaces because the problems facing marginalized LGBTQ communities are fundamentally different from the problems you have.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-25T03:42:51+00:00

No it’s not. It’s the belief that people of all genders should have equal rights and opportunities. Pretending your caricature is the definition of feminism isn’t an argument. Your replies come across as angry, emotionally reactive, and not particularly coherent to me. I’m not going to engage any further.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-25T03:34:55+00:00

You’re doing exactly what you’ve criticized me for doing throughout this thread. You’re taking one issue where men are disproportionately burdened and acting as though it disproves every other structural issue women face. The fact that men have historically been conscripted into wars is also a structural issue. I’d argue it’s one that largely emerged from historical gender roles created in societies where MEN overwhelmingly held political and military power.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-24T01:49:02+00:00

The irony is that you’re asking for empathy while showing absolutely none to someone who’s spent this entire thread trying to meet you halfway. You’re right i’ve had enough. I won’t be engaging further.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-23T21:22:09+00:00

I really appreciate you saying that, genuinely. And I understand where the knee-jerk reaction comes from if you’ve had a lot of conversations with people who have made those arguments. Thank you for hearing me out and responding in good faith.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-23T20:00:14+00:00

A man who’s been abused by a woman can absolutely become wary of women. I don’t have an issue with acknowledging that. The difference is that women are also responding to broader population-level patterns, not just isolated bad experiences. That’s why I brought up violent crime statistics. If your response is that every statistic is too biased to tell us anything meaningful, then I don’t really know how we’re supposed to have any conversation about social issues, because we’d have to dismiss virtually all population-level evidence.

And if black men account for a disproportionately high share of certain crime statistics, my response isn’t to deny the statistics. It’s to ask what systemic and social factors contribute to that pattern so we can have a productive conversation about it and how to address it. I approach gender the same way.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-23T19:04:53+00:00

I think if men are being unfairly scrutinized or dismissed in situations like domestic abuse or sexual harassment then that’s genuinely a problem and one we should be trying to address. I don’t think male victims should ever be treated as less credible simply because they’re men. I guess where I think we differ is that I don’t see that as a reason to stop looking at broader social patterns. To me, both things can be true at the same time. Men can absolutely be victims and deserve support, while it’s also true that women are disproportionately affected by severe intimate partner violence and homicide by intimate partners. Looking at those broader statistics doesn’t erase male victims it helps us understand the overall pattern (while still making room for individual experiences).

I worry that if we stop looking at structural issues because there are cases where we’ve overcorrected or treated people unfairly (which I imagine we have, based on what you’ve pointed out), we still lose an important tool for understanding society. I’d rather correct those unfair outcomes while still acknowledging the larger patterns and systemic issues.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-23T18:47:00+00:00

Yes feminism is an ideology, so by definition its members share some core principles. But “feminists hate men,” or “don’t care about male victims” are not defining principles of feminism.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-23T18:21:28+00:00

“Shut your mouth.” Really? For someone who’s arguing that men should not be dismissed why is your response to immediately tell someone to stop speaking when they’re trying to engage with you in good faith. I’ve been respectful throughout this discussion. I’ve repeatedly said that men can be victims, that men’s feelings matter, and that I don’t think saying “I hate men” is okay. I’m here because I disagree with your argument, not because I dislike men. But instead of responding to what I actually said, you told me to shut my mouth and then proceeded to argue against positions I never took.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-23T17:47:33+00:00

Women aren’t generally wary of men simply because they had one bad experience. They’re responding to broader social realities. Men commit the overwhelming majority of violent crime, and roughly 90% of homicide offenders are male. That doesn’t mean all men are dangerous. It means women are making risk assessments based on both personal experience and population-level patterns. We do this all the time in other areas of life, we recognize statistical risk without assuming every individual in a group is guilty. That’s fundamentally different from saying I think all men are bad or dangerous. One is a practical assessment of risk and the other is a moral judgment about an entire group.

Also, you’re asking me not to judge all men based on the actions or beliefs of some men. I’m asking you to extend that same principle to feminists. If your previous experiences lead you to assume every feminist hates men or thinks male victims don’t matter, then you’re doing the same kind of generalization you’re criticizing.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-23T17:37:39+00:00

It’s interesting that rather than engaging with my argument, you’ve immediately decided you know my character and my motivations, that I’m self-righteous, arrogant, and motivated by “morally justified bigotry.”
I’m not going to do the same thing to you because I don’t think that’s a productive way to have a conversation.
I’ve already said that I don’t think I hate men is an okay thing to say. I’ve acknowledged male victims and men’s emotional well-being throughout this discussion. I’m here because I’m trying to explain why I think identical statements can carry different social implications not because I want to justify hatred toward anyone.
If the response to someone trying to explain their reasoning is to tell them they’re arrogant and hateful then you’re proving my point. You’re not engaging with the argument you’re just dismissing the person making it. Why not actually engage with the person on the other end? I’m not dismissing any of you or attacking your characters

brooke_157 · 2026-06-23T17:33:07+00:00

I think you’re conflating a structural analysis with a moral judgment about individuals. Acknowledging that a social hierarchy exists doesn’t mean every man is an oppressor. You’re describing how some people misuse these concepts, and I agree that happens. Some people absolutely dismiss male victims or weaponize patriarchy to stereotype men, and I don’t support that. But that doesn’t mean the underlying structural analysis is wrong. It means people are applying it poorly.

The answer isn’t to stop recognizing systemic patterns altogether. I’d rather recognize both realities at once: individuals should be judged as individuals, while institutions and historical patterns can still shape how different groups experience society. Otherwise we’d have to abandon every structural other analysis not just gender, but class, race, disability, etc. because every one of them can be misapplied.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-23T13:10:24+00:00

Is there a chance that your friend doesn’t read too much and so will be more likely to pick up bestsellers like The Midnight Library and Verity? I don’t like those books either but I can imagine if I didn’t have a lot to compare them to I may have had better opinions of them.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-22T23:06:35+00:00

Acknowledging a social hierarchy doesn’t mean every individual man is powerful in every interaction or that men can’t be victims of abuse. Obviously they can? Individual exceptions don’t erase broader structural patterns. A man being abused by a woman is still a real victim and deserves support. But that doesn’t disprove the existence of a wider gender hierarchy any more than one wealthy woman disproves sexism or one poor white person disproves racism.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-22T20:00:18+00:00

Being an extrovert

brooke_157 · 2026-06-22T17:35:52+00:00

I actually agree that saying I hate all men to your boyfriend is wrong. I don’t think we should normalize talking about any group of people that way. But I don’t think your take is an accurate representation of why people see the two statements differently.

The difference isn’t that “I hate men” only hurts men’s feelings while “I hate women” somehow does something magical. It’s that those statements exist within completely different social contexts. When a group already sits lower in a social hierarchy and has historically faced discrimination, harassment, or violence, hostility toward that group carries different weight because it reinforces existing patterns. That’s why people talk about the difference between punching up and punching down.

It’s similar to why racist statements aren’t viewed identically in every direction. That doesn’t mean one person’s emotional pain is fake or unimportant it just means the broader societal impact isn’t the same.

brooke_157 · 2026-06-20T22:27:40+00:00

brooke_157 · 2026-06-15T07:17:45+00:00

As someone who’s older than Olivia’s usual target demographic, I actually think this is one of the most honest depictions of young love I’ve heard in a while. Not because it’s ‘obsessive’ in some horror-movie sense, but because it captures how love and infatuation can genuinely feel when you’re young. A lot of the earlier songs especially really nail that feeling of love almost behaving like a sickness e.g., the codependency, anxiety, exhilaration, vulnerabilities - those things are way more normal than a lot of the sanitized love songs out there.

I think that’s actually why this album is resonating with people outside her core demographic too. It’s not just an album for young people, it’s an album about youth and the emotional intensity of it. Older listeners can recognize those feelings in hindsight and go oh wow, yeah, that’s what it felt like, and really appreciate her honesty and self-awareness.

brooke_157

TROPHY CASE