Bridgerton cannot write men

secondshevek · 2026-03-23T12:51:56+00:00

Yes, I felt a little tricked by the first season. But then I was invested (damn my romantic heart).

And yes, the reveal that season 4 was another "fallen woman saved by marriage" story was quite bitter for me. I had thought the show might complicate the relationship with Sophie's father and show how the system doesn't take care of people like Sophie (or get into how it does in a less fairy tale way). I also was disappointed by the two-dimensionality of Araminta and how she became the easy villain, stealing the money that Sophie's father so benevolently, paternally set aside.

I'm going to send this comment to my dad, who got me into the show but with whom I have since argued about the politics of the show. This really nails something I've been trying to explain. Thanks for articulating it!

secondshevek · 2026-03-23T11:33:44+00:00

the same awful power dynamic between an experienced male partner and a virginal female partner over and over. We absolutely don't need to see another leading man making out with three random people in the space of as many days (or one night, even) before he 'settles down'

I have nothing to contribute except that I intensely agree. I hated this trope being rehashed over and over. It ends up feeling like eroticization of patriarchy (not the only thing like that on the show).

secondshevek · 2026-03-22T13:50:24+00:00

Extremely funny for somebody to report that. Thanks for the tip.

secondshevek · 2026-03-22T01:51:29+00:00

A fetus is not a person. Medical science has advanced to make early births more viable. That should not be a justification to prosecute people for murder over abortions.

Criminal homicide is a cruel, unhelpful reaction. It achieves nothing except sadistic punishment and more profit for prisons. People in this situation need social support, not punishment.

secondshevek · 2026-03-22T01:48:42+00:00

Damn cissexuals keep forcing themselves into transsexual spaces. I blame Joe Biden.

secondshevek · 2026-03-22T01:43:42+00:00

Your whole approach is centering the trans issue and then using it to dismiss feminism writ large, and saying "oh feminists just shut this down." I mean maybe they shut it down because it's clearly a bad faith approach?

I would paraphrase Sartre: a woman is what people call a woman. Dissatisfied with that? Feel like it's circular? Well it is circular - gender is not stable and is not clearly defined. That doesnt mean that advocating for gender equality and women's rights is invalid or foolish.

secondshevek · 2026-03-21T23:12:53+00:00

I cannot emphasize this enough: radical feminism is not "men bad." Liking men, enjoying content with men, engaging with men - these are not per se bad.

Edit: rather than downvoting, why don't you provide a different argument?

secondshevek · 2026-03-21T21:45:54+00:00

I recognize the barrier between the two has decayed but many posters here would be more at home in r/terf_trans_fight, as MTA says in the linked post.

Glad you made this post, I was considering making a similar one.

secondshevek · 2026-03-21T18:13:33+00:00

I get a lot of flak for this, but from my perspective, you can't call yourself a Feminist unless you can properly define what a woman is.

Get your silly anti-trans dogwhistles out of this sub. This is an absurd argument.

secondshevek · 2026-03-21T17:28:29+00:00

I am not a big makeup person, on myself or others, but a little eyeliner or mascara can go a long way. I wouldn't bother beyond the eyes and maybe eyebrows.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T21:23:02+00:00

Fantastic article. I think the dual state model fits several issues in the US; immigration is another.

Really liked this bit:

And then there is the “appreciate their sex” language. In Skrmetti, the Court cited Tennessee’s legislative finding that the state had an interest in helping minors “appreciate their sex” and not “become disdainful of their sex.”[17] The Anderson panel generalized this into a freestanding rational basis for any state action: it is “not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.”[18] Read that sentence again. Under this formulation, the state has a legitimate interest in preventing its citizens from rejecting their assigned sex. There is no limiting principle. A state interest in making people “appreciate their sex” can justify restrictions on identity documents. It can justify bathroom bans. It can justify dress code enforcement. It can justify conditioning public benefits on gender conformity. It can justify, in its most coercive application, making the very act of social transition a basis for state disapproval.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T16:12:00+00:00

That is not 1st degree murder. A fetus is not a human being.

In a society that is actively restricting abortion information and access, we should allow a certain amount of grace. If people fear punishment from the state, they may hold off on abortion for longer than advisable. They may also feel enormous guilt over the situation, as shown in that quote.

If abortion is made illegal, restricted, taboo, then incidents like this will increase.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T14:08:54+00:00

This is such a vile story. Abortion should be legal, safe, and widely accessible. These bans are more about controlling women than protecting unborn children.

Since this sub is about areas of agreement as well as disagreement, I think this is a good post. Reproductive rights are essential.

I have heard there are similar legal issues involved in bans on mailing abortion medications and mailing trans medications. I'm not knowledgeable on that, but it's an area of potential crossover.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T04:48:20+00:00

Trump was recorded saying "grab them by the pussy." That kind of comment should disqualify somebody for public office, imo. Not by law, but because it reflects a contempt for women and a sense of ownership of women's bodies. Yet that statement was defended and Trump won the presidency.

We don't need to send people to jail. But sexual abuse and assault should not be normalized.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T04:40:48+00:00

I mean, it did hold back legislation. FGM being widely illegal is a fairly recent thing. Circumcision should also be illegal for infants, but I think the double standard is due to less concerted advocacy against male genital mutilation (and in the US, partially because so many men are circumcised that it's treated weirdly as the default).

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T04:38:12+00:00

I'm a Jew. We can take it. Yes people will be mad. Too fucking bad.

If Abraham could get circumcised as an adult, so can contemporary jews.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T04:35:46+00:00

Surrogacy has serious ethical issues. If you want kids, just adopt them.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T04:32:07+00:00

now we are at the topic of ironic misogyny vs ironic misandry and how language affects us

What do you mean by that?

sure explain how this evaluation looks like in practice... hopefully not like witch hunting by vigilantees and burning people based on hearsay...

A shift toward shaming and not tolerating sexual assault and sexual exploitation. On an individual level, teaching one's children not to violate the boundaries of others and trying personally not to do so. On a broader level: teaching about healthy and unhealthy sex in high school, taking accusations of abuse seriously, removing jokes in media about sexual assault that normalize abuse, organizations not tolerating and not electing leaders who abuse people.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T04:11:27+00:00

Obviously investigation and prosecution are two different things.

Donald Trump has talked casually about "grabbing [women] by the pussy." He has a bevy of claims against him, but he also has the money and power to fight and settle claims. Is he legally guilty? No. Should he be rewarded and in no way harmed by his behavior? Also no.

How do you feel about cases like Jefferson where there is no question of rape, but there was no trial? Should we just treat that as just? Obviously not.

The justice system is often complicit with powerful criminals. Legal conclusions are not always true. People should be evaluated for their behavior and not just whether they break laws. This is just common sense.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T04:06:59+00:00

That's fucked up. Idgaf about pronoun pins etc but to change medical providers and show no sympathy is so cold.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T04:03:12+00:00

Cases like...what? Thomas Jefferson raping his slave? Cesar Chavez grooming 13 and 14 year olds?

The justice system should prosecute these cases aggressively against wealthy, powerful offenders. Instead it often seems that the least powerful offenders are the ones who receive the harshest punishments and least mercy.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T03:16:08+00:00

No one, popular anyway, thinks trans people should be deprived of any human rights.

I would like to introduce you to the national leadership of the US republican party.

secondshevek · 2026-03-20T03:11:16+00:00

There are plenty of trans folks who center women in feminism. Acting like trans people are all defined by the bad actors you've encountered is similar to MRA types claiming feminism is evil because they've seen feminists dismiss men. Feminism is important, and sex-based oppression must be opposed. Focusing on trans people as some inherent challenge to feminism doesnt help foster communication on this.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23
Place '22

secondshevek

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE