#mysogyny

[doomtribble73]

[xuyu06]

I'll never take anyone who thinks misandry is as bad as misogyny, seriously.

Misandrists don't make telegram groups to share revenge porn and non-consentual nudes of men. but Misogynists do that to women.

Misandrists don't make deepfake porn to defame, humiliate and torture men. but Misogynists do that to women.

Misandrists don't pass laws to take away men's reproductive rights. but misogynists do that with women's reproductive rights.

Misandrist don't go out of their way to stalk, target, harass and assault men. but misogynists do that to women.

Misandrists don't make religion or interpret religious texts to control, shame and chain men. but misogynists do that to women.

Misandrists don't see men as sex objects or act entitled to their bodies. but misogynists do that with women.

Misandry has never caused sex-selective abortions. but misogyny is the reason why sex determination of fetuses is banned in many countries because of Female foeticide and preference for sons.

Misandry has never caused the importances of a field of work go down if male participation increases. but misogyny is why nursing, teaching and modeling is looked down on and ridiculed because it's a female dominated field. misogyny is one of the reason why going to college is now looked down on because more college grads are women.

Misandry hasn't caused medical field to not research on men and their health problems or made health care providers deminish/invalidate their pain. but misogyny has such a major impact on medical field that to still date we don't know the exact cause of fibroids. A "benign tumor" that varies in size, from tiny to as large as a MELON, and can cause heavy bleeding, pelvic pain, etc. Something that between 20 to 80 percent of women have. but oh that just lil bit of pain and discomfort right? nothing that serious?

and again it's totally not because of misogyny we still don't know the exact cause of endometriosis and the fact that the largest research on it is how it affects the MALE partner of the women that have endometriosis. NOT about how the WOMEN feels, NOT about how it affects her but how it affects her MALE PARTNER.

And lastly, a few women being "bitchy misandrists" on the internet and doesn't suddenly make the patriarchy (Literally systematic perpetuation of misogyny) disappear.

[finelytaylored]

CONGRATS TO THE WOMENS USA HOCKEY TEAM AND THE WOMENS TEAM ONLY

[probablyasocialecologist]

What Did Men Do to Deserve This?

Changes in the economy and in the culture seem to have hit them hard. Scott Galloway believes they need an “aspirational vision of masculini

The ambassadors of the centrist manosphere praise women’s advancement and the feminist cause while insisting that men’s economic and vocational anxieties are more naturally potent. This ambivalence reveals the weakness of their side. The right-wing manosphere knows that masculinity is a series of dominance signals beamed from behind iridescent Oakleys and the wheel of the most enormous pickup truck you’ve ever seen; it is a smirking multimillionaire who “DESTROYS” a young woman at a college-hosted debate; it is—must it be said?—an AR-15, openly carried. Manliness in the Trump era, Susan Faludi has written, “is defined by display value,” which exhibits itself in a “pantomime of aggrieved aggression.” Upon this stage, men’s biggest problem is feminism, and the solutions are straightforward: restrict reproductive rights, propagandize about traditional gender roles, etc. The squishier centrist side has no such certainties. Galloway, in both his podcasts and “Notes on Being a Man,” presents masculinity not as one side of a fixed binary but as a state of mind and a life style, one equally available to men and women, and therefore impossible to define. (It’s a feeling, and we know how Trump supporters feel about those.) Within this amorphous framework, men’s biggest problem is, likewise, a feeling—an unreachable itch, or a marrow-deep belief—that men should still rank above women in the social hierarchy, just not as much as before. This belief may be misguided or unconscious, but it is nonetheless insuperable, and it must be accommodated, for the good of us all. What these pundits are nudging us to do, ever so politely, is accept that women, in the main, are accustomed to being a little degraded, a little underpaid and ignored and dampened in their ambitions, in ways that men are not and never will be. The “female-coded” person, to borrow Krugman’s terminology, may feel overwhelmed by child-care costs, ashamed that she can’t acquire a mortgage, or hollowed out by long hours as an I.C.U. nurse, but such feelings do not disturb the order of the universe. This person’s duties to protect, provide, and procreate are real, but they do not take the capital “P.” This person’s opinions matter, but not decisively. The Times pundit Ezra Klein has lately suggested that Democrats consider running anti-abortion candidates in red states, even though more than three-quarters of Gen Z women support abortion rights. Rights, like jobs, can be gender-coded, and these rights are valued accordingly.

9 November 2025

[vertigo1871]

Jenő Jendrassik, The Vampire, 1910

[certified-hera-defender]

Annabeth Chase and how badly the fandom mischaracterizes her

I need to rant about Annabeth Chase and how badly the fandom misunderstands her, turning her into an abusive girlfriend, a bad friend, or some kind of mean girl, when that reading completely ignores both canon and context.

First of all, people constantly brush past the fact that Annabeth comes from an abusive home just because her abuse wasn’t physical. Emotional neglect, emotional manipulation, and abandonment are still abuse. Abuse doesn’t only count when there are bruises, and it’s honestly alarming how often the fandom acts like Annabeth’s childhood “doesn’t count” because no one hit her.

Now let’s address the most overused accusation: that Annabeth is abusive because she judo-flipped Percy.

Percy laughed. He was fine. He wasn’t hurt. If anything, he was exactly where he wanted to be. These are demigods, physically stronger, more durable, and more used to combat than mortals. A playful judo flip between two trained fighters is not abuse. Treating it as such ignores both the tone of the scene and Percy’s actual reaction.

What makes this argument even more ridiculous is that both Annabeth and Percy were abused as children. What exactly makes people think two people who understand trauma firsthand would turn around and deliberately abuse each other? Percy is not scared of Annabeth. He trusts her completely. And Annabeth has never once tried to control or harm him.

The second major claim people use to paint Annabeth as a bad person is that she mistreated both Rachel and Percy, especially during The Battle of the Labyrinth.

Was Annabeth being mean at times? Yes. But context matters.

From Annabeth’s perspective, she had finally been given her own quest, something she had wanted since the day she arrived at camp. This quest wasn’t just about glory, it was about proving herself. Annabeth genuinely believed that if she succeeded, Athena would finally love her and acknowledge her.

Then a mortal shows up and essentially starts leading the quest.

Of course Annabeth reacts badly. Her fatal flaw is hubris. She wants control. She wants to be the one who earns it. And suddenly she feels replaced by someone who represents everything she thinks she lacks: normalcy, ease, a life without gods watching her every move.

That’s why she lashes out at Rachel in TBL. It’s not because she’s cruel, it’s because she’s insecure, scared, and prideful in the exact way canon tells us she is.

And yet the fandom treats this like an unforgivable moral failing.

Percy has been rude, dismissive, and outright mean throughout the series, but those moments are brushed off as “sass” or “teenage behavior.” The moment Annabeth shows the same flaws, she’s labeled abusive, toxic, or irredeemable.

That double standard isn’t subtle.

Another thing the fandom loves to ignore is how Annabeth is punished for traits that are celebrated in male characters especially intelligence, control, and ambition.

Annabeth is strategic, assertive, and decisive. She plans. She takes charge. She doesn’t wait around to be rescued. And the fandom constantly twists those traits into something negative. She’s “controlling.” She’s “bossy.” She’s “cold.” Somehow, being competent becomes a moral flaw when it’s Annabeth.

Percy does the same things, arguably worse at times. He ignores plans, makes reckless calls, snaps at people when he’s overwhelmed, and acts on emotion. And the fandom adores him for it. He’s “iconic.” He’s “chaotic good.” He’s “just a teenage boy.”

Annabeth does it, and suddenly she’s toxic.

This especially shows in how the fandom frames her relationship with Percy. Any moment where Annabeth gets frustrated, jealous, or emotionally guarded is blown out of proportion and used as “proof” that she’s a bad girlfriend. Meanwhile, Percy’s jealousy, emotional withdrawal, or bluntness is treated as understandable or even romantic.

Annabeth is expected to be endlessly patient, endlessly understanding, endlessly soft, despite the fact that she grew up unwanted, emotionally neglected, and constantly trying to earn love that was withheld from her. The fact that she struggles with vulnerability makes sense. The fact that she doesn’t communicate perfectly makes sense. She’s a traumatized teenager, not a relationship therapist.

And then there’s the Rachel issue.

The fandom loves to pit Annabeth and Rachel against each other as if one of them has to be the villain. Annabeth is framed as jealous and cruel. But that framing ignores the reality of the situation entirely.

Rachel didn’t do anything wrong but Annabeth’s feelings were still valid.

Annabeth wasn’t just dealing with jealousy over Percy. She was dealing with the fear of being replaceable. Replaceable on her quest. Replaceable in Percy’s life. Replaceable in the eyes of the gods. Rachel wasn’t the cause of that fear, she was the trigger that exposed it.

And instead of letting Annabeth be a flawed teenage girl processing insecurity, the fandom turns her into a mean girl stereotype. Her growth gets ignored. Her self-awareness gets ignored. The fact that she does mature, apologize, and change gets brushed aside because the fandom prefers a static villain to a complicated character.

What really frustrates me is how often people say Annabeth is “emotionally abusive” when she argues with Percy.

Arguing is not abuse. Jealousy is not abuse. Being imperfect under stress is not abuse.

If anything, Annabeth consistently pushes Percy to survive. To think. To plan. To take responsibility. She challenges him because she believes in him, not because she wants to control him. Percy himself says, again and again, that Annabeth is the one he trusts most. The one who understands him. The one who grounds him.

And yet the fandom rewrites their dynamic to fit a narrative where Annabeth is the problem.

Because a girl who is angry, brilliant, proud, and traumatized is far easier to villainize than a boy who gets to be reckless and loved anyway.

And that’s not about Annabeth’s behavior.

That’s about what the fandom is uncomfortable seeing in girls.

Another layer to this is how the fandom infantilizes Percy while adultifying Annabeth, and then uses that imbalance to paint her as cruel.

Percy is constantly treated like he doesn’t know what’s happening. He’s framed as innocent, confused, “just trying his best,” even in moments where he actively makes choices that hurt people. The fandom bends over backward to protect him from accountability by insisting he “didn’t mean it” or “didn’t understand.”

Annabeth doesn’t get that grace.

She’s treated like she should always know better. Like she should be more mature, more patient, more emotionally intelligent, despite being the same age and carrying just as much trauma. In fact, she’s expected to be more composed precisely because she’s smart, which is a deeply unfair standard.

Smart girls aren’t allowed to be messy.

So when Annabeth snaps, it’s labeled abusive. When Percy snaps, it’s labeled stress.

When Annabeth is jealous, it’s toxic. When Percy is jealous, it’s romantic.

When Annabeth wants control, it’s manipulative. When Percy wants control, it’s leadership.

That double standard doesn’t come from the text, it comes from the fandom expectations.

And it’s especially visible in how people rewrite Annabeth’s tone. Her sarcasm becomes cruelty. Her defensiveness becomes malice. Her confidence becomes arrogance. Small moments get magnified, stripped of context, and used as “evidence” that she’s a bad person.

Meanwhile, Percy’s worst moments are treated like footnotes.

And the abuse accusations are honestly the most disturbing part.

Throwing the word “abusive” at a traumatized teenage girl because she: argues with her boyfriend, struggles with jealousy, doesn’t communicate perfectly, reacts badly under pressure

isn’t just wrong, it’s reckless.

It cheapens what abuse actually is, and it punishes female characters for being human. Annabeth never isolates Percy. She never controls his relationships. She never threatens him. She never makes him afraid. She never undermines his autonomy. Those are the markers of abuse and Annabeth exhibits none of them.

What she does do is grow.

She learns to let go of control. She learns to trust. She learns to share space with others.

But the fandom rarely lets her have that arc, because acknowledging her growth would mean admitting she was never the villain to begin with.

Annabeth Chase is not abusive. She is not cruel. She is not a bad girlfriend.

She is a traumatized, brilliant, prideful teenage girl navigating war, abandonment, and impossible expectations and the fandom punishes her for surviving loudly instead of quietly.

And the fact that this happens over and over again to female characters should bother people far more than it does.

Now let’s talk about Luke, because a lot of people love to hate Annabeth for believing she could save him and for defending him after his betrayal.

And honestly? That criticism completely ignores who Luke actually was to her.

Luke wasn’t just her crush. Luke was her family.

He was the person who took her in when she was seven years old. He was the one who protected her on the run. He was the one who fed her, kept her alive, and made her feel wanted when she had just lost everything. Alongside Thalia, Luke was the first person to show Annabeth genuine love after she ran away from home.

And people love to reduce all of that to “she had a crush on him.”

That framing drives me insane.

Annabeth did have a crush on Luke when she was younger, that’s canon. But people act like that’s the only reason she cared about him, which is not only wrong but wildly dismissive of her trauma. Annabeth stopped having a crush on Luke the moment he betrayed them. It’s not spelled out in neon letters, but anyone actually paying attention can tell that whatever romantic feelings she once had were gone by book two.

What stayed wasn’t a crush. What stayed was grief.

Luke helped raise her. He was her protector. One of the only people she trusted in a world that had repeatedly proven unsafe. When Annabeth ran away at seven, it wasn’t just because spiders were attacking her at night and her father didn’t believe her, though that alone is horrific. It was also because her dad had already moved on. He had a new wife. New kids. A new life that made Annabeth feel unwanted and replaceable.

Luke was the opposite of that. He stayed. He chose her. He made space for her.

So when the fandom says Annabeth defended Luke “because she liked him,” it completely erases the fact that she was defending someone who had been her family, her caregiver, her home.

And we need to remember something else: we experience the first five books almost entirely from Percy’s perspective.

Percy’s hatred of Luke is completely reasonable. Luke tried to kill him. Betrayed him. Manipulated him. Percy knew Luke for a few weeks maybe a month before that betrayal. The wound was deep, but the relationship was short.

Now imagine being Annabeth.

Imagine watching the person who raised you, who protected you when you were a literal child, slowly become someone you don’t recognize. Imagine being torn between what he’s done and who he was. Imagine carrying years of shared history, love, and survival that everyone else around you simply doesn’t have.

Of course she believes he can be saved. Of course she clings to the idea that he isn’t fully gone. That doesn’t make her naïve. It makes her human.

And to put it into perspective: if someone like Tyson had betrayed them by book five, Percy would still feel furious and devastated but he would absolutely defend Tyson. He would try to save him. He would refuse to give up on him, no matter what anyone else said.

No one would call Percy weak for that. No one would accuse him of being blinded by emotion.

But Annabeth does the same thing, and suddenly she’s stupid. Or selfish. Or “letting her crush cloud her judgment.”

That difference in reaction says everything.

Annabeth isn’t excusing Luke’s actions. She isn’t unaware of the harm he’s caused. She’s holding onto the belief that the boy who raised her still exists somewhere underneath the monster he became and that belief comes from years of love, not romantic delusion.

The fandom doesn’t want to acknowledge that, because it complicates the narrative. It forces people to sit with grief, loyalty, and impossible choices instead of labeling Annabeth as irrational and moving on.

And once again, a traumatized teenage girl is punished for refusing to emotionally detach from someone who was her family.

At the end of the day, Annabeth’s belief that Luke could be saved wasn’t weakness, stupidity, or romantic delusion. It was love, the kind that doesn’t disappear just because someone does something unforgivable.

The fandom wants clean lines. Heroes who cut ties instantly. Villains who deserve abandonment. But real trauma doesn’t work like that, and neither do real relationships. You don’t stop caring about someone who raised you just because they become someone terrible. You grieve them while they’re still alive. You hold onto hope because letting go feels like losing the last piece of your childhood.

Annabeth didn’t defend Luke because she didn’t understand what he did. She defended him because she understood exactly who he used to be.

And in the end, she wasn’t wrong.

Luke was still in there. He did choose to do the right thing eventually. That doesn’t erase the harm he caused but it does prove that Annabeth’s faith wasn’t naive. It was painfully earned.

What the fandom consistently fails to grasp is that Annabeth’s arc is about learning when to let go without denying love ever existed. She doesn’t excuse Luke. She doesn’t absolve him. She mourns him. And that distinction matters.

Reducing her grief to “she had a crush” is not only inaccurate, it’s cruel.

It erases: Her abandonment trauma, her found family, her emotional loyalty, her growth

Annabeth Chase is not abusive. She is not cruel. She is not blinded by love.

She is a survivor who loved deeply, lost painfully, and still chose to hope when it would’ve been easier to harden her heart.

And the fact that the fandom so often punishes her for that says far more about how we treat complex female characters than it ever does about Annabeth herself.

[fo3lonewanderer]

This is fucking disgusting. For those men who don’t understand why women are choosing bear, this is fucking why.

A third of male university students say they would rape a woman

A significant proportion of men who said they would force a woman to have sex did not recognise it as rape

[raqualswonderfunblog]