Unapologetic

-> Does she control government entities around us that can legally enforce her ideology? Can she actually suppress opinions or reduce people's freedom of expression?

-> Does she control your social position? Can she alienate you from your existing group on a whim?

-> Do her views/actions actually mirror the popular, widely accepted one in the contexts you frequent? Or is she an outlier?

-> Are you a member of a majority that she cannot control or escape?

-> Does she control your internet access or what you can post? Can she force you to read and follow her ideology?

-> Can she physically remove or suppress the media you/your group enjoy? Can she stop the production of such media? Does she occupy a powerful position in group that affects the existence of such media?

-> Can she actually physically, legally force you to stop whatever you are doing?

-> Does her opinion or criticism carry enough weight to directly, materially affect your life and wellbeing?

When a bigger, stronger male beats up his much smaller wife, it’s almost impossible for her to kill him in self-defence (immediately and proportionately ie with nothing but her fists), and yet it’s the scenario through which she can hope to be acquitted or get a light sentence. That’s not a coincidence. The other two scenarios (and she will be despised if she picks either) are for her to  1) kill him later (when he can’t use his physical advantage, eg when he’s asleep or has his back turned on her), but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be immediate. (In the Jacqueline Sauvage case, one of the main arguments against her was that she shot her husband in the back at a time when he wasn’t actively beating her up) 2) use a weapon, but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be proportionate. Obviously this condition also benefits men, because when a woman gets punched by her husband and she punches him back, it’s seen as a proportionate response but it shouldn’t be, because her punch (typically) won’t do nearly as much damage as his. Anything else she does (like use a weapon) to try and hurt him as much as he hurt her will be considered a disproportionate response and will mean it wasn’t self-defence.

Men are typically fueled by revenge or anger, Scott said. Financial crises, domestic violence and a recent divorce or estrangement are often cited as factors. That's not true for women. Mental illness or a reaction to years of battery or abuse are more commonly present, as are premeditated family slayings.

Females make up 58% of family annihilation victims and are more likely to be victims of familial murder

93% of perpetrators of family violence were male

78% had been imprisoned for crimes against women, half the victims being children under the age of 18 and a third being children under the age of 13

unrealistic female beauty standards: weak, prey, helpless, porn star, sex object, sex symbol, sex doll, fetish, porn, jerk off material

If you’re trying to talk about trafficked girls and your audience has someone in it who has been conditioned to believe the only morally upright and correct way to refer to any position in the sex trade is specifically as a “sex worker”, then they’re going to get up in arms about you referring to them as prostitutes or sex slaves, and you’re going to get derailed every time before you ever manage get to your point

That person is never going to hear about the child sex slaves, either because they interrupted the person trying to tell them about them to correct them on the terminology or because they were so steamed about it they stopped listening and labeled them a swerf, as if that actually means anything at all