[amyjess]

When I'm at home, I have to hold my boobs when I walk up or down my stairs or the jiggling will hurt a lot. I'm not going outside without a bra.

And I do like being constricted. Wearing a well-fitting bra feels like being hugged all the time, and it feels great.

Also,

> Our moms didn't burn their bras in the 50s so we could have the privilege to spent $350 on them in the future.

A) Bra-burning was a myth. It never happened.

B) Second-wave feminism has been considered harmful for quite some time now. It's incredibly toxic due to being inextricably linked with racism, transphobia, femmephobia, kinkshaming, and sex-negativity. The vast majority of feminists have moved on to third-wave feminism, which doesn't have these problems.

[knodi123]

> A) Bra-burning was a myth. It never happened.

For people like me who had to look it up:

The dramatic, symbolic use of a trash can to dispose of feminine objects caught the media's attention. Protest organizer Hanisch said about the Freedom Trash Can afterward, "We had intended to burn it, but the police department, since we were on the boardwalk, wouldn't let us do the burning." A story by Lindsy Van Gelder in the New York Post carried a headline "Bra Burners and Miss America." Her story drew an analogy between the feminist protest and Vietnam War protesters who burned their draft cards. A local news story in the Atlantic City Press erroneously reported that "the bras, girdles, falsies, curlers, and copies of popular women's magazines burned in the 'Freedom Trash Can'". Individuals who were present said that no one burned a bra nor did anyone take off her bra.

The parallel between protesters burning their draft cards and women burning their bras were encouraged by organizers including Robin Morgan. The phrase became headline material and was quickly associated with women who chose to go braless. Feminism and "bra-burning" then became linked in popular culture. The analogous term "jockstrap-burning" has since been coined as a reference to masculism.

[dragonwriter]

> Second-wave feminism has been considered harmful for quite some time now. The vast majority of feminists have moved on to third-wave feminism

The idea of simple linear series of waves of feminism is as at least as harmful to understanding as any version of feminism has been to, well, anything.

(But, if you must adhere to it, everyone that matters has moved on to fourth-wave feminism these days.)

[thecanman]

Third-wave comes with their own set of problems, as an aside. They definitely have not moved away from kinkshaming and sex-negativity.

[Gruselbauer]

Some have, some haven't, as far as my reading goes. There's definitely a broader spectrum of opinions and that alone seems like a good development to me.

[dragonwriter]

> Some have, some haven't, as far as my reading goes

That was also true of second- (and even first-)wave feminism, too.

> There's definitely a broader spectrum of opinions and that alone seems like a good development to me

Third- (and even fourth-)wave feminism may have some different and new ideas and means of presenting them, but much of the core diversity of approaches on feminism has really been around since the so-called “first-wave” in the split between what might (oversimplifying a multiaxis variation into a dichotomy based on some correlations among the axes) be seen as conservative/Christian/bourgeois/virtue-oriented feminism on one side and revolutionary/materialist/proletarian/egalitarian feminism on the other.