297
Lemmy is a worse platform for women than Reddit was
(lemmy.cafe)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
297 points (72.5% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
6216 readers
39 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This bear thing has got out of hand lmao
The bear thing was rage bait to spread hate. Hate against men, reactionary hate against women, presumably hate against bears.
People shouldn’t have dignified the ridiculous scenario with a response.
This here is the biggest woosh that supports the whole thesis of the hypothetical. It was never meant to be a logical hypothetical. It's intended to elucincidate a prevailing feeling among women about what they perceive as safer. The fact that this still has to be explained after so many days is....I don't know.
Had the hypothetical been used to explain negative feelings about someone due to their race, religion, skin color, or sexuality; it would have been rightfully reviled.
There are far more effective and less misandrist ways to express that you don’t feel safe being alone in risky situations.
Yes, because those prejudices aren't grounded. The numbers reveal a whole other story when it comes to men/women interaction. Women have to use the biggest kid gloves to even broach this topic to men bc my god....the inherent fragility
Edit: listen guys. Trying to substitute another minority for the man in the hypothetical is not the dunk you think. I feel like Lemmy is the ultimate male echo chamber sometimes.
Over 1 in 3 women (35.6%) in the US have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
Nearly 1 in 3 college women (29%) say they’ve been in an abusive dating relationship .
52% of college women report knowing a friend who’s experienced violent and abusive dating behaviors including physical, sexual, digital, verbal, or other controlling abuse.
Everyone knows at least one woman (unless you're on Lemmy of course) who was abused, raped, or the subject of physical violence by a male partner at one point in their lives. Try to understand why the hypothetical exists, not if meets your logical criteria
These statistics make me vomit in my mouth, ughh men are really fucked up. I am a man, I love many men in my life but damn…we are pretty broken on the whole.
misandry is fake news.
again with this shit, this isn't the problem. (apologies if im incredibly brazen, i've talked to a lot of people about this and seen this statement multiple times now)
We're explaining why the hypothetical exists. Rather than what it's purpose is, they don't understand the purpose of the hypothetical, and as a result, are criticizing it's use. Telling them that the hypothetical is "actually not about hypotheticals at all, and actually its about the common understanding of woman" does nothing, they literally already know.
What we should be explaining right now, is that it's supposed to be inflammatory, and that the entire purpose of it is to bring to light the specific issue that woman have with their views of men in society as a whole, and how that exists in relation to how the rest of society views that view itself (often negatively, as we just learned, but immediately ignored for reasons unbeknownst to me) and most specifically here. The aspect everybody seems to be missing.
How we can fix this problem, to better society, so that men don't fucking rape women.
Please explain your comment. It could be seen that you are (mockingly or otherwise) stating that all sex is rape. As this is not completely clear, I would ask that you explain what you meant.
Following that logic:
We shouldn't look at our past and say "we will never rise up above this, so why try". We become better incrementally, by TRYING to be better.
By basically saying "you're disillusion for advocating for better" means you've given up. I and many like me haven't. There's no reason we can't work towards a safer society for all.
I mean you can try but those things will always exist. That's all my point is. You can educate and in this case berate but that's human nature for you.
specifically, it was intended to drum up talk about the underlying problem. it was intentionally inflammatory to make a point.
It's not that complicated.
So you're saying pissing men off is the point?? And you're somehow indignant that it, true to its purpose, pissed men off??
None of you seem to understand what the point of the bear post is. At it's core it is divisive and serves no purpose other than to deepen gender divides.
yes
no, i'm very obviously aware of the point. The problem here is that nobody here was interested in doing anything other than yelling at people for being stupid or something.
We should be talking about the problem at hand right now, but instead we're debating whether or not this was to make people hate each other more.
So you're in the "catch more flies with vinegar than honey" crowd
i'm in the crowd of "capture for sport, and release for ecosystem" myself, I'm not trying to catch fish for anything other than sport here. I might consume the odd one or two though. But generally, i think it's most productive as capture and release.
part of the problem with the original thread, and a little bit here as well. Is that we caught fish for sport, and then just never released them, and they started rotting, and then nobody thought to dispose of them. When in reality we should have released them, and providing a productive dialogue through the process.
all you have to do is say 'men are bad mmmkay?' and nod along with the majority opinion and get your subsequent pat on the back.
The right to bear men.
god what i would give
Ahem, the right to manbearpig. Whatever that means...