561
Make it about me
(lemmy.world)
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 04 Nov 2024
561 points (75.4% liked)
Comic Strips
12411 readers
2839 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The comic is about the meta issue so it's not quite the same imo
I agree that it's not quite the same, and I'm finding it real interesting to ponder how that happens.
This comic and this comment section have been pretty thought provoking. (Heads up, this is overly abstract speculation from here): For example, here's a mathsy diagram
This is a commutative diagram, and I'm not at the level of being able to explain it properly, but part of it is the idea of equivalence, the fact that there's two routes from A to D that are equivalent.
I'm thinking about this sort of analogous to what we're seeing in the comic and these comments. Like, the base experiences we're talking about (being spoken over when you're trying to share your experiences, for example) are fundamentally shared experiences, but the manner of experiencing them is different, because it's coloured by our own positionality (of which gender is a big part of). I think sometimes though, it's like discussions don't work because we get separated — some of us at B, and some at C. Like, it does matter that our experiences are different, but also, there's a sense in which it doesn't, because we need to head to the same place anyway.
I don't know what converging on D would be in this analogy. Solidarity perhaps? Which would, I suppose, involve recognising that the route you're on is different to the route other people are on, and that it's possible to be heading to the same place. I'm not sure, this is quite abstract, but you said the word "meta" and that seemed to catalyse this thought, so here's this comment. You're welcome/my apologies
Oh hell yeah, Category Theory! LET'S GOOOOO!
The comic is about how when people speak online online about women's issues, dudes keep trying to make it about dudes.
The comic itself is someone talking online about women's issues, and the comments are all men trying to make it about them.
It's remarkably similar.
This is a legitimate complaint in the situations where the topic is uniquely a women's issue, and people are trying to redirect the conversation to something that really isn't the same thing and is a separate issue so talking about that means you aren't talking about the first thing anymore. But the meta issue of someone trying to talk about one group's problems and getting hit by whataboutism, seems arguably more universal and might not be specifically a women's issue, so saying something along the lines of "yeah this happens to us too it sucks", could be supportive and not about shutting up discussion of the original topic.
This isn't a universal complaint about the frustration of whataboutism.
This is a specific complaint about how any time women try to talk about women's issues in a forum that may contain men, those men engage in disingenuous whataboutism.
The men replying are almost never showing support, they're minimizing the issue, or they're trying to co-opt the thread.
It doesn't need to be a uniquely woman's issue for it to be a predominantly women's issue.
And it doesn't need to be a predominantly woman's issue for women to want to talk about it from a woman's perspective without men making it about them.
To me, the comment in question didn't seem to be doing that. The point I'm trying to make is to object to the idea that it is categorically doing that, given the context. It seems like a divisive way of deciding what is bad behavior, to condemn any statement made in response to discussion about problems faced by one group that is not specifically about the struggles of that group, regardless of anything else about the statement.
If you would rather expand on how that goes or the ways in which this is predominantly a women's issue, feel free to take this opportunity instead of responding to what else I'm saying.