Lemmy is a worse platform for women than Reddit was EDIT this link is an OLD POST that contains my thesis on the state of lemmy and is not the context of the much more recent comment in the screenshot. sorry for any confusion caused by this juxtaposition, my main goal with having this linked is to expose how nothing has improved

  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    OOP was downvoted for a non-sequitur on top of a strawman.

    When their original argument was refuted they posted what OP posted above as if it was a relevant comeback.

    OP is a malignant poster leaving out context.

    • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      link, please? Edit: found it.

      Seems like pretty typical self-centred reply-guy behaviour, then all the men downvoting got annoyed because the person fighting on behalf of women in this interaction refused to entertain the implication that men are owed sex by women

      • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Nobody said women owed anything. They are saying that collectively punishing men for things they did not do is a fast track to creating more incels.

        • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Hello, thanks for your reply, I appreciate that we can have a civil conversation about a topic that can be quite heated. I’m a man, so I definitely can’t speak for women, but I try my best to listen, and I can try to pass on what I’ve learned!

          You’re totally right that nobody in the screenshot wrote the words “men are owed sex by women”, but if you’ll give me the benefit of the doubt, I think there’s something a little deeper at play here, and I think it really depends on your perspective.

          Rather than explain it directly, it might be easier to use an example - let’s say that you have a friend who you don’t want to have sex with. If that friend is really nice to you, and you don’t have sex with them, are you punishing them?

          If that friend said something like, “You know, if you don’t have sex with us, we might become more violent and dangerous…” how do you think that would make you feel?

          Personally, I would feel a bit scared by that sort of statement - I feel that it’s coercive, and it has a kind of veiled threat of violence there that makes me uncomfortable.

          I hope that helps explain why some people might read the message differently from how you read it.

          • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            But this is about instructing women to withhold sex from men as a means to achieve their societal goals.

            This does not make sense because It is counterproductive to punish people who already agree with your point of view.

            • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              Why do you feel like a lack of sex is a punishment? Isn’t a lack of sex the baseline? If I don’t buy my friend a gift, that’s not a punishment, that is a neutral action. Unless the implied assumption was that I owe it to them to give them gifts.

            • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 days ago

              Thanks again for the reply - I think I understand your point, which I think is genuinely interesting and worthy of discussion, but there is just something about the phrasing that feels off to me, and just to be clear, I’m sure it’s unintentional. I’m sure we can both agree that we would always want to make everyone feel safe, respected and valued, but sometimes we can accidentally say (or write) things in a way that come across in a way that we don’t intend.

              In my opinion, talking about women ‘withholding’ sex as a ‘punishment’ implies a certain level of expectation or entitlement, like men are entitled to have sex with women and if they don’t have sex then they’re punishing men. This is something that I think a lot of us sort of struggle to recognise as harmful, because we all are human and we know that we all have a need for sex, both men and women - but historically, this kind of framing, that men are entitled to sex with women. has been used to excuse violent sexual crimes

              There’s totally a valid conversation to be had about how effective this movement could be, but I think that it’s really important that men like myself need to start from a place of recognising that our behaviour can be really hurtful to women, even when we don’t intend it to be, and that we listen to them when they tell us that we can make really simple small changes to protect their humanity, make them feel safe and valued, and recognise the part that we all play - consciously and unconsciously - in the system that has mistreated women for longer than we can possibly fathom.

              • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                In my opinion, talking about women ‘withholding’ sex as a ‘punishment’ implies a certain level of expectation or entitlement, like men are entitled to have sex with women

                No they are not entitled. But the poster specifically instructs people to withhold sex. Even if the woman wants to have sex. This could make sense if the woman was having sex with someone who opposes the ownership of their bodies. But if the man already holds their point of view, what is the point? For who are they not having sex? What is being achieved?

  • yuri@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    i straight up blocked lemmy.world after the “strange man or a bear” thing blew up, and i realized LITERALLY THE ONLY PEOPLE arguing in favor of the man were all coincidentally on that instance.

    honestly very incel-y

    • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I really suggest people don’t block it. Lemmy needs active users and communities engaging with each other and while it is going to have some crazies just from how many people are on it, it should also be the least vulnerable to group think. When I hear of another instance defederating I always suspect it of being a fringe echo chamber.

      Honestly though I would defend the man too. Take from that what you will, but I’ll just say it’s usually good to be exposed to people who disagree with you.

      • yuri@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        i respect your perspective, i’m absolutely not unblocking it tho.

        it’s not the fact that they defended the man, it’s the way they were doing it. my experience has been wholly more enjoyable post-block, and i’d recommend anyone else in my shoes do the same thing.

        i saw too much bad faith engagement to validate staying around in spite of “a few bad apples”. for a hot minute if it was posted on .world then anyone arguing for the bear in the comments would get dogpiled and downvoted to shit, and to me that was indicative of a larger problem than just “being too popular”

    • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Shit. What’s wrong with lemmy world? That’s the instance I’m on.

      Im a queer woman so take what you will from that…

      • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        It is the largest instance, or so I’ve heard, and I take that to mean it is the most plucked from the attitudes of the general public. Certainly how it feels over there.

        • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Yeah according to fedidb it has about 36% of users, and over 5 times the amount of the next highest. It will probably represent the general public better than anything else.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      i mean tbf, speaking as someone that was very active throughout that, the reason for this may be that .world was (maybe still is) drastically overpopulated and undermoderated. one off offenses got knocked down but without a concerted effort repeat offenders that flew under the radar just enough times got a freebee to complain about getting radicalized another day.

      can’t believe i’m defending .world mods who banned me for asking them to deescalate rather than amplify tos violating content lmao. no defense for the incels tho 😤😤

      e:spelling

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          it’s the !world@lemmy.world mod team that’s just really abrasive and destructive. i usually post failures of moderation to !modlog@lemmy.world because it’s the least front loaded with conceptions of self interest, but that still comes up almost every time with the accusations of butthurt. and overall still it’s almost impossible to call out stuff that is outside the scope of the interests of the english speaking, white, christian or atheist male.

          it’s really just sad, cuz here you have a massive example of a leftist and progressive space but with no will to engage with the existing global community. it’s like, “women exist, muslim individuals exist, POC exist but actually no we prefer to talk about OUR experiences byeeeeee.”

  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    An interesting variation on this I’ve heard that I think illustrates why it’s so inflammatory (and thus my issue with it even if I agree fully with what it’s saying) is changing it to whether you’d feel more comfortable with a Christian or Muslim at night in the woods.

    Like I used to be racist against Russians because I’m Russian originally and I’ve tons of lived experience around Russians and I would sooner pick just about any other nationality before Russians to be around, I’m justified in this just as I’m justified in feeling that way about men, but at the same time, it’s no less inflammatory to say.

    It’s all just ragebait. That’s why unlike many nuanced feminist arguments or discussions about male violence you’ve actually heard of it and see it on the internet, it generates engagement. Doesn’t excuse the harassment, but it explains it. Is it really so productive to get worked up all the time?

    • MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      It just works very well, because everyone has to deal with men, but almost nobody knows that getting EATEN ALIVE is an option.

      At least that’s what triggers me; Uninformed confidence.

      Be it “Men can do worse”, “Inflation is high, because look at the prices (currently)”, or “Marshmallows on hot chocolate are great”.

  • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Oh, and since the exact people your post is about simply can’t help themselves and are already pouring in to mansplain and make excuses for themselves, the obligatory:

    the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism