I got banned from that sub for “sounding like a man” then when I told them I’m non binary and so should be able to post their according to their rules they didn’t respond
Now for a thought exercise.
How many of those men that commented and kept commenting after being corrected were just LLMs?
Would it be actual zero? Or would there be at least one?
I thought the plural of Ferengi was Ferengi.
Ferengii, but the second i is silent.
People want to be a part of everything nowadays. I just want to escape to an island sorrounded by AI instead of these people.
I pray and hope that it’s not a feminist community, but I would bet my ass that most of the women in that community ironically consider themselves feminists.
Eh, I only ever see that community when a bait post makes it to the front page.
Honestly, I just assumed it was a really elaborate troll group and didn’t bother engaging.
It is not ‘an elaborate troll group’. Women just want our own spaces on a male-dominated platform and to discuss without 10000 incels crawling out of the woodwork.
And yet all you do is talk about men in that community in a disparaging way. You made an echo chamber and it’s starting to smell like shit inside.
Look at all these misandrists worming their way out of the floorboards:
Honestly forgot about it, I just blocked it and haven’t seen it talked about in a while.
suggestion: make a separate community that is “replies to womens stuff”.
actually don’t, sounds like a cesspool.
I enjoy that community as a non-participant. A user’s decision to merely interact can reveal much more than they intended to reveal - super interesting to me. Just the existence of the community pits dudes with insecurities against their own lack of self control or social tact, for all to see.
Future me might comment there too quickly after overlooking the community name. I’ll get a warranted Tsk and I’ll see myself out. No big deal. It’s not a kick in the nuts unless I make it one.
I have seen men comment there, get the reminder, and then FLIP THE FUCK OUT. As if every part of the internet should have to put up with them.
A community like that is hard to monitor, and they are pretty chill about people making honest mistakes like coming in from /all. I feel like it’s obvious (or very quickly becomes obvious) which comments are mistakes, and which are butthurt males. They don’t seem to be hostile to the honest mistakes.
Whenever I see that happen, I think “wow, thanks for showing why this community needs that rule in the first place”. If dudes were more chill about women trying to build their own spaces, then perhaps it wouldn’t be necessary to have such a hard rule.
“fancying the male im talking to” yeah suree.that was definitely a covo with a real person
I honestly don’t know what you’re offended by. Maybe I wasn’t reading closely enough, but could you spell it out for me?
He read the rules of the community and decided to break them anyway.
Maybe I believe in community rules too strictly.
If the rules say women only, it means women only.
How does an anonymous person on Lemmy prove they are a woman?
Yeah, men should go to the back of that bus right?
Oh, poor poor oppressed men that aren’t allowed anywhere on the internet!
I personally do not care, I usually do not want to go into communities/places where I’m not welcome. But disceiminating basing on gender, sex, sexuality, race, ideology, etc… usually frowned upon.
I just find that double standard quite pronounced.
I would agree with you but this is like being surrounded by men for 99% of the time all the time forever and then having a community that is not 99% men.
That said I don’t fully agree with them, half the time it really is weirdos downplaying women’s experiences, but the other half is a woman giving a story and ending it with something like “men are disgusting,” and someone (not very nicely) replying “what do you mean men are disgusting??”
I wouldn’t say that’s a reasonable response, but definitely understandable, and I’ve seen it downplayed as an incel response pretty often
I think your stats are a bit skewed, it’s likely more than 1% of the entire population (internet or otherwise) that are women, trans women, or NB. (I know you’re speaking entirely too hyperbolically rather than literally, but)
I mean, just in the US alone:
The total population of United States is estimated to be 332.39 million with 164.55 million males (49.50%) and 167.84 million females (50.50%). There are 3.3 million more females than males in United States.
I find it hard to say that 3.3mil more women than men is “99% men all the time,” sounds like it’s closer to 50.5%.
As for them having their own community, idgaf really, have fun, but also:
It’s definitely a double standard, and fraternal organizations are often met with just as much hostility and discrimination suits (ex: Boy Scouts were pressured to allow girls, while Girl Scouts not only never faced the same pressure, those leaning on Boy Scouts to br inclusive actively defend Girl Scouts as a male exclusionary space, and I cannot grasp the cognitive dissonance that takes). Personally I think we need to pick a lane as a whole either direction, it’s either fine or not to have exclusionary orgs and comms like that, no double standard, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Also I think it’s somewhat of an invitation for problems to have your exclusionary non-public community in public. Should prrooooobably just have something more secure that people won’t constantly stumble into, but if one has fun with constant moderation I suppose it’s a good way to feed one’s addiction. Seems like it’d get old, personally.
It’s especially ridiculous to me to make someone’s demographic the subject of a post, while barring that demographic from participation (at least on that post.) I guess I get it, it’s like talking shit behind someone’s back instead of to their face, which is a lot easier, but it is telling that if you replace the demographic in question with any other of your choosing, the problems with the practice would become glaringly obvious.
That said if they want to be exclusionary, reactionary, and complain about an entire demographic without them there to speak their side? Well I’m used to it, you should hear the shit my uncle says, so I say have fun, fuck it.
Ah, I was thinking it might just be that, but didn’t want to assume. Yeah, I don’t think it’s that big a deal. If the commenter came in and said some misogynistic shit, definitely, but just for commenting? Eh. Yeah, he shouldn’t have, but how much harm was actually done?
What he said is not bad, it’s not about that, it’s the fact that he read the rules and still thought that he had every right to participate. He’s the reason the community was set up, to have a space where men don’t interrupt and insert themselves into every conversation no matter what.
Women enters men only space = stunning and brave
Man enters women only space = sexist and misogynistic and low key sexual assault…
Also, online, womens only spaces are usually just as toxic as fuck as any incel space. We just dont call them what they are. So, IMO, some rules need to take a big long hard suck of societies asshole.
True let’s look at some of those super toxic posts that are very man hating, all taken from the front page
Do you want to have kids?
I hate being pregnant
essay on menopause
tweet about is a woman being rude, or are people conditioned to think a woman being assertive is rude
I actually did not find a single post about a man in about 30 posts. Curious.
This is not an instance for incels, please leave, and take your mother issues elsewhere.
Username checks out…
Got and good examples for that statement? I can’t really think of any situations where it is seen as stunning and brave for a woman to enter a men only space. There is a big difference with mostly male and only male.
I suppose the most obvious example is men in sheds. It somethings that was created especially to deal with the issue of male loneliness, especially amongst the older community. Basis for being single gender, was to address those older gents who feel pressures to act a certain way around women. This was that one place they could go and just hang out doing wood working and what not. It was for men to make connections with other men, because men, seemingly, struggle with making or even keeping connections.
Enter the women, who think its sexist. Who think that men dont need just time to themselves. Theres mixed sex and single sex(female) things all over the place. But some women see men only spaces, and think “Not on my fucking watch!!!”.
Every day we talk about mens mental health, then some gaggle of cave brained cunts turns up to tell men how they have to sort their own shit out. Men in sheds did just that. Then it got popular, and then that same gaggle of cave brained cunts turns up talking about how male only spaces are toxic… Rinse, repeat, ad Infinium
https://www.4bc.com.au/women-are-demanding-entry-into-mens-sheds https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5qd9l3094o
Why cant men have male on spaces? Why can we have our man caves? And if we do, why is it a a bad thing?
Theres a guardian hit piece on the “disappointing” vote to have one of the last remaining gentlemans clubs remain male only. They also have a little go at “mostly white” like thats a fucking crime as well.
Same thing happened at the Flyers club. Men only for 141 years, then all of a sudden women want in and its sexist not to let them.
We cant even just play fucking video games, without getting hammered over the head about how its childish and that we need to grow up. God fucking forbid, we have a fucking hobby and some fun together.
Like every STEM field ever?
Even if it is just mostly male, it is still seen as stunning and brave. When it should just be the norm.
Like every STEM field ever?
Not male only, I think you may have misunderstood my point.
He said female. That’s apparently the new n word
A female woman? In this economy?
To me it’s a sign that someone is not really used to communicating with people irl or that they are trans-exlusionary. Both are a red flag…
I understand what you mean but “not used to communicating with people irl” being a red flag is kinda sad. Some people are just not good at socializing or don’t have many friends while also not being a bad person.
It’s literally language. If you use it as an adjective, it is literally how it’s meant to be used:
“A female coworker” ✅
“A co-worker who is a woman” ✅
“A woman coworker” ⛔
“A co-worker who is a female” ⛔
You’re just a misandrist masquerading as a feminist.
post about women’s only space
150+ comments, 50 downvotes
Close enough. Welcome back reddit
Yeah, I’m downvoting this shit. This is not mildly infuriating, this is just unnecessary ragebait and the fact that OP didn’t even blur out the usernames clearly shows their intention to go against rule 5.
Nobody posted it!?
Oh good. I don’t follow this com, another comment tipped me off.
While I do enjoy a little bit of chaos and schadenfreude, it would be nice to block out user names. Call out the mistake, not the person.
Most people here are lovely, but it only takes one match to start a fire. Might as well address some bullshit in these comments since I’m gonna get trolled by incels anyway…
side note: I’m not a mod there.
-
The women’s com is trans and non-binary inclusive. Anyone who feels at home there (and is respectful) is welcome.
-
It’s not all bitching about men. Looking at the last twenty posts, one was about men and two were related to men. We talk about pads and health and essays and positivity memes and do fun activities on fridays.
-
I support men making their own support groups. Although the internet itself often feels like a menfolk support group(to me,) I’m sure there are plenty of things an easy to find, curated space, could offer men who want to be just a little more vulnerable, knowing they would be supported by the mods if any toxic women came in to devalue their opinions and experience.
I support men making their own support groups. Although the internet itself often feels like a menfolk support group(to me,) I’m sure there are plenty of things an easy to find, curated space, could offer men who want to be just a little more vulnerable, knowing they would be supported by the mods if any toxic women came in to devalue their opinions and experience.
They should. the issue with this is they get branded as hate-groups or for ‘losers’. more or less automatically irregalrdless of what kind of community they are.
the bigger issue is that generally people think men are evil by default, and women are good by default. and that’s not a cultural assumption most folks are willing to look past.
the bigger issue is that generally people think men are evil by default, and women are good by default. and that’s not a cultural assumption most folks are willing to look past.
I consider myself a feminist and I vehemently disagree with that take, nor does it reflect in any way the commonly held views in the relevant communities.
Women and men are people. All people hold the capacity for good and evil within them. The real differences are 1) our respective socialization, and 2) the way we are perceived and treated by society based on our gender. That’s not an individual issue, but a systemic one.
I’ve been part of a few support groups for men that regularly received appreciation from women specifically because they were aimed at helping men in recognition of this fact, and thus didn’t revolve into inceldom and gender war nonsense.
Can you name some of the groups?
There are support groups for men out there that are not generally charectirized as toxic. Toxic folks may attack men for going to them, but I can tell you before I transitioned I used to go to one, and no one ever verbally attacked me for it.
generally people think men are evil by default, and women are good by default
i think this is a misunderstanding of the dynamic
we see this play out pretty regularly with the “not all men” arguments and the like: men getting annoyed by women being careful, and taking “you could hurt me” behaviour as some kind of insult. the statement is true: not all men are evil to women, but any man could be evil to women and thus need to be treated as though it’s possible in order to protect themselves
So? Any women could be evil to men as well. Should we therefore insult them by claiming they ‘could’ hurt us every time we encounter one?
It is a stereotype. I get being cautious. There are many awful men around. But keeping your distance from all of them until they have proven their innocence is not really a way to live.
And any person could be a vile murderer paedo, but assuming everyone is and treating them that way would be unreasonable.
Oops, prejudice is still prejudice, even if it’s targeted at the “right” people.
“You could hurt me” is an insult. The amount of men who hurt women, is low. Its really fucking low. But for some reason, we all have to carry the water for that low number.
Its sexist. Its no different than if I said I didnt want to be alone with a woman because she might claim I raped her. How likely is that? Not very. And I say that as someone that it did happen to. The idea that men are an inherent risk, is sexist. And Im just sick of pretending its not.
I you cross the street from someone because they are black, we call that racist. But when its man, all of sudden the excuses come thick and fucking fast.
A lot of male-only spaces descend into places to hate on women rather than proactively dealing with issues within our own community. It takes active moderation for these support groups to not become hate groups. If it stays focused on healthy self improvement (not hawking supplements and talking about a person being high or low “value”) and providing emotional support for men, it can avoid the “hate group” moniker.
The “loser” thing is actually a symptom of why we need spaces like we’re talking about. There will likely always be people out there who judge people for needing help and emotional support, especially men(thank you toxic masculinity), but the goal should be an overall less toxic society and greater acceptance that everyone needs help at some point.
Your “bigger issue” is not something I think I have experienced, I don’t think I’ve ever had someone assume I’m evil because I’m male. That sounds like an internal belief that you’re projecting on society, something that should be looked at in detail and questioned thoroughly in a therapeutic setting. Looking at other comments you’ve made on similar subjects, you seem to be someone who needs a place where your views can be safely challenged by reality, which is another way of saying we need better support groups for men like you, not just incel groups where you reinforce each other’s toxic beliefs.
I understand that this may come off as insulting, I just want you to know that that’s not my intent. I think you are lacking in self worth and that is leading you to project toxicity into the world. I don’t think you’re hopeless, mostly because I used to be on a similar course as you. I got therapy and learned to better love and value myself and I started seeing a lot more positivity in my interactions with people of all genders. The first step is wanting to change things.
The other reply is kinda accurate but I just wanted to give lived experience that the way I get treated is as if I’m more dangerous and more aggressive by default (where obviously a woman will get taken less seriously and be more in danger by default), but it still feels pretty bad to have people feel less safe around me when I have done literally nothing to cause it. I’m not blaming someone for saying they feel less safe around men, I would even agree, but that means the reality is many men who have done literally nothing feel the distrust and unease. The outright hatred I think is an online only thing, I’ve never heard anyone say anything similar irl.
Also I might say if you really want to help them to not discount their experiences, that’s how we ended up with people like Andrew tate. The hatred does exist but almost always by a very loud very small minority online. And I’m sure the hatred does exist irl, from people who had really bad experiences with men, or they’re just jerks. That can be reality, and when you get blamed by those women it’s painful. Women are just people, and there are good and bad women because there are good and bad (or maybe just hurt) people.
I think the “men evil”, “woman good” is just worded to strongly but is generally true (not actually true, but people considered it to be true).
Its more “men dangerous”, “men threatening” and not “evil”. A man in a women’s bathroom is a threat. A women in a mans bathroom is there because there was a line for the woman’s bathroom. The actual reason for those scenarios does not matter, the man will be seen as an invasion and a perpetrator. I have personally experienced examples of neutral situations as well (going to the woman’s bathroom as a man without negative reactions) but the general discourse about the topic is pretty clear.
Don’t make them a hate-group for losers, then? This speaks more about the places you’re hanging out at.
Removed by mod
You could be more supportive. Men have issues specifically hurting them too, and not dismissing that fact won’t make women’s issues less relevant.
Could we just be more supportive to each other?
Absolutely! I encourage support spaces for everyone. I’m calling out the irony that this user is up and down this thread arguing against the women’s community and spouting female priviledge ideology, while now complaining that men can’t have the same thing… or else people will complain and spout male priviledge ideology.
There are many ways that sexism hurts men, which is why I’m down with support spaces and actively discourage all men bullshit when I see it.
Claiming those spaces doomed from the start, because of people behaving exactly like Tittyfrog here, is bad faith as hell.
because that would be gay. part of the evil homosexual agenda we must stop!
it’s manly/womanly/hetero to beat up on other people and harass them for their issues and problems. or at least, to pretend that their problems are less than those of this more oppressed group. plus it feels really good to call people names rather than acknowledge their humanity and/or their fallibility.
but hey, we all know that billionaires are the most oppressed group on the planet. they are the true victims.
That first sentence is not a good look homie. I say this as a cis-het dude
You’re the only one here harassing people for their issues and problems and pretending they are less than those of a more oppressed group.
Wow. That was rude
Calling out shitty people isn’t rude.
oh hey, it’s the person what from the op screen cap. Here doing an encore performance. Everyone clap.
Thank you! I have mental health problems so even negative attention is fulfilling.
AND I don’t think rehashing someone’s minor mistake for public theater is cool without the user names removed. People were shitting all over him when he already got clapped back, so I said something.
While I do enjoy a little bit of chaos and schadenfreude, it would be nice to block out user names. Call out the mistake, not the person.
Showing public information isn’t immoral: we should be able to simply link to online content. Blocking out public information & breaking accessibility to do it, however, is patronizing & wrong.
Never said anything about morality. I said would be nice.
@Wren @lmmarsano I think I might use that as my email signature
Then it would still be not nice (ie, patronizing & wrong) for the reasons stated in the rest of the message.
I disagree.
The disabled disagree with you.
People overthink this: just linking the web as designed is not that hard & it doesn’t break everything like accessibility/usability, digging for context, etc.
Why links?
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
- usability
- we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
- text search is unavailable
- the system can’t
- reflow text to varied screen sizes
- vary presentation (size, contrast)
- vary modality (audio, braille)
- accessibility
- lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
- some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
- users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
- systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- web connectivity
- we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
- we can’t explore wider context of the original message
- authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered
- searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if
- image breaks
- image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
I can agree everyone should get to enjoy equal access to the web and still believe censoring user names is nice. There’s gotta be a balance between accessibility and preventing harassment.
Have you asked OP to link the comment in the post text?
How about a transcript for the image? That way user names could stay blocked.
Have you asked OP to link the comment in the post text?
Yes: that would certainly reveal the names.
There’s gotta be a balance between accessibility and preventing harassment.
Easy: don’t harass. There are better controls on harassment by others than breaking accessibility & all the other considerations (usability, web connectivity, authenticity, searchability, fault tolerance) like reporting abuses.
Transcripts still break web connectivity (to explore context) & authenticity.
Your approach requests OP conduct/sustain definite harm[1] to speculatively prevent indefinite harm someone else won’t necessarily perform. How is requesting definite harm to an uninvolved party nice or right?
Everyone has moral agency to do the right thing here, and respecting that would be just.
impairing access ↩︎
- usability
I support men making their own support groups.
While women are allowed to keep men out of their groups, it doesn’t work the other way around. Even gay men’s groups have trouble keeping invasive women from changing the nature of their groups.
As you can see, women have trouble keeping men out, too.
I’d like to see your data.
I’d like to see your data.
Just try finding a men’s opinion group that successfully bans women.
So you don’t have data.
Whataboutism is a non-sequitor that disrupts and discourages productive discussion.
I haven’t noticed anything like this online. I only one time saw a woman post in a MSM community and it was to ask a question, which was fine.
-
I blocked this community a while ago so I don’t accidentally view/comment on it
Same. I’m definitely guilty of glossing over community names, but fortunately saw that community the one time it took to block.
Same. I generally don’t care to read posts in communities that practice inclusivity. Same would go for any “men only” communities.
Idk a men only community would probably be just trains, shoes, tanks, water heaters, and energy drinks, and I think I’d like it
I’ve seen dull men’s clubs on other platforms and was happy to see that female dull men were just as welcome to discuss garden tools and trains.
Is there a train community?
Some others too
Dullness is gender neutral.
It wouldn’t be about subject matter, it would be that I don’t support inclusivity in groups.
I’m sure subjectively, I could find good conversation in either genderized communities. But the minute anything becomes a walled garden, it loses its ability to be objective and nuanced.
deleted by creator
When I first started here I had a relevant point for a women’s only community on the front. I asked if my opinion was welcome, told it was not (but fairly respectfully), and the only comment I left was an apology.
Like it’s not hard to be respectful, even if you hold a slightly different opinion. I don’t go to any of the “on grad” posts and let my opinions about Stalin fly(which are largely negative despite me agreeing with a lot of the tenants of communism).
The only exception I make about being respectful is anyone bragging about not voting last election in the US. You all suck and I will not let you live it down peacefully. Ffs vote third party! But don’t brag about being a lazy POS and standing by while fascism takes over!
Ffs vote third party! But don’t brag about being a lazy POS and standing by while fascism takes over!
And what if your political party choice is ‘no parties’? Everyone else can vote 3rd party to appease their choice, except for those who don’t believe in statism?
You’ll be tolerant to fascists, yet hurl disrespect to anarchists? How alarming.
You out here actively supporting by being hazy and pretending your farts smell better.
You out here actively promoting ‘throwing your vote away by voting 3rd party’ but hating other people who act on their political values because they what, wasted their vote? It’s a contradictory and ill-thought out stance.
