A person whose username appears in this post has asked me to blur their user name, this is not some that is possible for me to do. Only the OP has the ability to make edits to their post. I am going to remove it for now as this is the only way I can affect the post. If OP wants to blur the user names I’ll restore the post. Thanks for understanding.
Edit: post has had user name obscured so I am restoring it. Thanks guys!
I feel like accidentally commenting there is a Lemmy right of passage. It got me, and continues to almost get me. They generally have good discussion.
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
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.
suggestion: make a separate community that is “replies to womens stuff”.
actually don’t, sounds like a cesspool.
Much like the original.
Show us one of these “cesspool” threads, I’ve seen nothing but kindness there.
Turns out, a community exclusive to some gender almost inevitably turns into a hate pool, exactly because the most common scenario in which they are needed is “let’s shit on someone and not let them defend themselves”.
Naturally, those excluded find a way to get into the conversation to stand up for themselves. When men come together to spread hateful takes on women, this naturally puts women in a position to defend, respond, and possibly retaliate. The same works the other way around.
And honestly - it’s how it should be. Those spreading hate and silencing all other voices should not be given platform for it. Let’s remain constructive and keep the conversation going. Division and hate hurts and ends up gross for everyone.
Incel behavior includes using “female” as a noun when talking about women. Using “female” as an adjective is perfectly normal and common. It is fine to write “female coworker” instead of “coworker who is a woman.”
Some people are hypersensitive to wrongspeak.
I don’t think people are bothered by “female coworker”, which is perfectly normal. It’s the reference to a “female-only” community, when the actual com is called WomensStuff and describes itself as “women only” and “a women’s community”.
Maybe it’s just me, but in female-only community, I’m using female as part of a composed adjective. I’d say male-only community too, it just feels more natural. In fact, in an earlier comment I wrote women only, and then writing man only felt SO bad that I changed both to female and male.
Now that I think about it it’s probably because I used man instead of men. I’ll change both back but OOP miiight have followed my logic? Idk
In trans-inclusive spaces we use “woman,” in reference to the gender, as opposed to female, which usually designates sex.
Like a nature documentar, for example: “The female meetkat seeks out her pack,” as opposed to “The woman meetkat hollers at the girls.”
Not every female is a woman. Some of them are ladies or girls.
I don’t know what to else to say, the community describes itself as “women only” and he described it as being “female only”. You could (but probably shouldn’t) take it up with that community if you really feel their “women only” rule excludes girls. But I’m not sure I see how it excludes “ladies” which are generally considered a subset or synonym of “women”.
To continue your point, it’s true that not every’ female’ is a woman, indeed not every female is human. You get female seahorses, penguins and even female plants (dioecious ants like asparagus or holly). But for most English speakers, in most situations, female is an adjective and not a noun. So, you might ‘have a female friend’ , but you’re not usually ‘friends with a female’.
In my experience, the only linguistic situations where it is common to use female as a noun are 1) in scientific writing “the male mantis is decapitated by the larger female”, and even their is usually just to avoid repeating the name of species. Or, 2) within groups of akward men. I’m not sure if they’re trying to sound intelligent by aping scientific terminology, or are so removed from regular contact with women that they see them almost as another species.
Obviously it doesn’t mean that everyone who talks about ‘females’ is an incel, but its use is highly linked to people who spend time in communities that don’t involve a lot of women. Just as not everyone who uses “bogan” is Australian, but most of them are. Or, have spent a lot of time in Australian-adjacent situations.
Ok. I somehow missed that. I scanned for other uses of “female” a few times but was blinded to the one right next to coworker.
Incel behavior includes using “female” as a noun when talking about women.
Non-incels, too. Women, too.
The noun “female” isn’t a problem. Some don’t mind. Seriously. And it’s used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc. In conventional language, it’s an acceptable word.
The problem isn’t so much the word, but its usage, ie, the message. These superficial word criticisms fail to meaningfully engage the fuller context & meaning.
Imagine we make the name for an entire class a derogatory word! Meanwhile, the name for other major gender/sex remains innocuous. Seems like classic stigmatization: who is that serving? Is opposition to the noun “female” unwittingly subscribing to stigmatization & sexist thinking of those who’d welcome the stigmatization?
Incel behavior includes using “female” as a noun when talking about women.
Sure: A -> B != B -> A
You … know that, right?
I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate, but I do understand the logical expression you used.
Probably trying to say that just because incels (allegedly) use the term “female,” it doesn’t mean that a person using that word must then be an incel.
Thanks. I’m not saying the poster is an incel. I’m just saying the objection to misuse of “female” has been primed by incels (and Ferengi). Without incels, there wouldn’t be such a knee jerk revulsion to it.
i really don’t even understand the concept of policing other people’s language use.
it’s like saying people who don’t have perfect grammar are stupid.
It’s not about the grammar. It’s the underlying mindset that might lead to specific word choices. If someone exclusively refers to women as bitches, that may be because they don’t hold much respect for women.
More subtly, if someone always refers to women as girls but rarely to men as boys, it could be telling us that they think of women as immature and less like fully formed adults.
For the word females, it’s more subtle again. It would be normal to refer to animals as male and female. For people we have the gender-specific terms man and woman. If you refer to women as females but not men as males, you may be revealing an underlying dehumanizing attitude. This is corroborated by what seems to be a common trope of incels calling women females.
I thought the plural of Ferengi was Ferengi.
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.
I mean, there’s stuff like dull men’s club where it’s just dudes talking about average life stuff like buying new tools
Is there a rule that women aren’t allowed to post there?
I do enjoy dull men’s club
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
If women are straight up not interacting with you because they think you could hurt them you need to reassess what kind of vibes you’re giving off. There’s nothing wrong with keeping people of either gender at arms length until you’re sure they’re trustworthy. It’s not an insult, they just don’t know you. Women generally have a lot more to worry about in that regard because men are typically bigger and stronger than they are. As a man on the smaller end of the spectrum I deal with some of those worries myself. It’d be great if we could all just trust each other by default but that’s not the world we live in. People are allowed to just go around being psychos until they do something really bad, and you don’t want to be the victim when that happens.
“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.
Don’t make them a hate-group for losers, then? This speaks more about the places you’re hanging out at.
I don’t really know if I agree with your comment or the one you’re responding to. But here are my two cents: having good friendships with guys is difficult.
In middle-school (I’m European but using the American terms idk why) I had a number of good male friends but come highschool they all got addicted to drugs or video games and became a drag. I finally found friends in what one might call the “theater kids” group, which was exclusively female (there was a lot of stigma against these folks among guys and I burned a lot of bridges). The only close male friend I had left, I was only friends with through competitive sports and come 10th grade, it turns out he was a total toxic asshole (cheating on gf, racist, violent, etc; all developed over the course of maybe 4 months). So I end up having literally only female friends for the rest of highschool and much of college.
As a guy, that was kinda a bummer. It’s good to have some friends or really anyone close to you of the same gender, and I was a nerdy guy growing up with a single mother and no male friends or role models whatsoever. Luckily that turned me into a radical progressive and feminist, mostly due to my mother’s politics and hopefully common sense, and not a incel or neon-nazi.
This is just all to say that having a male support group is easier said then done. I don’t know if it’s because they really are losers—all the guys around me certainly felt like that—or because of social stigma against it. But teenage me definitely needed something like that when there wasn’t anything to be found.
Ultimately I turned out fine though, hopefully. I wonder, though, if some of the guys I knew in highschool would have been less icky if there had been less social pressure to basically be a toxic ass. I don’t know how to go about changing at least a century or social norms, but I think the people who got the worst of it were the guys I was friends with in middle-school, guys who were as smart and mature as my theater-group friends, but somehow pushed into toxic masculinity.
Ok, that’s a bit much for two cents. Hopefully I didn’t go on for two long… pretty bad pun, but I couldn’t help myself :P
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. Gatekeeping 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.
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.
-
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.
That’s community’s mods are super nice. Probably too nice TBH.
…But yeah. Follow community rules, or post elsewhere. What is so hard about that?
I think it’s hard simply because browsing by /all, or even by communities you follow and then just in your main thread, is not set up to highlight the community or it’s rules. If something hits the front page of /all I’m rarely digging into the communities specific rules or even where it’s coming from to an extent. Only to say, it’s a learned behavior to care about the communities specifically in this site aggregator system.
All of that being said, people of course should respect community rules and learn the behavior of identifying what room they’re in before engaging with that community. I’m just not surprised when these flimsy barriers fail.
Is the best behavior to block any community you don’t or can’t participate in? I personally don’t love that behavior because I like seeing what everyone is discussing in threads, but that’s a reasonable solution. Obviously my current strat is just reading the community before posting (like not commenting negatively about Star Gate getting a new season in the star gate community as an example that happened today lol).
Wandering in, missing the rule sign, getting corrected, and apologizing is fine. I’ve done it; the mods there couldn’t have been nicer about it. It’s not an ideal system, no, but it works well enough; it’s the mods shouldering that burden more than anything.
…The problem is when the guys are corrected, yet keep talking anyway. Which I see happen a lot.
There is no excuse for that.
Is the best behavior to block any community you don’t or can’t participate in? I personally don’t love that behavior because I like seeing what everyone is discussing in threads, but that’s a reasonable solution.
I feel extremely mixed about this, yeah. I feel weird even talking about it.
I personally don’t love that behavior because I like seeing what everyone is discussing in threads, but that’s a reasonable solution.
The women’s space… doesn’t prohibit lurking? On one hand, the community is public, and I’m curious about the perspective in the discussions. I’m interested in understanding them so I can be a more respectful person myself.
I upvote their posts so they get more exposure.
…But I don’t want to violate their privacy either. Blocking is reasonable. Right now, I just upvote them but don’t enter the threads.
Obviously my current strat is just reading the community before posting (like not commenting negatively about Star Gate getting a new season in the star gate community as an example that happened today lol).
Read the room, yeah.
IMO TV fandoms shouldn’t worship their material. Negative discussion is allowed, otherwise the space gets toxic.
In fact, this kinda happened to one of my personal fandom spaces, /r/thelastairbender: among other things, they idolize ATLA (the original series) like a diety, to the point where anything different (including other material like Korra or the Netflix adaption) is demonized. Deeper stuff like the novels, fanfics or speculative lore is not welcome either.
That sucks. It’s all too common; the Star Wars fandom (for instance) is notorious for it. And its why some negativity and ‘outsider perspectives’ should be welcomed in such spaces.
The women’s space is different though. It’s basically a shelter from the shit this group puts up with IRL and online, so being more sensitive makes sense.
I completely agree. I just wish I could systematically prevent myself from making any mistake lol, or like anyone from making the first mistake.
Anyone doing it intentionally is a dick and should be blocked. This is just an interesting problem for the platform we’re on and I’m excited to see how the Internet develops overtime to fix this.
I just wish I could systematically prevent myself from making any mistake lol, or like anyone from making the first mistake.
…I guess we theoretically could, via a Lemmy or Piefed PR, heh.
As an example, we could implement an opt-in feature that pops-up community rules before one is allowed to post. Kinda like Discord, but less obnoxious.
That’s one reason why I like this place. If something about the site’s UX design in problematic, there’s somewhere to go to get it improved. With any corporate social media, your only assurance is that it will get worse with time.
I think that’s a great idea.
how do you measure someone else’s intention behind an internet post? other than your own arbitrary judgement of it?
I mean, I like the other reply to this comment as well, but if a man posts in an all women community twice in quick succession after being warned it’s pretty easy to assume their intentions are bad - right? Like there are things people can say or do that are so engrained in the behavior of bad faith actors that you can kinda spot them.
My point was just to reinforce that I agree with the notion that people can maliciously attempt to ruin a community or discourage individuals/groups from posting and that they should be banned. “No Nazi’s in the bar” kinda thing.
That’s kinda the idea behind moderation.
It’s why it’s best done in small communites, as the narrow context narrows the scope of the arbitrary judgement.
I think it’s hard simply because browsing by /all, or even by communities you follow and then just in your main thread, is not set up to highlight the community or it’s rules. If something hits the front page of /all I’m rarely digging into the communities specific rules or even where it’s coming from to an extent. Only to say, it’s a learned behavior to care about the communities specifically in this site aggregator system.
Bingo. This is the classic ‘read the sidebar’ crap from reddit. most users aren’t reading hte sidebar because the side bar doesn’t exist for them when they click in front the front page.
or the ‘this post is already been made why don’t you search instead of making new posts’. because search is stupid and useless for the most part, and a thread from six months ago is likely not relevant today.
because that isn’t how a public internet site works.
if you go to a public park and hold a women only event, and get upset men are in the park and wander over and are curious what is going on… and get upset about those men then the problem is you and your unrealistic expectations of exclusivity.
if you want a private exclusive type of space… then make it private and exclusive. that way you can control who views and interacts with the event and even hire security to keep the ‘wrong’ people out.
like if the mods want to auto-ban everyone who doesn’t personally verify with them their womanhood, that’s their business. but expecting people to self-police their gender is a dumb expectation.
personally i have a dick but i don’t really identify as being a ‘man’. nor do identify as being a ‘woman’. i’m just a person. so am i therefore allowed to commentate? or is the mods who determine my sex/gender status, regardless of how i perceive myself?
To correct your ‘public park’ analogy, the space is public. Anyone can wander in. But it has clear signs posted at the only entrance saying its a space for women to speak, please be quiet, otherwise.
Missing the sign and apologizing is understandable.
But but if you wander in and knowingly violate that rule by electing to speak up, that is no one’s fault but yours.
personally i have a dick but i don’t really identify as being a ‘man’. nor do identify as being a ‘woman’. i’m just a person. so am i therefore allowed to commentate? or is the mods who determine my sex/gender status, regardless of how i perceive myself?
…A primary reason for that rule is basically “don’t be a dick about this being a women’s only space, please.”
If you feel you qualify as a woman to speak in the space, go for it! That’s the idea. That’s the spirit of the rule. But you specifically say "nor do [I] identify as being a ‘woman’. "
Making an issue out of it is precisely what is unwanted. So is trying to blame the space for your deliberate choice.
I don’t get why this is so hard to grasp. It’s simple.
just because i feel that way doesn’t mean the people in charge feel that way.
it’s just part of life. mods gotta mod. this entire post to me just seems like moral grandstanding/public shaming.
and further, i commented in that thread too. i came from the front page of lemmy.world. there were no rules posted. there was no signage. but i didn’t get called out by the mods because i ‘type like a girl’ and often pass as a woman on the internet.
I’m not trying to grandstand. My issue is with these presumptions:
like if the mods want to auto-ban everyone who doesn’t personally verify with them their womanhood, that’s their business. but expecting people to self-police their gender is a dumb expectation.
They’re not checking you at the door. They aren’t auto banning anyone. They very politely point out the sidebar to a few posters, then request them to stay quiet; that’s the extent of it.
…If you don’t make an issue of that, it’s not an issue.
if you want a private exclusive type of space… then make it private and exclusive. that way you can control who views and interacts with the event and even hire security to keep the ‘wrong’ people out.
But this is unrealistic, as then they wouldn’t get nearly as much participation in the space. It’s a public gathering spot, by choice.
Again, my specific problem is with commenters that are shown the rules by the mods, yet willingly choose to ignore them.
Just because you think rules are unrealistic does not give you a right to ignore them once asked. That’s how every community here works. Yet they seem to get tons of posters carrying that bad attitude, with that same line of argument.
That’s what makes me bristle. Respecting community rules (once known) is basic human civility, and people are perfectly capable of ‘self-policing’ that. I do not like the rejection of that + the policing of others in its place.
The public park is owned by everyone, not just the women. You would be correct to be upset by men being excluded from this public space.
Comms are not public assets. Your use of any comm is entirely at the pleasure of the administrators of that comm, and their designated moderators.
Your opinion on the way they implement and enforce their rules is entirely irrelevant within their comm.
My suggestion would be to do what you would for any other comm whose behavior you do not support and/or whose rules you find reprehensible: block them and move on.
they should make their community private then. that way they can control who virtually walks in the door, so to speak.
as is, there is no door. it’s a public space that anyone can access.
You are entitled to your opinion. They are entitled to theirs. I am entitled to my opinion: what they do with their space and who they allow into it is no concern of yours. Mind your own business, and leave them to mind theirs.
But we are allowed, and encouraged to read it, just not post. It is public.
Lets say you go to a public building and in that public building there is a room marked women only, lets say in that room are some toilets, would you go in that room? Since it’s a public space in the same building as all the other public space, the only difference is that portion of the space is understood to be only for women, or those that identify as women.
You may stumble in accidentally, and you will be gently corrected, but if you keep stumbling in, it’s gonna start to seem weird, and the corrections will get less gentle.
Perhaps this is an exception, but I’ve disregarded that rule to use the building’s only baby changing table a bunch of times.
Yeah, that’s fine, a bit outside the metaphor as there is no analog.
Basically just that socially enforced boundaries are a thing even in public spaces.
a lot of places have rebranded those to ‘family restrooms’. which is great.
yeah i would. esp if the men’s room was locked.
i have gone into plenty of women’s rooms before. i don’t really give a shit about gender/sex rules when it comes to not shitting my pants.
sometimes when i came out a woman got all huffy, but they never did anything about it. because it’s pretty stupid ultimately. everyone has to shit. and most people dont’ care women use the man’s room.
but i don’t live in gender exclusivity/anxiety land like many people do. most gender exclusivity people have identity issues hence they need to police other people’s gender and sex and make massive generalizations about others gender and sex because they lack self-awareness and understanding and confidence.
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.
Dullness is gender neutral.
Is there a train community?
Some others too
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
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.
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.
Right, the infuriating part is the man ignoring the rules despite clearly being aware of them
Why is bringing a comment from a woman in his life so bad? It might be a gray area but it’s still from a woman which is what the point was.
I’m not arguing against the rule since I just blocked the community if I can’t interact with it anyway, but it feels like that should be an interesting gray area discussion thing, though that’s also just ignoring the femcels responding to him calling him a liar lol
Because he is not following the rules.
it’s hearsay; if you can’t cross examine the testimony, it can’t be presented as evidence.
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?
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.
Yeah, men should go to the back of that bus right?
Oh, poor poor oppressed men that aren’t allowed anywhere on the internet!
The problem is not being allowed somewhere. Women are allowed pretty much everywhere, too.
What is inadequate is building what are essentially hate groups and not letting the opposite side defend themselves.
This turns to unnecessary and brutal radicalization that is antithetic to a productive change.
Sure, women are allowed pretty much everywhere, but it still doesn’t mean that we are safe from harassment or that the spaces aren’t extremely male-dominated. And if an oppressed group wanting their own space and complaining about their oppression is a hate group to you, look inwards.
I see where this is coming from, and from that angle, it might seem (and sometimes be) noble.
The problem arises when the oppressed group starts falsely lumping everyone outside the group into oppressors, which so often happens around gendered issues, among others. So many times I’ve seen women in such spaces lashing out at men at large and then bringing this mentality to the world outside the group.
“Men can’t be discriminated against - they are oppressors” “Men are abusive by nature” “Men are unsafe to be around” “Men are the problem” “It is always men” “Sure, a man might just be a chill person, but he always carries privilege and is thereby part of the problem” “Men go through different socialization that breaks them and makes them abusive”
These are just few of the arguments I’ve seen in the wild, on several occasions.
To be clear: it’s not by any means exclusive to women. There are plenty of examples of men grouping together on much the same grounds, spreading similar false narratives about women. And this is something that shouldn’t happen, ever, under any premise. It erodes our ability to build bridges, to communicate, to find actual solutions - and to support each other, whatever the gender distribution of any given place is. And currently, Lemmy is certainly not the worst on the scale, even though it could fare better.
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.
Online communities don’t have to have the same demographics as physical locations. Why does it seem weird to you that either gender would want to vent about the opposite one without reading 100 replies by the group being vented about.
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.
Almost like women were systematically oppressed by men for centuries or something
And thats why men arent allowed to some quiet time in the shed?
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
https://time.com/archive/6709832/organizations-not-for-men-only/
There’s also the Scouts formerly known as Boy (“Boy Scouts” no longer exists, it’s now “Girl Scouts” and “Scouting America” now.)
Male only spaces are often sued out of existence.
So I recently looked at both Girlscouts and Scouts of America for my daughter. Honestly when I tried to compare with Scouts of America the folks from Girlscouts were very sexist and very quick to bash on their competition while Scouts of America was just like “yeah were gonna go hiking and make pinewood derby cars and have a good time” both organizations have their problems but Scouts of America was noticably the less toxic of the two at this point
Tbh I’m not surprised, I do think that SOA was forced to be inclusive, but they have been for years now and so they’re probably used to it.
Conversely Girl Scouts not only were never pressured to be inclusive, they’re actively shielded from having to be inclusive. You think they’re sexist when a girl wants to join you should see how they treat boys who want to join!
Also worth noting, the whole reasoning behind forcing the Boy Scouts to allow girls was “because the girl scouts sucks.”
Personally I think the correct answer was either:
A) Boy/Girl scouts merge, they’re both now Scouting America and everyone can join. Could even expand it to adults that missed out as kids and want to learn survival skills or want to hike and camp with other adults (separate units of course from the kids lmao, but I’ll shoehorn in a healthy “third place” for adults any chance I get). And keep selling the Girl Scout cookies but call them Scouting America cookies now.
B) Nothing. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts remain limited to their respective genders, and if “girl scouts sucks” then it is their responsibility to improve and make it not suck instead of forcing their way into the Boy Scouts. Leaves NB out to dry though, and could get weird if someone wants to transition but their Scout Credits don’t transfer with them.
But we got neither, instead we got “the boys do not deserve their own space but the girls do” which is a little weird to me (though entirely too common.)
I am glad however that you were able to go with the less toxic option, and I do still love Thin Mints, I just wish they’d have taken option (A) instead of option (D)ouble Standard.
This is not an instance for incels, please leave, and take your mother issues elsewhere.
Username checks out…
He said female. That’s apparently the new n word
Please just go back to reddit
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.
Edit: imagine being so much of a worthless misandrist that you downvote THE CORRECT USAGE OF LANGUAGE.
