(Content warning, discussions of SA and misogyny, mods I might mention politics a bit but I hope this can be taken outside the context of politics and understood as a discussion of basic human decency)

We all know how awful Reddit was when a user mentioned their gender. Immediate harassment, DMs, etc. It’s probably improved over the years? But still awful.

Until recently, Lemmy was the most progressive and supportive of basic human dignity of communities I had ever followed. I have always known this was a majority male platform, but I have been relatively pleased to see that positive expressions of masculinity have won out.

All of that changed with the recent “bear vs man” debacle. I saw women get shouted down just for expressing their stories of being sexually abused, repeatedly harassed, dogpiled, and brigaded with downvotes. Some of them held their ground, for which I am proud of them, but others I saw driven to delete their entire accounts, presumably not to return.

And I get it. The bear thing is controversial; we can all agree on this. But that should never have resulted in this level of toxicity!

I am hoping by making this post I can kind of bring awareness to this weakness, so that we can learn and grow as a community. We need to hold one another accountable for this, or the gender gap on this site is just going to get worse.

  • @TheFonz
    link
    -77 months ago

    This here is the biggest woosh that supports the whole thesis of the hypothetical. It was never meant to be a logical hypothetical. It’s intended to elucincidate a prevailing feeling among women about what they perceive as safer. The fact that this still has to be explained after so many days is…I don’t know.

    • @TORFdot0
      link
      107 months ago

      Had the hypothetical been used to explain negative feelings about someone due to their race, religion, skin color, or sexuality; it would have been rightfully reviled.

      There are far more effective and less misandrist ways to express that you don’t feel safe being alone in risky situations.

      • @TheFonz
        link
        -1
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yes, because those prejudices aren’t grounded. The numbers reveal a whole other story when it comes to men/women interaction. Women have to use the biggest kid gloves to even broach this topic to men bc my god…the inherent fragility

        Edit: listen guys. Trying to substitute another minority for the man in the hypothetical is not the dunk you think. I feel like Lemmy is the ultimate male echo chamber sometimes.

        • Over 1 in 3 women (35.6%) in the US have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

        • Nearly 1 in 3 college women (29%) say they’ve been in an abusive dating relationship .

        • 52% of college women report knowing a friend who’s experienced violent and abusive dating behaviors including physical, sexual, digital, verbal, or other controlling abuse.

        Everyone knows at least one woman (unless you’re on Lemmy of course) who was abused, raped, or the subject of physical violence by a male partner at one point in their lives. Try to understand why the hypothetical exists, not if meets your logical criteria

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          These statistics make me vomit in my mouth, ughh men are really fucked up. I am a man, I love many men in my life but damn…we are pretty broken on the whole.

    • KillingTimeItself
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      07 months ago

      again with this shit, this isn’t the problem. (apologies if im incredibly brazen, i’ve talked to a lot of people about this and seen this statement multiple times now)

      We’re explaining why the hypothetical exists. Rather than what it’s purpose is, they don’t understand the purpose of the hypothetical, and as a result, are criticizing it’s use. Telling them that the hypothetical is “actually not about hypotheticals at all, and actually its about the common understanding of woman” does nothing, they literally already know.

      What we should be explaining right now, is that it’s supposed to be inflammatory, and that the entire purpose of it is to bring to light the specific issue that woman have with their views of men in society as a whole, and how that exists in relation to how the rest of society views that view itself (often negatively, as we just learned, but immediately ignored for reasons unbeknownst to me) and most specifically here. The aspect everybody seems to be missing.

      How we can fix this problem, to better society, so that men don’t fucking rape women.

        • @JonsJavaM
          link
          17 months ago

          Please explain your comment. It could be seen that you are (mockingly or otherwise) stating that all sex is rape. As this is not completely clear, I would ask that you explain what you meant.

            • @JonsJavaM
              link
              37 months ago

              Following that logic:

              • we shouldn’t try to stop murder, because it will always happen
              • we shouldn’t try to stop racism, because it will always happen
              • we shouldn’t try to stop slavery, because it will always happen
              • we shouldn’t try to stop government corruption, because it will always happen

              We shouldn’t look at our past and say “we will never rise up above this, so why try”. We become better incrementally, by TRYING to be better.

              By basically saying “you’re disillusion for advocating for better” means you’ve given up. I and many like me haven’t. There’s no reason we can’t work towards a safer society for all.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                17 months ago

                I mean you can try but those things will always exist. That’s all my point is. You can educate and in this case berate but that’s human nature for you.