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

    •  drake   ( @drake@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      13
      edit-2
      14 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

        •  drake   ( @drake@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
          link
          fedilink
          15
          edit-2
          14 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.

            • 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.

              • 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?

                • Again, I totally get your point, and I think it’s a worthwhile conversation to have, but that’s not really what I’m here to talk about - I’m just trying to explain what happened in the comment thread, why people got upset, and how we can avoid that so that we can have open and productive conversations about these really sensitive topics without upsetting people.

                  The reality is that women so often have to deal with men trying to control their sexuality, so when we’re talking about these topics in good faith, we really need to be extra cautious that we’re handling these topics delicately and respectfully.

            • 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.

              • You are not understanding the argument.

                Let’s say two people are regularly having sex with consent. And man already agrees with her on the issues listed above.

                Then OOP pops up and says she should not have sex with him to get her rights back.

                Explain to me how not having sex with the man will get her rights back? He already supports them.

  • Seeing the state if discourse in the B4 movement threads makes it so obvious that the present community on lemmy is wildly sexist and misogynistic. Like how egotistical and selfish do you have to be to see a movement that is a rational response to women having their bodily autonomy taken away from them in real time, and interpret that situation in a way where you perceive it as a threat to your personal chances of getting laid?

    You could be seeing this movement and choosing to recognize that it is coming from a place of justified fear, anger, and suffering of women all over the country, and decide, “This situation is wrong, we need to fight this.” It’s not hard. Just be an ally.

  • IMO the context does absolutely make up for it. It’s a reply to:

    Wait so the idea is do not sleep with any men? Even men who support your views and rights? This just seems like it would radicalize more incels or generate more sexism. Like the average person who did everything they could is going to go on a date and be told “I’m not have sex until the government is fixed” which would make me say “ok, well, hit me up in 4 years.”

    The reply got downvoted because it virtually doesn’t address the argument. I read the parent comment as “this course will only inflame society’s opinions on women”. I agree that this doesn’t mean SA would be warranted.

    •  spujb   ( @spujb@lemmy.cafe ) OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      the comment is responding to someone claiming that women choosing to employ their bodily autonomy to protect themselves would result in even more sexism. victim blaming.

      the comment getting downvoted is a clever and pointed tongue-in-cheek response to such an insulting take, but some people clearly don’t like seeing their rhetoric called out.

  • 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

    •  spujb   ( @spujb@lemmy.cafe ) OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      15 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

      • nah b i was on the side of: if men are getting offended over people choosing the bear, then they should be looking inward rather than picking fights with the question

  • 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?

    • 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”.