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.
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 documentary, for example: “The female meetkat seeks out her pack,” as opposed to “The woman meetkat hollers at the girls.”
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.
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.
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 removed, 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.
Nobody posted it!?
suggestion: make a separate community that is “replies to womens stuff”.
actually don’t, sounds like a cesspool.
I thought the plural of Ferengi was Ferengi.
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 removed 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.
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.
-
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.
It’s just…the internet I guess?
Go into the various “Ask” communities, and you’ll see things like this constantly:
Women of Lemmy, what’s something that…?
As a man, I …
Americans of Lemmy, what is your favorite…?
As a European, I…
Definitely mildly infuriating when people just butt in when they’re explicitly not the target audience of the question. If I’m somehow doing that with this reply, lol, I apologetically appreciate the irony.
I’ve accidentally commented in that community more than once when it was a generic post…but the top comment nowadays is a reminder of the rules.
Very, very different than the examples you describe
It is significantly more likely to read:
“Europeans of Lemmy……?”
“As an American……!”
I’ll take your word for it, though I assume it is the case. Like I said…it’s just the internet doing what it does (for better or worse).
“As an American” (though speaking only for myself) when I see those, I don’t even go into them because my opinion wasn’t solicited. I also don’t throw out my opinions in non-American news/politics communities for the same reason. Also, I wish that was a two-way street.
Also, I wish that was a two-way street.
That would be nice! I understand that everyone probably feels entitled to comment, given the amount of US-centric content one is bombarded with, and the shit-show our country has descended into.
Still, I see a disturbing number of upvoted comments that are just anti-Americans (i.e., not disparaging the government, but the citizenry). Shitting on people for where they were born is as valid as astrology, and nationality is not a good indicator of moral fiber.
Is that why US political posts are always filled with people from other countries?
That’s because US politics is interfering in other countries.
every countries politics interferes with its neighbors.
USA just has global reach. So does China and a few other countries.
Same idea
As a professional opinionator, I…
you get paid for internet comments?
It’s just…the internet I guess?
Yep, welcome to online social media.
The issue is that people want a public forum to be private and controlled as such.
Like if you go to a public park and want to kick out anyone who isn’t a part of your party you want ot have there… the issue is you. it’s not the other users of the public park. but there are stupid and entitled people who would host a party in a public space and then get pissed off other people are using the space.
that isn’t how it works. if you want a private party you need to have it on a private piece of land. which is totally fine. just like you can geo-IP block access to your website if you wanted.
In a public park, you can absolutely ask random people to leave your party area. Not the park, but the space you are using. Double so if you’ve gone through the official channels to reserve that section.
And that goes both ways: If someone is having an event and one inserts themselves where they’re clearly not invited, then that person very much has issues respecting others’ boundaries.
It all boils down to people respecting each other.
you’d also be an asshole. you don’t own the park. you have no exclusive rights access it or use it.
and tying it up for personal use and going around kicking out other well meaning people is just you being a selfish dick.
if you want exclusive access… hold your party/event in a private space.
it’s not that hard of a concept… but people want the privileges of exclusivity without the costs. and get butthurt over it for some stupid reason. if i wanted a party that was exclusive to my friends/invitees only I would never hold it in a public space.
i’ve inserted myself into plenty of events at parks. usually it’s only the dipshit karen types that have an issue with it. most people don’t care because they aren’t anxious/controlling types and they understand that their event in a public park means they will have to be welcome to strangers. especially when your event spills over into a walkway or heavily trafficked space.
Ummm… what do you think the park picnic space rentals are?
Also, parks with camping have reserved spots.
Seems to me either you don’t get out much, or you are one of those assholes that refuses to leave a space someone already paid to rent.
That person is giving me “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!” vibes. lol.
They’re kind of being an asshole all over the thread. I don’t know why women asking men to not comment in a women’s forum has them so hot and bothered, but it sure has them on the warpath lol.
Probably 'cause they commented to the same thread.
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.
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
I agree that the guy in the post is mildlyinfuriating at best, and much more likely a douche (never hear a woman use male as a noun like that, a very particular shibboleth). But I’m not sure I love. This community becoming half posts picking on specific users. Should we blur the usernames? Otherwise its an easy path to brigading and bullying.
Absolutely. In fact, I would extend that past the user, to the community as well. This is a gate-kept (correct spelling?) community; that’s fine and I don’t think the rest of lemmy should care, but I somehow regularly come across discussions about the community or related, with many people in the comments frustrated. That frustration is natural and isn’t going to go away anytime soon. I don’t care about said community, but it’s annoying to keep coming across posts like this.
These posts are clearly just causing argument over a fairly small, specific community that most people aren’t, I presume, involved in. I wish we could just leave it alone; it’s gate-kept, let’s honor that and also not talk about the community outside of said community (exception: meta-communities dedicated to stuff like that).
I’d be annoyed if people couldn’t stop talking about e.g. the Linux community outside of the Linux community as well, with tuns of the comments angry about the Linux community because they don’t use Linux and are offended that the community doesn’t welcome them talking about windows or complaining about Linux. Obviously the community is intended for Linux users and while it’s not actively gate-kept, windows users (not looking to transition) aren’t exactly welcome. Funny parallel there.
If I weren’t a Linux user, and had blocked that community, I would be very annoyed at regularly seeing meta-commentary about the community I don’t care about and can’t contribute too. This isn’t a perfect analogy, but you get the gist of it.
It just seems to draw purposeless attention and outrage to something people could otherwise probably ignore. That being said, this is all pretty minor; I would have ignored this post as well, if it weren’t for the below. Clearly a number of people didn’t ignore it though.
I don’t know, I’m just lying on my sofa with a cold, and yelling at the sky…
Edit: Jesus Christ how did that get so long. I need to get healthy and get a life again. Being sick sucks.
Ya I don’t think folks need to be called out twice in a row in two different places. This would be a pathway for repeat offenders who refuse to acknowledge feedback perhaps?
never hear a woman use male as a noun like that
I heard ‘male’ the same place I heard ‘female’, and this wasn’t surprising. I’m jealous at your certainty that you haven’t yet and thus never will. Apparently, though, “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”
That’s on me, there’s a few typos in my reply. I was just saying I’ve never heard it, not that I think I will never hear it ever. And genuinely the only menfolk I’ve heard use it earnestly were akward teenage boys, and the older lads mocked them and told them they sounded lame.
This is in the UK (and ten years ago), so maybe it’s much more common in Australia or the US or something. But from the reaction it generally gets online, I get the feeling it’s generally looked down on (outside of humor, or sci-fi).
same. it’s so weird to me when people pretend like women don’t act this way… and can’t be sexist douchebags.
there are entire media outlets past and present that are basically dedicated to female douchery spouting crazy sexist hateful shit. but it’s normalized and not seen as a threat to society.
Should we blur the usernames? Otherwise its an easy path to brigading and bullying.
Nah, it’s a public, open forum. “Brigading” is reddit nonsense & bullies can be reported.
The real crime is breaking accessibility & usability by not linking to the comment.
