(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.
Here’s my take: the bear thing is causing such a visceral reaction that it is very hard to take a step back, not take it personally and have a rational discussion about it. Even if you know the statistics. Even if you’re absolutely certain you’d do the right thing (or maybe especially then).
I was exposed to a somewhat similar experience in college: while walking through the campus one evening I realised the girl in front of me was a good friend of mine, so I rushed to catch up. When she heard me she quickened her pace close to running, and only stopped when I said her name and something like “wait up!”. I was just happy to meet a friend. She, on the other hand, was absolutely terrified, and told me all about it as we walked towards the exit.
That evening I realised that women experience the world much different than men. That there’s an underlying level of potential violence that they evaluate and weigh against potential benefits from encounters and interactions with men in almost all social contexts. And knowing that has recalibrated my behaviour to a certain extent, as I realised women can’t afford to give me the benefit of the doubt, especially in contexts where they feel vulnerable.
I wish more men would get this point, especially in their formative years. It’s not a judgement on their character when women that barely know them are careful around them. Trust needs to be earned. And for a woman, the cost of misplaced trust is too damn high.
Yeah man, thanks for sharing your story, genuinely very poignant.
But at this point I genuinely don’t care about the bear thing. Women were harrased into leaving the platform, nothing was done to the accounts who did it, and that’s the story here.
Do you have any of the accounts doing the harassment? If you would, DM me those that you have, and I’ll personally look into it, and reach out to instance admins with my findings.
done, thank you
I guess I’m out of the loop or something cause I haven’t seen any of it, but harassers should be blocked by mods.
I’m in the same boat. Are they just being reported before I can see them?
Harassment should not be tolerated, period. Totally with you on this.
And thank you for the kind words.
I didn’t see any abuse, but I did notice how livid some people were about the whole thing. I am still at a loss as to how the original statement could cause such outrage. I took it as some hyperbole to highlight a serious issue. That’s nothing any remotely stable person takes offence at. Any guy berating other people over dumb shit like this is exactly the kind of man the original statement was about.
i think part of the problem was people being pissed off that “people didn’t understand it” and as a result, responding very aggressively, which then leads to more people responding aggressively, which leads to the initial person responding aggressively to those people. Inevitably what happens is someone gets confused and doesnt understand it, and then gets yelled at, to which they then yell back at. And suddenly, “you can’t yell at me, i can yell at you though” starts to appear.
etc.etc.etc. and now misandry/misogyny is in the mix… Yay!
Here’s my take: the bear thing is causing such a visceral reaction that it is very hard to take a step back, not take it personally and have a rational discussion about it.
Imo the bear thing was phrased in a way to cause that visceral reaction. It was intended to be antagonistic. If the same point was phrased the way you phrased it above, I want to believe we would have much more civil discussion about it. But instead, the posts put many male readers on the defensive and those that tried to explain were seen as defending this antagonistic stance.
That is no excuse for DM harassment or harassment on other posts, just my take on the reason the discussion turned so uncivil.
Yeah, it was ragebait alright. Then again, if it were phrased in a reasonable manner, would we be talking this much about it? If the objective was to kick-start a conversation, it did the job 110%
A conversation yes, just not a productive one. It may have done more damage than good, since many people now associate this issue with the ragebait and don’t take it seriously.
Phrased*
Not trying to be a dick just trying to be helpful!
Thanks, fixed :)
So what is the bear thing? I’ve seen reference to it a couple of times… I get the gist, but like what’s the source?
Just a post of someone saying they’d rather be stuck in the middle of the woods with a bear rather than with an unknown man, been posted lots of places not just lemmy.
I’m confused. How is that controversial, and how are people taking it personally?
The first one is just an expression of biases that their experiences have resulted in. As for the second one, I’m clueless. Maybe if you feel like the main character in every situation, they’d be offended because the man in reference is then, and as such not unknown?
If I had to guess I’d say because “an unknown man” can be intepreted as “an average man” which obviously is going to hit a lot of people.
The actual statistics of man vs bear is not really the point through, and a large number people did not get that. It’s just that the question was phrased (intentionally or unintentionally) in a way that lends itself to this comparison.
Thanks. In other words just not understanding basic words and statistics?
In this case, unknown/random sample != average of samples. Being alone in the woods, and encountering a bear, is arguably more dangerous than the average male human. Most bears that aren’t grizzlies will happily leave you alone, which I hope is also the case with the average man. If you are unlucky with which person you encounter, the dangers can be much worse.
Probably Bayesian elements here too, where the end result is “what is riskier”, with an implicit assumption of “meeting a bear” = unlikely, “meeting a man” = likely (relatively). In any case, not listening to the emotional takeaway from shitty experiences, is, ironically, a very male stereotype.
How would you feel if the hypothetical was asking if you’d rather encounter a bear or a Muslim?
What about a bear or a person who is black?
Or a bear vs an immigrant?
See the issue?
Also, when we dehumanize or other an entire sex (which is what we’re doing here) who do you think suffers the most irl from that dehumanization?
Because it isn’t rich white men in gated suburban communities. It’s the black and brown men who are already viewed as inherently harmful and are disproportionately violently victimized by police and the state.
If we want more George Floyds then we should keep spreading memes like this. Because this contributes to the mindset that allows us to view men of color as inherently dangerous superpredators
I’m going to take all your questions at face value, and assume it’s all good faith.
How would you feel if the hypothetical was asking if you’d rather encounter a bear or a Muslim?
My emotions are not that fickle. I also don’t see an inherent problem with questions, nor this one in particular. It would be stupid of me to assume you mean something more specific than what you’ve stated. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask to clarify constraints.
What about a bear or a person who is black?
Same thing here. You realise that what we’d be exploring is the concept of, and awareness of, potential biases and prejudices? And, more importantly, the prevalence of experiences that lead to such biases?
Or a bear vs an immigrant?
Oh, this one is clear cut. Immigrants are the fucking worst.
(jk)
See the issue?
Nope. I don’t. You should re-evaluate the purpose of having conversations and discussing hypotheticals.
Also, when we dehumanize or other an entire sex (which is what we’re doing here) who do you think suffers the most irl from that dehumanization?
Is that what you think we’re doing here? If so, then we arrived at what the misunderstanding is. Which is a good thing. Or, it is if you give a shit about understanding the argument, and less about making your own. The latter is of course fine, but, on its own.
Because it isn’t rich white men in gated suburban communities. It’s the black and brown men who are already viewed as inherently harmful and are disproportionately violently victimized by police and the state.
If we want more George Floyds then we should keep spreading memes like this. Because this contributes to the mindset that allows us to view men of color as inherently dangerous superpredators
Not related or relevant here. Not saying it isn’t important, but, as mentioned. If you want to make your own arguments or discuss other things, that’s fine. Probably effective to start your own thread for that.
So you think dehumanizing men will not have an adverse effect on men of color. But are unable to state why.
And you realize that only a racist or a bigot would prefer to encounter a bear instead of a black person, or Muslim, or immigrant. You would have to be a bigot to think any of those groups are “worse” than a bear. Which means a person would be similarly bigoted to prefer a bear over a man. It’s the same principle - discrimination on the basis of immutable traits. Which is universally recognized as a civil rights issue
Apparently a tiktok video? I haven’t seen the original, however if you pop open a search for “man vs bear” or “man or bear in the woods” there’s some other coverage on it
I don’t think it’s the phrasing. You would need an entirely different question to not elicit the response we saw. It wasn’t that the question that was asked that angered people, it was that women consistently chose the bear. this question would have been a nothing burger otherwise. At the same time, though, the question was pitched because the author already knew what the answer would be. They understood how frequently unknown men pose a threat to women.
What this response from many men the shows is that most dudes are still not ready to talk about just how much more dangerous the world is for women at a baseline measurement - quite explicitly because of predatory dudes.
Look at the comment from ZeroGravitas. Even if you insist on asking the question which I don’t see why, just prefacing it with what he wrote would completely transform what it was. The issue may not even be the question but the lack of context/explanation before sharing it.
I read his comment, and I disagree that it was explicitly ragebait. It was making a point attempting to bring women’s safety to the forefront of discussion (it succeeded but enflamed too much to be useful).
That evening I realised that women experience the world much different than men. That there’s an underlying level of potential violence that they evaluate and weigh against potential benefits from encounters and interactions with men in almost all social contexts. And knowing that has recalibrated my behaviour to a certain extent, as I realised women can’t afford to give me the benefit of the doubt, especially in contexts where they feel vulnerable.
Once, I noticed once I was being followed by someone on my college campus once. Sure it made me a bit anxious, but as a reasonably large male-presenting person in a place I felt relatively safe, I didn’t really think they were a threat as long as I kept to crowded areas so it was just a mild discomfort. Turns out it was a random teacher (not one of mine) who just decided to try to keep pace with me because I was walking fast. At least he eventually explained himself eventually, but like isn’t it obvious that you shouldn’t just follow strangers around? Did he just think I wouldn’t notice them following me? Are many guys that oblivious to their surroundings that they wouldn’t notice? Or unaware of how that would make someone uncomfortable? Not implying you trying to catch up to a friend is comparable: just something your story reminded me of.
I think most people are somewhat oblivious to them making others feel uncomfortable because they can clearly see you and they don’t feel nervous, so their brain tells them no one around them feels nervous. The more the reverse happens (them feeling followed) the more aware they’ll become that they’re doing it.
Very true, but I think there’s something lost in translation when people go on the internet and turn “I need to be cautious around men because they might be dangerous” to “Men are dangerous,” and this generalization is what causes so much of the backlash online.
I needed to read this. Thanks
I wish more men would get this point, especially in their formative years. It’s not a judgement on their character when women that barely know them are careful around them. Trust needs to be earned. And for a woman, the cost of misplaced trust is too damn high.
yeah it’d be nice, the funny thing is that this bear fiasco doesn’t do a whole lot to express this point, nor does do it do a whole to not talk about it even remotely at all to people.
Doesn’t help that speaking about gender broadly in classrooms is “technically not allowed anymore” because this would be a really fucking good place to be talking about it.
We seem to be shooting ourselves in the feet one step after another here, and i’m not quite sure how we got here.
Removed by mod
Depends on how you read it. I see it as a woman’s POV calculating the potential for violence from an encounter where the only guardrail they can trust is the man’s morals. And given the amount of catcalls, casual feels and assorted bullshit women in my friend circle had endured from a very early age, fuck no, I’m not begrudging them choosing a bear.
Besides, OP was talking about men harassing women because of stating their bear preference. Which a) just proves them right, and b) do you honestly believe they meant ALL men are worse than bears? Each and every woman in that original story could probably choose at least 10 men in her life who she would be perfectly fine encountering in a dark forest. The question was, however, about calculating risk in an unknown encounter. I don’t read it as sexism at all.
Removed by mod
I think it’s a right to take antagonism at face value, but a virtue to step back anyways and turn it into a positive experience. Not that the original man vs bear question was actually antagonistic, but some of the surrounding discussion can be.
Removed by mod
Rape culture means that women who survive SA often have to go through a hellish psychosocial process wherein they must convince cops, judges, juries, friends and family that they were not “asking for it.”
This is not me talking, this is something that has been expressed to me by multiple individuals. That they would rather undergo horrific mutilation by an animal than even risk dealing with that process. It’s not hyperbole.
Rape culture means that women who survive SA often have to go through a hellish psychosocial process wherein they must convince cops, judges, juries, friends and family that they were not “asking for it.”
I don’t want to invalidate any woman’s experience here. but It applies to all genders,SA done against men is often played for jokes, downplayed, or even treated as “lucky” (see this video.) Again, i’m not trying to invalidate anones experience, i just wanted to point out that this hellish thing can hapen to all genders. English isnt my first language, so pelase do tell if i missed something or wrongly undersanded it.
absolutely correct :)
i’ve also seen cases where women perpetrate male against male rape, due to personal vendetta, which is actually just fucked up beyond belief.
Removed by mod
Like I said, it’s your right to not take it. But it’s virtuous to deescalate and continue the productive conversation.
Removed by mod
I generally point it out as wrong and then move on to the rest of the argument, if any.
Removed by mod
The irony is that the poor behavior explains why many women would pick the bear
Yeah, it’s like… The fact that it’s controversial is why it’s controversial.
You’re either willfully ignorant or you understand to some degree where the controversy is (even if you don’t necessarily in your heart agree that bear is better), and can concede that there’s maybe a problem with what humanity calls “masculine.”
And if you’re willfully ignorant, then, that’s why some people say bear. And it’s also a canary in the coalmine example of this form of dangerous masculinity.
you are correct and i appreciate your comment except for
willfully
i have in fact seen some men come around. it takes some patience but it happens. :) sometimes men are young or literally just so ill exposed to feminist theory (or even femininity) that they just don’t get it on their own
I understand perfectly what you think the point is.
What I’ve observed is that it’s a divisive meme, and not in a good way. This has only served to egender the “kill all men” and “I hate women” crowds into their respective corners.
You are being willfully ignorant by not acknowledging that.
ohhhhhhhhhh shit!
Got em with the “no u”
yo no seriously I’m sure people will take you seriously though nice job with that one.
Ah, a reductionist argument from one of the trogs. What a surprise!
Yo 2 for 2 keep it going homie
I don’t know that I would classify it as irony because the toxic male’s response is very predictable. It’s closer to a paradox. If men could universally accept women choosing the bear then would women still choose the bear?
At the surface, the strongly negative male reaction appears as a subset for why the bear is chosen but upon further exploration it reveals itself as the ultimate example for why the bear is preferred; many men cannot accept female agency.
At the same time the question reveals the rawest example of toxic masculinity. Despite the toxic males perspective that unlike women, they are not highly emotional creatures, the reality they present of themselves is they are not only highly emotional but are unable or unwilling to control their emotions.
Removed by mod
Nah, you definitely seem like you’re in full control of your emotions.
Keep up the good fight against any modicum of self-awareness!
Removed by mod
Exhibit A, right here.
Removed by mod
Another irony is that the most dangerous bear to come face to face with is the sweet little baby bear.
Is that true?
Most bears try to avoid you. The best thing you can do on a nature trail is be noisy, talk a bunch, make sure the bear knows you are there. Because they don’t want anything to do with humans.
The second worst thing you can do is surprise a bear.
The worst thing you can do is get between a baby bear and its mom.
Hmm, I’m starting to think maybe I should start acting more like a bear
Sweet babies have cranky mamas.
If you’re face to face with baby, Mama’s behind you, and she considers you a threat to her toddler.
The bear scenario is the perfect division inducing shitstorm.
It’s understandable what the memes portrays the danger that women face, daily. The fact that they frequently don’t feel comfortable or even just basic safety is definitely valid and worth discussion.
However, the bear vs man thing was just the worst vehicle to induce that discussion. On one side men who may not be the most well informed about women issues; will get immediately defensive at being compared to a large animal known for tearing people apart and eating them alive.
The members of the other side who see all the angry men getting defensive at them for expressing this view and think it’s purely because they aren’t empathetic to these issue, they “hate” women or they’re marginalising what is a real and daily danger.
Of course there are actual trolls, toxic arseholes and people who have 0 interest actual discourse or understanding but fuck them, I agree ban em.
It was never going to end in a productive, calm or rational discussion and frankly I think tarring the entire of lemmy for it is equally as unproductive. I’ve seen plenty of people initially aggressive to the meme, come around. I’ve seen more and more people make light jokes about the same meme without the accusatory tone. If you want discourse theres space to do so; it just has to be done better(imo). Preferably without snark or accusatory tones.
Okay, but, speaking as a woman, we try to explain these issues nicely, with gentle terminology and a big helping of ‘not all of you, but some of you…’ and we get ignored, dismissed, belittled, or flat-out gaslit.
So, we try going for the shock value to get you to at least pay attention instead of dismissing what we say as background noise or ‘us silly little women worrying our silly little heads over nothing’. And then we get told we can’t talk like that, that it’s insulting, that no man would listen because we’re belittling them, that it ‘doesn’t foster discussion’.
Although at least you heard us say something so many of us take it as a small win…
So, honest question. How do we explain it to you, so we don’t offend you, but you actually hear us? Actually get an idea of what it means to be afraid of footsteps behind us when we go out at night? To get leered at when all we’re trying to do is get a good workout at the gym? To have men just take liberties, like touching us, grabbing us? To not want to mention that we are a woman online, especially in gaming circles, because of the sexist bullshit and dismissive attitudes that will inevitably show up and run us out of a group we just want to be in because we like the game, damnit?
To weigh the decision to even make a post like this, because I know it will be brigaded and will attract sexist jerks who will try to shout me down? Or even attract stalkers who will follow me across instances to harass me?
Please, tell me how. Because we want you to understand. We don’t want to chase people away from discussions. But it’s so hard, and gets so discouraging…
When you’re arguing on an online space large enough for a position that doesn’t yet have overwhelming support, you’re always going to get some pushback of some kind. It’s never going to be completely pleasant. The silver lining is that, if you’re arguing for your positions well enough, you’re going to bring some more people to your side each time. Many of them will not be vocal, many of them will have to meditate of what you’ve said, for many of them it will just be a fleeting thought, but it might be a stepping stone that leads them to actually change their mind in a later discussion. I have this mindset because it’s coherent with how I’ve changed my mind over the years after engaging with different people, and so, when I’m advocating for something on a space that isn’t overwhelmingly welcoming (which might usually be autism advocacy, anti-capitalism, secularism, depending on the site), and I’m in a tempered mood at the moment, I immediately assume that I’m going to get pushback even on things that I’m objectively correct, but that doesn’t mean I’m not making useful progress, so I should argue with more charitability than I think the other person deserves.
On the gender issues topic specifically. Discounting a minority of people whom you’re never going to make see reason, your goal is to make your positions understandable to the men who either don’t have a strong opinion yet or are only mildly hostile. I’m going to use the example of an user I saw the other day out of memory: picture a man who has had an aggressively mediocre life: few meaningful relationships if any, no romantic or sexual partners, hating his job or whatever it is he’s studying, he hasn’t (or hasn’t seen himself having) acted particularly mean towards anyone in his life but he has particularly vivid memories of women or girls provoking him pain (be they a rude teacher, an abusive mother, high school bullies, or whatever). Now picture him reading these two messages:
(…) Life feels very unsafe to me. I have been catcalled, had my opinions dismissed and driven out of spaces I wanted to be in ever since my teens, (…) There are always some men who make the world a dangerous place for me.
and
(…) Life feels very unsafe to me. I have been catcalled, had my opinions dismissed and driven out of spaces I wanted to be in ever since my teens, (…) Men make the world a dangerous place for me.
I’ve made the nuance very obvious here, but it will usually be far more subtle. Sometimes it will be someone not making their position as fair and impartial as possible, sometimes it’ll be that they literally do not realize their words might be misinterpreted, but a good chunk of the individual shitshows I’ve seen in the past few days here are easily understandable if I picture someone saying: “I’ve been a sad shit for my whole life without harming anyone, and if anything, I’ve been treated unfairly. And now you’re telling me I’m the culprit!?”, and the difficulties of this guy through his life might have been several degrees less severe than your own, but if he’s misunderstood what you’re saying, or the message he’s read is less charitable, or if the person he’s just read has been perfectly reasonable, but five minutes ago he’s read a different message from someone else who hasn’t been, which twists the context, he isn’t entirely wrong, because he was minding his own business but now he feels accusations fall upon him out of nowhere.
On the bear argument specifically. Ignore the goddamn bear. You can make a lot of good arguments about why choosing the bear is wrong, and this derails PLENTY of discussions that could otherwise be useful and meaningful into a stunlock where one side wants to argue about why some people choose one way, and the other about the specific hypothetical. Don’t go into “(…) and that’s why I’d choose the bear”, ignore the metaphor, redirect the conversation in an useful direction, such as the actual living experiences of women, what kind of society would you want to see and what kind of specific changes would you like to see people make.
This advocacy is almost never going to be completely pleasant. This isn’t a justification, or discouragement, it’s just acknowledgement of the fact that plenty of people are going to be predisposed against your position, or skeptical, or outright hostile, and you personally are not going to see the fruits of your own, individual, specific labour, because whatever useful progress you make will be brewing on the background. Plenty of people whom you’ve made think will perhaps upvote you at best, but very, very few will admit “You’ve completely changed my mind on this”, but that doesn’t mean what you’re doing isn’t useful. Sometimes you won’t make the perfect argument, because you don’t have the exact perspective of what the other side is thinking, and because no human is omniscient, and you might have to rethink nuances, strategies and approaches, but engaging other people with the ultimate goal of creating a society where everyone is accepted in equality and freedom is always, on the long run, worthwhile.
Alright, but…
When you’re arguing on an online space large enough for a position that doesn’t yet have overwhelming support, you’re always going to get some pushback of some kind.
Why wouldn’t the safety of women have overwhelming support? Why are we always on the back foot when it comes to discussions like these? Why is this such a ‘small position’ that women find themselves making ludicrous arguments about bears in the first place?
I would hope that a discussion of safety for any group would have majority support.
And we do know it’s not all men. There are many men who would never do such a thing. Or who have even been abused themselves.
But, according to the CDC, over half of all women have experienced sexual violence, and 1 in 4 women have experienced attempted or completed rape. With those numbers, it’s not all men, but it’s not just a few men either.
With those statistics, we can’t afford to just… trust. And the fun part? Many times, it’s someone the woman knows. So we can’t always believe we’re safe even with friends and family.
And sadly, nature hasn’t supplied us with psychic powers to know when the big burly guy leaning in too close to talk is just socially awkward, or up to something more unpleasant.
So I ask… please be understanding. Men are, on the whole, bigger and stronger than women, so a bad encounter has a much stronger chance to go very, very bad for us.
So I ask… please be understanding. Men are, on the whole, bigger and stronger than women, so a bad encounter has a much stronger chance to go very, very bad for us.
I’m on the side of feminism, I’m not arguing against you. I’m trying to get you to understand the “battlefield”, because that’s literally what you asked for.
Why wouldn’t the safety of women have overwhelming support? Why are we always on the back foot when it comes to discussions like these? Why is this such a ‘small position’ that women find themselves making ludicrous arguments about bears in the first place?
Differentiate between these two groups: the people who are going to be radically against you because they’re assholes and just don’t want equality, and those who, for one reason or another, think that you aren’t really defending equality. In my experience, the first group is much smaller, and they usually try not to have their behavior be too usually noticeable in public, while the latter is larger, more numerous, more vocal, and will receive the silent support of the former for entirely different reasons.
Let me go back here:
Men are, on the whole, bigger and stronger than women, so a bad encounter has a much stronger chance to go very, very bad for us.
This, and its natural conclusion (“be cautious in situations where a potential aggressor may suffer no consequences”) is extremely reasonable, and I don’t think people should be blamed for that cautiousness in some situations. But getting that across to someone who hasn’t suffered the same kinds of victimization that lead you to take that position is difficult, because the position they’ve started the discussion at is “I haven’t done anything wrong and I’m being treated like a criminal!”, and they aren’t having that discussion in a perfectly quiet stage in front of someone who will express perfectly woven arguments, but on social media, where they fill find dumb arguments, stupid comparisons, unfair criticisms, real experiences, dubious narrations, tellings of statistically rare events, good arguments, and people spewing hate in one direction and the other, so even when you make the best possible case for your cause, people who in other circumstances would easily be capable of seeing your point, will already be angry, and therefore predisposed against it.
Thank you for writing this🙏 Only thing I think is missing is how it hurts people who are already on your side too if you overgeneralize.
An example is dr K a psychiatrist who does youtube videos, with some focus on gaming addiction. He had many women (and some men I’m sure) calling for him to speak out on women’s experiences, so he made a video talking about how women’s experiences were much harder and men were living on “easy mode.”
I personally haven’t watched any videos of his after that, not because they aren’t interesting psychology topics, and I know exactly what he means to say, but it was just such a hurtful thing to hear from someone that felt like was on my side. The comments were people who understood what he meant feeling hurt and disengaging, and the people who needed to be reached just getting angry, and now it’s ousted a lot of people who were already empathetic towards women’s struggles.
This is an excellent analysis of the reasoning that led into this. Thank you for sharing.
Plenty of people are dismissing this as “ragebait,” which, sure. But like, what on earth is more rage-worthy than systemic rape culture and silencing of women?
There is definitely a time and place for tone policing. But that’s never the exact minute a woman expresses her lived experience in a way that actually grabs attention. ❤️
which, sure. But like, what on earth is more rage-worthy than systemic rape culture and silencing of women?
idk probably the fact that instead of talking about that fact, we were sat there yelling at each other about bears in a hypothetical forest?
Like don’t get me wrong i like talking about issues, but there’s a point where you just have to sit back and wonder what the fuck you’re doing with your life. This was one of them.
This entire post is about women who were talking about rape culture getting harrased into deleting their accounts.
The problem I care about is barely the hypothetical forest at this point in time, but the abject abuse. I encourage you to take the same perspective.
yeah, i could see that being a problem, i didn’t experience that, nor perpetrate that. Unless being mad at someone on the internet entails that, in which case, i think that’s less of a me problem. Because this is the internet.
I didn’t DM people or anything though, just yelled about shit in the comments. I think part of the problem was that we even started talking about the bear problem at all. I’m not really sure how anybody expected it to go? I’m not sure how i would’ve expected it to go, but i’m not sure i would’ve posted it either to be honest.
I really appreciate that you made this post. Every top-level comment here is complaining about it being “rage bait” and that the question would “never foster productive discussion.” Why? Why aren’t men capable of seeing the scenario, recognizing why it’s necessary to say something like that, and getting over themselves just a little bit to get the point? The original question wasn’t even a “not all men” thing, there’s no actual reason to get mad about it enough to dismiss the dicussion. We have to be able to have a conversation where the other side is allowed to say something a tiny bit outside of our standards for what we want them to say, or we’ll never have a conversation at all.
The irony is, I am seeing a lot of productive discussion? Like high key? Alongside the standard rage, trolling and harassment of course (which should be banned).
I genuinely think that, if women actually stick around, this event could be a net positive for the Lemmyverse. What’s needed is just like several dozen deep breaths, some listening, and of course more effective moderation of the bad actors.
For sure. I hope lemmy’s mod tools have improved, I heard they were basically nonexistent before.
Why aren’t men capable of seeing the scenario, recognizing why it’s necessary to say something like that, and getting over themselves just a little bit to get the point?
here’s something i’ve formed up recently after this man/bear thing happened, it’s a working theory, and i’m curious to see what people think. If no likey, please yell at me in reply.
because it’s basically impossible? It’s like asking someone born without vision to see. It’s a significant cultural divide (i say cultural as a stop gap here) between two massive parties who have different understandings and views of the world. It shouldn’t come as a surprise when one party expresses a doctored viewpoint of theirs to the other side, for the other side to be really fucking confused.
I take it you probably don’t know much about nuclear power? If so, it’d be like me coming out of the blue when you mention that fukushima was bad, instead of me talking about why fukushima happened, why it was bad, what could’ve been prevented, and how it shouldn’t have happened. I started talking about reactor design, and going through the different generations of designs, talked about the EPR, the EBWR, the ABWR, the PWR, the MSR, the ESR, the PBR, the SSR, etc… You quite literally, do not need that level of background to be able to comprehend fukushima specifically.
I think it’s a similar thing, where people are trying to make people comprehend something they can’t experience, don’t really care about on a personal level. They might know someone who has, which makes them sympathetic/empathetic to it, but that’s it. We all understand, on some level, that this is an issue, i don’t know how much the specific experience here matters, when the broad problem is very much identifiable, and objectively bad. And that everybody probably already agrees with it. It seems rather redundant to me.
It’s like trying to explain “war bad” by showing pictures of war casualties to people, all you’re doing is traumatizing them in that case.
I just want to let you know that when women share their experiences, some men like me will process what they’ve read and understand, and not reply or anything. I don’t have anything to add. I’m probably part of a large silent group.
That was before the bear thing. I actually hadn’t even seen the bear meme.
When I read a woman share her experiences, I just get sad about it all and move to the next post in my Lemmy feed or whatever I’m reading on the internet.
How do we explain it to you
you cant explain it to someone who don’t want to hear it, but hear me out: bear vs cop.
picture this: you are in the woods smoking some weed in an illegal country. bear or cop?
the whole country is illegal? When the fuck did this meta drop?
yea cop bout to bust you with slovak republic what do
well shit i better be on the move then jesus
Okay, but, speaking as a woman, we try to explain these issues nicely, with gentle terminology and a big helping of ‘not all of you, but some of you…’ and we get ignored, dismissed, belittled, or flat-out gaslit.
ok so, as a result of the bear debate, i wouldn’t exactly say it was all roses and sunshine over there, probably a thunderstorm and bristles more like.
I think most people want the statement laid out very literally in front of them. Usually being pretty fucking obtuse about shit, tends to get peoples attention. Sitting in a corner and vaguely looking in the direction of someone isn’t going to.
maybe i’m just really fucking autistic or something, but if that shit doesn’t work, i wouldn’t do it. I’d click into a thread titled “men raping women is a problem” and see what’s going on, and chances are, it’s going to be more civil than the bear incident.
i’d be up for just fucking talking about it. I’m sure a number of other people would as well. You aren’t going to appease everyone, that’s impossible, you just need to appease the majority. And frankly, anybody who is reading about “hey uhm, rape bad, no do?” and gets fucking pissed off about it? They’re probably not a good person to be honest.
genuinely, i just think straight up, open conversation about it. People can’t play nice? Don’t let em, i guess? there are a few options there. I’m not an admin/mod, so don’t ask me lol.
Removed by mod
i think you are mostly making false equivalences here, but:
working class black and brown men who are already viewed as inherently harmful
let me say this: a lot of this is self reinforcing. i think a lot of whats rightfully (and wrongly) criticized about men comes from this vicious cycle of disfranchised men falling behind > lashing out > getting hate > finding easy answers cause there isn’t much men to men convo about it > falling further behind and so on. yes its awful to live in a society where you are still pushed to be a some unattainable ideal while being in a terrible situation yourself, and then best case scenario is being made fun of for it.
however, as much as some men call out the fact many women generalize, many men tend to also ignore that PLENTY of us act absolutely horribly then play the victims, in a possibly indistinguishable way men might want to defend themselves. conversations about this would be healthier if this understanding were more common.
So it’s black men’s fault that the police kill them at disproportionate rates and that society views them as inherently dangerous?
You realize that collective punishment is a war crime, right?
no, i’m saying men (in general) in a shitty situation get caught in a vicious cycle, of society punishing them and them being less sociable due to society punishing them without them having healthy ways to cope.
i quoted working class, black and brown under the assumption most white men are also working class. black men are probably more likely to get caught in shitty situations though, since racism is a thing.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Yeah she didn’t even “all men” him like wtf
Yeah at this point I don’t care about the bear thing. So two weeks ago. I do however care about the abject harrassment that happened. Thank you for your perspective.
Sure. However, the two aren’t unrelated. Not that it justifies the harassment you’ve seen (which as mentioned mods are pretty solid on most instances but reports help them a lot). Given what shitshow it turned into it’s clear that more conversations around the topic are needed. I think those type of people will still pop their head up. When they do, if the entire conversation isn’t already a shitfight because of how it was initiated, these type will be easier to identify and ban. Focusing solely on the outcome and ignoring how we got here only ensures it will be repeated. Lemmy is growing still, there will be challenges on the way.
I definitely hope the bear thing isn’t the last time SA is discussed on Lemmy. With such a male heavy population, it’s honestly a tremendous opportunity to expose a huge chunk of men to basic feminist theory. Fight the good fight homie 💖
On one side men who may not be the most well informed about women issues; will get immediately defensive at being compared to a large animal known for tearing people apart and eating them alive.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand this reaction. I can only assume it’s stupidity leading these people to think all men are being accused of this.
Well, all men are being accused of this. Rightfully so. From my point of view, the scenario illustrates that a woman has to consider a man that she doesn’t know to be at least as dangerous to her own personal safety as a bear and act accordingly. Even men she knows well may still attack her.
Statistically, the odds of being attacked in any particular scenario may be small, but they’re definitely not zero. Similar to encountering a bear. Bear spray is a deterrent in both scenarios.
Well, all Muslims are being accused of this. Rightfully so. From my point of view, the scenario illustrates that a Jewish person has to consider a Muslim that she doesn’t know to be at least as dangerous to her own personal safety as a bear and act accordingly. Even Muslims she knows well may still attack her.
See the issue? Dehumanization and prejudice on the basis of immutable traits is wrong - both factually and morally
Not sure what your point is, men of any ethnicity attack and rape women.
And men of color and immigrants are disproportionately killed and treated like animals for it
Minorites are mistreated for sure. And sexual assault is just one of many excuses given for that mistreatment. Emmitt Till was falsely accused and brutally murdered. That doesn’t change the fact that women are assaulted by men even within their own ethnicity and social stratus.
I’m assuming that your point is that there ought to be a consistent and fair application of justice for perpetrators of assault, but you seem to be getting away from the point of this thread.
The point is that dehumanizing men will have a disproportionate impact on working class men of color and immigrants. Which are groups that are already seen as animalistic and inherently dangerous. Hence the drastically elevated rates of state sanctioned murder of black men, for instance.
When we dehumanize men, the impact on wealthy white men in gated suburban communities is minimal. However the impact on working class men of color from vulnerable populations is significant. The impact on national minority groups is significant.
Which means this “meme” is a dogwhistle. It is barely disguised hate speech that amplifies violence against already persecuted groups by perpetuating the notion that these “animalistic” peoples are more dangerous than wild animals.
This is the same thing Trump does when he calls immigrants rapists and murderers who are poisoning the blood of America. Except this meme isn’t dumb enough to specifically talk about Mexican men - instead, it is making the same point implicitly.
This attitude will perpetuate the culture of violence that targets national minority groups who are already othered. It isn’t funny or cute. It’s a rightwing dogwhistle and it’s dangerous
Removed by mod
On one side men who may not be the most well informed about women issues; will get immediately defensive at being compared to a large animal known for tearing people apart and eating them alive.
Nah. Defensiveness in this context is a red flag because it is transparently obvious why a woman would choose the bear. It needn’t be a strictly rational choice; it’s a vote of no confidence in men earned through lived experience. The fact that it’s even a question should be a seen by men as deeply sad: a reminder of the work that must still be done. The very act of trying to convince a woman of the error of her choice is a sign of a failure to understand the nature of the problem, the exercise, or both.
large animal known for tearing people apart and eating them alive
This is by no means what bears are known for. Black bears will frighten off easily. Brown bears are dangerous, yes, but much depends on the nature of the encounter.
It was never going to end in a productive, calm or rational discussion
It already has, but thanks for the self report?
Every time I see something about that bear vs man thing it just turns into a shitload of people straw-manning the hell out of the opposing gender. The whole thing is fucking stupid.
It’s almost like it was planted to make men and women mad at each other for no reason. Fuel it with bots and bad faith arguments and it’s a tempest in a teapot
It’s almost like it was planted
I swear the left gets more conspiratorial every day. There doesn’t have to be some grand plan to sow dissent. Dissent is something that just happens naturally because this conflict is deeply ingrained in our culture. Nobody has to scheme to make it happen.
I wouldn’t call it “planned”, average people do stupid things all the time, and I wouldn’t blame the average person for not realizing the bear thing wouldn’t help get the points of each side across. I just wish more people acknowledged that arguing about the hypothetical is pointless, and we should actually discuss gender issues, personal experiences and how to make things better.
I wouldn’t call it “planned”, average people do stupid things all the time
If I was running a conservative PR firm, or was running a foreign intelligence agency, this is exactly the type of discourse I would want to create within the Unites State/The West
By making the working class/the population at large attack one another, I am increasing internal conflict and decreasing awareness of class concerns. Which is useful if I am opposed to working class/national solidarity
You know, implying that the author wrote it in bad faith is pretty much just doing a strawman.
i don’t think thats the implication
people have been asking “would you rather” questions since before Plato.
Divide and conquer
To be a woman online means to feel unwelcome. Leaving a new community is pretty much inevitable unless you are willing to swim in toxicity.
I’ve lost count of how many ‘welcoming’ communities for game/hobby/interest that I have left because of the inevitable creep of (male) toxicity and harassment.
And it sucks to watch so many people not speak up, and to be targeted for further harassment simply because I said rape jokes weren’t funny. (Or tying and drugging up a woman so T could have a girlfriend, if the group I play online games with are stalking my account read this. You guys are part of the problem.)
I just want liked minded people to share my interests and play games with.
I, and other women shouldn’t have to navigate or ignore toxicity to simply exist in public spaces.
[Downvotes prove my statement. I’m not welcome or wanted, I get it. See you after my funeral.]
Thank you for expressing this experience. 🧡
To be a woman online means to feel unwelcome.
i think this is a rather interesting take, as someone who lives on the social fringes myself, and has no “support network” or real “social group” I’m what’s best described as a social drifter, i don’t like hanging around places all that much, and i don’t like, and or am incapable of having proper friendships with others.
So when it comes to feeling unwelcome, for all intents and purposes here, i’m just going to argue that for the latter half of my life, that has been pretty much my experience of life. This also means i don’t have certain types of experiences with people being dicks, because i can just fucking ignore them. But what i do understand, is how the isolation plays a factor, and how to pretty effectively deal with people you don’t like in these situations.
And what i’ve learned is that you need to keep a distance. You shouldn’t be attached to the community if possible, because being able to leave them is often a valuable asset to have. Notably, it doesn’t solve the problem but it does keep you nomadic, and in control, which helps alleviate it.
Also for what it’s worth, i don’t think that this is uniquely female. I think it’s a unique female account of the problem, but men also experience similar things. They just happen to be in different manners, so this is very much an “internet problem” more broadly.
Has been for the past 20 years, and will probably continue to be as such.
I don’t actually want to be nomadic, I’d love nothing more than to have a group of gaming friends that lasts. Inevitably, each time finding a new group gets harder.
I have no support network, No real social group either. I am for all intent and purpose a ghost. My opinions don’t matter, my presence isn’t wanted. No one notices when I leave.
yeah i get it, i don’t really want to be nomadic myself. But to me the value of being able to appear in places and disappear in others is massive. So far the best theory i’ve come up with is putting together a friend group like it’s a card deck for something. I don’t think putting groups together in a literal “hey i’m here now” tends to work out all that often. There are a couple of groups of people that i’ve clicked really well with over the years, and even though it’s drifted i’m in good light with them, and likewise, there are other groups out there that exist in a sort of liminal state, those also tend to be pretty nice. Though much harder to find.
One of these days i would like to spin up a public/private instance of a chat relay/server or something, and spend a few years collecting some of the more interesting people in the bunch to be in a personal circle. I think that’s probably about as close as i would get to having a social group/support network. And being the head admin there, i have sole discretion at the users expense, so i don’t have to worry about moderation bullshit.
I think the idea of “join a group of people like you about this specific thing” is dead now unfortunately. I think we’re at a point where you need to build a group specifically for the purpose that it exists.
Removed by mod
Behavior like what you act out here, calling out women over a nuance that barely matters, is exactly the stuff that inspired me to make this post.
Thank you for illustrating my point.
it’s funny to me that they’re instanced on solarpunk. Which is ostensibly the very worst instance you could possibly choose to be mad at other people. Though i suppose it might be doomer enough over there to matter? IDK, i’m not a solar punk nerd myself.
Removed by mod
Nobody owes you a response. Especially when they’re blocking you.
IME of online communities it was the women who supported the abusers in the community and ostracized anyone who called them out as ‘attacking the community’. Quite a few of them were also abusive.
I am a cis male mod of multiple communities here on Lemmy and all I can say is that I try to moderate as fairly and equitably as I can, but I also don’t have time to read every single comment on every single post in the communities I moderate, so you have to flag posts you find violate community rules. Every community I moderate has a civility rule, and shouting down or harassing women who are telling personal stories would be against those rules.
But I may not know that it’s happening unless it’s getting flagged.
the challenge with lemmy is its immaturity with moderation, and many instances allowing pretty vile members and communities to flourish, which then spill over into other less extreme communities
Same goes for harassing those men who rejected the notion of the meme with civility.
Plenty of simple trolls trying to insert the word “incel” wherever they can, and plenty of people trying to invalidate everything men have to say.
Lemmy is becoming more known, and with that comes the point at which bots and trolls emerge. We have to respond accordingly - and remember to be united and civil, even in disagreements.
And yes, ragebait content should be banned. The bear hypothetical is one of those, since it does imply anti-male sentiment, but does it in a way that can be minimized to “women just complaining”. It is a very malicious attempt at generating a lot of hostility, to the point where it’s hard even to give benefit of the doubt.
As per “how we attract women” in particular, I think the most important part is to make Lemmy less about tech and politics and more about all sorts of hobbies, occupations, and a fun time. While women are very welcome in the tech and politics spaces, those spaces are historically dominated by men, and for as long as those are the pillars of the Lemmy conversations, we’ll see this gap over and over.
We can’t take bias in support of women just to attract more of them on the platform, this won’t end well. We need to protect everyone from the harassment and trolling, regardless of gender.
Seems to me that the rage bait did it’s job, but the only who won was the author and website that got all the clicks and ads serving, while lemmy got a shitstorm for nothing.
This is the equivalent of saying that MS Outlook is a community. It’s not and neither is Lemmy. Each server has its own rules, and each community on those servers can add rules beyond that.
Address a specific community or server, there’s no central control over the fediverse.
This bear thing has got out of hand lmao
People get really upset over a hypothetical. I don’t like posts that put all men down, but this wasn’t one of them.
Also bears generally mind their own business as long as you keep your distance, with statistically less than one person per year dying from a bear attack in America. The last time it happened in my state was several years ago and due to some dumbass intentionally getting close to it to take photos.
The bear thing; good god, yes… the number of people just not getting it was/is incredible. It’s a good example of how arguing for the logical position completely misses out on any nuance over why someone might say they’re choosing, for example, the bear.
I know some of it is folks having difficulty reading between the lines, spectrum stuff, male socialising, etc etc… but man. That was a tough one
Mistake number one is sharing anything about yourself online. There’s wackos everywhere, just make shit up and look at memes.
I want to put out there, that as a man I shared my story… And I was down voted and disrespected.
So you can probably remove ‘for women’ in the title. Lemmy is very much an echo chamber. You don’t have to look around very hard to see that there’s a large amount of intolerance on Lemmy.
