(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 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!
Harassment should not be tolerated, period. Totally with you on this.
And thank you for the kind words.
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.
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).
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.
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
I needed to read this. Thanks
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Yep. I agree. I’ve been bullied on Lemmy for sharing the fact that I have been bullied in my own home town because local law enforcement hired exes of mine who have abused their law enforcement powers. I now have a person, or group, that follows each of my posts and comments to immediately downvote them, even if they aren’t even controversial. I just receive an automatic downvote. That pales in comparison to the verbal bashing I’ve received from that group, or person. Each time I speak out, I have this one commenter that tells me that I’m crazy and need meds to make me shut up about having been abused by an ex that was hired by our local sheriff’s department. I wonder if they sniffed my phone to follow my account. I guess that would be crazy and just earn me more hateful comments from “random” people on Lemmy, huh? My question is, do I blame Lemmy as a whole, or will people on here finally admit that some certain local in my area is stalking my account?
When comments have become as bad as “strangers” telling me to “get raped with a rusty lawn mower blade”, I have to wonder if it’s all coming from the same IP address and if the mods even care.
I’ll be honest with you: based on your comment scores, I don’t see anyone following you and downvoting all your comments. I can almost guarantee that there’s no “group” doing it, as very few people care that much.
Although I have seen people on Lemmy randomly downvote things for no discernable reason. Like I will post a comment and it will be negative for a few hours. Then when more sane people show up, it’s upvoted so it’s positive. My comment didn’t change, the people looking at it did. Don’t worry so much about votes.
Actually I have had an argument (don’t remember if that was still Reddit or already Lemmy, but my old account on an instance which went dead) with every my comment N days back getting the same 2 or 3 downvotes (don’t remember, but it was the same number with every of them) and the other side at some point saying that it’s “the community showing you the door”, making it clear that it’s them trying so hard, but that was actually funny.
True, there are some people that just downvote everything, for no reason. I get that. I guess what made me worry was the fact that I had comments in Lemmy News telling me they hope I get raped with a rusty lawn mower blade, followed by someone downvoting all of my past comments in succession after that comment. I figured it was the person who made that comment.
I had comments in Lemmy News telling me they hope I get raped with a rusty lawn mower blade,
Curious if you reported them?
If so, did you check the mod log to see if they were banned? Did the offending comment get removed?
followed by someone downvoting all of my past comments in succession after that comment.
Personally I would say that’s happening to you, sure. I’ve experienced something similar, over something much more trivial than what you’ve experienced.
Apparently it’s someone’s personal mission in life to try to maintain their version of ‘order and peace’ on Lemmy, through their singular actions.
I did report it. I should check to see if it was removed. Honestly, I haven’t thought about it much. I have had other things to do, and it just wasn’t on my mind lately.
Lemmy is very small. When I run into the grandparent poster, if their comment is benign I don’t vote for it either way. But if it taps into paranoid fantasies, or is fanciful, or factually incorrect I down voted. But I would do that for anybody not just because it’s them. They just have a really really high degree of going off the rails in their posts.
deleted by creator
Why ageist? Grand parent poster means the post twice above this one
Why ageist? Grand parent poster means the post twice above this one
My bad, and my apologies.
Thought you were talking about a grandparent person, and not a comment twice removed.
wtaf ? from that same post I just replied to yesterday ? Can you take it to the admins of your instance ? perhaps they can do something about it I don’t know
Regarding Man v Bear I think the topic is rather silly. Most bears aren’t looking to have a meet and greet if you do come across a bear one of three things are true. It’s here to eat you, it didn’t leave because its a she-bear and it has cubs its protecting, or you just startled it. If any of the above is true you are at best in serious danger. If it is actually trying to prey upon you then you are probably fucked. Whereas 100% of the bears you surprise in the woods are extremely dangerous 99.99% of people you meet man or woman are just people like yourself not looking for trouble.
It’s not shocking that the 99.9% of men who aren’t predators waiting in the bush feel justified in feeling unfairly vilified.
My proverbial beef isn’t the pointing out of how manny men are predators and that the risksfor women are non-zero; my problem more specifically is that the meme stacks handily on top of the already vexing racial profiling I deal with as a black man who’s had false allegations leveled in the past and lost jobs because of the weaponization of this fear. I have already spent damn near a half century being presumed some kind of feral Mandingo rape beast purely for existing while black. The presumption of interest in all of these women like a scene out of Kentucky Fried Movie gets really old and they get super vindictive when rejected.
Yeah that’s what I found the most surprising. Even after you understand what women really mean in this thought experiment, it’s just textbook discrimination and no different than targeting certain races as a cop.
I thought as a society we all agreed that was bad but apparently it’s okay if the victims are men.
So this thought experiment does reveal sexism, the sexism against men.
It doesn’t matter how much it upsets you, “hurting your feelings” will always be safer than “being raped and murdered”.
Maybe it’s time to shake off the insecurity and accept that if you’re not doing anything wrong then you’re not who women are talking about.
It’s not about upsetting me, it’s about making a judgment of an individual based on the demographic, which I thought we collectively decided was wrong.
If someone walks past a group of minorities and feels unsafe, that’s fine as humans are emotional creatures. But if someone makes a decision based on the above logic, that would be classified as discrimination. Same way mostly searching minorities at the airport is discrimination.
The medical history of abuse of black people in America is largely fueled by the nonsense that ‘black people feel less pain’. It’s incredibly fucked up. Horrible shit was done based on these stereotypes.
Same logic applies when women abuse men. 'men feel less pain/are stronger. Abuse against men is just the ‘price we should pay for our privilege’ etc. etc.
Of course I’m not. I just think the analogy is just incredibly overstated. Bears are in fact all fairly dangerous. Most men just aren’t
How do you know all bears are dangerous? Maybe there’s one that just wants to be friends? You should politely treat all bears as friendly so that you don’t hurt that bears feelings.
I feel for you, the casual racism and sexism against black men is pretty crazy. Used to work with a guy that wore a suit every day in a very casual office, because women wouldn’t get on the elevator with him otherwise.
Dunno man. I’m not a woman, but I have met a bear while hiking. We just stopped and looked at each other for a bit, then he grunted and went back to shoveling blackberries into his mouth and I just walked away. They are pretty common in the city too. They just knock down five or so garbages to pig out then go home. We’ve had a few tranqued and moved but nobody has been eaten. One guy got mauled and somehow survived after failing to take a selfie with a bear, I figure he went easy on the guy to teach him a valuable lesson. Maybe bears and the people here are just too used to each other.
Anyway anyone who feels attacked by the whole I’d rather a bear thing needs to stop being a pansy little shit. I guess all these “not me though” or “but a bear will kill you” types don’t get that they are outing themselves as being of questionable trustworthiness. The bear is imaginary yet men all over the place have come out of the woodwork to fight it. It’s weird really. And I don’t believe such a high amount of men who aren’t predators are bothered by it. They might not be sexual predators but I have no doubt they would gladly vote away womens rights because its their party or its the christian way or some other shit like that.
Truly innocent men would just leave women scared of them alone and that would be the end of it. There is no reason to convince them and doing so only makes them more afraid.
if you get offended by being called a predator, you are definitely a predator, checkmate bearists.
Anyway anyone who feels attacked by the whole I’d rather a bear thing needs to stop being a pansy little shit.
I mean, the casual misandry stung a bit. Not sure why that’d make me a “pansy little shit”, lmao.
Anyway, the whole thing was ragebait and a big part of the internet fell for it (me included, at least initially).
I’m not engaging further with what I think is a bad analogy.
I guess all these “not me though” or “but a bear will kill you” types don’t get that they are outing themselves as being of questionable trustworthiness.
Maybe outing themselves as pedants who don’t like shitty analogies. How do you get from disagreeing with labeling all men predators to … must be a predator. That just seems like you glued two concepts together and expected it to make a coherent thought. If A in some universe and B in some universe then if A thus B.
I don’t believe such a high amount of men who aren’t predators are bothered by it
I’m not a predator. I’m bothered by it
They might not be sexual predators
So because I disagree I might be a rapist. Super real there.
but I have no doubt they would gladly vote away women’s rights because its their party or its the christian way or some other shit like that.
I’m an Atheist who votes Democrat and supports women’s rights
Truly innocent men would just leave women scared of them alone
This is a discussion forum. The poster started a thread to discuss the topic. I’m discussing the topic. Nobody is attacking anyone with their words.
There is no reason to convince them
This is a many to many discussion forum people aren’t just engaging with the poster they are engaging with other readers interested in the same topic. Notice how our discussion is a sub-thread to each other and merely about the topic broached by the original poster.
doing so only makes them more afraid.
You are infantalizing the poster by imagining that she creates a topic but is rendered afraid by the mere fact that some people don’t agree with her. I don’t think that is even slightly reasonable.
This post could be a subject of an entire paper on how to write dishonestly and for emotional impact instead of honest argument. Please stop doing this.
And I don’t believe such a high amount of men who aren’t predators are bothered by it.
It doesn’t bother you when you’re referred to as a predator because you share a gender with some of them?
No. All I have to do is not be a predator, and no creepy glare, no threatening posture etc. It shouldn’t be difficult yet somehow here we are with literal tons of my fellow man feeling attacked with the need to retaliate, over someone else’s feelings. Actually I’ll let the creepy glare slide even since I have that built into my face and I’m not about to get surgery for it.
I guess another way to look at the whole thing, is a bear isn’t going to shoot or stab you. There are unstable fucks that shoot at people for accidentally going in the wrong driveway for food delivery or to turn around. In my city you dont even own the first several feet of the property whether you have a sidewalk or not.
There’s a difference between “men can be dangerous and so I have to treat any unknown man like they are a threat” and “every man is dangerous.” Being treated as dangerous when you are not is not a pleasant feeling, but I understand the need to do that. However, crossing from “you might be dangerous” to “you must be dangerous” happens all too often and IMO crosses a line.
I’m comfortable enough with my behaviour to know it’s not about me. I’m not bothered, even a little bit.
I love the casual entitlement of using a “Lemmy is growing more hostile towards women” to just give your opinion on Man v Bear.
I guess that’s not entirely true, since you did use your last sentence to tell them they deserve it.
The poster brought up the man vs bear debate it was the entire topic of discussion. This is the last sentence in my post.
It’s not shocking that the 99.9% of men who aren’t predators waiting in the bush feel justified in feeling unfairly vilified.
Please explain how I told them they deserve it. Use small words.
Damn, that’s some horrific reading comprehension if you think its “the entire topic of discussion”. If someone says to you “I’m having so much trouble with cost of living. I can barely afford rent and food and I’m two payments behind on my car”, would you say you’re having a conversation about cars?
Clearly you’re comfortable saying “yes” if you really want everyone to hear your opinions about cars.
Everything you mention is one strange assumption after another.
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.
You can’t moderate women’s perspectives getting constantly downvoted while men’s get upvoted. I doubt any of the comments OP mentioned actually violate any rules but getting ten comments ignorantly telling you you’re wrong whenever you share your perspective tends to make one feel unwelcome even if the comments are all technically civil.
How exactly are you determining/validating people’s gender identity on an anonymous text based forum?
In the case of the bear discourse, most comments self-identified either explicitly or implicitly.
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 bear thing has got out of hand lmao
The bear thing was rage bait to spread hate. Hate against men, reactionary hate against women, presumably hate against bears.
People shouldn’t have dignified the ridiculous scenario with a response.
specifically, it was intended to drum up talk about the underlying problem. it was intentionally inflammatory to make a point.
It’s not that complicated.
So you’re saying pissing men off is the point?? And you’re somehow indignant that it, true to its purpose, pissed men off??
None of you seem to understand what the point of the bear post is. At it’s core it is divisive and serves no purpose other than to deepen gender divides.
This here is the biggest woosh that supports the whole thesis of the hypothetical. It was never meant to be a logical hypothetical. It’s intended to elucincidate a prevailing feeling among women about what they perceive as safer. The fact that this still has to be explained after so many days is…I don’t know.
Had the hypothetical been used to explain negative feelings about someone due to their race, religion, skin color, or sexuality; it would have been rightfully reviled.
There are far more effective and less misandrist ways to express that you don’t feel safe being alone in risky situations.
Yes, because those prejudices aren’t grounded. The numbers reveal a whole other story when it comes to men/women interaction. Women have to use the biggest kid gloves to even broach this topic to men bc my god…the inherent fragility
Edit: listen guys. Trying to substitute another minority for the man in the hypothetical is not the dunk you think. I feel like Lemmy is the ultimate male echo chamber sometimes.
-
Over 1 in 3 women (35.6%) in the US have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
-
Nearly 1 in 3 college women (29%) say they’ve been in an abusive dating relationship .
-
52% of college women report knowing a friend who’s experienced violent and abusive dating behaviors including physical, sexual, digital, verbal, or other controlling abuse.
Everyone knows at least one woman (unless you’re on Lemmy of course) who was abused, raped, or the subject of physical violence by a male partner at one point in their lives. Try to understand why the hypothetical exists, not if meets your logical criteria
These statistics make me vomit in my mouth, ughh men are really fucked up. I am a man, I love many men in my life but damn…we are pretty broken on the whole.
-
misandry is fake news.
again with this shit, this isn’t the problem. (apologies if im incredibly brazen, i’ve talked to a lot of people about this and seen this statement multiple times now)
We’re explaining why the hypothetical exists. Rather than what it’s purpose is, they don’t understand the purpose of the hypothetical, and as a result, are criticizing it’s use. Telling them that the hypothetical is “actually not about hypotheticals at all, and actually its about the common understanding of woman” does nothing, they literally already know.
What we should be explaining right now, is that it’s supposed to be inflammatory, and that the entire purpose of it is to bring to light the specific issue that woman have with their views of men in society as a whole, and how that exists in relation to how the rest of society views that view itself (often negatively, as we just learned, but immediately ignored for reasons unbeknownst to me) and most specifically here. The aspect everybody seems to be missing.
How we can fix this problem, to better society, so that men don’t fucking rape women.
Honestly yeah, Lemmy overall has seemed like it’s gotten a bit iffier over the last few months. I feel like maybe it needs to be tweaked a bit in how it functions. Or maybe just needs more people.
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.
i hate that i’m still commenting about this, because i know whats going to happen, but maybe im just too fucking autistic for this shit.
“bears generally mind their own business” and humans generally don’t rape other humans. It bothers me that people talk about the bears statistically, as if that somehow overrides the statistics present with humans. But then again, that’s not the point. The point is something entirely different, and the problem is people don’t really understand how to express it properly.
it just feels wrong to pull out stats for bears, and then ignore the existing stats for humans. I mean surely human to human interactions, and bear to human interactions, like interaction interactions, are probably not statistically all that different?
Someone might have been to the woods several times without encountering a bear but also have been assaulted multiple times. The same person could’ve seen a bear irl and had it move along without incident. Statistics probably aren’t what they think of first in the scenario.
I mean surely human to human interactions, and bear to human interactions, like interaction interactions, are probably not statistically all that different?
You don’t like that the person you’re replying to didn’t give you the comparison information you desire but instead of doing your own research and bringing the results here you’re suggesting “surely” you’ve already got the answer you want?
I prefer the small chance of getting killed by a bear over the small chance of getting raped or worse by a stranger
question, because i’m curious. Have you considered the likelihood that the stranger help you in a pretty significant capacity? Being lost alone is much worse than being lost alone with someone else, or even multiple people.
People keeps downplaying the situation as a “hypothetical”. Plenty of comments can be made in the hypothetical that should be reacted to, and some hypothetical comments can even get you sent to jail. Tbh
because hypotheticals are clean, not messy.
it’s easy to be against incest hypothetically. it’s a lot harder to be against it if your sister asks you to have sex with you.
If my sister asked to have sex with me I’d be worried about her, not horny
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.
my favorite irony is those who are supposedly ‘agasint the patriarchy’, are the very same one who are so fervent in their use of it when it comes to putting down men and ‘keeping them in their place’.
“But have you thought about challenging a man who does?”
This was one of the comments in response to me calling the post divisive.
The only people defending this garbage meme are troglodytes. Plenty of trogs in this thread.
Ya’ll don’t like getting called out on your bullshit. Ofc I’m not gonna let myself get grouped into something worse than a fucking animal. Go have your rights and empathy activism someway it doesn’t clump men in the “not people” category
I literally have no clue what man vs bear is and honestly sounds like it should stay that way1
It’s a thought experiment. Women are asked if they’d rather stumble upon a bear or a man in the woods. Most women choose bear. Some boys got really offended at the women’s choice.
Most girls had Teddy bears so that’s an obvious choice imo. They don’t understand bear mauling from grizzlies or face eating polar bears
I think the point isn’t that certain bear species are aggressive, it’s that all bear species are unapologetically bears. They don’t try to pretend they are something else. Bears are bears and they all treat humans more or less the same
The point is their only experience with bears are the cute toys and child artwork. Men in their experience were sexual predators and viewed and acted as women were prey.
I think you might be part of the problem, dude. Those are some pretty grand generalizations/assumptions about women there.
“Women don’t know bears can kill you because they had fluffy teddy bears growing up” is what you sound like.
What? First off, boys also have teddy bears. Most people’s experiences with bears are precisely what you described as solely women’s experiences.
Like what are bears in men’s daily experience? I’ll isolate down to North America to keep things simple.
Most men’s experience with bears is identical to that of women’s. Most men live in suburbs or cities, and haven’t even seen a bear outside of a zoo. But most men and women know that bears are dangerous wild animals because…we have been taught that.
I don’t get why women are so infantalized by men. Now I’m just imagining a father walking up to his son, telling his daughter to leave the room then telling him “bears are dangerous son, you never wanna be close to one and here’s what you do to stay safe, also do NOT tell your sister this, she’s a girl and doesn’t need to know this because one day she’ll have a husband that will protect her from the bears”
Number of female hunters vs male? Men have more encounters
And another broad generalization goes to you.
Women aren’t idiots. They know what bears are. They also know what men are which is precisely why they are mostly answering the way they do.
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
the internet is a machine that turns attention into currency, it does this at the same rate for negative and positive attention, and negative attention is a lot easier to get. you just burst onto a platform unbidden and say something that will piss people off. You get rewarded, the platform gets rewarded, everybody wins except the users who have a gross toxic time in the comments. Lemmy may not run ads, but it’s structured the same way that other platforms are and we already have a way of using those types of platforms built into our cultural knowledge, so Lemmy just turns into a loose confederation of reddits.
pretty much.
I’ve been using this platform for 6 mos. and it’s getting worse and worse with the negativity… because that’s what drives interaction for the vast majority of users.
people who see a funny joke will laugh and move on, maybe upvote. people who get offended by it downvote it, reply, and hope that you reply so they can continue to harass you.
honestly? lemme is teaching me that it’s probably time to get away from social media as a concept. I’m having a tough time with it though. It’s too automatic to pop open a new tab and type “l” or “r” or “f” or “t” and then just hit enter and get sucked into the outrage and/or validation loops
