Comment on Dude read the rules of woman only community and decided to post anyway

• hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Oh, poor poor oppressed men that aren’t allowed anywhere on the internet!

  source

  • h3rmit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I personally do not care, I usually do not want to go into communities/places where I’m not welcome. But disceiminating basing on gender, sex, sexuality, race, ideology, etc… usually frowned upon.

    I just find that double standard quite pronounced.

    source

    • starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I would agree with you but this is like being surrounded by men for 99% of the time all the time forever and then having a community that is not 99% men.

      That said I don’t fully agree with them, half the time it really is weirdos downplaying women’s experiences, but the other half is a woman giving a story and ending it with something like “men are disgusting,” and someone (not very nicely) replying “what do you mean men are disgusting??”

      I wouldn’t say that’s a reasonable response, but definitely understandable, and I’ve seen it downplayed as an incel response pretty often

      source

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I think your stats are a bit skewed, it’s likely more than 1% of the entire population (internet or otherwise) that are women, trans women, or NB. (I know you’re speaking entirely too hyperbolically rather than literally, but)

        I mean, just in the US alone:

        The total population of United States is estimated to be 332.39 million with 164.55 million males (49.50%) and 167.84 million females (50.50%). There are 3.3 million more females than males in United States.

        I find it hard to say that 3.3mil more women than men is “99% men all the time,” sounds like it’s closer to 50.5%.

        As for them having their own community, idgaf really, have fun, but also:

        It’s definitely a double standard, and fraternal organizations are often met with just as much hostility and discrimination suits (ex: Boy Scouts were pressured to allow girls, while Girl Scouts not only never faced the same pressure, those leaning on Boy Scouts to br inclusive actively defend Girl Scouts as a male exclusionary space, and I cannot grasp the cognitive dissonance that takes). Personally I think we need to pick a lane as a whole either direction, it’s either fine or not to have exclusionary orgs and comms like that, no double standard, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

        Also I think it’s somewhat of an invitation for problems to have your exclusionary non-public community in public. Should prrooooobably just have something more secure that people won’t constantly stumble into, but if one has fun with constant moderation I suppose it’s a good way to feed one’s addiction. Seems like it’d get old, personally.

        It’s especially ridiculous to me to make someone’s demographic the subject of a post, while barring that demographic from participation (at least on that post.) I guess I get it, it’s like talking shit behind someone’s back instead of to their face, which is a lot easier, but it is telling that if you replace the demographic in question with any other of your choosing, the problems with the practice would become glaringly obvious.

        That said if they want to be exclusionary, reactionary, and complain about an entire demographic without them there to speak their side? Well I’m used to it, you should hear the shit my uncle says, so I say have fun, fuck it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments