this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
33 points (88.4% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

7659 readers
963 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ZeroGravitas@lemm.ee 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] JonsJava@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 points 1 year ago

done, thank you

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

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.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ZeroGravitas@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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%

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (8 replies)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

The irony is that the poor behavior explains why many women would pick the bear

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Clent@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Dvixen@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

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.]

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 points 1 year ago

Thank you for expressing this experience. 🧡

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LifeOfChance@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Lemmy honestly is not friendly or welcoming. My wife left after being attacked for any comment she made where she mentioned being a female. The man vs bear debate wasn't even around until a month or so later.

If you're not a tech savvy male and you're lurking just don't get involved. They'll belittle anyone who's isn't. You need to have PC for gaming on a Linux computer having the ability to program within Linux while running your internet through a pihole so your jellyfin server can remain hidden through the VPN. If you even ask any question about anything I said prepare to be shamed for not knowing how to already know.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jae@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not even about Man v Bear, but just seeing all the casual misogyny on Lemmy is extremely exhausting to me. It’s so clearly obvious that Lemmy as a whole is dominated by men. There are no spaces here for women. It’s why I still frequent Reddit, because at least there are communities there that are more diverse. I really want Lemmy to take off more, but I just don’t get enjoyment out of this platform, after the initial hype died off.

Anyway, I’m really glad you posted this, OP. I think it’s incredibly important to foster a diverse community. Unfortunately the diversity just isn’t there, and I’m unsure as to how to help that. As it is now, I can’t recommend Lemmy to my other friends who identify as women.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 3 points 7 months ago

You're right. It's also hostile to enbies.

[–] P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry for what you had to go through.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

thank you. bit late but i have also quit fedi over this now. sending love 💕

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yuri@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (19 children)

I commented about it and some guy replaced every instance of the word “men” in my post with “Jews” to prove to me that I am a bigot. His comment was removed by mods, but later un-removed because we’re big fans of bad faith arguments and invalid comparisons on this platform.

e: argue this point with women in person and see how well it goes.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Arcka@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well my block list on lemmy grew a whole lot faster and is longer now than on it ever was on Reddit.

But This was even before the bear debacle.

Lemmy is not as good as advertised.

[–] CTDummy@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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…

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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. ❤️

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Allero@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›