(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.
The bear thing is controversial because people are interpreting the core of the question differently and assuming everyone understands the question the same way. Some people view the question as fundamentally “which are you more afraid of?” while others view the question to be “which is more dangerous to interact with?” The answer you give and your justification will depend on the question your answering. If your conversation partner is viewing the question through the other lense both your answer and reasoning will sound idiotic. People who claim the other side is just plain wrong aren’t trying to understand why the other side might have their “wrong” position. People who claim the other side don’t understand them should look to demonstrate to the other side that they can understand their viewpoint, down to the core interpretation of the question, so that they can lead them back up through an alternate interpretation of the question and into their own perspective.
Nope, there’s nothing controversial about it. If you’re in a wooded area with a bear and a man you’re more likely to be harmed by a man. Doesn’t matter how you view the question, just matters how much of a basement dweller you are.
Edit: By nothing controversial - no mainstream news or popular opinion pieces or the general public at large don’t understand it. There is no controversy. Be insular on the internet all you want, I’m not attacking your opinions. But controversial is not this.
i wish i thought everyone who disagreed me with was a bad person. must be be nice.
Gross
I mean it really depends on how close you’re required to get. If you have to get within arm’s length, I know who I’m picking. If you’re allowed to stay a kilometer away, that changes the question. This is just an extension of the poor definition of the question and why there’s so much arguing.