I disavow the ignorance displayed in the statement that “Feminists always think women are better than men.” But felt important to share how well received such a message is received on this site.

Previous posts in this series:

  • sh__@lemmy.world
    447·
    4 days ago

    Kind of a roundabout way to say that, but I guess the underlying message is people are equally terrible? That’s not really the worst opinion I’ve seen.

    • zqps@sh.itjust.works
      271·
      4 days ago

      The actual message is the “… And feminists are hypocrite liars about it” part you skipped over.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
        7·
        3 days ago

        thanks for saying the truth lol. i happen to also believe that people are equally terrible but it’s annoying that people are intentionally ignoring the other half of the message.

      • sh__@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 days ago

        That is definitely what they said, but they seem to mislabel feminism in general. Since feminism isn’t about superiority to men, then who they are referring to is not representative of feminism as a whole. I guess what I’m saying is that they are actually right that anyone that thinks that one group is superior to another is wrong. They are wrong about the term they used to describe someone like that though, which I don’t label as the worst thing ever compared to actually thinking the former point. So not understanding the term feminism bad, but also their point directed at the right people isn’t wrong.

      • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        69·
        4 days ago

        In other words you see oppression, and the people fighting back against their oppression as equally shit.

        Classy.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
          74·
          4 days ago

          this type of abrasive behavior is not rhetorically effective

          • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            64·
            4 days ago

            Wow, I was not expecting this tone policing bullshit from you.

            But no - what is abrasive is saying “humanity sucks” in the face of marginalised people, who have no hand in our oppression, pointing out that oppression. Not calling out someone doing this.

            The patriarchy sucks. Misogyny sucks. Capitalism sucks. Humanity, which includes all of the people oppressed by those and other structures created by and for the benefit of a tiny minority of people, who band together and fight for each other and our rights and survival, shouldn’t be thrown under the bus because someone doesn’t want to, for whatever reason, diferenciate humanity and social constructs imposed on it for profit and control.

            Fuck this noise, it’s like blaming climate change on “humanity” which puts billionaires who create as much CO2 in 90 minutes as the rest of us do in a lifetime, and, for example, Indigenous people who were genocided and their sustainable ways almost destroyed and continuously overlooked, on the same level of responsability.

            All this is is the same old bullshit of blame shifting done by the privileged to deflect it from themselves.

            What is abrasive is “all lives matter”-ing marginalised people.

            • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
              33·
              3 days ago

              i agree with literally everything you said here except that you put words into the other commenters mouth over eight words lol.

              • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                32·
                3 days ago

                No, I really didn’t, I made a mildly snarky remark pointing out the direct implication of their bullshit statement (E: and which, if you agree with everything I’ve said, I’m genuinely confused why you’re getting defensive of), and I stand by it.

                I’m sick and tired of people responding to problems we have because of very specific systems and a very small group of people with a condemnation of humanity as a whole (E: consciously or unconsciously, but very directly, helping our oppressors by shifting blame away from them), and I’m not going to be made out to be “abrasive” for calling it out for exactly what it is, nor the tone in which I do it in (which, lets be honest, was seriously fucking mild), policed.

                If they don’t like the implications of their statement, perhaps they should reconsider why they made it, and not make it again in the future if they don’t want to be seen to be making those implications again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

                • Leg@sh.itjust.works
                  2·
                  2 days ago

                  I think you’re dead on. I have nothing else to add, but it’s refreshing to see a non-doomer take.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      1110·
      3 days ago

      ignores the entire first half of the sentence, the half that i highlighted in my post “that’s not really the worst opinion i’ve seen” and twenty odd upvotes

      we are so cooked yall

      • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
        6·
        3 days ago

        People will conveniently skim the subtext and skip to the true parts when the text, when taken as a whole, confirms their own biases.

        A lot of people see feminism as a “women are better than men” take. It’s not, that’s radfem, feminism is about equality despite the name as it has roots in the suffragettes movement.

      • sh__@lemmy.world
        21·
        3 days ago

        They certainly have a misunderstanding of what most people mean when they call themselves feminists. My point was it’s not as bad as it could be since they don’t demonize what feminism actually is. They think everyone is on an equal level even if they don’t have a positive opinion of everyone. I would say misusing a term is not really that bad when they could have said a lot worse like actually saying something along the lines of “women bad.” Which I didn’t really get that from their post, but perhaps I misunderstood their intentions.

  • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
    1053·
    5 days ago

    People are blaming propaganda, I additionally blame the attention economy aka social media algorithms that favor attention. Young men are often shown videos of “crazy feminists” acting stupid, which gives this impression.

    If you only see the dumbest people and takes from a movement, big surprise you won’t understand it.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      343·
      5 days ago

      honestly i don’t think it’s too big a stretch to claim that the attention economy you describe is an intentional structure of conservative propagandists.

      • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
        6·
        4 days ago

        Not at all a stretch indeed. Although I think they discovered the attention economy, which was initially a side-product of profit-driven social networks.

      • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.orgEnglish
        7·
        4 days ago

        it’s so much not a stretch that it simply just is. it’s the kinda stretch you get sleeping in a perfectly neutral resting position for 8 hours

    • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      33·
      5 days ago

      I think your point might also apply the other way - people are also encouraged to make exaggerated, incendiary comments for attention. Mild, reasonable takes, especially not posted quickly, will usually be overshadowed by the more extreme top comments. I believe the poster in question defended themselves claiming it was just an exaggeration.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
        111·
        5 days ago

        excellent analysis. this is part of my reasoning for making posts like these. silly little reactionary posts responding to misunderstanding or bigotry often have some of the more interesting and nuanced discussion and learning in the comments.

        tldr i think it’s possible to reverse engineer propaganda structures if you put some thought into it

    • WillStealYourUsername@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      20·
      5 days ago

      I additionally blame the attention economy aka social media algorithms that favor attention

      I mean this is also propaganda :P This is how the alt right are setting their hooks in people, by using the algorithms as they are to get boys and young men to listen to their little gurus etc. and slowly pull them right.

      • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
        51·
        5 days ago

        True. The way I see it, this was already a bug of attention-seeking algorithms, which right-wingers rediscovered as a feature.

  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
    191·
    4 days ago

    Lemmy isn’t a monolith, and understanding that the fediverse has set itself up as an alternative to centralised platforms, I don’t think we should be surprised when trolls who tend to get banned on those other platforms find their way here.

    Of course we’re going to see a lot of reactionary opinions here. These are the reactionaries that are too reactionary for reddit. They’ve learned to be less overt in their views because lemmy can excise a whole instance that’s just reactionary.

    I’d say right now they’re trying to radicalise the normies. Vote manipulation is probably part of that strategy to make their views look more accepted than they are.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
        602·
        5 days ago

        i really love this and also the amount of jpg distortion going on showing how loved and re-distributed this post was

        • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          81·
          4 days ago

          I agree, but wouldn’t hold my breath lol

          Though I don’t doubt at least a couple have already commented elsewhere on this thread, and are trying to hide their anti-feminism (aka misogyny) behind the thin veil of pretending it excludes them, and that we must refocus thousands of years of feminist struggle on to them and call it “egalitarianism” otherwise they have no reason to join our fight for equality (which they conveniently ignore means equality for everyone, which is why they need to make up excuses to reject it, because, going back to the meme I posted and why they downvote it - they don’t want equality, they want to hold on to superiority at all costs, and their fragile egos don’t like having that mirror held up to them).

          (edit to add: and even if we give in and centre them and do call it egalitarianism, they won’t actually want to fight with us to bring down the patriarchy, they’ll just keep shifting the goalposts to make it more and more about freeing their poor souls from the imaginary oppression of feminism) .

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
      214·
      5 days ago

      I mean, I do think that using the term Feminism for movements that aren’t about women seeking equality is kind of a stretch of the original word. If the focus of the movement has changed so much that defining it as the original focus isn’t accurate anymore, a new word should be used for the new movement instead. I’m undereducated on modern Feminist theory but this seems to me to be self-evident and I’ve never seen a good argument why referring to gender-related egalitarianism as Feminism has more positives than negatives.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
        144·
        5 days ago

        you should read that work by hooks, it’s linked and available right there

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        119·
        5 days ago

        imo we’re also just at a point now where everyone’s getting fucked, maybe let’s focus on preventing fascism right now and when neonazi parties aren’t getting 40% of the votes we can go back to worrying specifically about women’s rights. Though aside from that there’s also the fact that we’re sorta supposed to not be grouping everything into “men” and “women” anymore, so at the very least the term “feminism” feels a bit inherently unsuitable… Maybe let’s just go with working class solidarity yeah?

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
          216·
          5 days ago

          feminism is for everyone. solidarity is for everyone. the working class is huge and the history of its successes are often inextricably linked, with both marxist and feminist leaders working together.

          you also should read that work by hooks, it’s available and linked right there.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          4 days ago

          There’s room for a few issues at once. Gender still plays an important social role and I won’t stop anyone from fighting for justice just because it’s not my one chosen issue.

    • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
      33·
      3 days ago

      I have always felt that feminism has had a marketing problem. I consider myself a feminist and I am for equal rights for all. But the issue with feminism is that it’s easy to point to the word and use it to propagandize a people against it. The word evokes a priority towards women (which I believe it should), but that makes folks feel like there are people out to be against them which is not what the movement is about.

      And then you have the people who claim to be feminist who are really just misandrists who want to see men broght down to achieve equality or who want to see women be valued higher than men. In reality, the way forward should be to lift women up to the level that society holds men. It shouldn’t be a battle of sexes.

      Feminism also (in name only) sorta precludes anyone who isn’t female. So non-binary? Get fucked I guess? I think there really ought to be a better way to market an equality movement than labelling it for women, even if that is the primary target of increasing equality.

      It would be like calling a racial equality movement blackism and then saying you represent all race’s equality. That specifically disregards all races not considered black from a marketing perspective, even if your movement’s actions are positive representation for all races.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
        3·
        3 days ago

        The rest of the work you are responding to is in fact doing exactly what you are asking, reasserting the truth that “Feminism is for Everybody.” You should read it! Of course, she doesn’t have a time machine and can’t rewrite entire etomological history, but the book is good and more people should read it. It’s linked in the above comment :)

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
    221·
    5 days ago

    The worst opinion you’ve ever seen

    Yup, that’s about what I expect every week or so

  • ted@sh.itjust.works
    318·
    5 days ago

    I have encountered a lot of this mentality on Lemmy. Sometimes I go to engage, but it’s simply not worth it.

    You won’t be able to inform folks with these opinions in a content aggregator forum, it’s just not the place for learning (and 196 is much less so).

    Also is this OC in 196? Isn’t that sort of against the spirit of the community?

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      363·
      5 days ago

      it’s just not the place for learning

      awww dont tell me what to do :( i have learned much on this site and now i’m contributing back. i like doing my part to make the places i hang out nicer for everyone :)

      Also is this OC in 196?

      yes

      Isn’t that sort of against the spirit of the community?

      no i have done it for years

  • Faresh@lemmy.mlEnglish
    26·
    4 days ago

    Whenever I see such situations I’m glad I have created an account on hexbear after they federated, because I know they don’t tolerate this shit. All the ex-reditors on those instances tell each other scary campfire stories of the things hexbears did when they were federated with them (or as is the case .world, the things they could do if they were hypothetically federated), but as can be seen from the upvotes on that post, they are the people who would most benefit from being haunted by them for their takes.