I applaud your dedication!

No worries! I apologize too for some of my earlier comments.

Yes, those comments get too much support here. There is resistance, but not enough. Maybe I will spend a bit more effort doing that instead of arguing with people who I largely agree with. I will never entirely stop doing the latter (I believe to reach the truth I must vocally disagree with the flaws of arguments even if I agree with the premise or conclusion) but I could shift my priorities towards fighting the most egregious views first/harder.

I don’t think I have much more to say here but I do appreciate this conversation. It started a bit rough but I always appreciate when someone is willing to stick it out and really discuss something.

No therapist can defeat me

explain why you’re like this

Well I guess it’s “not my job to educate you”, is it?

Fair enough. I think that does happen, it’s just that that doesn’t eliminate the people who are making sexist comments. I do think there’s a difference between someone who’s a part of an ideological movement (their chosen group clearly expresses their views) and someone who is just using a particular website for various reasons (their choice to use that website does not imply general agreement with the website’s views) but I see your point.

That’s true, it’s kind of a grey area. I could see it being argued either way whether it’s an identity group given it’s defined by both identity and choice. I guess it’s not? I still think it would be better not to make a generalization like that, given you will be ascribing negative qualities to people who do not deserve it, but I’m splitting hairs at this point. The sentiment expressed had value I suppose.

I’m not ignoring that, and women should not see a leftist man as significantly less potentially dangerous than any other. I’m saying that regardless of what percentage of people in an identity group have a certain quality, it is wrong to make an unqualified statement about that group, or to assume an individual within that group must have similar qualities to the average member of it. That is the very basis of why racism, sexism, anti-lgbt sentiment, even microaggressions, etc. are wrong, but it applies to men too.

Yes, I agree that the amount of men who treat women badly or don’t respect them as people or their opinions is concerningly high in this thread, and IRL as well tbh.

My argument is exclusively that expressing that sentiment by making a generalized statement about “men on lemmy” is incorrect (it does not apply to the entire group) and immoral (you are talking badly about some people who do not deserve it by applying a property of one of their identity groups to every member of that group individually). But again, “not all men” vs “too many men” has been discussed to death already so I don’t think I’m really adding anything new here.

Edit: Just saw your edit. My sympathies to Dolores Huerta. Even men who do good things can be revealed to have evil within them.

Yes, the part I took offense to was this:

Men on lemmy are 100% the socialist boyfriends who don’t do the dishes, you can tell by what they support and get pissed at.

Not anything related to how that perceived character flaw of men on lemmy makes OP feel in terms of attraction. Again, I do not care who they are attracted to and I believe the primary point of the comment was to express this negative belief of the men on this site.

My objection specifically is that I don’t think this generalization is accurate as you claim. It is for some people, but not for all. And this is now turning into a “not all men” debate… I’m sure you have also had this argument hundreds of times so let me know if you want me to give an explanation my best shot but honestly if you believe generalized statements about men are valid then I probably won’t be saying anything you haven’t heard before and vice versa.

That’s not what I took offense to, and I don’t believe it was the primary point of their comment either.

You are unfortunately correct that this is a much more common view here than it should be. I hope that the arguments against it will prove useful in changing peoples’ minds; lemmy is not 4chan and I believe we are in general more capable of self-improvement. At least I hope so.

I’m not saying they should?

No, I do reply to mysogynists and tell them to get bent. What I’m saying is that interacting with actually intelligent (or at least interesting) takes produces many more comments.

The intent of those comments varies wildly from “women should man up” to “why are we assuming women aren’t the more capable hikers” to “why are men even abandoning someone they supposedly want to hike with” etc. I think some have gotten more upvotes than they deserve but not all of them are just saying we shouldn’t be concerned about women being abandoned in the wild by their partners, and those that do say that usually have appropriate replies. What you described is certainly an issue but I don’t think it shows an overwhelmingly mysogynistic sentiment from the lemmy userbase at large.

As I said in the other thread, that’s because the misogynists don’t have an argument worth responding to in the first place. Telling someone they suck takes one comment, discussing something takes longer.

Yeah I agree that’s very prevalent in the thread

Did you read the article? What about the guy who refused a rescue helicopter and left his partner on top of a mountain alone to die without even using the blanket? Surely that’s the woman’s fault somehow?

I’m hereby coining Feather’s Law: Any comment that mentions downvotes on its author’s posts is wrong.

I’ve done both. I just have longer comment chains arguing with the women because misogynistic comments have the depth of a puddle and there’s not much more to say to them than “you suck and I hate your entire worldview”.

I also again disagree with the framing that allegiance here should be gender-based.

You can choose to believe that, but my perspective is wholly my own, as much as such a thing can be separated from a gendered experience at least, and is not intended to dogpile people. I think even if you believe the other person in a conversation is not acting in good faith, it can still be useful to understand their worldview to learn why they are acting how they are. You may disagree with me, but I think if you look at what I’ve said with the goal of learning what and how I think, you will gain a more complete understanding of why I have said what I’ve said. It’s probably more effort that is reasonable to ask of someone to do that, but I find it valuable to try. Of course, sometimes the conclusion will be that the other person really is unreasonable; nothing you can do about that tbh.