this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
524 points (95.8% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

40416 readers
4069 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Asetru@feddit.org 33 points 3 days ago (9 children)

Why would this apply only to girls?

[–] plutopos@lemmy.zip 2 points 18 hours ago

Why not? Girls and boys face different social dynamics

[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

OP: I like waffles.

YOU: oh so you hate pancakes?

OP: No man. WTF are you talking about? Those are 2 different things.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 21 points 2 days ago

No one said that it did.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago (16 children)

Because that's their lived experience. You want to post about guys, go ahead.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] did_you_find_violets@lemmy.world 34 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

cause traditionally/stereotypically feminine things are seen as stupid, useless, and cringe while masculine ones are seen as serious, deep, and respectable.

trans people also show that being a man is seen as an "upgrade" while being a woman a "downgrade" (trans men don't get a fraction of the hate trans women do). same thing with tomboys-femboys.

plus, a man and woman could do the exact same thing (being assertive for example) & the perception will be different (woman - bitch, man - boss).

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 20 points 3 days ago (9 children)

If you think boys aren't ridiculed (for literally anything) you've never been to school.

So, boys, might as well do what you want.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Peanutbjelly@sopuli.xyz 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

so why exclude men who are made fun of for feminine expression?

there are definitely socialized negative biases that specifically women deal with, but being exclusionary doesn't actually help the cause, it just narrows the audience that is allowed to relate to the cause.

and it applies in gender neutral situations, like drawing literally anything in jr.high/highschool would grant the name ____fucker, no matter the benign nature of the variable being drawn.

it's a good little rule that doesn't need to devolve into a cultural battle about which group gets to identify with it more.

i constantly talk about the atheist/mra vs feminist war which just put everyone on the defensive, destroying active efforts in fighting groups like the heritage foundation, who are now doing unimaginable systemic harm to women through destruction of academic spaces and scientific efforts around women's health largely propped up by religious fundamentalist efforts.

sometimes you have to be like "there's something specific about this group which we don't want being lost in the current conversation," but also sometimes it's good to be less rigid about which generalized group is allowed to identify with or benefit from progressive ideals.

[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (6 children)

Making a post about women doesn't - and shouldn't - mean you're excluding men. I feel like excluding should only be defined as an active attempt to prevent people from associating with the post, rather then a failure to include men and enbies and every other gender in existence in the body of the post.

I feel like leftist spaces have gotten a bit too expectant that everything relevant to an individual must be explicitly stated to be as such, rather than encouraging people to simply find relevancy even in things that are not explicitly made for them. I'm a guy, and when I read this I felt a connection with it - I didn't even think about how it only mentioned women, as if that should mean it can't apply to me.

I would rather instill a mindset in all people that would allow for situations where, for example, a man can find relevancy in a post about women, rather then try to get all people to only share content that specifically addresses who all is intended to be able to relate to it. A woman saying things are hard for women isn't making any comments about whether or not it's hard for men, just like a black guy saying black lives matter isn't making any comments about whether or not all lives matter.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Making a post about women doesn't - and shouldn't - mean you're excluding men. I feel like excluding should only be defined as an active attempt to prevent people from associating with the post

Does this apply to making posts about men? Because if so (meaning, the rule applies universally without making exclusions for certain demographics), then I'm inclined to agree.

Experience shows however that posts (or any media) about men usually get attacked for ostensibly excluding women, even without explicitly doing so.

I would rather instill a mindset in all people that would allow for situations where, for example, a man can find relevancy in a post about women, rather then try to get all people to only share content that specifically addresses who all is intended to be able to relate to it.

This is almost hilarious. I mean, on the surface I agree. But again, if we flip the situation then we can see how comical it is. Can women find relevancy in a post about men without commenting by saying it isn't gendered, or even that it applies to women more than it does to men? The same thing applies to race. Can POCs find relevancy in a post about white people (even just implicitly), without claiming it's excluding other races?

The fact is if a white guy wants to create any form of media, be it writing a novel or making an indie film or whathaveyou, he has to be very careful to explicitly include other genders and races, because anything less will get nailed as being exclusionary.

But when a post is explicitly exclusive to one gender, as long as if that gender happens to be women, then suddenly "Oh it's fine, men can just find relevancy in it even if it doesn't (explicitly or implicitly) include them. It doesn't have to be gendered even though it's clearly and deliberately gendered."

Like, the mental hoops people will jump through to justify double standards as long as men are the ones being disadvantaged by them. That is not egalitarianism.

[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 6 points 1 day ago

Bud, what? Women constantly have to find relevancy in posts about men. It's been the default for nearly every culture since the beginning of human history. The only double standard is the universal double standard that people like you couldn't see this whole time, and is only just slightly starting to close.

Any post you see without a woman complaining that it's fallen on them to once again find relevancy in a post that isn't about them is an example of them utilizing their own lived experience, rather than being outlined as the intended audience by the poster. So, yes, they're following the mentality I described for most posts.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (14 children)

There’s quite a few posts here centered on men’s perspectives and I don’t see them being crucified in the comments.

Like what are you even talking about? Media is usually centered on the male perspective. We quite literally live in a patriarchal society.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] did_you_find_violets@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (18 children)

fem guys already relate to content targeted toward women since their lived experience is closer to that than to the typical man, so no exclusion.

men often do this. post is about something women related -> "but what about the men?". we don't have a duty or obligation to include men in every single conversation. men can also create their own content/conversations, and they should. hijacking/inserting themselves just reeks of insecurity and misogyny.

edit and just to be clear: anyone who finds this post relatable is more than valid and welcome, regardless of gender. it’s just the act of explicitly turning it into a “won’t somebody please think of the men?” thing that really grinds my gears.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

It doesn’t say that it only applies to girls its a screencap of part of conversation from people we have little context about.

And “sir”

Shit like this makes my blood boil... "Trauma-dump”… Posting something here that deliberately leaves out half the population …

This is a shitpost community.

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (12 children)

Yes, but why are we making fun of a guy for doing what he loves (posting "but what about men?" In a post talking about women)?

(This is a joke btw.)

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So it's trauma-dumping when a man does it, but when a woman does it it's just "a part of a conversation" or "women talking about their experiences"?

I think that double-standard is precisely what this conversation is about.

We talk about how it's an issue that men aren't allowed to talk about their problems or their feelings, but that's clearly just an abstract idea to some people because when men actually do try to talk about those things, it's always the same reaction.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

Not at all…

It just appears rather obvious from that text that Asetru their anger against op came from a very specific personal injustice done to them. Channeling it in such way where you direct anger at a demographic is toxic, regardless of gender.

I do disagree a lot with how op responded, they where over reacting in a similar way, i didn’t call them out because the longer this ordeal went on the more people seemed to prove that they have a real point to be frustrated about it.

You did prove the same thing. My comment isn’t gender specific, i don’t know what Astetru identifies as (thats part why i put the sir is in quotes) any gender can argue in favour of any gender. That is not that unusual.

And yet you perceived it as directed at one gender and came in with a “but what about the other gender”

I really didn’t want to believe that this “always happens” but the evidence here says it either is or this is targeted trolling against op.

[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 14 points 2 days ago

Girls was meant in a gender neutral way obv

load more comments (2 replies)