this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
525 points (95.8% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
40416 readers
4092 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/Explicit
Content
-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
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
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're usually the one doing the crucifying, so I'm not surprised you haven't witnessed it as a spectator.
That is an overly-broad generalization and not even remotely accurate. Maybe fifty years ago that would apply in most cases, but still not all.
And unless you've literally never read media analysis in any academic journal, we both know that male-centered media is considered a faux pas at best these days.
Patriarchy harms men and women. You can't just lump all men in as "the patriarchy," that doesn't even align with the perspectives in actual feminist literature.
Patriarchy is specifically the structures of dominance and oppression which, while traditionally ascribed as a male role, women can also participate in. There is such thing as women participating in patriarchy and if you don't believe that then you've never read actual feminist philosophy.
By the way, reinforcing patriarchal standards of toxic masculinity (such as "men can't/shouldn't talk about their problems or their feelings) is participating in patriarchy. Way to go.
Egalitarianism is about equality. If you think uplifting women means putting men down, then you're not a feminist.
Where did I lump all men in as the patriarchy?
Where have I said men can't or shouldn't talk about their feelings?
These are the kinds of subtle undertones that one learns to read as a man in society simply by the experiences and microaggressions that one's received since boyhood. They're not always overtly stated.
Where did I lump all men in as "the patriarchy"? It's not fair to lob an accusation and then say it's in subtle undertones. Subtle undertones where? In what comment?
Another specific accusation. Where did I say men can't or shouldn't talk about their problems or feelings? Which comments contain the microaggressions suggesting this?
That's a very interesting statement considering I used the same argument that women often use to talk about their experiences. Odd how it suddenly doesn't apply when a man makes the same argument...
I haven't used that argument and I'm not all women.
You're right, you're not all women. So just because you haven't used the argument doesn't mean no woman has ever.
But guess what? Being a man and simply not making misogynistic arguments about women isn't enough to protect one against criticisms aimed at "men" as an abstract whole.
Responding to those criticisms with "I'm not like that" or "I don't do that / haven't said that" gets hit with the "nOt AlL mEn!!1!" ridicule...
You're having a discussion with me. I haven't used that argument against you. You're fighting strawmen.
We're talking about whether men commonly have their experiences invalidated and you're like "No, that doesn't happen because I haven't seen it." Basically doing the thing you say doesn't happen.
And every argument you're making to defend yourself is one that if the situation were reversed and a man were making to defend himself, people would deride him for it.
I'm not saying those arguments are wrong, but that the critique of them is unevenly enforced. It's wrong when a man does it, but perfectly valid when a woman does. That's what I mean by double-standards.
For instance, if someone makes a strawman "so you hate waffles" argument to call me a misogynist despite me not saying anything misogynistic, and I say "No, I never said that," those same people will bring up some abstract societal critique to justify why I must be a misogynist because that's what men are in an overly broad generalized sense.
And no matter what I say or do to defend myself, they'll have a preset word to dismiss it. "Fragility," "Mansplaining," "Derailing," "Defensiveness," "taking it too personally," or whatever else. All of which is aimed at communicating: "You're too sensitive; men aren't supposed to have feelings or passions. Just take it on the chin. You have nothing to contribute to the conversation so just sit there and be quiet like a good little stoic. This isn't about you, it's about all other men (but if you were an exception then you would already understand that, although if you consider yourself an exception then you're probably deluding yourself anyway. So it is about you, even though I'm telling you that it isn't)." Maybe not verbatim, but those are the sentiments it's usually loaded with.
To be clear, I think that's wrong. But it only really gets used against men. And then when a man says there's a double-standard or that having one's experiences invalidated isn't exclusive to one gender, people are like "No, men's experiences don't get invalidated. Men don't even have experiences to invalidate. All they ever go through is being privileged within a patriarchal system, so what could they possibly complain about? No, their problems aren't valid." Paraphrasing, of course, but that's what it boils down to.
And you're acting like I'm making all this up, as if I pulled it out of thin air instead of relating a fairly consistent pattern of experience. Which is quite literally invalidating my experience. That wouldn't be tolerated going the other way, would it? ("No, I don't think women experience that. I've never seen it. I'm not doing that to you.")
Where did I say this?
This entire chain is you saying:
At this point it's getting suspiciously close to sealioning, I'm just not entirely convinced that you're doing it in bad faith. You seem like you genuinely believe what you're saying
I'm honestly asking for examples and you keep conjuring strawmen to fight instead of actually engaging with me.
You made the claim that the reverse happens all the time in this community and I was simply asking for examples.
I never limited my statement to this community specifically. But the fact is that it does happen all the time and I'm not going to go hunting for examples for you because they happen often enough as it is.
And you're still doing the thing that a man would get trashed for doing to women. "I haven't noticed that, so it doesn't happen."
Where have I claimed that it doesn't happen?
Why would you specify that the same users will comment if you weren't limiting your statement to this community specifically? Can you share examples from the wider Lemmy community that shows what you're talking about?