Mildly Infuriating

I see where this is coming from, and from that angle, it might seem (and sometimes be) noble.

The problem arises when the oppressed group starts falsely lumping everyone outside the group into oppressors, which so often happens around gendered issues, among others. So many times I've seen women in such spaces lashing out at men at large and then bringing this mentality to the world outside the group.

"Men can't be discriminated against - they are oppressors" "Men are abusive by nature" "Men are unsafe to be around" "Men are the problem" "It is always men" "Sure, a man might just be a chill person, but he always carries privilege and is thereby part of the problem" "Men go through different socialization that breaks them and makes them abusive"

These are just few of the arguments I've seen in the wild, on several occasions.

To be clear: it's not by any means exclusive to women. There are plenty of examples of men grouping together on much the same grounds, spreading similar false narratives about women. And this is something that shouldn't happen, ever, under any premise. It erodes our ability to build bridges, to communicate, to find actual solutions - and to support each other, whatever the gender distribution of any given place is. And currently, Lemmy is certainly not the worst on the scale, even though it could fare better.

I think your stats are a bit skewed, it's likely more than 1% of the entire population (internet or otherwise) that are women, trans women, or NB. (I know you're speaking entirely too hyperbolically rather than literally, but)

I mean, just in the US alone:

The total population of United States is estimated to be 332.39 million with 164.55 million males (49.50%) and 167.84 million females (50.50%). There are 3.3 million more females than males in United States.

I find it hard to say that 3.3mil more women than men is "99% men all the time," sounds like it's closer to 50.5%.

As for them having their own community, idgaf really, have fun, but also:

It's definitely a double standard, and fraternal organizations are often met with just as much hostility and discrimination suits (ex: Boy Scouts were pressured to allow girls, while Girl Scouts not only never faced the same pressure, those leaning on Boy Scouts to br inclusive actively defend Girl Scouts as a male exclusionary space, and I cannot grasp the cognitive dissonance that takes). Personally I think we need to pick a lane as a whole either direction, it's either fine or not to have exclusionary orgs and comms like that, no double standard, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Also I think it's somewhat of an invitation for problems to have your exclusionary non-public community in public. Should prrooooobably just have something more secure that people won't constantly stumble into, but if one has fun with constant moderation I suppose it's a good way to feed one's addiction. Seems like it'd get old, personally.

It's especially ridiculous to me to make someone's demographic the subject of a post, while barring that demographic from participation (at least on that post.) I guess I get it, it's like talking shit behind someone's back instead of to their face, which is a lot easier, but it is telling that if you replace the demographic in question with any other of your choosing, the problems with the practice would become glaringly obvious.

That said if they want to be exclusionary, reactionary, and complain about an entire demographic without them there to speak their side? Well I'm used to it, you should hear the shit my uncle says, so I say have fun, fuck it.

Tbh I'm not surprised, I do think that SOA was forced to be inclusive, but they have been for years now and so they're probably used to it.

Conversely Girl Scouts not only were never pressured to be inclusive, they're actively shielded from having to be inclusive. You think they're sexist when a girl wants to join you should see how they treat boys who want to join!

Also worth noting, the whole reasoning behind forcing the Boy Scouts to allow girls was "because the girl scouts sucks."

Personally I think the correct answer was either:

A) Boy/Girl scouts merge, they're both now Scouting America and everyone can join. Could even expand it to adults that missed out as kids and want to learn survival skills or want to hike and camp with other adults (separate units of course from the kids lmao, but I'll shoehorn in a healthy "third place" for adults any chance I get). And keep selling the Girl Scout cookies but call them Scouting America cookies now.

B) Nothing. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts remain limited to their respective genders, and if "girl scouts sucks" then it is their responsibility to improve and make it not suck instead of forcing their way into the Boy Scouts. Leaves NB out to dry though, and could get weird if someone wants to transition but their Scout Credits don't transfer with them.

But we got neither, instead we got "the boys do not deserve their own space but the girls do" which is a little weird to me (though entirely too common.)

I am glad however that you were able to go with the less toxic option, and I do still love Thin Mints, I just wish they'd have taken option (A) instead of option (D)ouble Standard.