Skip Navigation

Lemmy is a worse platform for women than Reddit was

(Content warning, discussions of SA and misogyny, mods I might mention politics a bit but I hope this can be taken outside the context of politics and understood as a discussion of basic human decency)

We all know how awful Reddit was when a user mentioned their gender. Immediate harassment, DMs, etc. It's probably improved over the years? But still awful.

Until recently, Lemmy was the most progressive and supportive of basic human dignity of communities I had ever followed. I have always known this was a majority male platform, but I have been relatively pleased to see that positive expressions of masculinity have won out.

All of that changed with the recent "bear vs man" debacle. I saw women get shouted down just for expressing their stories of being sexually abused, repeatedly harassed, dogpiled, and brigaded with downvotes. Some of them held their ground, for which I am proud of them, but others I saw driven to delete their entire accounts, presumably not to return.

And I get it. The bear thing is controversial; we can all agree on this. But that should never have resulted in this level of toxicity!

I am hoping by making this post I can kind of bring awareness to this weakness, so that we can learn and grow as a community. We need to hold one another accountable for this, or the gender gap on this site is just going to get worse.

524 comments
  • The bear scenario is the perfect division inducing shitstorm.

    It’s understandable what the memes portrays the danger that women face, daily. The fact that they frequently don’t feel comfortable or even just basic safety is definitely valid and worth discussion.

    However, the bear vs man thing was just the worst vehicle to induce that discussion. On one side men who may not be the most well informed about women issues; will get immediately defensive at being compared to a large animal known for tearing people apart and eating them alive.

    The members of the other side who see all the angry men getting defensive at them for expressing this view and think it’s purely because they aren’t empathetic to these issue, they “hate” women or they’re marginalising what is a real and daily danger.

    Of course there are actual trolls, toxic arseholes and people who have 0 interest actual discourse or understanding but fuck them, I agree ban em.

    It was never going to end in a productive, calm or rational discussion and frankly I think tarring the entire of lemmy for it is equally as unproductive. I’ve seen plenty of people initially aggressive to the meme, come around. I’ve seen more and more people make light jokes about the same meme without the accusatory tone. If you want discourse theres space to do so; it just has to be done better(imo). Preferably without snark or accusatory tones.

    • Okay, but, speaking as a woman, we try to explain these issues nicely, with gentle terminology and a big helping of ‘not all of you, but some of you…’ and we get ignored, dismissed, belittled, or flat-out gaslit.

      So, we try going for the shock value to get you to at least pay attention instead of dismissing what we say as background noise or ‘us silly little women worrying our silly little heads over nothing’. And then we get told we can’t talk like that, that it’s insulting, that no man would listen because we’re belittling them, that it ‘doesn’t foster discussion’.

      Although at least you heard us say something so many of us take it as a small win…

      So, honest question. How do we explain it to you, so we don’t offend you, but you actually hear us? Actually get an idea of what it means to be afraid of footsteps behind us when we go out at night? To get leered at when all we’re trying to do is get a good workout at the gym? To have men just take liberties, like touching us, grabbing us? To not want to mention that we are a woman online, especially in gaming circles, because of the sexist bullshit and dismissive attitudes that will inevitably show up and run us out of a group we just want to be in because we like the game, damnit?

      To weigh the decision to even make a post like this, because I know it will be brigaded and will attract sexist jerks who will try to shout me down? Or even attract stalkers who will follow me across instances to harass me?

      Please, tell me how. Because we want you to understand. We don’t want to chase people away from discussions. But it’s so hard, and gets so discouraging…

      • When you're arguing on an online space large enough for a position that doesn't yet have overwhelming support, you're always going to get some pushback of some kind. It's never going to be completely pleasant. The silver lining is that, if you're arguing for your positions well enough, you're going to bring some more people to your side each time. Many of them will not be vocal, many of them will have to meditate of what you've said, for many of them it will just be a fleeting thought, but it might be a stepping stone that leads them to actually change their mind in a later discussion. I have this mindset because it's coherent with how I've changed my mind over the years after engaging with different people, and so, when I'm advocating for something on a space that isn't overwhelmingly welcoming (which might usually be autism advocacy, anti-capitalism, secularism, depending on the site), and I'm in a tempered mood at the moment, I immediately assume that I'm going to get pushback even on things that I'm objectively correct, but that doesn't mean I'm not making useful progress, so I should argue with more charitability than I think the other person deserves.

        On the gender issues topic specifically. Discounting a minority of people whom you're never going to make see reason, your goal is to make your positions understandable to the men who either don't have a strong opinion yet or are only mildly hostile. I'm going to use the example of an user I saw the other day out of memory: picture a man who has had an aggressively mediocre life: few meaningful relationships if any, no romantic or sexual partners, hating his job or whatever it is he's studying, he hasn't (or hasn't seen himself having) acted particularly mean towards anyone in his life but he has particularly vivid memories of women or girls provoking him pain (be they a rude teacher, an abusive mother, high school bullies, or whatever). Now picture him reading these two messages:

        (...) Life feels very unsafe to me. I have been catcalled, had my opinions dismissed and driven out of spaces I wanted to be in ever since my teens, (...) There are always some men who make the world a dangerous place for me.

        and

        (...) Life feels very unsafe to me. I have been catcalled, had my opinions dismissed and driven out of spaces I wanted to be in ever since my teens, (...) Men make the world a dangerous place for me.

        I've made the nuance very obvious here, but it will usually be far more subtle. Sometimes it will be someone not making their position as fair and impartial as possible, sometimes it'll be that they literally do not realize their words might be misinterpreted, but a good chunk of the individual shitshows I've seen in the past few days here are easily understandable if I picture someone saying: "I've been a sad shit for my whole life without harming anyone, and if anything, I've been treated unfairly. And now you're telling me I'm the culprit!?", and the difficulties of this guy through his life might have been several degrees less severe than your own, but if he's misunderstood what you're saying, or the message he's read is less charitable, or if the person he's just read has been perfectly reasonable, but five minutes ago he's read a different message from someone else who hasn't been, which twists the context, he isn't entirely wrong, because he was minding his own business but now he feels accusations fall upon him out of nowhere.

        On the bear argument specifically. Ignore the goddamn bear. You can make a lot of good arguments about why choosing the bear is wrong, and this derails PLENTY of discussions that could otherwise be useful and meaningful into a stunlock where one side wants to argue about why some people choose one way, and the other about the specific hypothetical. Don't go into "(...) and that's why I'd choose the bear", ignore the metaphor, redirect the conversation in an useful direction, such as the actual living experiences of women, what kind of society would you want to see and what kind of specific changes would you like to see people make.

        This advocacy is almost never going to be completely pleasant. This isn't a justification, or discouragement, it's just acknowledgement of the fact that plenty of people are going to be predisposed against your position, or skeptical, or outright hostile, and you personally are not going to see the fruits of your own, individual, specific labour, because whatever useful progress you make will be brewing on the background. Plenty of people whom you've made think will perhaps upvote you at best, but very, very few will admit "You've completely changed my mind on this", but that doesn't mean what you're doing isn't useful. Sometimes you won't make the perfect argument, because you don't have the exact perspective of what the other side is thinking, and because no human is omniscient, and you might have to rethink nuances, strategies and approaches, but engaging other people with the ultimate goal of creating a society where everyone is accepted in equality and freedom is always, on the long run, worthwhile.

      • This is an excellent analysis of the reasoning that led into this. Thank you for sharing.

        Plenty of people are dismissing this as “ragebait,” which, sure. But like, what on earth is more rage-worthy than systemic rape culture and silencing of women?

        There is definitely a time and place for tone policing. But that’s never the exact minute a woman expresses her lived experience in a way that actually grabs attention. ❤️

      • I really appreciate that you made this post. Every top-level comment here is complaining about it being "rage bait" and that the question would "never foster productive discussion." Why? Why aren't men capable of seeing the scenario, recognizing why it's necessary to say something like that, and getting over themselves just a little bit to get the point? The original question wasn't even a "not all men" thing, there's no actual reason to get mad about it enough to dismiss the dicussion. We have to be able to have a conversation where the other side is allowed to say something a tiny bit outside of our standards for what we want them to say, or we'll never have a conversation at all.

      • I just want to let you know that when women share their experiences, some men like me will process what they've read and understand, and not reply or anything. I don't have anything to add. I'm probably part of a large silent group.

        That was before the bear thing. I actually hadn't even seen the bear meme.

        When I read a woman share her experiences, I just get sad about it all and move to the next post in my Lemmy feed or whatever I'm reading on the internet.

      • Okay, but, speaking as a woman, we try to explain these issues nicely, with gentle terminology and a big helping of ‘not all of you, but some of you…’ and we get ignored, dismissed, belittled, or flat-out gaslit.

        ok so, as a result of the bear debate, i wouldn't exactly say it was all roses and sunshine over there, probably a thunderstorm and bristles more like.

        I think most people want the statement laid out very literally in front of them. Usually being pretty fucking obtuse about shit, tends to get peoples attention. Sitting in a corner and vaguely looking in the direction of someone isn't going to.

        maybe i'm just really fucking autistic or something, but if that shit doesn't work, i wouldn't do it. I'd click into a thread titled "men raping women is a problem" and see what's going on, and chances are, it's going to be more civil than the bear incident.

        i'd be up for just fucking talking about it. I'm sure a number of other people would as well. You aren't going to appease everyone, that's impossible, you just need to appease the majority. And frankly, anybody who is reading about "hey uhm, rape bad, no do?" and gets fucking pissed off about it? They're probably not a good person to be honest.

        genuinely, i just think straight up, open conversation about it. People can't play nice? Don't let em, i guess? there are a few options there. I'm not an admin/mod, so don't ask me lol.

    • Yeah at this point I don’t care about the bear thing. So two weeks ago. I do however care about the abject harrassment that happened. Thank you for your perspective.

    • On one side men who may not be the most well informed about women issues; will get immediately defensive at being compared to a large animal known for tearing people apart and eating them alive.

      I don’t think I’ll ever understand this reaction. I can only assume it’s stupidity leading these people to think all men are being accused of this.

    • On one side men who may not be the most well informed about women issues; will get immediately defensive at being compared to a large animal known for tearing people apart and eating them alive.

      Nah. Defensiveness in this context is a red flag because it is transparently obvious why a woman would choose the bear. It needn't be a strictly rational choice; it's a vote of no confidence in men earned through lived experience. The fact that it's even a question should be a seen by men as deeply sad: a reminder of the work that must still be done. The very act of trying to convince a woman of the error of her choice is a sign of a failure to understand the nature of the problem, the exercise, or both.

      large animal known for tearing people apart and eating them alive

      This is by no means what bears are known for. Black bears will frighten off easily. Brown bears are dangerous, yes, but much depends on the nature of the encounter.

      It was never going to end in a productive, calm or rational discussion

      It already has, but thanks for the self report?

  • the challenge with lemmy is its immaturity with moderation, and many instances allowing pretty vile members and communities to flourish, which then spill over into other less extreme communities

  • Seems to me that the rage bait did it's job, but the only who won was the author and website that got all the clicks and ads serving, while lemmy got a shitstorm for nothing.

  • I think regardless of the platform it will get ugly when topics are controversial. How ugly it gets is mostly depending on the level of moderation. It doesn't need many trolls or ill willing people to derail a discussion among hundreds of good meaning people.

    We also tend to concentrate on the things we consider unfavorable. If among 100 comments 5 are sexist, these 5 will get far more attention than the other 95.

    I mean, I've seen people uttering death threads on YouTube, because the YouTuber used butter in a recipe, not margarine. One of several hundred comments under that video, but the only one I remember...

  • This is really the terminal issue with Reddit alternatives. They are just Reddit minus the most recent controversy as of foundation. Reddit is overall just a popular content aggregation website with poorly design discussion features.

    Upvotes and down votes, while intended to help users weed out bad arguments and spam, only achive in promoting sophistry and tribalism. What ends up getting upvoted is what "wins" the argument, while good arguments that come from unpopular viewpoints get downvoted.

    And with that comes all the toxic elements from old Reddit ruat we all hope just won't be a part of our replacements. Reddit's format works at a smaller scale, where users are typically more enthusiastic and therefor better informed, but as the sites get larger you'll notice they typical hyper-snarky "owned with facts and logic" attitude take hold of a community as more people with a weaker investment jump on the bandwagon and upvote everything that makes them feel smart.

    Eventually, the site becomes just like Reddit, but for a smaller and more insulated community, and users begin to question why they're here instead of Reddit which has the established user base that can reliably cover more topics you are interested in.

    We have not learnt from history, and we are doomed to repeat it. Maybe it'll be different in the future.

  • It was not interesting to see how different cohorts responded to the topic. It certainly landed the hardest in this one. More discussion to be had I guess.

524 comments