This right here. But no one wants to do that because it’s easier to create groups based on existing hatred rather than inclusivity and the people who run such communities do it for the power, not the cause.

The less time we talk about exclusive characteristics, the more time we as humans can spend together. But it’s easier to market to and capitalise on pockets of excluded groups of people rather than one large mass.

People can disagree with each other but still respect each other.

It’s silly to just claim your community to be inclusive and then invalidate anyone’s experience who feels differently

You mean like the women criticising the “manosphere” because they feel differently?

Those bigots surely will have experienced lots of similar things (like everyone else) making them not bigots. Maybe the person projecting hatred onto this ‘bigot’ lives in such an isolated world. Inclusivity would help them understand here.

Why aren’t people asking why are there so many television series where male characters are written as idiotic fops (like really low level 2yo stupidity) who, in every episode, need a woman to come along and save the day,year,universe? Or perhaps where a woman helps convert a male character to what they want the man to be?

It’s all just selling to the idea of feminism and those idiots lap it up whilst men have to keep quiet about their lampooning. And now, women are Pikachu face over a small backlash against it all?

you cannot just claim a community is inclusive. When members in it don’t feel comfortable, then it is not inclusive for them.

Of course it’s possible. If they don’t feel comfortable, then more questions need to be asked as to why they the individual do not and nothing will change until the focus is on individual feelings of those who <feel> marginalised so then inclusive communities can be fostered to work together, and not manipulating the world to pander to those who feel marginalised using anger, derision, and hatred. This leads to better inclusivity, better understanding, which in turn allows for better rules/systems to develop. They can not be fostered by force/anger/because we say so’s.

constantly suffer any sort of discimination

“Constantly”? But they don’t. They may feel they do due to some mental illness, manipulation by e.g. exclusionary groups that breed hatred of a target etc, but they don’t “suffer” constantly. That’s just polluted rhetoric in the Western world.

Exclusive communities don’t “help” those people who think they’re discriminated against to become inclusive, they only strengthen the isolation and strengthen the hatred against those they feel discriminated by, run by people who enjoy the power they have over their victims - the community members.

What some people seem to generally be writing in this thread is that women can have exclusive groups but men cannot because women don’t like such groups, all without seeing the irony.

But there is no formal ‘system’ like the healthcare system. Anytime a man is perceived as being in charge (for whatever reason and context), it becomes the “patriarchy” and subject to feminist ridicule and hatred, thus generalising hatred on men.

So it’s ok to hate men based on certain criteria you define? Even if it’s due to (your) trauma, that still doesn’t make it ok to project hatred towards men.

We have failed our men.

These are the type of feminists the world needs.

YEAh and because a woman gave birth to that man, it’s women’s fault.!!1

Logic is good.

That’s what a lot of this comes down to. Loneliness. Disconnection. No sense of value or direction. And then someone online tells you it’s not your fault, it’s women’s fault, or society’s fault, or anyone but you. That stuff spreads fast because it gives people something to belong to.

Yep, and this is how marginalised communities are formed. Same with the text below.

That’s what a lot of this comes down to. Loneliness. Disconnection. No sense of value or direction. And then someone online tells you it’s not your fault, it’s women’s men’s fault, or society’s fault, or anyone but you. That stuff spreads fast because it gives people something to belong to.

And is why both POV are bad and should be removed from Lemmy. The owners of such communities get off on having their own army, not that they think they’re helping the cause.

we should change our own environments so that they don’t feel the need anymore to have their own space.

“we” unequivocally means “men”, right? And how is this done… by preventing exclusive communities and only having inclusive communities. “Online” and “safe spaces” are oxymorons.

Women are the big spenders online.

Women: it’s all about us, we have our own “online safe spaces” where only women are allowed because in history, men were bad to women, It’s filled with vitriolic chronically-online women where we go around calling men “cunts”. Men should respect this and start up their own community if they want.

Men: <they do that>. It’s given a derogatory name so public opinion can be manipulated - marketing 101.

Women: We don’t like it. It’s not all about us, men are bad to us. They threaten equality - it’s all their fault.

I got banned from two communities on Lemmy recently asking if it really should be host to communities that are exclusionary based on protected characteristics such as gender (to stop extremism). Lots of women moaned and were vitriolically abusive - how dare I call their army out. Community hosts really need to get a grip on such things and encourage inclusionary communities, not exclusionary. Whilst this practice goes on, racist/sexist/other extremist opinions will be fostered on the host and in those communities.

Politics such as “yeah, well, populist opinion makes us feel like we need to separate ourselves from you because you’re not <insert protected characteristic we only like>…” but we totally respect you and want to talk to you as normal in other communities when we want to, is incongruent to the whole concept of an inclusive community that fosters equality such as Lemmy should be.

(And if I had to guess, I think there are some bots on Lemmy also spouting vitriolic replies to stir up such hatred amogst these who isolate themselves - making themselves prime targets for manipulation - all to stir up chaos on a national level)

Thanks, when I get some time soon, I’ll have another look at it and cherry ai with a local install of ollama

But read, learn, understand what? Do you really think the problem you claim women need the space is because (presumably men, the alleged oppressors) don’t “understand” women and if only they’d take time to read and understand women it would all be ok?

This is a sweepingly broad statement that you’re twisting to your own advantage.

So many “marginalised” women throwing insults around like candy. Maybe these people feel they’re marginalised because they already hate men and men avoid them?

You miss the point. A “positive men’s space on Lemmy” would explicitly ban women. not “hate speech”. Maybe you seem like a bit of a dunce?

I would agree with you but I don’t think women are marginalised in my society. They may feel as if they are though because they’re generally told they are. I will accept Muslim women are but most who I know actually accept being told what to do and not do and the abuse they receive. Less of the personal insults, huh?

Are women considered marginalised communities outside the minds of feminists?

You’re going to make an amazing, beautiful mother.

Your vitriol makes you sound really bitter and hateful towards men. Groups like what I’m talking about strengthen your existing sexist opinions and make them more extreme, and in your mind, this hatred becomes normalised that you post things like the above.

You have just proven why exclusive groups like this are bad for communities.

(Though the entire response reads very gen-AI-ish)