This is an inclusive community for all things women. Whether you’re here for make up tips, feminism or just friendly chit chat, we’ve got you covered.
I feel like men can do all of those things, so I don’t see why we are excluding them. Just because it’s a women-centric community doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed. I think we should exclude people who are bigoted instead, or even people who just don’t “get” women’s issues.
Aside: I’m personally irritated that make-up is what’s considered a woman-centric topic. That’s kind of reductive – not everyone is femme.
The rest of Lemmy is free for men to participate in, this is the only community where men are not permitted to post. This helps create a safe space for women to chat without the direct influence and reactions of men.
I also personally agree with you and think men can have valuable contributions, including on women’s topics. But I also respect the desire for a women’s only space as well, especially in a context of a sexist society where women struggle to gain equal rights under the law and in society generally - and in a male-dominated social space like Lemmy.
These are also the rules, bigots are not welcome here.
I get that, but the reality is that lots of women enjoy makeup (including me!) even if some don’t.
Listing make-up and hair as examples of what women might be interested in is not meant to be reductive or essentialising, even if it is based on generalizations and what is perceived as a common interest among women.
We’re not saying women must be interested in makeup to be women, or the only way to be women is to be high-femme. To the contrary, the founder of this community who wrote that example recently posted a meme critical of makeup as an industry that exploits women’s insecurities.
Thank you for your post!! ❤️
Thanks for understanding. Fair enough, it makes sense. But I guess I just don’t like to see any online space exist where people are excluded just based on their demographic instead of their ability to contribute.
That’s a good instinct, and I share that. However, there are clearly times when allowing an oppressed minority to have their own safe spaces can make sense. Think of the reverse: forced integration of an oppressed group is not a good idea either, disallowing them to have their own spaces or to meet is itself a form of oppression.
While I agree it can feel discriminatory and icky, this particular form of exclusion is meant to be protective of women, and I don’t see our existence as a women’s-only space as a meaningful threat or injustice to the men of Lemmy.
This is a brilliant piece of flipping the script here! I will be stealing this and I will not be ashamed of it! 🤣
I guess I don’t see how excluding feminist men is protective of women. Let me be real, I have had a lot of bad interaction with men in the real world and online, but I have as best as I can resisted the urge to draw a line and say men as a whole are the problem. I feel bad for some really sweet men who feel ashamed of their gender, and I this kind of philosophy contributes to that shame. (Maybe I’m too much of an individualist.)
Anyway, this doesn’t bother me enough to block the community as someone else suggested. I do appreciate a space to talk about women’s issues. But if in the future there is a vote as to whether to allow feminists of any gender to participate, I would vote yes.
We don’t know which men are feminist or not, and even feminist men don’t always behave in ways that are egalitarian. By having a safe space women can avoid the common interactions they have with men which are often problematic and threatening, or even just annoying.
The suggestion that a single Lemmy community be a safe space for women is not a suggestion that everything should be segregated or that society should be organized this way. This is no different than providing on Lemmy a space like a girl’s night, baby shower, other similar social situations where men are not involved.
I probably wouldn’t vote to eliminate this community’s women’s only rule (because I don’t want to take that away from other women who value this space, even if I have a different perspective), but I happen to agree with you that being a man isn’t the issue and excluding men isn’t the best practice.
Perhaps you could lead the charge on a developing an inclusive sister community to this one that is inclusive of men?
But we also don’t know which users are men or women without them identifying themselves. In contrast, we can actually see whether someone is a feminist based on their actions and comments. (For what it’s worth, I invite men to my girl’s nights. It’s never been a problem, because I only invite friends to my parties. If I wouldn’t be okay with him at my girl’s nights, I wouldn’t want him at any event.)
As you said, there’s already rules against that.
There exist inclusive sister communities to this already. Creating another community would not reduce the amount of exclusivity, and it’s the exclusivity which bothers me, not this community. I actually like this community already from what I have seen.
Sure, but a man can claim to be feminist and still challenge and talk over women’s perspectives, creating a chilling effect for the women even without violating a boundary on being feminist. Feminist behavior is harder to police than being men. Either way, it’s not my rule and I didn’t make it. Like you, I think separatism is generally a bad idea and I prefer inclusive communities.
But I also understand that marginalized communities are not always best served by being forced to include people that create a chilling effect, so I am not going to tear down this community’s exclusionary rule, esp. as you say since there are already other inclusive communities.
To my perspective, advocating for the right of men to access the only womens space in a male-dominated social site is not in reality as progressive as it might sound in theory.
Ask me how I know this, for example.
I’ve been in women’s groups that welcomed men. 80% of the talking was done by the 20% of men in attendance.
Sometimes you just need a place to vent without getting #notallmen-ed. And sometimes you want to hear your own voice and the voices of those like you instead of someone else’s.
Yeah, the chilling-effect argument is most compelling to me in favour of the rule. From a utilitarian perspective, I actually do think the no-men rule is effective. Deontologically though, it just seems immoral – I can’t help but picture the one guy who exists who’d be a good fit here and is unjustly not allowed to participate. Perhaps we can tag them as “honorary woman” or something lol.
I agree, but both utilitarianism and deontology as ethical theories fail in various ways.
We see the ways forced integration on principle is wrong, and also that forced exclusion on utility is wrong.
In the end we’re stuck having to make morally imperfect choices to protect the things we care about. In the end I am happy to help carve out a safe space for women, and in this context whatever technical moral problems exist with this policy weigh lighter on my conscience considering the good the policy creates and the fact that 1. there are already plenty of other communities where men can participate and discuss on women’s issues, and 2. there are no other communities like this one where only women are allowed.
And yes, I do think there is acceptance of the exceptional guy who is considered safe and a good fit and we feel it’s OK to allow to comment, but the community is intended to be for women and the rule is there mostly for all the random men who walk in and start ruining the vibe.
Removed by mod
I won’t deny I’m privileged. But I don’t really wish to increase the number of spaces that are exclusive either.