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.
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.
It’s the reverse, isn’t it? The former is wrong on utility, the latter wrong on principle.
(I also think that “there are no other communities like this one” is not an argument for or against. If one believes that exclusion is wrong on principle, that actually increases the urgency of changing the rule, since it would restore the number of communities with that rule to 0, righting a wrong.)
Anyway, I appreciate your time and patience, and I won’t take up more of it. Thank you for the good conversation.
when I said “forced integration on principle”, I meant the reason for forced integration is the principle of non-exclusion or inclusion, and when I said “forced exclusion on utility” I meant forced exclusion based on the utility it provides.
Both generate wrongs. And yes, you could flip it and express it the way you said: the forced inclusion on principle is wrong because it sacrifices the good (on utility), and forced exclusion on utility is wrong because it violates inclusiveness (on principle). Sorry for the ambiguous language! 😅
I disagree, I think this context is relevant to the moral reasoning.
If society had very few integrated spaces and this were just one of many exclusionary spaces, there would be less of a reason for the existence of this community’s exclusionary rule in particular, because there are already other spaces where women can go to (they don’t rely on this as their only safe space).
As is, because Lemmy is male-dominated and women here have no other safe spaces, the existence of this safe space is more justified in my mind.
(Not to deny your point that the principle is no less violated, but hopefully you can see by now that that principle is not the only morally relevant fact in this situation, we need to be able to see the whole picture to make good moral judgements - laser focusing on just that principle is a mistake and I think leads to immoral conclusions despite how it feels when you are only focused on that principle.)
It is also relevant that the exclusion is motivated by women’s experiences of oppression based on their gender, the desire for safety from interactions with men is not an immoral or bigoted basis on which to exclude, it is protective.
And thank you for your politeness, I am glad you appreciated my responses and I hope to see you around. ❤️