this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
573 points (75.6% liked)

Comic Strips

23272 readers
1163 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

Rules
  1. πŸ˜‡ Be Nice!

    • Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
  2. 🏘️ Community Standards

    • Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
    • Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
    • Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
    • Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
  3. 🧬 Keep it Real

    • Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
  4. πŸ“½οΈ Credit Where Credit is Due

    • Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
    • Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
  5. πŸ“‹ Post Formatting

    • Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
    • Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
    • When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
      βœ… Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
      ❌ Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
  6. πŸ“¬ Post Frequency/SPAM

    • Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 πŸ–) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 πŸ–) will be removed.
  7. πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ Internationalization (i18n)

    • Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
      SΓ­, por favor [Spanish/EspaΓ±ol]
  8. 🍿 Moderation

    • We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
    • When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Web of Links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 120 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I've actually seen the opposite happen more often than the former. Both online and irl. A guy starts complaining about things and a cacophony of women show up to tell him how he'll never understand what it's like to be a woman.

Whenever I do see the opposite and when the guy interjects all that's said is "there's a time and a place to talk about men's issues" but like when is it then?

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 67 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah I really don't see the situation in the comic often at all. I won't say it doesn't happen, but I've personally witnessed way more of this reactionary diversion when men are discussing their unique issues.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think it is most often when these conversations happen online that vocal reactionaries try to derail the conversation. More often than not, local and private dialogues I've been apart of and around tend to be more civil. In fact, both men and women seem to be on the same side when they voice their issues to each other face-to-face. I think cameras can also sour the situation, since it can put people on edge to be recorded.

At the same time, while there is a massive amount of people who get behind feminist movements and those who back counter-feminist movements, there is very few of those same counter-feminists who seem to actually ever participate in man wellbeing support infrastructure, hence why that infrastructure does not materialize. It seems that a good portion of folks only seem to pipe up as a direct counter to women trying to advocate for themselves, and then are silent and frugal when men are trying to advocate for themselves non-adversarily. I'd argue there are many people who are trying to attack both as they try to uphold the status quo.

We saw this reactionary behavior against feminist advocacy during Gamergate, as a great example - specifically when talking about the events related to Anita Sarkeesian's 'Tropes vs Women in Video games'. I went back and watched that series, and overall the points are fair criticisms of videogame writing (and honestly tropes in media in general). I don't think that anything Anita pointed out was even that vilifying either. The overall response, however, was very toxic and dismissive, and was paired with a harassment campaign.

We saw a similar backlash from a vocal minority for most subsequent feminist actions surrounding cases of sexual abuse such as "Me Too" being countered by protests such as the "HimToo" movement. There's no reason both these conversations couldn't happen but it always seems that they only ever show up at the same time, and try to steal each others thunder.

We could also talk about the Depp v Heard court case, which had extreme levels of toxicity across the board, with large portions of folks on either side choosing to view one side as exclusively as a lying abuser and the other as completely exalted of any blame when what was being shown was an relationship full of mutual toxicity.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Halsin would like a word.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both scenarios are possible and it is shitty to use whataboutism in both scenarios.

Whenever I do see the opposite and when the guy interjects all that's said is "there's a time and a place to talk about men's issues" but like when is it then?

When it’s not being used as a whataboutism.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When it’s not being used as a whataboutism.

Ever seen a discussion about men complaining that they are assumed to be a threat just for being male get derailed by comments that it isn't a problem worth complaining about compared to women's issues? Or when the topic of how sexual abuse of boys is extremely common gets derailed as not really being an issue and dismissed by crime stats that often exclude non-penatrating sexual assaults?

Yes it sucks when whataboutism is used to dismiss complaints, but it is also frustrating that the same whataboutism is used to silence discussion that is about the issues that men face.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Ever seen a discussion about men complaining that they are assumed to be a threat just for being male get derailed by comments that it isn't a problem worth complaining about compared to women's issues?

No I haven’t ever seen that. But that would be an example of whataboutism so pretty shitty thing to say.

Or when the topic of how sexual abuse of boys is extremely common gets derailed as not really being an issue and dismissed by crime stats that often exclude non-penatrating sexual assaults?

No I haven’t ever seen thing either but again that is dismissive and a terrible way to invalidate a legitimate problem.

Yes it sucks when whataboutism is used to dismiss complaints, but it is also frustrating that the same whataboutism is used to silence discussion that is about the issues that men face.

So you feel whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men? Or do you agree that that is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender?

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So feel whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men? Or do you agree that that is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender?

I am saying whataboutism is to commonly used to dismiss both men's and women's issues and it sucks in both cases.

[–] Promethiel@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you feel whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men? Or do you agree that that is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender?

They're agreeing with you it seems to me, and sharing their anecdotes that despite that reality which they agree with, let me re-emphasize that, despite that reality (that using one gender's struggles to whatabout another's is considered both ineffective and borders on conflict-seeking, inherently), that in their experience, they have seen the same the same whatabout tactics used to dismantle discussion when a "male centric" issue is the discussion catalyst, as when it's a "female centric" issue originating the discourse.

I can't speak for that other commenter to your follow up question though, so I'll answer it for myself: I do not feel that whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men, no.

As a matter of fact, I feel that they're employed more often to stiffle discussions on "woman centric" concerns precisely because of how little Men's issues are discussed, and the reason for both is the same. That this is a side effect of the patriarchal systems in place doesn't absolve either side from the requirement to be genuine if genuine discourse is sought, though.

I have seen what the commenter is mentioning and right here on Lemmy to boot. Because whether male or female, a whatabout is an easy rhetorical blanket to reach for, and many do.

I believe that both genders (including and specially men, who must own up to the fact that collectively we're the gender with the greater frequency of offense against other genders if we're ever going to get to addressing why it's the same systemic patriarchal roots binding women's rights that choke out the existence of men's rights issues) have to be willing to communicate.

Women in aggregate are crying to be heard, but "TooManyMen" aren't listening that they're (women) speaking for them both too, and I feel those men who are able to hear some of that message need to help out in stopping the whataboutism wall in their brothers before they get going...

The same way that I believe there's women who need to do the same for many of their sisters in the public square.

Divided is how we've gotten to this, unapologetically more viscerally dangerous for womanhood world that pretty much always has been, but I feel that it is united that we'll reach any dreams of equity or widespread understanding between the genders, if we ever will.

In short, I agree "that that [whataboutism tainting discourse] is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender", but the mere axiomatic observation falls short of the next step:

Both sides need to acknowledge and give each other the room to voice out their feelings, views, ideas, etc, genuinely (trolls and agitators need not be entertained) while still keeping an eye for the possibility that unity lies not in knowing the correct answer but in the shared questioning.

Fellas let's do (and encourage our brothers to) better whether we think it's fair or not, and ladies, understand (and share with the sisters who it's safe to) that a hypocrite and someone whose barriers are breaking will appear briefly as the same before change is undergone.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Women in aggregate are crying to be heard, but "TooManyMen" aren't listening that they're (women) speaking for them both too...

I'm one of those "~~TooMany~~AllMen." My problem isn't women speaking about womens issues, my problem is when they do so with signs like we recently had an uproar about here on lemmy, signs that say stuff like "Not all men but always a man." To me that sign says "Fine, you bitch when we say every one of you does it? Here, not all of you do it, but no women do it ever, no man or boy has ever been raped by a woman." When I see some obvious bullshit like that, as a male rape victim of two different women, I'm calling it out. It is what it is.

Don't want me to call out obvious bullshit? Find better slogans than "All menβ„’" "Not all men but always a man," or the all too common comment which graced that thread as usual when these things are discussed: "Men are trash." If I said "All women" do goddamn anything someone would be right here to tell me I'm a wrong incelbigot, if I said "women are trash" I might get whole ass instance banned, but when the turn tables all of a sudden it's "yaaasssss qween girlboss."

Why must we exclude victims, even lumping them in as de facto aggressors by gender? Why can't it be all victims vs all abusers? The men are in aggregate crying to be heard too, but we're told we need to "let women speak," at best. At least that's better than "You must've enjoyed it because of your body's natural uncontrollable biological responses, you're a gay pussy, she's hot stop complaining," or any of the other myriad of dismissals I've been told personally as have most male victims.