10
Lemmy has a sexism problem (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/feminism@lemmy.world
108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I couldn't believe my eyes seeing this advice to teach young boys to hit girls so as to restore the boys' self esteem and pride.

This is the kind of toxic belief that shouldn't be allowed to proliferate here and yet is embraced with open arms by other users.

That boys can only regain their pride and self esteem by hitting girls leads directly to more violence against women and girls.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 week ago (18 children)

They advised a child to hit another child. The specifics of their genders is irrelevant to the wrongness of the advice.

I addressed that quote in my reply directly. Did you ignore that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 week ago (17 children)

    No. That user very specifically used gendered language. When you rewrite their comment to take gender out, yeah, you can make it neutral. But that's not how the comment was originally posted and you're not the original commentator.

    You don't know their motivation any more or less than I do. What I see is the encouragement of teaching a little boy to meet violence with violence. That shit directly supports the patriarchy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (16 children)

    And if your post was about violence supporting patriarchy I'd be giving you full throated support.

    I didn't rewrite it to remove gender out of any specific intent nor does it change my position. It was shorthand because I'm on a phone. Language is imprecise. I shared my interpretation of their words. You are entitled to your own.

    Children hitting children is wrong. That is a much more defensible position than specifically saying "boys hitting girls is wrong".

    Many men fear the appearance of power abuse. I find it very likely that the op was overcompensating for that fear by calling out that they're children, not adults, thus minimizing any element of physical strength disparity. That leaves only the "children hitting children" problem.

    I appreciate where you're coming from but I do not agree with your interpretation 🤷‍♀️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 week ago (15 children)

    That is a much more defensible position than specifically saying “boys hitting girls is wrong”.

    Is it? We really splitting hairs here on encouraging violence in children?

    Teaching boys to respond with violence is sexist. It hurts those boys to be taught to hit instead of other forms of conflict management. It stunts their growth and development to encourage that they lean into toxic masculine traits like using violence to get what you want.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (14 children)

    I do not disagree with this comment in any way.

    But this is a very different comment than your OP.

    If your OP had talked about "teaching violence supports patriarchy" I wouldn't be here discussing this.

    "This kid should hit back" is not an overtly sexist position. It is a position that supports patriarchy, for sure, by reinforcing violence culture which advantages men in individual conflicts and harms their growth and development.

    "This kid should hit back; it's not like they're a grown man and woman" is, IMO, a position of "it's not like they're physically mismatched". Not one of "it's okay/encouraged because of their genders".

    I'm sorry that people on Lemmy continue to do stupid shit that enables and supports patriarchy. That is certainly a form of systemic sexism.

    I still don't think this is a particularly good example of "Lemmy has a sexism problem".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    That boys can only regain their pride and self esteem by hitting girls leads directly to more violence against women and girls.

    What the fuck do you think this sentence means?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (12 children)

    Please quote the part where it says "boys regain their pride by hitting girls" specifically and NOT "kids regain their pride by fighting back against bullies".

    Because the latter is quite obviously what the OP was getting at, not the former.

    If you genuinely think OP was saying "hit girls to get your pride back" then we're done here and I'm just gonna move on with my day

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    then we’re done here and I’m just gonna move on with my day

    Fucking finally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Well THAT'S pretty fuckin toxic. Yikes.

    As someone who was bullied a lot, I frequently got told fighting back (against the boys at my all boys school) would restore my pride. I was never told "go find a girl to hit when she's mean to you, it'll restore your pride."

    Take that for what it's worth.

    Byeeeeeee.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Spend some energy calling out sexist comments instead of picking apart my wording on something that is rightfully outrageous.

    It's telling that you'd rather scold me over this issue than pushing back on the actual sexist comment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    he needs to overcome this to regain his pride

    Please tell me where the picture says kid and not boy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (5 children)

    Specifically referred to as "children" and then exclusively uses pronouns as the only form of gendered language, in a language where it is standard to use gendered pronouns when referring to a specific individual.

    Yes, the comment could have used "they" instead of "he/his" but that is not yet common practice in English (though I wish we'd get there)

    Next question please.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    What bruised pride if its not being beaten up by a girl....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

    You think boys don't lose pride when they're beaten up by another boy?

    This is real close to "Tell me you've never been bullied without telling me you've never been bullied".

    Grade-school fights are always about pride in some form or another.

    Seriously, I went to an all boys school, and by your logic no student in my entire school would ever have bruised pride since they never got beaten up by a girl.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Were talking about 5-6 year olds. What pride?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    You're the one who was trying to make a point about the pride stuff here, not me. I'm just responding to your points.

    My only point was that the original comment in the screenshot is, in my opinion, pretty obviously talking about the (very flawed, and inappropriately applied) concept of "fighting back will restore pride" and not "hitting girls restores pride".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •