World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Nah, just the like the jokes about beating your wife that were around in the 70s its just not funny. And I'm not the only woman outraged. The punchline is that he's drugging his wife. You're not gonna convince me otherwise on this, and again, I'm not the only one who sees this as wrong.
I dont give a fuck if people get tired of having misogyny called out. Don't be misogynistic lol pretty damn easy. You also act like this is the only thing that I speak out against, which is very funny to me. I call out misogyny and bigotry whenever I encounter it. Not going to change anytime soon, and whether you or anyone else doesn't want to hear it doesn't matter to me. Clearly, it tickled your feathers enough for you to suddenly continue the dialog after a week. So good, maybe next time before you make a joke about abusing a woman you'll consider it for an extra second. Maybe you'll notice the way all the women in the room react to your joke about abusing women. Maybe you won't give a shit. It's not really my problem either way. Joking about abusing your wife is gross, demeaning, and disrespectful to her. And the politician in question was rightfully called out for that.
I get that people think it's wrong. You're the one denying what some people think (that it is funny) not me. This is a projection. And, again, I have zero interest in convincing you it's funny. The difference between you and I is that i realize people have different senses of humor, and you've made it abundantly clear that you don't find this funny.
I read this as not being interested in actually solving the problem, but simply wanting to be able to virtue signal.
I do? How so?
Must be something funky going on with the server, as from my perspective, I last responded a week ago, and then you just responded again this morning. Or is this another projection?
Why are you making this about me? I've never made a joke about abusing women. I don't find it particularly funny. Although, I do have to say I found this guy making fun of himself to be funny, but I can absolutely see why the method of doing so is in bad taste.
Look, you and I want the same thing: to protect people from being abused (well, I hope so. You make it appear that you only care about women being abused as you make sure to only mention women being the victim). The issue is that you think my defense of this self-deprecation hurts that cause, I think your outrage over of the joke hurts the cause. The only one who has provided evidence here to back up their claim is me. Just keep that in mind. Is your goal to virtue signal or is your goal to minimize abuse and protect victims? If it's the latter, I suggest you might want to consider my point. If it's the former, go ahead and be offended as much as possible.
Who am I virtue signaling to right now? There's not one other person reading this thread. I don't care about whether or not you or anyone else perceive my actions or beliefs as virtuous. I am specifically condemning the usage of women's abuse as humor. I am a woman, I have been abused. All my friends have been abused. It's so fucking common that entire rooms of us can come together and bond over all the ways we have been sexually physically and emotionally abused by men. It's not a joke, it's not funny, it doesn't matter what you think about it.
I genuinely just got the reply from you this morning. I see that it says sent a week ago, but I only got notification of it this morning. Probably something server related.
In a discussion about the way men joke about abusing women, the abuse of men is not what is being discussed. Misogyny is an institution that starts as soon as girls are born. The way women are abused by men is unique and not equivalent to the abuse men suffer from other men and from women. There is a time and a place to discuss that abuse, and it should be talked about. That's not here. Misogyny deserves to be called out on its own.
I dont care about how you perceive the cause or what you perceive my cause to be. I am a marxist intersectional feminist, I am an anarchist. I will speak out against bigotry wherever it appears. And I do that, very frequently and across multiple spaces across the internet. Calling out bigotry is one step in making bigotry socially unacceptable. Letting bigotry exist in whatever form allows it to be normalized and accepted. Letting misogyny exist in any form, racism in any form, homophobia in any form, all works towards the normalization and tolerance of those ideas in society. In much the same way that spreading positive inclusive media works to normalize acceptance and compassion. I'm not going to tolerate minor acts of bigotry in some delusional attempt to appeal to bigots? If bigots are dissuaded from progressive causes on account of their own bigotry being called out, they would never have been allies to progressive causes anyway.
I'm just curious, how many abuse victims have you personally helped? How many women do you know who have been abused? Have you ever helped them in any material way? Have you been there for them when they needed you? I have. I've been a victim of abuse myself. Have you ever volunteered at women's shelters? Ever helped out at any organizations for women who are homeless or who have addictions?
It's not funny. It's not a matter of differing senses of humor. It's a matter of recognizing the seriousness of the subject and the way abusing women is normalized across society. The way men hurt us isn't a joke.
Now? Probably no one as you point out. Now you're just defending your outrage. But originally, and getting offended by this in general, is what I'm talking about.
I've suspected something for a while now so it comes as no surprise to me. We can agree on this at least. lol
It's a discussion about a single person making a self-deprecating joke about themselves and their spouse. You are extending this to only men abusing women. There is no reason it can't also be extended to every victim and perpetrator of abuse. Why only talk about female victims?
And, FTR, I am not denying misogyny exists. We both agree it does, we both want it to go away. The disagreement, again, is whether getting upset over this self-deprecating joke helps or hurts that cause. You think making a self-deprecating joke is "bigotry" against other people, I do not. Was it in bad taste? I can agree with that. But trying to argue that this guy, who was saying his wife is too good for him in an off-colored way, is bigoted against women just doesn't pass the sniff test. I can get behind the opinion argument "look I don't think it's appropriate to joke in this way" but accusing him of being a bigot, based on this, is just nonsensical. He was saying his wife is too good for him. How on earth does that get construed into him thinking women are below him?
This is the problem. It's not just "bigots" you are pushing away. It's allies or potential allies who see this joke as I do, just a stupid self-deprecating way of praising his wife. It's the people who might be on the fence about supporting your cause, but see this ridiculous overreaction to a joke as an indication of very questionable rational thinking. We both agree, who cares if you offend bigots who won't ever see your side? I just think you are pushing more than just those people away.
What bearing does this have on anything I've said? How much stronger does my position become per abuse victim helped? Does everything I say all of a sudden become true because I worked in a woman's shelter? If I've been abused by a woman myself, does that also make my position stronger? I don't get this line of questioning. It's funny how much you want to make this about me. First I'm misogynistic, now it's about not helping enough. It's all an attempt to avoid the point by attacking my character.
As I've already pointed out, people laughed at it, so this is patently untrue. Just like I can't tell you it is funny, you can't tell other people it isn't funny.
The part regarding your personal relationship to women who suffer abuse is a commentary on the fact that you're talking about something you don't even have personal experience about. Who are you to tell women not to take offense to a joke by a politician about drugging his wife? It's not in a vacuum. It's not like he's sitting on a beach somewhere talking about some far off world that he himself is not a part of in any context. He's a real person talking to real people, many of whom have suffered abuse at the hands of men.
Why would it be in bad taste if it had nothing to do with abusing women? Why would the joke be funny if that wasn't a real thing that actually happened? Why was the joke that he's drugging her specifically, if that had no relationship to the real world and a real thing that could actually happen? Like any "poor taste" joke, it doesn't have that designation for no reason. Men do drug women. That's a real thing that actually happens. The implication of the joke is that to get the "woman he wants" its necessary for him to exert control over her agency by depriving her of her awareness. Which, again, is a real thing that happens. A horrible thing that happens.
Someone doesn't have to declare "I hate X group of people" to be bigoted against them. And someone's actions can be bigoted without the express purpose of spreading bigotry. It's a really simple fix honestly. "I'm sorry, I won't joke about abusing my wife again". We're not asking for the moon. But leave it up to men to flip the fuck out when they're called out for joking about abusing their wife.
Basically, it's an ignorant ad hominem. It literally has nothing to do with my point, it's just a desperate attempt to dismiss what I've said based on who I am, rather than the content of my speech. Good on you for attempting to use bigotry to dismiss my point while hypocritically complaining about bigotry. It's amazing how often I come across projections.
Because in the process of putting someone down he talked about drugging another person. I'm not the obstinate one here, I can easily see why some people might not find that funny and why it would be a joke that you really have to "know your audience" to use.
You think jokes are always things that actually happened? lol Your position is getting increasingly ridiculous.
Who said otherwise? At no point have I said nor implied that men don't abuse women. In fact, I've explicitly said the exact opposite. Although, interesting to note, you've seemingly gone out of your way to avoid admitting that men sometimes are victims too. It's becoming increasingly clear why...
And women do drug men. Why the insistence on always making one sex the victim and the other the perpetrator if you aren't bigoted yourself? You're not the only one who can ask leading questions based only loosely on what was actually said.
You keep avoiding this, because you don't want to admit it, but he outright said it which makes it clear that the implication of his joke is that his wife is too good for him. This is the exact opposite of misogyny. He isn't actually taking away her agency. He's joking that that is the only reason she would stay with him, while that's (presumably, I can't really say) clearly not the reason.
Thanks for demonstrating how one doesn't have to declare "I hate X group of people" to be bigoted against them. The reason you see bigots everywhere is probably because you are one.
Acknowledging that you're not a woman who has been abused, nor do you have experience with women who have suffered abuse, your experience talking about how women should feel about men joking about abuse isn't really all that informed is it.
You really need to re-read everything I've said as we're getting close to the point of me reiterating what I've said as you continue to seemingly miss the point.
Misogyny exists across society in a way misandry doesn't. Men aren't drugged by women across all levels of society. There does not exist a power structure of misandry. Hence our countries our led by men, our households led by men, men freely joke about committing acts of violence and abuse against us all the time. Happens all the time. Politician did it. It was wrong of him to do so. It was misogynistic.
Mhm yup you're right the nasty woman hates men. Yup. Classic. Never saw it coming. I've been doing this for a long time, you can try and spin this narrative however you fucking like lmao. Men make jokes about abusing women, and somehow it's the women's fault for getting upset. Too good honestly.
Men say whatever the fuck they want about us all the time and whenever we speak up we're told to shut the fuck up and take it. I'm not gonna do it lmao just cope with it. Don't like it move on. I don't fucking care. I'm going to call out misogyny. Every single time. You clearly don't get it and don't care, and on that note, I don't have the time or the energy to keep repeating myself to you, so I'll send this message and then block you. Have a good one.
I have been abused myself. But, then again, I'm a man and thus it doesn't count to you, apparently, and my experience should be diminished or outright dismissed.
And, what. . .does this excuse misandry? Or should we, as you said earlier, call out bigotry whenever we see it? Or do we only call it out when when we identify with the victims? Or do we ignore it when we're bigoted against the victims?
The difference between you and I is that I don't actually give a shit about your gender. I've never made your gender part of my argument. I've always addressed your points, and when you've said bigot things, I've called it out. But you on the other hand, my gender has played very prominently. You've attempted, multiple times, to use my gender as a reason to dismiss my points.
I suspect the "reason you've seen it coming" is that you are a bigot and, on some level, you know. I guess I could have thrown out, right at the beginning "Never saw a 'nasty man' making a self-deprecating joke meaning he hates women! Classic. Never saw it coming." But, nah, I would rather stick to the points actually being made. So bigoted! lol
You are what you hate. Wake up.
Never said this. Of course, that doesn't matter. You're so desperate to make this about you being a female victim and men, including me, being the bad guy that the facts no longer matter. I feel like I'm debating a Trump supporter.
No surprise, taking a final swing and then running away from a point you don't like. You could have simply stopped responding. At any point. But, nope, throw out bigotry and when called out on it, block the person. Good on you! lol
I'm not what I hate. I'm not bigoted against men. I hold no power over men. They hold power over me. Me acknowledging that abuse in society is gendered, and that you yourself are from the gender who disproportionately abuses the other in a unique way unlike anything else in society, is not bigoted. I've not said I hate men, nor have I said that there's anything wrong with you being a man. I'm sorry you've been a victim of abuse. I have been too, all by men. So have all my friends. And studies show consistently that nearly every single women will be abused in one form or another by a man in her lifetime. It's not just the acts themselves, it is the structure those acts create when pieced together, it is the power those actions reinforce and the subservience they force onto others.
You've repeatedly mischaracterized me and chosen to ignore every part of my comments that you couldn't chop up into a neat little narrative about me. I chose to separate myself from the discussion because there is nothing to be gained from talking to you. You think that it's okay to joke about abusing your wife. You think we shouldn't criticize men for joking about abusing their wives. I don't care what the punchline is, or what he was saying about himself. Saying "she's so pretty I have to daterape her to get her to stay with me" isn't funny. It's not. Just like holocaust jokes aren't funny, just like jokes about slavery, and so on. They're not funny, objectively. They're wrong.
You called me out for making my point and bailing, well this is what i have left to say and thats it. I have a job to go to in the morning, I have other things I have to do before bed, and I'm done talking to someone who thinks that those things are fine. This conversation has nothing to be gained for either of us in it. You're never going to convince me that saying that you abuse your wife, even in a jesting context, is okay. I'll never be fine with that. I'm not open to any other perspective on that. And you appear to have pretty well the same disposition towards it sometimes being okay to say that you abuse your wife, at least in a jesting context. We have nothing to gain from each other, and will always be on opposite sides with regards to the way that men (yes, men specifically) trivialize the suffering of women at their hands. All too often it takes the form of a punchline for plausible deniability.
Respond how you will, it's your right, but I'm done. I was less than patient in previous messages. Myself and many other feminists are frequently accused of hating men for acknowledging that women suffer uniquely at the hands of men, and that this dialog was always about a man joking about abusing his wife. You chose to bring up male victims of abuse in a conversation about how women felt about men joking about abusing women. That's a frequent strategy by misogynists, meant to derail discussions of women suffering at the hands of men. So I responded how I would to any other anti-feminist. I don't regret that, but in the effort to make my point I've taken my time writing this last comment.