You purport to being intelligent so you know what you’re doing with your inflammatory responses of explicitly “opposing the draft for women”.

Oh and yet more insults in your responses. I sense a theme here :(

you sound pissy and project hate in every of your responses and on to everything you perceive to involve a man. I feel sorry for you. However, you’re making up facts that the other communities are “so dominated by men” to appease your distorted perceptions of the world.

And then comes the enshittification, like, ya know, Android.

Most people never create even one world-changing technology, Linus casually created two (Linux + Git).

And don’t downplay that he did swear about Microsoft and Nvidia!

leading to them not seeing a doctor,

Interesting you should mention this because other than more suicides, this is the #1 reason why the average lifespan of men is less - procrastination of serious symptoms which are initial warning signs that become fatal illnesses.

To be fair, ghostbusters 3 was really bad.

Honestly, as a women, so it’s not my opinion that matters, but even that meme/joke/trend that “men are simple creatures”, “keep your belly fully and balls empty and we’re happy” etc, like, is that not demeaning to men?

Your opinion matters as much and you should be publicly challenging such shows - as a woman. Is it demeaning? If you have to ask, the answer is most likely, ‘yes’! Would it be demeaning with shows where women characters are stupid and only good for sex? Would it be demeaning with black characters who shout all the time, eat chicken and watermelon and so on…the abusive stereotypes could continue. What’s disappointing for me are that the actors/actresses who play the roles are setting equality back many years for a quick short-lived buck.

I do find the upvote / downvote count on my question interesting though!

Lol, just like I wrote below earlier, anything where an aggressive woman perceives a man as being in charge, it becomes part of the patriarchy and is a target of ridicule and abuse for such angry women. You bang on about the Garrick club as if you’re pissy because it exists, whilst defending women-only clubs.

The Garrick Club has incredibly powerful members including kings and prime ministers and hundred of members of Parliament. If you cannot see how excluding women from such a club is an issue of patriarchy then you are really not trying very hard to understand anything here.

Or, maybe you can’t accept man-only clubs because you’ve been manipulated into not doing so, but can accept women-only because “omg oppression they need a safe space wah wah”.

Oh dear.

The Catholic church still to this day refuses to ordain any women into the priesthood: men only.

Not my world, but so what? There are also the Roman Catholic Women Priests who felt left out so made up their own story.

Ask a girl in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia if there’s any formal patriarchy when they try to go to school, or drive, or go outside without head to toe covering, or simply go outside unaccompanied by a man.

Again, not my world. But… Have you asked if they want to go to school, drive, go outside, or have you assumed they do? Not being a dick but there are very different opinions generally held by women of different cultures and religions that contrast with others - who’s right? (Historically people die over such issues). Also, beyond what Fox news states, there are schools in middle Eastern countries, some are voluntary. Such issues are very complicated and are not black or white.

In the west there are hundreds of industry bodies, clubs and business societies blah blah blah.

So? "The Garrick Club is a private members’ club in London, founded in 1831 as a club for “actors and men of refinement to meet on equal terms” - you’re whining that a men-only club is not ok, but a women-only club is?

A string of strawman arguments. I think you think your opinions make you look cool though. But it’s ok, hate me for my opinions because you can only accept those that are marketed to you.

This right here. But no one wants to do that because it’s easier to create groups based on existing hatred rather than inclusivity and the people who run such communities do it for the power, not the cause.

The less time we talk about exclusive characteristics to isolate people, the more time we as humans can spend together. But it’s easier to market to and capitalise on smaller groups of excluded people rather than one large mass.

People can disagree with each other but still respect each other.

It’s silly to just claim your community to be inclusive and then invalidate anyone’s experience who feels differently

You mean like the women criticising the “manosphere” because they feel differently?

Those bigots surely will have experienced lots of similar things (like everyone else) making them not bigots. Maybe the person projecting hatred onto this ‘bigot’ lives in such an isolated world. Inclusivity would help them understand here.

Why aren’t people asking why are there so many television series where male characters are written as idiotic fops (like really low level 2yo stupidity) who, in every episode, need a woman to come along and save the day,year,universe? Or perhaps where a woman helps convert a male character to what they want the man to be?

It’s all just selling to the idea of feminism and those idiots lap it up whilst men have to keep quiet about their lampooning. And now, these women are Pikachu face over a small backlash against it all?

you cannot just claim a community is inclusive. When members in it don’t feel comfortable, then it is not inclusive for them.

Of course it’s possible. If they don’t feel comfortable, then more questions need to be asked as to why they the individual do not and nothing will change until the focus is on individual feelings of those who <feel> marginalised so then inclusive communities can be fostered to work together, and not manipulating the world to pander to those who feel marginalised using anger, derision, and hatred. This leads to better inclusivity, better understanding, which in turn allows for better rules/systems to develop. They can not be fostered by force/anger/because we say so’s.

constantly suffer any sort of discimination

“Constantly”? But they don’t. They may feel they do due to some mental illness, manipulation by e.g. exclusionary groups that breed hatred of a target etc, but they don’t “suffer” constantly. That’s just polluted rhetoric in the Western world.

Exclusive communities don’t “help” those people who think they’re discriminated against to become inclusive, they only strengthen the isolation and strengthen the hatred against those they feel discriminated by, run by people who enjoy the power they have over their victims - the community members.

What some people seem to generally be writing in this thread is that women can have exclusive groups but men cannot because women don’t like such groups, all without seeing the irony.

But there is no formal ‘system’ like the healthcare system. Anytime a man is perceived as being in charge (for whatever reason and context), it becomes the “patriarchy” and subject to feminist ridicule and hatred, thus generalising hatred on men.

So it’s ok to hate men based on certain criteria you define? Even if it’s due to (your) trauma, that still doesn’t make it ok to project hatred towards men.

We have failed our men.

These are the type of feminists the world needs.

YEAh and because a woman gave birth to that man, it’s women’s fault.!!1

Logic is good.

That’s what a lot of this comes down to. Loneliness. Disconnection. No sense of value or direction. And then someone online tells you it’s not your fault, it’s women’s fault, or society’s fault, or anyone but you. That stuff spreads fast because it gives people something to belong to.

Yep, and this is how marginalised communities are formed. Same with the text below.

That’s what a lot of this comes down to. Loneliness. Disconnection. No sense of value or direction. And then someone online tells you it’s not your fault, it’s women’s men’s fault, or society’s fault, or anyone but you. That stuff spreads fast because it gives people something to belong to.

And is why both POV are bad and should be removed from Lemmy. The owners of such communities get off on having their own army, not that they think they’re helping the cause.

we should change our own environments so that they don’t feel the need anymore to have their own space.

“we” unequivocally means “men”, right? And how is this done… by preventing exclusive communities and only having inclusive communities. “Online” and “safe spaces” are oxymorons.