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.
-
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
I get what you're saying, but we don't fix the issue of men sexually assaulting women, especially in a country that has such profound issues with this like India, by forcing women to remain vulnerable.
If allowing women to avoid being seated next to men on flights reduces the chance of sexual assault from taking place during flights, then I am all for it.
It just needs to be understood as a harm reduction technique, not the solution to the overall societal problem.
This is like saying cars shouldn't have seatbelts because it isn't discouraging people not to crash their cars. Seatbelts don't solve this issue, they just reduce harm. Think of this airline's decision as implementing a sexual seatbelt for women.
You put it into words perfectly. Thank you.
In politics, this WILL BE the solution because a half-measure 'solves' it.
My concern is that the same men, frustrated at being unable to do this on flight, will do it somewhere else anyway. Also, some could be pissed off by this measure just enough to have a negative shift in mentality towards women (see incels that are driven by alientation). So does it really significantly reduce harm? I'd love to see numbers if anyone has got them.
What the fuck? You think that men are just hardwired to assault women, and if we stop them from doing it in one place they're just going to do it somewhere else?
What a self-report...
I'm saying those particular men who find assaulting women acceptable find it acceptable everywhere, on a plane or outside. Or should we isolate women from men in all spheres of life? This in itself can't be the solution. Also, alienation that comes with such segregation is a common driver for violence, and I'd love to see how it might translate to more abusive sexual behavior, too. I don't have the numbers, and would love to see if someone does.
The rest is your emotional outburst. I hate to see Lemmy going in this direction and I hoped we won't have this bullshit here. Try to understand another person's take first and judge later, not the other way around. And don't make it personal, this immediately degrades the conversation.
That's exactly what I said, you just countered with something that sounded suspiciously defensive of sexual assault.
I never defended sexual assault; I just said that:
Is a big "if". In your original sentence, on the plane, yes, it might reduce the risk of assault. But life doesn't end outside the plane, and I wonder whether such restriction could just lead to increased risk of sexual assault elsewhere, due to a)frustration of the same men who didn't do it on the plane and can probably still do it in any other place; b)influence of such measures on how abusive men treat the status quo and resist it - thereby negating all the benefit.
Which is why, if you feel my take "sounds" like something, I ask to clarify first and attack later. This is not a ragebait dumpster, and people are generally acting in good faith around Lemmy.
This isn't ragebait, you are just very easily enraged. Apparently the topic of women's safety really sets you off.
Another self-report.
This is a terrible take.
If he's saying "normalize people being next to one another so anti-social nutjobs can get over themselves instead of being violent" then I can see where he's going. It's like the "co-ed bathroom" craze we had for a while.
I'm not sure whether it'll help aggressive incels actually talk to gurls like people instead of sublimating from "I can list all the dinosaurs" to "you frigid ho" themes, but it could place other comfy male-company people in range or just someone burly to slap the actual shit out of someone who steps outta line. Equality has two sides.
I think either that solution or the segregation or the actual fix to the issue, they'll all take a lot of emotional growth, though; and we lack the people to help us do that here, let alone in places where misogyny creeps ever closer to the default.
I think it’s terrible because the take treats women as things that defuse incels. Like sacrificing some women is worth it. Feel gross and dehumanizing.
I'm not ever saying women are dispensable tools in this fight (something you imply I said) or that we should "sacrifice" someone - the safety of every person is hugely valuable - I'm just saying that going separate is not gonna make things safer in the long run. There are other factors at play here that will show up, and we should not strive for knee-jerk solutions.
I doubt that separation alone is gonna help much, and I'd love to see comprehensive evidence for or against my take, if any exists. I want to see what is the best evidence-based solution that would actually improve safety of everyone.
If anything, I want to make sure as little women as possible are ever victims of such accidents, I'm just concerned over whether this is a best approach.
You just speak about women in a dehumanizing way that removes agency. It feel gross. Reminds me of doctors from the 90s that said we need studies to tell if inserting IUDs causes pain.
Thanks for pointing it out. I will see what I can do to correct it.
Is it something about the way I put it, like if I decide for women how it would be better for them?
Because my real position here, outlined clearly from my point of view but maybe not from someone else's, is that we should better study the consequences of that approach to make a more informed decision.
One could come from a strictly individualistic approach, to allow and empower people to act as they see fit, but the moment we set examples of things already resolved, people start thinking otherwise.
I'm gonna get another hate wave for this comparison, but this is just illustrative example, so hear me out first: should we allow white people to make separate white-only spaces on the same planes? We can absolutely try and justify it by the same "giving agency" argument, all while pointing out people of color do more crimes and can be, on average, more "dangerous".
All of which would be complete bullshit that omits any nuance that the very segregation puts people in conditions that promote such behavior and there is nothing about being black or hispanic or whatever in itself that promotes it. So we should absolutely fight back against any such idea.
Similar themes here, except the conditions here are less material (in fact, men even have somewhat of an advantage here) and more purely social. Externally isolated communities often promote dangerous behaviors, and to combat that, we should avoid forming such communities by not alienating them by the arbitrary category of gender in the first place. Otherwise, we are gonna see communities similar to incels grow and get more dangerous.
I just suppose that the risk of alienating men and them getting more violent may outweigh the immediate benefit of increased plane safety, eventually turning against women themselves. But to prove or disprove that point, I'd love to see more numbers. Before that, I do not welcome radical solutions that are not informed by a solid body of evidence, as they often carry questionable consequences.
Big, "People will call me racist for this" energy. You knew what you were gonna say was gonna be racist and shitty, but you said it anyway...
Do you have a humiliation fetish or something? It's like you want the downvotes...
I am going to ignore the weird race stuff. I don’t agree with it but don’t want to spend the energy.
I will speak about this:
This again dehumanizes women and removes agency.
You are saying that women are the tools that are used to prevent male violence. By treating women as a means to reduce violence without considering the women themselves as people you are dehumanizing and removing agency.
Women are people just as men are people. Women are not the tools to reduce male violence.
You also say giving women the choice to sit with women is radical. Women having the chose to protect themselves is not radical. It is a basis for a moral society.
You shouldn’t need studies to prove how effective or not using women as tools to reduce male violence is.
Women are not tools.
Women are not tools - and I never said that. Women, as all people, may have to sacrifice this short-term benefit for the long-term effect and actually lasting safe environment - that's my point. In a world where people radicalize and suggest knee-jerk solutions, I want to step back to see if evidence is there to back them up.
I say that sometimes people make irrational decisions that hurts the bottom line for themselves and others, and game theory means sometimes we have to all sacrifice something to maintain a better position than we could achieve individually - in this case, a world where we don't have to isolate ourselves to be safe and live in fear of someone.
If allowing women to "protect themselves" by letting them choose male-free spaces is gonna cause the rise in male violence, this will undermine the very purpose of this initiative. And since individually every woman is still better off separated, this will perpetuate even further, even if collectively women lose big time.
I'm concerned about this particular risk. Should it be about men instead of women, I'd be same kind of concerned. This is not meant to be misogynistic (or misandric for that matter). This is rather collectivist, choosing a solution that could bring people together and let them actually solve the problem that requires both ends to solve. And a suggested initiative only makes this goal father away, proliferating the general issue that causes the concern in the first place.
Separating people based on inherent traits is never the solution, which we somehow understand in any case but this one.
Until you see:
I don’t think this discussion is worth having. I hope you are never used as a means to an end.
Get ready, he's got another 5 paragraphs of petulance brewing.
Yah. Lol. I was trying to avoid all the sidelong tangential points but the guy just does not see that using women as pawns to prevent male violence is a bad thing.
Yeah that's part of what I mean.
Another part is that this proliferates the issue on both ends - aggressive men don't learn to behave well as they don't confront the situation and don't learn self-control, and women turn more to fear and loathing, severing more and more contacts with men and alienating them, which ends up hurting men and limiting their exposure to women side of the story, making them more violent.
It's not the job of women to put themselves in potentially dangerous situations for the betterment of men. Women not wanting to be easily assaulted is "hurting men" is a disgusting take and says some truly awful things about you.
My take is exactly that the suggested approach might not improve women's safety overall. The "betterment of men", as you put it, is the key ingredient to a sustainable solution on male sexual harassment and violence, and segregation is a patch that can come with unintended consequences that will undermine this process and directly hurt women.
We may not ignore the social and psychological consequences of such actions for men, as their mental wellbeing is directly related to the probability of committing assault, thereby again, directly affecting women.
I'm trying to make a point to counter the immediate knee-jerk approach, and call to collect evidence on the efficacy of such measures to promote women's safety. Any policy should be driven by what actually works, not what we feel of it.
I urge you to stop assuming bad faith in everyone you disagree with, and to clarify first. Lemmy is very much a people-driven platform, and absolute majority of people here are well-intentioned. Thereby, if another person shares a different opinion, they probably come from a position of care as much as you do, they just have a different consideration in mind.