• dottedgreenline
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    False equivalence of men’s and women’s rights, plus a bunch of male incels screaming for equality. That comment screams All Lives Matter logic to me.

    • aport@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think this is a myopic view. The law in Netherlands used to require penetration to be considered rape, a definition that excludes the majority of male rape victims. It’s a genuine concern that laws be gender neutral.

      • dottedgreenline
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        My view was with regards to the intent behind the initial comment. As the person I replied to asked.

        • aport@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right, you assumed bad faith intentions based on zero context and made some pretty specific accusations. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about gender neutral rape laws, especially in Europe.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But … isn’t that what the original poster did? They could have simply looked up whether it was gender neutral or write about why they think it is great that it is gender neutral. Instead they already doubted that it was, assuming bad faith from the start.

            Also, why is that a special problem in Europe? Or to what are you referring? In some countries, like UK, while it is not called rape sexual assault has the same maximum penalty (which is life in prison).

              • dottedgreenline
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Edit: My comment below was frustrated and more aggressive than it should have been:

                People like you are a discredit to any real men’s rights activists, and are a drain on human rights movements.

                • Madrigal@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  All because I want the law to be gender neutral? Wow.

                  Heaven forbid anyone care about real world injustices that rape victims have suffered because the law doesn’t recognise them.

                  I think you should take a good hard look at yourself and reflect on your statement, to be honest.

                  • dottedgreenline
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I agree that my tone was off, and for that I apologise. I assumed a bad faith argument based on what feels like an endless string of self-proclaimed men’s rights warriors, brought up with a warped sense of equality, people who can’t seem to wrap their heads around the collosal gap in the size of the problem that women face and try to equivocate to distract from that, so they can “have their say”. Your initial comment still reeks of that type of mentality however I look at it. The problem the article points to is overwhelmingly more important for women’s health, according to rainn.org 90% of reported rape cases are against women. Saying “what about men!” every time rape is mentioned without acknowledging this gap seems disingenuous. I will also add this edit to my initial comment. I hope this logic may help you understand why what you said was perceived as problematic.

            • aport@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re saying that the other poster was not invoking any of those legitimate reasons. And you base that on… what exactly? His five other comments on Lemmy?

              Jumping straight to the most uncharitable interpretation of someone’s intent is a bad habit.

              • dottedgreenline
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                A guess based on experience with similar toned poster’s across social media. Don’t pretend a majority of dudes talking like that aren’t just out for some sort of women-hating catharsis. Weeding them out isn’t my job, it’s the poster’s to be aware of the reality of online human rights discussion before all-lives’ing their point of view. However annoyed my tone was their initial post was also in bad faith.