gift_of_gab

Yeah but Americans have fought back before, too, just not Gen-X or Millenials.

Look at the years on those. American workers gave up and gave in from 67 till 83, and then never did it again. It's sad.

Our healthcare is tied to our work here in America

And general strikes were how you got any health care, time off, better work hours, work safety, etc. The fact is, we're at the point where people have to do this, and it sucks, and no the boomers didn't, but some of their parents may have (depending where you're from.)

The fact is Americans believe the narrative that they can't strike because they'll 'lose too much,' but the reality is they'll lose it anyway. A Fascist Oligarch is literally stealing their SSN's and personal info to put them on lists and they're still saying "yeah man but if I don't work my shift at waffle house I won't make rent." What about when decide you're not white enough to work? Or not white enough to cross the street? Or that women aren't allowed to do that job anymore? Or when they just arrest you because you looked at a cop at the wrong time?

Kids being born just to throw onto the wage slavery pile, the worst healthcare of any peer nation (and most below), leading cause of death for pregnant women is being shot by their partners, concentration camps being set up, an entire middle class gone and replaced with people a hundred bucks from destitution, a child's most likely cause of death is gun violence in their schools, super PACs, Citizens United, the Patriot Act, skyrocketing rental costs, skyrocketing grocery costs, and you just roll over for all of it.

What WOULD it take for you guys to do something?

Why are people talking about a general strike in the USA? Surely you must realise everyone is too busy keeping their heads above water.

As opposed to the other general strikes done in times of plenty and happiness?

To what would you assign their disturbing success?

I have to ask: What success? They did typical fascist bullshit: They had an economy so bad they had to invade new countries just to loot them to pay for their horrific economy. They picked fight after fight of the smallest kids in the neighbourhood they could find until they met those kids big brothers and sisters. They required fucking slave labour to try to meet their wartime goals because they grossly underestimated just about every single facet of running a country. They privatized state-owned industries, crippling longterm wealth for their people, they instituted tariffs (sound familiar?). Pay remained as bad as they it had been in the depression because while their wages were raised, they were forced to constantly work overtime for no additional pay. Their military was the majority of their economic spending, and they used deficit spending because they were going to literally plunder the countries around them to pay for it. Sound like solid long-term planning? They killed or jailed anyone in the trade unions, and due to their insane tariffs and you know, generally being the worst people in history, lacked incoming trade so things like poultry or clothing was in short supply for the average person.

Then it took thirty five days for the Nazi German army, along with the Serbian and Soviet armies, to conquer Poland. For every success in the early war they had embarrassing fumbles. They lost entirely because of how fascists work: they need to invade more countries to pay for their insane military spending, make bigger and bigger enemies, then get beat by those enemies, then later people claim they 'could have if...'

Yeah, they could have done just fine if they hadn't been fascist. All of their failings fall to being fascist.

And the first world war, are you kidding me? Are you seriously suggesting their insistence on investing in overseas colonies while fighting against the British was a brilliant plan? In both wars they were led by colossal morons who constantly underestimated their opponents, while in the second world war in particular having the worst spy agency of any nation. Their insistence on torturing, raping, and murdering everyone they came into contact with meant they just got the answers they wanted to hear, instead of the actual truth, and were constantly on the back foot. Their evil, cruel, and twisted nature was their own downfall; the insistence of their superiority, as you are doing now, is the very reason they failed.

and very nearly won.

What the actual fuck are you talking about?

When men talk about being victims of psychological violence, what happens then?

They are reminded that if they wanted to talk about that, they were more than welcome, but a thread about a woman who was talking about her sexual assault isn't the place to 'what about us.'

Also cool dodge of having your entire argument torn apart only to abandon it and switch to a different one.

I was a young man who was sexually assaulted, and by a woman, and I still know that doesn't mean that it's equal. It's people like you who de-legitimize what I went through by making it seem like a game of Brinkmanship with women, when in reality it was the women I spoke to who got me through it, and the men who asked if it was possible for me, as a man, to be raped, and then mocked me for it.

If you start a sentence with “all men” then you should take a step back and say “fucked-up men” or suchlike, is all I’m saying.

No. Also in no example was that how anything started. I said women can talk about being victims of violence and men always do what you're doing right now.

Also side note at least according to the statistics over here in Germany partner violence, if psychological violence is taken into account, is almost exactly even among hetero couples and, in the overwhelming number of cases, mutual: Assholes hook up with assholes they just, statistically, express it differently. Things might very well look differently where you’re from, another reason to not generalise.

The current crime statistics analysis on intimate partner violence by the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA, 2024) shows that a total of 167.865 people were victims of intimate partner violence in 2023. This is an increase of 9.1% compared to 2022. 132.966 (79,2%) victims were female and 34.899 (20,8%) male.

The statistics recorded the following attempted or completed crimes:

• 59.1% intentional simple assault
• 24.6% threats, stalking, coercion
• 11.4% aggravated assault
• 2.6% rape, sexual coercion, sexual assaults
• 0.2% murder and manslaughter
• 2.1% other offences

The European Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) published the study “Violence against women. An EU-wide survey” in 2014. For this study, around 42,000 women between the ages of 18 and 74 were interviewed about their experiences with violence in the 28 member states. In Germany there were 1,534 women. Around one in three women said they had experienced physical and/or sexual violence at least once since they were 16 years old.

1/3 of German women had experienced physical and/or sexual violence. ONE THIRD.

Stop trying to make this something that's even between men and women. It isn't. You're giving these guys in my inbox furious about exactly the reason for my original fucking comment a green light to do this shit by hand-waving the reality women face.

If this is how Lemmy is going to be, I'm so thankful pixelfed is exploding in size because women deserve the goddamn break.

People want to know you’re not literally ... trying to actively reinforce the toxic AF “women are always victims, men are always perpetrators” narrative etc, but it takes like five words to make that clear.

...

/face in hands

Okay I took a minute and I have to go through this with you.

People want to know you’re not literally Andrea Dworkin, trying to actively reinforce the toxic AF “women are always victims, men are always perpetrators” narrative etc, but it takes like five words to make that clear.

So just so I'm clear, all women have to make clear they don't think what Andrea Dworkin does (sigh), because all men aren't responsible for men as a group being, statistically, the perpetrators of rape, partner violence, etc?

Pixelfed is easily the most diverse “corner” of the Fediverse now. Fedi is very white but a large number coming over now aren’t. Pixelfed.social has probably gone from being 75% men to 75% women in the last few weeks. Diversity is the best possible thing for the social web.

This was a huge part of why I now spend more time over on pixelfed as opposed to here -- I have a few accounts I've used here, and every single time I'm in a thread about a woman who's been sexually assaulted, or about a woman's shelter, etc, the 'not all guys'/'men suffer too' bros come flooding in. I've logged out of accounts for weeks, switched to another one, just to let them scream into the void of my inbox for awhile, and it happens every time. I befriended a woman here when I responded to one of the most sad-to-read replies in one of those threads, that read like: "Women are often abused by men--not all men, just some, and I want to reiterate that this is about those specific men..." and it just went on and on trying to placate the inevitable furious white men in the comments section. As someone who lived as a white man for over forty years, I know just how whiny, sad, and ridiculous they look, and they they still get their way.

Over on pixelfed I haven't once had an interaction even close to that. It's extremely pleasant, people helping each other learn the platform, people asking for help in bad home situations, and it's a community. People have messaged me when I made mistakes linking things in extremely pleasant ways, and two people debated alt-text (is it helpful to those who use audio captions, or is it training AI?) without once insulting each other. Lemmy was very briefly that, yet there's a lot of tribalism that is not only unnecessary, and frankly, childish. I'm quite often embarrassed of my fellow men here.

(Well, non-binary now, yet I still feel the experiences of 40+ years of being a man are helpful.)

So anyway, I agree pixelfed is a lot more inviting, and a lot more diverse.