this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
5 points (100.0% liked)

LinkedinLunatics

4399 readers
304 users here now

A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com

(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
csm10495@sh.itjust.works
crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz
5
Using sexism for engagement (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 1 month ago by crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz to c/linkedinlunatics@sh.itjust.works
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] squirrel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

This is a prime example of why patriarchy is hurting men too, because what this guy is saying boils down to:

  • We can make them work at any hour of the day because who cares if these guys have any life outside work?
  • We don't have to do any work management, we just call those guys
  • We can send them wherever, whenever
  • We can create a toxic work environment and it's okay to treat guys like shit
  • And those guys don't even complain because they need this job so bad
    Isn't it great?

The statement about "workplace laws" is so telling: Yeah, who cares about treating men with respect and dignity!?
It's not just about discriminating against women, it's also about mistreating men. That's what patriarchy is at its core: Pit men and women against each other and then reap the benefits. It's a "divide and conquer strategy".

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Exactly my impression. And my response? Fuck that shit.

[–] Si_sierra@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

Also practices like that reinforce the gendered division of labour. As men get jobs, women are usually left to pick up the slack of care responsibilities. This leaves them financially dependent on those men. So both men and women suffer, but the system leaves women with less agency than men.

(Also nonbinary, queer, and third gender people are treated even worse)

[–] lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

There was probably a length limit which prevented us from getting more useful bullet points like...

-> men have hands

-> men can use computers

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

To address his points:

  1. How are women any different in this situation?

  2. How are women any different in this situation?

  3. Why do you feel you can treat men harsher than women?

  4. How are women any different in this situation?

[–] accideath@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Men are available 24/7

I‘d like you to meet Europeans some time.

[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"You mean men are easier to exploit."

[–] psivchaz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 month ago

This. IF these generalizations are actually true it still doesn't mean what he thinks it means. I also find the bit about "being strict" particularly gross. If it's valid workspace criticism, then there's no laws protecting women from it. So he clearly means something more like "I want to yell and insult and be a little dictator but women might report a hostile work environment."

[–] zecg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's ragebait, a very specific form of engagement

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not necessarily. You've never met someone with backwards, toxic views like this?

[–] blargle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Well of course- but identifying online ragebait is also a valuable skill to develop, because then you can just not engage with it.

Wouldn't be surprised at all if the dude in the thumbnail is an actual IRL sexist- it's not an exclusive-or situation. The pattern of first passing these off as someone else's ideas and not his own, and then the "but idk what do you think..." at the end stinks of engagement bait.