dandelion (she/her)

sorry, are men concerned for their safety dating women such that a gender inverted version of this app makes sense? Your ignorance is what I’m talking about here …

yeah, the app has obvious flaws, and the Rate My Professor style approach succeeds or fails depending on the quality of the users and moderators, and could easily be useless or become toxic - either way, I’m not defending this aspect of the app, it’s clearly problematic.

Regardless I understand why women would want a resource like this, and that doesn’t seem true for those in the comments who see the doxxing as deserved for using this app.

Nevermind the rest of the context, like 4chan being a bastion of right-wing, misogynist trolls who would target an app like this for political reasons.

Lemmy users approving 4chan doxxing women is a major red flag … it might have something to do with how many Lemmy users come here due to being banned for their behavior on Reddit. Reddit isn’t sending their best and brightest, and it shows. (This is just my speculation, though.)

of course, the app has obvious problems, but I don’t see that as justifying the gloating and sense of revenge enjoyment happening.

Instead I see a kind of discontent about women I find concerning, which seems ignorant of the widespread violence women experience or what it’s like for women who take risks when dating men.

Men are not all equally problematic or privileged, but they are generally in a position of power relative to women and are acting like the victims here.

They should direct their discontent to patriarchy which creates the situation where violence against women is dismissed or accepted, and which motivates women to use apps to check if the person they are dating has a history of violent behavior.

Patriarchy which perpetuates the narrative that men are natural predators and women natural prey is what victimizes men here, not the women who rightfully fear and feel victimized by the minority of men who are violent.

The app enables the photos to be run through a reverse image search, enabling them to run a basic background check, check against public sex offender databases, and check for photos that might get flagged as being used in “catfishing” — misrepresenting one’s identity online.

The app also features a “Tea Party Group Chat,” which allows users to directly share information about men, and has a rating function, which allows users to share their experiences with Yelp-style reviews, awarding men a “green flag” or a “red flag.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/25/us/tea-app-dating-privacy-cec

It’s a bit like Rate My Professor, but for dating.

Honestly I cyncially expect this kind of app might inevitably exist for rating people of all genders (or that dating apps might incorporate this Uber-style rating system), but the reason this app exists has directly to do with the violence women face from intimate partners.

The point is that men who are enjoying the doxxing of women who have used this app are ignoring the context, or even have a warped sense of the context, as if this is narrowly about (legitimate) privacy concerns and the harms caused by the app.

Even if the concerns about the app are justified, the revenge enjoyment betrays a view much harder to defend, that all the women who used the app are equally cupable, or that doxxing women using the app is equivalent to women doxxing abusive men through the app.

Men are not all equally privileged, but there is a broad inequality both to how violence is distributed and how that plays out in dating situations. Women are not wrong to fear men. One in three women have experienced sexual or physical violence, most of that violence being perpetuated by men.

Since this is the context for the use of this app, it’s not neutral to doxx its users or to claim it’s fair because men feel (legitimate) concerns about the app’s privacy violations.

There is some of that happening, like when women get together and discuss how they’re being treated it’s “gossip” and implied as immoral.

I think some men might read what you’ve said and think you are denying any toxic gossip exists, it’s important to have nuance and not alienate men who otherwise would be allies, but I think overall your point is well taken.

??

!womensstuff@piefed.blahaj.zone

so the solution to misogyny is to git gud?

The most notable person in my life that is like this might genuinely wish she were tall, but she also wishes to be strong and muscular and so on. I always wonder how she would actually feel if she had that body though.

yeah, every smol girl talks about how they wish they were tall, but they have no idea how embarrassing it is, the way it invalidates your femininity and so on

The replies in this thread are disturbing, giving me a sense that Lemmy has a misogyny problem; maybe I was naïve, but I expected outrage about 4chan doxxing women trying to protect one another, instead I see lots of revenge enjoyment as if being doxxed on 4chan is justice for … <checks notes> warning one another about dangerous men they encounter when dating?

The inability to empathize and take seriously the threats posed to women or to understand their motivation to protect one another is alarming.

There is no good faith extended, but also no evidence presented that instead of safety the app was just for gossip, it’s just taken as assumed that women are wrong for using Tea and they all deserve to be doxxed.

from the article:

Several users received an error message that says “The following are not allowed: no zionist, no zionists,” when they tried to add the phrases to their bios on Thursday. I tested this myself on a new Grindr account, and received the same error message. I was able to add “Zionist” to my profile (without “no”), however, and could also add any phrase I could think of: “no Arabs,” “no Blacks,” “no Palestinians,” “no Muslims,” “no Christians,” “no Jews,” “no trans,” “no Republicans,” “no Democrats,” and so on. “No Zionist[s]” was the only phrase that was blocked in my testing.

that was so hard to believe I checked the article myself, and here’s the quote:

Several users received an error message that says “The following are not allowed: no zionist, no zionists,” when they tried to add the phrases to their bios on Thursday. I tested this myself on a new Grindr account, and received the same error message. I was able to add “Zionist” to my profile (without “no”), however, and could also add any phrase I could think of: “no Arabs,” “no Blacks,” “no Palestinians,” “no Muslims,” “no Christians,” “no Jews,” “no trans,” “no Republicans,” “no Democrats,” and so on. “No Zionist[s]” was the only phrase that was blocked in my testing.

right wing politics promotes rigid gender norms

including that only men should be muscular

so muscular women are masculine

and men attracted to a masculine person are gay

nevermind that these are the same people who want to rigidly define women by their gametes, chromosomes, or other biological characteristics (not how buff they are, or how masculine they present)

or that these are the same people who came up with the idea that everyone is straight to begin with (“gay” being a sinful behavior, nobody being born gay)

🤢🤢🤢

you need to teach your kids about consent

right, but when pedantically correcting the idea that pollen isn’t an example of dimorphic reproduction, making gross generalizations like that seems strangely out of place, since the whole issue they took in the first place was a (mostly true / appropriate) generalization …

ok, but just so you know, I did not consent

also, pollen contains the male gametes - how is that not dimorphic? Plants vary in their sexual strategies, but I do think it’s fair to think of pollen as containers of semen or sperm … or at least that’s always how it’s been presented anyway 🤷‍♀️

haha <shuffles nervously>