Others have already pointed out that her distress calls were most certainly not ignored. But even if it were true that others did casually allow her to die, their disregard for her life wouldn’t have been because she was a woman. Her navigator, Fred Noonan, was a man on board and also suffered the same fate as her. Inventing a sexist conspiracy over an unfortunate tragedy accomplishes nothing productive.
Literally never learned he existed, another man erased from history.
It happens a lot to guys who are near women who shine and are memorable, Marie Curie’s husband, Pierre Curie, was more than just her husband he helped with the radioactivity research and they both died because of it. That said how many women have been erased in similar situations like that of Rosalind Franklin being Upstaged by Francis Crick. In short Academia needs to be better about recognition and change the incentive structure that makes for some forcing their names into papers they had nothing to do with besides proximity.
Let’s just forget everyone, instead.
This is a legitimately excellent idea. Remember events, forgot the people.
Never thought i would see someone opposing circle jerking bashing on men and being upvoted for it on Lemmy.
Its nice.
Not much of a real man if he’s second in command to a woman is he?? 🤣 /s
A woman couldn’t fail at something, how can we make it a man’s fault?
Is misinformation okay if it’s a shit post?
Only if it’s misinformation that’s also rage bait
Doesn’t matter if the radios worked, they were 60 miles off course, no one was looking there.
Not only that, they weren’t near the burmuda triangle!
Why is there splooge on ‘died’?
Cause apps like tiktok will prevent your post from being seen for having a scary bad word and now they have everyone trained to self-censor
Itt: men with big fweewings
I mean, the text is straight up wrong, though. She didn’t learn how to use her radio.
Men are trash sure; but so is this meme.
No entire group of people is trash. This is the same thinking behind misogyny and racism, and is the exact kind of speech that breeds incels.
Really crazy to see people continuing to defend statements like that in 2026
The expression “cheetahs run fast” is true, even if a slow cheetah, for example a wounded cheetah, is still a cheetah. Thus, the expression “men are trash” is true, even if a non-trashy man is still a man. The insistence on saying “not all men” every time someone says “men are trash” is just a new demonstration of the problem.
(I’m a cis man myself, BTW.)
Edit: this article explains it better than I could.
Congrats on being the first male femcel I’ve seen on the internet
I’m a married man with daughters. I want a better world for them.
Yikes that’s sad. Another generation of men hating femcels shooting themselves in the foot because of inherited prejudice. There’s a big difference between calling out bad actors within your group (which I do with fellow guys regularly) and being misandrist. Seems like you got henpecked pretty hard
I’m no misandrist. I’m just capable of reading statistics. Our world is not safe for women, and if you deny that, you’re a part of the problem.
Plenty of racists claim not to be racist. This doesn’t make their racist opinions suddenly not racist. Nice try tho
If you want a better world, maybe start with yourself and end your discrimination.
Do you actually believe that men are negatively discriminated?
I don’t need to believe. I just need to look at what you yourself have commented on this thread.
What percentage of a group needs to be considered trash in order for the whole group to be called trash?
Every group has trash people. Is every group trash? Are all women trash too?
If I met a woman who was trash, and then went online and said “women are trash”, would that be acceptable?
What if I happen to live in a place where I’m surrounded by trash women unproportionally, would it be okay for me to declare all women as trash, because that’s all I have ever met?
Where do you draw the line? How do you measure when enough people in the group become trash, so that it’s okay to call the whole group trash?
I’ve seen the same analogy used to justify racism.
Maybe. But an analogy can be rightly used or wrongly used. Racism use this analogy to speak about genetics, biology, to spead hatred; feminism use this analogy to make changes in men and manhood, and spread respect. The difference is essential.
I’m pretty sure calling a demographic trash is a poor way to spread respect.
It’s the old paradox of tolerance, but applied to respect. Respecting oppressors wont bring respect. And we men oppress women as a “demographic”, even if we don’t individually want to. I know I individually don’t want to, but I know my privileges, and if a woman passes me alone on a poorly lit street, I know she is not in danger, but she cannot know that and will have good reason to be afraid.
I don’t want for women to be afraid anymore, I don’t want men to be called trash anymore, but the solution is to stop, as a “demographic” and not as individuals, to be dangerous for women. And the first step is to recognize the problem!
So your solution is to act as the oppressor to force a whole demographic to stop oppression?
Is your sex not also based on genetics and biology?
Yes, but violence and power-thirst is not a biological trait of men. It’s a cultural one.
So it’s society that’s trash, not all men.
One could understand “men are trash” as having the meaning “every single man is trash”, which would be in line with racism as you say. Or one could understand it as “the group overall is trash”, meaning any individual member isn’t necessarily trash.
The latter meaning is in some senses a matter of data - men are extremely overrepresented in e.g. violent crimes.
Which, again, doesn’t much about the individual man.
So would you say “Black people overall are trash” is a racist statement?
As I’m clearly in the wrong according to downvotes, could you elaborate on what I’m missing?
I think at the core its like we are all here to be kind to one another. You can point to statistics, historical context, etc… but when it comes down to it, is calling people trash leading with kindness? Is that the kind of speech that seeds good into the world? Is that speech that betters you, men, and women? I don’t think so. I think there are far more kind and constructive ways to have dialogue.
It’s not kind for sure, completely agree. My point was more that even if it’s unkind, it’s not necessarily racism or bioessentialism.
I think we must be kind to individuals, but still acknowledge problems with groups. That does require a shift in mindset to not feel personally impacted by statements about a group you belong to, which is easier said than done.
Because of the current cultural context, yes. Even when you add “overall.” But I’d be completely open to you elucidating that you are referring to some non-racist point.
If there’s been a history of people stating this about a group meaning every single member, then you need to assume that’s what they mean. I don’t think that’s the case with men.
Not saying one meaning must be assumed over the other, you’ll have to depend on cultural context to understand the deeper meaning.
Compare for example “men can’t give birth” vs. “men love sports”. The former clearly intends to say “all men”, the latter intends “the group overall”.
If you read that from this meme, you might need to go back to school to learn some literacy a bit more.
And we are talking about men from nearly 100 years ago. I think a lot of progress has been made.
My point is thats besides the point. Generalizing the negative nature of an entire group of people is what the nazis did, what the imperial japanese did, what racists do, what rapists do, what homopbobes and transphobes do. You can call out misogyny without aligning your behavior with these horrible people, who’s behaving like this is exactly what brought about this kind of mistreatment in the first place.
And I am once again saying that this argument doesn’t do that. You just conditioned to jump to this misinterpretation as a defense, and people who conditioned you to do so did that for not amazing purposes.
You can believe it doesn’t but obviously your 2014 attitude is in a small minority today
I mean, a nazi-pedophile is the king of US, obviously my attitude is in minority. Doesn’t change the fact that you’re offended at your own misunderstanding of the whole issue.
Stop posting censored shit on the internet.
Ahh, quality shitpost. The rage, it feeds me!
E: How do y’all not realize it’s done on purpose in this sub? lol Seriously.
fr. what the fuck is the deal?
It’s ironic that the same reason that Amelia Earhart apparently died, is what causes people to want to censor themselves.
Amelia Earhart fucking ✨died✨
Stop posting censored
shitstuff on the internet.I’m with you, but I couldn’t find an uncensored version in the 3 seconds I spent looking.
Took 3 seconds to fix
That’s not why she died. She died because she was incompetent. She was a bad pilot and after a crash the man that was the radio expert quit. She didn’t know how to work the radios and broadcasted to listen on a channel that her radio couldn’t use, she didn’t know how to use the trailing antenna that could have saved them so she had it removed, etc…
This. If she knew how to use her equipment and bothered to learn Morse Code, the best fail-safe of the time, she would have probably been fine. Instead she made a heap of stupid mistakes that cost her life.
Have no idea about this stuff, wheres more information like this found?
They were listening on the frequencies she told them to listen on. How could they have known she didn’t know which antenna to broadcast on?
If anyone is curious here’s a fairly exhaustive description of the radio situation for this flight:
To put things in context, this is what they used for communication between a tank and its commanders in WWI:
When the Titanic sunk in 1912, they had a telegraph on board, but no voice radio.
In the 1920s radio took off as a one-way broadcaster to receiver technology, but it still was only rarely used as two-way communications. That only really started for communications between ships in WWII.
So, although she didn’t know how to use the radio in her plane, it was mostly because radio communication was a brand new thing. I’m sure what they put in her plane wasn’t some off-the-shelf radio that had standard switches, antennas and parts. It was probably cobbled together from various parts and only the truly tech-oriented people understood it.
Doesn’t matter why she wasn’t able to handle her communication tec, she did not die because of male ignorance. If anything it was her ignorance for not learning how to use her equipment
Her radio wasn’t off-the-shelf hardware. But I bet that her plane wasn’t either. What she tried to do required much more effort and knowledge than just operating off-the-shelf tools.
What I am trying to say is that she wasn’t stupid, she was just not prepared enough for the task.
Her plane may not have been off-the-shelf, but I’m sure she was heavily involved in any modification to it. She was a pilot, that was her concern.
She probably didn’t consider herself a radio operator, and didn’t realize how critical it was to fully understand the radio gear.
My guess is that at that point in time, being a radio operator would be like someone who knew something like 3d printing in great detail today. It was a niche skill that involved a lot of obscure knowledge. If someone doesn’t know something like 3d printing, someone can set it all up for them and then say “ok, when you’re ready, hit this button, when you’re done, do this” and they can use it. I assume that’s what happened with the radio setup. Someone with expertise set it up, and it might have worked, but she didn’t know enough to troubleshoot it when it went wrong.
Men are the reason Amelia Earhart died?
Only if you ignore most of the facts about the situation that got her killed, if i recall correctly the mission was a bit rushed, there were some miscommunication, and for some reason her radio wasn’t able to receive from the ship that she was supposed to meet up with, so the ship could hear her but she couldn’t hear them, and thus she couldn’t locate the ship
Oh the problem wasn’t with the radio, she didn’t know how it worked.
This still doesn’t sum up to “she was ignored by men”
Ironically “she ignored men” is technically more correct (although still not what happened)
From her perspective she was calling out for help and noone responded, that’s the closest i’m able to get with my mental gymnastics abilities
