Opposition to transgender rights movements
The 4B movement predominantly sees transgender rights movements as incompatible with feminism.[10] Developing out of transgender-exclusionary radical feminism (T.E.R.F.), the movement holds to gender-critical views on sex and gender,[10] supporting gender essentialism and the exclusion of transgender women from feminist spaces.[12][14] Advocates of 4B are opposed to what they call “gender ideology” (젠더론x) and promote excluding transgender women from feminist spaces, as well as romantic or sexual relationships with them (트젠 안사요).[10] In South Korea, members of the 4B have created gatherings exclusively for what they call “biological females” and “real women”.[10]
yikes
The changelog shows that this section has been added sometime between Oct 30 (last version before Nov) and today. Some possibilities:
- disinformation to discourage the movement. I find this most likely given that “Trans” did not appear anywhere in the original article until this was politicized in the US. The updates between versions inserted anti-trans language in multiple places throughout the article.
- Or, if this is actually part of the SK movement, then I have not heard anything TERF related for the US movement. The US movement probably should rename or otherwise distinguish itself from that.
Either way, I do not think this should be a point to discredit the movement. It at minimum does not seem related to the US movement and IMO is likely some clever FUD attempt to undermine the movement before it gets traction.
Also none of the sources linked there mention anything about trans women.
Just be aware that people might be into 4B for the purpose of man-hating. A lot of times man-hating extends to transphobia.
The ideological basis is strong.
Ffs, you can do 4b without being transphobic.
Just because some 4b assholes with a website have written a transphobic clause in their manifesto, doesn’t mean they speak for all 4b followers.
Stop shitting all over this movement because you’ve found somebody in it with an awful take on an unrelated matter.
Not having sex or relationships with folk who can impregnate you is sensible when your country is about to ban abortion and restrict contraceptive access.
I had not heard of this movement before today. Forgive me if my first instinct is to read their Wikipedia, and be off-put by various descriptions of transphobic stances. I agree with the stated goals, and @nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone pointed out that the article might have been manipulated to paint them in a bad light.
If that’s the case, then I hope the article gets corrected with proper sources soon, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. But I don’t like that you’re insinuating that trans issues, and transphobia in particular, are unrelated to feminism.
I wish everyone earnestly resisting attempts to limit bodily autonomy strength and success in their endeavors.I’m not saying trans rights are unrelated to feminism.
I’m saying that transphobic rhetoric has been shoehorned into this cause and has nothing to do with abstaining from PiV sex for the safety and respect of ovulating people.
Also you may not be aware of how conservative South Korea is. There probably are more than a few transphobic 4b South Koreans as feminism as a movement is still newer there.
In ‘western’ countries, radical feminism (with all its flaws) was an integral part of the cultural/philosophical journey into the 3rd wave and intersectional feminism as we know it today.
It would be really nice if the gender critical terf bullshit could be skipped when other cultures journey into exploring feminism, but as conservative culture by definition has such deeply ingrained bigotry towards minorities, it might sadly just be inevitable.
I mean, we kind of act like the worst men speak for the entire gender. These people can choose to be 4B
And I am saying this as someone who thinks if the entire male population of the US dropped dead on Nov 4 the world would be a better place.
The 4B movement predominantly sees transgender rights movements as incompatible with feminism
Interesting, that his since been deleted from the Wikipedia article.
Really? I still see it, under “Beliefs”
The American version need not be TERF though. It is not an inherent part of what 4B actually entails and is extraneous to the purpose of 4B.
Women hate women.
Removed by mod
Found the TERF
Removed by mod
… women forcing their way into women only spaces is misogynist.
Smh. You’re not even denying that they’re women, you just don’t like them
Fuck off troll.
8 day old account lmao
I highly doubt many people are doing this.
Media hyped bullshit.
its getting a lot of press because it will upset a lot of dumbfucks
But the internet told me a lot of people are doing it. But since you were the last statement I read, it is now my point of view until I stumble upon another comment.
Many people are doing this.
I’m sure that a few, very dedicated, women are doing this.
It’s unlikely to be widespread. Sex is one of the most powerful drives humans have. We generally have a terrible track record of trying to convince people to avoid or even delay sex. Even when people believe that their eternal soul is on the line they keep having sex. That’s exactly why all the “abstinence only” policies fails so spectacularly.
There are cases where voluntarily giving up something important has led to change. Hunger strikes are the prime example of this. They can have the affect of drawing attention to a matter and raising sympathy.
I disagree. The modern sexual revolution was only possible due to modern contraception and access to abortion. Did pre-maritial flings happen in the past? Of course. But casual sex was nothing like it is now. It was treated as the rare shameful exception. It was not the norm for people to openly date and publicly announce their sexual relationships for years prior to marriage. (Viewing from a Western perspective of course.)
So if you start taking away abortion and contraception? Why wouldn’t you expect sexual norms to return to their earlier state? Pregnancy is incredibly disruptive, dangerous, and expensive.
In Trump’s America, sex means pregnancy, and pregnancy means childbirth. In Trump’s America, a straight women does not have sex unless she is prepared to be a mother, and her partner is prepared to be a father.
Will flings still happen? Sure. I expect we’ll also see a commiserate rise in shotgun marriages.
I agree that 4B, as an organized movement, likely won’t have much direct impact. But the general attack on contraceptives and reproductive healthcare absolutely will see a rollback of the sexual attitudes that have developed in the post-1960s world. Sex just has a lot more consequences to it now than it used to. We’re going back to a world where you really can’t afford to have sex with someone unless you’re prepared to marry them and raise children together. Casual hookups on Tinder are not a practical thing in Trump’s America.
Sorry guys, you voted for this.
This is exactly correct. Hey guys, while typing all these (dare I call them “hysterical”?) comments freaking out that the number of possible sex partners might be lower than before, could you take a moment to stop and actually consider what WoodScientist is saying?
Getting pregnant and having a baby when you aren’t ready for it completely changes the lives and limits future possibilities for both the father and mother, and much more so for the mother who 99% of the time is the main caregiver. It’s the woman who has the greatest risk by far.
Besides the risk to a woman socially and career-wise if she gets pregnant, it’s dangerous. There’s a chance of dying or permanent health consequences from it, physical and mental. And remember that healthcare will be worse too because they’ll be repealing the ACA and/or removing a lot of the protections the ACA provides, like requiring insurance companies to cover maternity and any complications. Many Clinics that used to be there to provide low-income women with maternal healthcare, abortion services, cancer screenings, birth control, etc. have already been shut down in red states that have banned abortion.
So a lot fewer women will even have health insurance and it won’t cover as much. Plus the odds of getting pregnant will be higher since access to contraception will be more restricted (not covered by insurance and possibly even banned entirely).
So this about more than just your fear of maybe getting less sex. Your biggest possible risk is financial, if you get held responsible for child support. Risks to women are a hell of a lot higher. They gotta do what they gotta do so.
People really don’t understand the history. Social practices evolved over the centuries and were as subject to evolution as anything genetic. Most traditional social practices evolved for a reason. Often practices stick around long after those reasons no longer apply, but they evolved for a very good reasons in the first place.
As you note, pregnancy is inherently dangerous to a woman’s health, permanently alters her body, and has a permanent and profound impact on her life. And this has always been the case.
Think about how promiscuous women have traditionally been treated. Whore. Slut. Harlot. Women were expected to be chaste until marriage. Meanwhile, promiscuity was often accepted or even celebrated for men. The reasons for this disparity are likely multifaceted, but one likely reason is that sex had such a high risk for women and girls. Think of the mother who calls her own daughter a ‘whore’ for the way she dresses. Who does that to their kid? Someone who thinks they’re doing that kid a favor. Traditionally, mothers expected their daughters to be chaste and conservative, and often that was to protect them from the inevitable risks that came with sex. Women have always had far more to risk when it comes to sex than men.
Effective contraception and abortion access changed this. It was only once the very real risks of premarital sex were ameliorated could modern straight casual sex culture emerge. Yes, some flings did happen in 1850, premarital sex did happen. But it was much rarer, and it was mostly among people who were already on the path to marriage anyway. There were not mixed-sex bars in 1850 that you could go and try and find a partner for a casual fling. Men could go hire a prostitute in most towns and cities, but the idea that a respectable woman would meet a man, alone, then go to his house and have premarital sex that night? That’s the kind of thing that could literally end up in the town newspaper the next day.
Contraceptives - the pill, IUDs, condoms, and abortion; these are foundational technologies to modern sexual practices. They are as important as to modern dating culture as the automobile is to a suburban land use culture. When sex means pregnancy, it means you should never have sex with someone unless you are prepared to spend the next 20 years together raising kids. And yes, that means the casual dating scene is going to take a big hit.
When we swap out sex ed for abstinence only we don’t get less sex. We get a surge in teen pregnancies.
Children are different than adults. Adults are perfectly capable of altering their behavior. Do you think it was a coincidence that the sexual revolution just happened to occur immediately after the introduction of effective contraception?
The sexual revolution was the product of many changes. Cheap and effective ontraception was one of them, legal abortion was not. Roe v Wade wasn’t until after the sexual revolution had already happened. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc.
It’s also puts people who don’t want to have kids at all in a tough spot. It makes surgical sterilization effectively mandatory.
After they make it illegal to medically transition genders, guess what medical procedures they’ll prohibit next?
The good news is that since sterilization is a one-time thing, medical tourism (for those with the means) becomes a viable option. I don’t see them banning international travel.
Of course this does increase the barrier and will be out of reach for those who can least afford to have children.
Noone is doing it.
And we can check birthrates a year later to prove it.There’s a classic greek play, Lysistrata, that tells a tale of women refusing sex to get the men to end a war. It is notably a fictional account.
Essentially the reference resonates most with college educated (white) women.
You could try reading the article first.
I find nothing wrong with this movement, but at the same time I almost feel like this movement is exactly what “government’s” may want. Less educated individuals having children means more uneducated voters in the long run.
Kind of like that scene in Idiocracy (2006).
I thought the idea of the US version was just to avoid republicans.
It’s not like women turned out in droves for Harris either. Who’s going to withhold from the women that dropped the ball?
You don’t need to. I’ve run the numbers elsewhere but if we assume 100% of your dating pool are women and 50%-ish are liberal, even if only half of them participate it’s going to put pressure on men very quickly if they don’t want to be alone.
Now we know those women aren’t spread equally so this movement isn’t going to be consistently effective everywhere. But in places like Texas, it would mean most of the major cities harm Republican men seeking relationships/sex.
And taken one step further, this creates a child shortage if done for long enough. Even just 10% of women deciding not to have kids will have a big effect. People worry about conservatives just having more kids but realistically they work lower end jobs and don’t have money for that. Imagine raising 3-4 kids in this economy, not many will do that.
Keep in mind that even in a place like texas, in major cities liberal voters far outnumber conservatives. There are millions of us voting hoping that one day the people that don’t will finally register and give the state the changes it desperately needs.
It may look like we’re outnumbered. But the biggest problem we have by far nationwide is the amount of people that don’t vote. Conservatives are honestly outnumbered everywhere except in states like north and south Dakota that have a ton of land and low population.
People worry about conservatives just having more kids but realistically they work lower end jobs and don’t have money for that. Imagine raising 3-4 kids in this economy, not many will do that.
I suspect there are a lot of corpos voting red, especially once you get to the C-suite. I don’t think it does any favors to anyone to assume that Trump’s sweep was just the redneck vote.
I’ll expound a bit. Of course there are a portion but that portion of better off conservatives is relatively small. And affluence often doesn’t result in wanting more kids.
I think most people would agree that the average wage of a dem voter is significantly higher than that of a conservative voter even when adjusting for COL. A lot of their voters lack degrees and lack the financial situation to have a bunch of kids.
Also keep in mind that this stuff is kind of exponential right. If 10% of women don’t have kids, they’re probably on average not having about 2 kids. So you either need 10% of other women to have 2 kids or 20% of women to have 1 extra child. That’s a big ask for your average American of any political skew. If 10% of women participate, that means 1 in 4 people need to have an extra child. And the larger that portion of participating women becomes, the exponentially greater pressure it puts on other women who want to absorb that impact.
So why do women who doomed this country still get to enjoy the finer things?
The thing is, there are tons of incels already and if you think that will push them to be more liberal I have some bad news for you.
The point isn’t to isolate men and create more incels, the point is for women to stop tolerating behavior that is not worthy of rewarding with intimacy or relationship. Women shouldn’t put up with awful men that don’t care about their rights just because they’re worried that they will become even worse men.
The point isn’t necessarily that women get what they want politically either; it’s a reaction to the majority of men displaying a lack of shared interest in their partners health and wellbeing. Not to mention that most men never have to deal with the results of these elections, now they will.
This is eugenics propaganda. It is slightly hidden in a way of not using the blatant language of “superiority” and forcing it on people, but the base idea boils down to breeding traits such as higher intelligence into (or out of in this case) people like what is done (was attempted) with animals. This is eugenics. Please do not spread eugenics.
Eugenics does not work. There’s a lot of information on the topic, but here’s a 10-minute primer: https://youtu.be/kMBriCmiTu0
TL;DW Studies show genetics plays a very minor role in intelligence in humans with socioeconomic factors being the main driver. Eugenics may be able to breed certain traits in/out, but that results in the extreme detriment of others. Consider dog breeding and all the health issues breeds have who were bred for a handful of specific tasks/traits.
They are talking about education, not intelligence. Children of couples with higher education will usually have a better education too.
That wasn’t clear from their comment. The link for Idiocracy didn’t help that since that movie focuses on eugenics.
For education, sure, but while the data shows more educated voters voted for Harris, it isn’t nearly as big of a gap as it should be. Slightly over 2/5ths of college educated voters voted for Trump, likewise slightly over 2/5ths of uneducated voters voted for Harris. The media likes to hype that divide along with all the others, but that’s a shit ton of people on both sides.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/exit-polls-2024-election/
Honestly I think that only works if society keeps progressing in any form for a generational time scale. Women protecting themselves and enjoying the time left. Seems like a valid course of action as anything else.
What that would really mean is an erosion of the tax base and possibly a demographic crisis.
But I seriously doubt that the population of
femcelsfemale volcels is getting larger as much as it is getting louder and coping in a way that makes a good headline.By definition, any woman choosing not to have sex due to state-imposed pregnancy risk is not a ‘femcel.’
Incel means involuntarily celebrate. Women CHOOSING to not have sex is voluntary and it’s disgusting trying to compare them to the incel movement.
When Idiocracy no longer is a comedy movie but an instruction manual…
Always thought that would happen with 1984, not with that movie.
This country is fucked. We can’t breed our way out of it, and trying is gross.
That’s why this form of protest is ineffective. I want to see what the ‘but gaza’ people think in a few months.
Just don’t date conservative men. First date, ask them their politics. It’s literally that simple.
You should really have a suite of questions to weed out partners you don’t want. This is what the first few dates are really for. Ask them their politics, if they voted, and who they voted for, their stance on abortion etc.
All you’re going to get with this is friendly fire. Conservatives generally do not prefer leftist women.
Men will lie, especially if they’re trying to get your clothes off. So a single question isn’t quite enough. Maybe a discussion about politics on relevant issues, for example.
As a man this is spot on. My old roommate “presented” as a neoliberal hippy with wood-bead bracelets, but would literally talk about how he wanted slaves so he didn’t have to work. Some men are literally closeted Republicans that know if they are honest they will be sexless
Get yourselves a socialist, ladies. Neoliberals are just spineless republicans
Neoliberals are just spineless republicans
love this. going to steal it and make it my new catchphrase.
Maybe if you’re a liberal. Conservative liars can’t describe socialism either.
You’d be surprised.
First of all, you’ll be able to get their vibe from a political conversation unless they’re very well informed and very intelligent, which conservatives generally are not.
Second, if you’re forcing them to lie then it creates cognitive dissonance in their brain. So at the very least that can create genuine progress, as problematic as that may be.
When I was in high school decades ago, debate club went to a convention and one of the debate rounds was “women shouldn’t be allowed to vote”. My very good looking friend (male) argued that they shouldnt and he was so charming and confident that he got crazy crazy laid for the rest of the event. I think it helped that we all sort of understood it was not reality but a chance to do debate flourishes, but still. What the hell is that? Its almost as if the topic itself and womens’ resistence to it made him even more attractive.
He’s a minor republican operative now-- we dont talk.
Good looking people will attract women. They clearly didn’t think he was serious.
Source: Pretty much every episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (and, of course, real life)
They can’t keep up that sort of lie for too long without the mask slipping. So it’s a good idea to require a fair amount of together time before considering being intimate.
Especially the people who would be worth avoiding wouldn’t have the patience and feel very entitled, so they are less likely to stick around for an early dating period.
Personally right wing chicks are a no go for me so if you’re not openly atheistic (at least in spirit) and socially progressive and futurist and mega smart super nerd into PhD level autism I probably won’t even bother, it’ll never work. I’m also not looking for company so…
Part of 4B is to avoid pregnancy, especially in an environment that has banned abortions and restricted contraceptives (e.g. Project 2025).
There is this crazy thing called condoms
If you don’t want children, the risk is the same.
The 4B movement does have some issues with transphobia from what I’ve heard, so hopefully with more people joining, it’ll make it better.
“some issues” is a bit of an understatement
I’m not aware of the history of this movement. Could you please provide some context? I want to push against reactionary undertones I might come across
First line describes it as gender critical… Then if you scroll down under the beliefs section is a section titled “Opposition to transgender rights movements”
I’m really hoping the American version of 4B stays far away from that.
Well that sucks, I somehow missed that, hopefully the fact that the women participating in the American version of 4B will likely be more left-leaning helps keeping the movement away from that hate
As someone above mentioned, that line was added after october 30, so it’s questionable how true this is.
And America doesn’t have to adopt any transphobic parts of the movement anyway.
I feel like the only ones doing this are the perpetually online echochamber sorts. The female equivalent to the wannabe alpha male losers.
Most women living in reality, even the furthest left feminists aren’t doing this shit, at least not intentionally as part of some movement. This whole article is just propaganda and rage bait to get clicks and drive ad revenue.
I think it might be a bit like antinatalism, where a lot of people simply haven’t heard of it (or have heard stupid shit about it and discounted it), but have come to the same conclusions independently and just haven’t felt the need to seek out likeminded comunities or be vocal about it to others.
All 17 of the American women participating in this movement downvoted you
It’s okay even I downvote me sometimes when I feel sad.
The only thing I can take a way from your comment is you are calling women who take control of their own bodies and are public about it are losers.
Your second paragraph might be partially correct, but still you are calling women who want to publicly fight to keep their human rights losers…
You are calling people who try to keep their rights losers.
Anything I can extrapolate outside that would be speculation, but you get where my thoughts are going regarding you.
Anyone dumping in an entire sex, race, religion into the same bucket IS a loser.
Women, just like men, should pick and chose mates they are attracted to and share values with. If that means it’ll naturally filter out magats, all the better.
But depriving yourself of human connections because an orange clown won an election is only hurting yourself. I guarantee you that Trump doesn’t give a shit who or if you date.
Maybe depriving your self of sex is entirely your decision, and not someone else’s. It sounds so gross to hear people wanting to control the sex life of other people, because I am unable to by any stretch of the imagination interpret someone being offended by other people not wanting to have sex with you in any other way.
I can only imagine, that a woman in the US, that are not allowed to end an unwanted pregnancy, and live under a government that actively floats that they would like to end contraceptives. So what happens is if you stick your penis (stop seething when you read this) inside of her, all her rights her mother had before in the same situation goes out the window.
Just a reminder, your unalienable rights do not include forcing someone to have Sex with you
I think you are arguing with people who are on your side about women’s rights but also think this form of protest isn’t a very effective one…I don’t know if you can see that so just wanted to mention it.
It’s just an idea voiced in some places online, that makes for a good headline, and will get lots of people active to comment and complain.
Which is exactly the way to spread it to more people. What is your point?
That it’s a pretty niche movement and not sure the purpose of it? What are the women doing associating with men they plan to practice this 4B celibacy with?
I don’t know if it will drum up supporters, or rile or people who get riled to professionally. This seems like it’s just going to drum up conservative talking heads.
That being said I definitely sympathize with women and I understand that they have to do something to get help.
MAGA is a promotional tour for lesbianism and sex toys. Toxic masculinity does not attract women and never did.
53% of white women voted for Trump, and they aren’t going to join 4B. “Men” didn’t elect Trump, a slight majority of America did. When you point a finger, three are pointing back…
22% of Americans voted for Trump. 78% did not. I can tell you I voted and was offered to answer none of those questions from that site. So I’m going to say none of them represent all of the voters if you don’t actually ask all of the voters.
Just for the sake of more information: 337m Percentage over 18 ~78% That makes about 262m voters possible. 74m vote for Trump makes 28-29% of possible votes in 2024 81m votes for Biden in 2020, population was around 331m then. About 31-32% of the possibilible votes.
Point being, people need to vote. Making voting easier makes it possible to ensure you get a more complete tally of what people want in a democracy. People shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to say they won’t be in town, and will be working or w.e else to convince someone that a mail in ballot is wanted.
Should have a request a ballot button online as well. Why mail a form in to have the forms sent to you. Gets rid of some waste there too.Uhh… 335 million Americans, 260 million voting age Americans. With 63% turnout.
If you’re sceptical about exit polls you could always look up how they’re conducted…
22% of Americans voted for Trump. 78% did not.
and what, 40% of those didn’t vote at all? How many people here voted for kamala 20%? 21%? Man you aren’t very good at statistics.
That data was irrelevant to the premise. I could also have listed how many men, women, and chariots voted, but it really doesn’t do anything more than show that if there is a 2 party system, it would be nice to have the winner near 50%. Id like to see everyone vote.
so why did you even bring up the data lmao? Just make the argument without it.
I’d also like to see more people vote, but i think we’re probably our own biggest obstacle here lmao.
deleted by creator
People want to vote. Give them a candidate and party worth voting for.
Abstaining from a broken system is a protest in itself. How else would we know how broken the system was if people weren’t allowed to withhold their vote from all candidates.
I’m not saying to force everyone to vote. But if mandatory voting was a thing I’d say put a new candidates opinion in, and if it gets over 50% of the popular vote, all new candidates required would be an interesting change. Probably has holes, but what the hell, I’ll try anything rather than this 2 party money fueled government we have now
There’s abstaining and there’s not being bothered to vote
If the object is to send the message that the current options aren’t good enough at least in the UK we vote for parties other than the main two (green and reform for example)
People can write in a name. That’s a protest vote, and one that should be fine in a mandatory voting system as seen in literally all the places it is.
A good candidate would be a great idea to help deal with apathy from a difficult to vote in system but making it easier would also be a huge step up.
Both things are needed and I wish could be done in any order. But not voting at all is definitely the goal of one side more than the other.
deleted by creator
Looks like I triggered you. I’m sure all those white women who voted Trump want to be abused, battered, and raped by all the Fuentes incels.
What is wrong with you? No I decided my comment wouldn’t be well received and decided to delete it.
It was a comment about men driving bi women into my lesbian arms
Nothing. You do you with your comments. I do me. Though not with sex toys. 🤷♂️
Is manly man == toxic masculinity ?
No, and the fact that we have to explain this every time someone talks about it is why I hate the phrase “toxic masculinity”
“Toxic masculinity” doesn’t mean all masculinity is toxic any more than “rotten fruit” means all fruit is rotten
no. Toxic masculinity is just being a shitty person, simple as.
Here’s a 30 minute introduction by hbomberguy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8dfiDeJeDU
No, only when they’re dicks about it.
Get back to me when you have methods to test, data collection from a large sample size, and positive results all published in a peer reviewed medical journal.
So MGOW for women.
It’s just more social media posturing. Making a spectacle out of something people have been doing out of necessity.
Look at me, I’ve turned isolation and alienation into a consumer fetish! Subscribe and learn all the amazing new techniques to commodify your labor and spend your wages. Compete to become the highest ranked lonely person!
Yeah, I don’t think this is any kind of broad movement. Might be a good excuse to turn a guy down without making him feel it’s about him.
🤣 lmao. Mgtow for women - exactly.
(very obviously, but people keep covering this like it’s a real thing so…)
You get 100% or even like, 60% of women in on this, yeah. Things will change real quick. I’d hope for the better.
If you get like 5-10% of liberal women doing this, which is by far the most that I’d believe, what’s going to happen is the corresponding 5-10% of men get sexually frustrated. Then they’ll go online and get caught up in all the incel->alt-right pipelines that already exist today, and men will swing further right.
If we want a movement like this to work it needs to 1. Not punish people who are already on our side and 2. Provide a better pipeline than the alt-right already has for channeling sexual frustration into action.
So cool, interesting idea, I wish it was workable but remember that a majority of women who voted voted for Trump. Even if men didn’t exist he would have won.
Oh, and no knock on anyone doing this for their own safety. That’s entirely reasonable. I just don’t expect and you shouldn’t expect it to have a positive political impact.
So … to shower other progressives with love so pure it makes the incels want to join the movement? I honestly think love’s the way to go. Leave the hate for the far right, and show the world the beauty that caring and kindness can achieve.
The problem is that for many women, sex always runs the risk of pregnancy, and they are actively making it extremely dangerous for us to be pregnant. I can’t get a hysterectomy because insurance won’t cover it, but I’m not ready to give up on kids yet either. Sure my husband can get a vasectomy but the risk is still there.
I support the 4b movement in theory but when I tried to join I was told I couldn’t, because I’m married to a man. Nevermind that he’s also a feminist and willing to go without sex for 4 years because he is so scared of losing me to a pregnancy related complication. I was told I can be an ally, and when I took issue with being benched in the fight for my own rights (by people who are not in charge of the movement or the interpretation of its goals,) two different people jumped down my throat.
I bowed out before the argument could escalate, but I can see now how even with the best intentions this movement may further divide women, and the men and non-binary folks who support them. Ideally the 4b’s would be like a protest “menu” of actions you can take to drive the point home. Yes, even to the good men who don’t deserve to be “punished.” Because it’s not a punishment. It’s us saying okay, either you don’t respect us or you’re just not willing to fight for us unless things are uncomfortable for you, so let’s make them uncomfortable for you. No more free labor, physical or emotional. No more customer service voice. No more explaining things that you can figure out on your own. No cooking or cleaning unless it’s for us. Oh you usually change all the diapers? How nice. Now you can do that, and bathtime, make breakfast and dinner, pack lunches, plan birthday parties, buy all the Christmas gifts, host and cook Thanksgiving dinner, do the dishes, keep the house organized and pleasant to live in… you get the drill.
If you’re already the one who does these things in your relationship, good for you! But most adult men don’t, not because they’re bad people but because they weren’t socialized to be people pleasing servants and/or sex objects like most women have been.
I’m in support of just a general women’s strike, but that’s going to look different for everyone.
I support the 4b movement in theory but when I tried to join I was told I couldn’t, because I’m married to a man.
This is why, when I mention 4B in more general contexts I also talk about “birthstriking”. My partner supports 4B as an ally but isn’t a participant because she isn’t going to leave me to make a statement. I also consider myself to be an ally of the movement, even though I’m a hetero man in a relationship with a woman. I’m a loudmouth far left / socialist. And I’ve also had a vasectomy to at least keep that 4th “B” out of the equation.
We live in a blue stronghold state that protects women’s rights, but if things get clamped down here we may decide to take additional precautions.
Sounds a lot like us, and that’s what I’ve been doing when mentioning it to others. My husband is also getting a vasectomy, and we’re coming to terms with being older parents. We were getting ready to try after years of health issues finally calmed down. Then Roe was repealed, then the election happened. Now we’ll be in our 40’s when this presidency [hopefully] ends and it’s safe enough to be pregnant again. C’est la vie.
But also; Burn the patriarchy.
Thanks for being an ally!
The problem is that for many women, sex always runs the risk of pregnancy, and they are actively making it extremely dangerous for us to be pregnant.
so then don’t have sex because it’s not economically or financially tenable. Not because “men are the scum of the earth”
There’s nothing wrong with a principled opinion, there’s everything wrong with a pointed attack founded on shaky grounds.
The left really fucking sucks at rhetoric, that’s one thing i’ve noticed.
She clearly said the risk of pregnancy was due to policy decisions, not bad men. She obviously adores her husband and he adores her. One of the points is that even happily married couples who should be able to have sex can’t have sex because the medical risk is too great because of decisions made by a government and not medical professionals and their patients.
They sound like people that would like to have children one day. But if the medical care isn’t available they are gambling on o will they get: 1 - a healthy baby and two alive healthy parents 2 - a baby and a grieving dad (wife dead) 3 - only a grieving husband (wife and baby dead) 4 - no baby, grieving parents, and a wife with possible lifetime disability, and/or infertility 5 - a severely disabled baby that the parents get to watch suffer for days and weeks or longer before it dies of something we already know is incompatible with life.
The rest of it is trying to figure out how to support other women, through 4B or however possible, that are in other situations from her own.
Who said men are the scum of the earth? Nothing in my comment was about that and if you’re talking about the original 4b movement I think I made it pretty clear that I’m not on board with how it’s being interpreted or approached by the groups of women I’ve seen discussing it post-election.
But even leaving this response is in defiance of 4b, which I’m still choosing to participate in on my own terms, so it will be my last. I don’t know why you’re intent on blaming imaginary women for your hurt feelings, but it’s not a good faith argument. It shouldn’t be this difficult for men to figure out why the 4b movement appeals to women (and the men and non binary folks who support them.)
I don’t know why you’re intent on blaming imaginary women for your hurt feelings
im not, i just have grievances with people not wording and articulating things correctly.
To be clear, i’ve already said i have no problem with like 95% of the post, if not all of it, my problem is specifically with how people word things. Arguably if we’re reading into this deeply my post is actually a satire of the problem at hand here, but that’s rather silly and nobody gives a fuck about clever satire.
Shrug. I understand if women have had it with things.
Though like you said, I think it makes sense for the message if they actually opt to be even MORE sexually active, but only active with men they’ve pre-screened, politically speaking. I know this was already a trend in general, but they should broadcast it even more: maga jerks can sleep alone.
No. You don’t get to blame women for men getting sexually frustrated. Stop doing that. It was never OK and will never be OK.
What?
Actions have effects and reactions. I think the same sort of thing would happen if that 10% of women just didn’t exist instead of becoming intentionally partnerless for 4b.
I’m not saying it’s women’s fault. I’m not saying that this is the good or right thing to do on the part of men. I’m saying that this movement is flawed because it would punish the wrong people and because it would push those people’s politics in the wrong direction.
I feel like you can do exactly that when the women we’re talking about actively attempt to get men sexually frustrated
Like, that’s the goal of this movement, no matter how Lemmy users try to co-opt it as something else. If you’re avoiding sex with men as a preventative protective measure, more power to you
but women get to blame men the other way around? Or are we not blaming anybody and i’m just not following.
I don’t keep up with this shit lol.
However this is going to have that effect Regardless of our opinion it will put a few more men towards alt right.
These women’s response is totally logical but will have the opposite effect.
As a straight white male, I support this movement.
Same.
O don’t know what should be done about us. I hate that my race and gender the worst things on the planetet.
Ah yes, nothing like a radical movement built on double standards.
They complain they are not respected, but they discriminate against LGBT themself.wait, what double standards? Is this from some terf bullshit or something?
Yes terf is one thing, but they also discriminate other LGBT, and their radical totalitarian approach also discriminate against those that actually support women’s rights. They discriminate against ALL men.
So they are very much part of the problem they complain about.If your country is banning abortion and restricting contraceptives, it’s not transphobic to avoid sex and intimate relationships with folk who could impregnate you.
Please just take a moment to think it through.
If you like somebody with opposed genitalia to yours and your country has banned abortion and restricted contraception- it is really not respectful (or sane!) to put one of your lives on the line for PiV sex with them.
And just so we are completely clear about this: Trans men are men and trans women are women. Everyone should get to decide for themselves who they do and do not sleep with, and they should respect their potential partners wishes either way.
it’s not transphobic to avoid sex
Who the fuck ever claimed that?
Talk about a straw man argument.Okay, I hope you understand why this is wrong to say, right?
- not all intimate relationships involve sex, but even if
- many trans women are sterile. be it from orchiectomy or full-on bottom surgery, but even if not
- many (if not most) trans women are uninterested in or even repulsed to be the penetrating partner during sex, if they are even capable of it
There is a definitive point to be made to avoid penis-in-vagina sex to protect oneself. There is also a certain lysistratite point to denying men, who as a group are predominantly responsible for denying women bodily and social autonomy including reproductive and contraceptive rights, the pleasure of a relationship or sex in general.
But the only reason I see why lesbian relationships, and that includes trans women, should be under scrutiny as well, is bigotry.
I think you’re seeing bigotry where there was none intended. I was trying to make my language as clear as possible and obviously failed.
Honestly, talking isn’t my strong suit, nor is trying to explain things to people looking to fault me at every turn.
I could try and explain my point to you again about avoiding the possibility of pregnancy if your life is quite literally on the line, but I doubt it will change anything about how you read me.
For what it’s worth, I am a queer afab who has had more than a few close relationships, and plenty of friendships, with both trans women and trans men, and have been an ally since I got into feminism as a young teen.
don’t worry, I fully believe that you meant no harm. I think we’re both pretty much in agreement that it is a very reasonable stance for people who can get pregnant to not have sex with people that can get them pregnant. in our current society and political climate that is basic self protection.
where I think we need to be more careful is when it comes to demands of the 4b movement, because that goes beyond individual protection towards political demands. No sex and no children are part of the self protection when it comes to bodily autonomy, but no dating and no marriage are political in nature. A woman might still decide to not have sex nor children, even without the political aspirations of 4b, but still find a male partner to date or marry. Because men, while as a group the main cause of gender inequality, are also not a monolith, and there are many who share the goals of feminism and bodily autonomy.
The 4b movement is a statement then, a boycott of men as a group, if you will. And it is unequivocally wrong to include trans women in that group. Trans women also suffer under patriarchy, maybe in other ways than cis women, but not any less. The question of bodily autonomy is just as much a concern for trans- as it is for cis women (and trans men, in that regard).
I know it’s a bit more complicated than that, as (from what I’ve read) some parts of the movement forswear all relationships and sexual encounters, even WLW relationships, and ask others to do the same. Maybe that’s because queer issues are not as prominent in South Korea, so lesbians and bi/pan women aren’t taken into consideration as much in the movement. In that case, I see that as a problem as well. But if WLW relationships are accepted in the movement, then it isn’t okay to exclude trans women in general.
Of course, no women is obligated to want to date trans women, or any other woman for that matter. And obviously everyone should prioritize their own safety, and if that means no sex with pre-op trans women, or, if sex is integral for your love life, not even dating trans women, then that is also perfectly reasonable. But those must be individual considerations, not broad generalizations. And no one should be condemned for their choice, or lack of choice, in partner.
And that is not even going into how enbies and transmasc people factor in to all this. But I’ve rambled for long enough, I hope I didn’t come across as too preachy. We’re on the same side here, I’m pretty sure. I’ve just seen to many feminist narratives co-opted by hateful people to not be super careful when it comes these topics, so I wanted to nip any opportunity for mischaracterization in the bud. Sorry if that sounded like I was attacking you, in particular. It might even be that the trans angle on the whole movement was exaggerated by biased wikipedia editors, as others have discussed in this thread. If so, sorry again for making this a bigger deal than it is. Have a nice day c:
ah, okay. so you’re just dumb. It’s not discriminatory to boycott men, it’s a protest. And even if you’re a Nice Guy ™, you can still knock someone up, maybe she doesn’t want to have a baby, maybe she wants an abortion. guess what, men have said that she’s not allowed to. If this gets policies changed, I’m here for it. Also, if someone doesn’t want to have sex with you, so what? that’s what hands are for.
I guess it won’t make much of a difference for you, one way or the other…
You’re not wrong. I have the least to lose, but I don’t want my daughter, sister, aunts or my women friends to be in danger in any way.
I’ll fight for them, throw hands, molotovs and bullets if I have to.
Throwing the bullets is not very effective.
it’s better if you can use a firing pin to strike the primer first, i give you that
It can be effective when you say, “the next one is coming faster.”
You’re not wrong.
I know I’m not
Vote for hate. Get no love.
deleted by creator
Is there some underlying assertion here that woman enjoy sex less than dudes? Or that sex is some kind of favor to men on the part of women without mutual enjoyment? Not having sex with someone is pretty easy if that other person is a shitty person. Otherwise I think both genders enjoy genuine intimacy and physical contact by someone they enjoy being around.
Wait so the idea is do not sleep with any men? Even men who support your views and rights? This just seems like it would radicalize more incels or generate more sexism. Like the average person who did everything they could is going to go on a date and be told “I’m not have sex until the government is fixed” which would make me say “ok, well, hit me up in 4 years.”
The idea isn’t for women who are already in relationships with partners who support women’s rights. The idea is more, for single women, to refuse to start any relationship at all right now. Which honestly, in an era where basic women’s healthcare is under attack, maybe starting a relationship right now isn’t the best idea. Will your women’s rights-supporting boyfriend agree to become abstinent when the birth control you’re using is taken off the market due to conservatives? Or will they want to move to the pull-out method or just accept the risk of being pregnant?
If you’re a single woman, honestly, right now, maybe staying single through these next four years isn’t a bad idea. It has nothing to do with the actions or beliefs of a potential partner, and everything with the fact that being a woman in any straight sexual relationship when conservatives are ascendant simply has a lot of unavoidable risks with it. The religious crazies in power believe that the only veto a woman deserves over being pregnant is the choice to have sex or not. And they seek to take away any way for women to prevent getting pregnant besides not having sex. These Christian nationalists, who were just elected, believe that the only choice women have should be pregnancy risk or abstinence.
You need to have a reality check here. The United States federal government, and the majority of state governments, will be telling every woman of reproductive age, “be abstinent or risk pregnancy. Any other tool to prevent pregnancy is morally wrong.”
The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before marriage. The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before they’re ready to become a mothers. The people soon to be in charge of the government literally believe that the only just use of sex is pregnancy. And they rule accordingly.
In what universe would you expect this to not result in a complete collapse of pre-marital sexual opportunities for straight men? It’s not about punishing men. It’s not that you do or do not have the right views or beliefs, or that you are a good or bad person. It’s simply that for women, in this world that is being created, having sex before marriage simply isn’t safe.
Sexual liberation was possible only due to the availability of effective contraception, birth control, and abortion. If you turn the contraceptive landscape back a century, sexual norms will have to return there as well. You are NOT going to have a world where there’s no access to contraceptives where women are still perfectly happy being in sexual relationships before marriage.
Men, I hope you’re ready to put a ring on it. Otherwise, you ain’t gettin’ any. Sorry, you wanted this world; you voted for it.
Sorry, you wanted this world; you voted for it.
You seem to be unaware or are forgetting that the majority of white women wanted it too. The exit poll stats show the majority of people across the board in about every demographic “wanted this world”; it was a massive defeat for the vestiges of the American political left.
The Trump campaign successfully set up their media machine to equate every environmental protection, women’s autonomy protection, labor protection, and re-enfranchisement policy proposal of the working class to a talking point of a screeching radical feminist harpy cartoon character that’s “bent on destroying the patriarchy, churches, and America”.
The DNC handwaved the concerns of the working class away again to fellate the billionaire and corporate donors, the “moderate” republicans, and the social justice warriors simultaneously, thinking that would work somehow.
The blame lies on the us if we let the DNC establishment keep their jobs in the next round of primaries.
So this is where we are now? All men wanted this? All men voted for this?
What next level bs is that. I did not vote for this. And if this is the blanket us vs. them that women are espousing then sexism is only going to get much worse. I did not vote for this, but people like you are starting a gender war for no reason. You are breeding sexism.
I need a reality check? The irony. You need to understand that a majority of women voted for this and not all men did. Women like you seem so ready to hate these days. If women keep attacking anyone and everyone because of what a small section of that group did they’ll have no allies very soon.
But sure, encourage all women to not be in a relationship. Encourage another form of isolation for women who may find great happiness in having a partner.
So much resentment and vile in your response. You’re so ready to have a war to fight, you don’t much care who it’s against. How much your approach to problems lines up with MAGA is uncanny.
So this is where we are now? All men wanted this? All men voted for this?
It’s not about punishment. It’s about practicality given the circumstances.
I did not vote for this either, but it would be foolish to not acknowledge that sex will become far riskier for women if they do not have access to abortion and contraceptives.
The preceding commenter’s response wasn’t vile or hateful. It was a very matter-of-fact presentation of the situation that we (as a society) are facing.
“Sorry, you wanted this world, you voted for it”
That is very toxic. Maybe women voted for this and many men didn’t. My point is this kind of talk does nothing but create more sexism. Yes sex is riskier, yes I can understand abstinence, but what I can’t understand is villainizing all men. We can’t ask why young men are turning out hateful if we constantly treat them like the enemy.
How much your mindset lines up with MAGA is uncanny
How so?
You encourage an us vs them mindset by doing things like lumping an entire groups of people together and say they all do XYZ.
All you can think about is men. That’s just sad. Please try to look around more. The point is that this is about women protecting themselves, not about how you voted or feel.
Nope, sorry, I mentioned how this can impact women’s mental health too. I genuinely care but you can’t see past me disagreeing with you. Sorry you’re so defensive that it prevents us from having an adult discussion. We tried.
Will your women’s rights-supporting boyfriend agree to become abstinent when the birth control you’re using is taken off the market due to conservatives?
I will bet you $100 that zero birth control products get taken off the market because of conservatives. This is so far out there it’s nuts.
Do you really think this is going to happen?
They have attacks planned on all forms of contraception. Not just surgical abortion, but the abortion pills as well. And they’re also attacking general contraception. They’re already trying to get mifepristone. Louisiana and Wyoming have already banned it. And in Project 2025, they discuss wanting to make it easier for employers to not cover birth control products in their insurance plans.
Mifepristone has already been banned in two states. Guess you owe me $100.
I mean, it isnt like it is the job of women to sleep with men in order to prevent them from becoming incels, that would be essentially like victim blaming at a population level. Im also not really sure that it would do much: most women arent going to do this, so the impact on average men’s dating prospects is much smaller than the total lack of dating for any women that actually go through with it, but nobody is seriously suggesting that doing so will turn them into something akin to incels.
I dont expect this would really help much, beyond the obvious personal benefit that not becoming pregnant in a state that is hostile to women’s reproductive health would have, but incels were going to hate and complain about women regardless of the sexual habits of those women, so I dont see it really making things worse in that regard either.
I can’t believe someone, here on Lemmy, is actually defending women punishing all men because some are trash. It would be like if white women said they weren’t going to date black men because some black men are rapist. They are free to do what they want, but it’s racist as fuck. Just like this is misandrist as fuck.
It’s not punishment; it’s risk control. You don’t get to have post-sexual liberation values with pre-sexual liberation healthcare.
We live in a culture where premarital sex, at least outside of conservative religious communities, is tolerated and even encouraged. Yet this is a recent thing. Up until the mid-twentieth century, it was extremely shameful for a woman to have sex before marriage. It would be as shameful and socially fraught as, IDK, a kid coming out as trans to their parents today.
You, I am assuming, were born sometime well after the 1960s. You were born in the post women’s liberation world. So it is easy to forget that the world you are used to living in is actually a historical anomaly. The idea of it being normal and acceptable for women to have sex before marriage? That is a historical oddity in Western culture.
This social structure is only possible BECAUSE of contraceptives and abortion. And radical conservatives just came in to power that are doing everything they can to restrict these things. These radical conservatives believe sex before marriage is wrong, and they seek to restrict any access to abortion or contraception.
If these things are restricted, what choice do women have but to return to pre-women’s liberation sexual norms? Are you going to start a relationship with a woman and just happily agree to be abstinent, or have zero PIV sex, while conservatives retain power? Or, are you going to pressure her into trying something riskier, like the pull-out method? Are both of you capable of holding to your agreement not to be intimate, even when both really want it, even when you’re both drunk?
The simple truth is that in this environment, the government is trying to take away every option available to women to prevent or terminate pregnancy. The government is thus making sex itself incredibly risky for women. If you ask the government, they will tell you, “pregnancy or abstinence, the choice is yours.”
What choice do women have but to choose abstinence?
Sorry guys. You wanted Victorian access to abortion and contraception? You wanted Victorian views on masculinity and femininity? Well, with that comes Victorian female frigidity and sexual propriety. In the future you want, casual sex before marriage isn’t a thing. Better hope you roll the dice on the sexual compatibility with your spouse, as you certainly aren’t getting any before marriage. And even then, only when you’re actively trying to have kids.
Sex is for reproduction, not pleasure. If you have a problem with that, you’re a sexual deviant. This is the world men voted for; this is the world they’ll get. You want it? Better put a ring on it.
This is the world men voted for
No, I didn’t vote for it. That’s the whole point. Most men who voted did. That’s on them, not me. Any punishment directed at me because I’m a male and other males did bad things is blatant misandry: blaming me for my sex.
Sure, if women are not having sex because they are afraid of getting pregnant and they don’t have access to abortion, that makes sense. But this is putting words in the protester’s mouths in an attempt to justify the blatant misandry. They aren’t doing this because they are afraid of getting pregnant, they are doing it because some men did something bad (although, it was certainly not just men) and, because they are misandrists, they are punishing all men.
A woman refusing to have sex with you is a punishment? It seems that your mindset is based on the concept that you are owed sex at a baseline and a refusal to have sex with you is a violation. It’s that kind of mindset that keeps many men from being actual allies to women’s liberation. Coercion and rape are not the same thing, but they share a neighborhood in the realm of indecent and cruel things that humans do to each other, and walking around with the idea that one is owed sex in any capacity increases the likelihood that one would resort to coercion or worse when rejected or denied.
While I absolutely agree that no one owes anyone sex, and if women want to protest like this it’s entirely their right.
However, I think you’re using this fact to miss the point. Even the woman quoted in the article is saying that men wants sex, but don’t respect them, so she won’t have sex with men. The 4b all have to do with not doing something they might have otherwise done with men.
It’s clearly meant to be a punishment, a retaliation for the loss of their rights.
It’s not about me saying women owe sex to men, I never said this or implied this. It’s me pointing out what these protests are about.
I am currently married, but in my previous experiences, the majority of male partners I have had both claimed to be feminist allies and used heavy coercion (and in one case outright rape) to get what they wanted. My husband won a lot of points with me by accepting a “no” without further argument thereby respecting my choices and my consent. I try to trust other humans at baseline, but in my experience, young men are frequently horny and not overly concerned with the long term consequences of getting what they want in the short term. I have not been given strong evidence that young American men can really be trusted to protect women from unintended pregnancies if those women don’t have access to contraception or abortion.
the thing is though, its not really punishing all men. Not dating someone, or not having sex with that someone, is not a punishment. Like, I’m a guy myself, and I also happen to be asexual. Do you think that I am in some way punishing everyone around me by not dating them, because I dont happen to be attracted to them? Functional relationships cant really be forced, so if something leads someone to not feel safe dating, they’re not obligated to force themselves to go through with it when they dont feel up to it, just because not engaging denies other people the chance to be with them. I just see this as the state of the country leading some women to not feel safe, or just not enjoy, romantic and sexual relationships as much, because the real and perceived risk to engaging in them has increased. And if they dont feel up to it, and so decide not to do it, and then meet up with some other women that feel the same way and assign a label to it, why does that suddenly make them misandrist?
Yes, you are absolutely right that no one is entitled to anything. If they don’t feel like having sex, that’s their right and no one can force them otherwise. If they want to do this protest, more power to them.
But they know they have this over young men, and they are all but outright stating that the point of this is to punish young men for the shift towards the right. And they are targeting all men, due to the actions and beliefs of some. Ignoring this is just trying to justify the misandry, it doesn’t make it go away.
The way Ive have been thinking about this is to work backwards: I dont think that you can have a situation where someone is morally obligated to date someone (at least when dating vs not dating is the limit of the situation. Obviously, if you add more negative things, like a trolley problem where it was somehow the only way to save people, that would be another matter, but nobody has set up such a thing here), because a forced relationship is quite harmful to the person so forced.
I suspect that you agree with that, since you acknowledge that “nobody is entitled to anything”. I also think one has a moral obligation to not act in a bigoted manner (this feels pretty much self evident to me, since bigotry harms people). Third, I consider misandry a form of bigotry, pretty much by definition, since I would define that term as “bigotry against men”.
If we consider some other case that would be clearly and obviously misandry, such as, say, someone firing an employee specifically because they were a man, in a case where the man himself had done nothing to warrant the firing, and everyone involved knew this and just didnt want a man, it would seem clear that the ethical thing to do is to not fire the guy. Depending on how the law in the place in question worked, it may or may not be a legal right, but morally speaking, I would say that since the motivation is bigotry and there is no other reason to justify the firing, theres a moral obligation not to do it.
But, if we apply that same reasoning to the situation of a woman deciding to swear off dating because they want to punish men for many of them shifting to the right, and we assume that this is misandry, we would then have to say that, since misandry is bigotry and doing bigoted things is wrong, the “not dating” must be wrong, and therefore that there is a moral obligation to date. But that is a conclusion that, as I said in the beginning, I dont think makes sense. And since it seems like it should follow from adding the assumption that a woman swearing off dating men is misandry, I think I have to conclude that that assumption must be wrong. I cant necessarily explain how it is wrong, just that I think that it leads to a nonsense conclusion if it is correct, and so cannot be even if it appears that it should be on first glance.
Say to some male employee, “Hey, at the end of the quarter, I am planning on giving you a raise.” Now, I’m not obligated to give them that raise, as I’m well within my power to change my mind. I think it’s safe to say we both agree on this.
However, some other guy says to me “go fuck yourself” and so when the end of the quarter comes around I say to the male employee, “Sorry, but I’m not giving you that raise because some other guy told me to fuck myself.”
Would you argue that I haven’t punished that guy, simply because whether to give you the raise is completely up to me? To me, this is clearly a punishment: they were going to get something, but I decided to not do so in retaliation to how I was treated.
To be more accurate, your analogy should actually read something like this:
Origionally you give raises to your employees based on performance.
Then one of them says “fuck you”.
After that point giving a raise to any of them has a 5% chance of killing you, per raise.
How many raises do you now give?
There is no retaliation or punishing involved at all. Just a healthy respect for the consequences, however unlikely.
This is a different situation though, for a few reasons: first, I actually don’t agree, once you’ve promised the raises, people will reasonably make plans in anticipation of them, so I do think you have an obligation (maybe not a legal one, but that isn’t what we’re talking about) to give them once you’ve made those promises. I don’t recall the women involved in any of this 4b stuff promising a relationship to any man or group of men, it isn’t like they “were going to get it” already.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the stakes for business and personal relationships are different. We don’t generally require continuing and revokable consent for giving someone money, the state can for example issue someone a monetary fine, and that’s considered an acceptable consequence for many things. If you promise to buy something, and they then come to deliver it and you decide “actually I’ve changed my mind, keep it, I’m not buying it from you anymore”, the other person can in a number of circumstances sue you for breaking your agreement.
However, if the state were to mandate that someone enter into a relationship, or have sex with someone, as a penalty for something, that would be considered a human rights abuse where the monetary fine would not, and if you were to tell someone that you found some type of flower super romantic, and then they came over with those flowers to give, but you then told them you weren’t feeling a connection, no reasonable person would take their side if they tried to sue you to force you into a romantic relationship with them.
To put it a simpler way, if you promise someone a raise, the default state once that promise is made is getting the raise, as in professional matters, honoring promises and agreements is fundamental, revoking it later is therefore taking something from them, because you’re changing that default state to something worse for them. Personal relations do not have the same dynamic. It is well known and understood that people sometimes change their minds on romantic and sexual relationships, or sometimes just aren’t in the mood anymore. Promises don’t carry the same weight, when there exists an absolute right to revoke consent at any point and have things not continue. As such, the default state is “not having a relationship/encounter with a particular person”, right up until it happens. If the person in question never decides to enter into that relationship, because they have decided that they don’t want to even deal with having one at all, they haven’t taken anything from whoever else might have been interested in them, because they haven’t changed that state. There was never a reason for a guy to expect one of these 4b women would date them in the first place, and no reason to expect that they wouldn’t one day leave again if they did.
Women trying to protect themselves against misogyny =/= misandry. Calling it misandry is the same principle as when the ruling class opposes equal rights for others by calling it oppression against them.
Women having autonomy over their bodies means they can choose whether to have sex or not. Period. For you to call that choice punishment against you is to say that you have some kind of right to or power over their bodies. I’m already seeing this “your body, my choice” shit going around now that trump won, and it’s disgusting and horrifying.
Women trying to protect themselves against misogyny =/= misandry.
While I absolutely 100% agree, I don’t see how “punishing all men regardless of their guilt” is “defending themselves against misogyny.” It’s just being misandrists, which is my point.
Women having autonomy over their bodies means they can choose whether to have sex or not.
As I said “If they don’t feel like having sex, that’s their right and no one can force them otherwise.” We 100% agree on this point.
For you to call that choice punishment against you is to say that you have some kind of right to or power over their bodies.
I don’t believe this, so I’m sorry it’s simply untrue. The whole point of this is a protest to stop giving men what they want. And that’s their right, I’m not saying they don’t have that right. What I’m saying is that it’s very clearly meant as a punishment, and if that punishment is being directed at a person simply for being a man, regardless of their guilt, that’s blatant misandry.
I’m already seeing this “your body, my choice” shit going around now that trump won, and it’s disgusting and horrifying.
I agree. They are absolutely huge pieces of shit who women should shun. But shunning allies because “they are men too” is pretty shitty as well.
The American women are getting some inspiration for this idea from South Korea, but that doesn’t mean what happens here will be like what’s happening there. The cultures are quite different. I’d say wait and see what actually happens with this in the US, if anything even does, before getting overly worried about it.
Never once said it was their job to sleep with men. I’m saying this will cause more sexism and isolation. What does this accomplish? Think of a woman wanting a connection, going on a date, and telling him she won’t sleep with him. That’s not a relationship most would be interested in. This will result in her isolating herself.
Thinking that an entire group of women refusing to be in relationships because of what some men did is just hurting them and snubbing people who are allies. I am all for women’s rights, I even got a vasectomy so my partner feels more comfortable and worries less. But if I were dating and ran into people like this it would put a bad taste in my mouth. I just don’t see the point.
I mean, arent they swearing off dating as well though, not just sex? You wouldnt even get that situation of going on a date and then telling the guy that if they arent even going on dates in the first place.
I do actually agree that this might not be the most mentally healthy reaction, at least for straight women that actually would otherwise want to date men, but I dont really think that it is really the fault of the women themselves, I think that it is the kind of angry or fearful reaction to being put in a dangerous situation that, while it might not really help, is at least understandable and not some failing on the women’s part. The problem, in my mind, is the situation that leads them to be this upset in the first place.
I get they might still date, but at some point a relationship becomes physical. Having a barrier to that can very negatively impact the relationship. There are certain people who are fine with low/no sex, but I don’t believe that’s the norm.
I can understand this reaction, but as you said this is not the best approach for mental health. I don’t see it as a failing, I see it as a very reactionary move that wasn’t fully thought out.
I agree on your last point for sure, the situation is fucked and I can’t blame anyone for being scared or angry about it.
Ah yes, the obvious personal benefit of not getting pregnant. Of course.
Removed by mod
This is what it feels like. I would get not engaging with Republicans, but just not in general seems like a way to isolate you and hurt your cause.
Woman is not made for you to have sex. Women is person.
Yes, and person treating people this way will eventually result in the opposite of what that person wants. Actions have consequences.
Imagine being bothered because some people don’t want to sleep with you (?) is everything ok? What’s going on? I honestly don’t understand what your problem is at all. If all humans in the world suddenly became celibate that’s their thing. Like who are you? Sexy police?
I love the immediate switch to ad hominem.
“Obviously nobody wants to sleep with you! You must be mentally unwell”
Do you think it’s healthy to tell (and pressure) women to not be relationships until laws are changed?
If I were interested in weakening a nation, counseling the youth to walk away from relationships and turning the genders against each other would be a pretty decent tactic.
I actually didn’t imply that you are unlovable in any way but ok. I asked if you are ok because this seems to effect you a lot. Your reaction is not normal. You are making up problems in your head. Do you really think every women you meet will look at you in disgust and refuse to talk to you because of how you look? There are real problems out there. Liiiike bodily autonomy. Wich these brave young women are drawing attention to.
Have you made up this whole story in your head? You’re just saying random things like they’re fact. Are you MAGA, because that’s kinda their thing.
I’m all for body autonomy. The irony is I’m calling out a risk to women’s mental health and you are getting upset for some weird reason. Then you randomly talk about my looks? You don’t even know what I look like.
Do you need help? Are you in crisis?
I’m not the other commenter. I have a long term term partner and we’re happy together so I don’t really care what any future woman does or doesn’t do with me.
I just don’t think this 4B thing will even ever happen, I think discussing it like it’s real is stupid and will only impact the terminally online and it’s likely just more Russian psy-ops designed to turn one group of Americans against another. We already have a whole legion of incel young men, maybe we need to brew up a batch of hateful young women incels to further fuck our society up.
Which these brave young women are drawing attention to by sacrificing their own to this movement?
This isn’t about me, and even if it was, I’m married. We have sex lol.
I pointed out that this could cause mental stress on women. It could cause isolation for some, and then you make all these wild assumptions. Are those projections? Are you ok?
“women deciding what to do with THEIR bodies will eventually face the opposite (further misogyny) and that’s THEIR fault, actually”
sexism apologia? upvoted on my fediverse? it’s actually not a fucking surprise. this place is a toxic masculine hellhole
for the record, in no case is it acceptable to blame the self-preserving actions of a minority for radicalizing the majority. that is the language of abuse and oppression.
What no? Wow, jumping right to rape. You know what the whole point of this is right? It’s an act of protest. A protest has a purpose. This one is for women to be treated better. But if, in that act of protest to get more support, you villainize an entire gender then you’re probably ending with a net negative addition to your cause.
The fact that you didn’t realize I was talking about the purpose of this whole thing, and just jumped right to being sexist and shit is just top tier basement troll move. Think more, react less.
thanks, i have corrected my misreading in an edit. apologies for any undue hard feelings.
You literally just made shit up there. Did you notice yourself doing that?
This is dumb
I get but i feel bad for anyone falling into this mind trap
