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.
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.
Source: Pretty much every episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (and, of course, real life)
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
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…
If you don’t want children, the risk is the same.
Am I missing something or is 4B essentially MGTOW for women?
Just viewed through a more positive lens specifically because it’s women.
It actually has historic precedent. Women have been using lack of sex and companionship with men for lots of issues they championed from suffrage to even early prohibition.
It’s not just a counter culture of issues with dating but a protest. I think that makes it a bit different really.
MGTOW is mostly men who can’t get laid. These women could get laid. Not the same.
MGTOW is a right wing misogynistic movement. 4B isn’t hating anyone like MGTOW is
So, we have a group of men looking at the state of the world (and in particular law/society on gender issues) and deciding they are just going to opt out of the whole relationships/marriage/children thing and swear off women. Is there any world in which that would not be described as misogynistic by default? The swearing off itself is seen as misogyny before you go even a step further.
But this proves my point - that it’s women swearing off men rather than the reverse causes it to be viewed more positively.
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…
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.
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)
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
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
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.
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
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.
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 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.
It’s a reference to an old Greek comedy called Lysistrata from 411 B.C. The gag was, in order to end the Peloponnesian war (460 B.C.), women colluded to refuse sex until the men come to their senses and stop the war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
Sex strikes have been used more recently as well to end gang conflicts, wars, and other violence.
It’s a protest of how in today’s society, even if sex has exactly the same pro’s, the cons fall much more heavily on women.
They don’t say it’s not without personal sacrifice.
deleted by creator
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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, 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 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 on 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You literally just made shit up there. Did you notice yourself doing that?
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.
To men who are actively sleeping with women, or who want to, now is a great time to consider a vasectomy. It’s cheap and safe and greatly reduces the risk of undesirable outcomes.
Just remember that reversing the procedure is not a guarantee, should you think you will change your mind later. Other options are more flexible and also protect from things other than pregnancy, which are also undesirable outcomes.
Other options are more flexible and also protect from things other than pregnancy, which are also undesirable outcomes.
Are you talking about condoms? Because those aren’t nearly as effective. Hardly comparable to a vasectomy. I recommend everyone who wants to have sex with someone who could get pregnant to get a vaseceomy.
I’ve got an even better one. Do something more interesting, go make friends. Sex is boring and just something evolution tries to force upon us. Well ofc it’ll work eventually but that’s not the point. 😂
Hey man you being asexual is cool and all but most people aren’t so can you not
Not all men are evil… There are many of us out there fighting for women’s rights. Sorry that so many feel they need to resort to this, I guess I get it though.
Honestly not sure it is going to be that many of them at least after an amount of time has passed
Entirely up to people who they want to sleep with and personally would rather not date someone who paints an entire gender with the same brush anyway
Conservatives don’t want women to sleep around and have casual sex. So they make abortion illegal. In protest women stop having sex. Conservatives get exactly the outcome they wanted.
The Korean 4B movement is TERF on top.
conservative leadership want women to be popping out babies as fast as they can, without regards to their own well being. That is all the top cares about. The global population growth is slowing, many places, and demographics, have either plateaued, or are in decline. This is bad news for capitalism. Like it is fundamental that both the cheap labor underclass, and the consumer class, continue to expand.
While there is anti-sexual free expression talk in the movement, once you get into the inter-personal level, especially of the followers, they only want that freedom to be the choice of men. They want to fuck as many women as possible, they want women to fuck them at their demand, no matter the relationship status, without any plans to continue with that woman in the future. They want to both hit up tinder, or the bar, or whatever, see a woman, go up to them, and get casual sex from them, without being turned down, and the barefoot, and pregnant, home maker, wife, in the house.
The bottom line is, they want women to be anything they want, when they want, without resistance. They want to OWN them, own them all. They yearn for the years of a “surplus population”, withering in work houses, and the ability to own other people, for labor, for sex, for anything they want. If something they do does not violate the ethics of “I can, and will, exercise power, over others”, then they don’t see it as hypocrisy. Whatever morals, or ethics, they claim, mean nothing, unless their proclamations means to gain, and exercise, power over others.
Except within the USA, declining population growth could be reversed immediately simply by returning to our pre-1924 immigration laws (i.e. the Ellis Island era) that between 1890 - 1924 allowed the USA to have some of the largest economic growth it ever has done. Yet “conservatives” (better termed “regressives” or “reactionaries”) these days want to do the exact opposite, out of xenophobia.
TL;DR
They want people to be “cheap”.
Hard to have value when there is plenty to go around and you can just take what you want for free.
White liberals women are going volcel until the Conservatives change their ways!
I’m going ahead and this dismissing this out of hand. It’s not a thing outside of there curiosity articles and niche circles that have sort of read a bout the SCUM-manifest and so on.
volcel
Is that supposed to be vocal?
And spreading the story of it is a good starting point for getting it outside of smaller niches. Cause this has been a tool for thousands of years that has pretty ok success rate.
I really can’t emphasize this enough. Look into all the nuances of gun ownership. Nothing crazy, just a handgun. There’s a lot to it to be safe and responsible, and it is not for everyone, but look into it. That’s all. Then decide. Looking into it also involves knowing your local law and what could happen to you if you fire it. Look into pepper spray, local and state law, but honestly, backsplash happens. Inhaling a lungful of that shit while trying to flee isn’t going to help. Tazers. Again, local regulation, state regulation, sometimes they are different.
4b does not stop “your body, my choice” individuals claiming to be men.
I understand the your body my choice rhetoric is incredibly volatile, but it doesnt automatically mean its coming from a substantial group of men across the country.
A news article about something doesnt mean its widespread or representative of men in general.
Ofc not, neither are men who rape, and yet here we are. In addition, here we are back to Reddit (that didn’t take long) with “not all men” in regard to anything potentially dangerous for women where men are involved, thus minimizing the greater problem in the name of stating something we all know as truth already. No one is talking about you or any man not involved in this behavior, why would you think they are? They’re only talking about men who say “your body, my choice”. By inserting yourself into that narrative regarding the bad “your body, my choice” men narrative, you derail it to talk about yourself instead of the problem at hand. If you’re not that guy, not saying or typing that phrase in earnest, then no one is referencing you.
I don’t even think rapists are men, they’re more akin to rabid dogs, but saying dogs in that context would just confuse the topic.
I’ve been celibate for a long time now. This wont affect me at all while clearly emasculating those that I loath. So go for it ladies but be aware they look at you like you are a object. So be aware that some of them think its their right to defile you.
Wow, thanks for letting us know, we had no idea! /s
The more you know and knowing is half the battle. /s
Not procreating has always been a natural phenomenon in collapsing species. We just have more words about it because we think, therefore we think we’re special.
ok so. I like the concept, it’s a good way to move.
HOWEVER there is one big problem. We can’t use this emotionally inflammatory rhetoric, because it’s what the right thrives on. You can quote me on this later, but i guarantee you if the right sees this they will call it “sexual eugenics” or something stupid.
literally all you have to do to make this a fully marketable and unbeatable position is to treat it like econ 101. Social interaction is most often based on simple contractual obligations. Those in question here, have failed, and thus, it is no longer contractually valid.
“the market for sex is simply untenable culturally, and in terms of healthcare, completely fucked. I no longer plan on having casual sex anytime soon” and suddenly it’s like 50x more reasonable and palatable than the previous statement.
and before anybody tells me “oh well it’s good for attention and marketing” yeah, if you want to spread the entirely wrong message. just look at the bear vs man debacle that happened a while ago.
although you have to be careful because the right will probably just tell you that this is the point, at least the religious part of it, in which case being inflammatory isn’t going to do shit anyway. Tough times we live in now, i guess.Americans value the speed and simplicity of a message over accuracy or nuance.
Both parties used that to their advantage to post out of context clips, something that I would consider manipulative at best.
We can’t use this emotionally inflammatory rhetoric, because it’s what the right thrives on.
The right will make up its own inflammatory fantasies if there are none, just like it makes up stories about immigrants eating pets. It happens either way. Stop letting them control your strategies, it’s EXTREMELY UNWISE.
