481
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
481 points (93.2% liked)
politics
19088 readers
1585 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.