739
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
739 points (92.9% liked)
politics
19145 readers
1665 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.
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.
"I have a black friend who really won me over by being well spoken and educated. However, my previous experience has been that black men are all thugs and hoodlums. And I've not been given strong evidence that they can be trusted to protect property rights."
This is quite literally what you sound like. I'm sorry for the way some men have treated you, but everyone has an excuse that they believe justifies their prejudice. It doesn't make it any less prejudicial.
If a woman is abstaining from sex because she is afraid of the consequences of getting pregnant, I fully support that and that is not at all misandry. But this is ostentatiously about a protest against the alleged oppressors, which is based solely on sex. You just think the misandry is justified. I don't. Just like all prejudice.
They're not alleged oppressors. Women's rights in this country have always been an uphill battle, and we were already quite a ways away from proper equity before the MAGA crowd and the republicans started rolling things back. Is the ACAB sentiment bigotry? Are BIPOC communities bigoted for being wary of white politics and actions?
There are two genders in this country: Cis-male, and political. If you're not cis-male, you're at a disadvantage out of the gate, and it is far from unreasonable for women or people in general to be wary and suspicious when it comes to their safety. I have no misandrist views, but I am keenly aware of my disadvantages and vulnerabilities when it comes to interactions with cis-men, particularly in romantic or sexual contexts.
I voted for Harris, the whole point of the protest is that men overwhelmingly voted for trump, so they should protest all men. I'm absolutely just an alleged oppressor here, not actually one, and I'm being looped in solely because of my sex.
You have every right to be weary about anyone you want. But this isn't just "being weary" it's putting everyone of a certain sex into a group and shutting them out. It's akin to the people who say "the only people who have stolen from me are black, so I won't hire any black people." It's just racism/misandry, regardless of whether or not the suspicions have roots in reality.
Refusing to engage in sex or relationships is not "shutting people out", it's exercising bodily and personal autonomy. This issue is a potato in a world of apples and oranges and cannot be compared meaningfully to other issues. Is a lesbian the equivalent of a racist for being entirely uninterested in men? Is an asexual person a bigot because they refuse to have sex with anyone?
The assertions you are making are a moot point if you value consent at all. If women do not consent to be in relationships or have sex, that needs to be the end of the discussion without coercing them to change their minds by calling them bigots for their refusal to consent.
We both agree that they 100% have the right to do this. You don't need to convince me of that. The thing is that these two things are not mutually exclusive; they are using the right to bodily and personal autonomy to shut people out. No amount of spin will change this. It's the whole point of the protest, or at least ostensibly so.
I've been very clear about my position: they are blaming all men because of the actions of some men. That's the misandry. Trying to equate this to (paraphrased) "you must thing lesbians are misandrists too!" is either just a disingenuous spin, or you aren't trying to understand.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just pointing out that their blatant misandry is misandry.
If you are so intent upon discussion of this matter as being an issue of misandry, I certainly hope that you are as staunchly against misogyny and intend to do far more than just voting for Kamala to protect women in this country.
That is my main concern. Men will not suffer irreparable harm from the consequences of the coming Trump administration anywhere near the same way women will. I will assume that you will consider this to be misandrist as well, but I have little regard for the concerns and complaints of men in this matter because for women, this is quite literally a matter of life and death.
Trying to harp on the "misandry" part of this is not productive towards the goal of the protest which is the protection of women's rights and lives against the coming onslaught.
Tu quoque fallacy.
Well, you'd be wrong because I wholeheartedly agree.
I'm not trying to harp on anything. I called out some misandry, and then a bunch of people have jumped in to defend that prejudice. All I've done is defend my position. You act like I'm following 4B people around making sure to shout misandry any chance I get.
Yours is a voice in a chorus in the response to this article on Lemmy. The majority of the comments on this article and similar ones are calling out the "misandry" and shouting down commenters who disagree with them. The predominant sentiment appears to be men interpreting this as an indiscriminate punishment and expressing that they are personally aggrieved and offended by this protest because they're "one of the good ones".
Right now, if you want to be "one of the good ones", you need to be turning around and fighting the men who are expressing entitlement in the face of this protest as well as the men who started out from the position of "your body, my choice". Simply stating that you are an ally is not enough. As a man, you have the privileged position of being able to speak to other men on a more level playing field to try to convince them of the gravity of the impending attack on women's rights without being accused of being "emotional", "hysterical", or "misandrist" just for participating in the conversation.
Again with the tu quoque. Does your abandonment of the point to focus solely on ignorantly attacking what you imagine I do in real life mean you realize that I made a good point? I don't disagree with what you say here, but, fuck, to spend this whole time shitting on men and making up the worst about me, and then turn around and demand I act in a certain way takes a lot of fucking nerve. If you want men to be allies, I suggest stop defending when people act like they are all guilty for Trump being elected.
This is tied into the problem that the left has with a lot of protests and campaigns. The real/best answers are always nuanced, but if you try to fit that into a meme, or in a slogan, or in a soundbyte, it just ends up being garbled gibberish. The "Not All Men" argument obstinately ignores the fact that having a nuanced discussion through a megaphone at a protest just does not work. Of course it is not all men, but it is a large enough proportion to be seriously worried about.
This is similar to BIPOC fighting back against the KKK and all the similar organizations and being told they're bigoted and wrong because it's not every white person that's a racist. Of course it's not that every white person is a racist, and of course it's not that every man is a monster, but to grab attention and make a statement, you have to trim the nuance out and pick the most important piece out or else your protest just gets lost in the noise.
Protests are a very truncated form of communication and there are many people here on Lemmy that are pointedly forgetting or ignoring that fact in their outrage and offense in response to this protest.
What I'm reading here is that you knew I was right all along, but it makes a better political slogan to pretend that it makes sense. That I can agree with.
I would assume that you would understand that this kind of protest works better when applied without exception, even when there is acknowledgement that there are exceptions among the people impacted. Hopefully, those men who are allies in this would be understanding of the fact that if these women made exceptions all over the place, the power of the protest would be significantly diminished. It does require a reciprocal sacrifice on the part of men that support women in this endeavor, but that should not be thought of as an offensive or undue burden.
Considering plenty of women voted for trump, and this protest is only directed at men, it seems there is a very large exception being made there.
If they said "none of the 4bs with any trump supporter regardless of sex," that would be done without exception. But that's not what is happening. It's all men, regardless of their support for Trump. They are excepting guilty people, while including innocent people.
And, sure, if I supported their misandric protest, I should be expected to have a reciprocal sacrifice. However, considering their protest is irrationally targeting me because of my sex, I'm not really hot on "doing my part" for something I vehemently disagree with.
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.
I've yet to see anyone say they are doing this because they are afraid of dying if they get pregnant. The article quotes someone who says it's about respect, and all of the other things I've read are about fighting the patriarchy and men being controlling.
I think you want it to be justifiable, and are trying to figure how to spin it so it is.
How it's presented has zero impact on the actual result. That is to say 'Risk Abatement'.
Some women might intend this as punishment or revenge on an individual or society at large, but that is also irrelevant.
It stems from a conscious ~or~ unconscious understanding that the risks have changed. And so must their decisions.
Sure. But my whole point is that this is misandry. So if the intent is to punish all men because you blame all men for this, the fact that it minimizes some risk has no bearing on that point.
What? It's absolutely relevant. Like if I punch a black guy because they are black that's racist. If I punch a black guy because he attacked me and I was defending myself that's not racist. The outcome doesn't change the intent here.
Whether the misandry is conscious or unconscious doesn't make a difference. Or do we think that our unconscious racial biases aren't biases?
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.
I was very careful with my words, and very intentionally avoided the word "promise" because I knew it would be spun this way, even though I would argue that even if one promises to do something, they still have the right to say no (i.e. Is a woman who promises to have sex with a man required to have sex with that man? Or does she still maintain the right to change her mind?)
So can we retry again without putting the word "promise" in my mouth? Am I punishing that person by deciding to not give them a raise as a retaliation of the person saying "fuck you" to me? Or is it because the raise was never theirs, it's impossible for me to punish them by taking it away?
I am saying that if what is to be given and then not is money, then it is punishment, but if it is sex, it is not, because these things are fundamentally different in a way that makes it reasonable to take one back without justification but not the other
I actually just saw this elsewhere in the thread, and it made me think of a good point here that might get you to see my position:
White women voted in favor of Trump. What if I said "That's it, I'm not having sex with white women at all anymore." Racist or no?
Honestly, unsure. I dont think that you have a particular obligation to have sex with any sort of person, and I do think that you have an obligation (not necessarily a legal obligation, but a "being a decent person" one) to not be racist. It isnt exactly unusual for a person to prefer their partner belong to a specific category (for example, a gay man is likely to refuse to consider being with a woman, but I dont think they would be a misogynist for that). That being said, there isnt a particular difference between all white women and any other sort of women that would make for much of a reason to do this beyond just hating white women in particular, whereas for a woman, there is a notable difference between a man and, for those who would be attracted to them as well, a woman, as far as partners goes, because with a man, there exists a possibility of pregnancy, which could be dangerous in the current state of the country.
But your whole point relied on the "promise" aspect of it. If there was no promise of it, only the likelihood of it happening, then it falls under the same thing that there is no crime by withholding it. I agree that sex and money are different, as they are legally held to different standards. But that's a distinction without a meaning in the context of the current discussion.
Let me try it this way.
I suggest that I'm going to have sex with someone. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I'm not going to have sex with them. By your logic, this is not punishment.
I suggest that I'm going to give someone money. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I'm not going to give them that money. By your logic, this is punishment.
This seems blatantly contradictory, even if we maintain that withholding sex is less a punishment. It's still the same thing - withholding something that would likely have been given had there been no reason to retaliate - the only difference is that the state can't do anything about the punishment when it comes to sex.
I think I see the problem with your logic here. This whole 4B movement is about women taking back control over their bodies, especially in an upcoming era that's allowing misogynistic men to be more vocal and accepted in society.
It has nothing to do with punishment. Claiming that women are "retaliating against" or "punishing" men is making the topic about men instead of what it's really about - women's rights.
No women is required to date a man, or sleep with a man, or even associate with men. Period. 4B is just a way for women to protect themselves from the incoming onslaught of openly misogynistic men that Trump's presidency is justifying.
Will women dump their current partners and/or spouses to join this movement? Doubtful, unless there are already some red flags there that they're just now picking up. But that's inconsequential because again, this movement isn't about men.
As men, it's so easy for us live our lives without fear. Almost no one tries to rape and/or murder us because they thought we were hot. We hardly ever have stalkers. So we don't realize just how prevalent that scenario is in a woman's life. Even my own wife, who I always felt was tougher than me, is still terrified to go out by herself at night because she's already been victim to sexual harassment and assault, multiple times. That's not something I've ever had to deal with in my own life.
And the crazy things is, women really don't know who they're getting involved with until it's too late. Sure, to us men it seems like most men are fine and harmless. But that's because we're not the sexual target of most men. A dude who seems like a fine gentleman might have some fucked-up desires or views on women's autonomy behind closed doors, and they can be really good at pretending to be a decent human being in public. It's only once a woman is alone behind those closed doors that they might truly learn the awful plans a guy has for her, and at that point, it might be too late to get out without danger to life or limb. Or worse, surviving a situation like that and then having no one believe you in court, so you can't prevent that person from stalking you.
Preventing that scenario in the first place is the whole point of 4B. Women always live in fear of dating men because it's always a gamble. Truly kind and respectful men who understand boundaries and never push them are extremely rare. Even "decent" men still think with their dicks from time to time and push boundaries, hoping they can convince their partner to cave and give them what they want. With the surge of misogynists coming out of the woodwork and being openly threatening to women, it risks spreading acceptance of the mindset that women don't get bodily autonomy around men. So abstaining from men entirely is the safest thing they can do right now. It's too risky trying to figure out if someone is truly a gentleman or if they're just putting on a mask to get laid.
Basically, women are saying they're trying to protect their lives and you're trying to turn the discussion toward men's rights instead. The topic isn't about men. And treating a women's decision to retain bodily autonomy like it's a reward or punishment for guys is honestly super misogynistic in itself. No man is entitled to a women's body; it is not punishment for a woman to decide not to associate with a man.
The article makes it clear that this is retaliation against all men for voting against their rights. Even though there were plenty of men that voted with them, and plenty of women who voted against them. Trump won the majority of white women. They are making it about men, yet I'm not allowed to point out making it about all men doesn't make sense and is misandry?
If they didnt want it to be a topic about men, they shouldn't have made it about all when not all men are guilty, and plenty of women are.
I dont really see it as a contradiction, tbh, as I dont really see sex as the same category of "thing" as something like money, and I think the difference between them is so fundamental as to be meaningful here. I'll admit, I dont really have personal experience with how this stuff goes down, as I said before, Im asexual myself, but it was my understanding that it wasnt that unusual for a person who was interested in sex to change their mind if something resulted in a change in their mood that killed the vibe, and disagreeable actions by the other person could easily enough be the thing to do that. I'd bring up again though, that these 4b people havent, as far as I can see, said that they would have sex with any man in particular before, just that they for sure dont want to now, so regardless of your feeling on if this is contradictory, the "I suggest that I'm going to have sex with someone" is missing anyway.
FYI, I've seen another article where a woman claimed to be dumping her boyfriend. But, it's important to note, that she was saying that because he is a republican. So that makes more sense to punish a guilty party.
But, either way, good discussion. I feel like I'm repeating myself, and I bet you feel the same way. Appreciate it staying civil and I apologize if I came off as an asshole at anytime. Totally uncalled for with someone who has entertained this discussion as kindly as you have.
honestly, you dont really come off as one to me, so I wouldnt worry, you come off more as someone who might have slightly different definitions or ideas regarding ethics, which can be mutually frustrating to argue around, but not the same as being malicious
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I'm not worried about it as I doubt it is something that will take off, and even if it does the chances of it affecting an old happily married man like myself are ridiculously low.
Keep in mind that this all comes from a top level comment talking about how it's bad to target all men regardless of their guilt, simply because they are men, and then someone defending that it's okay to target all men, regardless of their guilt. I was basing my position off what I read in the linked article, some other articles I've come across on the topic, and what was said in this thread.
While spite might be a partial motivator in this, left-wing progressive feminist ally sperm can cause a pregnancy just as well as right-wing fascist misogynist sperm can. When part of the motivation is to protect oneself from an unwanted pregnancy, it doesn't matter who the sperm is coming from, and men that feel that they are being wronged by this should take it as an impetus to fight back against the people who are touting this whole "your body, my choice" thing.
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.