777
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

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."

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 36 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] NeilBru@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Sorry, you wanted this world; you voted for it.

You seem to be unaware or are forgetting that the majority of white women wanted it too. The exit poll stats show the majority of people across the board in about every demographic "wanted this world"; it was a massive defeat for the vestiges of the American political left.

The Trump campaign successfully set up their media machine to equate every environmental protection, women's autonomy protection, labor protection, and re-enfranchisement policy proposal of the working class to a talking point of a screeching radical feminist harpy cartoon character that's "bent on destroying the patriarchy, churches, and America".

The DNC handwaved the concerns of the working class away again to fellate the billionaire and corporate donors, the "moderate" republicans, and the social justice warriors simultaneously, thinking that would work somehow.

The blame lies on the us if we let the DNC establishment keep their jobs in the next round of primaries.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 2 months ago

So this is where we are now? All men wanted this? All men voted for this?

It's not about punishment. It's about practicality given the circumstances.

I did not vote for this either, but it would be foolish to not acknowledge that sex will become far riskier for women if they do not have access to abortion and contraceptives.

The preceding commenter's response wasn't vile or hateful. It was a very matter-of-fact presentation of the situation that we (as a society) are facing.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"Sorry, you wanted this world, you voted for it"

That is very toxic. Maybe women voted for this and many men didn't. My point is this kind of talk does nothing but create more sexism. Yes sex is riskier, yes I can understand abstinence, but what I can't understand is villainizing all men. We can't ask why young men are turning out hateful if we constantly treat them like the enemy.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 30 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 7 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] JayObey711@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

Woman is not made for you to have sex. Women is person.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Yes, and person treating people this way will eventually result in the opposite of what that person wants. Actions have consequences.

[-] JayObey711@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

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?

[-] nomous@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] JayObey711@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] nomous@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

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?

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

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?

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

“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.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 1 points 2 months ago

thanks, i have corrected my misreading in an edit. apologies for any undue hard feelings.

this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
777 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19858 readers
2864 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS