776
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

Trump is such a loser that even when he wins, it makes every woman in the world stop being horny.

[-] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

I'm 4B with qualifiers: No sex with anyone on the right, no dating anyone on the right, no marriage with anyone on the right, and no babies for America.

[-] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Ha! In a century or two it will be the Taliban v the Mormons for supremacy of what's left of earth.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 27 points 2 days ago

Am I missing something or is 4B essentially MGTOW for women?

Just viewed through a more positive lens specifically because it's women.

[-] bigmaple9@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 days ago

MGTOW is mostly men who can't get laid. These women could get laid. Not the same.

[-] Beebabe@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

It’s more a reaction to the policies that make relationships and pregnancy dangerous. Why settle down when you could be one of the 1/5 natural miscarriages and potentially go into septic shock or blow a fallopian tube?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Emerald@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

MGTOW is a right wing misogynistic movement. 4B isn't hating anyone like MGTOW is

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 day ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] moakley@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

MGTOW is an anti-feminist movement, which means it's based in the idea that women shouldn't be equal to men.

This movement is based in the idea that women should be equal to men. So it's different.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago

an anti-feminist movement, which means it’s based in the idea that women shouldn’t be equal to men.

Ever hear a saying to the effect of liking Christianity if it weren't for the the Christians ruining it? As in that the ideals are fine on paper and in theory (love thy neighbor, care for the less fortunate, etc, etc), but in practice the adherents don't really do them as such?

The same applies to feminism - in theory the idea is gender equality, but in practice it often isn't.

I've been around long enough to remember when the standard feminist response to question about what should be done about male victims of abuse or sexual assault done by women was to dismiss them as not existing.

I remember a man opening the first men's DV shelter in Canada (Men's Alternative Safe Housing) and being denied funding because it wasn't a women's shelter until he could no longer keep it afloat from private donations and out of pocket funds so he had to close it and hanged himself in the garage. He left a left a four-page suicide note, condemning the government for failing to recognize male victims of domestic abuse and wrote that that he hoped his death would bring more awareness to the issue of male abuse. I wonder what ideology permeates domestic abuse services, again?

I remember big and loud feminist protests at the University of Toronto against checks notes a talk about suicide in men given by a former member of the New York board of the National Organization For Women (who he left when they opposed more equal child custody). If you've ever seen the "Big Red" memes with the red haired angry shouty feminist, they were inspired by a real person who was at this protest shouting a Jezebel article at the crowd and calling anyone who tried to engage with her "fuckface". The group hosting the talk (CAFE) would go on to create another men's shelter which still exists and is to my knowledge the only one in Canada.

Speaking of Jezebel, I remember them writing an article casually joking about the times they've been violent with their male significant others, including in one case hitting her boyfriend because he was worried he might have cancer.

I remember listening to a recording of a radio show on Soundcloud 9 years ago where Mary Koss (prominent sexual assault researcher - nearly all research on campus sexual assault in the US descends from her work, she's the source of that 1-in-4 number that gets thrown around sometimes, and she coined the term "date rape" among others) was asked about male victims of female perpetrators and her response was to ask how that would even happen, how could a woman make a man have sex by force, threat of force or by incapacitating him? (I'd give you an exact quote but SoundCloud isn't playing nice ATM, not sure if it's the site or my adblocker- either way it's close to her phrasing but I'm going from memory, the episode is Male Rape from You Were Here on WERS) and when given an example of a man being drugged into compliance declared that that wasn't rape, it was just "unwanted contact." You see, "rape" needs to be reserved for girls and women because men don't feel violation or shame like ~~real people~~ women do.

Or when KY wanted to pass a law requiring family court judges operate from a rebuttable presumption of equal custody in contested child custody cases - that is that both parents having equal custody is what's best for the child unless there's a good reason for it to be otherwise. Out comes the feminist opposition and trying to align any supporters of it with domestic abusers.

And I could keep going like this for a while if I really wanted to, but probably 9/10 readers stopped several paragraphs ago.

[-] moakley@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

I don't see how any of that applies to what I said.

If you want to focus on the worst proponents of these ideologies, please let's take a closer look at MGTOW and see if it's a reaction to misandry or if it's just straight-up misogyny. Because I promise you it's straight-up misogyny.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 hours ago

My point was there was lots of space in which to be anti-feminist which doesn't mean "based in the idea that women shouldn’t be equal to men", because defining feminism as the idea than men and women should be equal and thus anti-feminism as the opposite of that is grossly ignoring the difference between dictionary definitions and practice.

It's like saying someone is anti-Christian means that they hate their neighbors and oppose charity and community, and just ignoring all the things done by people placing themselves under that label allegedly in the name of that label.

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 10 points 2 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 8 points 1 day ago

Date who you want. Do what you think is best. But it's weird that abortion is so often posited as a gender question when race is a better predictor. If white women stop voting for Republicans all of our rights would be safe.

Talk to your mothers and aunts, the rest of us can't outvote them yet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world 55 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 43 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] 4lan@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Hardcore Trump fans will still fuck and procreate. I don't consider sex abstinence a viable long-term strategy.

load more comments (7 replies)

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.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 9 points 2 days ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] uxia@midwest.social 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

i think there is very real fear women have to take into account whenever considering getting involved with any man. you don't really know if he is a shitty person until you have invested some time into him, and that has its own costs. the risk of getting impregnated, ditched, and stuck with the bill is just too big. these days.. even more so. i think this is a very natural outcome in the face of the rampant misogyny (in the case of S Korea) or revocation of reproductive rights (USA)

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
776 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3422 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS