Opposition to transgender rights movements
The 4B movement predominantly sees transgender rights movements as incompatible with feminism.[10] Developing out of transgender-exclusionary radical feminism (T.E.R.F.), the movement holds to gender-critical views on sex and gender,[10] supporting gender essentialism and the exclusion of transgender women from feminist spaces.[12][14] Advocates of 4B are opposed to what they call “gender ideology” (젠더론x) and promote excluding transgender women from feminist spaces, as well as romantic or sexual relationships with them (트젠 안사요).[10] In South Korea, members of the 4B have created gatherings exclusively for what they call “biological females” and “real women”.[10]
yikes
The changelog shows that this section has been added sometime between Oct 30 (last version before Nov) and today. Some possibilities:
- disinformation to discourage the movement. I find this most likely given that “Trans” did not appear anywhere in the original article until this was politicized in the US. The updates between versions inserted anti-trans language in multiple places throughout the article.
- Or, if this is actually part of the SK movement, then I have not heard anything TERF related for the US movement. The US movement probably should rename or otherwise distinguish itself from that.
Either way, I do not think this should be a point to discredit the movement. It at minimum does not seem related to the US movement and IMO is likely some clever FUD attempt to undermine the movement before it gets traction.
Also none of the sources linked there mention anything about trans women.
Ffs, you can do 4b without being transphobic.
Just because some 4b assholes with a website have written a transphobic clause in their manifesto, doesn’t mean they speak for all 4b followers.
Stop shitting all over this movement because you’ve found somebody in it with an awful take on an unrelated matter.
Not having sex or relationships with folk who can impregnate you is sensible when your country is about to ban abortion and restrict contraceptive access.
I had not heard of this movement before today. Forgive me if my first instinct is to read their Wikipedia, and be off-put by various descriptions of transphobic stances. I agree with the stated goals, and @[email protected] pointed out that the article might have been manipulated to paint them in a bad light.
If that’s the case, then I hope the article gets corrected with proper sources soon, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. But I don’t like that you’re insinuating that trans issues, and transphobia in particular, are unrelated to feminism.
I wish everyone earnestly resisting attempts to limit bodily autonomy strength and success in their endeavors.I’m not saying trans rights are unrelated to feminism.
I’m saying that transphobic rhetoric has been shoehorned into this cause and has nothing to do with abstaining from PiV sex for the safety and respect of ovulating people.
Also you may not be aware of how conservative South Korea is. There probably are more than a few transphobic 4b South Koreans as feminism as a movement is still newer there.
In ‘western’ countries, radical feminism (with all its flaws) was an integral part of the cultural/philosophical journey into the 3rd wave and intersectional feminism as we know it today.
It would be really nice if the gender critical terf bullshit could be skipped when other cultures journey into exploring feminism, but as conservative culture by definition has such deeply ingrained bigotry towards minorities, it might sadly just be inevitable.
I mean, we kind of act like the worst men speak for the entire gender. These people can choose to be 4B
And I am saying this as someone who thinks if the entire male population of the US dropped dead on Nov 4 the world would be a better place.
The 4B movement predominantly sees transgender rights movements as incompatible with feminism
Interesting, that his since been deleted from the Wikipedia article.
Really? I still see it, under “Beliefs”
Removed by mod
Found the TERF
Removed by mod
… women forcing their way into women only spaces is misogynist.
Smh. You’re not even denying that they’re women, you just don’t like them
Fuck off troll.
8 day old account lmao
Women hate women.
I highly doubt many people are doing this.
Media hyped bullshit.
But the internet told me a lot of people are doing it. But since you were the last statement I read, it is now my point of view until I stumble upon another comment.
Many people are doing this.
its getting a lot of press because it will upset a lot of dumbfucks
I’m sure that a few, very dedicated, women are doing this.
It’s unlikely to be widespread. Sex is one of the most powerful drives humans have. We generally have a terrible track record of trying to convince people to avoid or even delay sex. Even when people believe that their eternal soul is on the line they keep having sex. That’s exactly why all the “abstinence only” policies fails so spectacularly.
There are cases where voluntarily giving up something important has led to change. Hunger strikes are the prime example of this. They can have the affect of drawing attention to a matter and raising sympathy.
I disagree. The modern sexual revolution was only possible due to modern contraception and access to abortion. Did pre-maritial flings happen in the past? Of course. But casual sex was nothing like it is now. It was treated as the rare shameful exception. It was not the norm for people to openly date and publicly announce their sexual relationships for years prior to marriage. (Viewing from a Western perspective of course.)
So if you start taking away abortion and contraception? Why wouldn’t you expect sexual norms to return to their earlier state? Pregnancy is incredibly disruptive, dangerous, and expensive.
In Trump’s America, sex means pregnancy, and pregnancy means childbirth. In Trump’s America, a straight women does not have sex unless she is prepared to be a mother, and her partner is prepared to be a father.
Will flings still happen? Sure. I expect we’ll also see a commiserate rise in shotgun marriages.
I agree that 4B, as an organized movement, likely won’t have much direct impact. But the general attack on contraceptives and reproductive healthcare absolutely will see a rollback of the sexual attitudes that have developed in the post-1960s world. Sex just has a lot more consequences to it now than it used to. We’re going back to a world where you really can’t afford to have sex with someone unless you’re prepared to marry them and raise children together. Casual hookups on Tinder are not a practical thing in Trump’s America.
Sorry guys, you voted for this.
I find nothing wrong with this movement, but at the same time I almost feel like this movement is exactly what “government’s” may want. Less educated individuals having children means more uneducated voters in the long run.
Kind of like that scene in Idiocracy (2006).
I thought the idea of the US version was just to avoid republicans.
It’s not like women turned out in droves for Harris either. Who’s going to withhold from the women that dropped the ball?
You don’t need to. I’ve run the numbers elsewhere but if we assume 100% of your dating pool are women and 50%-ish are liberal, even if only half of them participate it’s going to put pressure on men very quickly if they don’t want to be alone.
Now we know those women aren’t spread equally so this movement isn’t going to be consistently effective everywhere. But in places like Texas, it would mean most of the major cities harm Republican men seeking relationships/sex.
And taken one step further, this creates a child shortage if done for long enough. Even just 10% of women deciding not to have kids will have a big effect. People worry about conservatives just having more kids but realistically they work lower end jobs and don’t have money for that. Imagine raising 3-4 kids in this economy, not many will do that.
People worry about conservatives just having more kids but realistically they work lower end jobs and don’t have money for that. Imagine raising 3-4 kids in this economy, not many will do that.
I suspect there are a lot of corpos voting red, especially once you get to the C-suite. I don’t think it does any favors to anyone to assume that Trump’s sweep was just the redneck vote.
I’ll expound a bit. Of course there are a portion but that portion of better off conservatives is relatively small. And affluence often doesn’t result in wanting more kids.
I think most people would agree that the average wage of a dem voter is significantly higher than that of a conservative voter even when adjusting for COL. A lot of their voters lack degrees and lack the financial situation to have a bunch of kids.
Also keep in mind that this stuff is kind of exponential right. If 10% of women don’t have kids, they’re probably on average not having about 2 kids. So you either need 10% of other women to have 2 kids or 20% of women to have 1 extra child. That’s a big ask for your average American of any political skew. If 10% of women participate, that means 1 in 4 people need to have an extra child. And the larger that portion of participating women becomes, the exponentially greater pressure it puts on other women who want to absorb that impact.
Keep in mind that even in a place like texas, in major cities liberal voters far outnumber conservatives. There are millions of us voting hoping that one day the people that don’t will finally register and give the state the changes it desperately needs.
It may look like we’re outnumbered. But the biggest problem we have by far nationwide is the amount of people that don’t vote. Conservatives are honestly outnumbered everywhere except in states like north and south Dakota that have a ton of land and low population.
The thing is, there are tons of incels already and if you think that will push them to be more liberal I have some bad news for you.
The point isn’t to isolate men and create more incels, the point is for women to stop tolerating behavior that is not worthy of rewarding with intimacy or relationship. Women shouldn’t put up with awful men that don’t care about their rights just because they’re worried that they will become even worse men.
The point isn’t necessarily that women get what they want politically either; it’s a reaction to the majority of men displaying a lack of shared interest in their partners health and wellbeing. Not to mention that most men never have to deal with the results of these elections, now they will.
This is eugenics propaganda. It is slightly hidden in a way of not using the blatant language of “superiority” and forcing it on people, but the base idea boils down to breeding traits such as higher intelligence into (or out of in this case) people like what is done (was attempted) with animals. This is eugenics. Please do not spread eugenics.
Eugenics does not work. There’s a lot of information on the topic, but here’s a 10-minute primer: https://youtu.be/kMBriCmiTu0
TL;DW Studies show genetics plays a very minor role in intelligence in humans with socioeconomic factors being the main driver. Eugenics may be able to breed certain traits in/out, but that results in the extreme detriment of others. Consider dog breeding and all the health issues breeds have who were bred for a handful of specific tasks/traits.
They are talking about education, not intelligence. Children of couples with higher education will usually have a better education too.
Honestly I think that only works if society keeps progressing in any form for a generational time scale. Women protecting themselves and enjoying the time left. Seems like a valid course of action as anything else.
What that would really mean is an erosion of the tax base and possibly a demographic crisis.
But I seriously doubt that the population of femcels is getting larger as much as it is getting louder and coping in a way that makes a good headline.
By definition, any woman choosing not to have sex due to state-imposed pregnancy risk is not a ‘femcel.’
When Idiocracy no longer is a comedy movie but an instruction manual…
Always thought that would happen with 1984, not with that movie.
This country is fucked. We can’t breed our way out of it, and trying is gross.
That’s why this form of protest is ineffective. I want to see what the ‘but gaza’ people think in a few months.
I feel like the only ones doing this are the perpetually online echochamber sorts. The female equivalent to the wannabe alpha male losers.
Most women living in reality, even the furthest left feminists aren’t doing this shit, at least not intentionally as part of some movement. This whole article is just propaganda and rage bait to get clicks and drive ad revenue.
I think it might be a bit like antinatalism, where a lot of people simply haven’t heard of it (or have heard stupid shit about it and discounted it), but have come to the same conclusions independently and just haven’t felt the need to seek out likeminded comunities or be vocal about it to others.
The only thing I can take a way from your comment is you are calling women who take control of their own bodies and are public about it are losers.
Your second paragraph might be partially correct, but still you are calling women who want to publicly fight to keep their human rights losers…
You are calling people who try to keep their rights losers.
Anything I can extrapolate outside that would be speculation, but you get where my thoughts are going regarding you.
Anyone dumping in an entire sex, race, religion into the same bucket IS a loser.
Women, just like men, should pick and chose mates they are attracted to and share values with. If that means it’ll naturally filter out magats, all the better.
But depriving yourself of human connections because an orange clown won an election is only hurting yourself. I guarantee you that Trump doesn’t give a shit who or if you date.
Maybe depriving your self of sex is entirely your decision, and not someone else’s. It sounds so gross to hear people wanting to control the sex life of other people, because I am unable to by any stretch of the imagination interpret someone being offended by other people not wanting to have sex with you in any other way.
I can only imagine, that a woman in the US, that are not allowed to end an unwanted pregnancy, and live under a government that actively floats that they would like to end contraceptives. So what happens is if you stick your penis (stop seething when you read this) inside of her, all her rights her mother had before in the same situation goes out the window.
Just a reminder, your unalienable rights do not include forcing someone to have Sex with you
I think you are arguing with people who are on your side about women’s rights but also think this form of protest isn’t a very effective one…I don’t know if you can see that so just wanted to mention it.
The 4B movement does have some issues with transphobia from what I’ve heard, so hopefully with more people joining, it’ll make it better.
I’m not aware of the history of this movement. Could you please provide some context? I want to push against reactionary undertones I might come across
First line describes it as gender critical… Then if you scroll down under the beliefs section is a section titled “Opposition to transgender rights movements”
I’m really hoping the American version of 4B stays far away from that.
Well that sucks, I somehow missed that, hopefully the fact that the women participating in the American version of 4B will likely be more left-leaning helps keeping the movement away from that hate
“some issues” is a bit of an understatement
Vote for hate. Get no love.
As a straight white male, I support this movement.
Same.
O don’t know what should be done about us. I hate that my race and gender the worst things on the planetet.
Ah yes, nothing like a radical movement built on double standards.
They complain they are not respected, but they discriminate against LGBT themself.wait, what double standards? Is this from some terf bullshit or something?
Yes terf is one thing, but they also discriminate other LGBT, and their radical totalitarian approach also discriminate against those that actually support women’s rights. They discriminate against ALL men.
So they are very much part of the problem they complain about.If your country is banning abortion and restricting contraceptives, it’s not transphobic to avoid sex and intimate relationships with folk who could impregnate you.
Please just take a moment to think it through.
If you like somebody with opposed genitalia to yours and your country has banned abortion and restricted contraception- it is really not respectful (or sane!) to put one of your lives on the line for PiV sex with them.
And just so we are completely clear about this: Trans men are men and trans women are women. Everyone should get to decide for themselves who they do and do not sleep with, and they should respect their potential partners wishes either way.
it’s not transphobic to avoid sex
Who the fuck ever claimed that?
Talk about a straw man argument.Okay, I hope you understand why this is wrong to say, right?
- not all intimate relationships involve sex, but even if
- many trans women are sterile. be it from orchiectomy or full-on bottom surgery, but even if not
- many (if not most) trans women are uninterested in or even repulsed to be the penetrating partner during sex, if they are even capable of it
There is a definitive point to be made to avoid penis-in-vagina sex to protect oneself. There is also a certain lysistratite point to denying men, who as a group are predominantly responsible for denying women bodily and social autonomy including reproductive and contraceptive rights, the pleasure of a relationship or sex in general.
But the only reason I see why lesbian relationships, and that includes trans women, should be under scrutiny as well, is bigotry.
ah, okay. so you’re just dumb. It’s not discriminatory to boycott men, it’s a protest. And even if you’re a Nice Guy ™, you can still knock someone up, maybe she doesn’t want to have a baby, maybe she wants an abortion. guess what, men have said that she’s not allowed to. If this gets policies changed, I’m here for it. Also, if someone doesn’t want to have sex with you, so what? that’s what hands are for.
I guess it won’t make much of a difference for you, one way or the other…
You’re not wrong. I have the least to lose, but I don’t want my daughter, sister, aunts or my women friends to be in danger in any way.
I’ll fight for them, throw hands, molotovs and bullets if I have to.
Throwing the bullets is not very effective.
it’s better if you can use a firing pin to strike the primer first, i give you that
It can be effective when you say, “the next one is coming faster.”
You’re not wrong.
I know I’m not
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is dumb
I get but i feel bad for anyone falling into this mind trap
So MGOW for women.
It’s just more social media posturing. Making a spectacle out of something people have been doing out of necessity.
Look at me, I’ve turned isolation and alienation into a consumer fetish! Subscribe and learn all the amazing new techniques to commodify your labor and spend your wages. Compete to become the highest ranked lonely person!
Yeah, I don’t think this is any kind of broad movement. Might be a good excuse to turn a guy down without making him feel it’s about him.
Ignoring every other part of this movement, the ‘no children’ bit is a question of safety.
Even where the laws aren’t dystopian nightmare shit, and you have a healthcare team on standby to provide the best care they can without needing to worry about legal fuckery, pregnancy and delivery can still kill you cuz that shit is insanely brutal.
Disallow that team from intervening when there’s a miscarriage or some other complication and the mortality rate skyrockets, as seen in red states post-Roe.
That’s about to be the whole country soon. Ladies, if you do get pregnant, have a plan, and a backup plan, and a backup-backup plan etc with where to go and what to do if shit even even starts to feel like it’s hitting the fan.
…also if you don’t already have a passport, now might be a good time.
If I were in your shoes, I’d be scheduling a hysterectomy ASAP. And remember your doc isn’t going to do a background check or anything, so if they start giving you the shit about “nooo you’re too young, you might regret it later!” just remember that your uterus is causing you 10/10 pain, and it makes it almost impossible to accomplish any normal tasks, and even starting to cause suicidal ideation; also you already have 4 kids with 3 dads and feel like you’ve lost control of your life, etc… probably not all at once or they’ll know you’re bullshitting, but the point is denying women’s healthcare is a problem that goes way beyond abortion, and if lying is what you need to do to receive care, then don’t hesitate to do it.
Good luck everyone. This situation is absolute shit.
Is it no sex for anti abortionists or for everyone? Can we still marry and have sex with pro choice good guys?
From what I understand, it’s not about abstaining from men because there aren’t any good men. It’s about abstaining to protect themselves when they live under an administration that denies them reproductive freedom.
Your level of adherence, like your body, is your choice.
The Korean 4B movement is for everyone. It probably makes more sense in Korea, but I’m not sure what the point of applying it in the US is.
The context in the USA is very different - getting pregnant is a massive risk for women and without even the ability to terminate for clinical reasons (otherwise the risk of successful intervention is jail) it is just unsafe to try
The Korean 4B movement is for everyone.
No it’s not, it excludes transgender (talk about double-standards) , and it’s a very radical movement. Absolutely not something that is for everyone.
It’s ironic they complain about men not supporting rights for women, and then they oppress a minority group themselves.I meant for everyone as in the 4Bs apply to all men, not just those of a certain political alignment.
🥛🤝🦆
(it’s odd that PBS is promoting this, as it is actually a terf movement)
terf
transgender-exclusionary radical feminism
From the article:
Young women don’t want to be intimate with men who don’t fight for women’s rights; it’s showing they don’t respect us.
The people complaining about intolerance are themselves intolerant.
I am VERY aware of the legitimacy of that argument. But the argument here is not to tolerate the intolerant, but to to9lerate the people that actually support you.
You are arguing a straw man.
Not from the article, and yet quite relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement#Opposition_to_transgender_rights_movements
People keep posting this around but the changelog indicates that’s a super recent alteration… and probably bad faith.
Wait till you learn about SERFs
Lmao some women can have all these things without a man in her life.
