I feel like this is probably pretty effective. I feel like it should be a thing.
E: see also https://beehaw.org/post/16953380 E2: https://19thnews.org/2024/11/4b-movement-south-korea-social-media-trump-presidency/
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
229 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
19 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
so, because punishing all women is bad, it’s a good idea to punish all men?
here’s an alternative: don’t fuck republicans… they’re the ones trying to control women.
It's not punishing anyone as much as asserting our bodily autonomy, but go off. Targeting Republicans means no pressure is applied to anyone else to change society. Not every woman will participate in the strike. The effects of it have to be wide reaching.
It's a widespread denial of the institutions behind gender relationships. Saying that the system is dangerous for women and refusing to participate in it.
oh look, zero chance that you’re actually trying to have a conversation… yaaay internet.
almost none will, but if they did, it’s not going to be republican women….
They could’ve been telling you to go off because the not all men argument is unnecessary and pedantic. Obviously it’s not all men, but it’s enough of them that nobody should have to specify only the misogynists, racists, rapists, etc.
It has always been bizarre to me that good people lump themselves in with them. You don’t have to be defensive! You can understand nuance!
the post i’m replying to says “ no __ with men”… 4 times… it’s silly to pretend that means only bad men….
there’s no nuance in that list….
blanket blaming MEN for everything is just as stupid as men acting like “all women are ___”.
i thought the whole trans and non-binary thing would’ve taught people that’s it’s not a genetic problem with men, but a cultural problem with toxic masculinity….
btw, women voted…. they could’ve all voted for feminist issues and anti-gop but they didn’t…. men AND women fucked this up for women AND men… we’re aaaaaaalllll fucked because of this stupid republicult, not because of a chromosome…
but, go ahead and waste your time with stupid projects, women love doing that!
(not all women, obviously… you understand nuance!)
Take a moment, a deep breath, some fresh clean air, and think about why you're putting so much energy into saying.. I dunno, all of the things that you're saying.
If this 4B thing were about liberating women from a literal slavery, if they falsly identified you as one of those nasty republicans, if they really did mean absolutely no men whatsoever: is it worth all of this anger you're feeling? Is your quabble with them over your own love life more important than their fight for freedom? Do you not agree that they should be free?
“deep breath” “all this anger you’re feeling” “quabble”
“do you not agree that they should be free”.
…
lol, pure trolling… not bad technique but a little over the top… you should try to actually get me angry before trying to act like i’m inferior for having emotions and not being a psychopath like you….
but, you do you….
If you're not upset by the 4B women, what are you doing, then?
Do you mean to tell me you're in here arguing about something you don't even believe in?
It's not a trick, man. Trump makes me angry. Dissidents to good-natured protest make me angry. Anti-intellectualism actually makes me really angry—I'm not shy about that.
it’s possible to say a thing without being upset or angry about it…
but yep, classic troll tactics “you’re so angry!” “i insist that you’re angry” “if you’re not angry, how could you possibly be responding to anything!?!?”
you’re very, very boring.
you lost me a loooong time ago, petrol_sniff_king
Last warning. Be(e) nice.
i am being nice
FYI, you're on Beehaw. Be(e) nice. I know times are crazy right now, I get it. But we still expect people to follow our rules here.
I’m a dude lmao didn’t mean to hurt your feelings
It's not just the men, it's the social rituals and expectations that accompany marriage, dating, sex, etc. People internalize those unwritten rules, even when they intellectually know it's bullshit. It's the path of least resistance.
Anyway, it's their choice: some men, all men, whatever. From your (or my) point of view as a man, some women just won't want to get with you, and they're not obligated to explain why. That's autonomy, and whining about it doesn't change the fact that they don't have to tell you their reasons. It's ultimately none of your business. They can opt in if and when they choose, and if they choose not to, get over it.
lol… nice try pretending like i’m arguing that
Its not punishing all men, its punishing conservative men.
4B doesnt neex to apply for leftist men
You really don't think guys won't lie to get laid?
Honestly it's really easy to suss out someone's political opinions if you just try a little bit
True, but apparently there a lot of white women who voted for Trump anyway. As usual, the rich and attractive ones will always get laid.
Well... They didn't say that. So you'll have to forgive people for thinking it applies to all men.
lol… sure….
They're not obligated to date men though, if they want to participate in 4B then I don't see what's wrong with that. They are allowed to assert their bodily autonomy, it's a form of protest against how they are treated
go ahead and pretend like i’m saying women are obligated to do something or not….
i’m not saying anything like that, but go ahead and argue with imaginary people
Okay cool. So if we agree that individuals are not obligated to date men, then it follows that choosing not to do so is not a punishment towards men. A punishment requires a penalty or deprivation, and since dating is not a requirement, there can be no deprivation occurring.
This movement was not created to punish some men who feel entitled to a relationship, it's (primarily) to advocate for their rights and against the expectations they are subject to.
It has been pointed out to me that it might constitute a punishment for a subset of entitled men so this is not entirely accurate. That said, I would still say it is unjustified to frame this as a punishment of all men, especially considering that subset of entitled men likely constitutes of the very people in favor of removing rights from women.
Fwiw, a common example of a punishment removing something that is desired but not required is temporarily taking away X from a rowdy kid, be it phone, snacks, etc, which does poke a hole in that assertion.
Thank you, I hadn't thought about that, you're right.
Would you say then that that form of punishment only affects someone who believes they are entitled to something they typically get? (I can't see how it would affect someone that doesn't get something, and I don't see how it would affect someone that doesn't feel entitled to it)
Then, in opposition of what I said, I do agree it would punish a subset of entitled men. I will add an edit to what I said if I've understood this correctly.
Yes, I'd agree that for it to be a punishment entitlement would need to be involved - for example nobody feels punished that they didn't win the lotto by buying one ticket.
Entitlement can take the form of the status quo, whether or not that's justified is not a conversation I have enough critical thinking for.
I think what I haven't seen cleared up in this thread is there are actually two reasons for 4b floating around - one is to try and bring about societal change by crashing the birth rate, but the other is simply out of safety and self-preservation of women. If we focus on the latter, it makes sense that women in more dangerous societies will choose 4b more often than those where they feel safer.
The conclusion I come to is that 4b will be more common in states that do not value the bodily autonomy/safety of women, which I'd say largely points to conservative states.
In a way, if safety and bodily autonomy is the reason for choosing 4b, it will self-regulate to not "punish" or affect those who generally vote to pass policies treating women properly.
I think there was some nuance that was lost in the call for "all" women to participate in 4b
Thanks for the clarification, I'd rather not get something wrong because of a misunderstanding.
I definitely agree with you, it seems logical that the 4B movement would become more popular in the areas where there are bigger threats to the autonomy and safety of women, self-preservation (and solidarity for that matter) is an extremely important factor.
That said, I do understand why there is a call for "all" women to participate. Having more women participating across a country seems like it would increase resistance of some members of the national/federal government to stripping away more rights away from women. It's quite a complicated subject.
Agreed on all counts. Thanks for the conversation and differing perspectives. I hope you have a good weekend!
Thank you as well, have a good weekend!
entirely incorrect