The movement to swear off men: No sex. No dating. No marriage. No children.
The movement to swear off men: No sex. No dating. No marriage. No children.
In the hours following former President Donald Trump’s election victory, Google searches related to 4B — a fringe South Korean feminist movement that made a name for itself in the mid to late 2010s — surged in the United States.
You're viewing a single thread.
A message to my fellow guys: if you dislike this, guess what: it's real easy to stop being the target of it. All you have to do is quit being a misogynistic, authoritarian piece of shit.
This isn't targeted at just the shitty dudes. It's no sex with any dudes period until they get their rights back.
I don't see the difference. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you, whatever the reason may be, then you accept that decision and move on. The inability to accept that would be a form of misogyny in my books. This may not be what was meant by the comment you responded to, but I interpret as: stop being misogynistic, not because that'll make women want to have sex with you (though it might), but because it's not your place to unilaterally decide who should have sex with you.
I never said it was my place. I gave up on romance years ago so this movement doesn't even affect me. Although I do agree with them in principle. The purpose of my comment was only to correct the person I responded to who was misrepresenting the scope of the protest. They said the movement was specifically targeted at misogynists and it is not. It impacts all men (or at least those seeking a romantic relationship with a woman) regardless of their attitude towards women. There's nothing to interpret about it. Men get nothing until they get their rights back. It's not even really about misogyny.
To be clear, I mean "you" as in the general you, not you specifically. Didn't mean for it to come off as an attack.
The inability to accept that would be a form of misogyny in my books.
Yes and further, if you (the reader, not the person I'm commenting to) are a man who is insistent women must go have sex with these men so they dont get mad - why don't you go have sex with them? You have holes. It might even be safer for you. Why don't you do it instead? And why haven't you already been doing it if you think it's so effective? Like if we need a sexy olive branch to convert people over to our side, why don't you do it? And if you found that weird and distasteful- forcing yourself to have sex with people you are angry at and don't want to because they are not attractive to you - no shit. That's how we feel, you idiot.
For real, it’s astounding(not really) how much women appreciate not being treated and viewed like they are things to be owned and controlled
Yeah honestly as a guy I'm all for it. I absolutely do not blame women who do not want to have sex when they're treated like 2nd class citizens who's bodies are controlled by old, creepy men in Congress.
Respectfully, this isn't on dudes.
Four and eight years ago young men overwhelmingly supported Bernie Sanders, and they were ridiculed for it. Dems even made up an epithet for it: Bernie Bros.
The perspective you're showing in this reply is why Republicans won. You can't make it very clear you don't want young men to vote for you and then be surprised when they don't.
What are you talking about? Bernie Bros are the diametric opposite of the problem. My comment is addressing all the men but them!
That is not the sentiment that Sanders supporters were receiving from Democrats in 2016 and 2020
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10919754/bernie-bro-sexism
Robinson Meyer literally coined it as a pejorative
Rereading this article for the first time in a decade is insane
Yeah, I know what they think it means, but that doesn't mean I can't try to reclaim it.
Never mind.
I'm wasting my breath, but thank you for the discussion.
Yeah man, gamer gate didn't happen 🙄
You can live in 2008 and 2014, but I can guarantee you (if what you saw this week wasn't enough) that people are a tad more concerned with their inability to pay for groceries and the necessity of rationing their meds.
The voters told Dems what they wanted. Dems told them to be joyful about being in poverty.
They didn't vote Trump out of hatred of women. (Most, at least. Some surely did.) They voted Trump because Harris represented a very shitty status quo.
They thought Trump was going to save them from poverty? Did he save them from poverty last time?
They thought Trump was going to save them from poverty?
Yes.
Did he save them from poverty last time?
Of fucking course not, but that doesn't stop them from believing the lie.
The poverty wasn't this extreme last time. That's the issue.
Did you think that had anything to do with Trump?
I do, yes.
It made me think of 2016, when three families on my parents' block had lost their homes to foreclosure, and Hillary was trying to defend the status quo. Extrapolate that to every street in America and you have an unelectable Democrat.
The same is true now, except it's people working 2-3 jobs for the privilege of barely affording to live in the US. Trump lied about a lot of things, but he didn't have to lie about how hard it's become just to exist in this country.