this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
391 points (90.1% liked)
Articles
124 readers
11 users here now
Lemmy community for posting and sharing articles.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, I have good reading comprehension relative to the average American. Do you want to try to explain to me how a protest that specifically targets progressive men is an effective way to get men to be more progressive?
"Just don't be a bad guy and you won't be the target!" This movement makes no distinction between conservative and progressive men, it is explicitly about absolute denial of sex, dating, marriage, and children.
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in favor of women not dating conservative men if they don't want to. A movement that draws attention to the fact that women have the option of breaking up with their boyfriends and divorcing their husbands would be fantastic. A movement that specifically tries to deny relationships to the people that you're trying to deradicalize is not that.
But go ahead and keep downvoting me. I'm trying to explain how we need to avoid losing more voters, and you're sitting there repeating the same shit that lost us those voters in the first place.
If you truly want to understand the nature of this protest, it's important to understand where women are coming from with this.
No matter one's sex or gender, the dating process can be exhausting. Guys are exhausted from always making the first move and getting nowhere for the effort. Women are exhausted from sorting through all the men and messages, most of whom show zero interest in her as a person. Cis-men don't see the regular dehumanization and sexualization that all women experience upon entry to the dating scene.
On dating apps, so, so many guys will ignore profiles and send low effort messages like, "Ur pretty. Wanna hook up?" Checking messages can elicit the same feeling you'd get from clearing out your spam folder one email at a time... except each spam message expects you to suck its dick. Some even threaten violence if rejected. When women leave dating sites and dating scenes, that's the male behavior they're opting to escape from.
Now we also have (or are bracing to have) our reproductive rights taken away. We see the stories of pregnant women being denied care, suffering, and dying. We don't want to become a reproductive rights martyr just because a condom broke.
This protest may have a consequence that men don't like, but expecting women to give in just so progressive men can get laid ignores the issues that sparked this protest in the first place.
It tells us everything. It says you don't understand what we're going through. It says you don't care what we're going through. It says you think your desire to have sex is worth more than our very lives.
In a way, you're proving these women right. If your attitude is reflective of other so-called "progressive" men, then I can't blame any woman who chooses to have nothing to do with any men at all.
I was with you right up until this point. My single status has no effect on my political beliefs, and I'm going to keep voting in favor of your rights, no matter how much you try to tell me that I don't care about you.
I'm entirely in favor of women exercising bodily autonomy. As a movement for protecting women, this is great. As a movement for affecting political change, this is not. Sell it as the former, and I'm in favor. Sell it as the latter, and I'm going to argue.
There are more goals than some grand, over-arching "change." On an extremely basic, self-preserving level, there is a goal of "not getting pregnant while living in a country that actively endangers the lives of pregnant women."
If it brings about change that would be awesome. But regardless of that, by swearing off relationships and sex, we're still not getting pregnant. Ergo, we are able to keep our bodily autonomy. Which, I guess I have to remind you, we would lose if we got pregnant.
Unless (non-sterilize) progressive men have some special sperm that doesn't attempt to fertilize an egg, creating an exception based on beliefs would still put our lives at risk.
Did you read the part where I said
?
Yes. I also read the part of your previous post that said:
I also read the original article, which includes:
You seem to have the misconception that this movement is primarily about women doing something to make an impact on men, despite there being nothing in the source stating that. "A conservative political environment and a corrosion of reproductive rights" casts a wide net, but "revenge on men" or "motivating men" are both invariably going to be a lower priority than, oh say, "not dying from a miscarriage." Makes sense, right?
There's more to being a feminist ally than simply believing in a woman's right to choose. I'd be more inclined to believe that you truly support us if you showed any sign of having considered anything that I'd said about why women are drawn to this idea, or how you may have been initially mistaken by assuming it's being done just to target men. But alas.
I really don't care if some random woman doesn't believe that I truly support women. Especially when you read something like
and think you need to lecture me on how this movement would protect women and help them exercise their bodily autonomy