politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
To be more accurate, your analogy should actually read something like this:
Origionally you give raises to your employees based on performance.
Then one of them says "fuck you".
After that point giving a raise to any of them has a 5% chance of killing you, per raise.
How many raises do you now give?
There is no retaliation or punishing involved at all. Just a healthy respect for the consequences, however unlikely.
I've yet to see anyone say they are doing this because they are afraid of dying if they get pregnant. The article quotes someone who says it's about respect, and all of the other things I've read are about fighting the patriarchy and men being controlling.
I think you want it to be justifiable, and are trying to figure how to spin it so it is.
How it's presented has zero impact on the actual result. That is to say 'Risk Abatement'.
Some women might intend this as punishment or revenge on an individual or society at large, but that is also irrelevant.
It stems from a conscious ~or~ unconscious understanding that the risks have changed. And so must their decisions.
Sure. But my whole point is that this is misandry. So if the intent is to punish all men because you blame all men for this, the fact that it minimizes some risk has no bearing on that point.
What? It's absolutely relevant. Like if I punch a black guy because they are black that's racist. If I punch a black guy because he attacked me and I was defending myself that's not racist. The outcome doesn't change the intent here.
Whether the misandry is conscious or unconscious doesn't make a difference. Or do we think that our unconscious racial biases aren't biases?
This is a different situation though, for a few reasons: first, I actually don't agree, once you've promised the raises, people will reasonably make plans in anticipation of them, so I do think you have an obligation (maybe not a legal one, but that isn't what we're talking about) to give them once you've made those promises. I don't recall the women involved in any of this 4b stuff promising a relationship to any man or group of men, it isn't like they "were going to get it" already.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the stakes for business and personal relationships are different. We don't generally require continuing and revokable consent for giving someone money, the state can for example issue someone a monetary fine, and that's considered an acceptable consequence for many things. If you promise to buy something, and they then come to deliver it and you decide "actually I've changed my mind, keep it, I'm not buying it from you anymore", the other person can in a number of circumstances sue you for breaking your agreement.
However, if the state were to mandate that someone enter into a relationship, or have sex with someone, as a penalty for something, that would be considered a human rights abuse where the monetary fine would not, and if you were to tell someone that you found some type of flower super romantic, and then they came over with those flowers to give, but you then told them you weren't feeling a connection, no reasonable person would take their side if they tried to sue you to force you into a romantic relationship with them.
To put it a simpler way, if you promise someone a raise, the default state once that promise is made is getting the raise, as in professional matters, honoring promises and agreements is fundamental, revoking it later is therefore taking something from them, because you're changing that default state to something worse for them. Personal relations do not have the same dynamic. It is well known and understood that people sometimes change their minds on romantic and sexual relationships, or sometimes just aren't in the mood anymore. Promises don't carry the same weight, when there exists an absolute right to revoke consent at any point and have things not continue. As such, the default state is "not having a relationship/encounter with a particular person", right up until it happens. If the person in question never decides to enter into that relationship, because they have decided that they don't want to even deal with having one at all, they haven't taken anything from whoever else might have been interested in them, because they haven't changed that state. There was never a reason for a guy to expect one of these 4b women would date them in the first place, and no reason to expect that they wouldn't one day leave again if they did.
I was very careful with my words, and very intentionally avoided the word "promise" because I knew it would be spun this way, even though I would argue that even if one promises to do something, they still have the right to say no (i.e. Is a woman who promises to have sex with a man required to have sex with that man? Or does she still maintain the right to change her mind?)
So can we retry again without putting the word "promise" in my mouth? Am I punishing that person by deciding to not give them a raise as a retaliation of the person saying "fuck you" to me? Or is it because the raise was never theirs, it's impossible for me to punish them by taking it away?
I am saying that if what is to be given and then not is money, then it is punishment, but if it is sex, it is not, because these things are fundamentally different in a way that makes it reasonable to take one back without justification but not the other
I actually just saw this elsewhere in the thread, and it made me think of a good point here that might get you to see my position:
White women voted in favor of Trump. What if I said "That's it, I'm not having sex with white women at all anymore." Racist or no?
Honestly, unsure. I dont think that you have a particular obligation to have sex with any sort of person, and I do think that you have an obligation (not necessarily a legal obligation, but a "being a decent person" one) to not be racist. It isnt exactly unusual for a person to prefer their partner belong to a specific category (for example, a gay man is likely to refuse to consider being with a woman, but I dont think they would be a misogynist for that). That being said, there isnt a particular difference between all white women and any other sort of women that would make for much of a reason to do this beyond just hating white women in particular, whereas for a woman, there is a notable difference between a man and, for those who would be attracted to them as well, a woman, as far as partners goes, because with a man, there exists a possibility of pregnancy, which could be dangerous in the current state of the country.
But your whole point relied on the "promise" aspect of it. If there was no promise of it, only the likelihood of it happening, then it falls under the same thing that there is no crime by withholding it. I agree that sex and money are different, as they are legally held to different standards. But that's a distinction without a meaning in the context of the current discussion.
Let me try it this way.
I suggest that I'm going to have sex with someone. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I'm not going to have sex with them. By your logic, this is not punishment.
I suggest that I'm going to give someone money. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I'm not going to give them that money. By your logic, this is punishment.
This seems blatantly contradictory, even if we maintain that withholding sex is less a punishment. It's still the same thing - withholding something that would likely have been given had there been no reason to retaliate - the only difference is that the state can't do anything about the punishment when it comes to sex.
I think I see the problem with your logic here. This whole 4B movement is about women taking back control over their bodies, especially in an upcoming era that's allowing misogynistic men to be more vocal and accepted in society.
It has nothing to do with punishment. Claiming that women are "retaliating against" or "punishing" men is making the topic about men instead of what it's really about - women's rights.
No women is required to date a man, or sleep with a man, or even associate with men. Period. 4B is just a way for women to protect themselves from the incoming onslaught of openly misogynistic men that Trump's presidency is justifying.
Will women dump their current partners and/or spouses to join this movement? Doubtful, unless there are already some red flags there that they're just now picking up. But that's inconsequential because again, this movement isn't about men.
As men, it's so easy for us live our lives without fear. Almost no one tries to rape and/or murder us because they thought we were hot. We hardly ever have stalkers. So we don't realize just how prevalent that scenario is in a woman's life. Even my own wife, who I always felt was tougher than me, is still terrified to go out by herself at night because she's already been victim to sexual harassment and assault, multiple times. That's not something I've ever had to deal with in my own life.
And the crazy things is, women really don't know who they're getting involved with until it's too late. Sure, to us men it seems like most men are fine and harmless. But that's because we're not the sexual target of most men. A dude who seems like a fine gentleman might have some fucked-up desires or views on women's autonomy behind closed doors, and they can be really good at pretending to be a decent human being in public. It's only once a woman is alone behind those closed doors that they might truly learn the awful plans a guy has for her, and at that point, it might be too late to get out without danger to life or limb. Or worse, surviving a situation like that and then having no one believe you in court, so you can't prevent that person from stalking you.
Preventing that scenario in the first place is the whole point of 4B. Women always live in fear of dating men because it's always a gamble. Truly kind and respectful men who understand boundaries and never push them are extremely rare. Even "decent" men still think with their dicks from time to time and push boundaries, hoping they can convince their partner to cave and give them what they want. With the surge of misogynists coming out of the woodwork and being openly threatening to women, it risks spreading acceptance of the mindset that women don't get bodily autonomy around men. So abstaining from men entirely is the safest thing they can do right now. It's too risky trying to figure out if someone is truly a gentleman or if they're just putting on a mask to get laid.
Basically, women are saying they're trying to protect their lives and you're trying to turn the discussion toward men's rights instead. The topic isn't about men. And treating a women's decision to retain bodily autonomy like it's a reward or punishment for guys is honestly super misogynistic in itself. No man is entitled to a women's body; it is not punishment for a woman to decide not to associate with a man.
The article makes it clear that this is retaliation against all men for voting against their rights. Even though there were plenty of men that voted with them, and plenty of women who voted against them. Trump won the majority of white women. They are making it about men, yet I'm not allowed to point out making it about all men doesn't make sense and is misandry?
If they didnt want it to be a topic about men, they shouldn't have made it about all when not all men are guilty, and plenty of women are.
I dont really see it as a contradiction, tbh, as I dont really see sex as the same category of "thing" as something like money, and I think the difference between them is so fundamental as to be meaningful here. I'll admit, I dont really have personal experience with how this stuff goes down, as I said before, Im asexual myself, but it was my understanding that it wasnt that unusual for a person who was interested in sex to change their mind if something resulted in a change in their mood that killed the vibe, and disagreeable actions by the other person could easily enough be the thing to do that. I'd bring up again though, that these 4b people havent, as far as I can see, said that they would have sex with any man in particular before, just that they for sure dont want to now, so regardless of your feeling on if this is contradictory, the "I suggest that I'm going to have sex with someone" is missing anyway.
FYI, I've seen another article where a woman claimed to be dumping her boyfriend. But, it's important to note, that she was saying that because he is a republican. So that makes more sense to punish a guilty party.
But, either way, good discussion. I feel like I'm repeating myself, and I bet you feel the same way. Appreciate it staying civil and I apologize if I came off as an asshole at anytime. Totally uncalled for with someone who has entertained this discussion as kindly as you have.
honestly, you dont really come off as one to me, so I wouldnt worry, you come off more as someone who might have slightly different definitions or ideas regarding ethics, which can be mutually frustrating to argue around, but not the same as being malicious
Women trying to protect themselves against misogyny =/= misandry. Calling it misandry is the same principle as when the ruling class opposes equal rights for others by calling it oppression against them.
Women having autonomy over their bodies means they can choose whether to have sex or not. Period. For you to call that choice punishment against you is to say that you have some kind of right to or power over their bodies. I'm already seeing this "your body, my choice" shit going around now that trump won, and it's disgusting and horrifying.
While I absolutely 100% agree, I don't see how "punishing all men regardless of their guilt" is "defending themselves against misogyny." It's just being misandrists, which is my point.
As I said "If they don’t feel like having sex, that’s their right and no one can force them otherwise." We 100% agree on this point.
I don't believe this, so I'm sorry it's simply untrue. The whole point of this is a protest to stop giving men what they want. And that's their right, I'm not saying they don't have that right. What I'm saying is that it's very clearly meant as a punishment, and if that punishment is being directed at a person simply for being a man, regardless of their guilt, that's blatant misandry.
I agree. They are absolutely huge pieces of shit who women should shun. But shunning allies because "they are men too" is pretty shitty as well.
The American women are getting some inspiration for this idea from South Korea, but that doesn't mean what happens here will be like what's happening there. The cultures are quite different. I'd say wait and see what actually happens with this in the US, if anything even does, before getting overly worried about it.
I'm not worried about it as I doubt it is something that will take off, and even if it does the chances of it affecting an old happily married man like myself are ridiculously low.
Keep in mind that this all comes from a top level comment talking about how it's bad to target all men regardless of their guilt, simply because they are men, and then someone defending that it's okay to target all men, regardless of their guilt. I was basing my position off what I read in the linked article, some other articles I've come across on the topic, and what was said in this thread.
While spite might be a partial motivator in this, left-wing progressive feminist ally sperm can cause a pregnancy just as well as right-wing fascist misogynist sperm can. When part of the motivation is to protect oneself from an unwanted pregnancy, it doesn't matter who the sperm is coming from, and men that feel that they are being wronged by this should take it as an impetus to fight back against the people who are touting this whole "your body, my choice" thing.