• xor@infosec.pub
    48·
    8 days ago

    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.

    • Vivian (they/them)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      4·
      7 days ago

      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

      • xor@infosec.pub
        2·
        7 days ago

        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

        • Vivian (they/them)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          4·
          6 days ago

          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.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            4·
            7 days ago

            A punishment requires a penalty or deprivation, and since dating is not a requirement, there can be no deprivation occurring.

            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.

            • Vivian (they/them)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              4·
              7 days ago

              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.

              • papertowels@lemmy.one
                4·
                7 days ago

                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

                • Vivian (they/them)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  4·
                  6 days ago

                  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.

                  • papertowels@lemmy.one
                    3·
                    6 days ago

                    Agreed on all counts. Thanks for the conversation and differing perspectives. I hope you have a good weekend!

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      59·
      8 days ago

      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.

      • xor@infosec.pub
        15·
        8 days ago

        but go off.

        oh look, zero chance that you’re actually trying to have a conversation… yaaay internet.

        Not every woman will participate in the strike.

        almost none will, but if they did, it’s not going to be republican women….

        • Gamma@beehaw.orgEnglish
          20·
          7 days ago

          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!

          • xor@infosec.pub
            3·
            8 days ago

            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!)

            • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              10·
              8 days ago

              First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

              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?

              • xor@infosec.pub
                1·
                8 days ago

                “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….

                • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  10·
                  7 days ago

                  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.

                  • xor@infosec.pub
                    1·
                    7 days ago

                    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

            • futatorius@lemm.ee
              3·
              7 days ago

              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.

    • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
      17·
      8 days ago

      I give it about 6 months of this strategy before conservative men will be paid to pretend to be leftists in order to impregnate women, so I understand the “don’t fuck any man” strategy.