this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
729 points (92.7% liked)

politics

19118 readers
2715 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 131 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Opposition to transgender rights movements

The 4B movement predominantly sees transgender rights movements as incompatible with feminism.[10] Developing out of transgender-exclusionary radical feminism (T.E.R.F.), the movement holds to gender-critical views on sex and gender,[10] supporting gender essentialism and the exclusion of transgender women from feminist spaces.[12][14] Advocates of 4B are opposed to what they call "gender ideology" (젠더론x) and promote excluding transgender women from feminist spaces, as well as romantic or sexual relationships with them (트젠 안사요).[10] In South Korea, members of the 4B have created gatherings exclusively for what they call "biological females" and "real women".[10]

yikes

[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 65 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The changelog shows that this section has been added sometime between Oct 30 (last version before Nov) and today. Some possibilities:

  1. disinformation to discourage the movement. I find this most likely given that "Trans" did not appear anywhere in the original article until this was politicized in the US. The updates between versions inserted anti-trans language in multiple places throughout the article.
  2. Or, if this is actually part of the SK movement, then I have not heard anything TERF related for the US movement. The US movement probably should rename or otherwise distinguish itself from that.

Either way, I do not think this should be a point to discredit the movement. It at minimum does not seem related to the US movement and IMO is likely some clever FUD attempt to undermine the movement before it gets traction.

[–] Phen@lemmy.eco.br 27 points 1 week ago

Also none of the sources linked there mention anything about trans women.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aksamit@slrpnk.net 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ffs, you can do 4b without being transphobic.

Just because some 4b assholes with a website have written a transphobic clause in their manifesto, doesn't mean they speak for all 4b followers.

Stop shitting all over this movement because you've found somebody in it with an awful take on an unrelated matter.

Not having sex or relationships with folk who can impregnate you is sensible when your country is about to ban abortion and restrict contraceptive access.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I had not heard of this movement before today. Forgive me if my first instinct is to read their Wikipedia, and be off-put by various descriptions of transphobic stances. I agree with the stated goals, and @nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone pointed out that the article might have been manipulated to paint them in a bad light.
If that's the case, then I hope the article gets corrected with proper sources soon, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. But I don't like that you're insinuating that trans issues, and transphobia in particular, are unrelated to feminism.
I wish everyone earnestly resisting attempts to limit bodily autonomy strength and success in their endeavors.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Surp@lemmy.world 81 points 1 week ago (16 children)

I highly doubt many people are doing this.

[–] themachine@lemm.ee 34 points 1 week ago

Media hyped bullshit.

[–] Huschke@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But the internet told me a lot of people are doing it. But since you were the last statement I read, it is now my point of view until I stumble upon another comment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

its getting a lot of press because it will upset a lot of dumbfucks

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 76 points 1 week ago (10 children)

I find nothing wrong with this movement, but at the same time I almost feel like this movement is exactly what "government's" may want. Less educated individuals having children means more uneducated voters in the long run.

Kind of like that scene in Idiocracy (2006).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJDcoqrh1ac

[–] warm@kbin.earth 48 points 1 week ago

I thought the idea of the US version was just to avoid republicans.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's not like women turned out in droves for Harris either. Who's going to withhold from the women that dropped the ball?

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (6 children)

You don’t need to. I’ve run the numbers elsewhere but if we assume 100% of your dating pool are women and 50%-ish are liberal, even if only half of them participate it’s going to put pressure on men very quickly if they don’t want to be alone.

Now we know those women aren’t spread equally so this movement isn’t going to be consistently effective everywhere. But in places like Texas, it would mean most of the major cities harm Republican men seeking relationships/sex.

And taken one step further, this creates a child shortage if done for long enough. Even just 10% of women deciding not to have kids will have a big effect. People worry about conservatives just having more kids but realistically they work lower end jobs and don’t have money for that. Imagine raising 3-4 kids in this economy, not many will do that.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] WhiteRabbit_33@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is eugenics propaganda. It is slightly hidden in a way of not using the blatant language of "superiority" and forcing it on people, but the base idea boils down to breeding traits such as higher intelligence into (or out of in this case) people like what is done (was attempted) with animals. This is eugenics. Please do not spread eugenics.

Eugenics does not work. There's a lot of information on the topic, but here's a 10-minute primer: https://youtu.be/kMBriCmiTu0

TL;DW Studies show genetics plays a very minor role in intelligence in humans with socioeconomic factors being the main driver. Eugenics may be able to breed certain traits in/out, but that results in the extreme detriment of others. Consider dog breeding and all the health issues breeds have who were bred for a handful of specific tasks/traits.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

Just don't date conservative men. First date, ask them their politics. It's literally that simple.

You should really have a suite of questions to weed out partners you don't want. This is what the first few dates are really for. Ask them their politics, if they voted, and who they voted for, their stance on abortion etc.

All you're going to get with this is friendly fire. Conservatives generally do not prefer leftist women.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 43 points 1 week ago (10 children)

Men will lie, especially if they're trying to get your clothes off. So a single question isn't quite enough. Maybe a discussion about politics on relevant issues, for example.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (5 children)

The 4B movement does have some issues with transphobia from what I've heard, so hopefully with more people joining, it'll make it better.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (7 children)

I feel like the only ones doing this are the perpetually online echochamber sorts. The female equivalent to the wannabe alpha male losers.

Most women living in reality, even the furthest left feminists aren't doing this shit, at least not intentionally as part of some movement. This whole article is just propaganda and rage bait to get clicks and drive ad revenue.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It's just an idea voiced in some places online, that makes for a good headline, and will get lots of people active to comment and complain.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DrBob@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's just more social media posturing. Making a spectacle out of something people have been doing out of necessity.

Look at me, I've turned isolation and alienation into a consumer fetish! Subscribe and learn all the amazing new techniques to commodify your labor and spend your wages. Compete to become the highest ranked lonely person!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Paranoidfactoid@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (11 children)

MAGA is a promotional tour for lesbianism and sex toys. Toxic masculinity does not attract women and never did.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 week ago (11 children)

53% of white women voted for Trump, and they aren't going to join 4B. "Men" didn't elect Trump, a slight majority of America did. When you point a finger, three are pointing back...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Hackworth@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Vote for hate. Get no love.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Atlas_@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (15 children)

(very obviously, but people keep covering this like it's a real thing so...)

You get 100% or even like, 60% of women in on this, yeah. Things will change real quick. I'd hope for the better.

If you get like 5-10% of liberal women doing this, which is by far the most that I'd believe, what's going to happen is the corresponding 5-10% of men get sexually frustrated. Then they'll go online and get caught up in all the incel->alt-right pipelines that already exist today, and men will swing further right.

If we want a movement like this to work it needs to 1. Not punish people who are already on our side and 2. Provide a better pipeline than the alt-right already has for channeling sexual frustration into action.

So cool, interesting idea, I wish it was workable but remember that a majority of women who voted voted for Trump. Even if men didn't exist he would have won.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (19 children)

As a straight white male, I support this movement.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Is there some underlying assertion here that woman enjoy sex less than dudes? Or that sex is some kind of favor to men on the part of women without mutual enjoyment? Not having sex with someone is pretty easy if that other person is a shitty person. Otherwise I think both genders enjoy genuine intimacy and physical contact by someone they enjoy being around.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a reference to an old Greek comedy called Lysistrata from 411 B.C. The gag was, in order to end the Peloponnesian war (460 B.C.), women colluded to refuse sex until the men come to their senses and stop the war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Peloponnesian_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (66 children)

Wait so the idea is do not sleep with any men? Even men who support your views and rights? This just seems like it would radicalize more incels or generate more sexism. Like the average person who did everything they could is going to go on a date and be told "I'm not have sex until the government is fixed" which would make me say "ok, well, hit me up in 4 years."

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (10 children)

The idea isn't for women who are already in relationships with partners who support women's rights. The idea is more, for single women, to refuse to start any relationship at all right now. Which honestly, in an era where basic women's healthcare is under attack, maybe starting a relationship right now isn't the best idea. Will your women's rights-supporting boyfriend agree to become abstinent when the birth control you're using is taken off the market due to conservatives? Or will they want to move to the pull-out method or just accept the risk of being pregnant?

If you're a single woman, honestly, right now, maybe staying single through these next four years isn't a bad idea. It has nothing to do with the actions or beliefs of a potential partner, and everything with the fact that being a woman in any straight sexual relationship when conservatives are ascendant simply has a lot of unavoidable risks with it. The religious crazies in power believe that the only veto a woman deserves over being pregnant is the choice to have sex or not. And they seek to take away any way for women to prevent getting pregnant besides not having sex. These Christian nationalists, who were just elected, believe that the only choice women have should be pregnancy risk or abstinence.

You need to have a reality check here. The United States federal government, and the majority of state governments, will be telling every woman of reproductive age, "be abstinent or risk pregnancy. Any other tool to prevent pregnancy is morally wrong."

The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before marriage. The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before they're ready to become a mothers. The people soon to be in charge of the government literally believe that the only just use of sex is pregnancy. And they rule accordingly.

In what universe would you expect this to not result in a complete collapse of pre-marital sexual opportunities for straight men? It's not about punishing men. It's not that you do or do not have the right views or beliefs, or that you are a good or bad person. It's simply that for women, in this world that is being created, having sex before marriage simply isn't safe.

Sexual liberation was possible only due to the availability of effective contraception, birth control, and abortion. If you turn the contraceptive landscape back a century, sexual norms will have to return there as well. You are NOT going to have a world where there's no access to contraceptives where women are still perfectly happy being in sexual relationships before marriage.

Men, I hope you're ready to put a ring on it. Otherwise, you ain't gettin' any. Sorry, you wanted this world; you voted for it.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (65 replies)
[–] Random123@fedia.io 22 points 1 week ago

This is dumb

I get but i feel bad for anyone falling into this mind trap

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 20 points 1 week ago (4 children)

To men who are actively sleeping with women, or who want to, now is a great time to consider a vasectomy. It's cheap and safe and greatly reduces the risk of undesirable outcomes.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

Ignoring every other part of this movement, the 'no children' bit is a question of safety.

Even where the laws aren't dystopian nightmare shit, and you have a healthcare team on standby to provide the best care they can without needing to worry about legal fuckery, pregnancy and delivery can still kill you cuz that shit is insanely brutal.

Disallow that team from intervening when there's a miscarriage or some other complication and the mortality rate skyrockets, as seen in red states post-Roe.

That's about to be the whole country soon. Ladies, if you do get pregnant, have a plan, and a backup plan, and a backup-backup plan etc with where to go and what to do if shit even even starts to feel like it's hitting the fan.

...also if you don't already have a passport, now might be a good time.

If I were in your shoes, I'd be scheduling a hysterectomy ASAP. And remember your doc isn't going to do a background check or anything, so if they start giving you the shit about "nooo you're too young, you might regret it later!" just remember that your uterus is causing you 10/10 pain, and it makes it almost impossible to accomplish any normal tasks, and even starting to cause suicidal ideation; also you already have 4 kids with 3 dads and feel like you've lost control of your life, etc... probably not all at once or they'll know you're bullshitting, but the point is denying women's healthcare is a problem that goes way beyond abortion, and if lying is what you need to do to receive care, then don't hesitate to do it.

Good luck everyone. This situation is absolute shit.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 1 week ago (24 children)

Am I missing something or is 4B essentially MGTOW for women?

Just viewed through a more positive lens specifically because it's women.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Trump is such a loser that even when he wins, it makes every woman in the world stop being horny.

[–] robocall@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Is it no sex for anti abortionists or for everyone? Can we still marry and have sex with pro choice good guys?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›