I feel like this is probably pretty effective. I feel like it should be a thing.
E: see also https://beehaw.org/post/16953380 E2: https://19thnews.org/2024/11/4b-movement-south-korea-social-media-trump-presidency/
Ciswomen were having sex?
Then wait, why are there so many incels?
Joking aside, there actually have been times when I’ve been at a social event and I’m gonna fuck a guy because why not… but he starts going off on incel bullshit and how far right he is because “Women aren’t women” anymore, and I’m like… “Yeah I gotta go…” while thinking “Can’t believe he talked his way OUT of a sure thing.”
So I fully understand why there are so many incels.
“Can’t believe he talked his way OUT of a sure thing.”
People are great at stealing defeat from the jaws of victory!
Kind of the theme of the week, no?
Me, a lesbian: Aktivsm
I mean, considering how many incels voted for trump, I think we’re pretty much already there. Many of the young men who voted red this election already have no close relationships with any women their age. Obviously women should exercise their autonomy as they see fit. I don’t expect it to change how anyone votes.
I’ll probably be downvoted for this, but progressives have spent the last several years actively shutting down lines of communication with men, particularly white men. For the best of reasons, sure, but it hasn’t been an effective strategy for winning elections.
Maybe this would sway some group of center-left men who didn’t bother voting, but realistically I expect it will have no effect on the ongoing polarization, or exagerrate it.
Do what you want. I don’t give a fuck.
I don’t give a fuck
Ah, see what you did there.
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.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.
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….
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!
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!)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?
“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….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.
FYI, you’re on Beehaw. Be(e) nice. I know times are crazy right now, I get it. But we still expect people to follow our rules here.
I’m a dude lmao didn’t mean to hurt your feelings
Removed by mod
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.
deleted by creator
lol… nice try pretending like i’m arguing that
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
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 peopleOkay 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
entirely incorrect
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.
They already do that btw
There are lots of men that hide how conservative they are to get their dick wet. It’s been this way for at least 13 years.
It’s been that way for a lot longer than that.
Its not punishing all men, its punishing conservative men.
4B doesnt neex to apply for leftist men
You really don’t think guys won’t lie to get laid?
Honestly it’s really easy to suss out someone’s political opinions if you just try a little bit
True, but apparently there a lot of white women who voted for Trump anyway. As usual, the rich and attractive ones will always get laid.
Well… They didn’t say that. So you’ll have to forgive people for thinking it applies to all men.
lol… sure….
Wouldn’t this just create even more conservatives if they are the only ones having children? Seems counterintuitive.
it’s also a quite terf movement. It basically mirrors MGTOW. I don’t think people should follow them.
The problem, if you look at the data, is lots of women voted for Trump too.
White women specifically. I’m sure they’re uneducated also
There’s women who say they’d vote against womens right to vote, you can’t trust people to vote for their best interests.
Everyone in here arguing against 4b need to take a look in the mirror. The fact that so many of you are trying push against it is in itself a demonstration of why it’s necessary. Respecting bodily autonomy does not have to be hard.
Bodily autonomy is the ability to choose 4b, not the reason to do so. Folks arguing against 4b have not disrespected the ability to do 4b. Therefore bodily autonomy is still respected.
“It’s over internet commenter! I have portrayed you negatively in a meme, showing you as the naive you are”
Yes, posting a message on the internet while violating nobody’s personal space or rights is exactly the same as that picture. You did it! You won the internet! You can go away now.
Go away
Now
FYI, you’re on Beehaw. Please be(e) nice. I know it’s crazy times right now, I get it, but we do want folks to still abide by our rules and such here. Thanks.
While it took several minutes to find your rules, your “spirit of the rules” document specifically identifies what I did as positive: regardless of the other user fake following the rules the spirit of their post was extremely negative and portrayed the other commenter in a false rude light, which I immediately called him out on and asked him to leave. This is a paradox of intolerance situation and you seem to be on the side of intolerance which I’m not a fan of since your bee nice philosophy appears to be explicitly against it.
This is a paradox of intolerance situation and you seem to be on the side of intolerance
First time in a toxicly over-positive online space, eh?
And not even on purpose, just showed up on /all
Cute (I actually laughed, haha), but the assumption that meme makes is that it’s clear the gal doesn’t want to participate in the conversation due to body language.
There’s none of that when you’re commenting in a public politics community. You’re not posting in a community for 4b, for example. Additionally, you’re the one that made the initial comment.
By attempting to talk over and belittle others who respond you’re acting like the guy in the meme.
that meme makes is that it’s clear the gal doesn’t want to participate in the conversation due to body language.
Not trying to argue against the meme, how it’s used and understood etc, but: You can’t interpret body language from a still image, you need at least like two or three movements, you need to see how someone reacts to their own movements so to speak. She might just as well be going “woah, cool”, slight backward surprise movement, and the two are the most wholesome couple you’ve ever met. Or she actually really wants to get out of there. That’s the point: The still image itself is too little information to make the distinction.
I feel like this is probably pretty effective. I feel like it should be a thing.
It isn’t. They will simply import women from other countries. And this election alone proves the fact that all women are not a monolithic group. You’re not going to get a majority to follow this trend.
It seems to have had the desired effect elsewhere. Also I’m not sure if it’s required for women to be a monolithic group. This assumption is based on the gender divide in the current election. Regardless, Trump’s policies are going to have a natural impact and decreasing birth rate just due to financial strain so if there are multiple factors that are impacting the numbers that’s all the better right?
Korea IS A monolith when it comes to a number of factors. Culturally Korea is the antithesis of “diverse”.
My point is that America is nothing similar to Korea culturally to pull this off.
Well, I’m pretty sure you’re right about South Korea. I don’t see that as a reason not to try though. I can only hope that you’re wrong about America. I appreciate the insight.
E: Even if it isn’t super effective, every little bit helps.
What common features would there need to be in order for it to work in the US? Seems that being patriarchal, traditionalist, conformist and capitalist would suffice.
Removed by mod
Yeah no. Continuing this rhetoric is exactly how the Democrats will continue to lose elections. Making vast assumptions about men and telling them they’re lesser is what drove away voters for the past 4 years. The vast majority of men have no desire or whim to do any of what you claim.
Edit: Just realized the swipe typo. Corrected.
Doesn’t need to be vast. You saw how a tiny group called MAGA got control of the government and people’s minds. You underestimate their plan. The next four years is going to be a lot of, “but… they can’t do that?!” for a lot of people.
Once again. No. What lost the democrats the win was Kamala. Biden refusing to step down earlier so proper primaries could be done (not sure why they didn’t just hold primaries ANYWAY). The democrat party proved in 2020 that nobody wanted or even like Kamala (https://www.vox.com/2019/11/20/20953284/kamala-harris-polls-2020-election or lookup any poll from 2019). Her inability to actually talk about her platform (and how she’ll attain her actual goals) and answer the question being asked lost her a lot too. A hard focus on issues that were not “top of mind” for the majority of the country didn’t help either. Not some conspiracy that a handful of republicans are pulling the strings everywhere. People were simply unmotivated to vote for someone who couldn’t answer how she’d do any of what she claimed to want to do.
Regardless of what you think the border IS a valid problem.
Now there’s some magic plan? Either they’re stupid or masterminds. You can’t really have it both ways. Nobody is out there convincing people that women aren’t human and have no rights. Stop with your nonsense.
Total votes cast: 143,000,000
Percentage of voters who are women: 54%
Number of female voters: 143,000,000 × 0.54 = 77,220,000
Percentage of women who voted for Harris: 54%
Estimated number of women who voted for Harris: 77,220,000 × 0.54 ≈ 41,698,800
This is a rough estimate. More complete data will become available later.
I think that’s enough people to have an impact
- Assumptions:
We assume that 41.7 million women strictly adhere to the B4 movement.
This group represents a significant share of women of childbearing age (usually defined as 15-44 years in demographic studies).
We estimate the average U.S. woman has around 1.7 children over her lifetime, aligning with current U.S. fertility rates.
- Impact on Births:
41.7 million women choosing not to have children would mean approximately 1.7 fewer children per woman, over their lifetimes.
This would potentially prevent around 70.9 million births (41.7 million x 1.7) in the long term, assuming these women otherwise would have had children.
- Annual Impact:
Spread over an average reproductive lifetime (roughly 30 years), this impact would reduce the birth rate by about 2.36 million births annually (70.9 million divided by 30 years).
Annual U.S. births could drop from 3.6 million to approximately 1.24 million, which is a ~65% decrease in the birth rate.
Removed by mod
Well, Trump’s tarrifs should make it cost ineffective to import women.
/s (sort of)
Given how reactionary the average Gen Z guys are, this is less of a protest and more of a self-preservation tactic.
Jokes on you, they’re just going to go full Roman Empire and take twink concubines, apparently.
Matt Gaetz has entered the chat
How do one sign up to get one or a few of these twink concubines? Asking for a friend.
Claim that you killed Osama bin Laden first. Then we’ll talk.
It’s interesting that the response to men going their own way (MGTOW) is indifference or at most pity whilst WGTOW are met with hostility.
Mgtow was not met with indifference. They’ve been consistently criticized since the movement first started, and they quickly evolved into a cabal of Nazi-adjacent freaks. Fuck those guys.
There may be some good that could come from a men’s movement for self actualization and improvement, but mgtow sure as shit wasn’t that
MGTOW should be indifferent, but they kinda got hijacked into another red pill BS place. Their lives revolve around hate for women and not actually going your own way and finding what makes you content.
Except for a million articles like:
The ‘Men Going Their Own Way’ movement is the Taliban of the manosphere
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/men-going-their-own-way-movement
MGTOW is absolutely no better.
Because young men will have a much easier time getting laid when abortion is restricted nationwide and contraceptives are harder to get 🙄 talk about shooting yourself in the dick
I’m scared they gonna a pull some Bible crap and force women to marry rapists.
Or there’s going to be a lot more dead rapists.
And the world gets better.
One could only hope they would do that. It WOULD solve the problem.
At least they’d be doing something productive with their damn guns
No. Not… productive…
deleted by creator
Given that the new agenda is to end birth control, no-fault divorce and spousal rape laws, a lot of women are about to have no say past the first one. Don’t get married, and if you’re in a bad marriage try to get out ASAP.
I started this in 2016 in the lead up to the election. Got sterilized in 2022 after the Dobbs decision leaked. Too many guys are secret misogynists at best, and pro rape/anti-abortion at worst. The lectures I had to do to convince my ex that rape is rape, whether you fight off the perp or not.
I can’t imagine having to make that decision.
Same boat, but executed the sterilization much earlier (2014 or so when they were starting to really push the TRAPP laws). Saw the writing on the wall and want nothing to do with any of it.
