• Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Ah yes, nothing like a radical movement built on double standards.
      They complain they are not respected, but they discriminate against LGBT themself.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yes terf is one thing, but they also discriminate other LGBT, and their radical totalitarian approach also discriminate against those that actually support women’s rights. They discriminate against ALL men.
          So they are very much part of the problem they complain about.

          • problematicPanther@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            ah, okay. so you’re just dumb. It’s not discriminatory to boycott men, it’s a protest. And even if you’re a Nice Guy ™, you can still knock someone up, maybe she doesn’t want to have a baby, maybe she wants an abortion. guess what, men have said that she’s not allowed to. If this gets policies changed, I’m here for it. Also, if someone doesn’t want to have sex with you, so what? that’s what hands are for.

  • Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • uxia@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      i think there is very real fear women have to take into account whenever considering getting involved with any man. you don’t really know if he is a shitty person until you have invested some time into him, and that has its own costs. the risk of getting impregnated, ditched, and stuck with the bill is just too big. these days… even more so. i think this is a very natural outcome in the face of the rampant misogyny (in the case of S Korea) or revocation of reproductive rights (USA)

  • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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

    • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The American version need not be TERF though. It is not an inherent part of what 4B actually entails and is extraneous to the purpose of 4B.

  • Lightor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.”

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes, and person treating people this way will eventually result in the opposite of what that person wants. Actions have consequences.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          “women deciding what to do with THEIR bodies will eventually face the opposite (further misogyny) and that’s THEIR fault, actually”

          sexism apologia? upvoted on my fediverse? it’s actually not a fucking surprise. this place is a toxic masculine hellhole

          for the record, in no case is it acceptable to blame the self-preserving actions of a minority for radicalizing the majority. that is the language of abuse and oppression.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • NeilBrü@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        Sorry, you wanted this world; you voted for it.

        You seem to be unaware or are forgetting that the majority of white women wanted it too. The exit poll stats show the majority of people across the board in about every demographic “wanted this world”; it was a massive defeat for the vestiges of the American political left.

        The Trump campaign successfully set up their media machine to equate every environmental protection, women’s autonomy protection, labor protection, and re-enfranchisement policy proposal of the working class to a talking point of a screeching radical feminist harpy cartoon character that’s “bent on destroying the patriarchy, churches, and America”.

        The DNC handwaved the concerns of the working class away again to fellate the billionaire and corporate donors, the “moderate” republicans, and the social justice warriors simultaneously, thinking that would work somehow.

        The blame lies on the us if we let the DNC establishment keep their jobs in the next round of primaries.