- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
In the hours following former President Donald Trump’s election victory, Google searches related to 4B — a fringe South Korean feminist movement that made a name for itself in the mid to late 2010s — surged in the United States.
Lmao all we need to do is deny men any meaningful relationships, that’ll deradicalize them for sure
I would love to hear other opinions. If you think that ostracizing the specific demographic that you needed for this election is a good idea, please let me know. Personally, I think it’s incredibly stupid. If the only women that a guy is able to get the time of day from are conservatives, I think that’s gonna make guys more open to conservatism.
Because people refuse to read the article, it says
This is explicitly a movement attempting to affect political change, at least according to the article that we’re discussing. I understand and support swearing off relationships for the sake of protecting yourself, but that is not the argument that the article is making.
During Trump’s last presidency a friend of mine told a guy who was making disgusting comments towards her to fuck off. You know what he did? He punched her in the face and broke her jaw. She needed surgery.
He got maybe a few weeks in jail and since he’s unemployed suing him for the medical costs was fruitless. This was in a blue state too.
Shit’s fucked up and I don’t know how else to help people understand that women are genuinely afraid of men for a reason. I’m sorry if that hurts some genuinely good dudes feelings out there. It’s not their fault some percentage of men act like feral animals and pull shit like this.
Then you have trump encouraging these types and it’s a really fucked up situation. All because some grown ass men with the self control of an infant can’t function in society without hurting people and need misogyny and racism to bolster their tiny egos because it’s the only hierarchy in which they aren’t on the bottom…since they’ve never accomplished anything worthwhile in their lives.
These violent men are often the same ones who raise their sons “not to be sissies” and teach them to repress their emotions because “crying is for girls.” That’s emotional abuse at best. There’s probably a lot of physical abuse accompanying that too.
Anyway, sorry about the length of this. My point is that the types of men who hurt women are often the same ones who abuse their sons and perpetuate the mental health crisis among young men which I’m sure contributes to the high suicide rates among young men.
I really wish people could understand we’re fighting the same enemy.
Yes, let’s generalize all men because of that fuckhead, or the few fuckheads out there. Meanwhile, the left wing femcels die out leaving conservatives behind. Cool strategy.
I don’t think it’s different enough from the norm to effect anything. Do you think men will even notice?
Yes?? They’ve clearly been noticing and acting out??
We are very much in the ’ village burning down ’ part of “A child shunned by its village will burn it down to feel its warmth.”
They were acting out before though. The 4B movement is a response to the abuse.
This is what’s happening, and if you really want to understand it I recommend the book “Controlling People,” by Patricia Evans:
They are mad they can’t literally abuse us into submission like Andrew Tate claims. They are mad we aren’t stupid and easy to manipulate, like they’d been lead to believe. They are jealous of beauty and happiness because they are so miserable because men lack community that is kind to women. And that’s all of ya’lls fault. Instead you made manipulative PUA groups.
They will keep amplifying their abuse, like literally all abusers (see: Why Does He Do That?) until we are dead or they are in jail. It doesn’t even matter if we behave “well,” all that matters to them is that we feed their ego of control and entitlement over us.
No. You don’t have to do that so neither will I.
Why don’t you warm up that guy yourself? A hole is a hole, right? Why don’t you suck off these on the fence guys to win them over? I’m sure there are plenty of bi and gay ones you can convince.
Ah yes, because women can’t be abusive.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now. If people like you continue to neglect the conditions that lead to young men being brainwashed by red pill, manosphere bullshit - things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better.
I don’t really care to read anything that paints men as abusive controllers. I’m interested in making things better, not making things worse.
What are you doing for this? Show me some screenshots from socials of your work there. I’ll accept even 1 comment in the last 2 weeks of you reaching out to a fellow guy debunking redpill content.
Remember, when Trump’s Youth doesn’t seem to be getting any weaker with each passing year - you did your part.
Wait so you can’t post any proof, not even a comment you made on social, of you speaking to a fellow man about redpill or manosphere content, to specifically stop them from being rightwing?
You can scroll through my entire comment history and can find me educating men about feminism constantly for free. Talk about unpaid women’s labor. It’s not me who didn’t do the work.
Yet again blaming women for the abuse of men. Literal victim blaming. Nice. Have you thought about how your actions drive women away?
I’m sorry, I should have responded to this:
‘WhErE’s YoUr PrOoF’
God, I don’t care how morally pious you think you are. There’s a very clear path that led us here, you helped pave it. I don’t use social media outside of Lemmy, with the occasional query for Reddit when I need help with a hobby.
Imagine being so terminally online that you, within very few keystrokes of one another, go “PrOvE iT” while suggesting that I should sift through your trash opinions - completely ignoring that you can do the same with mine.
The world is going to get worse. Wake the fuck up and realize why or perish, I don’t care which.
Edit: no that wasn’t fair, I’ll let you RAFO.
Edit 2: Oooooh, you’re a sealion! Great, I’ve got you tagged now.
Yes, because being part of the majority voting for Trump is clearly the same as being shunned. Women should just give up their bodies to these disgusting creatures for the good of the country ./s
Right? Wtf, handmaids tale shit
The crux of the issue presents itself.
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. You want to help create more MAGATs? Keep ignoring young men and the problems they have.
What are out of power left-leaning women supposed to do to fix the problems with these losers? They voted for the “we have problems and we’re being ignored” party after listening to bro podcasts all day and they will now control three branches of government.
Why is it ok for in power politicians to continually ignore the needs of the people voting for them? Why does nobody notice how “men’s problems” continue even as the spiteful fucks they vote for have massive amounts of power?
Fixing young men isn’t up to childless, left leaning, powerless women.
Obviously for women to be heard they must be silent. And up is down. And this isn’t doublespeak.
Have fun dealing with the new Hitler’s youth.
You too 👍
I won’t
Yes, threaten women with violence when they don’t do as you say. Nice.
What is your suggested solution concretely? are blaming young women for the problems of young men.
No, they’re blaming the Democratic party and its online advocates for not taking young men seriously as a voting demographic
No, read their comment. They think women should fuck progressive men to stop them from becoming right wing.
No, that’s a very naive and simplistic way of reading this thread. Jax’s comment
Wasn’t supporting the literal suggestion that “women should just give up their bodies to these disgusting creatures for the good of the country,” it was regarding Eatspancakes84’s dismissive attitude towards the genuine problems that young men face.
Problems that, I will add, the Republican party will not fix. Voters are stupid though, and vote based on vibes. If the vibe of one side is “I don’t give a shit about you,” and the vibe of the other side is “you matter and your problems are valid,” the average voter is more likely to vote for the latter, if at all.
I’ll also add that women do in fact face more problems than men. Your rights are being eroded much faster than ours. My discussion of how to convince men to vote for our side should not be interpreted as dismissal of women’s issues. All I’m saying (and it is all that I’m saying) is that we need to avoid situations where apathetic or conservative men see our comments and think we don’t give a shit about them. Not because I want to protect the feelings of conservative men, but because we needed their votes, and we will need their votes to prevent another Trump win.
Well no, obviously. This movement has members numbering in the thousands. There may be two people in my city actually trying to live by it
deleted by creator
Back when the majority of women available to date were leftwing, men didn’t get more leftwing. It didn’t happen. Women in the youngest voting demographic on exit polls were something like 61% voted for Kamala, whereas the men it was 45%. If your theory was right (and not just an excuse to blame women for men’s abuse), those numbers would be equal. Men like power over others, enforcement of rules, and feel entitled to the patriarchy and that’s why conservative movements appeal to them as they get older.
No, if my theory is right, then we would see a rightward shift among men as they lose contact with left-leaning women. We won’t know for sure that I’m right until a) this movement becomes widespread and b) fewer than 45% of men vote for the next democrat. I’m not blaming women for anything. I’m saying that this would be an ineffective political strategy. Nothing more, nothing less.
Okay, your theory would still be true BEFORE the election and 4B movement though. And it wasn’t, because the 4B movement responded to men becoming more sexist. Men left women to be sexist. Women were already rolemodeling good behavior and men went elsewhere.
We know you’re wrong because men already were surrounded with leftwing women and chose to abuse them instead of respect them.
Men age 45-65 are below that 45% mark and their wives are traditional and obligated to fuck them out of wifely duty. What women do is largely irrelevant to whether men will be abusive or not. That’s a moral choice the man makes. So let’s make it less convenient for them and add in natural consequences, like natural hatred for people eroding our rights.
Hey now, I’m 56 and married and not “obligated” to do anything. Not even my mom was, though her mom was. I don’t think that’s a thing anymore, or if it is it’s not in my particular generation.
I do agree that women aren’t responsible for abusive men, though.
I don’t know anybody who is being celibate as protest but do know more than one woman who gave up on men to just date women.
??? My theory is about the 4B movement. The hypothesis is that if it were widespread, we would see a rightward shift in men. That is, we would expect them to go from 55% voting red to >55% voting red. This hypothesis has not been tested yet.
I’m in favor of this. The only thing I’m not in favor of is telling guys that didn’t vote for abuse that they’re the exact same as the guys that did.
So if that’s true, then why isn’t the opposite true - when more leftwing women were fucking men before 4B, why didn’t the men get more leftwing? They got more rightwing. Why?
I really don’t care about this conversation. The 4B movement has affected literally zero political change in Korea, and that’s really all I should need to say.
If you don’t want to date men, you shouldn’t.
Lmfao you suddenly don’t care because I am right and embarrassed you.
Oh, so now you claim 4B has no effect on men? I thought your hypothesis was that it would drive men rightwing. Suddenly 4B has zero political change. Huh. It’s almost like your original argument was disingenuous.
I beat men for substantial amounts of money, and fyi even if you had the money I would refuse you. You are transparently a danger to women with everything you say.
No, I didn’t really care in the first place, and I didn’t feel like explaining how introducing a change (say, separating women and men) might have an effect that not introducing that change wouldn’t. The default state has been men and women having relationships, for the entirety of history. Women didn’t suddenly start having more sex with men in the last 4 years, so you wouldn’t expect to see any change in voting demographics based on that no change. I care even less now, because we’re so deep in these replies that I don’t expect even one other person to read this paragraph. We may as well be arguing in DMs, which I don’t do.
My assertion that it doesn’t matter in the first place is because the 4B movement has existed in Korea for years, and hasn’t successfully affected political change. I suppose I could have clarified that my hypothesis about a successful 4B movement is predicated on there being a successful 4B movement, and my dismissal of it as a way to affect political change is based on the fact that it demonstrably does not affect political change.
The thing people who didn’t read the article are missing: This doesn’t apply to all men, just shitty men. Which yeah, if you’re a dude who wants to get laid don’t be shitty.
This movement explicitly applies to all men. I would know, I read the article to make sure it didn’t specify conservative men. I also checked the Wikipedia article, which also doesn’t specify anything about conservative men. It’s a protest against a whole societal problem, and it calls for, specifically,
No sex.
No dating.
No marrying men.
No children.
I mean it’s a movement of individuals. Everyone will pick what they think is best. There are women with husbands who won’t sleep with them and women who will but won’t have babies (when previously they’d family planned).
Far too many people are lumping in all men in discussions around the election.
It was obviously their fault, to be fair. /s
I can assure you that this won’t “deradicalize” me. But then again, you don’t seem to understand what that term means, so you probably don’t understand why.
Maybe deradicalize wasn’t the best word, but I couldn’t think of a better pizzazzy synonym for convincing centrists to vote blue instead of red
To “deradicalize” someone would entail turning them from the left to the right, not the other way around. You may have noticed that right-wingers themselves never self-apply the term “radical,” but leftists most certainly do. Like me, for instance - I’m a radical. There is a very good reason for that.
It’s only liberals (and liberal media) that strips the actual political meaning out of the term and hysterically applies it to both the left and the right in their inane quest to prove to everyone and themselves that they are in the (so-called) political “center” - something which, as any radical can tell you, does not exist.
Any radical can tell me that the political center doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t really change the fact that the loss of the political center is why we’re in for another four years of Trump
What do you call the 11 million people who voted for Biden in 2020, and didn’t vote this year?
People who got fed up with the (so-called) “centrists” that spent the last four years doing absolutely squat to fix the whole “fascist-zombie-horde-scratching-at-the-gates” thing, perhaps?
You don’t oppose right-wingers with “centrism.” Unless you want to hand the right-wingers a milk-run victory, of course.
You are awfully certain about this. I know the centrist approach did not work this year, but I am skeptical that a radical left approach would have won. The election math is just that there are too few of you radicals to win any elections at the moment.
They don’t allow radical politics into the formal political establishment because radical politics threaten to dismantle the formal political establishment. So, no. Radical leftists do not win (or even play) electoral politics.
That’s not what we are talking about at all here. If it’s merely winning elections you want you don’t even need radical leftism. All you need is a Democratic party that’s actually hostile to fascism. You don’t have that and you’re not getting it, either.
Do you think conservatives are liberals? What is a liberal to you? Since we are criticizing removing political meaning from a word, I want to clarify this
Lol! What else did you think they were?
Did the fact that they both fetishize capitalism convince you they were different ideologies?
Or the fact that they both fetishize the “Rule Of Law” and the liberal nation state?
Or the fact that they are both perfectly fine with imperialism?
“Hot button” issues hystericized by the media does not actually qualify as ideological differentiators.
No, I am aware conservatives are liberals. Liberalism means they are for capitalism. Did you see how I was asking to clarify what you meant? Why did you assume my knowledge?
Because it’s only liberals that do not want to accept the truth about liberalism that respond to me here on lemmy.
Sorry if I jumped the gun.