I can’t believe someone, here on Lemmy, is actually defending women punishing all men because some are trash. It would be like if white women said they weren’t going to date black men because some black men are rapist. They are free to do what they want, but it’s racist as fuck. Just like this is misandrist as fuck.
It’s not punishment; it’s risk control. You don’t get to have post-sexual liberation values with pre-sexual liberation healthcare.
We live in a culture where premarital sex, at least outside of conservative religious communities, is tolerated and even encouraged. Yet this is a recent thing. Up until the mid-twentieth century, it was extremely shameful for a woman to have sex before marriage. It would be as shameful and socially fraught as, IDK, a kid coming out as trans to their parents today.
You, I am assuming, were born sometime well after the 1960s. You were born in the post women’s liberation world. So it is easy to forget that the world you are used to living in is actually a historical anomaly. The idea of it being normal and acceptable for women to have sex before marriage? That is a historical oddity in Western culture.
This social structure is only possible BECAUSE of contraceptives and abortion. And radical conservatives just came in to power that are doing everything they can to restrict these things. These radical conservatives believe sex before marriage is wrong, and they seek to restrict any access to abortion or contraception.
If these things are restricted, what choice do women have but to return to pre-women’s liberation sexual norms? Are you going to start a relationship with a woman and just happily agree to be abstinent, or have zero PIV sex, while conservatives retain power? Or, are you going to pressure her into trying something riskier, like the pull-out method? Are both of you capable of holding to your agreement not to be intimate, even when both really want it, even when you’re both drunk?
The simple truth is that in this environment, the government is trying to take away every option available to women to prevent or terminate pregnancy. The government is thus making sex itself incredibly risky for women. If you ask the government, they will tell you, “pregnancy or abstinence, the choice is yours.”
What choice do women have but to choose abstinence?
Sorry guys. You wanted Victorian access to abortion and contraception? You wanted Victorian views on masculinity and femininity? Well, with that comes Victorian female frigidity and sexual propriety. In the future you want, casual sex before marriage isn’t a thing. Better hope you roll the dice on the sexual compatibility with your spouse, as you certainly aren’t getting any before marriage. And even then, only when you’re actively trying to have kids.
Sex is for reproduction, not pleasure. If you have a problem with that, you’re a sexual deviant. This is the world men voted for; this is the world they’ll get. You want it? Better put a ring on it.
No, I didn’t vote for it. That’s the whole point. Most men who voted did. That’s on them, not me. Any punishment directed at me because I’m a male and other males did bad things is blatant misandry: blaming me for my sex.
Sure, if women are not having sex because they are afraid of getting pregnant and they don’t have access to abortion, that makes sense. But this is putting words in the protester’s mouths in an attempt to justify the blatant misandry. They aren’t doing this because they are afraid of getting pregnant, they are doing it because some men did something bad (although, it was certainly not just men) and, because they are misandrists, they are punishing all men.
A woman refusing to have sex with you is a punishment? It seems that your mindset is based on the concept that you are owed sex at a baseline and a refusal to have sex with you is a violation. It’s that kind of mindset that keeps many men from being actual allies to women’s liberation. Coercion and rape are not the same thing, but they share a neighborhood in the realm of indecent and cruel things that humans do to each other, and walking around with the idea that one is owed sex in any capacity increases the likelihood that one would resort to coercion or worse when rejected or denied.
While I absolutely agree that no one owes anyone sex, and if women want to protest like this it’s entirely their right.
However, I think you’re using this fact to miss the point. Even the woman quoted in the article is saying that men wants sex, but don’t respect them, so she won’t have sex with men. The 4b all have to do with not doing something they might have otherwise done with men.
It’s clearly meant to be a punishment, a retaliation for the loss of their rights.
It’s not about me saying women owe sex to men, I never said this or implied this. It’s me pointing out what these protests are about.
I am currently married, but in my previous experiences, the majority of male partners I have had both claimed to be feminist allies and used heavy coercion (and in one case outright rape) to get what they wanted. My husband won a lot of points with me by accepting a “no” without further argument thereby respecting my choices and my consent. I try to trust other humans at baseline, but in my experience, young men are frequently horny and not overly concerned with the long term consequences of getting what they want in the short term. I have not been given strong evidence that young American men can really be trusted to protect women from unintended pregnancies if those women don’t have access to contraception or abortion.
“I have a black friend who really won me over by being well spoken and educated. However, my previous experience has been that black men are all thugs and hoodlums. And I’ve not been given strong evidence that they can be trusted to protect property rights.”
This is quite literally what you sound like. I’m sorry for the way some men have treated you, but everyone has an excuse that they believe justifies their prejudice. It doesn’t make it any less prejudicial.
If a woman is abstaining from sex because she is afraid of the consequences of getting pregnant, I fully support that and that is not at all misandry. But this is ostentatiously about a protest against the alleged oppressors, which is based solely on sex. You just think the misandry is justified. I don’t. Just like all prejudice.
They’re not alleged oppressors. Women’s rights in this country have always been an uphill battle, and we were already quite a ways away from proper equity before the MAGA crowd and the republicans started rolling things back. Is the ACAB sentiment bigotry? Are BIPOC communities bigoted for being wary of white politics and actions?
There are two genders in this country: Cis-male, and political. If you’re not cis-male, you’re at a disadvantage out of the gate, and it is far from unreasonable for women or people in general to be wary and suspicious when it comes to their safety. I have no misandrist views, but I am keenly aware of my disadvantages and vulnerabilities when it comes to interactions with cis-men, particularly in romantic or sexual contexts.
I voted for Harris, the whole point of the protest is that men overwhelmingly voted for trump, so they should protest all men. I’m absolutely just an alleged oppressor here, not actually one, and I’m being looped in solely because of my sex.
You have every right to be weary about anyone you want. But this isn’t just “being weary” it’s putting everyone of a certain sex into a group and shutting them out. It’s akin to the people who say “the only people who have stolen from me are black, so I won’t hire any black people.” It’s just racism/misandry, regardless of whether or not the suspicions have roots in reality.
the thing is though, its not really punishing all men. Not dating someone, or not having sex with that someone, is not a punishment. Like, I’m a guy myself, and I also happen to be asexual. Do you think that I am in some way punishing everyone around me by not dating them, because I dont happen to be attracted to them? Functional relationships cant really be forced, so if something leads someone to not feel safe dating, they’re not obligated to force themselves to go through with it when they dont feel up to it, just because not engaging denies other people the chance to be with them. I just see this as the state of the country leading some women to not feel safe, or just not enjoy, romantic and sexual relationships as much, because the real and perceived risk to engaging in them has increased. And if they dont feel up to it, and so decide not to do it, and then meet up with some other women that feel the same way and assign a label to it, why does that suddenly make them misandrist?
Yes, you are absolutely right that no one is entitled to anything. If they don’t feel like having sex, that’s their right and no one can force them otherwise. If they want to do this protest, more power to them.
But they know they have this over young men, and they are all but outright stating that the point of this is to punish young men for the shift towards the right. And they are targeting all men, due to the actions and beliefs of some. Ignoring this is just trying to justify the misandry, it doesn’t make it go away.
Women trying to protect themselves against misogyny =/= misandry. Calling it misandry is the same principle as when the ruling class opposes equal rights for others by calling it oppression against them.
Women having autonomy over their bodies means they can choose whether to have sex or not. Period. For you to call that choice punishment against you is to say that you have some kind of right to or power over their bodies. I’m already seeing this “your body, my choice” shit going around now that trump won, and it’s disgusting and horrifying.
Women trying to protect themselves against misogyny =/= misandry.
While I absolutely 100% agree, I don’t see how “punishing all men regardless of their guilt” is “defending themselves against misogyny.” It’s just being misandrists, which is my point.
Women having autonomy over their bodies means they can choose whether to have sex or not.
As I said “If they don’t feel like having sex, that’s their right and no one can force them otherwise.” We 100% agree on this point.
For you to call that choice punishment against you is to say that you have some kind of right to or power over their bodies.
I don’t believe this, so I’m sorry it’s simply untrue. The whole point of this is a protest to stop giving men what they want. And that’s their right, I’m not saying they don’t have that right. What I’m saying is that it’s very clearly meant as a punishment, and if that punishment is being directed at a person simply for being a man, regardless of their guilt, that’s blatant misandry.
I’m already seeing this “your body, my choice” shit going around now that trump won, and it’s disgusting and horrifying.
I agree. They are absolutely huge pieces of shit who women should shun. But shunning allies because “they are men too” is pretty shitty as well.
The American women are getting some inspiration for this idea from South Korea, but that doesn’t mean what happens here will be like what’s happening there. The cultures are quite different. I’d say wait and see what actually happens with this in the US, if anything even does, before getting overly worried about it.
I’d say wait and see what actually happens with this in the US, if anything even does, before getting overly worried about it.
I’m not worried about it as I doubt it is something that will take off, and even if it does the chances of it affecting an old happily married man like myself are ridiculously low.
Keep in mind that this all comes from a top level comment talking about how it’s bad to target all men regardless of their guilt, simply because they are men, and then someone defending that it’s okay to target all men, regardless of their guilt. I was basing my position off what I read in the linked article, some other articles I’ve come across on the topic, and what was said in this thread.
While spite might be a partial motivator in this, left-wing progressive feminist ally sperm can cause a pregnancy just as well as right-wing fascist misogynist sperm can. When part of the motivation is to protect oneself from an unwanted pregnancy, it doesn’t matter who the sperm is coming from, and men that feel that they are being wronged by this should take it as an impetus to fight back against the people who are touting this whole “your body, my choice” thing.
The way Ive have been thinking about this is to work backwards: I dont think that you can have a situation where someone is morally obligated to date someone (at least when dating vs not dating is the limit of the situation. Obviously, if you add more negative things, like a trolley problem where it was somehow the only way to save people, that would be another matter, but nobody has set up such a thing here), because a forced relationship is quite harmful to the person so forced.
I suspect that you agree with that, since you acknowledge that “nobody is entitled to anything”. I also think one has a moral obligation to not act in a bigoted manner (this feels pretty much self evident to me, since bigotry harms people). Third, I consider misandry a form of bigotry, pretty much by definition, since I would define that term as “bigotry against men”.
If we consider some other case that would be clearly and obviously misandry, such as, say, someone firing an employee specifically because they were a man, in a case where the man himself had done nothing to warrant the firing, and everyone involved knew this and just didnt want a man, it would seem clear that the ethical thing to do is to not fire the guy. Depending on how the law in the place in question worked, it may or may not be a legal right, but morally speaking, I would say that since the motivation is bigotry and there is no other reason to justify the firing, theres a moral obligation not to do it.
But, if we apply that same reasoning to the situation of a woman deciding to swear off dating because they want to punish men for many of them shifting to the right, and we assume that this is misandry, we would then have to say that, since misandry is bigotry and doing bigoted things is wrong, the “not dating” must be wrong, and therefore that there is a moral obligation to date. But that is a conclusion that, as I said in the beginning, I dont think makes sense. And since it seems like it should follow from adding the assumption that a woman swearing off dating men is misandry, I think I have to conclude that that assumption must be wrong. I cant necessarily explain how it is wrong, just that I think that it leads to a nonsense conclusion if it is correct, and so cannot be even if it appears that it should be on first glance.
Say to some male employee, “Hey, at the end of the quarter, I am planning on giving you a raise.” Now, I’m not obligated to give them that raise, as I’m well within my power to change my mind. I think it’s safe to say we both agree on this.
However, some other guy says to me “go fuck yourself” and so when the end of the quarter comes around I say to the male employee, “Sorry, but I’m not giving you that raise because some other guy told me to fuck myself.”
Would you argue that I haven’t punished that guy, simply because whether to give you the raise is completely up to me? To me, this is clearly a punishment: they were going to get something, but I decided to not do so in retaliation to how I was treated.
This is a different situation though, for a few reasons: first, I actually don’t agree, once you’ve promised the raises, people will reasonably make plans in anticipation of them, so I do think you have an obligation (maybe not a legal one, but that isn’t what we’re talking about) to give them once you’ve made those promises. I don’t recall the women involved in any of this 4b stuff promising a relationship to any man or group of men, it isn’t like they “were going to get it” already.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the stakes for business and personal relationships are different. We don’t generally require continuing and revokable consent for giving someone money, the state can for example issue someone a monetary fine, and that’s considered an acceptable consequence for many things. If you promise to buy something, and they then come to deliver it and you decide “actually I’ve changed my mind, keep it, I’m not buying it from you anymore”, the other person can in a number of circumstances sue you for breaking your agreement.
However, if the state were to mandate that someone enter into a relationship, or have sex with someone, as a penalty for something, that would be considered a human rights abuse where the monetary fine would not, and if you were to tell someone that you found some type of flower super romantic, and then they came over with those flowers to give, but you then told them you weren’t feeling a connection, no reasonable person would take their side if they tried to sue you to force you into a romantic relationship with them.
To put it a simpler way, if you promise someone a raise, the default state once that promise is made is getting the raise, as in professional matters, honoring promises and agreements is fundamental, revoking it later is therefore taking something from them, because you’re changing that default state to something worse for them. Personal relations do not have the same dynamic. It is well known and understood that people sometimes change their minds on romantic and sexual relationships, or sometimes just aren’t in the mood anymore. Promises don’t carry the same weight, when there exists an absolute right to revoke consent at any point and have things not continue. As such, the default state is “not having a relationship/encounter with a particular person”, right up until it happens. If the person in question never decides to enter into that relationship, because they have decided that they don’t want to even deal with having one at all, they haven’t taken anything from whoever else might have been interested in them, because they haven’t changed that state. There was never a reason for a guy to expect one of these 4b women would date them in the first place, and no reason to expect that they wouldn’t one day leave again if they did.
I actually don’t agree, once you’ve promised the raises, people will reasonably make plans in anticipation of them, so I do think you have an obligation (maybe not a legal one, but that isn’t what we’re talking about) to give them once you’ve made those promises. I don’t recall the women involved in any of this 4b stuff promising a relationship to any man or group of men, it isn’t like they “were going to get it” already.
I was very careful with my words, and very intentionally avoided the word “promise” because I knew it would be spun this way, even though I would argue that even if one promises to do something, they still have the right to say no (i.e. Is a woman who promises to have sex with a man required to have sex with that man? Or does she still maintain the right to change her mind?)
So can we retry again without putting the word “promise” in my mouth? Am I punishing that person by deciding to not give them a raise as a retaliation of the person saying “fuck you” to me? Or is it because the raise was never theirs, it’s impossible for me to punish them by taking it away?
I am saying that if what is to be given and then not is money, then it is punishment, but if it is sex, it is not, because these things are fundamentally different in a way that makes it reasonable to take one back without justification but not the other
But your whole point relied on the “promise” aspect of it. If there was no promise of it, only the likelihood of it happening, then it falls under the same thing that there is no crime by withholding it. I agree that sex and money are different, as they are legally held to different standards. But that’s a distinction without a meaning in the context of the current discussion.
Let me try it this way.
I suggest that I’m going to have sex with someone. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I’m not going to have sex with them. By your logic, this is not punishment.
I suggest that I’m going to give someone money. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I’m not going to give them that money. By your logic, this is punishment.
This seems blatantly contradictory, even if we maintain that withholding sex is less a punishment. It’s still the same thing - withholding something that would likely have been given had there been no reason to retaliate - the only difference is that the state can’t do anything about the punishment when it comes to sex.
I’ve yet to see anyone say they are doing this because they are afraid of dying if they get pregnant. The article quotes someone who says it’s about respect, and all of the other things I’ve read are about fighting the patriarchy and men being controlling.
I think you want it to be justifiable, and are trying to figure how to spin it so it is.
How it’s presented has zero impact on the actual result.
Sure. But my whole point is that this is misandry. So if the intent is to punish all men because you blame all men for this, the fact that it minimizes some risk has no bearing on that point.
but that is also irrelevant.
What? It’s absolutely relevant. Like if I punch a black guy because they are black that’s racist. If I punch a black guy because he attacked me and I was defending myself that’s not racist. The outcome doesn’t change the intent here.
It stems from a conscious or unconscious understanding that the risks have changed.
Whether the misandry is conscious or unconscious doesn’t make a difference. Or do we think that our unconscious racial biases aren’t biases?
I can’t believe someone, here on Lemmy, is actually defending women punishing all men because some are trash. It would be like if white women said they weren’t going to date black men because some black men are rapist. They are free to do what they want, but it’s racist as fuck. Just like this is misandrist as fuck.
It’s not punishment; it’s risk control. You don’t get to have post-sexual liberation values with pre-sexual liberation healthcare.
We live in a culture where premarital sex, at least outside of conservative religious communities, is tolerated and even encouraged. Yet this is a recent thing. Up until the mid-twentieth century, it was extremely shameful for a woman to have sex before marriage. It would be as shameful and socially fraught as, IDK, a kid coming out as trans to their parents today.
You, I am assuming, were born sometime well after the 1960s. You were born in the post women’s liberation world. So it is easy to forget that the world you are used to living in is actually a historical anomaly. The idea of it being normal and acceptable for women to have sex before marriage? That is a historical oddity in Western culture.
This social structure is only possible BECAUSE of contraceptives and abortion. And radical conservatives just came in to power that are doing everything they can to restrict these things. These radical conservatives believe sex before marriage is wrong, and they seek to restrict any access to abortion or contraception.
If these things are restricted, what choice do women have but to return to pre-women’s liberation sexual norms? Are you going to start a relationship with a woman and just happily agree to be abstinent, or have zero PIV sex, while conservatives retain power? Or, are you going to pressure her into trying something riskier, like the pull-out method? Are both of you capable of holding to your agreement not to be intimate, even when both really want it, even when you’re both drunk?
The simple truth is that in this environment, the government is trying to take away every option available to women to prevent or terminate pregnancy. The government is thus making sex itself incredibly risky for women. If you ask the government, they will tell you, “pregnancy or abstinence, the choice is yours.”
What choice do women have but to choose abstinence?
Sorry guys. You wanted Victorian access to abortion and contraception? You wanted Victorian views on masculinity and femininity? Well, with that comes Victorian female frigidity and sexual propriety. In the future you want, casual sex before marriage isn’t a thing. Better hope you roll the dice on the sexual compatibility with your spouse, as you certainly aren’t getting any before marriage. And even then, only when you’re actively trying to have kids.
Sex is for reproduction, not pleasure. If you have a problem with that, you’re a sexual deviant. This is the world men voted for; this is the world they’ll get. You want it? Better put a ring on it.
No, I didn’t vote for it. That’s the whole point. Most men who voted did. That’s on them, not me. Any punishment directed at me because I’m a male and other males did bad things is blatant misandry: blaming me for my sex.
Sure, if women are not having sex because they are afraid of getting pregnant and they don’t have access to abortion, that makes sense. But this is putting words in the protester’s mouths in an attempt to justify the blatant misandry. They aren’t doing this because they are afraid of getting pregnant, they are doing it because some men did something bad (although, it was certainly not just men) and, because they are misandrists, they are punishing all men.
A woman refusing to have sex with you is a punishment? It seems that your mindset is based on the concept that you are owed sex at a baseline and a refusal to have sex with you is a violation. It’s that kind of mindset that keeps many men from being actual allies to women’s liberation. Coercion and rape are not the same thing, but they share a neighborhood in the realm of indecent and cruel things that humans do to each other, and walking around with the idea that one is owed sex in any capacity increases the likelihood that one would resort to coercion or worse when rejected or denied.
While I absolutely agree that no one owes anyone sex, and if women want to protest like this it’s entirely their right.
However, I think you’re using this fact to miss the point. Even the woman quoted in the article is saying that men wants sex, but don’t respect them, so she won’t have sex with men. The 4b all have to do with not doing something they might have otherwise done with men.
It’s clearly meant to be a punishment, a retaliation for the loss of their rights.
It’s not about me saying women owe sex to men, I never said this or implied this. It’s me pointing out what these protests are about.
I am currently married, but in my previous experiences, the majority of male partners I have had both claimed to be feminist allies and used heavy coercion (and in one case outright rape) to get what they wanted. My husband won a lot of points with me by accepting a “no” without further argument thereby respecting my choices and my consent. I try to trust other humans at baseline, but in my experience, young men are frequently horny and not overly concerned with the long term consequences of getting what they want in the short term. I have not been given strong evidence that young American men can really be trusted to protect women from unintended pregnancies if those women don’t have access to contraception or abortion.
“I have a black friend who really won me over by being well spoken and educated. However, my previous experience has been that black men are all thugs and hoodlums. And I’ve not been given strong evidence that they can be trusted to protect property rights.”
This is quite literally what you sound like. I’m sorry for the way some men have treated you, but everyone has an excuse that they believe justifies their prejudice. It doesn’t make it any less prejudicial.
If a woman is abstaining from sex because she is afraid of the consequences of getting pregnant, I fully support that and that is not at all misandry. But this is ostentatiously about a protest against the alleged oppressors, which is based solely on sex. You just think the misandry is justified. I don’t. Just like all prejudice.
They’re not alleged oppressors. Women’s rights in this country have always been an uphill battle, and we were already quite a ways away from proper equity before the MAGA crowd and the republicans started rolling things back. Is the ACAB sentiment bigotry? Are BIPOC communities bigoted for being wary of white politics and actions?
There are two genders in this country: Cis-male, and political. If you’re not cis-male, you’re at a disadvantage out of the gate, and it is far from unreasonable for women or people in general to be wary and suspicious when it comes to their safety. I have no misandrist views, but I am keenly aware of my disadvantages and vulnerabilities when it comes to interactions with cis-men, particularly in romantic or sexual contexts.
I voted for Harris, the whole point of the protest is that men overwhelmingly voted for trump, so they should protest all men. I’m absolutely just an alleged oppressor here, not actually one, and I’m being looped in solely because of my sex.
You have every right to be weary about anyone you want. But this isn’t just “being weary” it’s putting everyone of a certain sex into a group and shutting them out. It’s akin to the people who say “the only people who have stolen from me are black, so I won’t hire any black people.” It’s just racism/misandry, regardless of whether or not the suspicions have roots in reality.
the thing is though, its not really punishing all men. Not dating someone, or not having sex with that someone, is not a punishment. Like, I’m a guy myself, and I also happen to be asexual. Do you think that I am in some way punishing everyone around me by not dating them, because I dont happen to be attracted to them? Functional relationships cant really be forced, so if something leads someone to not feel safe dating, they’re not obligated to force themselves to go through with it when they dont feel up to it, just because not engaging denies other people the chance to be with them. I just see this as the state of the country leading some women to not feel safe, or just not enjoy, romantic and sexual relationships as much, because the real and perceived risk to engaging in them has increased. And if they dont feel up to it, and so decide not to do it, and then meet up with some other women that feel the same way and assign a label to it, why does that suddenly make them misandrist?
Yes, you are absolutely right that no one is entitled to anything. If they don’t feel like having sex, that’s their right and no one can force them otherwise. If they want to do this protest, more power to them.
But they know they have this over young men, and they are all but outright stating that the point of this is to punish young men for the shift towards the right. And they are targeting all men, due to the actions and beliefs of some. Ignoring this is just trying to justify the misandry, it doesn’t make it go away.
Women trying to protect themselves against misogyny =/= misandry. Calling it misandry is the same principle as when the ruling class opposes equal rights for others by calling it oppression against them.
Women having autonomy over their bodies means they can choose whether to have sex or not. Period. For you to call that choice punishment against you is to say that you have some kind of right to or power over their bodies. I’m already seeing this “your body, my choice” shit going around now that trump won, and it’s disgusting and horrifying.
While I absolutely 100% agree, I don’t see how “punishing all men regardless of their guilt” is “defending themselves against misogyny.” It’s just being misandrists, which is my point.
As I said “If they don’t feel like having sex, that’s their right and no one can force them otherwise.” We 100% agree on this point.
I don’t believe this, so I’m sorry it’s simply untrue. The whole point of this is a protest to stop giving men what they want. And that’s their right, I’m not saying they don’t have that right. What I’m saying is that it’s very clearly meant as a punishment, and if that punishment is being directed at a person simply for being a man, regardless of their guilt, that’s blatant misandry.
I agree. They are absolutely huge pieces of shit who women should shun. But shunning allies because “they are men too” is pretty shitty as well.
The American women are getting some inspiration for this idea from South Korea, but that doesn’t mean what happens here will be like what’s happening there. The cultures are quite different. I’d say wait and see what actually happens with this in the US, if anything even does, before getting overly worried about it.
I’m not worried about it as I doubt it is something that will take off, and even if it does the chances of it affecting an old happily married man like myself are ridiculously low.
Keep in mind that this all comes from a top level comment talking about how it’s bad to target all men regardless of their guilt, simply because they are men, and then someone defending that it’s okay to target all men, regardless of their guilt. I was basing my position off what I read in the linked article, some other articles I’ve come across on the topic, and what was said in this thread.
While spite might be a partial motivator in this, left-wing progressive feminist ally sperm can cause a pregnancy just as well as right-wing fascist misogynist sperm can. When part of the motivation is to protect oneself from an unwanted pregnancy, it doesn’t matter who the sperm is coming from, and men that feel that they are being wronged by this should take it as an impetus to fight back against the people who are touting this whole “your body, my choice” thing.
The way Ive have been thinking about this is to work backwards: I dont think that you can have a situation where someone is morally obligated to date someone (at least when dating vs not dating is the limit of the situation. Obviously, if you add more negative things, like a trolley problem where it was somehow the only way to save people, that would be another matter, but nobody has set up such a thing here), because a forced relationship is quite harmful to the person so forced.
I suspect that you agree with that, since you acknowledge that “nobody is entitled to anything”. I also think one has a moral obligation to not act in a bigoted manner (this feels pretty much self evident to me, since bigotry harms people). Third, I consider misandry a form of bigotry, pretty much by definition, since I would define that term as “bigotry against men”.
If we consider some other case that would be clearly and obviously misandry, such as, say, someone firing an employee specifically because they were a man, in a case where the man himself had done nothing to warrant the firing, and everyone involved knew this and just didnt want a man, it would seem clear that the ethical thing to do is to not fire the guy. Depending on how the law in the place in question worked, it may or may not be a legal right, but morally speaking, I would say that since the motivation is bigotry and there is no other reason to justify the firing, theres a moral obligation not to do it.
But, if we apply that same reasoning to the situation of a woman deciding to swear off dating because they want to punish men for many of them shifting to the right, and we assume that this is misandry, we would then have to say that, since misandry is bigotry and doing bigoted things is wrong, the “not dating” must be wrong, and therefore that there is a moral obligation to date. But that is a conclusion that, as I said in the beginning, I dont think makes sense. And since it seems like it should follow from adding the assumption that a woman swearing off dating men is misandry, I think I have to conclude that that assumption must be wrong. I cant necessarily explain how it is wrong, just that I think that it leads to a nonsense conclusion if it is correct, and so cannot be even if it appears that it should be on first glance.
Say to some male employee, “Hey, at the end of the quarter, I am planning on giving you a raise.” Now, I’m not obligated to give them that raise, as I’m well within my power to change my mind. I think it’s safe to say we both agree on this.
However, some other guy says to me “go fuck yourself” and so when the end of the quarter comes around I say to the male employee, “Sorry, but I’m not giving you that raise because some other guy told me to fuck myself.”
Would you argue that I haven’t punished that guy, simply because whether to give you the raise is completely up to me? To me, this is clearly a punishment: they were going to get something, but I decided to not do so in retaliation to how I was treated.
This is a different situation though, for a few reasons: first, I actually don’t agree, once you’ve promised the raises, people will reasonably make plans in anticipation of them, so I do think you have an obligation (maybe not a legal one, but that isn’t what we’re talking about) to give them once you’ve made those promises. I don’t recall the women involved in any of this 4b stuff promising a relationship to any man or group of men, it isn’t like they “were going to get it” already.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the stakes for business and personal relationships are different. We don’t generally require continuing and revokable consent for giving someone money, the state can for example issue someone a monetary fine, and that’s considered an acceptable consequence for many things. If you promise to buy something, and they then come to deliver it and you decide “actually I’ve changed my mind, keep it, I’m not buying it from you anymore”, the other person can in a number of circumstances sue you for breaking your agreement.
However, if the state were to mandate that someone enter into a relationship, or have sex with someone, as a penalty for something, that would be considered a human rights abuse where the monetary fine would not, and if you were to tell someone that you found some type of flower super romantic, and then they came over with those flowers to give, but you then told them you weren’t feeling a connection, no reasonable person would take their side if they tried to sue you to force you into a romantic relationship with them.
To put it a simpler way, if you promise someone a raise, the default state once that promise is made is getting the raise, as in professional matters, honoring promises and agreements is fundamental, revoking it later is therefore taking something from them, because you’re changing that default state to something worse for them. Personal relations do not have the same dynamic. It is well known and understood that people sometimes change their minds on romantic and sexual relationships, or sometimes just aren’t in the mood anymore. Promises don’t carry the same weight, when there exists an absolute right to revoke consent at any point and have things not continue. As such, the default state is “not having a relationship/encounter with a particular person”, right up until it happens. If the person in question never decides to enter into that relationship, because they have decided that they don’t want to even deal with having one at all, they haven’t taken anything from whoever else might have been interested in them, because they haven’t changed that state. There was never a reason for a guy to expect one of these 4b women would date them in the first place, and no reason to expect that they wouldn’t one day leave again if they did.
I was very careful with my words, and very intentionally avoided the word “promise” because I knew it would be spun this way, even though I would argue that even if one promises to do something, they still have the right to say no (i.e. Is a woman who promises to have sex with a man required to have sex with that man? Or does she still maintain the right to change her mind?)
So can we retry again without putting the word “promise” in my mouth? Am I punishing that person by deciding to not give them a raise as a retaliation of the person saying “fuck you” to me? Or is it because the raise was never theirs, it’s impossible for me to punish them by taking it away?
I am saying that if what is to be given and then not is money, then it is punishment, but if it is sex, it is not, because these things are fundamentally different in a way that makes it reasonable to take one back without justification but not the other
I actually just saw this elsewhere in the thread, and it made me think of a good point here that might get you to see my position:
White women voted in favor of Trump. What if I said “That’s it, I’m not having sex with white women at all anymore.” Racist or no?
But your whole point relied on the “promise” aspect of it. If there was no promise of it, only the likelihood of it happening, then it falls under the same thing that there is no crime by withholding it. I agree that sex and money are different, as they are legally held to different standards. But that’s a distinction without a meaning in the context of the current discussion.
Let me try it this way.
I suggest that I’m going to have sex with someone. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I’m not going to have sex with them. By your logic, this is not punishment.
I suggest that I’m going to give someone money. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I’m not going to give them that money. By your logic, this is punishment.
This seems blatantly contradictory, even if we maintain that withholding sex is less a punishment. It’s still the same thing - withholding something that would likely have been given had there been no reason to retaliate - the only difference is that the state can’t do anything about the punishment when it comes to sex.
To be more accurate, your analogy should actually read something like this:
Origionally you give raises to your employees based on performance.
Then one of them says “fuck you”.
After that point giving a raise to any of them has a 5% chance of killing you, per raise.
How many raises do you now give?
There is no retaliation or punishing involved at all. Just a healthy respect for the consequences, however unlikely.
I’ve yet to see anyone say they are doing this because they are afraid of dying if they get pregnant. The article quotes someone who says it’s about respect, and all of the other things I’ve read are about fighting the patriarchy and men being controlling.
I think you want it to be justifiable, and are trying to figure how to spin it so it is.
How it’s presented has zero impact on the actual result. That is to say ‘Risk Abatement’.
Some women might intend this as punishment or revenge on an individual or society at large, but that is also irrelevant.
It stems from a conscious or unconscious understanding that the risks have changed. And so must their decisions.
Sure. But my whole point is that this is misandry. So if the intent is to punish all men because you blame all men for this, the fact that it minimizes some risk has no bearing on that point.
What? It’s absolutely relevant. Like if I punch a black guy because they are black that’s racist. If I punch a black guy because he attacked me and I was defending myself that’s not racist. The outcome doesn’t change the intent here.
Whether the misandry is conscious or unconscious doesn’t make a difference. Or do we think that our unconscious racial biases aren’t biases?