politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
Refusing to engage in sex or relationships is not "shutting people out", it's exercising bodily and personal autonomy. This issue is a potato in a world of apples and oranges and cannot be compared meaningfully to other issues. Is a lesbian the equivalent of a racist for being entirely uninterested in men? Is an asexual person a bigot because they refuse to have sex with anyone?
The assertions you are making are a moot point if you value consent at all. If women do not consent to be in relationships or have sex, that needs to be the end of the discussion without coercing them to change their minds by calling them bigots for their refusal to consent.
We both agree that they 100% have the right to do this. You don't need to convince me of that. The thing is that these two things are not mutually exclusive; they are using the right to bodily and personal autonomy to shut people out. No amount of spin will change this. It's the whole point of the protest, or at least ostensibly so.
I've been very clear about my position: they are blaming all men because of the actions of some men. That's the misandry. Trying to equate this to (paraphrased) "you must thing lesbians are misandrists too!" is either just a disingenuous spin, or you aren't trying to understand.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just pointing out that their blatant misandry is misandry.
If you are so intent upon discussion of this matter as being an issue of misandry, I certainly hope that you are as staunchly against misogyny and intend to do far more than just voting for Kamala to protect women in this country.
That is my main concern. Men will not suffer irreparable harm from the consequences of the coming Trump administration anywhere near the same way women will. I will assume that you will consider this to be misandrist as well, but I have little regard for the concerns and complaints of men in this matter because for women, this is quite literally a matter of life and death.
Trying to harp on the "misandry" part of this is not productive towards the goal of the protest which is the protection of women's rights and lives against the coming onslaught.
Tu quoque fallacy.
Well, you'd be wrong because I wholeheartedly agree.
I'm not trying to harp on anything. I called out some misandry, and then a bunch of people have jumped in to defend that prejudice. All I've done is defend my position. You act like I'm following 4B people around making sure to shout misandry any chance I get.
Yours is a voice in a chorus in the response to this article on Lemmy. The majority of the comments on this article and similar ones are calling out the "misandry" and shouting down commenters who disagree with them. The predominant sentiment appears to be men interpreting this as an indiscriminate punishment and expressing that they are personally aggrieved and offended by this protest because they're "one of the good ones".
Right now, if you want to be "one of the good ones", you need to be turning around and fighting the men who are expressing entitlement in the face of this protest as well as the men who started out from the position of "your body, my choice". Simply stating that you are an ally is not enough. As a man, you have the privileged position of being able to speak to other men on a more level playing field to try to convince them of the gravity of the impending attack on women's rights without being accused of being "emotional", "hysterical", or "misandrist" just for participating in the conversation.
Again with the tu quoque. Does your abandonment of the point to focus solely on ignorantly attacking what you imagine I do in real life mean you realize that I made a good point? I don't disagree with what you say here, but, fuck, to spend this whole time shitting on men and making up the worst about me, and then turn around and demand I act in a certain way takes a lot of fucking nerve. If you want men to be allies, I suggest stop defending when people act like they are all guilty for Trump being elected.
This is tied into the problem that the left has with a lot of protests and campaigns. The real/best answers are always nuanced, but if you try to fit that into a meme, or in a slogan, or in a soundbyte, it just ends up being garbled gibberish. The "Not All Men" argument obstinately ignores the fact that having a nuanced discussion through a megaphone at a protest just does not work. Of course it is not all men, but it is a large enough proportion to be seriously worried about.
This is similar to BIPOC fighting back against the KKK and all the similar organizations and being told they're bigoted and wrong because it's not every white person that's a racist. Of course it's not that every white person is a racist, and of course it's not that every man is a monster, but to grab attention and make a statement, you have to trim the nuance out and pick the most important piece out or else your protest just gets lost in the noise.
Protests are a very truncated form of communication and there are many people here on Lemmy that are pointedly forgetting or ignoring that fact in their outrage and offense in response to this protest.
What I'm reading here is that you knew I was right all along, but it makes a better political slogan to pretend that it makes sense. That I can agree with.
I would assume that you would understand that this kind of protest works better when applied without exception, even when there is acknowledgement that there are exceptions among the people impacted. Hopefully, those men who are allies in this would be understanding of the fact that if these women made exceptions all over the place, the power of the protest would be significantly diminished. It does require a reciprocal sacrifice on the part of men that support women in this endeavor, but that should not be thought of as an offensive or undue burden.
Considering plenty of women voted for trump, and this protest is only directed at men, it seems there is a very large exception being made there.
If they said "none of the 4bs with any trump supporter regardless of sex," that would be done without exception. But that's not what is happening. It's all men, regardless of their support for Trump. They are excepting guilty people, while including innocent people.
And, sure, if I supported their misandric protest, I should be expected to have a reciprocal sacrifice. However, considering their protest is irrationally targeting me because of my sex, I'm not really hot on "doing my part" for something I vehemently disagree with.