The movement to swear off men: No sex. No dating. No marriage. No children.
The movement to swear off men: No sex. No dating. No marriage. No children.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Not all men backed the ugliness. (To lump them altogether is sexist.) The ones who didn’t should be supported.
I'm sure explaining not all men to them will turn this whole thing around.
I’m sure pulling an Idiocracy will turn this whole thing around.
See how useful that is?
Please look up why "not all men" is a silly point to make.
Because we all know the response to that is too many men? Right? But women voted against women, how do you fix that? How do you sit and blame all the men for your problems when it was also women who wanted these things to happen?
Implying they understand what is going to happen.
It's kind of your own responsibility to be informed on who you are voting for... If you vote for someone you should understand what they have done and what they hope to do in the future...
It's not really the individuals fault that education standards have fallen, and more people every year are falling behind... Education has been gutted when we should be doing the opposite... And trump wants to further that by dismantling the department of education...
Social media and the disturbing trend of not looking into or even reading about things you just read the headline of is another cause of lack of understanding.
It's on an individual to know and understand who they are voting for from actual legitimate sources that can be trusted and fact checked against other sources...
But again who do you trust when any more it's about who can get an article out faster than anyone else? Who cares if it's not true your ad revenue is more important...
But yeah it's not the fault of an individual, everyone falls into the trap of believing something that isn't true no fault of their own.
But honestly, if you have no idea who trump is or what he is for after the last eight years of having to hear about him basically everywhere.
Then yeah I guess how can you blame someone. Oh yeah I guess if they were somehow forced to by someone then sure...
Otherwise yeah it's on them and they made the choice without doing a good enough job of understanding who they voted for...
Or they voted exactly who they wanted to vote for...
Have you considered the idea that they do understand what's going to happen, and that's what they want? Under their worldview, a fetus is a whole person. If the number of abortions prevented is higher than the number of women killed by abortion bans, then they've saved more lives. It's not that they hate women, it's that they have a fundamentally different concept of what a person is.
Trying to explain to women that they're either stupid or hate women because they're trying to save babies is ineffective.
Please look up why telling people to look something up instead of explaining it to them is ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst
Actually, I'll just explain it: it's condescending, which while you may feel it warranted, is not an effective persuasion tactic.
I unfortunately don't have the emotional capacity to keep explaining it. Wish I did.
Then genuinely, don't say anything. You are a representative of a political ideology, and when you condescendingly tell people to educate themselves on a subject instead of writing a short paragraph, or finding them specific reading material, you make the entire political ideology look lazy and elitist.
The common response I've gotten to the sentiment that I've just shared over the last 4 years is "fuck 'em, we don't need people who aren't willing to educate themselves." As we can all see right now, this is incorrect. We need to garner support from people that we don't like, and that means treating them with civility even when they don't know things that we think they should.
Just so I'm sure... You're saying to pander to the uneducated and trick them into believing your side is right?
People won't change unless they want to. If they want to, then telling them what to look up in sufficient. If they don't want to, there's no point.
No. I'm saying that there is a large group of people in this country who don't strongly believe in anything. When they see one side saying "they're eating the dogs and the cats, they want to trans your kids and that's bad" and the other side saying "you should look up why what you just said it stupid," they're going to do a 2024 election and at best not show up.
People won't change unless they want to.
You're naive. Daryl Davis was able to unracist 200 members of the KKK. Do you think telling them to "look it up" would have been sufficient? Most people are open to change, but they won't be convinced by someone that isn't willing to put in a modicum of effort past "look it up."
I'm not Daryl Davis. Nor could I be. Could you?
For one I'm not black, so no. But also you don't need to be. I provided him as proof against your idea that people will only change if they want to, and that if they want to, simply telling them to do more research is sufficient. There are options between "be a brave and charismatic black man venturing into the heart of a movement that exists to kill you," and "leave snide comments on Lemmy."
You could, for example, engage in dialogue with someone, politely rebutting the incorrect assumptions they make without demanding that they rebut their own arguments for you. You may not convince many people this way, but you will convince more people than the snide remarks guy.
Tens of millions of women voted for Trump; so men should go around blaming women, right?
Men also voted trump. An apt analogy would be: can we blame white people for Trump?
Yes, yes we can.
Men also voted for Trump.
Yes. That's the exact thing I'm arguing against; just because >50% of a group did something doesn't mean you get to go around blaming the portions of that group that didn't do that thing. It's frankly amazing that you completely missed the point and tried to turn it right back around.
You can't even just blame white people, his numbers from black and Latino voters also increased.
Hey look it's the rhetoric that lost us the election
It turns out we really, really need the specific demographic that sees a comment like this and thinks "leftists don't like me so I'm voting red"
You're right. I keep forgetting that people are emotional creatures who don't understand how elections work. Gotta pander to these people by using soft words and stroking their ego.
Or, hear me out, don't demonize a whole population because a small majority of their demographic voted bad. One week ago, I would have shared your opinion, but these election results are proof that we really need to figure out political strategies that get support from every demographic, even straight men.
It's not demonizing a population. That's the point.
The point is that women can't tell the difference between the man that is safe and the man that will rape them. So until you're determined to be safe, is smart to assume you're not safe.
It's the same as saying "people are horrible, but persons are great."
Men also voted trump. An apt analogy would be: can we blame white people for Trump?
Yes, yes we can.
This is what you said. You said that we can blame white people for Trump. Some would call this "demonizing an entire population because a small majority of their demographic voted bad"
Personally I think it's more accurate to say we can blame conservatives for trump, since being conservative is the biggest indicator that someone voted for him
White people are the largest voting block and they (we) turned out in vast majority for Trump. (Not that I voted for him, ofc)
People did this. White people did this. Conservatives did this. You can group it however you like. All are accurate.
I understand it's uncomfortable at first. You feel bad because you identify as white and hearing that the majority of white people sucks kinda hurts. But it's not you. You don't need to worry.
Pattern based generalizations are just part of the language. If I asked you what color the sky is in normal conversation, you'd say blue. You wouldn't dive into a ten minute diatribe about the multitude of possible colors. The reason this doesn't bother you is that you don't identify as a sky.
But if you're white, I'm not going to trust you until I get to know you and figure out if you have empathy. For now, I assume every white guy is a trumper, and I'll be right most of the time.
wHy WON't ThESE Women wHO ARe beIng oppRESSeD And HAVInG tHEir rIghts erodeD sUPPort mEn LIke Me WHo aRE tHe rEaL VIcTImS aNd CleArlY so syMPaTHETic tO THEIR cAUSE???!111122345
You are precisely the kind of insidious creep we want to avoid.
Who said women aren't being oppressed? Who said that men are being oppressed? Who said I was a man?
Sorry if you've been hurt, but that is no excuse for sexism. To be clear: lumping all men into a group is sexism. Grouping all people by some factor that is beyond their control is prejudice. It's really as simple as that. Again, I'm sorry if you've been hurt, but that's no excuse for that response.
To repeat: the reality is that not all men back the ugliness that Trump and his supporters promote. To claim otherwise is to rob yourself of allies. It is self defeating.
When did they say that men are the real victims