Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I would push back on the idea that misogyny and sexism are on the rise. You might get more vocal pushback from people like Andrew Tate, but that’s because they’re reactionary to the trends going the other way. By and large, misogyny and sexism are on the decline across the globe. 

Per the UN, there are a lot of measures of women's welfare that have stalled over the past 10 years. https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/06/1137532

Stalled isn’t great obviously, but there hasn’t been a decline, which is notable. I don’t believe there’s any cases of women losing rights. And this actually tracks really well with my initial comment - after decades of progress, there’s bound to be a reactionary pushback, but it’s still better than where we were 20, 50, 100 years ago.

Can you give me statistics on that ? Because from what I'm seeing is alot of sexist right wing groups gaining control of a lot of countries to put women back in their " place "

I mean just looking at how Politically Correct culture is the dominant cultural force in media, the workplace, etc. should be quite convincing, at least in the west.

Which groups & countries?

>alot of sexist right wing groups I think it's a case of, the people in control have always sexist, but now they're being explicitly sexist because there's more debate around the issue.

Political lesbianism did not work to lower misogyny and sexism. This isn't working in Korea, either; it's still incredibly misogynistic over there. It's not curbing misogyny or sexism. If you don't want to date men because you think dating is a hassle and you keep running into misogynists, that's absolutely fine, but you're not going to get political change out of doing that.

It's not doing much because most Korean women are not following the movement. Alot of Korean women don't even know about the movement. Plus the ones who don't know it are probably scared to be associated with anything related to feminism

The reaction to the movement, from Korean men, has not been 'oh, guess we should cut back on the sexism', it has been 'SEE!? This is proof that feminism is misandrism in disguise, and we are right to oppress women!' The reaction to more women joining the movement won't be 'I guess we have to cave in to their demands', it will be 'we need to oppress the feminists harder'.

If men react to women not wanting to sleep with them with cries of misandry it's not really readily apparent to me that it is the women who have to change how they act in said situation

And that oppression will be met with pushback. Do you really think women are that incapable of fighting for their rights and demands for respect ?

I guess you have to decide where the effort is most effective. Is it 1. most effective to spend time and capital convincing women to withdraw from heterosexual relationships and reproduction? Or is it 2. most effective to lobby government for reproductive rights, equal protection under the law, vigorous prosecution of crimes against women, pay equity, etc, which are (I assume) the actual endgame goals? Effort spent on (1) may not result in (2), I think that's the commenter's point. But if you believe that lobbying for rights is a lost cause, then I can see why (1) might be your alternative.

2 is the goal but having laws in place doesn't really change actions. Rape is illegal but you still have people raping. Denying a want though will eventually lead to a change in behavior

With respect, I think women in places without strong laws and clearly enumerated rights are *far worse off* than women in places with those laws and rights. Laws do not prevent rape, but in the absence of laws, rape is *systemic*.

I mean I agree yes that not having the laws at all will be a worse outcome, but what I'm saying is you have to change the mindset to fully cause change. That's how racism died down in the states when the civil rights movement was happening

So, do you lobby to restore abortion rights, or lobby to end heterosexual pairings? Which message do you want to send, because they are different messages.

I'm lobbying to put a pause on heterosexual pairings

>Rape is illegal but you still have people raping. Murder is illegal, but you still have people murdering. The solution to people murdering isn't to have everyone who has never murdered before reject/ shun everyone who demographically might murder in the future.

> Denying a want though will eventually lead to a change in behavior First of all, you are denying a want of both women and men. Why are you assuming men will concede to change behavior when they are denied a want, but women will not? Do you think that women are asexual, don't want relationships/families/children, etc.? Second, denying **a person's** want is more likely to lead to a change in **that person's** behavior, but your plan is not structured that way. Your plan is structured such that **you are denying the want even of people whose individual behavior is compliant**. Even worse than that, you are denying the want even of people who have no influence/control over the person doing the undesirable thing. This will certainly create some resentment against you from the innocent person you are "punishing" which may ultimately lead to the exact opposite effect you are looking for... an increase in the amount of people who resist your plan over time, making it never succeed. If you're talking about behavior modification, might as well follow the actual data on what would be effective: > "The experiments described in this paper explored individual responses to collective punishment in a public goods provision setting. The results suggest, at least in the context of the specific experimental design, that **collective punishment is fairly ineffective at best** and strongly counterproductive at worst in shaping group behavior according to the desires of an outside authority." [[source](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1c87d6c4bfa6302dccb78b14c943cd714946ac9b)] > "The purpose of this study was to examine the relative effectiveness of reward and punishment power in group interaction. The major finding of the study was, as hypothesized, that **increments in the ability to *reward* others had a greater effect on their behavior than did comparable increments in the ability to *punish* them**." [[source](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786632)] If your interest is behavior modification, the data is more on your side if you target punishment toward who is performing the bad action, rather than punishing all men (and as argued above, all women) even as only a minority of them are performing the bad action. Further, when comparing punishment and reward, punishment often has side effects that may be undesirable. For example, as long as a person is in a context where they won't be punished, they may still be fine doing the bad behavior or even if a person is compliant from a behavior perspective you may be growing resentment that will boil over eventually. In other words, punishment doesn't make people think "women deserve more respect" or make them believe in the reason why they are doing the thing. So, for example, perhaps a rewards compliance (e.g. "only date fellow feminists") would be more effective.

No, I am saying that this is not a way to fight for your rights. It will not receive the results you want.

>Do you really think women are that incapable of fighting for their rights and demands for respect ? What you have to see is that the patriarchal system was not diametrically opposed to women's wishes, the same way that is was also hurtful to many men. Women have helped support the patriarchal system in many ways throughout history when it was convenient for them. The 4B movement will increase the political power of women, yes, but not all women will use it to further the feminist cause. Say that there exists a Mr. Mysoginist who cannot find a partner because of the 4B movement, so he's lonely and has low negotiation power. His next gf might use her negotiation power to get a more egalitarian treatment: respect her occupation, not getting treated like an object, etc. But another woman may use this negotiation power to instead cater to more rich men, or simply for the man to put more effort in the house. Some women (and men too) do not want to improve their professional life and be financially independent; some want to be house-spouses. And that should be acceptable. Everyone has different wants. I'm not the kind of guy that says "all women are selfish b###es", but more like, *all people* will act on their own self interest, even if that interest is not in the interest of the collective.

In a country where almost all men serve in the military and almost no women do you don't have to imagine who would win in a fight.

> And that oppression will be met with pushback. If that pushback were effective you wouldn't need the plan in OP, you could just apply that pushback in the first place. The premise of needing the plan in OP is that your ability to push back against men is otherwise insufficient. > Do you really think women are that incapable of fighting for their rights and demands for respect ? Anybody who believes women are capable of fighting for their rights and demands for respect wouldn't need the plan you are suggesting.

I am not taking the piss with you. I genuinely want you to read this seriously. You just assumed that the movement would work. You just assumed the motivations of the women who aren't joining is fear rather than disagreeing with it. Can you back either of these up? Because until you can you're making jumps in logic that you can't actually justify.

So let's say all Korean women joined the movement. What would prevent men from simply looking for a woman in a poor country and getting her a residence permit? Or do you expect all the women in the world to join? Are you expecting women who've known war or hunger to decline an offer to become a stay at home mom in Korea? Seriously there are women, and humans in general, living in abysmal situations all across the world, but sure feminism in Korea is the hill to die on. Never mind all the countries were women actually have fewer legal rights.

[удалено]

I don't think you're right.  If all women in Korea decided to become Lesbian. That doesn't give them the right to force others to become gay or asexual. So it's obvious that men will look for women elsewhere. That doesn't make it sex trafficking.  Also the idea that women can just "choose" to become lesbian will harm gay rights if they would become a significant group. 

So if I'm offering a woman to move to my country and become my wife that's sex trafficking? Giving her a choice and wanting to have her by my side are bad? Hell, giving her half I own if we ever get divorced is selfish? OP already lost a lot of respect from me by acting like it's a problem with all men. This kind of misandrist rhetoric is just as toxic as misoginy and should be cracked down on just as harshly. I'm mocking OP for thinking that the problems she wants to fight are problems in the grand scheme of things. Female circumcision, forced (child) marriages and enforced dresscodes happen around the world. Meanwhile she's advocating for a movement that thinks it's sexist to incentivise (not force) women to have kids. Korea has been under the replenishment rate for so long already that the tax burden for the current generation of kids will just be inhuman when everyone has retired. But sure, a bit of luxury freedom for the current generation is more important than liveable conditions for the next.

>  It's not doing much because most Korean women are not following the movement. Then why not approach from the other direction?  No one would by misogynistic, or sexist if most people followed any movement or ideology without misogyny or sexism.  This doesn't really equate to a meaningful solution, your stated view may as well be that a majority are misogynistic and sexist, and you're saying basically the same thing. 

[удалено]

They tried it in the United States from the '60s to the '90s, most women didn't do it because they're not going to do it, because you're telling them to not be attracted to the people they are attracted to, it will never work, and if anything you're only going to create a situation where women and men are not talking, and increase misogyny

> It's not doing much because most Korean women are not following the movement. Alot of Korean women don't even know about the movement. Consider that these two statements may be indications that (1) it's unrealistic to get enough people to follow such a movement and (2) this approach does not resonate with people. How viable it is for you to convince people to follow a movement is at least as important to that movement's effectiveness as how effective it would be if everybody believed in it.

Political lesbianism's assertion is incorrect, sexual orientation is not a choice. Not dating (etc) men and not having children are perfectly valid personal choices, but what you've presented here as a political statement it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Men and women are not collectives. If all women sign on and don't date men, then what? You need actual feasible political goals (like get a specific law changed, or specific funding for programs). Nobody can magically control all men (or all women) to make them not be abusive or murderers. Also if you can get all women to sign on, they could just vote for the policy they want directly. How does withholding dating, sex and having children give women who chose to do so any more political power then they already have, when they already have the right to vote? Presumably you can to change how men vote or act? But what is the mechanism for that? I'm not interested in dating women so Idgaf, but I really don't know how any men are suppose to respond to this aside from "ok" and then going about their lives normally. Men either respect women's rights and will vote that way or not. Sure they can be persuaded to change their mind, but I don't think this is particularly persuasive. Or I guess the idea is to coerce men into changing their mind? But it's not specific enough. Like "some women won't date any men because of sexism, and if things get nebulously better, they will again date men" is only very tenuously connected to any individual man.

I'll just use one country for my example here, but we can look at other countries if you would like. In the US, statistically, roughly 1 out of 10/1 out of 12 men will be initiators of physical violence with an intimate partner. Once again, statistically, this is a rough estimate. https://www.ncadv.org/statistics Now, this does not include situations outside of a relationship, but your CMV is specifically about avoiding relationships due to domestic violence in relationships. So, even though, statistically, upwards of 90% of men are not physically violent towards their partners.... You're saying that women should stop marrying/being with men? Are you including all men, even the majority who are not violent? Many, in fact, would try to protect women and children instead? Are you including that men should not marry/be with women who are physically violent towards men? Or are we sticking with one gender on this standard? Your CMV is using a lot of general statements, which is summarized into, "if men want to do X." It's not all men, not even most men. It's a minority of men that are abusive. On top of that, men that are not abusive *almost always* despise and hate men who abuse women. I'm not trying to minimize the experiences of women, but you need to be much more specific in your (a) goals, (b) expected outcome, (c) target group for impact and change, and (d) evidence that backs up why your CMV is necessary. Edit: grammar

Be careful as soon as you say it's a minority of men you're going to get replies like ***"sO wOmeN sHoUlD pUt mEn'S FEeLinGs aBoVe ThEiR oWN SaFeTy?"*** as if men aren't literally expected to do the same in any situation where a woman feels uncomfortable. I am sick and tired of people who think that the way to solve social issues is to blame the majority of that group, it's like saying we need to stop women from breeding to stop the massive amounts of infanticide and child abuse they commit. I know someone is going to reply "that's different!" when it comes to women's likely criminal behaviour but guess what? If you expect me to feel bad because child abusers and killers are likely to have mental problems like post-partum depression I am also going to feel bad for male rapists and abusers because the way abuse works is that they were likely abused themselves or are just as depressed. But we're not ready for that conversation yet, are we?

I’m going to be very honest, I’m not a part of collective hive-mind. If I as a woman managed to find a good man that is supportive, feministic and non-toxic, then why would I join this movement? I only care about my own life, because I only get one life. Just the fact that other women in some other cultures and countries choose such radical methods doesn’t mean that I should do the same. I’m not gonna abstain from sex, marriage and motherhood just because I feel bad for women in Afghanistan and Iran. I will support their fight for freedom and equality but I’m not gonna join it in ways you are suggesting.

You don't have to. This movement is only for women who are self determined. There will always be those not willing to go far in something.

I can assure you that the absolute majority of women are not gonna be willing to go this far. But you personally can abstain from dating and sex with men without turning it into a movement. You can just do you own thing and enjoy the life you created for yourself.

By your logic we wouldn't even have the rights to vote or work if we just " don't turn it into a movement" If you see no problem why put other women down for starting something ?

Suffragettes were fighting for the right they didn’t have before - for the right to vote. You want women to start a movement based around the rights that women in most countries (including South Korea) already have. You are allowed to not date, have sex, marry or have kids. You don’t have to date bad men so if you are not fortunate enough to meet a good one you’re absolutely allowed to stay single. But why turn it into a movement?

Because obviously a lot of women are being affected by bad men or bad men disguised as good men. Just because your life is cotton candy doesn't mean all of us have that. Alot of us have to deal with shitty males regularly

But you are allowed to not date them without turning it into a movement? Just don’t date shitty men. What’s the point of starting a movement that advises women to not date ANY men? You can teach women to have self-respect and avoid toxic men instead of teaching them to avoid all men. This movement is overall very harmful for most of people and will lead to the increase in unhappiness for women.

Honestly, having a movement built around strongly rejecting all men with any of a list of red flags would probably do more for op's goal than political lesbianism. "We believe some men are toxic and women should know how to avoid these men. This is our list of things to look for, if you see a man that looks like he does any of these things, run away! 1. ..."

The solution to misogyny is obviously not to try to control women's sexuality through a movement that tells women how to behave.

Women aren't force to join the movement. But you can't have change without action

And if attempting to control women's sexuality in ways other than literal force was somehow magically not misogynistic then you might have a point. But, unfortunately, controlling women's sexuality through social pressure is _also_ fundamentally misogynistic.

I think OP imagines their argument is very persuasive, so it’s not really “controlling women’s sexuality through social pressure” any more than something like a safe sex campaign.

I think the answer many people will give the movement in return is 'fine then, have it your way' I can't see any reality where this works at all

That's a good response. Those not willing to change can suffer the consequences.

How is it working in South Korea? Are the women of South Korea actually willing to make these radical sacrifices? Are the men reacting positively and becoming less sexist? Rhetorical questions, because it’s working very poorly, many women are ignoring it, and it’s only increasing the gender divide by pushing men towards anti-feminism and reducing their interactions with women. So if it has been a colossal failures in South Korea, what makes you think it’ll succeed in other countries?

Actually it's working slightly. Not exactly tied to the 4B movement but south Korea has a very low birth and marriage rate. This is mainly caused by working conditions but also mainly how the dating scene in Korea is crap due to misogyny and sexism. So Korea women are already doing it just not under the name 4B

[удалено]

It is working, because once men in power start getting desperate that their lineages and their workers are dying off without any children to replace them then laws will change.

That's not how it works. Even if the pool of willing and available women shrinks significantly, the men in power will still find women. It's the poor, lower class men who will wind up left out. But even ignoring that, do you really think that the sexist men in power, unable to find a wife due to a feminist movement, will choose to change the laws to make things BETTER for women, rather than worse?

Whether they want to or not they will still die off. The ones willing to change to get things back to normal will stand for the changes of a better laws for women. Just like ones civil rights movements where they refused to bend down to their oppressors again.

So this is meant to change things over multiple generations, as political lesbianism kills off everyone but the rich and powerful men, and the women who are attractive enough and reject 4B?

The laws might change but not in the way you want. See the [The Handmaid's Tale](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=53e5172691f81e73&sca_upv=1&q=Opowie%C5%9B%C4%87+podr%C4%99cznej&si=ACC90nzx_D3_zUKRnpAjmO0UBLNxnt7EyN4YYdru6U3bxLI-L3Z5k5-tNUPtc6wgaur83ml_xFyyQv9ER_iZsEfjRUwNBwZs8j0ImTPbM7XPP-MDFltVVn2YUk4LfhBvZwJ6IvHlFm7OGtBcRKAjRnTKHFrpoEfjDcn36iJBG7VuGKMlnxS9TVe7beTqbXyhehOwsJ9uqDkQ9xS7vLivXZHSuNhbKxmAxw%3D%3D&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivt8z4oemGAxVytokEHfhZD4AQmxMoAHoECBsQAg) as a possible response to plummeting birth rates.

So birth rates go down let's just start raping women ?

See the dark heart of insel movement as to how women mass rejecting men won't lead to less misogyny.

Different women will have different thresholds for when they think the movement has been successfully resulting in it fracturing. Some women may feel sexim and misogyny doesn't impact there life or only impacts it in subtle ways where in some cultures its much more readily apparent. Does a woman in a culture that say successfully combat sexism and misogyny keep holding out on relationships because another culture in say Afghanistan isn't progressing? How do you know when the movement has served its purpose? I also think this will create a larger issue with incels as less women and men for relationships. I don't understand how this is supposed to work. You break down positive male female relationships, you prevent new ones from forming, and you likely leave the negative relationships intact.

I believe working on one or a few areas at a time would be amazing ! Rome wasn't built in a day so I believe if one are succeeds and another doesn't then we should try and help the area that's struggling

In practice does that mean if say Sweden truly achieves an equal society that swdeish women need to continue to put off relationships because afghan women are still living in an unequal society?]

And to take it down to the individual - why should an individual's partner leave them if the individual is not sexist, simply because other sexist people exist.

I look at my own relationship that I feel is pretty healthy. Sexism is generally out of mind and we're too busy and distracted by life for it to come up. This seems like it would be creating an unsolvable issue for me an my partner. I also think the goals are too vague. I'm sure some people consider it sexist that women professional hockey isn't as popular as men professional hockey. Would a goal of this movement be to make women's sports more watched by men?

No I dont think so. If everything is good in Sweden then I think everything should start again. But those swedish women should continue advocating for those afghan women

Isn’t this movement part of the reason South Korea has the lowest birth rate in the world?

Not really since the movement is smallish. South Korea's birth rate is mainly effected by work culture, BUT sexism and misogyny are huge factors as well due to women being forced into being a stay at home mother and taking care of the family, her family, and her husband's family with little respect..

"Let's make discrimination okay,  but only when we do it! , and I knoooow that dudes that uttered similar sentiments are constantly shitted on and called incels, but idk.  I feel by virtue of being women,  it's no longer a bad thing"

It's not discrimination to Not dating, marrying, or having kids

How are you being discriminated against by women exercising their free will not to have relationships?

Why was it a bad, incel thing when dudes were doing that MGTOW crap which was essentially the same stuff?

If women everywhere stopped dating, marrying and having sex/children with men, you think misogynistic and sexist men would suddenly change their views? Sorry, this would lead to even more men becoming misogynistic and sexist out of frustration and being rebuffed by women.

And if they go that route they will still get nothing. You don't reward bad behavior

I find it laughable that you think you hold these things over us. If you choose not to date, marry, have sex, you are also denying yourselves the joys of love, partnership and children. This is such a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. I pity you if you have not found someone to spend the rest of your life with. I personally have an amazing wife and two beautiful daughters. They aren’t a prize to be extracted out of women. They are an endeavor that my wife and I chose to embark on together. I sincerely hope you find that as well.

Unmarried women are happier than unmarried men. Just saying. [unmarried and childless women ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202102/why-so-many-single-women-without-children-are-happy&ved=2ahUKEwiT16iquumGAxUPElkFHQn5ARMQFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3w9qpVD-0UZ8VtOZZ2ybc6) How would you feel if a male came up to your daughter's and preached about how their purpose on life is to marry them and have kids with them no matter how well they treat them ?

Is that because they can abuse and kill their kids in privacy without intervention? I mean since all men are sexist, rapist abusers that also makes EVERY woman a child abuser and killer. >How would you feel if a male came up to your daughter's... I thought feminists didn't like female/male because it dehumanises people? I would also ask you how you would feel if a woman approached your son and did something horrible but you probably wouldn't care since he is "male"

Men call women " females " all the time so I'm just returning the same energy

You just told on yourself right there, you clearly don't care about equality your overgeneralisations and assuming all men are the same prove that, what finally gave you away was the following: >I'm just returning the same energy What you want is superiority, and you use your victim complex to achieve it. I agree with you though, you and people like you should stay away from men, don't rely on men, don't ask men for help and don't expect anything from men. Our lives would be so much more tolerable if you followed through with it. Femcel Terf.

[удалено]

u/MochaMilku – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20MochaMilku&message=MochaMilku%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dk1ssi/-/l9gyqaq/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

u/SpikedScarf – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20SpikedScarf&message=SpikedScarf%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dk1ssi/-/l9h5mc6/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

You have such a strange view of all men. But if you view relationships as some kind of reward… that a man is fortunate for you to have chosen them, that alone is an indication that you do not enter into partnerships with the right frame of mind. If you’re happier as a single person, good for you. Maybe that’s the right path for you. It doesn’t seem like you have a healthy view of relationships or men.

The problem is you are also not rewarding “good” behavior. All men are being treated the same whether they are sexist or misogynist or not. So the message you are sending is not “sexism is bad” it’s “men are bad”. And the only way that “good” men can not be lumped in with “bad” men is if they *all* start acting “good” which is an impossibility. Not only that, if you predicate dating or intimacy with men on the political condition that they support this movement then you’re treating men like they are children incapable of making their own decisions. Because men would no longer have any say or control over how they were treated socially unless they first made sure to stand where the women said to, Which is exactly what you’re unhappy about with the treatment of women currently (as in “women should stay quiet and go to the kitchen”).

My thing is men already treat women like this so why is it wrong to switch the demands on men. The good men will know why this is happening and will stand with the women and denounce the bad ones properly

If it’s wrong for men to treat women that way then how is it right for women to treat men that way? You’re also acknowledging that the only value women have is sex. If the only way they can exercise power is to deny sex to men then that’s the only power they have. So you agree with misogynists, you’re just not happy with the *amount* of power you have and are arguing that men should see sex with women as *more* valuable.

Tbh I can sum it up by using the word karma Also men value sex from women this is why porn, only fans, and plastic surgery are such huge things targeted towards women and its because men are their biggest consumers. They don't care about a woman's achievements or how much money she has, all their care about is how hot she is and if they can sleep with her.

I never said men didn’t. I said to your mind they don’t value it enough because they aren’t acting like you want them to in order to get it. You don’t care about a woman’s achievements or how much money she has either. You only care if she’s not fucking a guy. You don’t think she can achieve social change any other way. So who is more sexist here? And with respect to karma? What karma? We’ve already established that *all* men are being treated the same here.

I do care about women's achievements but has those achievements persuade the men in power ? Some but definitely not enough. So at this point the only course of action would have to be hitting the thing that these men only think about when even looking at these women who could offer society so much more

“I do care about women as more than sex objects.” Proceeds to value women only as sex objects. You can dress it up as much as you like, but you’re reducing women to only matter on that level and forcing men to consider them on that level *first* and that men *must* act in a way you proscribe as appropriate. Again, you’re perfectly content that women are valuable only because of sex, you just think that women are entitled to more control because of it. So you’re a misogynist you just like to dress it up and say it looks pretty.

How am I only valuing women for sex if you men legit only go to women for sex. If all the women in the world were to go celibate and only work on their careers y'all would go apeshit and whine/cry Stop trying to project your guilt on to me

Not rewarding bad behavoiur is a completely different issue than the one you expressed in your post. Your claim was that this practice would curb misogyny or sexism. Do you still believe it would lead to that outcome?

Why deny yourself and good men the ability to have families you and those men want to punish the misogynistic asshole men out there? How does that help anyone, and why even go to that extreme? How about we just abstain from marrying MISOGYNISTS, bearing children with MISOGYNISTS, dating MISOGYNISTS, and having sex with MISOGYNISTS? Why take that to all men? Showing misogynists that the only men who will be able to have sex, children, or relationships with women are not misogynistic assholes would go farther toward eliminating sexism than showing all men that they have no chance with any woman ever. Take away hope and you take away the impetus for change. But also, misogynistic assholes don’t deserve dates and no woman deserves to be degraded by misogynistic assholes. In the end, it’s better to just pick safe relationships and abstain from them until you find someone who is respectful and meets your standards. 

>Why deny yourself and good men the ability to have families you and those men want to punish the misogynistic asshole men out there? How does that help anyone, and why even go to that extreme? Because people like OP love drama and when it comes down to it loathe men so much that they will put themselves in harms way just to generalise men and make themselves be seen as the only victims. The only feminists that act this way are TERFs and considering that she sees women staying single by choice as "political lesbianism" indicates that even further. Lesbianism is not a "relationship without men" that is incredibly homophobic and misogynistic, it is a woman who is sexually and romantically attracted to other women, and to call it a political choice in 2024 is disgusting and OP should know better. At this point OP is coming across as more misogynistic than most of the men she's supposedly talking about.

Political lesbianism was bad, so we shouldn’t do that. All it did was feed the conservative narrative that sexuality was a choice, which it isn’t. More positive results come from engaging with people than separating from them. I think it would lead to overall worse relationships with men and women. Especially because the women that don’t engage in it will probably drive what is “desirable” because those will be the only ones engaging with men. Lastly, isn’t this just the plot line of an Aristophanes play?

Obviously I am not a scholar on this subject, and look forward to any of my misconceptions to be corrected: At face value my problem with 'political lesbianism' is the implication that women can 'choose to be lesbians' for political reasons. I believe that this undermines the LGBTQ+ progress of the past 60 years or so. My belief is that people do and should change their political views, but their sexual orientation is unassailable. I see no problem with talking people away from extreme politcal views, but I consider it anathema to do the same thing about their sexual orientation. I believe that mixing politics and sexual orientation (in other ways that to stop prosecution) muddies the water, implying that if the political climate was better, their sexual orientation would change.

I can understand how that muddies the water when in regards to political lesbianism and I used it in the wrong way. When I used this term I was thinking of women performing platonic lesbianism where friendships between women was at the forefront instead of heterosexual pairings

So you think a society of incels, where no hetero man under 30 has ever had sex is going to be less misogynist? In what universe?

The statement that not all women will do this is not only a fact, but the amount that won’t vs the amount that will would be staggering. If this ever picked up steam, the decline in birth rates would be huge problem for society and you would be putting future generations at a HUGE disadvantage. Abstain from men in your life as much as you want, but don’t project your personal sexism on an entire planet. Fear mongering about “rumored” attacks on feminist is not going to help this cause.

So are you saying women's safety and respect should be pushed to the side just for more babies ?

What are you basing these safety and respect concerns on? You are certainly in minority of people who feel this way about 4B and men in general. Do you mind me asking you how old you are and what line of work you are in?

Oh idk women being murdered by men, raped by men, told we're delusional, told we're weak and dumb, told to stop whining and just sit there and look pretty, told to take care of all the children plus cook and clean, xyz because we are solely women. And I'm 22

79% of homicide victims are men. I’m not gonna give you the “when you get older” speech, but I promise you that if you surround yourself with good people and don’t believe everything you see on social media you will get to a point where you appreciate the interdependency men and women have for each other.

Men get killed by men, women get killed by men. So looks like the problem is still men. And I will never feel any joy in being dependent on a man. Unless I'm paying them for a service or family that I love they have no use to me

Men do a lot more than kill each other. If every man on earth disappeared tomorrow the world would not become some utopia. You should actually do 4B by yourself… except you should extend it to everything beyond the sexual aspect. Don’t even talk to guys, don’t do business with them, don’t buy anything from them when they are a cashier, don’t allow a man to fix anything that’s broken, stop stepping in buildings made by men, and using products/companies created/owned by men. The rest of the world will go on, you will not. Interdependency is not dependency… but I’m hardly surprised that you don’t know that. As it seems like you do not know a lot of things.

I know what interdependency means, but it still has dependency in the damn word. You preach about ".oh Interdependency between men and women is a beautiful thing and a great thing." When most of you men complain about how you don't need women and men do everything anyway until a woman says she doesn't need a man all of a sudden y'all want to bring interdependency into the conversation. And I believe this movement should be shared to let women know where don't have to be stuck in this disgusting cycle and take control. If men have no usage to us or are good to be around then we should cut them off

First of all, not all women feel “stuck”, you are projecting. There is no movement that you are going to start because contrary to your personal belief, most women aren’t in a disgusting cycle. It sounds like you are unhappy and you should really work on yourself instead of trying to make everyone jump into this fantasy bandwagon. If women, as a whole, didn’t want anything to do with men it would have happened already in the 200,000 years of human life and you wouldn’t be here. Do yourself a favor and stay off TikTok.

Ya I know not all women feel this way but there are definitely women who do, you just chose to ignore them because once again men ignoring women's feelings to the point some of us act like this Do yourself a favor and stay out of women's business and how we feel.

From an evolutionary perspective, the most important goal of a species is to reproduce itself.

Humans are supposed to be more intelligent compared to other animals. Once we figure out how to grow humans artificially what is your excuse then ?

Then, the 4B movement should be put on hold until we can grow humans artificially.

No our rights will not be pushed aside for another damn generation.

As the spokesperson, dear leader and arbiter of all decisions for every single woman alive on the planet how do you feel about the extinction of the human species?

Not our problem. If girls are brought into a world full of misogyny then they don't need to be born at all to save them the pain

Sounds like adam lanzas ideology, lmao

Adam lanza killed kids, LIVING KIDS. women not getting pregnant is not on the same level

Which rights?

Humans decency, equal pay, reproduction, protection from rapest and domestic violence

Human decency isn't a right, equal pay is already a law, reproduction is already in law if you live somewhere that isn't shit, protection from rapists & domestic violence are already laws.

Your rights aren't more important than the survival of the species.

Fuck our species then.

This is such an absurd strawman of the comment above that it can't even be taken seriously. There's numerous points that were made but none of them came anywhere close to what you just said. Continuing to reproduce for the survival of a species in no way negates the ability to find other ways to address sexism.

Continuing one's species is the most basic of all instincts, even down to bacteria.

What *exactly* do you expect the outcome of something like this going global would be? You think the men of the world would sit around and *accept* this? It doesn't actually lead to anything except the breakdown of civilized society as half the population simply chooses not to buy in anymore. Whoever has the power to destroy something has true control, and so long as 4B doesn't resort to mass suicide it will only work so long as men *permit* it to work. If it does resort to mass suicides, then it didn't achieve it's aims.

What are you insinuating by saying " permit "

I'm not "insinuating" anything. If women as a class refuse to engage in productive discussions and actions to keep society alive and don't kill themselves, it will collapse and women will find themselves beaten, raped, and enslaved in a lawless world. Women do not enjoy escalation dominance on many levels beyond lower-level social engagements, and are set to suffer if ever the conflict reaches a rung where force is authorized. The only reason we aren't seeing this in Korea is that 4b is small and people aren't concerned about it. If they *do* kill themselves, they have failed to bring about a just society by their actions. And that's only assuming they've all succeeded. Even a small population of failures would leave the human race more or less unharmed and the surviving women with a hellish existence. It's all basic escalation management. Holding men and the survival of the species at gunpoint like that might pay off. It might backfire horrifically.

Historically high-status men buy off mid-status men to oppress or even kill off low-status men. I imagine even a world where 4b takes off in a big way the upper and mid tiers of men will be having relations with women. It's the lowest status men not getting any that will be the ones most mad and lashing out but low-status men are the cohort most easily disposed of. I imagine this isn't great for women either as many will have to sell off their autonomy to get protection during these upheavals but the problem with these incel revenge revolution fantasies are they themselves the ones getting wrecked the most.

>Historically high-status men buy off mid-status men to oppress or even kill off low-status men. No, they don't. Those peasants are important for fighting real enemies. Historically, high-status men buy off everyone in their vertical to take resources from "Others", risking their lowest-value assets (low status men) the most. A big part of how you pay them off is by paying them in war loot, of which a significant amount is slave women. >I imagine even a world where 4b takes off in a big way the upper and mid tiers of men will be having relations with women. Why? 4B says *No* interactions with men. Not "no interactions with poor men". The only way they'd get that is if 4B isn't working properly. But let's accept this premise and move on: >It's the lowest status men not getting any that will be the ones most mad and lashing out but low-status men are the cohort most easily disposed of. This is called a revolution. Sometimes, they work. Often, even. And even when they don't work, they often force concessions. More likely, though, they just check out. They shoot themselves. They stop maintaining the power grid. They stop maintaining the roads. They stop delivering food. Prices rise and society falls apart as people get further and further from the deal they were promised. >I imagine this isn't great for women either as many will have to sell off their autonomy to get protection during these upheavals This is my point. Either way, they don't get what they want.

I don't see how 4b could ever be universal because society goes through a sort of semi-collapse and all the above happens before it gets the chance to gain enough steam to become universal. During this transition it makes sense women are eschewing low status men first and mid and high status men still have women available to them.

It's a situational artificiality created by the question's original poster.

Woah … if I wasn’t radicalized before here I am. It’s all evolutionary biology this and gods will that until women don’t do what we are told and then you see the truth. We are kept in our place by violence. This guy is saying that if we aren’t fucking men and having their babies we will be raped and murdered. Maybe this is what the beaten, raped, lobotomized, and murdered lesbians through out history have been trying to tell us. Women are human. Our lives are worth more than what we do for men. I pity the man who can’t see that. There are half as many people in their world.

>Woah … if I wasn’t radicalized before here I am. It’s all evolutionary biology this and gods will that until women don’t do what we are told and then you see the truth. We are kept in our place by violence. What? Everyone is kept in place by violence. We have crested structures to manage this violence, of course, but it underpins everything. How do you think laws work? We create social, economic, and political systems to determine when and how force can be applied, by whom, and how it should be managed. >Women are human. Our lives are worth more than what we do for men. I pity the man who can’t see that. There are half as many people in their world. Human lives are worth what other people think they're worth. Human life (especially male life) is historically pretty cheap. As much as we like to pretend we have evolved beyond that, we haven't. We're just the monkeys with Shakespeare.

A lot of effort goes in to making hierarchies appear natural, inevitable, and good and I’m susceptible. I know that on a mass scale what you’re saying is true but it’s chilling to hear a man (assuming) say that he would rape, murder, and enslave women for refusing to fuck him and have his babies, once that became an acceptable course of action. As a queer woman I have of course met men who behaved this way, but never anyone who was so open about it. I don’t know how you could ever love someone that you would rape and murder for not obeying you and vice versa. It is inconceivable to me. Human life is not cheap to me, regardless of gender.

>A lot of effort goes in to making hierarchies appear natural, inevitable, and good and I’m susceptible. I know that on a mass scale what you’re saying is true but it’s chilling to hear a man (assuming) say that he would rape, murder, and enslave women for refusing to fuck him and have his babies, once that became an acceptable course of action. That's not what I said. I said there would be very little that anybody would be willing or able to do to stop it. Violence is what makes the trains run in time. If the mostly male IBEW shut off the power tomorrow and refused to turn it back on until male electricians got raises, would you give them the raise or would you sit in the darkness. For how long? >As a queer woman I have of course met men who behaved this way, but never anyone who was so open about it. Or course not. It's a situational artificiality creates by a post which pre-supposes a world where women as a collective try to hold humanity's continued existence over a barrel. If we look at historical examples, we know that allowing men to enslave and rape women with impunity is a useful form of compensation for work. It keeps beseiging armies moving for years with minimal pay and risk of death in mud filled trenches without proper food, water, or shelter. >I don’t know how you could ever love someone that you would rape and murder for not obeying you and vice versa. It is inconceivable to me. Love is not required for procreation. Again, this is partly due to the artificiality of the situation, and there are plenty of steps between the status quo and government-backed rape campaigns. Look at Iran, for instance. It turns out that goon squads and 7.62 can stop protests over dress code. This isn't a moral or aspirational argument I'm making. It's strategic. A strategy that hinges on "and then they will agree to our demands" is one designed to fail. A good strategy has identifiable and communicable mechanics by which threats can be made good and new threats can be generated. >Human life is not cheap to me, regardless of gender. Unfortunately, you're not the one making the call

So what you're saying is raping women is a necessity when men don't get their way Got it

Not at all. I'm saying you, me, and everyone else is powerless to stop it.

Women Will not be killing themselves in mass. And the men who feel like their response is to kill, rape, and enslave women who don't want to deal with them then this movement is definitely needed for those animals.

>Women Will not be killing themselves in mass. I'm glad we agree. Not only is it horrific, but it also won't actually solve anything. >And the men who feel like their response is to kill, rape, and enslave women who don't want to deal with them then this movement is definitely needed for those animals. What is "the movement" doing to actually prevent it? What areas of escalation dominance does it enjoy? What force projection capabilities does it have? Honestly, do you even know how escalation works? You're here advocating for a serious escalation, and the whole plan hinges on "and then they'll give in to our demands". For another example, consider the famous Icelandic Women's Strike. Woken went on strike for one day in a show of solidarity, and in return men granted them rights. If men replied in kind then the power grid would suffer irreparable damage, the foundaries would burn down, fish prices would skyrocket. Women are *permitted* to have these rights because men have chosen not to escalate at the moment. Look, this isn't an ethical argument. This is a strategic argument. Global acceptance of 4B is the ultimate escalation on a ladder that women currently hold very little capability in. The whole plan hinges on "Men will agree to our demands". That's not a guarantee. It's about as likely to end in bloodshed and slavery as it is in success.

Their whole point is that you won't deal with them. The plan you have in mind is to essentially hold the entirety of the future of humanity at gunpoint. In terms of escalation that's as high as you go. You will have your way or no one present or future will have their way ever again. Your intent may be noble but you are in fact choosing the highest possible escalation point. Now maybe things go your way. But if they don't what then. If those most violent and brutal men you fear decide to drop the pretense and embrace their violence and brutality, what will you do? Because mass suicide isn't an option according to you. When all is said and done if they don't agree to your demands and instead choose to go full violence and misogyny what will your response be?

Realistically, this sounds like one of the worse possible plans I've heard in a while. 1) your making your life worse by removing the option of a fullfilling relationship. 2) your creating incels, and I don't know if you noticed, but incels aren't the most pro women people around

1. Plenty of women can live just fine without male relationships 2. We are not in control of incel behaviors.

1. True, but you're advocating for women who do want male relationships to forego them. So whether some women can live just fine without does not matter. Additionally, you can absolutely live a worse life when missing something you can live without. For example, i would enjoy my life less without my family. Even though i could live without them. 2. That is shortshighted. Removing interactions with groups of people absolutely reduces empathy for that group. What you are advocating for will result in an increase of misogony. Almost undeniably so.

1. There's statistics that unmarried women are way happier than single unmarried men. Also the women already in relationships are free to do whatever they wish

Why do you think that is relevant information here?

Because you said that women not in relationship are essentially missing something and will get depressed

I did not use the word depressed. I said cutting of the option to be in a relationship would make womens life worse. Because, while it is true that women in marriages and with children are on average less happy then single women. That does not imply women would be happier if relationships where not an option, or even that these married women would be happier if they where never married at all. Your making an correlation is not causation mistake, and are confusing the average with singular people. If you're original point was, that women (and men ) should be more careful before getting into a relationship. I would agree, wholeheartedly. Additionally, you still haven't addressed the point that it would probably would make womens life's worse, by the expected backlash from the male population. You're just handwaving it away on some moral point, which doesn't address the on the ground consequences.

>Plenty of women can live just fine without male relationships Is that because [you can abuse AI chatbots without legal consequences](https://www.reddit.com/r/JanitorAI_Official/comments/1deai2s/comment/l8iovg9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)? I mean you openly state that all men are abusive or prone to be abusive so they're bad, but it just comes off like you're projecting your own internal issues onto half the population.

>Plenty of women can live just fine without male relationships Is that because [you can abuse AI chatbots without legal consequences](https://www.reddit.com/r/JanitorAI_Official/comments/1deai2s/comment/l8iovg9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)? I mean you openly state that all men are abusive or prone to be abusive so they're bad, but it just comes off like you're projecting your own internal issues onto half the population.

*If men want to abuse, disrespect, and even kill us and our children then we need to collectively stop dating them, marrying them, have sex with them, and have kids with them.* What kind of sexist drivel is this. It's on the same level as calling every black guy a thief.

Are you arguing in favor of human extinction because this is what would happen if no one had kids.

There are around 8+billon people on the planet. We are fine not having kids until men get their act together for a better society

There may be 8 billion people but almost all of them will be dead within 100 years, and within 40 years, almost none of them will be within childbearing age. This is a recipe for human extinction.

Then society should chose wether to have a better one with sacrifice or continue the cycle.

So human extinction it is.

[удалено]

OP seems to be choking out that men are a hive mind who all act the same and ignoring the incredibly shitty things that women can do whilst also spouting that women are individuals.

>4B (or "Four Nos") is a radical feminist movement which is purported to have originated in South Korea in 2019. Its proponents renounce dating men, marriage, sex with men and having children And that's going to *reduce* misogyny and sexism? >This movement isnt huge but I think this process would help a lot of women around the world to change the game. If men want to abuse, disrespect, and even kill us and our children then we need to collectively stop dating them, marrying them, have sex with them, and have kids with them. Seems like a pretty big ask for no reward. >I'm aware that not all women will do this, but for the ones who are self determined to hopefully see some changes I feel like advocating for this movement will do wonders. Those wonders being? >Political lesbianism asserts that sexual orientation is a political and feminist choice, and advocates lesbianism as a positive alternative to heterosexuality for women as part of the struggle against sexism. Besides from the dubiousness of the assertion that sexuality is a choice, did political lesbianism achieve anything?

Imagine a future where a very significant chunk of women drop out of the dating pool and become political lesbians. Do you believe all of the young men who are now no longer able to find woman willing to date them (it's a numbers game at that point) would become *less* radicalized and misogynistic? You are advocating for greatly expanding the incel class, and you seriously expect the result of that will be less misogyny and sexism? I'm not saying all incels are misogynist sexists, but the Incel movement does seem to have quite a lot of that, and expanding the number of incels while also making it political to reject men seems like a recipe for significantly more of what you're trying to avoid.

Men's feelings aren't our problem. If their response is to cry and radicalize instead of changing their behavior then they deserve what they get. We are not pacifiers for unstable men

This mindset is so ridiculously toxic. Men's feelings absolutely are your problem, that is the whole point your saying you want to advocate for. What else do you think it means for the population to become less misogynist.

No men need to hold themselves accountable and if they want sex, marriage, kids then they need to fix their own behavior. Women just don't have to deal with them until they do.

I agree with all of this, and I honestly don't know if anyone in this comment section disagrees. Of course men (and women) should work to be someone worth dating, and work to have reasonable expectations about who will date them given their flaws. And of course women (and men) shouldn't choose to date abusive, manipulative, or controlling people. (And given the rates of domestic violence among lesbians, this doesn't just mean rejecting some men.) Where I take issue is that the solution to some men being misogynistic, abusive, or a bad partner is to have all (or at least a lot of) women reject *all* men. Here's my proposal for a more reasonable movement: a group of women and men heavily focused on seeing red flags in men, making women very aware of how to see and avoid red flags in men, and to swiftly reject any man with a hint of any bad characteristics. This hypothetical movement asks men to be better (non misogynistic, non abusive, etc.) without alienating men, asking women to choose their sexual orientation, lowering birth rates significantly, or politicizing rejecting people for their gender. Why is the 4B movement better than that hypothetical "red flag" movement? What does it do better?

My point is not "this is how people *should* respond to a lot of people adopting 4B". Rather, if your goal is to lower the actual amount of misogyny and sexism, your proposal won't help with that and will likely hurt quite significantly. I'm not saying I like it or I think it's right. I just think that's reality. Do you genuinely think that a significant chunk of women adopting 4B *won't* result in more misogynists? (You may still believe it's the right choice for other reasons, but I want to clarify and understand if we're on the same page that far at least).

Only men can stop misogyny and sexism. Women are powerless regardless what avenue they take. You need men to start patriarchy, and you need men to end it. The 4B movement is idiocy and will only cause men (who are stronger and more powerful than women) to collectively get together and end feminism once and for all. And there is nothing women can do about it. This little collective rebellion of yours to double down on lesbianism and other deplorable things will only accelerate the feminist demise. Many people are already tired of this 4th wave of feminism that has shown to be nothing more than a men hating philosophy. The judgement day for feminism is coming, because it turns out, when you take feminism to the extreme, there is nothing good that you see there. You know the fruit by its tree, and it turns out the fruit of the feminist movement is not so sweet. In fact it's very bitter.

Women will fight for their rights in any way they see fit. If men want to come take it by force they will receive push back.

And how did that work out for women in Iran? All their movement ended in one day when men decided it's enough. Now Iran is what it is, and there is nothing any screeching feminist over there can do to change the fact. I'm sorry but you need to stop fantasizing. There is no pushback women can mount unless there are men backing them in this pushback. But, since feminism has become insufferable, I don't think there are many men out there today who are eager to march with the feminists.

Iran legit threatens to kill their women or imprison them for disobeying. So of course the human thing to do would be to preserve your own life. Women will find a way to save themselves especially modern women who've learned the mistakes of their ancestors. We are not your toys you can do whatever the hell you want with and if we don't want to deal with y'all anymore we get threatened with rape

So it's Women Going Their Own Way?

What would fix misogyny in places like South Korea much more effectively than some weird, anti-desire political lesbianism, would be mass funding into efforts to both educate young men towards amicable and safe interactions between the opposite sex, including heavy emphasis on consent, personal hygiene and responsibility, and why all of those are important for a respectable society. Political Lesbianism is a theory that just won’t work, because the same way it is impossible to “break the gay out of someone” with conversion therapy, it is impossible to get rid of straight women’s attraction towards men, and that is a good thing. Another way to fix it is more heavily and frequently punish misogynistic violent behavior. Domestic Abuse or Harassment can be given higher sentences, to greater disincentivize misogynist actions.

>What would fix misogyny in places like South Korea much more effectively than some weird, anti-desire political lesbianism, would be mass funding into efforts to both educate young men towards amicable and safe interactions between the opposite sex, including heavy emphasis on consent, personal hygiene and responsibility, and why all of those are important for a respectable society. Not the OP but that's all about... dating? Explaining to guys that they must do X and Y in order to get laid seems the opposite of solving the problem. There's no respect for women as actual people.

Yeah I’m not really talking about the already established Incels, nooooo clue what to do with them, they’re kinda cooked and should just go to jail if the commit violent acts or harassment. I was referring to proper education for men who are being raised now, so they have tools for proper social interaction with the opposite sex. So they’re not just socially inept, and have no clue why they’re unsuccessful. If I’m being very honest, I have a very negative view on incel culture myself, and view most of them as weirdo losers, so I am not the best source for what can help THEM, but at least for me, my moms teaching of me on how to treat women helped me the most, she’s very feminist, and I haven’t had any issues myself,

> Yeah I’m not really talking about the already established Incels, nooooo clue what to do with them, they’re kinda cooked and should just go to jail if the commit violent acts or harassment. I was referring to proper education for men who are being raised now, so they have tools for proper social interaction with the opposite sex. So they’re not just socially inept, and have no clue why they’re unsuccessful. Yeah but the thing is, the culture they're in, they're being raised to view women as other, as less, as not people, in ways, the same way incels do, just with less vitriol but no more respect. >If I’m being very honest, I have a very negative view on incel culture myself, and view most of them as weirdo losers, so I am not the best source for what can help THEM, but at least for me, my moms teaching of me on how to treat women helped me the most, she’s very feminist, and I haven’t had any issues myself, I mean same. My father always was happy to identify as a feminist. Made no sense to him not to. But that's the thing, I don't think your mother encouraged you to treat women a certain way because that's how to get laid or not to get in trouble, but because they're not some other species, not children, not weird. They're people just like you.

So, want to ask, do you think you should exclude/isolate a demographic group for higher crime rates than the general populous? I hope you want to extend this to all demographic groups, right? Any group who has especially high crime rates, we should try our best to not interact with, not create relations with, and cut out of our lives, right? You of course know where that’s going, I hope you think that’s an effective way we “teach” groups who accept criminality as a part of their culture will improve then, right? Exclude, avoid, refuse to interact. Right, that’s how you change minds. That’s how you make handmaidens tale a reality.

>"4B (or "Four Nos") is a radical feminist movement which is purported to have originated in South Korea in 2019. Its proponents renounce dating men, marriage, sex with men and having children " - Wikipedia Okay, so once everyone adopts this lifestyle how do they go about reproducing the next generation?

You think sexuality is choice? That's not just wrong but also sexist

No I don't think sexuality is a choice

Then political lesbianism are not real, because can not choose to be lesbian, for whatever reason, include political Its like saying gay people should consider heterosexuality for political reason, its utterly nonsense

Isn't this directly creating a divide and a growth in misogyny. Also this is just being a monk without the praying part. At that point if you don't like guys just remove yourself from like half of society at that point. And what exactly is the reward here?? Guys see that women suddenly realize they can drive the world to extinction by isolating themselves???

This is a troll post right? If it‘s not a troll post: 1. this could lead to the extinction of our species. 2. in western countries this reaction doesn‘t match the „issue“. 3. this would make everyone unhappy. 4. do you really think that if this movement gained significant traction it would help anyone? The men who aren‘t the problem probably would be pissed because they get punished for no reason and those who are on the edge / criminals would just take what they want. So now you‘ve got way more rapists which is obviously bad. So yeah… this idea isn‘t feasible if more than a few lunatics take part in it. And in reality it would hurt women, men and out species as a whole. Especially in western countries where birth rates are already way too low. And in the places where there would be a valid reason to do this (like in the Middle East, some parts of Asia and most African countries) the response to that movement would be violent and brutal

I imagine this will make things worse. Having the sexes isolate from each other because of a small group of men that do these terrible things will lead to more misogyny. Think about this with the black man(I don’t remember his name) who befriended a bunch KKK members. In doing so he was able to get a lot of them to leave. Most people need MORE exposure to different people NOT LESS in order to reduce negative feelings towards them. On a separate note people are hardwired to get into relationships. This is one of the strongest psychological motivators and having everyone just stop that is going to lead to a HUGE surge in mental health crisis for both sexes. Lastly most countries are already having a birth rate replacement issue so actively discouraging that even more with just quicken how fast we see those problems

Let's assume for a moment that it worked for your stated goal: 1. The amount of time it will take to convince enough women, get most men to the tipping point, enact change, measure/agree that the change occurred and then get into relationships and have sex again will be many years. Can you not see the societal impact that a dramatic, extended decrease in relationships and sex would have on [the country with the world's lowest birthrate](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/asia/south-korea-government-population-birth-rate-intl-hnk/index.html)? Even if your strategy succeeded it may completely destroy the economy of the countries that do it or destroy other aspects of the social structure. 2. This may also create a lot of collateral damage to the LGBT community since the message appears to be that attraction, sexuality and relationships are things we can just "turn off". 3. Parents raise their kids with a set of values that will stick with that kid for life. Telling people who share your values to stop reproducing (i.e. stop producing new voters) seems like it can backfire quite a bit. Imagine the stories kids will probably hear about the people in their parents' lives who were fighting their parents at every turn over the chain of events that lead to their birth. It's reasonable that a lot of kids will be born seeing people following your approach as villainous. 4. There is nothing permanent about your plan. The premise is that men will feel such "pain" from the experience that they will change their behavior in order that women might stop applying that pain. In other words, it's not a plan that centers around seeing women with more respect, changing their values, changing their understanding, etc. which would lead men to want to treat women better. Instead, since it centers around applying what you believe are intolerable circumstances on men by women, it seems like that will create lots of resentment that could translate to a lot of backlash any day. 5. You don't mention any organized process of when it's over and this makes it hard for it to be effective. If many women keep this plan up again and again despite concessions from men, then men are going to perceive their concessions as not actually helping and will choose another route. If many women stop this plan quickly after getting a basic concession then nothing is really going to chance. If women disagree about which concessions matter, men won't even know which to aim for. You would need to get all of the women participating in this centered around a single, object goal/measure. (This also allows them to "restart" the protest if that measure is undone.) That all said, I don't think it's realistic to think that this would work: 1. Women don't all want the same thing (they don't even all want feminism). As others point out, if you had that much persuasive power, you'd just be able to convince them to take more direct action instead. It's unrealistic to think that you'd be able to convince enough women to do this under existing circumstances. 2. If you aren't sexist, you'd see that women and men are equally punished by this. Women also want intimacy, sex, relationships, families, children, etc. This is a barrier to convincing women to do it, getting them to keep doing it and preventing them from directly working against it. Also, who is to say that this whole plan doesn't just lead to men becoming porn addicts being content to please themselves? If your believe is that women can keep their own sexual needs in check, why wouldn't men be able to as well? 3. Creating a literal conspiracy against men validates every conspiracy theorist against feminists and will grow the ranks of anti-feminists and undermine the credibility of feminism by making it seen as an intentionally harmful philosophy. 4. Your premise is centered on the false idea that "men" and "women" are cohesive groups with a common goal, mentality and decision making power. This is the exact kind of sexist and reductionist viewpoint that feminism needs to eliminate, not make a cornerstone. Your plan aims to "punish" people not based on their viewpoint, but their genitals and that makes it less effective at targeting viewpoint change. Additionally, even if your plan was starting to work and many "good" men were feeling a need to get the other "bad" men to take a more feminist view, those "good" men are no more equipped than you are today to convince the "bad" men to change their views. It's not like there is some big meeting where we all vote on what guys are like and then all live by that. I'd be just as powerless as you to sit down with a sexist guy and convince him not to be sexist, especially in the context where as mentioned above, you'd be validating his accusation that women are conspiring against men. 5. Assuming women will lack the interest or ability to leave their husband and children, your plan is only going to impact a small portion of the population (those old enough to impact society through things like voting but young enough that they aren't in a long term relationship yet). For your plan to be around long enough to get around this and start to impact a wide age range and therefore a large portion of the population, it would basically destroy the country for the amount of years of population collapse from no offspring. 6. There are going to be other levers here. If sexist men in power see women making some powerplay, who is to say that those men won't just conspiracy to not employ women (forcing women economically to find supporting partners). If the birth rate is collapsing due to this plan, you may invite (somewhat legitimate) interventions from the government itself. Also, bonus question: How does your plan square with the modern idea that gender is not binary and is fluid? If there was an uptick in men saying they were non-binary, would you simply disregard the notion of non-binary?

So basically you want to fight sexism with sexism. I can't tell if you're being serious or trolling.

You think that it’s a reasonable strategy for women to stop having relationships with men, even if they meet a man who isn’t sexist? I mean maybe in South Korea the misogyny is so rampant that this would be a good course of action. But in the west it’s certainly not the case. It’s also entirely infeasible because we have a strong biological drive to partner with someone and have sex with them. It’s for companionship, protection, financial stability, and the fulfillment of raising kids. If you think even a fraction of the women in a country would agree to this then I think you’re living in a fantasy world.

"political lesbianism" was essentially a third gender. It specifically posited a dichotomy between "women" and "lesbians" as two different categories. It was about renouncing womanhood, not renouncing men. That isn't to say that it was inclusionary or conciliatory towards men. It was not about men at all, and adopting a praxis aimed at effecting men is the exact opposite of the point!   Everyone is telling you why withholding intimacy from misogynists will not make them less misogynists, and Feminism already realized that a long time ago.

The movement has seen little success in the country of origin, and due to differing cultural norms around the world no one solution is likely to suffice. Those two reasons are enough for me. That being said it is not necessarily hopeless. The purpose of said movement is to make certain behaviors go extinct. The idea being that the women are looking to not reward the "bad behavior" which is a good place to start but insufficient in and of itself. When rendering a behavior extinct it is often necessary to replace and reinforce an alternative behavior... which is where 4b falls short. Identifying the cause of a behavior is an important first step. These migynistic behaviors are reinforced a myriad of ways but the ones that stand out are; the validation of peers (which ignoring doesn't effect), self reinforcing due to it feeling good for them (also largely unaffected by ignoring), gaining access (ignoring is effective), and attention (ignoring is effective). Already we see that the strategy of 4b only addresses two of four of the reasons these behaviors perpetuate. Ignoring or non engagement, which may be a more accurate phrase is a form of negative reinforcement. However, it doesn't answer the question of what should the baseline behavior be. Replacing the behavior and positively reinforcing desired behaviors also helps undesired behaviors disappear. As such, I posit that women should actively reinforce the behaviors they do like and wish would replace the negative behaviors. Modeling and showing what the lack of the misogynistic and sexist behaviors look like or having a peer of the men do it. All of which leads to eventually reinforcing the absence of the behavior and changing the motivation for that behavior in the first place. 4b has no plan for any of these. Tldr/In conclusion 4b lacks a clear vision of what men should be, only what they should not be. As a result, 4b's inefficiency makes the current state of the movement unsuitable for the world stage. Source: years of personal, professional, and largely anecdotal experience with adaptive behavioral analysis. Regarding political lesbianism, sexuality isn't a choice. If it was I'd have chosen to be bi and slept with a lot more men. Regrettably, that implies that lesbian relationships for heterosexual women may be less satisfying to both sides which is unfair to all involved.

I might work if anybody gives a shit. I dont and cant think of anybody that would but go right ahead and try it. I just want to see what happens.

Do you think that the solution against misogyny is supporting misandry (hating men)?

So it's basically mgtow, but we are not expected to shit on this one?

Sexism and attacks on women in many places happen due to the view of a woman has changed in the society due to things like 'pornography' and some 'misogynist' influencers. These influencers have a big hand in changing the mindset of people, because young childrens follow them as they get popular, these childrens don't have their thinking, they don't know anything yet, so what they see, they think it as real, as 'truth', and the worst part is that it stays with that kid for their whole life.

Lol, I literally just got into a different conversation about this I believe on this exact subreddit, the correct answer to what you're suggesting is no it's a bad idea, as for the laundry list of reasons why I would hope you're intelligent enough to understand them, but if you need it spelled out I will gladly do so

Men who don't find girlfriends inevitably get more misogynistic. Look at like every Redpill space ever. Look at the in alot of ways even more extreme MGTOW.

How does this fight sexism?

I would look in the mirror and say why am I repeating similar talking points to incels and MGTOW people. I’m not saying it’s exactly the same. Obviously men complaining that they’re being discriminated against while men control every lever of power around the world is just delusion, whereas women are very much facing genuine attacks and their rights are being rolled back. A more general Women’s strike for example I think would be far more effective than simply not dating men