politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Refusing to engage in sex or relationships is not "shutting people out", it's exercising bodily and personal autonomy. This issue is a potato in a world of apples and oranges and cannot be compared meaningfully to other issues. Is a lesbian the equivalent of a racist for being entirely uninterested in men? Is an asexual person a bigot because they refuse to have sex with anyone?
The assertions you are making are a moot point if you value consent at all. If women do not consent to be in relationships or have sex, that needs to be the end of the discussion without coercing them to change their minds by calling them bigots for their refusal to consent.
We both agree that they 100% have the right to do this. You don't need to convince me of that. The thing is that these two things are not mutually exclusive; they are using the right to bodily and personal autonomy to shut people out. No amount of spin will change this. It's the whole point of the protest, or at least ostensibly so.
I've been very clear about my position: they are blaming all men because of the actions of some men. That's the misandry. Trying to equate this to (paraphrased) "you must thing lesbians are misandrists too!" is either just a disingenuous spin, or you aren't trying to understand.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just pointing out that their blatant misandry is misandry.
If you are so intent upon discussion of this matter as being an issue of misandry, I certainly hope that you are as staunchly against misogyny and intend to do far more than just voting for Kamala to protect women in this country.
That is my main concern. Men will not suffer irreparable harm from the consequences of the coming Trump administration anywhere near the same way women will. I will assume that you will consider this to be misandrist as well, but I have little regard for the concerns and complaints of men in this matter because for women, this is quite literally a matter of life and death.
Trying to harp on the "misandry" part of this is not productive towards the goal of the protest which is the protection of women's rights and lives against the coming onslaught.
Tu quoque fallacy.
Well, you'd be wrong because I wholeheartedly agree.
I'm not trying to harp on anything. I called out some misandry, and then a bunch of people have jumped in to defend that prejudice. All I've done is defend my position. You act like I'm following 4B people around making sure to shout misandry any chance I get.
Yours is a voice in a chorus in the response to this article on Lemmy. The majority of the comments on this article and similar ones are calling out the "misandry" and shouting down commenters who disagree with them. The predominant sentiment appears to be men interpreting this as an indiscriminate punishment and expressing that they are personally aggrieved and offended by this protest because they're "one of the good ones".
Right now, if you want to be "one of the good ones", you need to be turning around and fighting the men who are expressing entitlement in the face of this protest as well as the men who started out from the position of "your body, my choice". Simply stating that you are an ally is not enough. As a man, you have the privileged position of being able to speak to other men on a more level playing field to try to convince them of the gravity of the impending attack on women's rights without being accused of being "emotional", "hysterical", or "misandrist" just for participating in the conversation.
Again with the tu quoque. Does your abandonment of the point to focus solely on ignorantly attacking what you imagine I do in real life mean you realize that I made a good point? I don't disagree with what you say here, but, fuck, to spend this whole time shitting on men and making up the worst about me, and then turn around and demand I act in a certain way takes a lot of fucking nerve. If you want men to be allies, I suggest stop defending when people act like they are all guilty for Trump being elected.
This is tied into the problem that the left has with a lot of protests and campaigns. The real/best answers are always nuanced, but if you try to fit that into a meme, or in a slogan, or in a soundbyte, it just ends up being garbled gibberish. The "Not All Men" argument obstinately ignores the fact that having a nuanced discussion through a megaphone at a protest just does not work. Of course it is not all men, but it is a large enough proportion to be seriously worried about.
This is similar to BIPOC fighting back against the KKK and all the similar organizations and being told they're bigoted and wrong because it's not every white person that's a racist. Of course it's not that every white person is a racist, and of course it's not that every man is a monster, but to grab attention and make a statement, you have to trim the nuance out and pick the most important piece out or else your protest just gets lost in the noise.
Protests are a very truncated form of communication and there are many people here on Lemmy that are pointedly forgetting or ignoring that fact in their outrage and offense in response to this protest.
What I'm reading here is that you knew I was right all along, but it makes a better political slogan to pretend that it makes sense. That I can agree with.
I would assume that you would understand that this kind of protest works better when applied without exception, even when there is acknowledgement that there are exceptions among the people impacted. Hopefully, those men who are allies in this would be understanding of the fact that if these women made exceptions all over the place, the power of the protest would be significantly diminished. It does require a reciprocal sacrifice on the part of men that support women in this endeavor, but that should not be thought of as an offensive or undue burden.
Considering plenty of women voted for trump, and this protest is only directed at men, it seems there is a very large exception being made there.
If they said "none of the 4bs with any trump supporter regardless of sex," that would be done without exception. But that's not what is happening. It's all men, regardless of their support for Trump. They are excepting guilty people, while including innocent people.
And, sure, if I supported their misandric protest, I should be expected to have a reciprocal sacrifice. However, considering their protest is irrationally targeting me because of my sex, I'm not really hot on "doing my part" for something I vehemently disagree with.