It is not women's responsibility to use sex to cajole men into sucking less. First of all: Gross. Second of all, there's no evidence that sexual persuasion works. But some people still argue that, somehow or other, it's up to women to lure men away from Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. In response to my cheeky article last week arguing that women should lean into the cat-lady lifestyle in response to Trump's win, Ana Kasparian got alarmingly heated on the Young Turks channel, which is something of a safe space for feminism-averse "leftists."
"I just don't think this is a healthy mentality," Kasparian complained, essentially embracing the view that the "male loneliness epidemic" is women's problem, at least in part. She equated women openly refusing to date Trump supporters to those mythical misandrists who "demonize men altogether." Women, she said, have a responsibility to "engage in dialogue" with MAGA men in the hopes they might "change their minds."
The dishonesty of this response is irritating, of course. Anyone who actually read the article could see that not only did I applaud men who voted for Kamala Harris, I invited them to share in the feminist resistance by telling MAGA men to step off. But it isn't surprising that Kasparian went with a bad-faith spin. The Young Turks have a largely male audience, and as progressive as the channel's voices may imagine themselves to be, there's a pronounced tendency toward the view that women are implicated in men's problems. One commenter actually cited "male depression, which has been brought on by feminists who hate them." Another griped that "the only people" likely to be hurt "are the women doing this," which sounds alarmingly like a threat.
Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.
Clearly, there's a lot of anxiety about women's anger, even among self-styled progressives. Over the weekend, a lot of people asked me about the 4B movement in South Korea, which I mentioned in passing in the "cat lady" column. In that movement, some Korean women are declaring they will "boycott" what they see as the four pillars of heterosexuality: dating, marriage, sex and childbirth. (All four words start with "B" in Korean.) On TikTok and other social media spaces, you can find American women discussing this whole idea, and some suggesting they might join in.
@rabbitsandtea Cat lady era activated #4b #4bmovement ♬ USAAAAAAAAAAAAAA - Lawn
Since liberals cannot help but show off their college degrees, the 4B movement is being compared to the ancient Greek comedy "Lysistrata," in which Aristophanes imagines a community of women withholding sex from men, in hopes of bringing an end to war. Operating on the assumption that 4B amounts a "sex strike," it's easy for opinion writers to shrug it off as ineffectual and unlikely to gain momentum. I agree: women like sex, too, so they probably won't hold out forever.
The 4B movement seems a lot less interested in cajoling men to alter their views or actions, and more in creating female solidarity and protecting women's safety.
But that condescending dismissal misses the point — both the point of the original 4B movement and why American women are talking about it now. A sex strike, after all, is rooted in the same assumption as Kasparian's argument: It's women's job to change men and sex is the tool we can use to do it. While the anti-4B side argues that women can persuade men to change by manipulating them with sex, the Lysistrata camp believes men can be convinced by deprivation. But if you actually read more deeply about the 4B movement, it seems a lot less interested in cajoling men to alter their views and actions, or even to see women as people, and more in creating female solidarity and protecting women's safety. It's not about boycotting men in order to change them so much as no longer wasting time on men at all.
Ju Hui Judy Han, an assistant professor in gender studies at UCLA, told CNN that what undergirds 4B in South Korea is the question of "why and how could anyone imagine getting married and giving birth" in a deeply misogynist environment. That focus on self-protection is largely overlooked in the negative reactions to 4B in the U.S., but it shouldn't be. Most violence against women, in our society and around the world, is at the hands of men they know, typically their romantic partners. It's reasonable to fear that the risk is rising, after the election of an openly misogynist president who creates a permission structure for other men to be more domineering.
But it's also a good idea not to be overly literal about the 4B movement. As Han told CNN, the actual number of women committing themselves to the movement is small, "but the sentiments behind it I think a lot of people empathize with." To talk about "boycotting" men has a lot of value, even if women ultimately don't do it, first and foremost because it helps women question toxic assumptions they were raised to believe. Maybe the biggest belief being challenged here is that women need men more than vice versa. Even in the 21st century, many young women have been socialized to feel that their social status, economic security and physical safety come from securing a romantic partnership with a man. We still live in a sea of cultural messages that portray women as the ones trying to build relationships with supposedly reluctant men.
But the stereotype of romance-hungry women and love-reluctant men doesn't reflect reality. Maybe it was more true in the past, when deeply rooted sexism meant that women depended on men for many social goods. But in an era when women have educational and career opportunities that facilitate independence, that's all changed. There has also been a lot more public discourse on all the ways men depend on women, for everything from housework to companionship. Public debate over the "male loneliness epidemic," for instance, is largely about how much men's emotional needs are filled by women, and how single men aren't finding other outlets for sociability. As I wrote in the original "cat lady" column, many women are slowly awakening to the fact that they hold more cards in their romantic hands than they've been previously allowed to see.
This isn't just about vibes, either. A 2020 Pew Research study on dating found that "Single men are far more likely than single women to be looking for a relationship or dates — 61% vs. 38%." It's no wonder, when you consider that women are more likely to report ugly or even scary experiences while dating, such as harassment or unwanted touching. Large numbers of women don't want to date Trump voters, but find that the market is overloaded with single men in MAGA hats. The hope of finding someone great is weakening, and the risks of the search seem too high. I know women in this situation, and while it's not exactly true that they're boycotting men, they're also not actively seeking out dates. Many of them aren't necessarily lonely: They meet interested men out and about, and have plenty of friends to keep them company. That experience seems far less common for single men.
4B is giving American women a way to talk through their feelings and experiences in a way that encourages them to trust themselves and other women more, and to worry less about placating men. Most women who watch the 4B videos and comment online probably won't end up "boycotting" men. But they may feel a lot more empowered to be picky about who they date and more willing to focus on themselves, their friendships and their careers, rather than giving disproportionate energy to filling men's needs. It's absolutely a good thing for women to know that being on their own is better than being with a man who doesn't respect them. That attitude will keep them safer and happier, no matter what atrocious political choices American men may make.
Shares