They're not obligated to date men though, if they want to participate in 4B then I don't see what's wrong with that. They are allowed to assert their bodily autonomy, it's a form of protest against how they are treated
AwakenedAce
joined 1 month ago
a female supremacist movement
Thanks for confirming exactly the type of person you are, it's really helpful for people that want to be certain that they won't lose anything of worth by blocking you.
The 4B movement in South Korea is meant to oppose their patriarchal state because they don't want to be viewed as reproductive tools.
On the other hand the movement you're talking about is meant to "protect" against feminism and oppose a supposed bias against men in society, which is ludicrous when you consider that women are discriminated against much much more to the point it's not even comparable. It's just a misogynistic movement.
So no, this isn't hypocrisy, these are very different.
Now, if men made a movement to protest gendered expectations or real problems without jumping through a thousand hoops to blame feminism, and without its logic being based in misogyny, I think that would be better received.
I love that I managed to guess quite a few of these
Well I'd say most of them are federated together, or at least those with a good amount of users. In practice you don't really get islands other than I guess troll instances that everyone has blocked.
And AFAIK as long as an instance isn't blocked by yours (and vice versa to be useful), you can follow a person on that unfederated instance and it should just work and get federated.
Wait is something like that actually in Project 2025?
The way I understand it is that they can relicense it and then publish it if they want, but the GPL would still fully apply to the previous versions.
The first question you cited seems to refer to any different organisation/individual making changes to the source code. And the second seems to refer to revoking the GPL for an already released version, which they would of course not be allowed to do.
This would make sense as ownership of the copyright would supersede a license.
Okay cool. So if we agree that individuals are not obligated to date men, then it follows that choosing not to do so is not a punishment towards men. A punishment requires a penalty or deprivation, and since dating is not a requirement, there can be no deprivation occurring.
This movement was not created to punish some men who feel entitled to a relationship, it's (primarily) to advocate for their rights and against the expectations they are subject to.
It has been pointed out to me that it might constitute a punishment for a subset of entitled men so this is not entirely accurate. That said, I would still say it is unjustified to frame this as a punishment of all men, especially considering that subset of entitled men likely constitutes of the very people in favor of removing rights from women.