The 4B Movement Goes (Relatively) Mainstream

Looks like the famous 4B Movement is spreading beyond South Korea to the USA now in the wake of Trump winning the presidential election.  Basically, it is like a Lysistrata-style strike by Women, but broader, to essentially "boycott men" completely.  To quote the NPR article:

Following President-elect Trump’s victory — which was fueled by male voters and to many looked like a referendum on reproductive rights — some young American women are talking about boycotting men.

The idea comes from the South Korean movement known as 4B, or the 4 No’s (bi means “not” in Korean). It calls for the refusal of dating men (biyeonae), sexual relationships with men (bisekseu), heterosexual marriage (bihon) and childbirth (bichulsan).

It is apparently trending quite a bit in recent days on social media, and even in mainstream legacy media.  Whether the movement is limited to a sliver of the Female population, or ultimately ends up achieving critical mass, is not yet clear, but the message sure is clear as day.  Men really need to answer the "clue phone", as it is ringing louder than ever now.  

The fact that so many men were willing to throw Women under the bus during this election, because reasons, is more than justification enough for Women to go on strike.  To call such an act of betrayal "the straw that broke the camel's back" is truly the understatement of the century!

I have often half-joked that Women could take over the world in a matter of weeks if not sooner, if they all (or enough of them) did something like this at the same time.  After all, in economic terms, men's demand for sex in particular, let alone everything else, is very "inelastic", at least in the short run, while Women's demand for sex is far more "elastic".  Despite Women actually having a higher sex drive overall than men (a fact that was famously well-known by everyone long before the Victorians attempted to erase and invert it), for men it is still more urgent and linear.  Thus, men will hand over the "keys to the kingdom" in order to desperately end the strike.  

(Men's demand for marriage is similarly "inelastic" as well, but with the important caveat that that is true only if it is rigged in their favor.  It is at base a patriarchal institution, after all.  The moment it ceases to be rigged in their favor, their demand for marriage then becomes much more "elastic".)

Whether one sees it as a sprint or a marathon (and a case can be made for both, in fact), the more Women lean heavily into it at the beginning, the more effective it will be.  Men can thus be "broken like wild horses" fairly quickly (if temporarily), at least long enough for Women's demands to be met.

It's too soon to tell at this point, but this development may very well be a silver lining of the otherwise horrible national (and global) calamity of Trump winning, namely, that we become that much closer to Matriarchy if this movement gains enough traction, God willing.  Only time will tell.

P.S.  All the fellas (including myself) who are at least tempted to reflexively say some flavor of, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kamala!" (which I of course did) in response to this, are really missing the point, and that is just as tone-deaf and chutzpah as saying "Not ALL men!" as a typical canned response to Women's concerns about male violence against Women.  Expecting kudos for merely meeting the bare minimum standards of a decent human being truly reeks of privilege.

Women Could Actually Take Over The World Right Now

What if I were to tell you that Women could take over the world right now?  Not in 2050, 2030, or even 2021, but 2020 within a matter of weeks?

What do Liberia, South Sudan, Kenya, Colombia, the Philippines, and Ancient Greece have in common?  All of these societies contain at least one example in their history of Women going on sex strike (i.e. withholding sex from men until their collective demands are met) and typically achieving success as a result, often in a matter of weeks or less.   These actions were generally done to bring an end to otherwise intractable and prolonged wars and violence, most notably the Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece as noted in the famous play Lysistrata.  In Liberia, a modern-day example, it brought an end to their country's 14-year long civil war and ushered in their first female president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

But what about the longest war in history, i.e. the War on Women?  Also known as "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer, this system is currently self-destructing as we speak, but can its demise be accelerated with a sex strike perhaps?  Would Women be able to take over the world more quickly and readily that way?   Pat Ravasio of Buckyworld seems to think so.  While I have long been rather skeptical of the idea myself, after suspending my disbelief I began to realize that this probably would have a chance at working wonders.  As the aformentioned historical examples have shown, men's demand for sex appears to be relatively "inelastic", that is, even a large increase in the "cost" of sex (which by definition would rise significantly during a massive shortage such as a sex strike) would not affect demand very much, at least in the short run.  While men don't have a higher sex drive than Women (if anything, Women have a higher sex drive), for men there is a much greater sense of urgency thanks to all of that testosterone, and thus men will typically "cave" first.  Thus, men would do whatever it takes to end the shortage/strike and regain easier access, including cleaning up their act and meeting the demands of the Women on strike.  (Women often forget just how much power they really have!)  And while the grand scale of the task of ending patriarchy may be more daunting than the historical examples of using sex strikes to end local conflicts, at this point in history it certainly appears to be worth the old college try.  Even with less than 100% participation, if enough Women go on strike (especially the wives of powerful men in high places), the effects would nonetheless be huge.

So yes, Women could actually take over the world now if they implemented such a strike.  Men are extremely vulnerable right now due to the coronavirus pandemic and the related social and sexual dry spell resulting from social distancing, which seems to be hitting men harder than Women (though both are clearly suffering). And the economic recession depression collapse resulting from both the pandemic itself as well as the lockdowns and shutdowns done to suppress it will, like all economic busts, hit men harder than Women and they may never fully recover.  Men will be begging Women for a bailout as well--but of course, whoever has the gold makes the rules, and whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

In fact, if Women were to withdraw ALL healing energy (not just sex) from men at once during this fairly narrow window of opportunity, men would really be in a collapsed state and totally conquered.   Though this option does come with its share of collateral damage, to be sure.

That said, it usually takes an enormous amount of provocation to get a critical mass of Women on board for something like that, since Women clearly have needs as well.  But given how so many men are lashing out these days as the patriarchy is now in its death throes, it probably won't take all that much more provocation to end up crossing that critical threshold.  And with the coronavirus pandemic and social distancing right now, it will only make it all the more easier.

VIVE LA FEMME!

Would a Sex Strike Actually Work? (Post-2016 Edition)

What do Liberia, South Sudan, Kenya, Colombia, the Philippines, and Ancient Greece have in common?  All of these societies contain at least one example in their history of Women going on sex strike (i.e. withholding sex from men until their collective demands are met) and typically achieving success as a result, often in a matter of weeks or less.   These actions were generally done to bring an end to otherwise intractable and prolonged wars and violence, most notably the Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece as noted in the famous play Lysistrata.  In Liberia, a modern-day example, it brought an end to their country's 14-year long civil war and ushered in their first female president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

But what about the longest war in history, i.e. the War on Women?  Also known as "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer, this system is currently self-destructing as we speak, but can its demise be accelerated with a sex strike perhaps?  Would Women be able to take over the world more quickly and readily that way?   Pat Ravasio of Buckyworld seems to think so.  While I have long been rather skeptical of the idea myself, after suspending my disbelief I began to realize that this probably would have a chance at working wonders.  As the aformentioned historical examples have shown, men's demand for sex appears to be relatively "inelastic", that is, even a large increase in the "cost" of sex (which by definition would rise significantly during a massive shortage such as a sex strike) would not affect demand very much, at least in the short run.  While men don't have a higher sex drive than Women (if anything, Women have a higher sex drive), for men there is a much greater sense of urgency thanks to all of that testosterone, and thus men will typically "cave" first.  Thus, men would do whatever it takes to end the shortage/strike and regain easier access, including cleaning up their act and meeting the demands of the Women on strike.  (Women often forget just how much power they really have!)  And while the grand scale of the task of ending patriarchy may be more daunting than the historical examples of using sex strikes to end local conflicts, at this point in history it certainly appears to be worth the old college try.  Even with less than 100% participation, if enough Women go on strike (especially the wives of powerful men in high places), the effects would nonetheless be huge.

So the answer to the question is most likely yes.  That said, it usually takes an enormous amount of provocation to get a critical mass of Women on board for something like that, since Women clearly have needs as well.  But given how so many men are lashing out these days as the patriarchy is now in its death throes, it probably won't take all that much more provocation to end up crossing that critical threshold.  Especially now that "President" Trump (!) has actually become a reality.  Thus, I would not be shocked if The Big One happens within a few years.

Would A Sex Strike Actually Work?

What do Liberia, South Sudan, Kenya, Colombia, the Philippines, and Ancient Greece have in common?  All of these societies contain at least one example in their history of Women going on sex strike (i.e. withholding sex from men until their collective demands are met) and typically achieving success as a result, often in a matter of weeks or less.   These actions were generally done to bring an end to otherwise intractable and prolonged wars and violence, most notably the Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece as noted in the famous play Lysistrata.  In Liberia, a modern-day example, it brought an end to their country's 14-year long civil war and ushered in their first female president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

But what about the longest war in history, i.e. the War on Women?  Also known as "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer, this system is currently self-destructing as we speak, but can its demise be accelerated with a sex strike perhaps?  Would Women be able to take over the world more quickly and readily that way?   Pat Ravasio of Buckyworld seems to think so.  While I have long been rather skeptical of the idea myself, after suspending my disbelief I began to realize that this probably would have a chance at working wonders.  As the aformentioned historical examples have shown, men's demand for sex appears to be relatively "inelastic", that is, even a large increase in the "cost" of sex (which by definition would rise significantly during a massive shortage such as a sex strike) would not affect demand very much, at least in the short run.  While men don't have a higher sex drive than Women (if anything, Women have a higher sex drive), for men there is a much greater sense of urgency thanks to all of that testosterone, and thus men will typically "cave" first.  Thus, men would do whatever it takes to end the shortage/strike and regain easier access, including cleaning up their act and meeting the demands of the Women on strike.  (Women often forget just how much power they really have!)  And while the grand scale of the task of ending patriarchy may be more daunting than the historical examples of using sex strikes to end local conflicts, at this point in history it certainly appears to be worth the old college try.  Even with less than 100% participation, if enough Women go on strike (especially the wives of powerful men in high places), the effects would nonetheless be huge.

So the answer to the question is most likely yes.  That said, it usually takes an enormous amount of provocation to get a critical mass of Women on board for something like that, since Women clearly have needs as well.  But given how so many men are lashing out these days as the patriarchy is now in its death throes, it probably won't take all that much more provocation to end up crossing that critical threshold.  Thus, I would not be shocked if The Big One happens within a few years.