It actually does contain it in the ingredient list (I.e. sweet cream). It just that the FDA requires an additional label warning of allergens, like contains nuts or milk, which is what this was missing.

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.

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.

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.

Tu quoque fallacy.

I will assume that you will consider this to be misandrist as well

Well, you’d be wrong because I wholeheartedly agree.

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.

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.

Refusing to engage in sex or relationships is not “shutting people out”, it’s exercising bodily and personal autonomy.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. I’m just pointing out that their blatant misandry is misandry.

They’re not alleged oppressors

I voted for Harris, the whole point of the protest is that men overwhelmingly voted for trump, so they should protest all men. I’m absolutely just an alleged oppressor here, not actually one, and I’m being looped in solely because of my sex.

You have every right to be weary about anyone you want. But this isn’t just “being weary” it’s putting everyone of a certain sex into a group and shutting them out. It’s akin to the people who say “the only people who have stolen from me are black, so I won’t hire any black people.” It’s just racism/misandry, regardless of whether or not the suspicions have roots in reality.

“I have a black friend who really won me over by being well spoken and educated. However, my previous experience has been that black men are all thugs and hoodlums. And I’ve not been given strong evidence that they can be trusted to protect property rights.”

This is quite literally what you sound like. I’m sorry for the way some men have treated you, but everyone has an excuse that they believe justifies their prejudice. It doesn’t make it any less prejudicial.

If a woman is abstaining from sex because she is afraid of the consequences of getting pregnant, I fully support that and that is not at all misandry. But this is ostentatiously about a protest against the alleged oppressors, which is based solely on sex. You just think the misandry is justified. I don’t. Just like all prejudice.

While I absolutely agree that no one owes anyone sex, and if women want to protest like this it’s entirely their right.

However, I think you’re using this fact to miss the point. Even the woman quoted in the article is saying that men wants sex, but don’t respect them, so she won’t have sex with men. The 4b all have to do with not doing something they might have otherwise done with men.

It’s clearly meant to be a punishment, a retaliation for the loss of their rights.

It’s not about me saying women owe sex to men, I never said this or implied this. It’s me pointing out what these protests are about.

It has nothing to do with punishment. Claiming that women are “retaliating against” or “punishing” men is making the topic about men instead of what it’s really about - women’s rights.

The article makes it clear that this is retaliation against all men for voting against their rights. Even though there were plenty of men that voted with them, and plenty of women who voted against them. Trump won the majority of white women. They are making it about men, yet I’m not allowed to point out making it about all men doesn’t make sense and is misandry?

If they didnt want it to be a topic about men, they shouldn’t have made it about all when not all men are guilty, and plenty of women are.

I’d say wait and see what actually happens with this in the US, if anything even does, before getting overly worried about it.

I’m not worried about it as I doubt it is something that will take off, and even if it does the chances of it affecting an old happily married man like myself are ridiculously low.

Keep in mind that this all comes from a top level comment talking about how it’s bad to target all men regardless of their guilt, simply because they are men, and then someone defending that it’s okay to target all men, regardless of their guilt. I was basing my position off what I read in the linked article, some other articles I’ve come across on the topic, and what was said in this thread.

Women trying to protect themselves against misogyny =/= misandry.

While I absolutely 100% agree, I don’t see how “punishing all men regardless of their guilt” is “defending themselves against misogyny.” It’s just being misandrists, which is my point.

Women having autonomy over their bodies means they can choose whether to have sex or not.

As I said “If they don’t feel like having sex, that’s their right and no one can force them otherwise.” We 100% agree on this point.

For you to call that choice punishment against you is to say that you have some kind of right to or power over their bodies.

I don’t believe this, so I’m sorry it’s simply untrue. The whole point of this is a protest to stop giving men what they want. And that’s their right, I’m not saying they don’t have that right. What I’m saying is that it’s very clearly meant as a punishment, and if that punishment is being directed at a person simply for being a man, regardless of their guilt, that’s blatant misandry.

I’m already seeing this “your body, my choice” shit going around now that trump won, and it’s disgusting and horrifying.

I agree. They are absolutely huge pieces of shit who women should shun. But shunning allies because “they are men too” is pretty shitty as well.

FYI, I’ve seen another article where a woman claimed to be dumping her boyfriend. But, it’s important to note, that she was saying that because he is a republican. So that makes more sense to punish a guilty party.

But, either way, good discussion. I feel like I’m repeating myself, and I bet you feel the same way. Appreciate it staying civil and I apologize if I came off as an asshole at anytime. Totally uncalled for with someone who has entertained this discussion as kindly as you have.

deleted by creator

I actually just saw this elsewhere in the thread, and it made me think of a good point here that might get you to see my position:

White women voted in favor of Trump. What if I said “That’s it, I’m not having sex with white women at all anymore.” Racist or no?

How it’s presented has zero impact on the actual result.

Sure. But my whole point is that this is misandry. So if the intent is to punish all men because you blame all men for this, the fact that it minimizes some risk has no bearing on that point.

but that is also irrelevant.

What? It’s absolutely relevant. Like if I punch a black guy because they are black that’s racist. If I punch a black guy because he attacked me and I was defending myself that’s not racist. The outcome doesn’t change the intent here.

It stems from a conscious or unconscious understanding that the risks have changed.

Whether the misandry is conscious or unconscious doesn’t make a difference. Or do we think that our unconscious racial biases aren’t biases?

But your whole point relied on the “promise” aspect of it. If there was no promise of it, only the likelihood of it happening, then it falls under the same thing that there is no crime by withholding it. I agree that sex and money are different, as they are legally held to different standards. But that’s a distinction without a meaning in the context of the current discussion.

Let me try it this way.

I suggest that I’m going to have sex with someone. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I’m not going to have sex with them. By your logic, this is not punishment.

I suggest that I’m going to give someone money. Then, as a form of retaliation, I tell them I’m not going to give them that money. By your logic, this is punishment.

This seems blatantly contradictory, even if we maintain that withholding sex is less a punishment. It’s still the same thing - withholding something that would likely have been given had there been no reason to retaliate - the only difference is that the state can’t do anything about the punishment when it comes to sex.

I actually don’t agree, once you’ve promised the raises, people will reasonably make plans in anticipation of them, so I do think you have an obligation (maybe not a legal one, but that isn’t what we’re talking about) to give them once you’ve made those promises. I don’t recall the women involved in any of this 4b stuff promising a relationship to any man or group of men, it isn’t like they “were going to get it” already.

I was very careful with my words, and very intentionally avoided the word “promise” because I knew it would be spun this way, even though I would argue that even if one promises to do something, they still have the right to say no (i.e. Is a woman who promises to have sex with a man required to have sex with that man? Or does she still maintain the right to change her mind?)

So can we retry again without putting the word “promise” in my mouth? Am I punishing that person by deciding to not give them a raise as a retaliation of the person saying “fuck you” to me? Or is it because the raise was never theirs, it’s impossible for me to punish them by taking it away?

I’ve yet to see anyone say they are doing this because they are afraid of dying if they get pregnant. The article quotes someone who says it’s about respect, and all of the other things I’ve read are about fighting the patriarchy and men being controlling.

I think you want it to be justifiable, and are trying to figure how to spin it so it is.

This is the world men voted for

No, I didn’t vote for it. That’s the whole point. Most men who voted did. That’s on them, not me. Any punishment directed at me because I’m a male and other males did bad things is blatant misandry: blaming me for my sex.

Sure, if women are not having sex because they are afraid of getting pregnant and they don’t have access to abortion, that makes sense. But this is putting words in the protester’s mouths in an attempt to justify the blatant misandry. They aren’t doing this because they are afraid of getting pregnant, they are doing it because some men did something bad (although, it was certainly not just men) and, because they are misandrists, they are punishing all men.

Say to some male employee, “Hey, at the end of the quarter, I am planning on giving you a raise.” Now, I’m not obligated to give them that raise, as I’m well within my power to change my mind. I think it’s safe to say we both agree on this.

However, some other guy says to me “go fuck yourself” and so when the end of the quarter comes around I say to the male employee, “Sorry, but I’m not giving you that raise because some other guy told me to fuck myself.”

Would you argue that I haven’t punished that guy, simply because whether to give you the raise is completely up to me? To me, this is clearly a punishment: they were going to get something, but I decided to not do so in retaliation to how I was treated.