What are the 4 B’s of the 4B movement?

The 4B movement originated in South Korea.

The 4B Movement, originating from South Korea, provides an interesting framework when considering the experiences of women in the United States, especially against the backdrop of political polarization and ongoing debates about gender equality, reproductive rights, and societal expectations.

Learn more about the South Korean 4B movement:

https://theweek.com/culture-life/what-is-south-korea-4b-movement

How can the 4B movement apply to me, in the USA?

The 4B Movement, when viewed through the lens of the U.S., speaks to a broader desire among women to have greater control over their own lives, bodies, and choices, unbound by traditional gender expectations. It reflects a critical response to male treatment in various areas—whether in relationships, societal roles, or political autonomy—and aligns with broader feminist ideals that call for equality, personal agency, and freedom from outdated norms. For many women, these four principles represent a pathway toward a more self-determined and liberated existence, particularly in an environment where their rights and identities are often the subject of political debate.

In the U.S., the “No Boyfriend” aspect can be seen as a reaction to the ways in which traditional gender roles still influence dating dynamics. Many women find themselves feeling pressured to conform to stereotypes of how relationships should work, where the expectation may still exist for them to cater to a male partner’s needs, often at the cost of their own independence. The idea of not entering relationships unless they are genuinely empowering is becoming increasingly resonant as women seek healthier, more equitable dynamics. In an era where gender-based violence, harassment, and inequalities in domestic labor are ongoing challenges, “No Boyfriend” is a stance some women take to prioritize their own well-being, growth, and emotional security without the added complexities of unequal relationships.

The “No Birth” principle finds particular significance given the contentious debates in the U.S. regarding reproductive rights. Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many women have felt that their autonomy has been significantly compromised, fueling movements that champion personal choice over motherhood. For some, choosing not to have children is both a practical decision and a form of resistance to societal expectations that equate womanhood with motherhood. This stance has also been influenced by economic factors, such as the rising cost of living, student debt, and a lack of adequate support systems for mothers, such as affordable childcare or paid parental leave.

“No Beauty” is particularly relevant when considering the way beauty standards in the U.S. have been historically shaped by media, advertising, and social pressures. Women have often faced unrealistic expectations to look a certain way, which can impact their self-worth and lead to issues like body dysmorphia and mental health struggles. The 4B Movement’s rejection of these standards serves as a call for embracing authenticity and rejecting the notion that women must adhere to any standard to be worthy or valuable. As social media becomes an increasingly pervasive force in people’s lives, this stance is particularly powerful for women who wish to reclaim their identities outside of curated images and societal judgment.

“No Bridal” challenges the institution of marriage, which has traditionally been seen as the ultimate goal for women in the U.S. While marriage rates have declined and there is a growing acceptance of diverse forms of relationships and partnerships, many women still feel pressure to marry, often influenced by cultural, familial, or economic expectations. The movement encourages women to think critically about the personal value and implications of marriage, rather than pursuing it because it’s expected. In the U.S., where divorce rates are high and many women experience unequal emotional or financial burdens within marriages, the “No Bridal” stance supports a growing trend of women either delaying marriage or opting out of it entirely in favor of alternative forms of companionship or independence.

Choose a partner that advocates for YOU

Choosing a partner who shares your political beliefs, especially regarding female autonomy and reproductive rights, can lead to a more harmonious and supportive relationship. When both partners respect and value access to IVF, abortion, and comprehensive healthcare, it fosters mutual understanding and a unified approach to important life decisions. This alignment ensures that your personal choices are respected, reducing potential conflicts and creating a partnership based on shared values of freedom, respect, and bodily autonomy. It allows both partners to advocate for each other’s needs, building a strong foundation for both emotional and practical support.

A partner who votes or voted against your rights does NOT care about you and does not respect you.

A partner who votes or voted against your bodily autonomy seeks to control you.

The political landscape for women in the USA

Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election. Donald trump will be president and J.D. Vance will be vice president.

As of the November 5th, 2024 election, republicans will now hold the majority in both the house and the senate.

How does the upcoming political landscape impact women?

The democratic party has been hard at work protecting what is left of women’s rights after changes have been made that let the states make legal changes to the bodily autonomy of women. A change of hands this drastic has potential to further the loss of bodily autonomy and loss of women’s rights.

More information around the Trump presidency and abortion:

https://reproductiverights.org/trump-presidency-2024-threats-reproductive-freedoms

https://www.aclu.org/trump-on-abortion

Far-Right Policy & Christian Nationalism

Far-right policies and Christian nationalism can significantly impact women’s access to birth control, abortion, and healthcare in emergencies related to pregnancies through a combination of restrictive laws, policy advocacy, and influence over cultural attitudes toward reproductive rights. This leads us into project 2025.

Project 2025

Project 2025 is a strategic initiative developed by conservative think tanks with the aim of reshaping the U.S. government based on specific ideological values, starting from the next presidential term. This project envisions a substantial restructuring of federal institutions and aims to implement policies that would significantly affect women’s rights, including their body autonomy and access to abortion. The emphasis on conservative social values could lead to restrictions on reproductive healthcare, making abortion access more difficult, while potentially limiting educational content that addresses gender equality and reproductive rights. Such shifts could reduce the autonomy women have over their own bodies and influence educational opportunities that promote gender equity. To gain a deeper understanding of Project 2025, readers can explore the full Project 2025 document or “The People’s Guide to Project 2025,” which I have linked below.

Read the full Project 2025 document as a PDF:
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise

Read The Peoples Guide to Project 2025 as a PDF:
https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-05_Peoples-Guide-Pro-2025.pdf

Restrictive Legislation on Abortion

Federal Bans and Restrictions: Far-right politicians, often influenced by Christian nationalist views, tend to advocate for restrictive laws that limit or ban abortion at the federal level. This includes attempts to pass laws like the “heartbeat bills” or “fetal pain” legislation that seek to ban abortions at very early stages of pregnancy, often before women even realize they are pregnant. These restrictions are frequently grounded in religious beliefs about the sanctity of life beginning at conception.
Overturning Federal Protections: The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, was heavily influenced by the advocacy and legal strategies of far-right and Christian nationalist groups. This decision eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, empowering individual states to set their own laws. Many states with far-right leadership have since passed severe restrictions or outright bans on abortion, reducing access for millions of women.

Restrictions on Birth Control and Family Planning

Targeting Contraception Access: Some far-right and Christian nationalist lawmakers oppose certain forms of birth control, often framing them as akin to abortion. For example, they may attempt to restrict access to emergency contraception (e.g., Plan B or morning-after pills) or intrauterine devices (IUDs) by suggesting that these methods prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and should be treated similarly to abortion. As a result, legislation or policy changes have been proposed or enacted to limit funding for programs that provide contraceptives or to restrict their availability.

Title X Funding Cuts: Title X is a federal program that provides funding for family planning services, including birth control. Far-right lawmakers, motivated by anti-abortion and anti-contraception ideologies, have sought to cut funding to providers like Planned Parenthood. This effectively reduces access to birth control for many low-income women who rely on federally funded programs for their reproductive healthcare.

Barriers to Medical Care for Pregnancy Emergencies

Threatening Doctors with Legal Consequences: Far-right legislators have pushed for laws that create legal uncertainty for doctors treating pregnant women, particularly in emergencies involving ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, or other life-threatening conditions. For example, laws that broadly define abortion as illegal may make healthcare providers hesitant to provide urgent care for fear of prosecution. This has led to situations where doctors delay necessary interventions, jeopardizing the health and safety of the mother.

Conscience Clauses: Christian nationalist influence has led to the implementation of “conscience clauses” or “religious freedom” laws that allow healthcare providers to refuse to perform procedures, prescribe medication, or provide referrals for services like abortion and contraception if they claim a religious or moral objection. These refusals can prevent women from receiving timely care, particularly in areas with limited healthcare options.

Impact on Federal Health Guidelines and Funding

Influencing Public Health Policy: The influence of Christian nationalist groups on lawmakers can result in federal health guidelines and funding being shaped by religious ideology rather than scientific evidence. For instance, abstinence-only education, which is heavily promoted by some far-right Christian groups, often receives funding over comprehensive sex education that includes birth control options. This lack of information about contraception leads to higher rates of unintended pregnancies and, subsequently, greater demand for abortion services that may be restricted or inaccessible.

Limiting Federal Protections for Women’s Healthcare: Far-right lawmakers often oppose federal efforts to expand healthcare protections related to reproductive health. This includes attempts to limit the reach of the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, which requires most insurance plans to cover contraception without a co-pay. Some religious employers have sought exemptions, reducing the availability of affordable contraception for women employed by these entities.

Legal Framework and Court Appointments

Judicial Appointments: Far-right influence in the judicial appointment process is significant. By appointing judges who share similar ideologies—often informed by Christian nationalist perspectives—the legal landscape for reproductive rights is reshaped in a way that supports restricting access. This has resulted in courts upholding state-level abortion bans, restricting access to medication abortion, and ruling in favor of religious exemptions that undermine contraceptive coverage.

Get Help