This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Nick Fuentes's "your body, my choice" is now apparently on the lips of middle school boys everywhere, if reddit / news sources are to be believed (I'm not around children much). By merely writing this I run the risk of already paying too much attention to a throwaway piece of internet trolling, forgotten by everyone by the time you finish reading this. But given that this taunt has penetrated even my own hitherto groyper-free feeds, and in fact stayed in my mind for a day or two, I wonder if it has some memetic staying power. And I confess that some part of me finds it hilarious. The anti-vaxxers couldn't ruin "my body, my choice", but I feel like this might.
Is this a display of a certain kind of genius for provocation? In rhetoric, we are told not to accept the opponent's framing of a question. And yet here he accepts the opponent's framing of bodily autonomy wholeheartedly, and simply inverts it, ridiculously. Therefore at first it appears the phrase can be dismissed as having no authenticity - a pure troll. No pro-life person would begin their argument by asserting control over of a woman's body. To take the statement at face value and be triggered would surely be to model the opponent incorrectly, to fail the ideological Turning test. Or would it? Ross Douthat isn't about to repeat this slogan, but in the world he wants, doesn't the symbolism of the father walking the bride down the aisle to hand her over have to regain some power? So cue the articles on "MAGA misogyny" and the despair and anger and discussions on how to protect oneself from rape in /r/TwoXChromosomes.
I guess I don't have anything particularly interesting to say about this, but I'm curious what people here think. First, why does it seem that the trolling and triggering in gender discourse is so asymmetric? "No means yes, yes means anal" comes to mind. Are there good examples of the manosphere being successfully provoked in such a manner? You could point to the 4B movement, for instance, but if I'm not mistaken the women declaring celibacy were being earnest, not trolling. Second, is the mainstreaming of 4chan culture, and its exposure to children, important? Or is this just standard fare for schoolyards and male group chats, and no more insidious than, say, the spread of woke ideas in schools?
A right-wing female friend sent me a screenshot of this yesterday and said she was embarrassed to be associated with the idiots who wrote it. For my part, I think it's counterproductive memetics. While I've personally chuckled at some similar memes - e.g., "They're milking AOC on the White House lawn and you're laughing?" for its sheer absurdity - I reckon this kind of extreme edgelord humour is alienating and mysterious for the vast majority of women.
Male friends can absolutely drag the shit out of each other and it's still pretty good-natured, or even an active form of bonding, but nothing as overt happens in female circles. Similarly, young men on voicechat on videogames have been talking about fucking each others' moms in various depraved ways for decades, while lots of women experience this as traumatising aggression. It's clearly a gendered phenomenon, potentially even a biological one - it wouldn't surprise me if we found that isolated tribes in Papua New Guinea where men bond with "your momma" jokes. But I think it codes as grossly and pointlessly inoffensive to most women and genuinely scary to some. While I think that's large because they just "don't get it", that doesn't change the fact that it's probably bad politics.
I agree with this.
Even relatively feminine men will absolutely roast each other in male-only spaces. Playful teasing, joking boundary-pushing, and obviously your momma jokes are everywhere, when you get men together in a space that doesn't include women.
This is why Trump's "it was just locker room talk" defense for the pussy tape in 2016 seemed to work for him: that kind of horny bravado is just what men get up to with each other.
But when women come into the space, everything changes. Women very much seem to hate the idea that men alter their behavior when they come around. But they do. And the reason why men chill out when women come in isn't because they are ashamed of their behavior, or are trying to hide something. It's a mark of respect: they acknowledge that women aren't into it and find it discomfiting, and respect this preference by choosing not to engage in it around them. It's sort of like how I might use profanity while talking to my friends, but would never do so when visiting my mom.
I'm a big defender of male-only spaces and organizations, because we very much need for men to have an outlet to bond over this stuff. Bottling it up or refusing to give men the ability to bond with other men doesn't help -- in fact, it makes it more likely that guys will try to use it to bond with women.
And bonding with women over this stuff sometimes works! 'Negging', as a complaint, gets a lot of airtime. But there's a great deal of the phenomenon that's simply a part of how people flirt. Contrary to the popular interpretation, playful negging isn't about trying to genuinely hurt someone's self-esteem. What it does is create a sense of intimacy, by making statements that would be totally uncalled-for if made by a total stranger, and playfully dancing around the contradiction that the people are strangers. And it in fact presents a theoretical possibility of threat! But the point that's being made is that the man is so unwilling to pose a threat to the woman that the idea of him posing a threat to her is a big joke. He playfully insults because he's profoundly not interested in really insulting or threatening, and if it really is playful and there's chemistry, healthy, well-adjusted women enjoy the game. I have flirting level -100, so I'll refrain from giving an example.
This is fundamentally what men are doing with each other when they bond like this: they're accentuating the intimacy they feel for each other by demonstrating that they're so close and their bond is so tight, they can insult each other and engage in dominance behavior without any real threat. It's an indication that these men are so utterly far from threatening each other that even the concept of threatening each other is a massive joke that people find hilarious because of its implausibility. (This is the same reason why straight men engage in boundary-pushing claims of homosexuality -- they're so straight that even the concept of having sex with each other is an implausible joke. I presume this is one of those things that would really annoy a gay man if he happened to be present.)
The phrase I've seen to describe the differences between male and female bonding is that "men will insult your mother and have your back, women will tell you that you're beautiful and stab you in it." 'Toxic positivity', insofar as it exists, is mostly a phenomenon of female bonding styles being applied to broader social environments. 'Toxic masculinity', particularly the old complaints about angry gamer boys making puerile jokes, comes from these forms of male bonding being taken too far, and applied by skill-less idiots to environments of actual competition, or brought out in mixed company.
That's not to say that men can't engage in very positive, productive conversations with a lot of affection -- or that women can't be openly insulting. But there are differences in communication styles that reflect how men are theoretically threats to each other and to women for social power or attention, and this conceptual threat must be managed and minimized by close friends to the point of humor. The big problem is when this humor escapes the male-only and flirting contexts where it's effective, or is received poorly by people who don't want it or find it alienating.
If you think I lack for evidence for this just-so story, go look at the youtube comments for a male-oriented video and witness the "bro really took this too far," "least addicted gamer," "it's not that deep" comments, and then go look at a female-oriented video and witness the "OH MY GOD YOU ARE SO BEAUTIFUL," "Dr. So-and-so is so warm and helpful with such a great bedside manner ," "awwwwwww Butter the cat is such a cutie" comments.
Late to the party, but Scott refers to the phenomenon you're describing as "countersignalling". Essentially, "I trust you enough that I can insult you, knowing that you'll understand no real malice is intended and you'll take it in good humour". Zizek argues that ribald jokes of this kind are vital for defusing tensions between members of warring ethnic groups.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with most of this, but I feel like some male shit-talking and joking, at least in a group setting, also has an element of faux-combat. Constantly challenging each other is a form of play-fighting, but it's also a test - someone who regularly can't come up with a comeback or simply shuts down will eventually lose status and become more likely to be simply dominated by the others.
Yeah, sometimes that is the case, depending on the structure and personalities of the friend group. What I've outlined is how it tends to be in my own friend groups, which have been very nerdy, and tended towards playfulness and silliness rather than combativeness and dominance-testing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link