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 -
Pertaining to the discussion down-thread on the subject of young men and women disliking each other:
The New York Times just published the latest iteration in what feels like a semiannual analysis of dating after 60. The article itself contains the usual "no-duh" realities (old people come with baggage, the machinery doesn't function like it used to) and far-reaching copes (it'll be the best sex of your life, less drama involved), but of particular interest this time around is the unusual tenor of the comment section.
I always enjoy reading these articles and their comments despite (or rather, because of) having a ways to go until becoming a member of the relevant age bracket. The typical reader reaction usually involves stories of finding love late in life, rediscovering the joy of intimacy, meeting new and interesting people to treasure their remaining time with, etc. But man, whether it's a generational shift or a sudden change in attitudes, the elders are much more unhappy this time around. Most of the top comments describe a vehement dislike and/or disgust of the opposite sex, all in a single direction: these women simply hate dudes. Here are some representative excerpts:
"...after a lifetime of having sex with men who have no clue about women's bodies and how to please them, old men waving their bottles of little blue pills and complaining about their 'needs' are not appealing. I'd rather go out for lunch and take in the latest exhibit at a museum with my female friends. They are far more interesting."
"Men need to feel intellectually superior to women and I got sick of playing dumb a long time ago."
"The LAST thing I want is to have someone else to take care of. I enjoy solitude. There is a huge difference between being alone and being lonely."
"75% of domestic violence is committed against women. A third of female murders in 2021 were by their intimate partner. No, not all men. But statistics matter. And they show that women have a lot more to lose in opening their hearts and homes to a man."
"I'm in my 50s and this is already true. The men are fine, but my women friends? They are traveling, learning, reading, exploring. If there was a pill I could take to become a lesbian I'd swallow it so fast...."
"I am appalled by the first photograph in the article which shows a man’s hand around the woman’s neck, even though his thumb is on her cheek. I think it was a thoughtless choice and I am willing to bet that many abused women relived trauma when seeing it."
"Statistically, men are far more likely to leave their wives when the woman gets a cancer diagnosis."
This is the rhetoric that younger generations are hearing from their parents and grandparents. Lifetimes spent with and for another person, only to openly resent those decades of effort late in life. With the hysteria of "sexual assault" at the other end of the spectrum, both independent sexuality and committed intimate relationships are massively disincentivized (or at least, that's how it looks to someone just beginning to figure out the structure of their life). The only guarantee of a lifetime of happiness, it seems, is to stay free of interpersonal bitterness, free of legal and social humiliation, free of sacrificing your own interests for someone who hates you; to live an entire life alone.
How do you convince a 22-year-old of either sex that their perception is mistaken, that there is value in seeking committed relationships with another person?
A bit off topic, but I've heard this sentiment from a number of women, yet I've never seen it in real life. I strongly prefer smart women, and no male friend or relative has ever told me (or acted like) they prefer dumb women. Where do women get this idea? It must be rooted in real experiences to some extent, but it's completely alien to me.
My candidate hypotheses:
Most men like to discuss niche topics of particular interest to them, and women interpret this as a need to feel intellectually superior.
Most men dislike argumentative or combative women, and such women interpret this as men disliking their intellect rather than their attitude.
Most men would choose a hot, dumb woman over a smart, ugly woman, and women interpret this as men needing to feel intellectually superior.
4. Women screen for dominant men. This can be both be out of attraction or be mechanical, as women generally don’t approach and are passive followers in the early stages of courtship. Dominant men are more likely to talk over others and give off the pretense that they’re intellectually superior, including over women they’re dating or in a relationship with. Especially in the early stages of courtship, a man often has to lead and dictate the conversation because the woman puts in so little effort and initiative, and old habits can die hard.
5. Good ol’ hypergamy: For a date to go well and for subsequent dates to occur, or the first date to have occurred in the first place, perhaps a man does need to be intellectually superior to the woman or she won’t be sufficiently impressed. He needs enough material to lead and carry the conversation(s), and this can mean reaching for niche topics.
6. Some apex fallacy: Many women subconsciously don’t perceive non-dominant men as men. Non-dominant men are something more amorphous like “guys,” or not thought about at all like the Don Draper meme. See also the infamous OKCupid graphs: How men rate women vs. vice versa.
7. Speaking of Draper, Rule 1 and Rule 2, as always. A man’s supposed mansplaining and pretense of intellectual superiority is only a problem if a woman is not—or is no longer—sufficiently attracted to him.
8. Perhaps the average man is indeed intellectually superior to the average woman. It could be due to a modest gap in average cognitive ability. The average man may also have a wider and deeper knowledge base across a variety of topics than the average woman (e.g. in the physical sciences), which would only be exacerbated at the tails. If a random man or a random woman is to be selected to try to win a game of trivia with my life on the line, I’m definitely going man, especially if the pool is restricted to the college educated. If being funnier (intentionally, that is) is a form of intellectual superiority, that could be another point toward men.
I was accused of “mansplaining” by a young woman multiple times for talking to her the same way I talk to my male friend in his late 40s. Women just do not like being “explained” things the way men do. They HATE the implication that they don’t know something. They view it as condescending, while men are less cynical, and often seem to enjoy hearing how things work from others, or sharing knowledge in explanatory ways.
With women, it’s always about feelings. Making sure everyone in the conversation is “heard.” Lots of prefacing about how “maybe” it’s this way, or “I feel like” it’s that way. The corrosive, brain-melting end result of female socialization is that you can never just have a good argument without someone crying.
Things to consider:
Is the thing you're "mansplaining" something the woman in question might conceivably be interested in?
Have you shown a similar interest in hearing about things she's interested in and knows about?
Suppose you learn a lot about Roman military stuff, and she learns a lot about astrology, so you each have a lot of knowledge about an antiquated system. Are you as interested in what she has to say about birth signs as you hope she will be about your thing? If not, why not?
No, it's not. I meant the specific person you were talking to. Are they, specifically interested?
It's unsurprising that your young female colleague might be more sensitive to being talked down to than your middle aged male friend. Because you're not friends, for one thing.
Then it's hardly surprising that it would be more enjoyable for someone to learn about a topic from the internet than from you. I'm currently getting the impression that if I really needed the information you were giving, I would choose another source if possible, despite not generally being a "mansplaining" critic.
Didn’t ask; don’t care.
Then don't engage.
In the short time since you spun up this alt, you've posted nothing but crappy comments and antagonism. That plus deleting a lot of your comments makes it pretty clear you aren't here to contribute anything but turds in the punch bowl.
Banned for three days. Decide whether you actually have anything to say.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link