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 -
Neil Gaiman having sexual misconduct allegations alleged against him.
https://x.com/bordigay/status/1808522316017815898
Fascinating for the usual 'she was a defenseless underaged 21 year old' tract and 'we had somewhat bad sex at some point' allegations. Reading between the lines it feels clear that Gaiman is a serial polyamorist and atleast a moderate sexpest (by modern standards), but surprising timing to go for him now.
There's been some minor backlash-backlash on grounds of the accusers being TERFs and therefore unworthy of being in the online sphere, and there's nothing explicitly criminal about the accused actions but will be interesting to see how it impacts ongoing projects like Sandman and Good Omens.
Liveblog of the podcast with the details from someone skeptical about the allegations (she's only done the part with the first accuser so far):
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1808514093323587854.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1808604076650660238.html
The highlights would be the Whatsapp messages. Like this one after the day when Neil Gaiman allegedly sexually assaulted her on her first day as a nanny:
And this one a few days later after the weekend when he allegedly "anally penetrates her, she says, without asking and without using a condom and she says he uses butter as a lubricant.":
Or these messages to Neil, also from shortly after the alleged anal rape:
Or these after he messaged her about her supposedly telling people he raped her and she planned to MeToo him:
Or the general description of the year of messages following her meeting Neil, a relationship that supposedly started with him sexually assaulting her on the first day they met and anally raping her the second day:
In summary:
EDIT: Liveblog of episodes 3 and 4:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1808683675984302279.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1808707805915889918.html
The only known case in the universe in which butter was used as an anal lube was in last tango in paris. And him going to the kitchen to take the butter stick out and applying it to one's asshole gives plenty of opportunity to ask "what the fuck are you doing".
Or on your first day in the job at some point you could raise an eyebrow at the invitation to bathe naked with your new boss, as well.
Gotta say, this isn't a good look from him. It sounds like he didn't do anything illegal but he sure did take advantage of a young, inexperienced woman who was both star-struck from meeting a rich celebrity and also working for him. She had very little sexual experience and he was instantly leading her into some sort of intense sub/dom thing.
This is the sort of thing where I think "me too" actually makes sense. He doesn't deserve any legal repurcussions but I'm OK with trashing his public reputation over this. Especially since it apparently wasn't just this one woman but at least 14 according to his wife (herself a famous feminist celebrity).
you know how the internet likes to take old-fashioned words and re-use them? Words like "lewd" and "grinch" and "ruse?" I wish we could do that with "cad." It's the perfect word for the modern age. A guy who didn't actually do anything illegal but still behaved immorally towards women.
I would be more than happy to slot him in with Joss Whedon as examples for the rule: "The more a male celebrity is feted for his feminism, the more likely he is to have done skeevy things with young women."
Indeed. We're at the point where I genuinely assume that any famous male who boldly adopts the 'feminist' mantle is going to be outed as having a sordid sexual history even if none of it is illegal or nasty to the degree that, say Weinstein's was. Its enough of a pattern that I can't help but update priors.
My favorite recent example being Dan Price who gained accolades as that guy who was a 'conscientious' CEO who tried to prove that paying employees more and executives less was a viable business practice and thus most corporations were exploiting their employees.
I do question how much of this is 'intentional' predatory behavior where they disguise their intent in order to lure young women in by appearing 'safe' to be around and able to offer sexual mentorship, vs. just an incidental outcome of modern social mores contradicting more basic instinctual drives.
I don't think most of them wear the feminism as camouflage strictly speaking.
I would guess its mostly because any male that genuinely followed certain feminist tenets such as "enthusiastic consent," letting the woman dictate all the terms, taking 'no' for an answer and refusing to engage with women who appear 'vulnerable' makes you repellent to women's sexual desires. So those few famous men who actually keep those tenets are probably having fewer encounters with women in general which just means they're less likely to catch an accusation.
And these guys are getting access to women by the truckload due to their status, and if they want to get laid they have to act like a masculine 'alphas' in these interactions, which means pushing boundaries and treating women's stated desires as suggestions rather than ironclad edicts so as to actually arouse her interest. The contrast between their publicly stated values and persona and their private conduct is less hypocrisy and more switching 'roles' to what the women are actually looking for once mutual interest is established.
So famous feminist males are getting access to females in either case, but those who seriously adhere to those rules are less likely to get laid (and less likely to get Me-tooed) than those who know (or figure out) they can discard those rules when a woman finds him attractive.
‘Preaches virtue in public but realises they can get away with vice privately’ is pretty much the classic definition of hypocrisy though.
From an external perspective those are pretty much the same thing. I think you’re right in at least some cases, but that sounds awfully like those men are deluding themselves into believing what’s convenient to believe at any given moment.
If they do it once and are horrified that they fell to temptation, okay. But otherwise they implicitly know that what they say about how men and women interact is a lie, and they are choosing not to think about it too hard, all the while coming down heavily on other men.
I think one can end up constructing a mostly cohesive internal narrative where the context of what they're preaching as social norms and the context of what you're doing in individual interaction can be considered different enough that there's no actual contradiction of words and behavior.
For a very rough example, you can imagine someone who is a staunch anti-gambling advocate, campaigns hard to keep gambling and similar vices out of their town and state, to keep kids from engaging in gambling activities, etc. And yet takes their yearly trip to Vegas and goes on a moderate gambling spree while there, and justifies in on the idea that it's fine to do gambling when you go to Las Vegas but you are still against its spread and consider it, overall, a social ill.
Its worth noting that the reason the problem exists is because women often won't be publicly honest about what they actually find attractive and actually want from males when interacting with them.
Its the collision of female-driven social standards with the female-driven desire to get high status males to give them attention. Hard to satisfy both at once, where attractive males give attention to women but only within the (boring) socially permissible ways.
Okay, that's oversimplifying, but if you frame it like that, a famous man who is preaching the female-preferred social standards AND engaging in the female-preferred behaviors when dealing with a romantic partner is still being consistent as to the female perspective.
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
More options
Context Copy link