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 -
The WSJ published an article today about the voting gap between men and women below the age of thirty. The conclusions should be familiar to the Motte's CW crowd and I'll be diving into them in this post. What is striking and, even better, plainly quantitative, is how just how far apart young men and women are on some issues. In several cases, it's 30+ point gaps. Anecdatally, I'm seeing and hearing similar division. That the WSJ is leading with this also shows how it is now firmly in normie discussion circles.
I've always thought that the true risk to American society wasn't a breakdown in race relations, but in
gendersex relations. This is because of the plain fact that you need the opposite sexes to get along to continue families, communities, the nation, society as a whole.I've tried to break it out below.
The Issues
The WSJ highlights the following issues as most divisive to least, first with those issues that women are more in favor of:
Those with the biggest gaps the opposite way, where men approve of the issue moreso than women, are (again, in descending order):
Instead of thinking about these in terms of the issues themselves, I've decided to be a little more cultural war-y (because that's. why. we. are. here!) and interpret these issues thusly;
Now, for the Men:
How We Got Here
That's how the issues stand today. I think it makes sense to take a step back and ask "how we got here" over the past few voting and CW cycles.
For Men, I think much or all of this can be traced first to MeToo and second, to its slightly less witch-hunty successor, DEI. One guy in the article says he feels like there are purity tests on the left that are used to berate men into compliance. The article itself also says that many right-wing men don't talk about their views with women for fear of retaliation or other social consequences.
It's hard to overstate how deeply MeToo hit society. I was working a BigCorp gig at the time and it was very common to hear tips from male coworks at happy hours after work about never having a one-on-one with a female subordinate or, at least, doing it out in the open where other people can see the whole encounter. It was the first time I had heard of the Mike Pence rule. I've always looked at MeToo as a weird attempt at bloodletting by Hollywood that morphed into witch trials. There was nothing in the way of sincere attempts to improve male-female professional relationships, just a lot of virtue signalling and subtle actions taken to guarantee against false accusations (see above). The net result on a lot of men was to, I think, begin to question if "the left" and its various causes were simply new ways of trying to tear men down. Another guy in the article states, "It would seem the white male is the enemy of the Left."
For the young women, their quotes bring up (a) Trump being boorish and gross dating to the 2016 election and (b) Dobbs. Again, the "abortion rights" messaging intentionally conflates a complex issue about the start of human life (which Americans are notoriously conflicted and contradictory on) with a more easy to handle and generically adaptable "women's rights." This is why you see it rebranded as "reproductive rights" most often. If it's about just You versus "they" (who are always all male) it's an ease fight to jump into. If it's about more than that, I think women - being generally intelligent - do stop and think to consider the complexity. The media scored a massive win in portraying Dobbs as "taking away the right to abortion."
Trump's amplification of male boorishness ("Grab her by the pussy", "Only Rosie O'Donnell" etc.) is probably the most generation-centric issue in the article. I'm just elder millenial enough to remember the concepts of "boy talk" and "girl talk" growing up (shout out to Melania). Any guy who's ever been in an all male group outside of a professional one (so, a sports team, military, etc.) knows how gross yet hilarious those conversations can get. That kind of speech, however, doesn't go outside of the invisible walls. Guys speak in such over-the-top ways in locker rooms etc. as a way to signal in-group loyalty and build cohesion, but they understand it can and should only take place in those places. This exactly what Trump was doing on that access Hollywood tape. He was making a goofy gross joke to a fawning idiot who was going to laugh at whatever Trump said. He didn't say it at the Met Gala. I think that the outrage was most acute for younger women shows that a whole generation grew up without any awareness whatsoever that differently sexed styles of language exist.
The article also brings up the Kavanaugh hearings. This is strange to me. I always though the Dr. Ford testimony was both contentless and pretty obviously manufactured in a "repressed memory" pseudo-science way.
Boys and Girls are Different
The issues, and my interpretation of them, point to what should be an obvious truth. Men and Women have physical and cognitive differences across their normal distributions. This manifests in society and social reinforcement and, ultimately, results in different relative rankings of shared values. I believe Men and Women largely share the exact same values but rank them in different orders and with different weights placed on them.
Men still intrinsically respect strength and are suspicious of weakness or incompetence. Biden had to drop out of the race because everyone, but especially men, were thinking "no way can this guy lead the country for another four years. He does know what planet he's on." As soon as there are questions about your competency - you're toast. You can be an asshole (although I believe you shouldn't be) so long as you can get the job done.
The Trump assassination attempt probably solidified some male voters who may have been "holding their nose" in the Trump camp. See Zuckerberg calling it "badass". Trump popping up with blood on his face shouting, "fight, fight, fight" hits most guys right in the Papua-New-Guinea-Kill-The-Neighboring-Tribe lizard brain. It's watching your team spike the football in the endzone times four million raised to the power of NAVY-SEALs-KILLED-BIN-LADEN.
A basic male pattern in groups is to defer to the "natural leader." Interesting how often that correlates to height, perceived physical capability, a deep voice, and an outgoing and kind of domineering personality. Trump is maxed out in all of those non-physical traits and that explains so much of his attraction.
Women value this too (remember what I lead with) but there does come a limit in which the domineering personality becomes overbearing, tone deaf, and, at its worse, abusive. Still - better He tends towards jerk than wimp.
A key quote from the article is “Young men just want freedom, recklessness, adrenaline.” Couldn't agree more and half of my comments here have been about the destruction of masculinity models for boys in the West. Female centric views of childhood, safetyism, and "play nice" strips boys of this and has for some time. ADHD or just rambunctious boys are getting classified as special needs.
Rather than try to find some sort of balance, I think it's accurate to say the Left has leaned harder into this. The entire concept of "toxic masculinity" is mostly about finding ways to make male behavior that may be offensive to female sensibilities actually reprehensibly immoral. Returning to Trump's boorish language, I am all for calling it out as unpolite, but making the jump to "advocate for sexual assault" is hyperbolic. And this gets to the core of the issue; the extreme liberal faction of the Democrat party not only looks down on traditional male behavior, they want to make it so beyond the pale as to be effectively criminal. MeToo ended the careers of several men who were guilty of nothing more than being awkward jackasses who didn't understand how to flirt. Is that worth one Harvey Weinstein? Tell me in the comments.
Swinging back to female relative values. I see a sensitivity to the prevention of harm (manifested in fear emotion heavy issues like global warming) as well as an appeal to authority (the state) to strictly guarantee certain highly personal values. This is best captured in the "women's rights" meta-issue. Is this a reference to abortion? voting rights (if so, how)? Non-strictly governmental issues like pay equality? I don't think it matters, I think it's designed to me a flexible mapping point. Whatever you think is the women's rights issue is correct. All you have to agree on is that "They" (white republican Men) are coming for it. There are two quotes from interviewed women that reveal this:
“What we’re worried about is our rights being taken away,”
“If I had to guess why a lot of women are leaning very strongly toward more liberal issues, it’s that we’re afraid.”
Fear. Protection. "Somebody should do something!"
I think this really does women a disservice. It's the same as politicians who essentially use a narrative of emasculation to get men behind them. You've seen this a lot in Trump speeches going back to 2016. "They're taking our jobs" speaks to a hard-wire male perspective on providership. But politicians love an emotionally resonant hack. They won't change tactics anytime soon.
J.D Vance got into some hot water after his "cat lady" comments reappeared. I do think this was an unforced error. "Virgin" is used as an insult to Men and "old hag" and all of its varieties are used to belittle women. Sexual capability is still a big deal and so going after it is a low blow and will trigger a lot of hot resentment even in those not targeted. When a guy is emasculated, all guys feel it even if it isn't happening to them. When a women is targeted for being "the old hag" women can feel how that lands even if they are out of harms way. Vance would do better to focus on something that is tangible to women but not so personally direct - children. "The left wants to indoctrinate your kids" has been winning (see Youngkin in VA).
The above leads us too...
Are We Really Talking About Sex?
"Some men interviewed said they were fearful of criticism by women and expressed their resentments only in private and with other men. Several said they hide their conservative views because women they know have said they won’t date right-leaning men."
I'll pair the above with the fact that both of the women pictured in the WSJ piece are overweight. One, in a green and white dress, is obese.
To what extent are these resentments based in sexual frustration in both directions? I'll offer the opinion, which should be no surprise, that I think it's more about differences in relative value preferences. I don't think we're a nation of genocidal incels and femcels. If anything, I might point the finger more at social media and online spaces creating echo chambers and infinite positive-feedback loops yet divorcing users further and further from normie reality.
Yet, sex is important and young men and young women want it. The politics (literal and figurative) of dating certainly haven't gotten any less complex over the years - and they now definitely involved literal politics. But it's signalling all the way down. Am I really offended that this guy taking me out for a $134 meal is a Trump supporter? No, I'm worried he won't be able to effectively prioritize my emotional needs in the relationship. Am I disgusted that this girl I'm going to SoulCycle with is wearing her Pussy Hat? No, I'm worried she'll hector me to death if I say "retarded" once at home.
You’re pretty clearly waging the culture war in your favor here especially in the way you frame and dismiss the “women things.” Take abortion, for example. I say this as someone who is probably more anti-abortion than the median American, but indeed post-Dobbs there is less protection over a woman’s ability to get an abortion and further erosion has been made possible in the future. It’s not a made up thing. You appear to be characterizing this issue as not a “real issue” because you don’t recognize abortion as a right. I mean, fine, we can argue on the merits of whether abortion is a cognizable right but whether a woman can get one matters to lots of women and it’s a live political issue.
Lots of young women would like to be able to get abortions in case they get pregnant while having fun casual sex. Why is the male version of this something cool and fun while the female version of this cat lady hectoring?
I've never understood this argument. It's not cool and fun when men engage in casual "fun" sex, nor is it cool when women do it. The more we treat sex as something separate from a person emotionally, physically, and spiritually, the more it become commodified and exposed to a 'free market' exchange of sex, in which selfishness is prioritized instead of mutual building. Suddenly we have an increase of single parents which is well documented to lead to worse behavioral outcomes for men, which even the politically washed Bing-GPT still spits out:
No offense but you need to touch grass
Notably, this is not actually an argument.
Can you provide a rigorous distinction between "casual fun sex" and "rape culture", as understood by current-year Feminism? I certainly can't, and I notice most feminists can't draw one either.
We're a full decade past the point where the ideological schizophrenia within Feminism became impossible to ignore. Naïve ra-ra sex-positivism is dead, Jackie killed it, and Title IX cremated the corpse. If you disagree, take it up with Ezra Klein and the DOE.
I think it's better understood as "the Junior Anti-Sex League wearing a rotting skinsuit of sex positivity", which is why feminism for the last 10+ years has been very concerned with promoting everything-but-straight-sex.
The problem with doing that is that eventually, you run out of road and have to get more extreme to still be considered sex-positive, which is why they've pivoted to things like valorizing the castrated (i.e. transgenderism) and ensuring that, provided you pass a paper bag test, the age of consent does not apply to you.
Was Sex Positivity ever actually workable, or did culture war dynamics aid in sweeping its contradictions under the carpet for a decade or two? "Skinsuit" implies that there was something alive and worthwhile inside that skin in the first place. Does it seem to you that this was the case?
It seems to me that Horny Liberalism was never actually going to work long-term. Sex is not, in fact, harmless fun; it simply has too many consequences, physical and psychological, for it to be treated as such. Those consequences can be hidden for a time, but they build up and sooner or later they demand a reckoning. For that matter, it seems likely to me that the same is true for LGBTQ2A+; the reckoning will come, sooner or later.
[I hope this is at least somehow coherent. If I had more time I'd compose a post that has more of a condensed point.]
Sex is harmless fun so long as you're a
manliberal. Most people are notmenliberal, a lot of people resent the fact they're notmenliberal, and thegender role of mensocial role of liberals is to make devotion to them not degrading (a role in which they have failed as is in their nature to do, and something that "well,the man brings home so much money that I can deal with the occasional mistressstandards of living are increasing so quickly that even spaces free of all that liberalism are enhanced by accepting that the sanctity of the commons is diminished by their presence").The Sexual Revolution made it possible for a lot of women to enjoy being
menliberals too. Technology and antibiotics brought the risks of straight sex to an all-time low; so women on the margins (with a slightly higher risk tolerance) could reasonably expect to get more action without getting knocked up. Which is good [citation needed]. It helped marriages in all sorts of ways, too; you could actually have a healthy marital sex life without having so many children that you couldn't fit them all in the station wagon.And then the '80s came and the places you could meet people all died. And a turbo-STD came out as a death sentence. And the economic golden age ended, so the social stakes went higher (to the point where the non-liberals were once again empowered to whip out their purity boners and fuck up everything). In short, sexual liberalism stopped being affordable; it recovered slightly in the '90s and '00s only to take a dive [suspiciously coincident with the rise of ZIRP economics, now that I think about it].
Do I think it was worthwhile to encourage high-value
transgenderliberated people (as in, people who are liberals inside but unable to come out of the closet for various sociopolitical/socioeconomic reasons)? Yes, because I think that when people who can do that get to do that, it makes them happier and thus more productive (and considering the people who can do that tend to be of high value more generally- one only need look at how many furries in tech there are- keeping them happy has far more value than keeping an angry wokescold happy and therefore that wokescold should be oppressed by having to suffer the existence of furries). People who are able to act like children/liberals/mistake theorists all day are more innovative than those who have to act as adults/in self-defense/conflict theory; that's why tech startups outcompete large firms. And so on. (If men must toil, they might as well maximize return on investment while they're at it.)[I do admit this is more 'feelings' than anything else; I haven't measured workplace productivity across free and non-free societies and I'm not even sure you can given different starting conditions. I have noticed that most people who migrate from less liberal nations to more liberal ones tend to be unusually productive, though.]
So yeah, I think there is value in having less friction in sexual relationships (because the negative consequences are less salient, you can disengage from a relationship that goes south much easier), and the need to fuck defensively is net-negative for the enrichment of a class of person who does not actually create anything (while they do tend to spawn 200 pounds of cat food upon death that's not intentional on their part). Especially if we can encourage the people who eventually might end up in the unproductive class to not even consider it.
I'm honestly not sure how their position follows. I think that the only thing that's going to do them in is some unforseen upheaval that puts them in the same company as the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts (i.e. they fall out of favor with old women while old women are in power), and because they're an excuse for old women to wield power through weaponized tolerance, well...
I think the problem with liberalism/childishness is that it's an emergent property of a society (enabled by its wealth) and not a coherent means of political organization (mainly because once they can organize they're too busy enjoying the fruits to plan long-term). If it was able to do this, it wouldn't be liberal, it would be something else.
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