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 actions and revealed preferences of college girls and their parents corroborate that the risks of date rape drugs or sexual assault at frat parties or college parties as a whole are far overblown. Akin to UFOs, date rape drugs—despite their supposed ubiquity—are sorely lacking in documentation.
Date rape drugs are mostly a cover story for overdrinking or doing other drugs, blaming men to absolve young women of their accountability when it comes to their coffee moments while/from partying, a plausibly undeniable mechanism for enabling young women to make retroactive accusations of rape (are you going to deny a young woman’s Lived Experience and Emotional Truth that she was drugged?). Like with performative hysterics when it comes to fears of sexual assault in general, voicing fears of date rape drugs can be a form of humble-brag: “Look how desirable I am that I’m at constant risk of my drink being drugged.”
Who? Whom? Frat guys are just a politically correct target for slander. We’re not supposed to Notice which segments of the population are actually disproportionate offenders of sexual assault.
So alternate question, why is some Alabama dad paying thousands of dollars for his daughter to thotmaxx in determining which fuck-pool-for-frat-guys she gets to join? And this is on top of paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to send his daughter away to do what college girls do. The thought of doing so is incredibly humiliating to me.
Especially if the fathers of would-be sorority-girl daughters are disproportionately likely to be former frat guys themselves. Sometimes I wonder if having a daughter causes a man to develop retrograde amnesia of all the fatherless things he’s witnessed teenage girls and young women do as a teenaged boy and young man, otherwise the cosmic horror and existential dread would be overwhelming. Kind of like Leonardo DiCaprio’s character inShutter Island and his delusions to cope with what happened to his family.
Or fathers cope by thinking his daughter’s Not that Kind of Girl, and that only someone else’s daughter would do such things. But it must be Someone’s Daughters doing such things (a la the Netflix meme), so many—perhaps most—of the aforementioned fathers would be wrong, if not in kind at least in degree.
It could be a twist on the question “who would you rather babysit your kid, Hitler or a randomly selected person from the Bronx?”: Who would you rather your daughter party with, five randomly selected frat guys or five randomly selected young men from the Bronx?
Likely the defeated, subconscious resignation for #SororDads as well. Under the current cultural regime, it’s impossible to thot-patrol one’s daughter. Conservatives are just progressives driving the speed limit. If it’s inevitable that your daughter’s going to Have Her Fun and do fatherless things, you pay up so at least she does them for higher socioeconomic status guys. So not only is having a daughter perhaps the ultimate and final cuck, it’s like a recurring form of blackmail too.
Yet it's a constant theme of country music, like Cleaning This Gun, linked above. These men are highly aware of this! And, of course, there are arguably better options in the college education game: Messiah, Wheaton, Liberty, etc.
These families are not the church crowd, and they’re listening to Kenny Chesney and Morgan Wallen more than Rodney Akin.
The ‘country music crowd’ and the ‘church crowd’ are two different groups in the red tribe with differing cultural sensibilities.
This is what I'm interested in splitting.
Trad or church crowd ideas of ordered sexuality are self consistent and stable: Virginity until marriage, ideally no real romantic attachments before marriage, monogamous marriage for life. Their ideal college girl, if she even goes to college, goes to Messiah, meets the guy she marries, loses her virginity to him, and stays with him forever.
At the opposite extreme, you have someone like Dan Savage who has a self consistent if not stable view of an ordered sexuality: mutual consent is all that matters, do whatever you want with whoever you want. Monogamous commitments, when entered into, can be defined by the consent of the people in them to include or exclude anything, and can end at any time by mutual consent. Their ideal college student hooks up with whoever she wants whenever she wants however she wants or doesn't want to, she can get married later or not at her option.
Either of those two extremes are philosophically consistent. Taking their initial premises and values ad arguendo they can justify themselves.
I'm curious what the values are that underlie the trad Alabama sorority girl family. Why don't they collapse to either extreme of sending her to a religious school, or hookup culture? What do they picture as the ideal path.
Secular and suburban or exurban-ish red tribers seem like they mostly have the following view- Males are suspect if they aren't seeking sex with women. It is a good thing when they succeed, for them. Girls shouldn't have sex until they're ready to start looking for a husband and promiscuity is a bad thing all around, but you can't necessarily expect that they'll marry their first boyfriend, or their first serious boyfriend, or whatever. Of course, to get married requires good social skills so as to date properly, and developing those social skills is probably impossible while staying a virgin to your wedding night. It's much more important to a woman's well being that she marries well. Thus we should be protective of our high school daughters- while still letting them date a bit, they need the practice for social skills- but should take a more hear no evil, see no evil attitude in college, as long as the guys are willing to have a serious enough relationship. But it's important that it's a see no evil, hear no evil, not permission- if he gets caught(like if she's pregnant) he'd better be willing to marry her, because a woman who's known to be promiscuous is hard to marry. When her boyfriend visits they have to sleep in separate bedrooms so as to reinforce the idea. Basically it seems to boil down to the idea that having multiple partners is taking damage, but it's a manageable level of damage in service of a more important goal. Ideally I think they hope that their daughter meets a guy, hits it off with him, they move in together shortly after he takes her virginity and get engaged in about a year(my extended family is not poor- well, the secular parts at least- but is not old money either, so there might be a class difference to allow for finishing college in the sorority house or whatever), and if it isn't her first boyfriend the second or third would be acceptable.
Boys, on the other hand, it's ok if they're having sex. There's more drive, it prevents homosexuality and weirdness. But he shouldn't treat a respectable woman badly for the sake of fun.
Now I should note I do not agree with that view. I think women shouldn't go to college unless they want to be nurses or something else specific and appropriately feminine and should have more direct involvement from their parents in finding a husband so that the dating phase doesn't take so long, or need to involve cohabiting. And young men aren't ready for marriage if they aren't willing to wait. But it is an attempt at distilling the view I see out in the wild a bit more exposed to the position than the typical motteizean.
Sure, I can posit or imagine all that. But I wish I could find someone who actually thinks that. It seems philosophically unstable. It's internally inconsistent, and violates the first categorically imperative.
Though I suppose it's the formulation of conservatism by which there must be a class that the law protects but does not bind, and a class that the law binds but does not protect.
The manosphere (think Andrew Tate) thinks this way explicitly. I know people who think like this in real life. No amount of pleading about how unfair it is will phase them. They'll just shrug and say "men and women are different", therefore the categorical imperative does not apply (different rules for different types of humans).
Andrew Tate: good father?
I feel like you missed the point somewhere.
I was providing an example of someone with the following view:
That's all.
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