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 -
Seven months ago I posted the following thesis (if we can call it that) here:
Regarding the part I now bolded for the current discussion I’ll say that I did have some rather vague awareness of the “Are we dating the same guy” Facebook group back when I posted the comment, meaning that I was aware that they exist and are mostly feminist in their social orientation, but that was it. Well, a couple of days ago I unexpectedly came across a reddit thread that was rather interesting from a culture war perspective where the original poster accused the local AWDTSG group of committing defamation, slander and violation of privacy. I would link the URL but I can’t, as the entire thread was nuked after entire comment chains were purged and the OP deleted his profile (probably as a result of getting doxxed by feminists). The Facebook group in question was also scrubbed from Google somehow i.e. some setting was changed so that it doesn’t show up in Google results anymore, or something like that, plus its admins made their profiles private.
Anyway, as the thread piqued my interest I later found out that there’s an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to this phenomenon and now I’d like to make some observations.
The name itself is already curious. It makes it all seem innocent and well-meaning, light-hearted. Just a bunch of average women helping each other out and also having a bit of fun and enjoying a sense of community in the process. Of course, the reality is that these groups should rather be named “Did I just fall for a bigamist/fraudster/liar/rapist/harasser/creep” because these are the real sentiments the female members are expressing.
Also I just love how the name absolutely reinforces the Red Pill thesis on unscrupulous alpha males practicing plate-spinning / building soft harems in a social milieu of unrestrained hypergamy (hypergyny, to be more precise). I’m rather certain we’ll never see a “Are we dating the same girl” online men’s group anywhere.
The name also entails that the members share the expectation of strict monogamous living as the default social arrangement. This is also somewhat comical, as I’m sure that if asked, nearly all of them would swear up and down that they support sexual autonomy, ‘alternative lifestyles’, sexual freedom, polyamory etc.
I’ve seen people argue that such groups regularly violate GDPR regulations. In other words, sharing non-public personal information such as employment data, photos, screenshots of personal messages, photos/screenshots of documents etc. in Facebook groups is technically against the law. I doubt that I’m qualified to comment on the legal aspect of all of this, but I do find such arguments plausible. What I do not doubt though is that were there men’s online groups doing the same to women’s personal information, I’m 100% sure they would swiftly invite a huge media scandal, widespread condemnation, legal action and the attention of the authorities.
The consensus between female members and women that are sympathetic to them is “just be a decent man, and you won’t get accused by the group” i.e. “women never lie”. Which is just pure gold. I’m sure they don’t even hear themselves or just don’t care, which is more likely. “Just be a decent comrade and the Cheka won’t arrest you”, “good citizens have nothing to fear from the police” etc. It’s a story as old as time.
One usual story that gets posted in such groups is “I was duped by a man who was actually married with kids”. Alternatively, “I was duped by a man who was a violent creep”. My initial response is: do you actually need the assistance of a Facebook group of anonymous posters to realize that? Did you not see the warning signs? Also, just the logistics involved in all of this make me wonder. If you’re an asshole guy who just wants to heartlessly use up some gullible woman as a fuckbuddy/FWB, how do you even keep your marriage, wife and kids a secret? How does this even work i.e. how many men are there who can plausibly make it work? If you’re a family man, most of the time you have outside the workplace will usually be taken up by your family.
Just to state the obvious: if these women are so afraid, so certain that a hostile male-centric society enables their victimization routinely etc., why don’t they try finding male partners through people they trust? By their own accord, they are all normal, decent women with lives, not isolated loser incel creeps living in basements – surely they have friends, colleagues, relatives they can trust?!
I very much agree with you on all of this, and this sort of feminist hypocrisy makes my blood boil. But I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second on one point, based on arguments my wife has had with me over these sort of issues.
As an example, my wife and I have argued about whether male-only spaces are okay. Feminists are clearly very in favor of female-only "safe" spaces, but have historically rallied against every possible male only space you can imagine, from trying to make colleges and frats co-ed, to historical wars against British coffeehouses. I personally believe that having male-only spaces is not only fair, if we are going to laud female spaces, but also very positive for men as a form of therapy, commraderie, social safety net, and many other good things.
However my wife (who loves to argue with me about this stuff, or is at least strongly compelled to because she's so damn stubborn) has talked about how the coffeehouses were harmful to women in a way that comparable female only spaces could never be, because the coffeehouses became a place where men would make and discuss policy decisions in a way that excluded women. She would say that the men held more powerful positions, and the coffeehouses and other such male spaces would never just stay as neutral academic or social spaces, the power from their positions would spill over into the once benign spaces. I myself am not so convinced of either the powerlessness of women, or even if that's true, the lack of value in male spaces even if what she says is true. But I wanted to present that viewpoint here.
So women never discuss politics in female-only spaces? Is it just make-up and which boys they have a crush on then?
More options
Context Copy link
So, prejudice + power?
More options
Context Copy link
It's a common argument, and it's utter BS, because the reverse is how Prohibition came about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link