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 -
I wonder if any of you sometimes feel that someone of the outgroup just made a good move or just a good point (in other words, produced useful propaganda) in the culture war that takes you by surprise. A long time ago I noticed some liberals quoting a statement from a Christian pastor regarding abortion and I now decided to trace it back to the original source. According to Snopes it’s from pastor Dave Barnhart of the Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama in 2018:
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
I have to say that even though I doubt I’d ever agree with him on these issues, it sounds kind of…witty? Snappy? Clever? It all comes across as on point. It feels like I wouldn’t know how to respond to it. If I had to find something about it to nitpick, the only thing I can come up with is that the people who usually resent the patriarchy, condescension and political incorrectness are normally suburban middle-class college-educated white liberal culture warriors and their mulatto allies of similar backgrounds, not any of the groups the pastor mentioned, especially not widows. I can’t even tell why he brought them up at all; maybe it seemed to be a better idea than to bring up single mothers. And I might also argue that yeah, advocating for groups that are morally complicated as hell is probably not a good political move. Which also makes me sound kind of an asshole though.
It has not gone unNoticed by wrong-thinkers there exists a large segment of the white religious right (and mainstream conservatives as a whole) that forms an unholy alliance with progressives when it comes to simping for women and non-Asian minorities. After all, it wasn’t irreligious members of the right self-flagellating and washing the feet of blacks while BLM was going strong. Someone on the Motte or the culturewarroundup subreddit once wholesomely referred to members of such a segment as “lefty Christ cucks,” for sharing the values of one group of people that hates them and bending the knee (in the aforementioned case, literally) for another that also hates them.
This segment is united with progressives in maintaining that Women are Wonderful, and are more than happy to punish and vilify men for women’s coffee moments. Men aren’t entitled to anything from women, but men as a whole should subsidize women, and any given man should be ready to launch himself into action like a zombie from World War Z to serve as a meatshield for any random woman in distress. Instead of thot-patrolling girls and young women, they’d rather blame boys and men. Instead of reducing the freedom of girls and women as a tradeoff to increase the protections afforded to girls and women, they’d rather keep or increase female freedom, increase female protections, and reduce both the freedom and protections afforded to boys and men. See, for example, the excommunication of Trevor Bauer—who as the result of false rape accusations—got relegated from the Los Angeles Dodgers to the Yokohama DeNA BayStars and now wears a red hat as a scarlet letter for the Diablos Rojos del México.
This segment is united with progressives in blank slatism and being oblivious or outright hostile to HBD. The alliance believes in the psychic unity of mankind, that differences between individuals and groups of people are only cosmetic, that every criminal and Person of Unhousedness can be redeemed if we just tried harder, that the poor are only poor due to bad luck and thus deserve extra help and wealth transfers. Blank slatism has been long referred to as “liberal creationism” for a reason. This segment also sometimes attempts to play the DR3 card in discussions about abortions, since blacks get abortions at disproportionate frequencies.
I suppose the most relatively novel part is claiming that being Allies for the unborn is morally convenient compared to being Allies for prisoners, immigrants, the sick, the poor, widows, orphans and accusing those who advocate for the former but not the latter groups of picking off low hanging fruit, taking the easy road, and not Doing Enough as Decent Human Beings. However, as someone who is pro-abortion (because I really support women’s choice and stuff, of course) and not exactly a devoted advocate of the latter groups, I find this unmoving (shocking, I know). It reminds me of “it’s not enough be non-racist, you have to be anti-racist.” Additionally, this attitude of you should also be an advocate for X2, … , Xn if you’re an advocate for X1, because being an advocate for just X1 is too easy, reminds me of Calvin’s dad and Misery Builds Character.
I wouldn't be surprised if pro-abortion becomes the mainstream view of the religious right in a decade or two, or if the unborn become but one group among many that warrant advocacy and compassion, without extra distinction. The unborn and the unhoused, side by side in the priorities of the religious right. Such a shift in views has happened before. For example, in just eleven years among white evangelicals, support for gay marriage has increased substantially, looking like a graph of stock markets going up. As of 2017, support for gay marriage among young white evangelicals was already nearly at parity, so it's likely the majority now. Catholics and mainline Protestants as a whole are already above parity. So it appears the conviction of the religious right was never all that strong about marriage being a sacred union between man and woman. The saying that conservatives are but progressives driving the speed limit comes to mind.
Widows make one question patriarchy all right, albeit in the manner opposite of which the pastor presumably intends. Women have always been the primary victims of their husbands working harder, enduring more stressful lives, and dying earlier. While already Stressed and Traumatized, these poor women have to perform the physical and emotional labor of managing the estates that their stupid husbands let behind, or hiring/appointing someone to do so.
Investment companies often deploy this angle when advertising their portfolio management and financial advisory services to widows (a selfless act of compassion, naturally, at the modest fee of 1% of AUM yearly). Some employees at these companies are likely cynical and self-aware as to what they’re doing (to which I say: slay, kings!) but some are true believers of widows being the primary victims of their husbands dying earlier. Thus, here we even have a three-party unholy alliance between the religious right, progressives, and the financial services industry.
I realise this is a month-old post, but I haven't been super active on this forum for a while and have only come across it now.
This is one of the most exceptional examples of an ideological horseshoe in existence today, and I notice such opinions plaguing conservative forums (including this one) as much as I do progressive ones. Recently I watched a video by the conservative reviewer Critical Drinker about the American remake of the Danish-Dutch film "Speak No Evil". He correctly identifies it as missing the point of the original, but his interpretation on the original film diverges heavily from mine. The original film follows a family who are targeted by another couple with a history of serial-killing, it's effectively a satire of over-politeness in culture - the family lets the other couple victimise them due to the fact that they're too worried about stepping on toes despite the increasing amount of red flags showing up. Drinker's opinion, however, is that everything that happens in it is the father's fault. He failed to provide for his family properly due to his declining career, he failed to satisfy his wife's needs and made his poor wife have an affair with another man, he failed to be a Chad who would act as a bulwark for his own family against the offending couple, and so on. Here we see a brief outline of Drinker's expectations for men, and it's quite far-reaching - the entire burden of his family's wellbeing falls on him and him alone, and everything that happens is his responsibility. I've watched a number of his other videos as well, and if you're curious if he has a similar list of onerous roles he would expect women to fill, he does not. He effectively upholds the role of man as unquestioning protector and provider, but makes it such that they will receive nothing substantial in return from women for doing so.
It's quite clear that many mainstream conservatives seem to enjoy selectively invoking gender roles and sexual dimorphism only when it could justify further benefits for women. They'll selectively absolve the woman of all responsibility and place all fault on the man when these poor darlings are "pumped and dumped" and taken advantage of and supposedly manipulated into sex acts that get retroactively interpreted as predatory once the outcomes of the sex don't result in what they want. They will put out pieces of special pleading explaining how women's more delicate sensibilities justifies them being treated more lightly when dealing with them in multiple contexts, sexual, professional and so on. The same people who pull such shenanigans will generally not acknowledge that women's lack of agency and weak constitutions should ever affect how they get treated when they are in the running for leadership roles or positions which require one to take on a huge amount of responsibility. The acknowledgement that "men and women are not the same" only ever gets used to exclusively benefit women.
This kind of thing is everywhere and it's really hard not to notice it once you're aware of it. I distinctly remember seeing a comment under one of my posts here which basically said "Actually, male pedophilia is more damaging than female pedophilia", an assumption made with not a shred of support provided for it, and it is in contradiction with some quantitative and qualitative research showing the effects are actually very similar regardless of sex of perpetrator (you can find some studies I collected on this general topic here). There are so many more examples I can bring up, including but not limited to things like sex-differential treatment of infanticidal mothers and fathers "she was sympathetic and distraught and hormonal, she had no true free will or agency in the matter and Regretted It, he was a horrible abuser who deserves to be put in jail forever" (this despite the fact that men do experience postpartum depression, and despite the fact that even in its absence literally everyone is puppeteered by their hormones all the time yet it doesn't seem to nullify their agency in virtually every other situation when their biochemistry pushes them to commit crimes), etc.
I sincerely did not realise the sexes are only different in ways which justify special and preferential treatment for women. The sheer amount of Women-Are-Wonderful in virtually every political camp is quite ridiculous, and it's one of the many things that have made me skew further from the right as time goes on - over the years I've realised that mainstream conservatives and feminists exhibit many similarities on gender issues.
In drinker‘s defense, he‘s a film critic, not a political analyst, and sometimes you don‘t like a character. You can think that an irritating, sniveling, weak man is responsible for his wife‘s infidelity and his family‘s downfall without making it about all men.
I‘d go further: as a film critic, you have to go along with the world presented in the film, especially if it conforms to reality: and the husband would indeed be expected to be the protector of the family. It‘s not drinker‘s role to go MRA SJW and rant against the ways of the world.
Additionally, he notes that the assertiveness the husband lacks has been ‚bred out‘ of men – imo he is more highlighting the contradictory demands society places on men, than blaming them for their failure to fulfill them.
This is true, but his critiques have an unambiguously political angle to them, and he also makes it very clear here that his selective assignation of responsibility is not just because of the submissiveness of the man in question, it's also due to his evaluation of the man as responsible for the protection of the family - his gripe is that they are no longer taught to be masculine, and are as a result derelict on that front since they can no longer be a bulwark for their families and societies at large. Further, he often makes it quite clear within his analyses of films that the perceived erosion of the male gender role is a disaster, and upholding it is certainly an element of his own personal philosophy.
I do think Drinker's critique is meant primarily as a systemic one, and he certainly places a large portion of the blame on society's attempts to undermine these norms and not on the individual man. Still, the fact remains that this is a male gender role he's decided should be enforced. Hell, I do appreciate and agree with some of his points - such as the acknowledgement that traditional masculinity was in fact a social good, but I do hugely disagree with the seemingly unilateral upholding of these gender roles, wherein no role will be enforced upon women at all. I kind of understand why people don’t express these sentiments - the Overton window has shifted such that enforcing a complementary role on women would be political suicide - but it’s still cowardice.
In general, my view is that both mainstream conservatives and feminists are quite similar in this regard (men should protect and provide for women in various ways, without receiving many of the traditional benefits that made that role palatable to them). Conservatives are just moderately better because they enforce that role on men while allowing them to gain a modicum of token respect through it, feminists have only vilification to offer them with the utterly condescending title of "ally" as the carrot on the stick to make them comply.
From an extreme minority position like Men‘s rights, which I think you and I share, I am wary of declaring anyone an enemy who has not made his position crystal clear. For example, naive, ill-informed feminists who think feminism just means equality. It‘s only after they‘ve understood the tension, the tradeoff between academic feminism and fairness for men, that they can be separated into our opponents and our allies.
The defining feature of feminism is its inability to blame women for anything, even 1% of what they blame men for. It‘s 0%, always. Husband cheats: it‘s because he‘s an asshole. Wife cheats: it‘s because he‘s an asshole. Etc. Drinker does sometimes criticize female behaviour, female characters, like the admiral holdo video. So he at least avoids the worst in female hypoagency (hyper-hypoagency?).
I don‘t think there is enough evidence to say he supports the unilateral upholding of gender roles. Despite being critical of gender roles, especially the way they are performed now, I‘m quite fond of masculinity myself, and I sometimes criticize men for their lack of courage in gendered terms. But then I also criticize women. Frankly, much more.
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