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 -
A few thoughts on the male feminist sex pest.
With the (in internet terms, not very) recent news of Neil Gaiman's escapades, a lot has been said about the agency (or lack thereof) of women, and to the corrupting effect of fame on men, but I've been giving some thought again to the Male Feminist Sex Pest phenomenon.
Most people here are probably aware of it, it's notable enough to get a comic from good ol' Stonetoss. Basically, the idea is that male feminists are disproportionately prone to acts of sexual misconduct.
What is the reason for this? I've been thinking about a few possible ones:
The MFSP as a predator: The classic right-wing stereotype. Guys of dubious moral character will take up an ideology with the intent of making potential victims lower their guards.
The MFSP as salience bias: Basically, male feminists are not particularly rapey, it's just more suprising so it makes the news. This could be true, but is basically impossible to verify in either direction.
The Male Feminist as a man struck with guilt: In this formulation, the man's bad behaviour is in their past, and their male feminist views are, in a way, compensation for the fact that he has behaved shittily towards women.
The Male Feminist as a man seeking absolution: If all or most men behave poorly, then the male feminist's past behaviour is not particularly noteworthy. By subscribing to the most deranged feminist assumptions, the male feminist can morph from a "bad man" to just "a man", or even a "good man", because at least they're willing to fight their deplorable male instincts.
The Male Feminist as a man stuck in time: For this man, being a feminist means some vague notion of "equal rights" and it being acceptable to have non-committal sex with younger girls. This is not in line with which more modern feminists believe, as he might eventually find out.
I am aware this is not the audience most in tune with the mentioned cohort, but what do you guys think? Any of the above resonate more? A little bit of each? Something else entirely?
As an aside, the last few explanations imply a type of person that people here might be very familiar with: the nerdy anti-feminist nice guy (no capitalization). It is perfectly possible, as an upper-middle class guy in a moderately to very liberal environment who doesn't like partying or going clubbing, to never notice the behaviour many women complain about (because neither you, nor your close friends and family engage in it), see that they don't seem to be particularly disadvantaged in any of the environments they interact with them, see that their ire is directed very broadly at men in general, and conclude that the whole thing might just be a scam.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the very recent allegations against fantasy book YouTuber Daniel Greene, who ironically covered the Neil Gaiman story on his channel. It's a great case study, in my opinion.
Unlike Gaiman, Daniel had a wholesome, "shucks," good-boy image. Ostensibly, he cares hugely about his appearance but gives himself the title “disheveled goblin host” in his videos.
More on the man himself:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=6BhPv-NDcPI
He claims to be a strong #ally, but definitely more in the Disney-safe way. He was never aggressive or went on a moral crusade, just signaled frequently that he's aware of the shibboleths and in touch with the Gen Z LGBTQ zeitgeist. He makes the right noises in response to controversies but never starts one himself. His whole brand is non-toxic but woke enough that the online fantasy fandom won't tear into him, which is a high bar.
He came out as bisexual while engaged to his fiancée, now wife (more on that later).
In a review, he would say: “The protagonist is an interracial trans man. That's really neat. We need more perspectives from non-cis voices.”
But never: “This book was too white and male.”
And I think he actually believes what he says! I think he's sincerely trying to avoid the disapproval of his peer group because he thinks they're right.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ASgwqjjmkOQ
It turns out he cheated on his fiancée with an affair in a cringe way. He allegedly also sexually assaulted the affair partner, also in a pathetic way (SA is always pathetic, of course).
I have so much to say about that woman who made the video in the link. Judge her exactly by what you think she is purely based on her other recent video thumbnails and titles (cluster B attention seeker, man-eater).
Daniel Greene has denied the sexual assault but not the affair and will respond in depth soon.
I have so much more to say.
Ultimately, what I'm trying to get at is this: Since mental health issues are accepted in communities like these, both the victims and the perpetrators are not stigmatized. A sane community would be extremely wary of a woman like Naomi and a man like Daniel.
It would recognize the vulnerability of the BPD girl and the danger a smooth-talking, insecure, and unmanly boy poses to her and she to him.
Instead, she's bravely rediscovering herself every week, and he's battling his depression and mental health struggles.
And this is how i think it went down and how sexual assault in cases like these go down 90% of the time.
He talks and begs her into unenjoyable/painful sex she's unsure if she wants, with false promises which she will regret later. The rest is history.
I still think, despite verbal consent, and even if they had sex before and sex after and still hung out for a few days, that this is rape and the woman is not at fault. But I have a feeling people here will disagree.
I’ve been following this situation closely because while I wasn’t a fan of his, he was a big source of my reading recommendations since the pandemic and I hope to be a published writer myself someday. Is there any interest in a breakdown of the situation? On the one hand I’m one of a handful of people on the internet who is actually seeing the big picture here (mainly because every major platform including his discord is banning anything mildly skeptical of the girl who accused him) and it does have some culture war implications, on the other hand it’s very niche drama from a particular subculture.
EDIT: Message heard, breakdown coming tomorrow morning
EDIT2: Naomi posted a second video where she contradicts herself and adds new context to the first (all of which actually makes her look worse) so I'll need more time for this writeup.
I’d like a breakdown. The only thing I’d seen is his 1 minute prepared statement on his YouTube channel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link