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 think it's largely that the proto-male feminist hears feminist talking about all the myriad ways in which men are just the absolute scum of the earth, and the proto-male feminist takes a deep look inside themselves and sees that it's all true (for them), and thus a convert is born.
In much the same way I've heard it said that church is for sinners, feminism is for sex pest. They probably need that message about what a piece of shit they are more than the typical male. But in much the same way we all fall short of our moral aspirations, a sex pest is going to sex pest.
It probably doesn't help that they find themselves surrounded by vulnerable, hollowed out by abuse, p-zombies that will agree to anything. You read that original article about the nanny, and the thing I'm most struck by is her absolute inability to articulate a single thought she had. It's all her echoing things people thought she should feel. Gaiman, Gaiman's ex-wife, her friend/therapist. This is a person so completely disassociated from themselves though some alluded to past trauma, it brings into question if they are even capable of consent, in much the same way we understand an animal, a child, or a person with severe mental disabilities isn't capable.
Edit: Once upon a time, the jannies here explained what rule you broke, and how you broke it. I see now they just take things out on people without explanation or comment and interpret you not getting it as more evidence that you are participating in bad faith. How is anything I said here worse than the prompt, or any of the other comments?
Man.
You keep doing this thing, this complete disregard for the spirit and letter of the rules, and we keep letting it slide. You’ve been an articulate and passionate and interesting commenter. But now when I see your name in a thread I know exactly what I’m going to get.
One month ban.
Edit: fuck me, this is what I get for modding on my way out of work. I read this as a straightforward attack on the general category of feminists as “hollowed out p-zombies” who “aren’t capable of consent.” And I thought, Jesus Christ, this is the clearest possible violation of the Specific Groups rule and the general proscription on Booing the Outgroup. I could write up a detailed explanation, or I could assume that he and any observers would recognize the same old fight as always.
We have been politely asking you to stop tarring all leftists/Democrats/Californians/NGOs/women with the same brush for literal years. And every time, you insist that no, you’re just speaking truth to power! Surely there can be no transgressing against people who want to MUTILATE and STERILIZE your kids!
I have so much respect for you as a writer, a craftsman, a father. You’re smart and you’re damn funny. You also have this pathological urge to tell everyone about how evil the other team has been lately. And that comes into direct conflict with the Specific Groups, Outgroup Booing, Antagonism, and occasionally Evidence rules. A lesser poster would have earned a permaban several times over.
I banned you for a month because the last one was two weeks and I saw this as more of the same. Now all sorts of pillars of the community are popping in to tell me it was a bad shoot. There’s also the fact that Amadan thinks I was too harsh; you were only “pretty close” to generalizing about all lefties/feminists.
So…did I get you wrong?
In case it was not clear from the edit, @netstack reversed this mod decision. @WhiningCoil is not banned at this time.
There is often a very fine line between booing your outgroup and discussing your outgroup. Especially when the topic of discussion is some of the worst characteristics of the outgroup. I feel like the post hit some "boo" applause lights while actually being a true discussion. I might have made the same call as netstack had I been in a hurry and just clearing out the backlog.
The mods are human. We care about the community. We do respond to feedback. We are active participants here and we care about the quality of discussion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link