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 think your book is wrong. I recommend more science and less Freudianism. You say:
"There are five conditions which enable women to get what they want
from men: women's control of the womb; women's control of the
kitchen; women's control of the cradle; the psychological immaturity of
man relative to woman; and man's tendency to be deranged by his own excited penis."
All of this reifies modern Western consent-centered sex norms. For all of human history until 1960, sex did not work this way. A woman who is considered a minor by law, with her father as her guardian and then her husband, in a society with no concept of "marital rape", has basically none of the power you describe -- she, in fact, has about as much power as a contemporary 13 year old boy, which is nothing.
You kind of recognize that you're reifying the unnatural:
"That man abandons the kitchen to woman, and grovels for access to
a womb, are not ordained by nature or by god, but result from how
woman, who controls the cradle, has chosen to condition boys and girls."
But, scientifically speaking, people don't work like this, so your premise is wrong. Your book contains no science or statistics, which is an epistemic issue that made you vulnerable to this flawed premise, upon which the entire verbal screed seems to be based.
More options
Context Copy link