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 -
Feminism is a hot topic, a user before mentioned his thoughts on it's origin, and that got me thinking. What is the social driver behind feminism?
Personally, I see it as a response to modern medicine and work safety standards, and the resulting rapidly booming population. Without historic mortality levels, it is no longer necessary for women to devote their lives to maintaining the population. With women free to do as they please, society suddenly finds itself with a lot of free hands that could be working, and so there is a push to remove the social systems that forbid women from traditional labor.
What puzzles me, is through what force does society implement change like this? It's not like we suffered the woes of overpopulation, and responded with feminist cultural change. This seems almost pre-emptive. But the arguments behind the feminist movement (I think) were based around freedom and equality. Was there a secret utilitarian agenda? Did things just coincidentally line up? Does society naturally drift towards freedom when the roadblocks are removed? Am I simply stupid and uneducated? I don't know enough to figure it out, but I feel like it's at least an interesting question. Thoughts?
I tend to see feminism as a logical outgrowth of classical liberalism. Most ideologies since 1789 seem to involve people building off the ideas the French Revolution set loose from the salons to their natural conclusions. Once the Declaration of the Rights of Man became the civic religion, abolitionism was inevitable, as was universal male suffrage, as were nationstates, and then eventually female suffrage and the end of the patriarchy, whatever that means. Plus socialism. The whole thing has just taken centuries to play out. We are still adapting to the adaptations to the adaptations to the adaptations, with no one sure when we will settle into a new equilibrium.
I suspect we have knocked down a few very important Chesterson's fences along the way, and the manosphere will write your ear off on all the ways modern gender roles are making people dysfunctional and unhappy. Naively speaking, if you look at the fertility rates, where things end up in 2100 is a race between memetic feminism and genetic traditionalism. Personally? I'd say we will probably reinvent the social contract in a way no one can yet expect, as the dominoes continue to tumble.
I don't think society works that way. Socialism failed and so did fascism. Abolitionism wasn't inevitable, and it didn't happen because of some document from decades prior.
It's funny; two examples you highlighted are ones where the line of causality is fairly direct. Abolitionism came to the fore as the French constituent assembly debated the status of Free Colored and slaves in Saint-Domingue, with people pointing out that the Code Noir and slavery in general were illogical in light of the Assembly's liberal ideals. They ultimately eliminated the Code Noir and rubber stamped freeing the slaves (though the slaves did basically free themselves, first, the rebellion sparked by news of revolution at home). Then, a few years into the revolution, proto-socialists like the Enrages and Gracchus Babeu argued for the abolition of private property and social ownership of capital. They would ultimately lose the day, and uh, be killed; this drama of socialists emerging from the reeds after a liberal revolution to get smacked down would repeat in 1830 and 1848. There's a reason why Marx thought a liberal revolution was a necessary precondition of a socialist revolution.
Note: I'm saying classical liberalism, the ideology, naturally lead to feminism. The Declaration of the Rights of Man is just a convenient religious text to point to, embodying a larger movement, much like you point to the Book of Matthew to talk about the social phenomenon of Christianity, many of the participants of whom were illiterate and never read it.
If you fully absorb what people like John Locke claimed about moral ontology, the idea of keeping women in a subservient disenfranchised status is unsupportable. As is keeping slaves. But much like the Merovingian kings kept concubines for generations after converting to Christianity, it's taken generations for society to shed its traditions and let the logical consequences of classical liberalism seep in.
Except the idea that women existed in a state of subservient disenfranchisement is a both a normative and descriptive claim made by feminism. If you ask the anti-suffragettes, (who were mostly women and generally more popular than the suffragettes until at least the end of the 19th century), they certainly didn't believe that was the case (the anti-suffragette movement has been subjected to historical revisionism that strawmans their position). The more interesting question is why did this narrative about the supposed historic subjugation of women by men become the dominant one? Especially as I think the narrative is false, despite it being now being accepted as fact due to decades of feminist rhetoric and feminist 'scholarship'.
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