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 -
Aella recently made an online survey about escorting and posted a chart on Twitter. It shows monthly earnings binned by BMI and clearly depicts that escorts with lower BMI making more on average than escorts with higher BMI. I would not have thought anybody would be surprised by that. The comments under the post proved me wrong.
Christ almighty, I had no idea that there are so many statistically literate whores around just waiting to tell you your survey is bad. I also wasn't aware that escorts advertise their services so openly on social media.
The number of escorts, both slim and not so slim, calling her out with little to no argument is mind blowing. The arguments they do give basically amount to sample size too low, BMI isn't real or "your survey is bad, and you should feel bad". Some of them also appear to lack reading comprehension. They point out that a sample size of 30 doesn't tell you anything meaningful. The post, however, clearly states that the sample size is about 30 per bin (which Aella points out is kind of low), making it about 150 total. Some give the argument that they themselves have high BMI but earn way more than that, and therefore the survey result must be wrong. Averages are seemingly a foreign concept to some.
A lot of them don't give much of an argument at all but question her intentions. Why would anyone be posting such dangerous information targeting the doubly marginalized group that is fat escorts? Their point seems to be that such information serves no purpose for anyone and should be kept hidden, which is ridiculous, since any woman considering escorting must have an interest in how much she can expect to earn based on her body type.
Others claim Aella is trying her hardest to stir the pot for attention. That could have been a valid point, if what she posted had been the least bit controversial. If you went out and asked 100 random people, I can't imagine that more than a few would say they believe fat escorts on average make the same as normal weight escorts. I also can't imagine any of these offended women would have any sort of problem with a chart showing that taller men make more on average than shorter men.
A few are asking what Aella's credentials are or whether the survey has been reviewed by an ethics committee, as if you need any of that to do a random google forms survey on the internet. They appear to believe that ethics committees are to protect people who might find the result offensive and not the participants of the study.
I also can't help but find a bit of irony in prostitutes trying to discredit someone based on their credentials.
Anyways, the data from the survey is available on Aella's website. I had a quick look at the correlations. It seems to be mostly what you would expect, but one thing that I don't get is that condom use shows no correlation with contracting STDs, which makes me quite suspicious of the data. It isn't correlated with education level either, but somewhat correlated with doing the job out of desperation (0.19). I would assume it would be the other way around. What is even crazier is that condom use is slightly negatively correlated (-0.11) with having a romantic partner. That seems absolutely insane to me, but maybe they use protection when they are with their partners?
Not a single one of the replies is by statistically literate people. "Sample size" is an applause light, nothing more.
But I've been thinking about this recently, why did fat women become a protected class among the woke? After being recommended, this video about how some Norwegian students found a math question about calories in vs. calories out "offensive".
After all, most woke protected classes share either one of two traits. Historically did not have rights in the US or are hated by the ring wing in the US. Fat women don't satisfy either category. And yes, the "body positivity" egregore speaks for fat women only.
My theory is that it's a memetic mutation. It has all the markers of a true woke cause and can Cuckoo as a woke cause as a result. The fact is self-serving for its adherents might just be a coincidence. Or it could just be the woke female analogue of inceldom. Also probably incentous with the quirky mental illness memeplex. Just fucking madness. I'm not even gonna bother trying to make sense of all this.
I would argue that fat falls into the latter category of "the right wing hates fat people" especially with the rise of dramatically named concepts like "fascist fitness" (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/mar/06/fascist-fitness-how-the-far-right-is-recruiting-with-online-gym-groups) and "gym bro" culture being associated with the right wing. Even Trump, who isn't exactly skinny himself, could not stop making fun of people's weight.
Fatness also falls into "traditional" conservative thinking re: personal responsibility. You don't like being fat? Great, just diet and exercise. No, don't implement a sugar tax, because it is YOUR problem, not mine. Bill Maher requested that we "start fat shaming people again" back before COVID.
There have been Catholic arguments that fatness is akin to immorality. I know, conservatives are a far greater sphere than just Catholics, but religious guilt can go far, down with the patriarchy, etc.
There are also internet subcultures about "men's self-improvement" that also have encouraged this kind of thinking, as well as the whole "hot trad wife" mindset. While conservative states are the most obese in the US, the cultural pushback against "body positivity" for objectively unhealthy bodies is also primarily conservative.
See also, commentary on Lizzo, especially after the James Madison flute incident. Reddit banned fat people hate in 2015 and that also leaned fairly to the right.
More options
Context Copy link
The immediate answer that springs to mind is black women:
This has become a political issue (see maternal mortality rates as well as general health issues) and feminist theory around hypersexualisation of black women as well as concerns around beauty standards, which include body size:
Ergo, judging black women by white beauty standards is racist. Saying any particular black woman, or black women in general, is too fat is racist (see Lizzo).
So if you're fat, white and feminist, this can be included in your schema of why you should not be judged negatively or viewed as unattractive/unhealthy.
More options
Context Copy link
Woke is basically a project to change social attitudes to make people idealize traits previously seen as negative. Some of those traits are actually Unironically negative(being neuroatypical is not a good thing, and I would happily trade several inches in height to not be so), many are neutral(having dark skin might require you to take a vitamin D pill if you live in Detroit, and might expose you to discrimination, but it’s not a bad thing in itself). Fat fits in with that project even if it’s stupid, and, well, woke women as often noted tend to have personal reasons to think that one’s important.
More options
Context Copy link
While you certainly have a point about the woke being anti-Natalist, they really seem to hate incels.
This is because incels are involuntarily celibate. They think that their lack of reproductive success is a problem that should be fixed, ideally by social intervention to curtail what they see as the modern excessive status of women. If they instead celebrated their sexual exclusion, praising how great it is that modern women have the freedom to reject them and continually reinforcing their claim that nobody owes them anything sexually (as many equally involuntarily celibate, though not incel-identifying, "nice guy" male feminists do), then they'd be accepted (as those "nice guy" male feminists mostly are so long as they maintain the submissive irrelevance befitting their chosen ideological position).
While I happen to personally doubt that sensitive male feminists are having a lot of sex, they seem to me to be claiming they're having it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can sympathise with that feeling of trying to understand madness all too easily!
More options
Context Copy link
Fat white women are not protected. Because obesity is highest in African American women and WOC overall, there is considerable overlap just by race alone.
More options
Context Copy link
My guess is it's an attempt to accommodate body types they associate with the Global south. Primarily Africa, and furthermore West Africa.
More options
Context Copy link
Leaving aside your cheap "boo wokes" applause lights, it's not hard to decipher: fat has been a feminist issue since at least the 70s. Short version: a lot of women are fat, losing weight is hard, fat women get shit on a lot, physical attraction is part of the whole patriarchy/"male gaze" memeplex, therefore it's appealing to women for a number of obvious reasons to try to persuade the public that being fat is not unhealthy, unattractive, or their fault. Since it's a lefty/feminist issue, it's a woke issue.
It appears to be very out of date and problematic compared to modern truths of "queer fat multiplicities that can disrupt dominant systems of subjugation and hierarchies"
There was already a "Fat Studies Reader (An Invitation To Revolution!) in 2009, and by 2019 we had "Queering Fat Activism: A Study in Whiteness" "argu(ing) for a thickened politics of white recognition within Fat Studies, so that scholars can better situate queer codes as aligned with the rejection of white civility"
It's certainly an expanding movement whose goals seem to have changed massively over time.
More options
Context Copy link
It's been a long time since I read Fat Is A Feminist Issue, but my recollection is that its basic thesis was:
Fatness is a problem caused by compulsive eating.
Compulsive eating in women develops as a way of coping with psychological conflicts, partly but not entirely attributable to unfulfilable and contradictory social expectations, and as an attempt to fulfil unmet needs for security and self-efficacy.
The pathway out of compulsive eating involves becoming aware of the unconscious processes that drive it, recognising their futility, and supplanting them by being more assertive about one's rights and boundaries. There is an emphasis on group therapy that, while focused on compulsive eating, doubles as political consciousness-raising.
It's definitely not in total agreement with contemporary mainstream feminist attitudes about fatness, as can be seen by reading some of its Goodreads reviews.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They’re probably a majority constituency from my observations
More options
Context Copy link
Some belief is built on systems of oppression thought. In thinking about things primarily systemically, individual agency is ignored as a causal factor. Once you start accepting that, fat isn’t really someone’s fault.
More options
Context Copy link
It slides neatly into the memeplex of "men bad," since a (false) story can be told that it's primarily men who police women's bodies and create fatphobia.
For comparison, you'd expect incels' "heightism" to merit at least as much concern as fatphobia, but there's, unsurprisingly, little embrace of it as a cause among the woke.
I agree. The lack of concern for heightism should be enough to convince anyone that wokism is a hammer of the strong not a shield of the weak. Short men face extreme discrimination and there is nary a peep from the woke about the issue.
In modern society, short men are like the Cagots of the Middle Ages, who were hated and considered unclean for no other reason than an accident of their birth. Worse, the hatred of short men today is actively cheered by most women.
There's a recent commercial where a woman is watching a football game during a wedding. When the minister says "are there any objections", she says (watching the game) "he's so clearly short". This is played for laughs. Imagine she had said "he's so clearly black" instead.
Like how being a woman, or not being fat both also mean you live longer?
More options
Context Copy link
Women also live longer than men, but that doesn't seem to heavily impact feminist theory.
More options
Context Copy link
Surely this is an extremely hyperbolic comparison. Per Wikipedia, Cagots were legally "typically required to live in separate quarters", "not allowed to enter taverns or use public fountains", "buried in cemeteries separate from non-Cagots, with reports of riots occurring if bishops tried to have the bodies moved to non-Cagot cemeteries", "allowed to enter a church only by a special door", "compelled to wear a distinctive dress to which, in some places, was attached the foot of a goose", "prohibited from selling food or wine, touching food in the market, working with livestock, or entering mills", and so on, and so on, and so on.
On the other hand, short men in the modern day... have difficulties getting dates and are made fun of in pop culture?
I think if you add the parent comment to yours and divide by two you'd get the truth. So a little hyperbole for humor is par for the course here.
As a tall dude, the way short men are treated is beyond "difficulty getting dates". I know men whose SMV would quadruple with another 6" in height. Everything requiring effort and personal quality comes second to a chick standing on her tippy toes to kiss.
I understand it's correlated with dick size but the female height fetish has never been not fucked up.
Even if short men could literally not get a partner ever, this would not take them half the way to the situation of Cagots according to most people's value function (though I have certainly seen a tendency in incel communities to obsess about female acknowledgement/attention to the point that it displaces anything else, and they can truthfully say that they consider deficiency in it worse than the previously listed set of abuses; this seems to me to be pathological).
Moreover, I do not think it is in fact true, unless one is so short as to be disfigured; among all my acquaintances I can not point to a single single guy whose singleness appears to primarily be due to them being short, though there may be nontrivial indirect causality (along the lines of shortness contributing to lower SMV, which contributes to negative experiences, which contribute to personality flaws). I know of two long-term couples where despite the odds the guy is significantly shorter than the girl (and in neither of the two cases does he have any overwhelming compensatory advantages like being rich or famous). Being so short that there are no girls shorter than you at all, for a guy, at any rate would be very rare.
You could argue that the "short->unattractive personality->no dates" pipeline is just "short->no dates" with a technical extra step, but it's not like there aren't plenty of other initial causes that end in "unattractive personality->no dates" for men all the time. Among the people I knew, "got into the wrong kind of anime early on" depressed performance more than "is short"; and while you could argue that getting in the wrong kind of anime is fixable in a way being short isn't, in this case we are talking about either effect being mediated through personality (you can't unwatch Love Live! any more than you can gain height), which in either case is likely fixable, even if you need to get electroconvulsive therapy or something in the toughest cases.
Note, this does not apply to short men who are visibly jacked. Take the dwarf pill. Clangeddin be with you.
More options
Context Copy link
You're going with "short people just have bad personalities"? On point for this group, I suppose.
Another interesting variation on "if you can't get dates, you have a bad personality".
It's proxies all the way down.
More options
Context Copy link
"Short people who can't get a partner just have bad personalities" (or, I guess, something else wrong with them, but this wasn't obviously the case for any I knew).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If Love Live! is the wrong type of anime, what’s the right type?
(Incidentally I think there are quite a few female LL fans, to the point of reaching parity or even exceeding male fans in some demographics.)
Among the Zoomers that I TAed in grad school, being on point with the JoJo memes seemed to have a decidedly positive effect on getting laid, and I think mainstream stuff like AoT is also at the very least neutral. I even grew up inhaling sekaikei manic pixie magical girlfriend chuuni wanks and the only identifiable adverse effect it's had on my dating life was that it made me worse at processing breakups. Eliezer is a self-proclaimed F/SN fan and he's managed to found a whole BDSM sex cult.
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
The worst thing possible for short men would be being accepted into the pantheon of oppression. That's not to say they don't face unfair discrimination; they do (source: I'm a 5'3" guy). But getting caught in the black hole of victim ideology is far worse than having to work a bit harder than the average person.
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