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 -
This Tina Brown seems awfully bitter and judgemental about another woman's appearance for a supposed feminist. I wonder what her problem is.
I think it's a perfectly coherent view - the point is that she (Sanchez) is condemning herself (and in a small way all women) to infantilisation. Getting fake tits is essentially indulging and perpetuating male chauvinism - she should be satisfied with her own personhood without having to surgically alter herself in order to please men. The broader point has been a feminist theme for centuries.
Wollstonecraft:
Do you know how many humans (male or female) are "satisfied with their own personhood"?
Not many!
We are all, at all times, engaged in a vain and desperate struggle to alter ourselves in order to solve the riddle of the Other's desire. It's not a woman thing it's a human thing.
(From Zizek's "How to Read Lacan")
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps.
But I've also been listening to rhetoric along the lines of "My body, my choice," "We look pretty for ourselves, not for men", and "my outfit is not an excuse" which all go towards that idea that women can dress up as sexy as they want and make whatever changes they feel like to themselves and are all but immune from judgment for it, for over a decade now.
Hence they can get trashy (in my eyes) tattoos everywhere, as many piercings as they like, they can go with fake boobs, butt, and lips, and all of this is just a celebration of their femininity or whatever.
Its a bit discordant for feminism to actively police its own side for doing things that incidentally appeal to the men in their lives, when there's no evidence that it was the result of coercion but rather her own desires... even if those desires were executed with the male gaze in mind.
As always, relevant TLP: No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Out Without Make Up
Yeah. Not to get into the weeds of the evolutionary biology of it, but
"The way I dress/makeup is solely to feel good about myself! That it happens to 90% coincide with what makes men lust after me is completely irrelevant, its not about men's desires!" is the purest cope imaginable.
I've now seen it countless times, women who abjectly refuse to leave the house without putting together a cute outfit and doing at least minimal makeup. And when pressed (politely) its usually waved off as a matter of self-confidence or personal preference, and I just want to whisper "from whence does the preference come? Self-confident in whose eyes?"
Going to the gym, going to the store, going to grab takeout Chinese food, can't risk you might be seen in a state that might cause a man to overlook you. Especially if other women might put in 10% more effort than you and win the status game.
Maybe for some women. I can tell you for a fact that my wife dresses up nice for the same reason she cleans and decorates our house even when nobody is coming around. She likes pretty things and wants to be one of them. From my experience this is pretty common for women.
Pretending it's all about attracting men is not just reductive, it's simply false in many cases.
That pushes it back a step, since I can generally guess at what she believes is 'pretty' when she dresses up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As always these arguments confuse reasons and causes.
It may very well be that there are evolutionary forces such that women who have a certain kind of preference for appearance that is pleasing to men experience more reproductive success. That seems to me a very plausible hypothesis. But the women who have this preference do not subjectively experience it as "I enjoy looking pretty for men." They experience it as a kind of endogenous preference for a certain mode of dress or appearance. When you are discussing with women why they prefer dressing certain ways they are not giving you a description of the biological or evolutionary causes that may give rise to this preference, they are giving you their subjective reasons for that preference.
Yes, and if you stick your hand on a hot stove and instantly jerk it away, you aren't going to explain it as "an inborn reflex that is older than the concept of spoken language that evolved to quickly detect and avoid high temperatures to protect against burning off one's extremities."
You're going to say "because it hurts." That's your subjective experience of an entirely instinctual, unconscious act your brain takes without consulting your higher consciousness.
I don't particularly care what their subjective explanation is for it, if they aren't capable of changing their behavior any more than you are capable of holding your hand on a scalding stove until you smell burning flesh.
Yes, for some of them "go out in public without dolling yourself up first" is nearly as unthinkable as letting your fingers burn to a crisp.
And of course I wouldn't talk in these terms towards a woman I was actually trying to attract, b/c I also know that evolutionary pressures probably don't select for being able to make the most logically sound, rhetorically attractive arguments possible either.
More options
Context Copy link
If this is a statement of your interiority, I value your anecdote because I think off-the-cuff anecdotes are often much more valuable than any amount of social “science.”
But if it’s not a description if your interior experience, on what are you basing this statement?
My experience is that women will be generally pretty willing to admit privately, to the right man, that they do enjoy looking pretty not for “men” in general (and perhaps that differentiation between “men” and “some men” is the whole sticking point), but for the sort of man they want to attract. The fact that this generally parses out to her looking pretty to a large majority of men is just one of those things that she mentally glides over.
However, it also seems to be a fairly recent turn of events that there is some mysterious source of social pressure that causes a significant number of women, as a class, to then turn around and publicly deny that they are trying to look pretty for any man at all.
I have personally been in relationships with women who were quite capable of holding both these thoughts in their head and didn’t see them as conflicting, which feels like it’s a point both for and against the vibes-based interiority you are describing. Another point against it might be that women 40, 50, 70 years ago seemed to be much more willing to say that they wanted to look good for a man or their man. Discounting for the moment the idea that women of either era are lying, it seems strange that internal understanding would regress to vibes.
To use a spear counterpart example, men who become absolute freak beasts at the gym are very willing to admit that they are doing it to compete with other men, out of a desire to move up a hierarchical ladder. Past a certain point, looking attractive to women becomes secondary to them. But they are not experiencing an endogenous preference, they are very clear about their actions being driven by a desire to exceed the men they see as their competitors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think a woman looking good is necessarily about attracting the opposite sex, I think it's convergent evolution.
Let's say imagine a hypothetical man and a hypothetical woman are both separately asked to dress their best to attend an event containing only members of the same sex. How different would their attire be compared to an event containing the opposite sex? Maybe in the woman's case some more skin might be showing if the opposite sex were attending, but overall I think what makes someone look in the mirror and say, "Yeah I look good" is the same as what the opposite sex would find attractive even if they aren't necessarily trying to attract the opposite sex. And I think it holds at least somewhat true for men as well.
This hypothetical kinda goes out the window entirely when you account for the fact that one sex is VASTLY more likely to take a bunch of selfies from said event which they will then publish to social media accounts while being quite aware that lots of members of the opposite sex will be viewing those photos.
Because in the very abstract sense, your hypothetical basically describes a nunnery.
True (though I suspect the tendency goes down quite a bit after 30), but I think this discounts that many will not. Why then are they dressing up?
I don't think I'm describing a nunnery at all. If a man went to high status event containing only men, he would probably wear a tuxedo. He is doing this to project an image of confidence, sophistication and putting effort into one's appearance, but women would also find a man in a tuxedo sexy. The men aren't competing for women's attention, and probably most of them aren't trying to make others jealous, but the standards remain the same.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd say it's more like 60-70%. There's definitely a percentage of women's fashion that is just signalling taste/wealth to other women. Septum rings and baggy mom jeans aren't sexy but they've still had their fashionable moment.
I mean, no accounting fully for taste. Lower back tattoos had their moment, those hair hump things, Jeggings. None of which did anything for me, my thing was pleated skirts. I assume there are guys who did get into mom jeans and might enjoy septum piercings.
Hence my point elsewhere that I rarely see women doing fashion trends that are completely repellent to men as a class, outside of direct political statements.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it has to be cope. Evolution isn't transparent to us: it is totally plausible that women naturally want to look good without actually 'feeling' the evolutionary reason why it benefits their genes to do so.
I'm just saying. Women have almost universally settled upon their conception of what 'looks good' by way of what makes men pay them greater attention. In the west, at least, nobody holds a gun to their head to make them wear tight clothing that emphasizes curves and shows strategic amounts of skin, even when those outfits are less comfortable to wear. But they do wear such outfits.
Pull up photos of women attending music festivals. And I mean, regardless of genre, from (warning: Semi NSFW) Metal to EDM to Country, and see that while the aesthetics are different, women generally converge on outfits that are revealing and eye-catching and tight and emphasize the secondary sexual characteristics. (yes, admittedly this is prone to selection effects).
I don't think they 'feel' the biological basis, but its the rare woman who can ignore their own impulses and dress in a way that is actively repellent to men and feel truly satisfied and healthy about it.
Yes, there's some large amount of culturally-transmitted information about what is 'attractive' in the other sex as well, but we haven't seen so much divergence between humans as you'd expect if it were solely culturally informed.
Anyhow, humans are just responding to impulses and they don't really think a lot about where those impulses come from. If you're hungry, eat, if you're thirsty, drink. If you're horny, put on the standard mating display and see if you get any takers.
But humans also have brains big enough to create elaborate, usually post-hoc justifications for actions they take, and so they can pretend that dressing and acting in a way that effectively short-circuits the other sex's thought processes (b/c horny) and claim its all solely motivated by self-empowerment.
Is that really hypocritical though? Suppose evolution makes it enjoyable to dress in a way that's sexy to men. Why can't women now take that system of enjoyment nature has given them, and use it to intentionally get enjoyment for themselves with attracting men becoming a side effect? It seems kinda similar to evolution making us like certain flavours to help us get the right range of nutrients. Modern foodies taking that capacity for enjoyment given to us by evolution, and employing it for their own non-survival ends. At least in theory, the original evolutionary cause of the impulse can be acknowledged, but then co-opted.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Being attractive to men, is, like it or not, a pretty big part of the typical woman's self esteem, even if she's not looking right then. Obviously they can't just come out and say that, because feminism, so it's unstated, but it can obviously be both.
That's what I'm saying.
Eons of generations have gone into each facet of the female psyche. Their biological imperative is, to a large degree, to appeal to men's sexual desires. Even if its not literally about sex, that's where most of this is coming from.
Their own psychology is innately, inextricably entangled with making themselves appealing to the male brain. "Men like me if I'm pretty, therefore being pretty is good, therefore I feel good when I'm pretty."
So trying to rewrite it to seem like "I just like making my mouth look soft and kissable and pumping up my cleavage for prominent display and wearing painted on leggings that emphasize my rump because I feel good when I dress up this way completely independent of how any man might perceive it" is a tad farcical.
No woman puts in that much effort to make herself feel good and then chooses to just lounge around the house rather than going out in hopes of snagging some actual attention. And rightly so.
(and no, I ain't acting like men's fashion doesn't follow similar principles)
Gonna disagree, why wouldn't evolution just make it feel good to be attractive, without providing us with its chain of reasoning?
Because if it felt good to be sexy even in the absence of an audience, women would dress exactly the same way while lounging around at home as they do when out in public. No woman spends an hour applying makeup just so she can rot in bed watching Netflix, ergo the audience (whether male, female or both) must be a necessary ingredient in the cocktail.
More options
Context Copy link
The term 'attractive' itself implies there's at least two entities involved, being compelled to move towards each other by some force or other.
i.e, you can't be 'attractive' unless there's something towards which the attraction is directed, no? So it feels good to be 'attractive,' but you can't judge what is or is not attractive in the vacuum of your own singular mind.
Evolution doesn't provide us the chain of reasoning, we have to infer what logics of fitness and survival brought us here, but the co-evolution of the sexes means almost any behavioral feature of one sex is inherently determined by millennia of interactions with the other, with several feedback loops involved as well.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think there are many commonly used modern definition of feminism that directly involve policing other women's choices regarding their own appearances. I'd be surprised if Tina Brown has explicitly endorsed this principle.
In any case, this would be slightly more believable if the author had exhibited anything but total contempt for Laura Sanchez. I find it hard to believe Tina Brown is genuinely concerned about Sanchez's wellbeing.
The term is "internalized misogyny" or "the Patriarchy." It's very common, though it's never framed (overtly) as being the women's fault. But the implication is often that they are defecting, selling out for male approval.
I understand that all that could apply in theory, but I'm quite sceptical that it explains this writer's behaviour. To be fair to Brown, I'm not actually sure she's publicly aligned herself with one particular form of feminism, but the usual way feminism is expressed by popular figures in the modern world always seems to include some form of "women should be empowered to do/look/behave as they want", so I - perhaps mistakenly - assume that position unless stated otherwise. My sense is that other schools of thought are much more niche and/or dated.
In any case though, the main reason I don't buy it here is the particularly personal way she wrote that passage about Sanchez - her description is pointlessly nasty and seem to come from a place of bitterness rather than of sober reflection. Less like some form of "what she's done to her appearance has negative implications about how women are expected to look to appeal to a man" and more like "I'm angry that a wealthy man would choose a stupid ugly bitch like her".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean you've put in a bit of an autistic way but the idea that women shouldn't indulge the male gaze is a very common feminist one across time. This is the whole idea that lies behind critiques of 'lipstick feminism'. It's by no means a consensus view, in fact there has been a lot of debate on whether fashion/beauty is liberatory and agentic, or infantilising, but either way it's definitely not an uncommon feminist position.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link