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 -
Hm, does Compact have any links to the German magazine of the same name?
Most progress for women's causes came from what one would broadly call the left. The US suffrage movement has its roots in the abolition movement. Or consider the perspective on women by two extremist ideologies, fascism (extreme right) and communism (extreme left, after a fashion). In fascism, women are principally breeders to make new soldiers. Sure, they get honored if they are prolific breeders, but that was all, otherwise being a stenographer for some Obersturmbannfuehrer was as cllose as women got to power. Not a single woman in the whole Nazi Reichstag, from what I can tell. By contrast, the Soviets at least had the tiniest bit of sympathy for women, whose struggle resembled the struggle of the working class at least a bit. Of course, women's rights were not a big political agenda, but at least there was no principled opposition to women serving in the party, even though it remained strongly male-dominated.
I think no matter where you look, suffrage, birth control, abortion rights, protection from marital rape, the broad left was generally a (sometimes lukewarm) ally to women's rights while the right generally tried to keep the status of 1900.
The woke coalition, black/minority rights/grievances, women's rights/grievances, LGBT rights makes sense from a strategic point of view. The TERF's horror of a trans person using a women's bathroom are not worth blowing up the coalition over.
The Democrats have lost the last two elections in part because they backed unpopular female presidential candidates, while the Republicans got the women Dobbs, and yet somehow the left is throwing the women under the bus?
Sure, being a woman after the sexual revolution is not all sunflowers and unicorn farts, because the most attractive man willing to have a situationship with you is unlikely be willing to settle down with you if that is what you want, but compared to the time when marriage was for life it is a fucking picnic in the park. "So you marry a guy, and that basically means he owns you. He can beat you up or rape you if he feels like it, so better have a living male relative when he goes overboard. He is the head of the household and might be able to deny you getting a job or contraceptives. He is as stuck in the marriage as you are, but I am sure it will all turn out fine. Also, while you are still unmarried, guys will try to seduce you and then escape before they are subjected to a shotgun wedding. If you have sex with any of them, you are damaged goods, a fallen woman, a harlot and your prospects for a good marriage decline dramatically. Oh, and if anyone knocks outside marriage, your family might disown you, but you can always turn to sex work to feed your baby, no worries."
I think there might be some revision in this statement. My understanding is that as late as the 60s the feminist vote was kinda up for grabs between republicans and democrats.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think so, no. Although funny enough, the name “Compact” comes from the idea of a “new compact” between left and right. Social conservatism and economic socialism. One might say that it’s rather… third positionist. (Although in practice most of their takes are very basic bitch and milquetoast.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link