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 -
Another hopelessly confused feminist who cannot express a coherent thought. Women like her have been indulged, coddled and lied to their whole lives. As you note, almost subconsciously, she senses that something is not adding up (“the lingering shadow “, “performative reverence”, “dimmed”, “faint echo”).
Echoes of the white lies she has been fed, of her incomparable value, of her oppression, and that she can have it all, and do anything men can, and better. The problem is not that she’s elon musk and people value her too much and don’t value ‘her for her’. It’s that people lie to her about how valuable she really is, like an AA hiring panel, or a loving parent.
This argument has to die. Nature itself thinks men are as valuable as women. Slightly prefers them even, at 1.05 to 1. Most rawlsian babies would prefer the male body, it’s the practical choice. Most parents do too. And if you’re founding a city, every romulus in his right mind would choose a hundred men over a hundred women. Women can always be procured. A weapon is as valuable as an incubator. Even more so in the modern world, where the incubators are faulty, and we’re all tools.
It most certainly does not. The average human alive has twice as many female ancestors as men.
Biologically humans produce offspring at 50/50 sex ratio by Fisher's Principle. I used to teach this as an excellent example of how individual selection trumps group selection.
Consider if you could choose to found your Rome with a population fixated (stably) on genes for 25% male babies or 50%? By the 3rd generation the first group has more men than the latter. By the 5th generation it is already 9.5x the population and 4x the men! And if you preference fighting age (younger) men, it's even higher.
It's not even close. The only reason that this doesn't work is that in the former group (at 25/75), genes that preference males (even a tiny bit, like 30/70) would be massively selected for (since each male has 3x more offspring) and so each generation is nudged back towards 50/50. If everyone could agree not to do that, they'd all be better off, but genes are selfish and so here we are.
Complete non sequitur.
Your statement is a vague, theoretical, general principle that most species tend towards a 50/50 ratio. Mine is the actual sex ratio of humans, which slightly favours males. The two statements are not necessarily contradictory. Mine is just more precise and empirically supported.
I already decried this reasoning in this thread. You’re assuming infinite resources like it’s a bacterial culture. And Romulus was a reference to the rape of the sabines, where the male-skewed romans just stole women from their neighbours. The only 25% men tribe would get overrun quickly.
“Behold, I will now prove the undeniable superiority of women:
Imagine you’re on an island. There’s no war to be fought, ever. No work to be done, either. Not even a jar to open. All there is to do on this magical island is to go shopping. And the goal is to produce as many babies as possible. Would you prefer 100 men and 1 woman or 1 man and 100 women? Checkmate.”
You know that it’s men who pay for access to women’s bodies, rather than the other way around, right?
Revealed preferences, look at what people do not what they say, etc.
Men appear to enjoy sex more than women. How this factoid relates to this discussion I do not know. Unless.... you're saying that the ubiquitous island scenario is just a harem fantasy concocted by horny men and they don't have a serious opinion on this?
Yes, and why do you think that is? It’s not just a random coincidence. It’s rooted in the fact that a man’s reproductive resources are very cheap and a woman’s are very scarce.
Just because a man produces, by my count, 5 billion more gametes per month than a woman, and so his gametes are slightly less valuable individually, does not make a man fundamentally less valuable than a woman.
Well, y’know, it actually does! Every social practice that humans have ever engaged in throughout history has confirmed this fact.
So a man has to find something with which to supplement his value. This is no Herculean task, the barrier is very much intended to be surmountable. There are many types of goods and labors that men exchange for access to women’s bodies. But the point is that he has to find something; he’s not born with it.
"Every social practice"? With how diverse they are, that's a sure sign that you're not correctly evaluating contrary evidence you might come across, and you're running entirely on confirmation bias.
I gave examples of people choosing men over women, which should count as proof of at least comparable worth. You're basing your entire theory of human value on the fact that an attractive 20 year old female can get resources in exchange for sex. I guess we won’t reach agreement today.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link