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 -
A common flavor of mockery is to find leftist posts about "what I'll do after the socialist revolution" and ridicule them. We were discussing the genre and the general amusement at folks that think they will have a quasi-aristocratic life: oh I'll work on the commune garden and teach embroidery and prepare meals for everyone. Weirdly, many of the posts by women ended up being weirdly trad too -- but that's a bit of a sidetrack.
Example
KYM
My friend had an important insight: there is probably a rightist/reactionary equivalent to this. That's a good observation. We came up with a few of these
Any society where such floggings are the norm is surely also one where policing sexual morality - which I guess in this context actually means policing women's sexual behavior so that they are deterred from becoming floozies and punishing cads who would make floozies out of such women - is also the norm. I see no contradiction.
Again, no contradiction there. As a patriarch you're the head of your own nuclear family. On the other hand, your uncle and grandpa are above you in the social hierarchy, and as long as they adhere to social norms, they are deputized to intervene in your life in case you're failing in your life as a patriarch i.e. beating up your wife for no good reason or beating her too severely etc. This is how patriarchy works. Duh.
Note that they might stop you from starting a nuclear family for reasons real (you don't have the material means - and no, they won't allot you any) or imagined (you'll get your part of the family acreage once you're acting a little bit more "grown up").
Well duh. As a man, you inherit; you don't get allotments and gibs.
Well, you might inherit, if you're lucky enough to have been born first (or be the eldest surviving son).
That's not how inheritance worked in older societies. Even taking the examples in the Bible, the birthright inheritance given to the firstborn (see Jacob and Esau amongst other examples) wasn't everything his father had, it was simply a double portion compared to the other children. So if your father with two sons had 60 acres the oldest son would inherit 40 and the youngest would inherit 20.
I was referring to the common law rule of primogeniture which was used in medieval England and existed in the United States up until the time of the Revolution, when reforms were instituted that allowed all children to inherit equally. The issue was that, in a time when land equaled wealth and people had a lot of children, a feudal estate would be fairly quickly diluted to the point where none of the individual holdings were sufficient to generate very much income. Assuming equal inheritance and only two children, a 100 acre tract would be down to 50 in the second generation and 25 in the third, at which point it was below the threshold to support even one family. Add more generations and additional children per generation and it goes even faster.
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