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 -
Women have had the knowledge that men are sex-crazed brutes forever, they tolerate us anyway.
I think the issue might be the implict (?) belief that there is some kind of genderless human standard that women (or men) need to meet. There isn't. There's men and there's women, as different as chalk and cheese. Holding women to male standards is like expecting the cat to play fetch. The wise woman doesn't expect her husband to talk deeply about his feelings or know that she's upset even if she says she's fine. You should take the same attitude to women and their foibles.
This is true, but it begs the question. Yes, men and women have different foibles, but how do they compare? How do the standards for men stack up against the standards for women?
As WhiningCoil expresses above, the redpill perspective on women essentially considers them as men's lessers, baser creatures driven primarily by instinct. This is a perspective with strong cultural precedent, and its echoes persist to this day, even in aspirationally egalitarian societies. When feminists keep talking about wanting men and women to be equal, despite their equality before the law and the outright preference shown towards women by our cultural institutions, this is what they mean.
In this way, I'm sympathetic to both feminism and the redpill perspective; I do believe that women are to some extent more childish, instinctual, etc. than men, but I also think that this is a highly unfortunate reality, not something to celebrate or appreciate, and hopefully might be ameliorated by whatever means necessary, social or biological.
See, I'd just call that 'hating women'. I like women. I think it's good they're women.
Imagine someone suggesting that we somehow 'fix' children such that they just start as adults!
People usually don't want their children to remain children forever. That's called Down's syndrome.
I think that in the fullness of God's unfolding, male and female shall be elided. But we're not there yet, and even though it's good to look to that, this is not the time to make pretenses.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If we regularly expected children to be helicopter pilots, doctors and heads of state, then yes I think them acting like regular children would be a big problem.
If.
You’re the one equating women to children, I’m just pointing out the second-order consequences if that’s true.
This reminds me of a pair of comments on either /r/SSC or /r/TheMotte (sadly I did not save them) where 2 philosophers of the highest kind had a discussion about how consciousness in women was a mistake by evolution. In the ensuing fallout, both comments were deleted, and quite possibly both accounts as well. One of my favorite "elmo watching the nuclear blast" moments.
One was /u/Namrok, I'm pretty sure. No idea who the other guy was. Wish I had been able to save that conversation before it blew up.
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
Would you then contest the assertion that women are fundamentally lesser than men? I think that @To_Mandalay is essentially correct in this thread about how women have always been considered lower on the Great Chain of Being than men, do you disagree?
I don't hate women at all, though I do empathize with women who seem to hate themselves like this poor soul. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for women to feel trapped by their biology, to despair that their ordained purpose is mere continuance of the species while the men drive forwards the transcendence of Man.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Before jumping to such conclusions, have you seriously considered why nature saw fit to select this reality?
I have indeed done some pondering on the origins of femininity. I think my strongest hypothesis is that female neuroticism largely stems from the zero-sum nature of female intrasexual competition, with utility in childrearing being a highly secondary cause. Agreeableness and consensus-seeking seem to me as less of a socially useful trait and more an adaptation towards self-preservation around potentially hostile men. Others have argued for the social utility of women's agreeableness, but I'm still pretty sure that nothing particularly bad would happen if the agreeableness distribution among women was shifted, say, 30% of the way towards the male distribution.
I largely accept the axiom that the world would be a better place if women acted more like men, though I'm unsure of the optimal delta. There are legitimately complimentary aspects to femininity, but to the extent that women are in fact "like narcissistic children", it would be better if they weren't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And that is evidence that feminists are either too incompetent (they aren't...) to understand the reason for this or are deliberately maintaining (or feigning) ignorance for social manipulation. The idea that men are by nature baser creatures driven primarily by their instincts (eg, "They think with their dicks.") is widespread in culture just as it is for women. Men are not seen as inherently better than women; people who control themselves and don't give in to their base instincts are seen as better than people who don't. Society expects this of men in a way it doesn't of women and in return grants them greater status for achieving it, as well as punishing them much more harshly for not. Feminists typically focus on eliminating the greater status granted men without eliminating (often rather reinforcing) the greater pressure nor the greater punishment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Debatable, but also, let me compare the information ecosystems at work here. Men's many faults and failure modes are part of mainstream culture. Women can open say, in mixed company, in virtually any setting, "All men want is sex." And all the men will nod thinking "Not me, but those other guys sure". If they have daughter's they'll think of all the men they hope stay the fuck away from her. The women might still be thinking of their husbands. But generally, nobody will protest the statement, and it's treated as just obviously true and uncontroversial.
Knowledge of women's many faults and failure modes exists in a ghetto and is profoundly stigmatized. It's not worked into mainstream culture at all. Father's rarely pass the information they've learned onto their sons, lest their wive's overhear and lose their shit that their husband is teaching their sons to "hate women". All we ever hear is a litany of "Women never lie about rape/lie about paternity/baby trap men". To accuse any woman of doing so sets off the entire cartel like you have personally accused every woman of doing such a thing. They cannot dissociate from the "Women lie about rape" the same way men can from "All men want is sex."
So most women are armed against male excesses, and most men are fed into the wood chipper repeatedly until they rediscover the forbidden knowledge from first principles yet again. Or they get lucky and find even some light red-pill takes.
X. I remember a lot of ‘yeah, son, women are emotionally unstable’ and the like.
Yeah, but that's up there with milquetoast phrases like "Boys will be boys" IMHO.
Like, by comparison, it is not uncommon for women to check in with friends before and after dates "Just in case". It's just common knowledge that it's a thing you should do. Maybe mother's tell their daughters, I wouldn't be shocked. But I knew many women who had this sort of buddy system when they were going on dates. Along with dozens of other rules of thumb to protect themselves in case the man was a scumbag or violent.
What defenses are men armed with? "Don't stick your dick in crazy" I guess that works, but what is crazy? Well now we're right back to red-pillology as the only definer of women. And generally, after they've slept with a woman, everything that happens after, even the most nightmarish abuse and family terrorism, is viewed as something they brought on themselves. All they do is shut their mouth, get a lawyer, and say goodbye to half their assets and income.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link