site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

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.

10
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The 2022 Wypipo Awards

Yes, that's an actual headline at Yahoo News, published just a week ago. It's basically a long anti-white rant by a bigoted ethnic activist. I am fascinated that white Americans are so sissified in the face of this open bigotry. In many ways, their patience is Christ-like. I for one don't hope for a tit-for-tat development, because this world needs less tribalism and conflict. But as long as anti-white racism isn't called out, I can't take people who claim to be anti-racists seriously. And the editors at Yahoo news allowing this vile rant to be published shows that its ingrained in US culture.

I am fascinated that white Americans are so sissified in the face of this open bigotry. In many ways, their patience is Christ-like.

If White Americans are Christ-Like in the face of the slings and arrows of outrageous (checks notes) Yahoo News articles...it's more Craig Christ than his brother Jesus. I'm sure everyone has seen most of this online dating data before, along with the income data, prison odds, marriage patterns, as long as you aren't poor or stupid or both {in which case there's a good chance I don't really care anyway} being white is awesome in America.

I get irrationally annoyed at white male grievance studies types who have fully internalized the minority narrative of oppression and try to apply it themselves. There is a substantive difference between my wife slapping me and me slapping my wife. The relative strength and power of the two actors changes the meaning. To pretend it doesn't is a sign that one simply doesn't understand the burdens of patriarchy, that one is substantively unprepared to be a paterfamilias. One who is so sissified that he must constantly bark his head off at every perceived slight isn't an alpha, he's a chihuahua who needs to prove how threatening he is.

To be young and smart and white and male in America is perhaps not to be born on second base and think you hit a double, but it is certainly coming into your at-bat with a 2-0 count and a runner in scoring position. If you can't convert, it's on you.

  • -11

To be young and smart and white and male

"Smart" is doing all the heavy lifting there. Holding intelligence constant, white and male is probably the second worst demographic combination you can roll, after Asian and male, but the differences aren't that big, and being smart and born in a rich country is playing life on easy mode for any race/sex combination.

I dunno, I think men tend to have it easier than women. Mostly due to physical strength and social dynamics. I’d pick male social drama any day, and the less said about harassment the better.

Maybe discrimination is most socially acceptable against white and Asian men. I don’t feel like that actually has much impact on how much discrimination really happens. I’m not really competing against women for my job or for marriage.

Maybe discrimination is most socially acceptable against white and Asian men. I don’t feel like that actually has much impact on how much discrimination really happens.

Given that white men are one of the largest demographics in the US, increasing acceptability of discrimination against them would almost certainly increase the total level of discrimination overall.

Does the concept of "socially acceptable discrimination" not bother you, anyways?

Of course it bothers me. I’d rather not have any discrimination at all, and I certainly don’t want more of it against any population. (This does not preclude wanting to stigmatize certain behaviors.)

No, I’m suggesting that the level of discrimination faced by a white or Asian man is lower than for most other groups, particularly women—even though the social acceptability of discriminating against the former is much higher. There are obviously some jobs (childcare, nursing) where a woman gets a discriminatory advantage. There are, likewise, situations where an Asian man’s chances are relatively penalized, such as college admissions. How common are these scenarios? How much damage do they do?

I went to a rather white school alongside a bunch of pasty Midwesterners. Now I work a tech job with a bunch of white men. My girlfriend is not scoring other men by race, looking for one who’s otherwise equivalent. When have I been passed over for “losing” the genetic lottery? I’m not saying it can’t happen; on margin, encouraging more of it is a bad thing! But I’ve got it pretty good, and I suspect that all else equal, white men of comparable intelligence and background are likely to say the same.

It is possible that, as a population, the total harm caused to white men by this discrimination outweighs that for other groups. Given that I think the acceptability/amount link is tenuous, getting upset about rage-bait articles doesn’t seem very efficient. If it is, though...new EA cause area?

No, I’m suggesting that the level of discrimination faced by a white or Asian man is lower than for most other groups, particularly women—even though the social acceptability of discriminating against the former is much higher. There are obviously some jobs (childcare, nursing) where a woman gets a discriminatory advantage.

Oh, there are plenty of jobs where women get a discriminatory advantage, and not necessarily always in stereotypically female fields either. STEM for example is a good case study of a field which is thought to be discriminatory against women, but actually favours them.

This paper by Williams and Ceci finds that faculty members in STEM, when evaluating hypothetical applicants for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology, "preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference."

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112

This review in Psychology Today considering the evidence regarding gender bias in science shows that studies showing egalitarian attitudes or bias against male scientists are more common than those showing bias against female scientists. There were 4 papers showing bias favouring men, whereas there were 8 showing no gender bias and 6 showing bias favouring women.

The Williams and Ceci paper included in the review reported 5 studies, however, so if we shift our focus to number of studies instead of papers the empirical data shows that there were 4 studies showing bias favouring men, 8 showing no gender bias and 10 showing bias favouring women. On the whole, the evidence as presented in this review seems to lean towards "there is bias in favour of women in STEM".

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906/are-scientists-biased-against-women-scientists-part-ii

The author goes on to state that "there was far more evidence of egalitarian or pro-female bias than there is of pro-male bias". He also notes that studies showing peer-reviewed science is unbiased or favours women tend to have larger sample sizes than those which show biases favouring men, but are cited much less (largely due to an ideological bias in academia in favour of the "discrimination against women" hypothesis).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906/scientific-bias-in-favor-studies-finding-gender-bias

There's also research with a more generalised scope, and a lot of that data does not support the idea that discrimination in the workplace is primarily a women's issue (rather, the findings often indicate the very opposite). For example:

"By utilizing data from the first harmonized comparative field experiment on gender discrimination in hiring in six countries, we can directly compare employers’ callbacks to fictitious male and female applicants. The countries included vary in a number of key institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions, yet we found no sign of discrimination against women. This cross-national finding constitutes an important and robust piece of evidence. Second, we found discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, and no discrimination against men in Norway and the United States. However, in the pooled data the gender gradient hardly differs across countries. Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere."

https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/38/3/337/6412759?login=false

The notion that women are "disadvantaged more" is very questionable at best.

But I’ve got it pretty good, and I suspect that all else equal, white men of comparable intelligence and background are likely to say the same.

Relying on personal perception (which seems to be the main source that you and many other people here are drawing from) is a particularly unconvincing argument, since people have biases. White men in particular have been exposed to a narrative from a very young age that they do not face issues because of their race or sex, in fact they are told they are privileged because of it, whereas women and PoC get it hammered into their head that the society they live in is a white cisheteropatriarchal one that oppresses them. It's not hard to see how this is going to influence perceptions, and how this is going to lead to women and PoC interpreting more events as discriminatory against them than white men since it takes far more for white men to jump to the conclusion that they're being discriminated against because of their immutable characteristics. The narrative that endlessly circulates in society gears white men to perceive evidence of their privilege, not their disadvantage.

Furthermore, in the case of male/female dynamics there are also other factors that influence things. For example women score higher on neuroticism than men which obviously predisposes them to perceive more things as malicious than men do. Women can capitalise on claims of vulnerability in ways men simply can't due to our protectiveness towards women, and thus benefit from perceiving danger and expressing it to others in order to elicit nurturance and help (the opposite is true for men: Men who complain and present themselves as vulnerable and put-upon run the risk of inviting ire). This is obviously going to impact which sex is more likely to perceive slight and complain about that slight.

EDIT: clarity