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 -
I don't agree with this point at all, because no third party actually witnesses the sex happening under the circumstance envisioned in Deuteronomy 22:25 - meaning the woman is not the defendant. Rather the man is the defendant in this situation, since the woman is essentially alleging two things which cannot be substantiated - 1: that the sex happened in the first place and 2: that she was blameless in it (inevitably, the woman would be the one to levy such accusations, since nobody else witnessed it and the man would be punished regardless of complicity or lack thereof). To adopt this stance is a violation of in dubio pro reo, not an expression of it.
There's also the fact that 22:25 describes the rape as being analogous to the situation "as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him" with the woman being in the position of the neighbour, which would seem to suggest that the woman is also seen as being the victim of the crime in question.
I have read this Wikipedia page and pretty much disagree with most of their conclusions. With regards to that Maimonides text, this is the passage it cites: "Every maiden expects to be married, her seducer therefore is only ordered to marry her; for he is undoubtedly the fittest husband for her. He will better heal her wound and redeem her character than any other husband. If, however, he is rejected by her or her father, he must give the dowry (Exodus 22:16). If he uses violence he has to submit to the additional punishment, "he may not put her away all his days" (Deuteronomy 22:29)."
But note he was a specific scholar from much later on whose interpretations of Biblical law were by no means universally accepted or agreed upon in his time. In addition, this portion of the Maimonides text was initially in Judeo-Arabic, whereas now it is being presented as an English translation which probably obscures some of the textual nuances within the original thing. So I don't think this is sufficient to prove the point. In contrast, I have looked into the textual analysis of the original Hebrew of Deuteronomy 22:28 to an extent, and definitely find the idea that it's a marry your rapist law to be... questionable at least. I think the use of the Hebrew word taphas in 22:28 creates a meaningful distinction - the passage 22:25 that's just before it uses a different and more serious verb to connote the force of a rape: hazaq.
Note also that Deuteronomy 22:29 says nothing about her right to reject! The man must take her as a wife, but it is only concerned with his obligations and states he may not divorce her all his days, it says nothing at all about her ability to renege on that. Interpreting that as a section of the Bible forcing a woman to marry her rapist requires a lot of logical leaps that doesn't necessarily follow. And note that even the Maimonides passage explicitly appears to synthesise and interpret Exodus and Deuteronomy in a way which acknowledges the right of the woman to reject the man: "If, however, he is rejected by her or her father, he must give the dowry (Exodus 22:16)." So even if we are to trust that picture of Maimonides' interpretation, the woman is not being forced into marriage; she can refuse and receive compensation for it instead.
Also on the Wikipedia page is this claim: "The Hebrew word used here for "violated" is עָנָה anah (or inah[35]), which (depending on the context) can mean "to rape, to force [sexually], to defile, to violate, to ravish, to mistreat, to afflict, to humble/humiliate, to oppress, to subject/submit/subdue, to weaken".[23][36] Especially when a Hebrew verb is in the pi'el (intensifying) form, this adds force,[23]: 120 and in Deuteronomy 22:29 עִנָּ֔הּ ‘in-nāh is in the pi'el.[23]: 141 " But I don't agree with this either; here is scholarship that Wikipedia left out, suggesting that the inclusion of "inah" in the pi'el form does not in fact indicate a "rape" occurred.
Your source then refers to this passage: "14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee." But that then raises the question: what about the legal status and rights of male civilians captured in wartime?
Why, the passage that details this comes right before the one they're citing. "13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword".
Androcide of the entire male population is quite the moral commandment. The right to life is basically the foundational one upon which all the others rest.
The only passage I am aware of regulating gay sex at all (consent or lack thereof not specified) is Leviticus 20, which imposes punishments for both parties. I can't find anything more specific than that.
I mean, I certainly agree with the idea that both sexes' lives were pretty shit and very circumscribed. But I find the modern portrayal of premodern societies' gender roles to be extremely unbalanced, and IMO either we can consider both sexes as having been oppressed, or neither. The constant and endless focus on female victimisation and almost complete ignoring of the other side of the coin just gets tiring overtime, and is used to justify a lot of questionable modern politicking which also offends (classically) liberal sensibilities.
EDIT: added more
More options
Context Copy link