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 -
Christianity solves this. Arguably it was one of the greatest solutions to incel issues. And by limiting females to one male guaranteed one female for every male.
I don’t believe this is the solution he is searching for.
Has Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) ever prevented serial monogamy or cheating? Or guaranteed a fulfilling marriage?
A male loser always struggled for a partner, regardless of the cultural context. The biggest difference is that in the past surplus men were burned off through a variety of mechanisms, while contemporary society only has suicide as a release valve.
Why would the standard be a guarantee? What other social institution is held to this standard?
Does feminism guarantee a fulfilling life for women?
Does welfare guarantee a better life?
Do traffic lights guarantee no car accidents?
Do police guarantee an absence of crime?
No, but these also don't solve these problems - they (allegedly) mitigate them.
Hm...this is actually relevant to your other response: Depends on the problem and the level we zoom in on; I think a reasonable observer could say that the ethnic Danes have "solved" mass illiteracy as an issue*, even if any individual may be illiterate.
You could argue that Christianity solved mass inceldom as an issue even if it didn't solve it for everyone... But was it an issue?
Unattached males are sort of a continual issue, like weeds, and there's evidence today that polygamous societies face challenges due to the sex distribution problem and the troublesome young men it leaves behind (it also goes in the other way; Mormon elders used to cast out younger men to monopolize females)
I guess it depends on whether you consider those sorts of situations as being the same species as the modern incel crisis we're talking about.
But Ancient Rome wasn't polygamous in the modern sense. As you suggested, rich men had access to multiple partners, just like in most Christian societies, but they could only marry one. This was also true of Ancient Greece, another key area for early Christianity. The Jews did practice polygamy, but it doesn't seem to have been common (this is debated) by the time of the early Christians.
It certainly helped that Christianity was compatible with the existing Greco-Roman monogamous approach, but Christianity didn't introduce it.
I'm kind of sleepy and I feel like I'm going full circle from my original post so I've kind of lost the thread here on the bone of contention tbh. I never said it invented social monogamy, more that it did promulgate sexual monogamy as an ideal though. Men weren't expected to be monogamous or even necessarily exclusively focus on women* beforehand. That's why Paul uses a constructed phrase of something like "husband of one wife" or "one-man wife"
Islam has a more restrained version of the same thing; it is formally socially and sexually polygamous and men weren't expected to be monogamous. But it closes access to women who "your right hand does not possess".
* Though you'd avoid well off Roman boys and other high class people if you knew what was good for you.
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