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 think there’s a bit of truth to it. Not that no woman is capable of Law work, but that the social style of women is not how law is supposed to work (or things like science or the military (which I fear a bit more than Law simply because the one army that keeps their military masculine will have it’s day with any country with a feminine military)) as it’s supposed to be about the fair and impartial application of rules, whether or not the outcome is one you prefer. Women tend to have a harder time accepting outcomes that feel mean even if the law is fair and the case is judged fairly. Sure a couple of women probably isn’t going to do it, but enough of them to have the circuit courts full of women who see the fair outcome of a jury trial as mean to someone from a disadvantaged group is going to make a shambles of blind and impartial judgement.
I've been a lawyer for over a decade and have worked with many female lawyers, including at the supervisory level, and I can't say that I've ever seen a situation where empathy inappropriately played a role in any attorney's decision, whether male or female. I will grant that I spent a long time doing oil and gas work where it would be difficult to find a situation where empathy would even come into play, but for the past few years I've done litigation work that involves defending unsympathetic companies against suits brought by highly sympathetic plaintiffs, my boss and two other supervising partners are women, and I haven't seen any women ever back off for what would be considered empathetic reasons. The only judge I've ever seen who acted overly sympathetic toward plaintiffs was an 80-year-old white guy in West Virginia. And he's no longer on the bench. I also haven't dealt with many female judges in this context, but the one I have dealt with was more of a stickler for the rules than her male counterparts. I think this, though, is a consequence of her being a judge in a county that doesn't see a ton of these cases and thus hasn't had the opportunity to go on autopilot.
I have certainly seen bad women attorneys, but they were all bad in the same ways that men are bad attorneys: They're lazy and/or sloppy. There are a few male plaintiff's attorneys I deal with who will let my client out of the case at the slightest resistance, because not doing so would mean that they have to argue a motion. But talking about empathy in the context of practicing law doesn't make sense, because a large percentage of law is purely transactional, and in litigation your job is to defend the interests of your client, and being able to empathize with your client is a good thing, not a bad thing. It certainly prevents the laziness from taking over. And in judicial contexts, there are two sides to every story. You seem to be making the argument that women would be more empathetic to a defendant from a disadvantaged group. But why would this be the case? If empathy is the overriding factor, they might just as easily be overly empathetic toward the victim.
Which brings me to my final point: Even if your premise is correct, and female judges will be empathetic to criminal defendants, you're basing your conclusion on the idea that there is some kind of Platonian "correct" outcome, and that male judges consistently achieve this outcome. What constitutes a correct outcome is a political question and not a legal one in instances where the judge has discretion, like sentencing, and the appropriate response would be for legislatures to revise sentencing guidelines if sentences become too lenient. But beyond that, there's the possibility as well, that male judges are simply too harsh, and that the overriding goal of public safety is ill-served by oversentencing; maybe it's the women judges who are closer to achieving the policy goals the criminal code exists to implement. I'd be a little more cautious before going down the overly reductive road that a legal system that is majority women will somehow cause the whole thing to go to shit, just because it conforms to whatever stereotypes or personal policy preferences that you have.
I googled and spent all of two minutes not finding stats on this but my perception (dated now) was that women made up large majority of grads who went into public interest law
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can acknowledge that women have different social styles than men on average, but I don't think this is it. Of course women can be mean and spiteful, sometimes out of proportion. Were you oblivious to how female bullying works in school? Or never seen "fury like a woman scorned"? "Anti-mean" is merely a surface cultural local pretended norm, which can be ignored or circumvented when required. Also can become permanently shifted (there totally are cultures where women are mean to someone from a disadvantaged group).
If I had to guess, the female predisposition is to present agreeableness to local cultural social norms. It includes also policing them, but socially in a way that avoids confrontation that can escalate to violence. Likewise, there is also bias to favor women and their experiences ("believe women"), but I am not certain its anything inherit, it is likely a product of feminist education.
From this perspective, one can steelman that justice system can turn out quite differently when it becomes feminized. Court procedure is bit like a fair fight with a words. You have a right to confront the witnesses against you and all that. Perhaps there will be pressure to avoid that.
Correct; the actual norm is who/whom.
Yes, see the Title IX tribunals, for instance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but doing that actively handicaps women in the workplace, because their evolutionary specialty rests on those rules being as partial and obfuscated as possible.
The fact that that the full use of that specialty is incredibly destructive is highly relevant, which is why gynosupremacists build their entire worldview atop justifications for being allowed to do it. It's what their instincts tell them will keep them safe. Parasitism is a valid evolutionary strategy (and must be considered morally neutral for this analysis to have any worth).
I think a start to dealing with this would be to institutionally account for the moral hazard this inherently creates. If women want criminals running around because to do otherwise would hurt their feelings, there needs to be some redistribution directly from them to the people their policies hurt. If the teaching profession refuses to do its job by literacy rates dropping because it would be mean to fail people, there's no reason they shouldn't be forced to pay into a dividend dedicated to fixing their mistake in the future.
Society doesn't impose costs on morally neutral behaviour. Also you are suggesting a 'host' solution, you will only get justifications for why it can't be done in return. This would not be possible even if you hadn't brought in the concept of parasitism, now it is double plus infinity not possible.
I hate this framing. And I'm not just saying that because I'm trying to romance 2rafa. You can't just say 'just treat this loaded term as neutral' when you're talking about societal issues, because society isn't just made up of autistic wordcels like us. That said, I'm pretty much willing to talk about anything, so I can't help but notice that I don't want to talk about this in these terms. It probably means you could make bank off of championing this on social media - at least until you are debanked.
LOL very tempted to tag her. But I won't. This time...
More options
Context Copy link
Of course it does. This is what many taxes and fees are.
Ah God damn it. You're right, I meant to say it doesn't impose costs as a deterrent on morally neutral behaviour.
If the behavior is morally neutral but has costs, a tax or fee might well be imposed upon it not to deter it but to recover said costs.
Right and that's why my argument continued for several sentences after that first one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Just for clarification, I'm reading this as 'doesn't intend to impose costs...'
Yeah, I think that's probably true. Happens all the time, but not with that conscious intent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As opposed to treating them as conflict theorists, but there's no insight to be gained by starting from that position.
I don't think the tarantula hawk wasp is consumed by guilt at what it has to do to continue its cycle of existence. Not that it has the capacity to feel guilt, of course.
Thus, a particular assumption relevant to my outgroup's behavior- that [at its core] it is an evil animal with evil motivations designed solely to maximize the suffering of others for selfish gain- is therefore flawed and not worth talking about.
Of course, if that hypothetical question ever came up between host and parasite, how would you mediate a dispute between them? Not that a host could conduct that process when parasite-obsessed [for a variety of out-of-scope reasons] hosts are in oversupply, of course, which debanking is an expression of and why it's only become a thing now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link