site banner
PaperclipPerfector  14d ago (text post)   27242 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Helen Andrews and the Great Feminization

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/

Some excerpts:

Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently.

Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981). A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.

Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tug at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.

A feminized legal system might resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses established in 2011 under President Obama. These proceedings were governed by written rules and so technically could be said to operate under the rule of law. But they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties, not in how one party feels about an act in retrospect. These protections were abolished because the people who made these rules sympathized with the accusers, who were mostly women, and not with the accused, who were mostly men.

Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten.

And we wonder why men are dropping out of the workforce/university...

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it?

I found the whole essay quite interesting and also somewhat obvious in that 'oh I should've realized this and put it together before' sense. I read somewhere else on twitter that you could track the origins of civil rights/student activism to women gaining full entry to universities in America, as opposed to just chaperoned/'no picnicking out together' kind of limited access. Deans and admin no longer felt they could punish and control like when it was a male environment, plus young men behave very differently when there are sexually available women around. So there's also a potential element of weakened suppression due to fear of female tears and young men simping for women, along with the long-term demographic change element.

Though I suspect it may be more multi-factorial than that, with the youth bulge and a gradual weakening of the old order. A man had to make the decision to let women into universities after all.

I also find Helen Andrews refreshing in that she's not stuck in the 'look at me I'm a woman who's prepared to be anti-feminist, I'm looking for applause and clicks' mould, she makes the reasons behind her article quite clear:

Because, after all, I am not just a woman. I am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions, who will find it hard to flourish if society becomes more conflict-averse and consensus-driven. I am the mother of sons, who will never reach their full potential if they have to grow up in a feminized world. I am—we all are—dependent on institutions like the legal system, scientific research, and democratic politics that support the American way of life, and we will all suffer if they cease to perform the tasks they were designed to do.

Another idea that occurred to me is that the committee that drafted the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, FDR's wife. The UN Declaration of Human Rights was instrumental in establishing what we now understand as progressivism. That piece of international law, (really the origin of 'international law' as we understand it today, beyond just the customary law of embassies) directly led to the Refugee Convention of 1951 that has proven quite troublesome for Europe's migrant crisis, it introduced the principle of non-refoulement. It also inspired the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965):

Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multiracial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races

Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination

Sounds pretty woke! Note that states don't necessarily follow through on international law or sign up with it fully in the first place: Israel, America, Russia and so on routinely ignore these kinds of bodies in the foreign policy sphere. The Conventions and Committees are feminine in a certain sense in that they can be ignored without fear of violence, unlike an army of men. Nevertheless, their urging and clamouring is real and does have an effect, the UN Human Rights Commission helped get sanctions on apartheid South Africa.

To some extent international law could be considered an early feminized field, or perhaps it was born female. Are there any other feminized fields we can easily think of? Therapists, HR and school teachers come to mind, though that seems more recent.

I think this article is directionally correct in some areas but falls to shady and just so thinking in others. The most easy barometer is to check if women in the workplace have this same effect in other cultures and they largely don't if you look at nonwestern developed societies these issues at a personal level are much much less. We don't have unhinged Japanese HR ladies lecturing Japanese salarymen on diversity or the evils of Japaneseness. Or take an example I'm more familiar with China. China has literal political commissars in it's major companies and yet these are a lot less interested in your personal opinions than the DEI offices in the West.

but we don't even need to go that far just take a look at your local Sbarro(or equivalent shitty chain job) My guess would be most of us have worked in a job like this but if you haven't these kind of workplace tensions are almost entirely absent. The personalities you work with and your manager matter far more than whether the Sbarro you work for is majority male of female. A white collar office has a vein of respectability and a political regime that prevents any sort of equilibrium. The HRification of corporate jobs allows a certain type of female toxicity to thrive and I think the line that's most pertinent is the line that a woman has a recourse if her boss runs her workplace like a frat house but a man doesn't if his boss runs it like a kindergarten, however, I don't think this is a natural quality of women entering the workplace. She's entirely right that this is the product of the civil rights act and the HRification of society and I don't think you need much more.

Some of the other conclusions seem a bit less supported for example the supposition that women will ruin law. Anglo/Western forms of law are a delicate thing and extreme outliers in society and we don't see other types of law having these kind of protections. Most law at most times and places essentially all in highly patriarchal societies bears a lot more resemblance to title IX, then to the, Right of Englishmen we enjoy. A lot of the dismantling of traditions and rights is a function of progressivism which yes has more women believers but is not an essential category of womeness. How many Japanese women are arguing to import millions of refugees or release violent offenders? We've created a system of commissars to enforce, White Middle Class progressivism, and give spoils to POC you don't need to anything so drastic as ban women from the workplace you just need to dismantle the system and let offices function like your neighborhood Sbarro.

I think it has a lot to do with context. China and Japan are just significantly different places with different histories and social issues express themselves differently there. Social science doesn't need to encompass the whole world. WEIRD is weird from the perspective of Japan and vis versa. On the one hand, fewer women in high office than in the West. On the other hand, less sexual violence, husbands are supposed to give their wife their wages and receive back an allowance. So is it a feminist country or a patriarchal country? Neither really, the concepts we've built up are based in a context and expectations that aren't there.

Furthermore, Helen is not even saying to ban women from the workplace so much as 'have fair tests for admittance.'

On the other hand, less sexual violence

I think it's just endemic and underreported. I've heard that cops here will often blow off accusations of assault or violence unless it's truly egregious. He's your boyfriend/husband, right? Are you sure you weren't just having a lovers quarrel? He could get in a lot of trouble if you insist on reporting this, you know. What were you doing out this late, anyway? Were you drinking? A young woman your age shouldn't be doing that sort of thing. Etc etc. Which is not to say that they don't have a point, but I think there may be more sexual violence that you see in the news or in official stats.

Wouldn't we be able to tell if it was endemic though? We could estimate maybe via observing the spread of STDs in the country, or murders (hard to hide the disappearance of a dead wife or rape/murder victim), observe the behaviour of Japanese travellers overseas or just check vibes.

There may indeed be more sexual violence than is reported but it's probably still much lower than in the West, where there are also reporting problems (a big cover-up of grooming gangs in the UK for instance). If we do away with official data and go off vibes, pretty sure Japan still comes out ahead.

I think there is definitely less murder and violent assault, it is indeed hard to hide a missing wife or girlfriend.

But unlike many other countries, perverts generally seem to avoid tourists. Western women are stereotyped as being more assertive, and they're generally just physically larger and less demure than Japanese women. And from what I can tell and what I've been told, Japanese men just aren't that attracted to non-Japanese women. There seems to be an assumption that Japanese women are the most feminine, womanly women out there, and that anything else is a downgrade. And there's also the faint but pervasive sentiment permeating every layer and aspect of Japanese life that anything Japanese is "good" and "normal" while anything foreign, while perhaps interesting, is nonetheless alien and inferior (c.f. the stereotypical 20th century Englishman's "proper tea," "proper fish and chips," "foreign parts," etc).

On the other hand, very much like other countries, I've heard that a lot of the sexual assaults happen to lower-class women -- unsupervised teenage daughters of single working moms, young women very drunk or passed out in a nightlife district, and of course, young girls in crowded trains (although this seems to be decreasing). It seems like there is quite a lot of this, and tourists rarely experience it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats