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 -
One tenet that was getting repeated on those sites is that women don't understand cause and effect well because it's unnecessary for childrearing.
Golly these people are sexist. Women do do better with male supervision but only if those men don't hate them for being women.
Well, I guess they'd say that they hate women not for being women per se, but for being irrational, cowardly, idiotic, etc etc you get it. The chuddiest among them might draw parallels to 13/52 and whatnot.
Honestly, they have a point. The moral inferiority of womankind is an obvious conclusion of most redpill/traditionalist thought, but proponents of such always either handwave it away or dutifully ignore the implications.
But hating them for these things does not help to lead them. The bible's first instruction for husbands is 'love your wives' presented as being as important as wives submitting to their husbands.
Well, just like when a wife stops submitting when a husband demonstrates over the long term that he doesn’t love her, when women as a class have demonstrated over the long term that they are not interested in anything that even smells like submitting, they shouldn’t anticipate much love from men as a class.
The Bible also has plenty of examples of God allowing his loved children to get the fruits of their bad decisions good and hard while saying some extremely harsh things about them/us, and that’s sometimes part of actually loving someone.
Gender Marxism, man, it’s toxic in every respect. Individual women are not part of a class, I mean, obviously they have interests as a class, but they prefer their interests as part of a family. Corporatism, you know, not Marxism. Women aren’t defective men and men arent defective women, either.
Red pill bullshit makes me worry for my daughters more than feminism does. Granted lots of that is just exposure bias. But there are still good women out there. They don’t deserve to be treated like radical feminists. Women respond to love and care and consideration, even if they’re in a defensive mode.
I don’t know which sex, on average, defected first. The whole question seems entirely irrelevant. What matters is what an individual should do, how to build virtue, and treating people in accordance with their god given gender roles. No, that’s not exactly the same, but it’s also not in revenge for what some other person who happens to have the same chromosomal configuration did. Listen to the Bible instead of coming up with excuses, I’d tell the same thing to the gays, drug users, etc. Don’t come at me about anarcho-tyranny or whatever the latest ‘Christian moral rules are for cucks’ framing is. Women should submit to their husbands and men should love their wives, but neither of these things is preconditioned. It’s a requirement, not a contractual arrangement. That’s for Mohammedans.
This gives me quizzical eyebrows. There are multiple examples of God, in the Bible, treating people as a class. Surely not every single child in Jericho was more inherently wicked than an Israelite child, and yet God instructed the Israelites to kill them all, young and old.
Not every single person in the Kingdom of Israel could have been fully deserving of being conquered by the Assyrians. But they still were caught up in the disaster that fell upon the Kingdom, which God had been warning them about, as a class, for some time.
That being said, there are, I firmly believe, millions of good women out there in America. I want my boys to find the good woman for them, and then be good, responsible, kind, loving husbands who deserve their position at the head of the family, just as much as I imagine you would want the gender-swapped version for your girls. The problem is that those millions of women either have next to no voice or are not exercising it to sufficiently to reel in their sisters. Isaiah and Josiah tried everything they could, and the general trend of Judah was still in the direction of being conquered by Babylon. Even Deborah managed to get the Israelites to stay in line for only 40 years.
This is less to do with woman specifically, but I don’t think Christian moral rules are cucked. I think they’re great, the result of literally the best thing that ever happened to the Earth and humans. I just also think Urban II was a good Pope and that as recently as 1881 in our Church and civilization, Christians just like you and I could grasp the idea that the guy who started the chant “God wills it!” and was the first mover for hundreds of years of bloodshed, is also Blessed in Heaven.
No disagreement there. I too have read Theology of the Body.
This I’m really confused about, because I don’t think they line up well.
If I treat a woman, in the workplace, in accordance with her God-given gender role, perhaps by saying something like “I don’t know if it’s really worth it for you to keep being a lawyer/doctor/shelf-stacker if you can at all avoid it. Children benefit way more from having Mom around, vs going to daycare, and you might find that you like being a stay-at-home Mom more than you thought.” Or something like “It’s better to get married and have kids when you’re young, then think about building your career later.” I mean, really, what’s your over/under on when HR comes around to tell me to stop being such a sexist, or just cuts straight to finding a reason to fire me?
Maybe I should do it anyways, and have the courage of my convictions. I’m no Daniel, I’m not brave to face the incredibly lame corporate arena like the martyr’s, better men than me, were.
But I just don’t see why I shouldn’t treat the average woman like a radical feminist? I don’t see a need to invite more unpleasantness into my life by being chivalric towards them. I’m chivalric towards my wife, the parish ladies, and that’s about it, honestly.
I don’t know if you think that I have some desire to grind the boot into women’s faces or something, but I don’t.
I do, however, think that we are living through the consequences of the modern bio-Leninist view of equality, and the child sacrifice/sexual perversions/upending of gender relations and even the concept of sex itself that came with that view.
I hold out hope. Nineveh received a long reprieve when they repented. We still could too. I just don’t think it’s likely, and that we’re all going to get what some of us wanted, good and hard, eventually. I think having this point of view is at least as loving as, say, Jeremiah, who really did want the best for his people.
You are not God. God is not you.
But in any event, the biblical account of God also has multiple examples of God engaging differently with some individuals out of a class. These things are not trivial to just take one way or another.
If you can go back through my post history, and tell me where I said or even, in your opinion, implied I am God, I will then assume this comment is in good faith.
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