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 -
As I mentioned back in July, every month in our office canteen, a member of the HR team hangs up posters on the noticeboard of notable days or commemorations which fall within that calendar month. A lot of these are harmless days and observations that no one could take exception to (World Friendship Day, World Chocolate Day etc.), but a significant number this month were of a more... strident nature. In descending order from the top of the notice board:
Numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5 are unobjectionable (curious if I'll hear the "ugh, every day is International Men's Day!" joke two weeks from today). With regard to #3, my immediate thought was "for God's sake, how many days do you people need?" But my primary reaction was a feeling that 3, 5 and 6 are all in tension with one another, and that anyone who thinks about this for long enough would realise how unstable the coalition is.
More than anything I'm reminded of Scott's evergreen post "Neutral vs. Conservative: The Eternal Struggle":
Were I to argue that male rapists with intact penises don't belong in women's prisons, I'd doubtless be accused of bringing politics into the workplace, but observing Trans Awareness Week is just being a decent person. Were I to point out the shockingly brutal acts of violence against women Hamas committed on October 7th, I'd doubtless be accused of bringing politics into the workplace*; but announcing that you "stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people" is just being a decent person.
I don't know. I'm frustrated. I'd have no problem with a "don't talk about politics in work" rule, provided it was applied consistently.
*Even if I prefaced it by saying that Israel's response was disproportionate, and acknowledging that Israel has also committed crimes against humanity.
Maybe I am typical minding too much but I think if you tried describing these "tensions" to people who support both the things you identify as in tension they would come off as non-sequiturs.
My impression is that most of the people celebrating something like "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" likely believe there is an ethnic cleansing, if not genocide, going on in the West Bank and Gaza. Carried out by some combination of the Israeli government and private settlers. I would be surprised if their objections to this state of affairs evaporated on learning that Palestinians were anti-trans or misogynistic. The two things do not seem connected to each other. I don't think people's objection to Israel's treatment of Palestinians is premised on those Palestinians having progressive politics, though I am open to being wrong about this.
When people are thinking of something like "Transgender Awareness Week" they are thinking about struggles trans people have accessing healthcare. Or discrimination they might face in employment in housing. Similarly when people are thinking of "International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women" they are probably thinking of the elimination of, like, intimate partner violence. Assault by strangers. "Male rapists claiming to be trans to access women in prison" are just not salient to either groups conception of what the events are about.
Why? Tens of thousands of people have been crowing for weeks that Charlie Kirk deserved to be murdered because of his "transphobic rhetoric" and/or his opposition to abortion. It's probably a safe bet that Kirk was less misogynistic and anti-LGBT than the modal Palestinian.
I don't think they are. I think they're primarily thinking about the main culture war flashpoints, almost all of which involve male people in women's spaces.
I agree that they aren't salient. My argument is that they should be. My argument is that it's incoherent to claim to oppose violence against women and yet support policies that put women at greater risk of physical harm for the benefit of men.
I don't see it as particularly more incoherent than when right-wingers, who are generally hardly known for wanting to improve the lot of imprisoned criminals, develop a strange and very isolated compassion towards women prisoners who are forced to share their prison tracts with men.
It would be easier to make sense of the sentiment if it were presented as outrage at the MtF criminals getting off lightly/getting to enjoy a fox-in-the-chicken-coop scenario, rather than the appropriation of care foundation language we are getting. (Something about using the master's tools on the master's house?)
There's nothing incoherent about thinking the punishment should fit the crime. When a woman commits a crime, her punishment is to be sent to prison. Her punishment is not to be penetratively raped (and possibly impregnated) by one of her fellow inmates.
How does prison rape happen? Presumably if you can forcefully penetrate your fellow inmates and get away with it, you can also do all sorts of other violence to them. Anecdotally, this happens a lot, including in single-sex prisons. Is that part of the "fitting" punishment? What about male-on-male prison rape? I have never heard anyone on the right take up a crusade to reduce those things, and surely, in the age of robotics, tasers and $50 HD CCTV we could easily shut down all physical forms of prisoner-on-prisoner violence in no time if a critical mass of people didn't think it's all part of the punishment.
It's a bit too convenient if of all unscheduled tribulations of prison, the only one that you think urgently needs to be addressed happens to be one where the indicated solution would be to grant you a symbolic victory on a culture war topic that otherwise has nothing to do with prisons.
For deep-seated reasons rooted in evolutionary psychology, almost everyone feels an intrinsic protectiveness towards women, even in cases where the woman in question has broken the law. Most people feel more horrified when hearing about a woman being penetratively raped than they do when hearing about a man being penetratively raped. This is probably related to the fact that female people can be impregnated against their will, and are systematically weaker and less able to defend themselves than male people are.
You don't need to agree with this, or think it's fair or logical, to understand the instinctual reaction. I think "instinctual horror against women being mistreated" has a great deal more explanatory power than immediately jumping to the conclusion that conservative opposition to trans women in female prisons has nothing to do with a desire to protect female inmates, and is solely rooted in hatred of trans people.
Do you assume women's prisons are meaningfully less violent than men's prisons? After having seen an assortment bodycam videos of female criminals getting arrested, I would find that doubtful. Were you aware of headlines such as this?
None of this other mistreatment seems to trigger the same instinctual reaction in right-wingers, at least not to the extent that I have even once seen them bring it up. All I am asking is that you apply the same standard that, in your opening post, you wanted to be applied to the "woke coalition": that if they visibly care about and campaign against one instance of a bad thing but are apparently indifferent to another which is so adjacent that you couldn't possibly miss it if you looked at the former, this is prima facie evidence that their true principles entail approval of the latter regardless of what their stated principles say.
I don't even think you are wrong, in your diagnosis of the "woke coalition". It's just that you earn no points for recognising that your outgroup is hypocritical and unprincipled. Do not even the 'publicans the same?
I don't assume, I know:
Given that your article is from the UK, it won't surprise you to learn that the story is much the same over there as far as homicides go. It appears that not a single woman or trans person has been murdered in prison since at least 2015. If per capita homicide rates between the male and female estate were identical, you would expect two women murdered in the period.
Interesting that the UK is one country in which male inmates have been housed in the female estate, this is a recent phenomenon, this article comments on a huge spike in violence in the female estate, and yet doesn't mention the sexes of any of the perpetrators of this violence. I'm not saying that this spike is entirely attributable to the relatively new presence of male inmates in the female estate, but it sure is interesting that the source you provided specifically comments on the fact that the current rate of violence in the female estate is
As I said previously, I think a great many people have an instinctive reaction of horror and outrage when they learn about a male person assaulting a female person, and this reaction isn't triggered when they hear about a male person assaulting a male person or a female person assaulting a female person. We can debate whether that's fair, appropriate or logical until the cows come home, but I think that instinctive reaction has a great deal more explanatory power in why conservatives might object to male people in women's prisons or contact sports than the pat answer of "they hate trans people and want to make their lives difficult out of sheer bloody-mindedness".
What standard am I failing to apply? I am strongly opposed to violence against women, as a consequence I've donated literally thousands of euros to my local rape crisis centre and am strongly opposed to male inmates being housed in the female estate. I don't feel any kind of inconsistency.
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