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 -
This, of course, is why garbage men and truck drivers are among the most admired and desirable professions.
The point is that, from a bioessentialist framework, the female role requires little to no particular strength of character. Pregnancy is a completely automatic process, caring for babies may be arduous but is not particularly skilled work, and if you believe the hereditarians, the actual raising of children has little effect on how they turn out. Additionally, none of the above tasks is particularly suited to cooperative effort, stunting the potential for camaraderie; as the saying goes, nine women can't make a baby in one month. Thus, if woman's sole or primary duty is to fulfill the female biological role, she will be naturally baser and ignobler than the men she pairs with, who must cultivate virtue in themselves to become capable protectors and providers.
The question, then, is how much impact has this lack of incentive for virtue had on the evolutionary development (or lack thereof) of the female mind. While I personally believe that ingrained differences in potential for virtue between men and women are relatively minimal, what differences exist are surely exaggerated by restrictive norms surrounding women's options for societal contribution.
Not everything is a market, and so not all value is derived from supply and demand. Otherwise jokes like this or this would not land.
I'd say in a pure bioessentialist framework there is no such thing as a "female role". You either are a man or a woman, which may have implication as to your strengths and weaknesses, but what you do with that is up to you.
But in any case, I reject the claim. The biological function of conceiving and giving birth might not require any particular strength of character, but motherhood absolutely does. Patience, wisdom, or love, are all strengths of character.
That's... a bizarre way to look at it. There's plenty of room for camaraderie with the father of the children, and with the extended family, and I don't see how the inability to ship off the production of babies to China, to be done at scale, would be a detriment to that.
You're using some strange definition of virtue, because I don't think men's physical strength, ability to rotate shapes in their mind, hand-eye coordination, or what have you, are virtues, so I don't really see a reason to disagree with the statement that the difference in men's and women's potential for virtue are minimal. But if you do associate virtue with these traits than I think you're pretty obviously wrong, social constructivists have been trying for decades force equality, but sex-differences keep reasserting themselves. The idea that there currently are any restrictive norms on women is absurd on it's face.
Finally, you're still not really addressing my point, you're just elaborating on yours. I said that if according to you men and women are the same, and should be judged by the same criteria as men, any failure to perform at the same level as men is proof that they're inferior. It is therefore your framework that robs them of their dignity.
Okay, so a big brain skilled guy like you should easily be able to handle a room full of six month old kids with no prior training or instruction, yeah? So easy that you'd like to give up your current demanding job and take on this easy, soft, job for money for jam?
I work in a place that is a childcare centre (not as a childminder myself) for ages 12 months to four years old. It's a hell of a lot tougher than shooting from the hip comments like this imagine. There are even, gasp!, government standards to hit for each developmental phase!
What did I do? I'm arguing your side here!
Sorry, it's the whole "pfft, caring for kids is so easy-peasy even the stupidest woman (but I repeat myself) can do it!" thing that is not making "hey, being a wife and mother is indeed an important work that should be allocated a higher status than it is". If you're trying to fight decades of "staying at home and having kids is wasting your talents, your value and your life" teaching, then repeating "child care is unskilled labour any fule can do" is not gonna help.
I think you missed that you responded to Arjin, when the quoted statement you're arguing against was made by Eupraxia one comment up.
So, why are you attacking Arjin for a comment he didn't make — and even argued against — instead of the person who said it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The person you're replying to seems to be constitutionally incapable of engaging in actual argument or debate, at least when the topic is related to feminism or gender roles and similar. Not worth wasting your time with them.
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