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 -
Compact published a quite thorough analysis of the discrimination millennial white men have faced since the mid-2010s, focusing on the liberal arts and cultural sectors. It does a good job of illustrating the similar dynamics at play in fields including journalism, screenwriting, and academia, interviewing a number of men who found their careers either dead on arrival or stagnating due to their race and gender. It's a bit long, but quite normie-friendly, with plenty of stats to back up the personal anecdotes. It also does a good job of illustrating the generational dynamics at play, where older white men pulled the ladder up behind them, either for ideological reasons or as a defense mechanism to protect their own positions.
A great quote from near the end of the piece that sums it up:
Edit: typo
“What troubles me is that a lot of thriving white millennial men have had to follow the Josh Hawley path, where you have to leave liberal America,” an old friend, the father of two biracial children, told me. “I don't want to do that. Liberal America is my home. But if everyone says, this is not the place for you, what are you supposed to do?”
Can anyone clarify this part please? I don't know who that Hawley guy is, and according to Wikipedia, he was never a liberal.
Apparently Josh Hawley wrote a book called Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs. According to AI, in this book Hawley extols more conservative path for men, rejecting "epicurean liberalism" and embracing masculine roles and archetypes such as builder, warrior, father etc. So I think it is a lament that liberals reject men and masculinity, and thus shove men toward more conservative path in order to succeed.
Semi off-topic (but CW):
The word 'warrior' to refer to a member of the armed forces of a democratic state is, as kids say these days, Problematic.
ACOUP:
Angry staff officer:
The closest we have to a separate warrior class -- people who see themselves as permanently apart from the broader society, for whom to engage in violence is a fundamental part of their identity -- these days are probably criminal gangs (or especially corrupt police departments, if there is a difference).
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think "liberalism" (here being used to refer to the prevailing value system of the pro-establishment left in the early 21st century Anglosphere) rejects the masculine virtues. The problem is that "liberalism" has decided that it needs to focus on promoting the masculine virtues in women through "Lean in" culture, physically badass women in popular entertainment etc.
The strong form of this claim is that liberalism hasn't rejected men or masculinity, but it has rejected masculinity in men.
The weaker form of this claim is that the culture-directing institutions of liberalism don't actually reject masculinity in men, but it has decided that it doesn't have the bandwidth to promote it given the dire need to create more girlbosses and warrior women.
This is actually a good point, although I think about it a little bit differently. There is only one set of virtues for both sexes - be it stoic virtues like wisdom, courage, justice and temperance or Christian heavenly virtues (the opposite of deadly sins) like humility, chastity, temperance, charity, kindness, patience and diligence.
Some of these virtues are gender coded, because they are more important for a given sex. For instance if large majority of women lost courage, it would be bad but manageable. But if most men lost their courage, it could be disastrous as they would fail in their role as protectors. The same let's say with kindness for women in their role of mothers and nurturers etc. But it does not mean that men should not be kind or that women should not be courageous.
What I actually think is that leftism completely warped the notion of virtues, and promotes sins instead. It literally promotes for mothers to kill their unborn babies, it promotes pride for gays, it promotes lust as a new norm and it promotes racial revenge and anger, it promotes stupidity as opposed to wisdom where women cannot be given any advise also called as mansplaining. The same goes for "boss babe" narrative - if she was a man, he would be seen as an unhinged petty tyrant, not as a brave man tempered by patience and wisdom worthy to be followed. So "epicurean liberalism" produces emasculated and emotional men as well as toxically masculine women.
In a sense it is inevitable result of leftist analysis of reducing everything to power struggle. If feminists view masculinity as strong and oppressive, while femininity was historically weak and unable to resist, they just want to flip the script, and thus they embody their warped sense of masculinity as source of power. I found this always as a weak point of many of the leftist narratives. For instance - if you are a black woman who believes that white people have privilege, does it not mean that from a pragmatic standpoint you should strive to marry a white husband, so your children can partake in power of whiteness, while black husband will only cause them more misery and adversity? It is self-defeating in that way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems likely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link