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 -
The Constitution says "all people are equal before the law." Everyone knows that this is an aspiration, and that in reality, rich people, people with good lawyers, people who are in favor, have an easier time in any interaction with the law than people who are not.
You seem to be objecting to the idea that we should just make that tacit understanding explicit, and fair enough - poor people are supposed to be equal to rich people before the law, and it would be wrong to say "C'mon, we all know that's not how it works" and just accept the legal system dropping all pretense of fairness. We should at least try to uphold a sense of fairness.
On the other hand, it would be doing someone who's at a severe disadvantage a grave injustice to let them walk into a legal battle thinking that they actually are not at a disadvantage just because in some ideal world, they shouldn't be.
This is where it seems your argument regarding women's sports lies. You are, as other people are wont to say, trying to substitute a should for an is. People (feminists and female sports defenders, anyway) would really, really like for women to be physically equal to men, as athletically impressive as men, and for women's sports to be as exciting and admirable as men's sports.
But they're not. They're just not. And this isn't even society failing to living up to an ideal: it's biology! (I have actually met people--men and women--who die on the hill of "male-female differences are actually minimal if not nonexistent" and those people have never done martial arts or full contact sports with girls, or with boys if they are girls.) Women cannot compete with men. No, I don't care about your niche ultra-marathons or long-distance swimming or winter shooting events or whatever (where it usually turns out men actually outperform there too if you actually look at the numbers, just not by as large a margin).
Of course that doesn't mean you should tell your daughter that her athletic accomplishments are meaningless because "men will always be stronger and faster"! Of course that doesn't mean women shouldn't do sports and be celebrated for excelling in them! But- you are doing them a disservice to let them believe that because they are really good at women's sports, they can compete with men. Or that any disparity in results (and in accolades and awards) is because of sexism and not, well, biology. And that's where a lot of folks are now-- they somehow convince themselves that because women and men are morally equal, that women's and men's sports should be physically (and thus, monetarily) equal. And that if WNBA players don't make as much money as NBA players it's because of sexism, and if people cheer more for the men's hockey team than the women's hockey team it's because of sexism. And not because, well, sorry, but unless you're the father of a girl athlete (or a lesbian), you probably just don't find female sports all that interesting to watch compared to the peak performance male version.
Now, a more gracious president would have invited both the men's and women's USA hockey teams to the White House and done a nice coed photo-op and celebrated them together, and we'd all have pretended that yes, they are totally equally deserving and we celebrate them equally. Trump is not a gracious president. But then, the response from the same people who've been insisting we pretend that men and women are equal has also been exceedingly ungracious. The men's hockey team are "losers" because... the wrong people are cheering for them. And because (if we're being real) that iconic picture of a guy with a bloody mouth and a tooth knocked out, smiling in victory, is a big in-your-face reminder of the difference between male and female athleticism and what we valorize. Which makes certain people Very Uncomfortable.
Going back to your point, this whole pretense that men and women can (should) be physically equal is actively dangerous in the realm of self-defense, where too many women have been raised on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Black Widow in the MCU and the like, and really believe their tae kwon do black belts mean they could take on a grown man who seriously means to do them harm.
In that context, yes, you should absolutely tell your daughters: "I love your enthusiasm, I celebrate your victories, I encourage your efforts- but you should never believe you are equal to a man."
I did not claim women could be physically on par with men (though I wouldn't mind if they were in the future, through transhumanust efforts). If I thought they were, I would be advocating for them to enter the free-for-all league, not for the dignity of their own league.
I even used an analogy where the leagues are even more different in peak ability than men and women are to drive my point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link