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 manosphere stuff appeals to two kinds of men -- men who can't get laid, and men who can get laid more than they think is reasonable. You see that in the distribution of complaints about dating on the motte: on the one hand you have the Hock guy, and on the other you have Sloot. One side talks up to women, even if they're complaining; they see women as having more power and options than them, and are annoyed/frustrated/alienated by the gap. The other side talks down to women, seeing them as weak souls with no emotional resilience or backbone who, in the words of Sloot, defend their wonderfulness even as they violate it.
The point of the manosphere, and perhaps why the outrage is so high, is that it consists of men who are in the latter group trying to recruit men in the former group to join them. Feminists get upset at this because its goal is to convert men with less power than women into men with more power than women, who look down on women and see them as manipulable, and it's not hard to see how feminism would find that alarming. Conservatives/normies/romantics get upset at this because it asserts that any kind of complementarianism/egalitarianism/mutuality is false consciousness, and that's their whole orientation towards intimacy. Traditionalists get upset at this because it argues that women are weak souls with no emotional resilience or backbone, and men should exploit this for their own benefit. Traditionalists instead make the very different argument that women are weak souls with no emotional resilience or backbone, and men should be beneficent to them because of it. That tension is pretty explicit; some of our trad posters will say essentially just this, and then in the next breath call Sloot a sexist.
That said, I have no clue what feminism is actually saying to men nowadays. I actually think they're saying nothing. Like you said, normies/trashy women are spilling their tea all over the internet now, and so exposure to women's concerns about dating is unregulated and not filtered through feminist beliefs except insofar as young women reach for feminist concepts they've heard of to ground whatever feelings they have in something concrete. For that reason, a lot of the dating and marriage complaints just come across as petty and boring, not meaningfully different from the complaints that you could hear about boyfriends and husbands in 1980 or 1999.
Excuse me, I call Sloot a misogynist. There is a difference.
Men are beneficent to women because of civilization; we don't live in a might makes right world where the weak suffer what they must. I mean we could, but we would be unable to maintain running water and colour TVs and microwaves and all those nice benefits of civilization. Resenting this beneficence specifically towards women(yes, many women are trashy, self absorbed etc) is misogynistic. Noting that they need it is I guess technically sexism, but it's a justified sexism. Sort of like how I guess you could term it paedophobia or something equally ridiculous to argue that 5 year olds shouldn't have driving licenses, but the retort to that isn't playing definitional games or getting mad at some poor kindergartners for not being able to drive. It's what we were already doing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link