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 -
Feminism is really diverse. There are kinds of feminism that revolve around hating men and there are also kinds of feminism that just support legal equality between men and women. Supporting legal equality for women is not a hate ideology.
Where?
Here in Austria, we still have mandatory military/civil service for men only - literally defined as gender-based "forced labour" (Zwangsarbeit) in our constitution. Since our demographics are shrinking, this vital pool of manpower (these 18-year old boys drive most ambulances, do most dirty work in retirement homes, hospitals, integration homes, not to speak of yearly dangerous cleanup missions when our rural regions periodically get flooded) is shrinking too - begging the question if maybe women could also get conscripted to these tasks.
Our female defence minister - a self-proclaimed feminist from the CONSERVATIVE Party - immediately rejected the idea that women should also receive this legal obligation, called it sexist, and instead proposed extending the amount of time young men are conscripted into forced labour. This forced labour is also paid far below average wages (I believe its almost half of what the minimum wage for a full time job would be) and is routinely described as a "Hungerlohn" - a "starvation wage" that is by design not sufficient to survive off of.
This is a feminist from the f*cking Conservative party of Austria, openly saying she would rather exploit young men more and harder rather than simply enact gender equality and have this massive burden be shared equally by both genders.
In Germany, they abolished their mandatory conscription of males, but are now gradually phasing it back in again - do you want to guess which political groups where most vehemently opposed to the proposal of also having women added to conscription? Yes, it was feminist groups and political parties who self-define as feminist, obviously. OBVIOUSLY.
Sorry, I don't see any feminists who support legal equality between men and women - probably because said legal equality has already been achieved for women half a century ago and all remaining discrepancies (sentencing disparities, men not legally being able to be victims of rape by a woman, divorce court, conscription, etc.) benefit women and harm men indisputably. All said remaining discrepancies are actively supported by feminists across the spectrum, without exception. If any sincere feminist was only seeking legal equality, their unique remaining cause today would be erasing these remaining legal distinctions that harm men - but these feminists do not exist, because that's not what feminism is.
More options
Context Copy link
In other words, there's bailey feminism and motte feminism. "we just want equality" is simply a Trojan horse used by feminists to deflect and distract.
If the support is being made in good faith. In practice, it almost never is.
But perhaps I'm missing something important or misunderstanding you. Would you care to identify (1) three important ways in the United States where men and women don't have legal equality; and (2) three significant feminists who are working primarily to end these inequalities?
I'm sure that "we just want equality" is a Trojan horse for some feminists. Not for others.
Men and women currently have do legal equality in the United States. However, that does not meant that feminists whose primary concern is legal equality have just vanished. I sometimes argue online against people who would like to get rid of that equality. So I am a feminist whose primary concern is legal equality, yet in that capacity I still find things to do.
Why even bother replying if you won't address the 2 direct questions asked for you to clarify your positions? We can all read, so your ignoring of the main substance of the message you're replying to isn't lost on anyone.
Again: what are some examples of men and women not enjoying legal equality in current-day America? These must exist, since according to you there are feminists who's sole goal is legal equality - hence these feminists can only exist if legal inequalities still persist, so what are they?
For one, women are not legally allowed to register with selective service. The feminist "equal rights" take on the situation is certainly something:
Interestingly, unlike in Valame v Biden, there is no mention of seeking true legal equality with men, as Equal Means Equal merely seeks the court determine that women be allowed to register unlike men who are required to and thus does not seek to have women suffer the same statutory penalties for not registering. Nor do they even mention that aspect of legal inequality for that matter.
Yes, this is exactly what I expected. The very idea that a man could sue for legal discrimination is such an existential threat for feminism that it needs to be dismissed and restated through a lens in which it’s about women gaining rights instead of men alleviating discrimination against them.
The mere suggestion that men as a gender could gain something by equalizing the law is registered as innately dangerous by feminists - which is only coherent since feminism today is about harming men first and foremost.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Men and women currently have legal equality in the United States.
They pretty clearly don't have legal equity, though. I believe the feminists/progressives are correct when they say this matters; where they're wrong is that they have excess privilege and will on balance be more oppressed than men if it was to be equalized. (Which is why they're not exactly in a hurry.)
Equality was supposed to be a stepping stone to equity, and the liberals were correct that it would [and did] help in that regard, but it's gone as far as it realistically can and other solutions are now needed. Strict egalitarianism was perhaps OK in the early-mid 20th century, but in the 21st now leads to destructive nonsense, like forcing women to permit men to compete in women's sports so long as they claim to be female, institutional sexism (gender quotas, etc.) in companies, moral hazard enabled by human instinct to value women more than men, etc., which helps nobody, intentionally frustrates your high performers, and weakens the social contract for everyone else.
So no, I don't think strict legal equality is desirable any more. I think women need to be punished for hysteria just as much as men do for violence as hysteria is their biological way of marshaling violence (we punish those who hire hitmen in equal measure as the hitmen themselves for this reason), and that human dignity must be balanced against pure safety concerns when drafting laws (for in its majestic equality, the law prevents both men and women from activities and socialization preferred by men).
More options
Context Copy link
Ok, please identify three prominent feminists in the United States whose primary concern is legal equality.
Edit: My mental model based on years of observations is that (1) feminists -- generally speaking -- are man-haters, grifters, and generally bad people; and (2) the idea that feminism just wants legal equality is a fantasy used by feminists to deflect attention from this.
But I am open to be proven wrong. At a minimum, if "we just want legal equality" is a significant part of the feminist movement and not just a motte, it should be pretty easy to identify 3 prominent feminists whose primary concern is legal equality. But I doubt you will be able to do it. I'm pretty confident that if you identify these individuals, it will be apparent that in reality (1) they spend little or no effort pursuing legal equality; and (2) most of their effort is spent man-bashing, grifting, and/or demanding special treatment for women.
Admittedly, demands for special treatment for women are often disguised as demands for equality. For example, demands that more women be put on the boards of directors of big companies. But what gives the game away is that (1) these demands are not for legal equality but rather demands for equality in results; and (2) inevitably, these demands are very selective -- there is little or no complaint about the fact that the vast majority of coal mining deaths are male or the fact that the vast majority of homeless people are male.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's feminism that revolves around hating men and there's feminism that support women having every advantage a man has and then some. The latter styles itself as supporting legal equality but it does not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link