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 -
You should use the feedback you are getting to appreciate the Motte for its true purpose, which is to test (and sometimes discard) your shady ideas. Because as a number of people have pointed out, the right is not lacking in sexual predators, or the tendency to close ranks to protect their own.
What you are noticing is that leftist sexual predators are of a particular type, which is somewhat different than rightist sexual predators. Right-wingers who like to do a little groomin', rapin', and molestin' generally don't make excuses for it (unless it's part of some religious cult thing); they just do it (if they can get away with it) and hide it (if their followers would not approve). Whereas leftists will try to wrap it in their ideology, hence all the "male feminist" sex pests, hence all the grooming by professors and creatives and academics and the like of adoring female acolytes (though this is not a lot different than "grooming" of groupies by rock stars back in the day), hence the current wave of "polyamory"-related implosions.
So you aren't wrong to notice that there is a... kind of thing that is particular to the left. You're just wrong to think that this kind of thing is part of the fundamental psychology of leftists, and not just the same thing fundamental to the psychology of basically all amoral people with means, motive, and opportunity, but styled in a particularly leftist way.
"hence all the grooming by professors and creatives and academics and the like of adoring female acolytes (though this is not a lot different than "grooming" of groupies by rock stars back in the day)"
I don't deny that this sort of grooming happens, but I wonder why? I mean surely these sorts of people have the pick of the litter, if they asked girls out on a date or flirted normally surely they'd get alot of sucess.
It's not really 'grooming' it's these women not getting the relationship they want after sleeping with him. Right wing leaders being pressured to follow through on (even implied)relationship promises more often is probably a big part of having fewer sex scandals.
More options
Context Copy link
Because it is usually not "grooming" in the sense that they are intentionally preying on these women from the start. Rather, it is usually more that the women become infatuated and initiate the sexual interest (eg, through flirting), they eventually catch feelings and lose the will to maintain appropriate boundaries, and the women discover their infatuation didn't lead to the (unrealistic) desired relationship so they blame him for their original behavior rather than accepting responsibility themselves. The entire situation boils down to society refusing to treat women as adults with agency.
I basically agree with this, but I would add the following:
If you are a man, it's pretty nice to have desirable women approaching you. And that's what typically happens if (1) you are a man; (2) you are in a high status position in an organization or institution; (3) you have regular contact with desirable women in the organization or institution; and (4) you are at least mediocre in terms of physical attractiveness.
The alternative to having desirable women approaching you is to seek them out yourself. Which consumes time and energy and more often than not leads to the unpleasant experience of being rejected.
I think that's not entirely true. Rather, women pivot back and forth between "helpless child" and "adult with agency" depending on what's convenient. A society that truly refused to treat women as adults with agency would put substantial limits on their autonomy. As a small example, it used to be common for girls' college dormitories to have curfews and to not permit male visitors after a certain hour.
We give them the appearance of agency and then step in when that gets them in trouble, much like we do for teens. And since women's status is so heavily based around appearances, for many that is all the agency they desire. And likewise since men's status is so tied up in saving women, a lot of men are more than happy to give them just enough agency to get in trouble that they need to be "saved" from...
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