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 -
So "Into The Manosphere" is a netflix documentary, that im sure many here have heard of.
Here is a video on it that I watched, by a psychiatrist. Although I enjoyed it enough, there is a common sentiment that deserves to critiqued, one that was echoed in the video, that i will simplify with a youtube comment (note: this comment is in response to another comment, the context of whic i will be representing by {} brackets):
I think this gender abolitionist framing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Men & Women are judged and valued by society differently. Men are valued based on their ability to climb up social hierarchy to obtain status. Women's value is more reflected by their attractiveness, and reproductive capabilities. Masculinity (attempts) to provide useful guidelines and structure to achieve this end. Women simply do not exist in the same space, so their variation of being a role model wouldn't be a good representation of the male position. It would be a kin to a white man trying to be a role model for black boys - the critical social context is not there.
Women don't grow up thinking about how to be woman, because much of what defines femininity is there by default. You are simply born a sexy girl - you simply gestate a fetus - and then give birth to it. There is little to no skill barrier required in comparison.
The problem with "being yourself" as so often espoused by liberal types is that, it provides 0 road map to achieving the traits that women (and people in general) value in men. & this is the same general issue I take with the manosphere opponents - Many of these individuals believe completely asinine and reality denying ideas like "Looks don't matter" or "You just need to be a good person to be attractive". The manosphere, for all its misogyny and toxicity, is at least calling out the reality of the situation: If you are poor, fat, and socially inept - as a man, you will be harshly judged and looked down on within our society. This is - arguably - one of the main appeals of the manosphere to begin with. If one really wants to see the manosphere go away - we need to start looking at these realities of life straight to the face. Only then can one begin to provide meaningfully positive alternatives.
The problem with the gender abolitionist framing is that when push comes to shove virtually no one actually believes it. There are a lot of culturally contingent ideas about femininity and masculinity and associated gender roles and there's some heated disagreement over how much the behavioral differences between men and women are rooted in biology(/natural order) vs indoctrination, but the number of people who think we should actually get rid of gender distinctions is close to zero. What is passed off as gender abolitionism tends to merely be a rebellion against perceived male supremacism and heteronormativity. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of women like being women. When they chafe against the strictures of womanhood, they're not (generally) saying "I wish I could be a man," they are saying "I wish I didn't have to put up with all this bullshit."
All of which is to say, I don't think hostility to the development of any sort of masculinist/male-specific movement descents from a serious belief in gender abolitionism. Rather, there are two main motives:
a) a zero-sum view of gender relations, under which any sort of men's movement is a problem because men's gain is women's loss and vice versa.
b) the (usually correct) fear that any men's movement or space will rapidly become anti-woman.
However, you can't just come out and say "men shouldn't be allowed to advocate for their interests because they'll inevitably become a threat to women." That sort of gives the game away. Instead the issue is dressed up in gender abolitionist rhetoric wherein men's interest in masculinity is held to be illegitimate/mistaken in and of itself (as illustrated in the quoted excerpt). However, this doesn't get great traction with men because it's transparently one-sided (and also bullshit). You can't make a big deal about the importance of representation for women and then turn around and say it's not important for men.
(There is also the separate reality that modern liberalism is very hands off on the question of what it means to live well, which makes it averse to highly prescriptive social norms. This includes strongly defined gender roles.)
I can't speak from firsthand experience due to not being a woman, but from what I can observe and have been told, this is very much not true. Girls have their behavior policed from a young age, and while the framing (and content) may be different across social contexts, the basic idea of needing to learn feminine ('ladylike') behavior and skills is omnipresent. Even in the purely physical domain, feminine beauty is, while helped along to a great degree by genetics, heavily artificial. Often in ways men are hilariously blind to (e.g. many men are comically bad at noticing when women are wearing makeup)
More options
Context Copy link
I’d phrase it as: society generally believes that men need to be prepared for marriage through conditioning, rewards and punishments, whereas in the case of women this is unneeded, because they are naturally a) monogamous b) inclined to become mothers. This isn’t incorrect as such, as women are indeed naturally monogamous, with the caveat that their promiscuity, to the extent that it is indulged, manifests as serial monogamy, which is something that has zero allure to promiscuous men. And the motherhood part obviously no longer necessarily asserts itself in a world of cheap and reliable contraception, abortion access, various distractions etc.
I’d phrase it as: poverty is a state you’re supposed to remedy as a man by raising yourself up, being an ambitious worker, earning more money, acquiring more skills etc. As a woman your remedy is supposed to be eliciting commitment and financial support from a rich man. Society in general is willing to cut women slack and provide support in such situations if they fail, under the assumption that it’s somehow all the fault of evil men or something, but has zero sympathy towards men who fail. Also, social adeptness is seen as a necessary virtue for men if they want to mate but not for women.
More options
Context Copy link
So I think she's being inaccurate. I wanted to go with dishonest initially but that isn't the right word... she's not purposely being deceptive exactly, she's just trying to piece together a plausible sounding argument to get the outcome she wants and hasn't thought it through.
Feminists have been talking about the importance of female role models for women for over 40 years. Probably much longer. They also constantly throw in "as a woman" or "a woman's perspective". It isn't possible for her to have missed it. Particularly since her talk about patriarchy shows she's no stranger to gender discussions.
She just takes it for granted that women need female role models and men can't fill that void. However she isn't willing to accept that men want male role models and women can't fill that void.
More options
Context Copy link
Masculinity and femininity as general pro-social concepts are only really useful when there is a division of gender roles. Modern society has been mostly trending away from gender roles so I would agree that teaching masculinity or femininity is less relevant than ever. The major exception being, of course, dating and sexual attraction. Which makes this look like yet another example of a woman having a blind spot to what women are attracted to. My only disagreement with OP is that this applies equally to women and I think you're hitting the same blind spot. To the extent that men and women are attracted to different things women also need to learn how to be feminine in order to be attractive. Girl game is real, look at Bezo's new wife for example.
Why would masculinity and femininity be downstream of social roles rather than biological tendencies? Regardless of social expression, there needs to have a framework for disciplining the excess physical energy of rambunctious teen boys, and the excess social power of young-adult women.
More options
Context Copy link
Id argue that the masculinity and feminity, to the extent they are socially constructed are just attempts to understand and navigate the base biology of two sexes. There is more to that than just the "roles".
Hmm, im curious, whats your argument here?
Lol. Really? I’m sorry man, but have you been outside the last 30 years and seen their behavior? Evidently it isn’t something that comes naturally.
Idk, pointing at somewhat extreme outliers but there seems to be no male Amoranth (spelling?) or female West Elm Caleb, zoomer culture may be dysfunctional in many ways but it's not not gendered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This kind of reminds me of the romantic discourse about "careers" and "finding a fulfilling career," as though most people's jobs are so status enhancing. No, most people don't live there. Most girls aren't "born sexy," and even those with favorable genetics can totally make a mess of things if they just go with whatever seems fun and exciting in the moment. "Dr Ana" isn't right, but she's more right than this rubbish about how all women are valued for gestating fetuses, as though women with a bunch of kids and various baby daddies get so much status and respect for their femininity. Because poor, fat, socially inept women get so much respect. No! I hope @HereAndGone2 appears and says something suitably caustic.
Women are, to some extent, admired for different things than men, which can include doing a good job raising children, and can include their beauty, and some of those avenues have deteriorated lately, like the women who host the church socials, but that's a different conversation.
But, sure, just telling boys they should simply adopt female role models if there aren't any good men around isn't going to work, fair enough.
I’m assuming you have mainly underclass women in mind when mentioning single mothers with a bunch of kids from various fathers (well, sires might be a more accurate description). I’d argue that yes, it’s actually true that the one activity that may accord underclass women social status and respect is them having and (supposedly) properly raising children as responsible mothers. But even if they prove to be irresponsible mothers, them remaining childless is still a worse alternative on average.
In other words, if an underclass or working-class woman decides to remain childless, no path that she chooses and no activity she engages in will get her as much social status in the eyes of her social circle as being a mother, even a single mother. Society generally has a different attitude towards higher-class women who delay or reject motherhood because we assume that they have good career options, disposable income, various potential fun hobbies they can afford, some sort of higher calling etc. I suggest this blog post from Steve Sailer from 2005 in which he quotes a social worker about this.
More options
Context Copy link
Meh, Ok perhaps this was poor framing on my part. Im gonna narrow it down a bit. Many girls arent born thin (there are many that are) or born with make up (though make up really just enhances whats already there naturally). But id still maintain that the option to leverage beauty exists more often, and the emphasis of beauty is clearly slanted towards women more. And the skills necessary to maintain it arent really as complex and difficult as the skills for climbing the social ladder.
Yes you can make yourself ugly with bad decisions, but the point here is that you'd have to make the decision to begin with - you'd still be starting with a baseline of attractiveness handed to many via the lottery of genetics, and then losing it due to your own decisions. Attractiveness is not as valued in men to start with (although it matters). To put this into perspective, women are rated as more attractive than men, id argue just because they are - well, women.
I'd bet money that if you asked people whether Chris Evans was more attractive than Scarlett Johansen, Scarlett would probably win. Even thought they are "close" in attractiveness.
The loss in status here has more to do with how reproduction was facilitated. Yeah, its low status, because its blatantly irresponsible behavior. Its the same reason boxers and UFC fighters would have high status on the male side of things, as opposed to a thug and a gangster starting fights, despite both actors utilizing masculine characteristics, such as strength and toughness: context matters!
I mean, yeah, i see your point, but again, the social effects here are disproportionate. We see men who are poor and socially inept judged more harshly and given less grace - homeless men are a good example: people will see a homeless men as a lazy and a bum, unworthy of compassion or help. This leads to many in our society giving less help towards, and women being given more (there being more womens shelters and the like). It likely contributes to men being more likely to be homeless in general.
Bear in mind here, im not saying women have it "easier". Just that the 2 experiences are unique.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link