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 -
I broadly agree that men and women have different psychology around kids and nurturing, but has there been much research into ways gay men are psychologically more similar to women?
Like, aside from the obvious thing of being attracted to men, it seems like gay culture in several different times and places tends to adopt a lot of the trappings of the female gender role. Is this just because it is a slightly better way to seduce "straight guys", or does it reflect actual biological differences in gay men? Do gay men tend to have more thing-orientation, or person-orientation?
Is it possibly the case that gay men are better nurturers, on average, than straight men? (Though, if this turned out to be true, it would just shift to the idea that two lesbians raising kids would probably be a bad idea. Unless it is an averaging effect of some sort with other biological factors balancing out, then maybe the best nurturing parents might be: straight woman > lesbian woman ~= gay man > straight man.)
I tend to see this, at least insofar as I’ve seen it, in terms of gay men sometimes having some of the more negative aspects of stereotypical femininity without a lot of the positives. So the mean gays will be really catty and love gossip and insult people passive-aggressively to their face. Or the twinks will be very squishy and lack agency. Or the good-looking gay men will be narcissistic about their appearance. Or the alternative ones will be interested in witchcraft or tarot (surprisingly common among gay men).
Some of the positives of stereotypical femininity include being very warm and kind, listening to people intently and with interest, going out of your way to be helpful, prioritizing others’ needs over self-aggrandizement, commitment-oriented romantic posture, consensus-building decision-making, spoiling your grandchildren, maintaining family connections and friend groups, liking cute and *k*a*w*a*a*i* things. I’ve known gay men with those features just as I’ve known straight men with those features, but not at the consistent level of the average woman. I don’t see nurturing as something gay men are peculiarly good at, some are, some aren’t.
Making baby talk with animals is the sort of thing I suspect many men are inclined to more than stereotypes suggest, and it’s something you see gay men indulge in quite often. Men don’t necessarily nurture in the same way as women, but many, many fathers nurture in a strong way. My own father would walk around the house with me cradled in his arms, shaking a rattle and singing a song that calmed me as a baby, and this meant enough to him that he still has the rattle.
Probably the neutral crossover zone between gay men and women is interest in fashion and decoration, which is probably why fashion, cosmetics, interior design, and drag are so big for both.
That said, gay men’s cattiness can be very funny in a way female cattiness often isn’t, because you often get the sense that they’re genuinely, sincerely, talking down to whatever they’re catty about without any feeling of threat, whereas women’s aggression often comes across to me as (psychologically) defensive, where they might tear someone down because they’re afraid they might pose a real threat to them. (Oh, the stories my girlfriend tells about her narcissistic coworker’s high school level aggression…) But gay men will just insult you for the fun of it, like an insult comic.
Women just don’t do that, or at the very least they are socially punished for it, and a strong tendency among women is to generate some theory or causus belli for their aggression. One use of feminist language is that it provides a charged causus belli and legitimating script for all women to carry out aggression on men while still being able to perceive and portray themselves as benevolent, charitable, and kind. Women are highly concerned with how they present socially, and generally find this suffocating but get used to it and figure out how to navigate the world of social judgment just as men must. Even great powers play pretend that their neighbors pose some kind of a threat before they invade them.
But this coexists, of course, with the anti-effeminacy and ‘crisis of gay masculinity’ discourse within gay culture, which seems just as strong and as contemptuous of effeminacy in men as any traditionalist. Sometimes when they think the straights can hear them, gay men will start debating what proportion of straight men have “top energy” or “bottom energy”, which is pretty catty and silly. But straight men like debating whether so and so or such and such is ‘alpha’ or ‘beta’, and I suspect the two rating scales correlate to a degree, so I guess this goes both ways.
Maybe feminine gay men are just femininity with the agreeableness knob turned down. I’d be fascinated if psychometric data by sexual orientation existed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link