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 -
Average or above average does a lot of work here. The problem for women who train hard is not average guys, who some they could probably beat and some they probably cant based just on genetics. Its just that once a guy gets off his ass and gets into any kind of shape, the woman is toast.
By way of example, I wrestled approximately ages 6-18, and I was pretty good. State qualifier in a fairly competitive state good, placed in states a few years in middle school, never in HS. When I was 11/12ish I had a girl as an opponent. It lasted one round. I won. This was before puberty.
She then went on to attend a good, not great, wrestling high school and made varsity as a freshman. She had a losing record. The next 3 years she was relegated to JV by one elite talent (Iowa good) and 2 other okay talents at her weight class. Then she almost immediately went on to win the female Olympic trials. So we are talking about basically the best 18 year old girl in the country who had been previously relegated to the JV squad at her high school by guys who mostly were unremarkable, and barely into puberty (we are basically only talking about freshmen in the weight classes relevant here).
This difference peaks in the 16-25 range, but also legacy effects from the differences in general training methods and banked strength go on quite long. I've worked office jobs for 15 years at this point, my workouts consist of pushups and walking. This still means something like 99% of women would lose to me in any combat sport. We are basically only talking about professionals having a chance. And when I was in the 18-25 age group, something approaching 0%.
That is really the problem with the movie hero-chick is that the emphasis is always on hand to hand combat. Its literally the place where the disadvantage is greatest. All the male advantages converge in that space. Further, the enemies in these depictions are never average Joes as you postulate, they are always hardened criminals. To be succinct. Approximately no one in the world is interested in an average fat guy fighting a super fit lady. Its always like 6'6'' Ivan who looks like he's been on steroids for 5 years.
If you wanted to make a realistic female combatant you'd make Female Hawkeye (aka Katniss Everdeen in book 1), you'd make her a sniper or other sort of gunfighter that never gets into melee range. In those fights, skill dominates, and there is little evidence for male skill exceeding well trained females (in fact, for archery it seems to lean female). Or you could have some sort of pure long distance racer girl, or whatever. But the people making things are at war with reality. And so we get what we get.
More options
Context Copy link