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 feel that at the point where we're throwing moral rebukes at people for their dating choices we're dancing very close to "here lies all of France" - this is not how you avoid societally-counterproductive hard feelings. It's no secret that African-descended women do substantially worse on dating sites (and presumably, other forms of dating) than others, almost certainly because an extremely-large slice of men find them ugly. Now, those women's appearance is certainly not their choice, but the men's conceptions of beauty are also not their choice. The only possible compromise here would be literal arranged marriages; if we don't want that, and we insist on making this a moral issue, then we're going to be fighting ourselves forever for no conceivable gain.
The bright line of "nobody gets to tell you you're evil for your dating choices" sounds like a good one to me.
I'd say that someone's appearance and attraction is, mostly, uncontrollably subjective (and likely unchanging), so yeah it's a good instinct to be cautious of gatekeeping there. But part of the context of the conversation here is about personality and other stereotypes, so refusing to consider dating someone because you think their personality is probably a certain way is almost certainly discrimination.
Dating is a bit of a side quest though compared to most everyday interactions, since it's also not like people are entitled to a certain level of dating interest, and so I think it's reasonable to think that different aspects and phases of romance might need to be treated separately. Plus we all know opinions about 'checklists' for finding a partner are all over the place. Even with all these caveats, exempting dating entirely (as you seem to suggest?) from conversations about discrimination, prejudice, and stereotyping feels fundamentally wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
True, but remember what this is actually litigating. Because the worth of woman-as-class (statistical aggregate and instinctual behavior, not a value judgment) is specifically beauty, this is an attempt to make it so that women who provide much beauty and those who have little are equalized in political power. That's the moral [redistributionist, communist, equality, "equity"] angle.
This is why it's most salient for the ugliest ones, and why the ugliest women tend to be the most feminist- they have the most to lose. (Of course, the ultimate extension/expression of the power to equalize this is demonstrated by the ability to force other women to treat men-dressed-as-women as women, including when it comes to dating, which is why you only hear about this in women's spaces, never men's.)
It's not actually about men-as-class here other than the inescapable fact that they are the arbiters of who is beautiful and who is not (in the same way women are for success in men). Women must solve this for women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link