site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27234 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 20, 2026

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The main point that I absolutely give the feminists is that physical abuse by males is far more dangerous for women, in terms of the actual harm that can be inflicted, casually.

Likewise, a male is much more capable of raping (in the most basic sense, literal forced penetration) the average female than the reverse.

Now this is based on the differential in physical strength between the genders, so acknowledging this issues dismantles almost all of the rest of the feminist perspective, but I accept it as truth.

So we are faced with a situation where male abusers are a far greater risk factor than female ones, all else equal. And they're absolutely able to deceive and manipulate their way into a position to be abusive, they don't wear a giant tattoo on their face saying "I <3 punching females" so its not trivial to pick them out of the crowd.

Okay, some of them DO wear the equivalent of such a tattoo.

I'm fully on board with the need to heavily police male behavior... but that has to be done by males. Such males ALSO have to be selected to not be abusive, so you want them to be males that also have some skin in the game, some investment in the safety of the females in question.

Sooooo: Fathers. Brothers. Husbands.

Sigh.

Obligatory link to Norm on Cosby and rapists

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ljaP2etvDc4?si=hOQKystfogIsEsz5

It needs to be said- dad can almost always recognize a future abuser. The normies just get intimately involved before they meet the parents.

It needs to be said- dad can almost always recognize a future abuser. The normies just get intimately involved before they meet the parents.

I think that society has a hard time admitting that women frequently have poor judgment in these types of situations. Of course, when it comes to a man going for the wrong woman, it's fine to say "he was thinking with his little head" or some such. But with women, you aren't supposed to observe that sexual desire often results in poor decisions. So instead we get the trope of the "master manipulator" i.e. the abusive man who is highly skilled at concealing his proclivities until it is too late for the poor damsel.

And note the shifting of the burden of responsibility. It's not that the man made no secret of what kind of man he was, and the woman willingly overlooked this inconvenient fact because she got lost in his eyes. It's that he was actively deceiving her about the kind of man he was, and she had no way of knowing until after it was too late.

And, likewise, dad needs to be in the picture in some substantial way.

I'd bet, and it is just my hypothesis, that the epidemic of single moms raising kids means many girls making atrocious choices in boyfriends and this causes their downstream hysteria around men in general.

And of course, dad has to have some semblance of authority, ideally with legal backing, to act to remove bad suitors from the picture.

So we are faced with a situation where male abusers are a far greater risk factor than female ones, all else equal.

And that's the mistake that got you feminism/gynosupremacy in the first place- so instead of male abusers that beat you, you have female abusers who will [have] you beaten if you don't pay a pre-emptive penalty for the beating it's assumed you'll do.
A beating by proxy is still a beating.

And they're absolutely able to deceive and manipulate their way into a position to be abusive, they don't wear a giant tattoo on their face saying "I <3 punching females" so its not trivial to pick them out of the crowd.

Yeah, because it's out of fashion; given way to modern women putting giant tattoos on their faces saying "I <3 male tears". (It's the pointed librarian glasses and the danger hair, in case you were curious.) Ah yes, but that isn't "harmful", only the male version of it is- it's not like we can pre-emptively judge KKK members in full regalia for racism, right?

I'm fully on board with the need to heavily police male behavior

And I'm fully on board with the need to police female behavior just as heavily in the ways it generally acts out. This hysterical bullshit is just as destructive; but it's a burn slow enough that we can blame the designated abuse gender for not being happy with it. We can start by making it illegal to express opinions like the one this politician has.

Such males ALSO have to be selected to not be abusive, fathers/brothers/husbands

Which, given historic DV rates, they're not actually better (especially husbands). I get that the average traditionalists think men were ever any good at this, but they failed pretty hard in the '50s and '60s (and quite a bit before that, re: prohibition).

And that's the mistake that got you feminism/gynosupremacy in the first place- so instead of male abusers that beat you, you have female abusers who will [have] you beaten if you don't pay a pre-emptive penalty for the beating it's assumed you'll do.

Every time I start to feel that the he-man anti-women club section on here have a point or two, exaggerated messaging pops up and makes me go "Nope".

Oh gosh, gynosupremacy! Women Are Wonderful! Women have all the rights and men have none!

Congratulations, gentlemen, now you know what it was like to live, as a woman, in the world of androsupremacy, Men Are The Superior Sex, and women have no rights. That is why we got feminism in the first place.

It's better if everyone has rights and nobody gets turned into the inferior sex.

Why are women divorce-raping men, the bitches? Story published in 1904, set in 1897:

She shuddered and buried her face in her hands. As she did so, the loose gown fell back from her forearms. Holmes uttered an exclamation.

"You have other injuries, madam! What is this?" Two vivid red spots stood out on one of the white, round limbs. She hastily covered it.

"It is nothing. It has no connection with this hideous business to-night. If you and your friend will sit down, I will tell you all I can.

"I am the wife of Sir Eustace Brackenstall. I have been married about a year. I suppose that it is no use my attempting to conceal that our marriage has not been a happy one. I fear that all our neighbours would tell you that, even if I were to attempt to deny it. Perhaps the fault may be partly mine. I was brought up in the freer, less conventional atmosphere of South Australia, and this English life, with its proprieties and its primness, is not congenial to me. But the main reason lies in the one fact, which is notorious to everyone, and that is that Sir Eustace was a confirmed drunkard. To be with such a man for an hour is unpleasant. Can you imagine what it means for a sensitive and high-spirited woman to be tied to him for day and night? It is a sacrilege, a crime, a villainy to hold that such a marriage is binding. I say that these monstrous laws of yours will bring a curse upon the land -- God will not let such wickedness endure." For an instant she sat up, her cheeks flushed, and her eyes blazing from under the terrible mark upon her brow. Then the strong, soothing hand of the austere maid drew her head down on to the cushion, and the wild anger died away into passionate sobbing.

..."He was a good-hearted man when he was sober, but a perfect fiend when he was drunk, or rather when he was half drunk, for he seldom really went the whole way. The devil seemed to be in him at such times, and he was capable of anything. From what I hear, in spite of all his wealth and his title, he very nearly came our way once or twice. There was a scandal about his drenching a dog with petroleum and setting it on fire -- her ladyship's dog, to make the matter worse -- and that was only hushed up with difficulty. Then he threw a decanter at that maid, Theresa Wright -- there was trouble about that. On the whole, and between ourselves, it will be a brighter house without him. What are you looking at now?"

...She was an interesting person, this stern Australian nurse-taciturn, suspicious, ungracious, it took some time before Holmes's pleasant manner and frank acceptance of all that she said thawed her into a corresponding amiability. She did not attempt to conceal her hatred for her late employer.

"Yes, sir, it is true that he threw the decanter at me. I heard him call my mistress a name, and I told him that he would not dare to speak so if her brother had been there. Then it was that he threw it at me. He might have thrown a dozen if he had but left my bonny bird alone. He was forever ill-treating her, and she too proud to complain. She will not even tell me all that he has done to her. She never told me of those marks on her arm that you saw this morning, but I know very well that they come from a stab with a hatpin. The sly devil -- God forgive me that I should speak of him so, now that he is dead! But a devil he was, if ever one walked the earth. He was all honey when first we met him -- only eighteen months ago, and we both feel as if it were eighteen years. She had only just arrived in London. Yes, it was her first voyage -- she had never been from home before. He won her with his title and his money and his false London ways. If she made a mistake she has paid for it, if ever a woman did. What month did we meet him? Well, I tell you it was just after we arrived. We arrived in June, and it was July. They were married in January of last year. Yes, she is down in the morning-room again, and I have no doubt she will see you, but you must not ask too much of her, for she has gone through all that flesh and blood will stand."

Well, why didn't she just leave him? Under the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 You could only get divorce on the grounds of adultery, and if you were a woman seeking a divorce you also had to prove additional causes:

The act did not treat women's and men's grounds for divorce equally (largely on the grounds that women's adultery was more serious because it introduced doubt as to the paternity of possible heirs). Thus a husband could petition for divorce on the sole grounds that his wife had committed adultery, whereas a wife could only hope for a divorce based on adultery combined with other offences such as incest, cruelty, bigamy, desertion, etc.

More reform came later, but still grounds for divorce were limited:

Previously, before the Matrimonial Causes Act 1923, men could divorce women on the basis of adultery, but women were required to prove that their male partners had undertaken adultery and additional offences, such as incest, sodomy, cruelty (roughly equivalent to domestic violence) and other possible reasons.

The 1923 Act changed the need for women to prove additional causes plus adultery on the part of the husband, but it was not merely Women Are Wonderful alone that brought this about:

The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 included a double standard in its provisions. While a wife's adultery was sufficient cause to end a marriage, a woman could divorce her husband only if his adultery had been compounded by another matrimonial offense. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1923 granted a wife the right to divorce her husband for adultery alone and thus removed the double standard with respect to the grounds for divorce born English statutes. Although the 1923 act was contemporaneous with other reforms extending the legal rights of women, an analysis of the public debates regarding divorce reform indicates that the statute was not based solely on a desire to provide equitable matrimonial relief for husbands and wives. The belief that male adultery contributed to such problems as prostitution, illegitimacy, and the spread of venereal disease was as significant in the passage of the 1923 act as the demand for equal access to divorce for men and women.

It wasn't until 1937 that grounds other than adultery were sufficient for divorce:

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1937 was a law on divorce in the United Kingdom. It extended the grounds for divorce, which until then only included adultery, to include unlawful desertion for three years or more, cruelty, and incurable insanity, incest or sodomy.

So in 1897 Lady Brackenstall would have been stuck, still married, to her abusive husband. She could have separated from him, but she would still be legally married and still technically under his power.

Now, gentlemen, it may indeed be no-fault divorce has gone too far, but imagine if today you were in an abusive marriage but couldn't get out because your spouse may be a drunk who beats you but they're not an adulterer. Would men put up with that?

Now, before anyone jumps in with "yeah but that's only a story, not all marriages in 1897 or 1904 were like that", no, they were not.

But a story demonstrates social attitudes. Some things have to be believable; to abbreviate a Chesterton quote, people might or might not believe a story that Gladstone was haunted by Parnell's ghost, but they would not at all believe that Gladstone slapped Queen Victoria on the back and offered her a cigar.

People reading that story would have gone "Yeah, that happens", the same way somebody reading a story today where the wife took the husband to the cleaners in the divorce would go "Yeah, that happens". The motive for the murder would be explicable to them: the wife was stuck in an abusive marriage and had no legal means of getting out, and if she ran off with her lover then she would be the one in the wrong and socially ostracised and blamed. And why couldn't she get out of this marriage? Because that was the law at the time. Men Are Wonderful effect. Men had the power, women didn't.

Some things have to be believable; to abbreviate a Chesterton quote, people might or might not believe a story that Gladstone was haunted by Parnell's ghost, but they would not at all believe that Gladstone slapped Queen Victoria on the back and offered her a cigar.

See also the "Would you be more surprised to find a walrus or a fairy on your doorstep?" debate from two years ago.

Which, given historic DV rates, they're not actually better (especially husbands).

Nah, the issue here is that its not a random selection.

Its like the stat that more people are killed by cows than sharks every year.

There's a lot more cows, and humans interact with cows far more often. A shark is, all else equal, much more dangerous to the human.

So a stranger can in fact be more individually dangerous, even if the perpetrator of an incident of abuse is more likely to be someone they know.

If a woman interacts with her husband daily then of course the husband is the most likely person to commit any abuse. Doesn't mean he's the most dangerous male she actually encounters.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats