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 -
German police chief Dirk Peglow has stated on national television that his advice to women who want to avoid violence is to avoid relationships with men. This has naturally caused some controversy, and although it will likely be forgotten soon, I do think it shines a spotlight on some topics worth discussing.
First, this is clearly not meant to be taken literally. In the broader context, the comment is based on the fact that reports of sexual assaults have increased over the past year in Germany, and he simply meant to highlight the fact that most assaults are not perpetrated by strangers but people you know. Still, the way he chose to frame it matters. Public perception would have probably been much different if the man had specifically highlighted men with Arabic backgrounds as being dangerous, even though a similar argument of "just educating people on statistics" would still have been accurate. He could have also chosen to to warn women against certain behaviors. "If your man is violent, get out before it escalates" is a complete sentence with a clear call to action that fits neatly into a soundbite. If the goal was to help women, this advice would also be much more actionable than the ridiculous "don't date men at all", making it more likely to actually help people. Alternatively, he could have chosen to not be alarmist at all. "German streets are quite safe, and crime overall is down" would have emphasized that women are unlikely to be assaulted by strangers in public, and would have helped to spread some confidence in the population.
The field of medicine is very aware that undue anxiety presents a risk to personal health. Doctors are generally quite conservative when it comes to recommending blood tests or other diagnostic procedures to seemingly healthy patients. This is because false positives and the associated stress can lead the patient down an expensive and anxiety ridden path of uncertainty and increasingly invasive medical procedures that can significantly affect quality of life and mental health. The risk of overdiagnosis is great enough, that even if you were a billionaire with ample money to spare, a good doctor would still recommend against screening for illnesses when you show no significant symptoms. When you are a public official though, care for the mental health of your citizens apparently goes out the window. Making inflammatory statements that cause anxiety among women, shame among men, and divide the population are apparently fine as long as they result in viral video clips and conform to feminist dogma.
So I wonder: Why did he phrase it like this? Telling women to blanket avoid men is a borderline impossible ask. If he really wanted to help women, he should have spoken of specific character traits (violence or addiction for example) that they should stay away from. Is he part of some invisible cabal, attempting to lower German fertility rate and weaken the nation?
Maybe he just doesn't care about the repercussions his words may have on the German people. Politics seems to often select for people that care very little about their constituents, and are mostly just there to climb the social hierarchy whatever it takes, so maybe this message was a way for him to fit in with his peers. If so, this is potentially quite worrying. The incentive structure should ideally reward public officials who have the best interests of the citizens at heart, and punish those who use their position as a means to a selfish end. If this is not the case, the we could see some truly horrible politicians in the future.
Or maybe the man is actually a devout feminist. A true believer who legitimately thinks that "Men are dangerous" is an important message that must be spread in order to turn society into a better place. It just seems insane to me that an adult man would believe this. Surely he must see that his warning implicates himself and his friends as dangers to women as well. Do men like that even exist?
I suggest we unpack this wider issue from a culture war perspective.
In the context of the mating market and sexual politics, we often see advice getting handed out to women, especially young single women, usually by men and women that are at least ambiguous towards feminist theories, pieces of advice that are rather similar and claim to help women form happy romantic relationships:
Avoid dangerous and violent men
Don’t fall for bad boys
Don’t go clubbing in skimpy clothes late at night while getting drunk
Don’t hook up men who were not vetted by people that you trust from your social circle
Preferably avoid one-night stands completely
Dress modestly during the day and act ladylike
Smile a lot and be pleasant instead of being a standoffish cunt
Present yourself as available and show indicators of interest if you’re looking for a man
Give clear signals to men whom you’re willing to accept
And so on.
You might notice that such advice is usually met with sneering and disdain by feminist or feminist-adjacent, Blue Tribe (in other words, mainstream) middle-class single women. The simple reason is that the message that is actually coming across to them when they hear this stuff is roughly this:
Withdraw yourself from the sexual competition for the attention of the top men. Don’t even try. Don’t copy the antics of your feminist sassy riot grrrl girlfriends. In fact, don’t interact with them socially. Settle for an average boring chopped man instead and service him sexually instead. Do the sort of things with him that he likes watching on porn sites. Put up with all his icky antics. Give a chance to that icky programmer dude that keeps stalking you at the office. When rejecting a man, do it gracefully even if he’s icky as fuck.
All this stuff is just extremely revolting and nauseating to a modern woman. And I think this police chief guy knows it. This is the explanation.
But the advice he did give was "avoid relationships entirely". Surely this is worse in every way you highlight. You can go to the club, have casual sex, and dress in skimpy clothing while also avoiding relationships with men that are violent or addicts. You cannot do these things and not have relationships with men at all.
Sure you can. The obvious zinger is that you can have relationships with women instead (though as mentioned elsewhere in the thread this is, of course, no guarantee of an abuse-free relationship). But also, you can dress skimpily and go clubbing for you own enjoyment with no intention of pursuing sexual or romantic relationships of any kind. For one thing, there are certainly people who enjoy dancing and getting hammered in a crowd - going to the club is, in fact, meant to be an enjoyable experience in itself, not some cumbersome prerequisite protocol for finding a mate.
(As for the skimpy clothing, setting aside the possibility that they just feel more comfortable with more skin showing - and we cannot underestimate that; naturist camps are attractive to non-swingers! - there are also people who enjoy feeling like a center of attention in a crowd, but don't particularly want that diffuse attention to translate into one-on-one flirtation.)
Naturally doing all those things increases one's odds of being sexually assaulted by strangers. But Peglow's whole point was that this effect is less than you'd think, and the bigger abuse risks are in established relationships. So the takeaway can actually be "what you've been told is backwards: you're more likely to be abused if you go steady with a boy than if you party without settling down". It's a bold point but a perfectly coherent one, and it's certainly not isomorphic to conservative sexual mores.
I think this is a folk etymology. Dances as rituals for finding mates are one of the oldest human institutions, to the point that they aren't even peculiar to humans.
I'm not claiming that dancing doesn't or shouldn't act as a mating ritual. I'm saying that dancing is supposed to be fun in and of itself, to the extent that some people do it for its own sake - not a chore you need to slog through to get to the good bit. (Compare: sex, procreation.)
Sex is also fun enough that people use a variety of methods to stop it from reaching the whole point of the thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link