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?
It's interesting that you call this guy "insane" to say this, but then never actually claim the statement is untrue, just that it could "implicate himself and his friends as dangers to women."
That last isn't correct, by the way: the speaker could easily have noticed that some proportion of other men talk in private about women as non-sapient hypergamous slutwhores who might benefit from some smacking around, but also have noticed that those men seldom share those views with romantic partners until they've made it hard for them to leave.
So... are you saying it's inaccurate that women's relationships with men entail some risk of violence? Or just that it's foolish of him to go voicing inconvenient truths to scare the hoes?
I am saying that as far as advice to women for avoiding violence goes "Don't get into relationships with men" is worse than useless.
First, it makes all men out to be equally dangerous, as there is no attempt to distinguish between different men. Something that simply is not true. The statement is unnecessary fearmongering that necessarily includes himself, as he is a man.
Second, women want relationships with men and are going to seek them out. Women are going to fall in love and want sex and relationships regardless of what they yare told. Useful advice would be to warn women against dangerous traits so they know what to avoid. In the worst case, if you think that all men are equally dangerous you may fail to notice actual warning signs, as you assume every man would act the same way.
As a result, these kinds of statements only really serve to increase tension between the genders and cause excessive fear amongst women. It encourages them to be constantly suspicious of any man close to them, something that for most people is unwarranted and will only serve to reduce their quality of life.
I am not saying dangerous men are not out there, simply that his advice is bad for most people who will hear it. It is similar to advising men that they should avoid women entirely, to reduce risks of false accusations. Technically true, but bereft of nuance to the point of causing more harm than good.
I think that's very reasonable, but I'm also curious as to what proportion of men you'd estimate are in the dangerous vs. safe category, and what clear warning signs a woman might use to distinguish between the two.
At least here on TheMotte, there are regular assertions in redpill threads that all men are secretly just as sexist (but lie to women about it, or else are leftist cucks who hold it in the silence of their hearts). Empirically, when women are being pilloried as subhuman irrational whores who need to be forced into line for the future of the race, it's uncommon to see another male poster speak up to contradict those claims. That might lead a casual observer to conclude that yes, most men do either actively or passively feel resentment and contempt for women, that most men do regard women as less human than themselves, and that
mostmany men would not mind correcting a female partner's behavior through some physical intervention if the opportunity presented itself, and that therefore "just don't" is not unreasonable advice, particularly for the type of woman whose relationship models might already have been distorted by past abusive parents or partners.If that's not the case, what would be better advice about how a woman might gauge the odds of eventually experiencing violence at the outset of any given relationship?
As someone who doesn't speak up to contradict those claims, it's not because I tacitly agree with them, it's because a debate like this is not worth it:
So, when I see someone talk about the foids or the joos again, I just minimize the thread and get on with my day.
More options
Context Copy link
I am sure that a police officer probably knows much more about violent men than I (a person who has not been in a fight since middle school), and could thus give better advice. My social circle is quite respectful towards women, and the problem there is often that my friends are not forward enough. That said:
Take some time getting to know him before having sex or committing. If you like to go clubbing, stick to places vetted by people you trust, and don't hook up with guys you just met.
If he is violent towards other people, or you find out he has abused others in the past, then leave. Same goes if he is an addict, alcoholic, gang member, or otherwise a criminal. You can probably get quite far by observing the kinds of people he spends time around, and assuming he is similar to them. If he does not want you around his friends or is secretive about his personal life, that is a red flag in and of itself.
Talk with him. If he makes degenerate remarks about women and you can't tell if he is joking, assume that he is serious. If a man has strong prejudices, they are likely to reveal themselves sooner rather than later. If he is needlessly disrespectful towards other women, assume that he will eventually be disrespectful of you.
Make sure to have a good social group. Have friends with whom you can discuss your relationship and struggles so you are not on your own if you have to leave.
Not that any of this removes the risk completely (everything we do in life is risky to an extent), but I think it reduces the risk substantially. At least in my experience, most people will let their mask slip as you start getting to know them, and the kind of manipulator who keeps everyone fooled is very rare.
All of that is great advice for an emotionally healthy person, although I wonder how actionable any of this would be for the kind of person who's already imprinted hardcore on abusive relationship patterns over the course of a bad childhood and a few bad starter boyfriends. For that person, the cleanness of abstinence might genuinely be the best approach, like intermittent fasting for the person who can't manage their sugar cravings.
Ah yes, the "I'm sufficiently antisocial on my own, so why can't everyone else be" solution. This isn't actually a problem with the women, by the way; much like it isn't actually a problem with the men who aren't self-aware enough to notice it.
The reason we tend to end up with people who are Cluster Bs to some degree, or at least have some of that behavior- is that it's very difficult to find ourselves, as it were. So what ultimately ends up happening is that, much as the proto-feminists note, is that we kind of end up boxing off/contain the other member. In other words, we settle, for what you may (or may not) know in the workforce as a "shitty" or "subpar" boss, because we're not made of stone and actually do require human companionship.
And that whole "I get to be the authority and better than you" thing is just as much a payment from participant to participant as financial resources and everything else is. We don't teach the nature of this exchange very much[0]- mainly because the question makes men and women who should notice it very uncomfortable, especially in Western nations, and especially especially in New World ones. That attitude has a lot of pros, but this is one of its weaknesses.
Yes, because doms take not being better than [their] subs very personally, and it's very important for their proper functioning they get to do this! Both partners do this from time to time; women usually exhibit it differently than men, almost like they compliment each other or something.
[0] By the way, the core of the BDSM movement are mostly autistic weirdos who have both noticed this and have it under control, or use it to keep it under control (or are weird/open enough to cosplay or cargo-cult it). This is why it usually makes relationships go sideways when one or more non-autists get a hold of it, especially when they start saying "liberation".
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