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 think it's hard to describe them because they are more about feels than rational analysis, but you could try taking a look at female-oriented forums for discussion of dating, for example there used to be a subreddit called "Female Dating Strategy" (commonly referred to as FDS). There is also a podcast called the "Whatever Podcast," where various women are interviewed (and challenged) regarding their views on dating, sex, relationships, etc.
My impression is that the way FDS approaches SMV is that (1) men are either "high value" or "low value,"; and (2) SMV doesn't really apply to women, they are all desirable. It's kind of the same thing with biological clocks.
Admittedly, this doesn't make much sense, but as I said, it's more about feels. To see this in action, try watching a few clips from the "Whatever" podcast. You can see unattractive women insisting that they are 10/10 in looks; that all women are 10/10; etc.
I think the key thing about female-oriented models is that they follow the social rule which forbids anything unflattering to women. So that when someone says women prefer female-oriented models, what it really means is that women are not interested in any way of thinking about dating, sex, and relationships which is unflattering to women as a group.
More options
Context Copy link