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’ll raise the issue of paternity testing as potential culture war fuel.
As far as I know, the law in US federal states and Western European countries is usually that a husband may not have a paternity test done on the child or children unless the wife agrees to it in writing and the family court permits it (in case of a divorce). I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know the specifics. But anyway, the practical reality is that a husband having such a test done on the kids without consulting anyone else is illegal. Basically there is never any permission given to do such tests.
On one of the now-defunct Manosphere sites, namely Dalrock’s blog, a regular commenter who went under the online name Novaseeker made a prediction about 10 or more years ago: not only will there not be any new legislation making paternity tests easier, as usually demanded online by angry men’s rights activists, but the opposite will happen. Namely: a growing number of men, usually in case of facing an initiated divorce, will start tinkering with these laws, covertly getting paternity tests done, basically on the black market, and this in turn will result on corresponding legislation becoming even more punitive and restrictive. There’ll be heavy fines, maybe even prison sentences etc.
Again, this was written more than 10 years ago. I wonder if anything of this has materialized or not.
Traditional society was a 'suck it up, life is hard' system that worked because things sucked equally for both genders. Men got an unfair amount of agency, and in return, women got an unfair amount of protection.
Feminism correctly pointed out that industrialized society should not be beholden to this survivalist system. In practice, they've focused on increasing agency for women, while fiercely guarding the protections of the erstwhile survivalist system.
Men have no competing movement because asking for protection is humiliating in erstwhile male society. Credit where it is due, Suffragettes did not get the credit they deserve for persisting with their non-woman-like behavior in public.
Asking for legal protections because you got cucked is humiliating. Asking for alimony from a wealthier ex-wife is humiliating.
One day, men will have their feminist movement. To men of this era, It will be ugly. It will look like boys becoming twinks. It will look like weak men refusing to take responsibility. It will look like welfare queens. As much as this forum is pro-men, I bet the shape of the eventual pro-men movement will disgust the median man on here.
I think the bigger issue is that men as a group have little or no in-group bias compared to women -- who have strong in-group bias. So it's much more natural for women to organize and lobby for goodies for women.
These sorts of things are extremely difficult to predict, but barring any game-changing development in technology, I think the far likelier outcome is that subgroups which raise men and women both to fulfill traditional roles will just out-breed everyone else. How can a modern liberal woman who goes to grad school and has 2 or 3 children compete with a Haredi or Amish woman who marries at 18 and has 6-10 children?
Even with a low in group preference you would think that men would organize jointly on matters that impact all men, like with the evolutionary disadvantage men have when it comes to ensuring paternity.
And, well, this is what they did historically. What we call patriarchy is mostly just a way of managing this problem.
I don't think it can be explained purely by low in group favoritism for that reason.
Convert their kids. Some people already have the illiberal instincts to justify this.
I'm sure the state can do plenty of things to try to suppress fertility. We've arguably mastered that trick by accident.
Why would you think that at all?
Suppose we did make disestablishing paternity much easier, so random man who married badly is better off. Great for him, really. But does the cost of supporting and raising a family end up being paid by the true father? No. Instead, that cost is born by net taxpayers, which is something like the median man and above. Although I genuinely sympathize with the guy getting cucked by his wife, I'm going to press the red button so I don't get cucked by the State. In the end, he did have choices about who he married and slept with, and he chose badly.
Can we reintroduce debt slavery and forced labor then please? In order to turn that into a 'yes'?
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