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 -
Adding to what @haroldbkny already said, the principle is still worth defending.
I rarely watch mainstream media that features black people anymore, even when their presence is technically plausible within the setting. Not because I harbour some pathological hatred of blacks (I don't), but because experience has taught me that “plausibility” is almost entirely incidental.
Beyond a certain budget, an all white, all straight, gender conforming cast with traditional sex roles is effectively forbidden. The industry treats demographic representation and progressive tropes as non-negotiables first and a storytelling choice second. I oppose that cultural settlement on principle.
Now regarding male gaze, I'm all for flat justice, and cannon-boobs aren't exactly my first preference. Nor do I need to see hot naked women to enjoy something. But I know why that is stigmatised. This is not some aesthetic evolution that emerged "neutrally". It is the product of constant feminist cultural policing of traditionally male spaces. And the same environment that treats the male gaze as something to be ashamed of and confined to privately consumed vices like porn, simultaneously celebrates male nudity and the female gaze in those same mainstream venues, see Thor Love and Thunder.
The messaging is that male desire is low-status and must be disavowed in public, female desire (and its equivalents) is high-status and may be displayed openly.
And you as a man should internalise this hierarchy and join the choir in calling out the "weirdos" who refuse to comply. You see this specimen of man everywhere, it's obvious as hell that he doesn't actually believe this, but performs it anyway purely for social approval. I've even seen it in games like Black Myth Wukong. The female characters are not at all sexualised in costume or behaviour. But the complaint still persists merely because females in the game were facially feminine and pretty. It's transparent from the language, "have you SEEN an ACTUAL woman?" Pure status signaling through and through.
Well I think that once a black person has been cast, there is a lot of pressure on the show runners, directors, producers, etc. to follow certain rules about how that black person must be portrayed. And if they follow those rules, it makes the wokeness of the content that much more prominent and obvious.
As I mentioned above, while I think that there is a taboo against this kind of fan service, it's nowhere near as strong as, for example, the taboo against portraying a black character as being unintelligent. For example, as mentioned above, in Landman there is plenty of male gaze type content.
Also as mentioned above, it seems to me there may be another factor in play, which is the easy availability of sexually stimulating material online.
Here's another example of what I mean: In the 1980s, there were a few very popular movies which featured a lot of female nudity. For example, Stripes. At the time, if you wanted to see a movie of naked women taking a shower together, going to see Stripes was the only practical way of doing so, apart from going to an extremely seedy movie theater or adult book store.
So it seems to me that there is less incentive for filmmakers to include this kind of content. Because there is not as much demand for it.
I agree, but I think that in the absence of internet porn (broadly defined), plenty of content creators (including big budget films and television shows) would make lots of male gaze type stuff. And even with the internet (and with feminism) there still is a decent amount.
But this is downstream of the first mandate though, the non-negotiable racial inclusion. LOTR is objectively not made any better by including blacks, no matter how stellar their performances purportedly are.
Okay, so the grievance hierarchy places black representation above male gaze and penalises it harder. So what? Exceptions like Landman may exist (I haven't seen it, so I'll take your word for it) but the direction of the pressure is still the same. Do you think Stripes would be made today?
Sure, access to online porn may reduce the pure commercial incentive to include softcore fanservice, but it does not explain the active moralisation of female sex appeal. If this were merely demand adjusting to free alternatives, we would expect quiet reduction. What we actually get is reduction plus public scolding. Attractive female characters are not simply less common, they are frequently treated as ideologically suspect. And there's a corresponding rise in male nudity even in male media, like Thor. What is the commercial incentive here?
But this shift is especially obvious in video games. Female character designs are frequently unrealistically ugly and androgynous, look at Abby in TLOU2 vs the live action TV show. Ironic, the graphics get prettier while female models get uglier. And the stated reasons are explicitly "diversity" and "subverting the male gaze". That is not the market spontaneously deciding that gamers (majority straight male) no longer like looking at pretty women. It is a cultural and professional status hierarchy asserting itself inside studios, marketing departments, and critical institutions, independent of any commercial incentives.
That is why I brought up Black Myth Wukong. There's literally zero wank material there, but the complaints still arrived because the female designs were conventionally feminine and attractive, despite being non-sexual. Not as loud as Stellar Blade, but they were still there.
For the most part, I agree. But here's an example of what I mean: The Northman (which came out in 2022) did not have any blacks as best I can recall. There wasn't really a freakout about it. (Although it didn't receive any Oscar nominations -- possibly if the director had shoehorned in a black character, it would have done better.) Similarly, Ford versus Ferrari had basically no black characters but received a few Oscar nominations.
By contrast, imagine what would have happened if these movies had included black characters but presented them as unintelligent, or incompetent, or lazy, or otherwise contemptible.
The point is that failing to include blacks is a misdemeanor; including blacks but portraying them in a way which is politically incorrect is a felony.
So nothing. You brought up the issue of casting of blacks, I think it was interesting enough to respond to but that's about it.
Not directly, anyway. Here's a thought experiment:
Suppose that the Internet didn't exist so there was no way to conveniently access pornography. Would movie directors include more fan service knowing that it would improve their bottom line, notwithstanding the complaints of feminists? And if so, how would feminists react?
Here's an analogy: As you know, during the American Civil War, for the most part the northern states were against slavery and the southern states were in favor. Was this because liberalism was more prevalent in the north (just like it's still more prevalent today) or because the northern economy was far less dependent on slavery than that of the south? One can certainly argue that both were factors. And that economic considerations have a lot of influence (but not necessarily decisive influence) over peoples' views of morality.
Very little, I would guess. In fact, a lot of female viewers would prefer to look at female bodies over male bodies. Just look at the covers of women's magazines. I would guess that a bigger factor in that kind of male nudity is just woke flag-planting, as opposed to appealing to the female gaze, so to speak.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link