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 -
It’s unlikely that they will find someone to settle down with. Human behavior is notoriously resilient to actually determining what is best. The number of childless women in their 30s is increasing.
The reason we should say it is more of a female fault is that only female behavior can really be modified in this way. Female promiscuity is what has been shamed in every single past civilization because that works. You can’t shame a bachelor for being promiscuous; I mean you can try and he will just ignore it because women are better than shame. But every Muslim and Hindu and traditional Mormon family knows you can shame a woman and that it will work. Nothing short of excommunication from civilization will make a man not screw as many women as possible. But for women? Literally just the smallest amount of shame and reputational damage. That’s it. From a practical standpoint, it is a “how we treat women” problem.
In all of those societies seducing a fellow member’s virgin daughter is a very serious offense, though.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
... haven't traditional societies been "shaming male promiscuity" in various forms for millennia, successfully? Not eliminating, but significantly reducing. Mormon men aren't fucking every modern woman they come across.
Do modern women find Mormon men attractive? Women are the fundamental gatekeepers of sex in the vast majority of cases.
You don't have to tell a one night stand you're Mormon though
Elaborating the hypothetical - If male sexuality was truly unrestrainable, and all men, no matter social conditioning, will fuck whatever they can ... all mormon men could just hop on tinder, not say they're mormon, and try to have sex with 'modern women'. And while that happens, it isn't universal - a solid fraction of seriously traditionally religious men take their religion's moral code seriously, and make good efforts at 'no sex until marriage', and some succeed. And it's hard to separate 'universal social shame' from 'genuinely held moral beliefs', but the former probably plays a part (compare to catholic guilt, puritans, etc).
I know several christians who, on account of genuine belief, save sex for marriage / committed relationships. They aren't threatened with excommunication. Generally, the idea that shame / social pressure don't affect men seems ridiculous.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but you can use the threat of violence. The primary method of keeping men in line historically hasn't been shame, it's been puttin' the shotgun in shotgun wedding. If we're looking for policies to implement: legalize violence against men who "tamper" with your woman. Whether that is adulterous partners, boys sniffing around your daughter, etc.
Problem is that this was dismantled purely on the grounds that it was bad...for women (being the definition of patronizing). Now, if you try to bring it back, you'll have to find some way of getting women to accept guardianship.
Which would not only go back towards likely having to shame and constrain women (or else why would they think it necessary?), it just seems functionally impossible in the West.
(There is an argument too that its less relevant for women: they've/we've constructed new guardian institutions that appear to not make the same onerous demands as patriarchs like: HR departments, Title IX courts)
The Stand Your Ground Against Sex Abuse Act protects parents who reasonably believe their daughter has been a victim of statutory rape from charges of assault, etc. The age of the accused is not a defense, as the parent might not reasonably be aware of it; as long as sexual contact has occurred the parent is protected from prosecution.
The Jacob Blake* Domestic Relations Law protects husbands who attack men who are sleeping with their wives or committed girlfriends. It is unreasonable to expect men not to, and too many Black and Brown men have been imprisoned for following their cultural instincts. Defendants can offer evidence that they were in a committed relationship at the time of the crime, and use it as a defense to Assault/Murder etc.
I don't really find those relevant. Our goal isn't really to protect women, it is to punish defecting men. The original claim was that it wasn't possible to shame men into marriage, I'm saying it is possible to force them to behave by violence.
*Only vaguely and incorrectly related, but hey who's gonna remember the facts!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link