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 -
But it doesn't. When was the last time you saw an argument gain traction in popular discourse that a policy should be enacted because it benefits men qua men?
Or, alternatively, the total power of the state over every facet of our lives might be trimmed a little bit around the edges. There is an argument to be made that more state control in our gynocentric society does primarily result in the preferences of women being taken care of first and foremost. This is what the somewhat cringey "longhouse" discourse on the right alludes to.
Well, I certainly support sympathy for men and policy measures designed to help men in areas where they are disproportionately struggling, and I am open to the idea of trimming back the power of the state over some facets of our lives. So although I don't believe we actually live in a "gynocentric society," we might well be able to come to an agreement on some individual changes!
I've avoided wading into this because I tend to be more sympathetic to your view (at least, your resistance against posters who think you should have few to zero rights). That said, I cannot help sympathizing with your critics on some points. I am sure that you, personally, are sincere about believing that the all-encompassing model of The Patriarchy does not mean individual men can't suffer. But -
Can you give any concrete examples of measures specifically to help men that you would not oppose? Especially if those measures might in some tiny way inconvenience or disadvantage a woman?
Saying "I support sympathy for men" is like saying "I think racism is bad." Okay, good for you. Do you want a cookie? Glad to know you don't think an entire class of people literally deserves no sympathy (and there are regular posters here who do believe that). But in what way would you be willing to "help men in areas where they are disproportionately suffering"? The answers I have almost always gotten from feminists are generally along the lines of "Yes, men can suffer, but women suffer more, so until we have corrected thousands of years of historical injustice and oppression against women, focusing specifically on men is putting our energy in the wrong place." It's very similar to the narrative of "anti-racists," that even if white people (for example) can sometimes be persecuted or disadvantaged, the overwhelming historical trend has been in the opposite direction, so until we have "ended racism," the white people who are now getting the short end of the stick just need to suck it up.
While I do not think the men, or white people, who respond with "Well, fuck you then" and turn hardcore MRA or white nationalist, are choosing the most productive way to engage with the problem, I do feel some sympathy for them and understand why there are more of them.
Hm, let me make a list of measures that I would either directly recommend or seriously consider. Not all of these will inconvenience or disadvantage women particularly, but a few of them should satisfy that also.
Repealing the "Dear Colleague" letter requiring "preponderance of evidence" standards for campus rape cases. I think there is sufficient evidence to show that this has led to unjust outcomes, and that in general allowing campuses to set their own standards based on the way they see things playing out in their local community makes more sense.
Opening up some/most domestic violence shelters to men. I know many radical feminists would prefer them to be all-female spaces, and of course J. K. Rowling famously made one that excludes trans women, just to make it feel extra safe to women who fear men particularly. Keeping a few single-sex spaces does make sense, in areas where the population density can support more than one. But men sometimes need a place to go when they have been abused, too, and when they're dealt with separately this can make it harder to build infrastructure.
Local community measures to give men places to meet and socialise with other men, such as the "Men's Shed" initiatives in Australia.
More physical activity in schools, to make the learning environment easier for high-energy children (who are often disproportionately boys).
Anti-suicide measures aimed at men.
Housing measures that pay particular care to the needs of homeless men.
There are probably more, but hopefully this provides a decent spectrum.
Just wanted to say, awesome engagement here and elsewhere in the thread. It is very much appreciated, and I think this particular post is strong evidence for good faith discussion that was sometimes disputed elsewhere.
I tend to fall into the "the average woman doesn't realize how massively privileged she is" camp (or perhaps more "the average woman doesn't realize how comparatively unprivilegeg the average man is"), but I'd like (1) I'd like us to figure out how make things better, rather than just yell at each other and (2) somehow I still think i wouldn't like to switch (although when I was younger, maybe), which is an indication of something....
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I hear women say that a lot when pressed. But the issue is that men are often struggling in areas characterised by zero-sum conflict in which women have gained unfair advantages. Would you be in favour of abolishing implicit and explicit gender quotas; female-only scholarships, mentorship and career advancement programs as well as professorships; and DEI offices? Make family court fairer (which would mean women would get custody much less often and would be awarded less alimony)? Equalise public spending on health and social programs (which would mean that programs for women's health would receive less funding)? Make schools and universities more friendly for men (which would mean less coddling and abolishing Title IX shenanigans)? Change work place norms so that an accusation of sexual misconduct doesn't automatically result in social ostracism (which would mean that women who claim to be victims would face more scrutiny)? Etc. etc.
It all sounds great in abstract, but is usually met with fierce opposition when concrete policies are proposed.
I can agree with some of the things you ask for, here and there. For example, I agree that the top-down command to use a "preponderance of evidence" standard when evaluating campus rape cases has been shown to be a mistake, leading to unjust outcomes in some cases, perhaps particularly for men with social disadvantages of race and/or class.
There are also some places where I don't agree with your proposed remedy, but might agree with alternate ways to help men. For example, I don't agree with abolishing all female-only scholarships, but nor do I object to male-only scholarships, particularly in fields where men are underrepresented such as nursing or teaching.
Most importantly, though, I think there are some important consequences to the idea that everyone, including men, is deserving of a baseline level of sympathy. One of these is that we need to retire the idea that women don't have to work hard to understand what men are going through, because "society forces less powerful people (like women) to consider the point of view of more powerful people (like men)." That sort of statement is far too confident. Sympathy with someone who is different to you is actually quite hard. Moreover, not all men have power.
So, while I might not always agree with you on all of the issues you raise, I do agree that it's important for me to listen to your perspective as sympathetically as I can.
I can appreciate that.
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