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 -
Are we entering a new phase of the gender wars? To pull a term from Asmongold: "the age of the chud." That is to say: openly, unapologetically sexist men, who don't even try to hide it or justify it.
I can't exactly prove any of this, so I'm just going to list a bunch of anecdotes and vibes to show what I mean. You can decide for yourself if you agree or disagree.
The story thus far: for most of human history, humans had a patriarchy where men controlled most positions of power. Starting in 1919 with the 19th amendment in the US, and a similar date in most European countries, women got the right to vote and generally got legal equality with men. But certain social and institutional barriers remained, so 3rd wave feminists worked to gradually push back and get more rights and power for women. This was generally seen as a good thing by all, with only the most unashamedly reactionary men being opposed.
In the 80s and 90s, this was mostly done by trying to treat everyone the same, with the hope that taking away men's sexism would naturally create equality with men. But over time this proved insufficient, so left-leaning groups started pushing for more and more efforts to actively favor women. This was seen most acutely in corporate recruiting, where companies would heavily recruit in trying to get more women in male-leaning professions, especially engineering and management, and punish heavily anyone who was accused of making women feel "unwelcome." Male employees who wanted to fit in were forced to learn academic feminist jargon, and generally act like an "ally," regardless of their own personal views.
But has any of this actually worked? Well... no. Or at least, it's hit a wall. Engineering and the physical trades remain stubbornly male dominated. Women do a bit better in management, but only when they can sit in large meetings and avoid personal responsibility for anything. Their strong preference remains fields like nursing, HR, and marketing.
On a more personal level, I think any of us who have paid attention long enough have seen the cycle play out long enough to become jaded. Talking like a feminist might get you some kudos ("good boy points"), but it won't get you respected as a thinker- you're still expected to do your duty as an ally by following behind the female leaders. It certainly won't get you laid, which admittedly is not the fairest way to judge an ideology, but it does tend to influence the thinking of young men. It also won't get you the respect of other men, unless they're the most simptastic of feminist men who will still dislike you for being a man. It doesn't seem to get you anything at all, no matter how well you articulate the feminist talking points.
Enter: the chud. Or "C.H.U.D." if you will, since the term comes from an 80s movie where it's an acronym, but it's recently become internet slang for the sort of man who openly embraces reactionary cultural politics, without any veneer of intellectualism. They seem to have found a new way to play the game: you don't debate the feminists, you don't even try, you just do whatever the hell you want and ignore them, while openly embracing some of the worst stereotypes. Trump was probably the trailblazer here, with his total lack of shame, but lots of guys have learned this power.
At the same time, there's been a resurgance in traditional feminine behavior. Things like wearing makeup, lipstock, playing with dolls, openly crying, doing needlework, and sometimes even wearing sexy clothes. For a while these sorts of things were demonized by the more militant wing of the feminist movement, to the point where women felt a bit guilty for indulging in them, but now it seems like they're admitting that it's ok for women to have their traditional feminine interests too. And lots of chuds eat this up, too. I've also noticed a lot more games have blatant fan service in them, almost to the point where I'm numb to it, but this is a level of T&A that would have been protested if it was in old movies.
For a long time, the practical center on feminism was that it was good for the economy. Left or right, everyone agreed that we needed more women in the workforce to grow the economy. But with AI and automation, that's much less clear. So many white collar jobs are getting automated, and it's only going to get worse. Every new woman in the office is simply competition with a man for the same scarce job. The place where we actually need women is at home, having babies, and that doesn't seem to be happening nearly enough.
I think we're on the verge of rolling back a lot of feminism. I know you might say "oh, that's just internet talk, no one actually believes that in real life." But the internet is where we go to talk politics now. If you can win on the internet, you win in real life, too. We might see corporate and political groups stop trying to recruit women, and men being openly sexist again.
As an example, consider our new Secretary of War (that's war, not defense), Pete Hegseth. He opposes feminism, says that women should not be in combat roles, and has instituted mandatory testosterone testing for the military. He's also just generally blunt and aggressive in the way he talks. The left hates him but... he's still in charge. In his personal life, he is twice divorced due to having a lot of affairs.
Or consider JD Vance. He's a lot more intellectual than Hegseth, but still something of a chud. He opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and childlessness in general. He's flirted with the idea that parents should have more voting rights than non-parents. He wants to "de-woke-ify" all federal institutions. He's saying all kinds of things that would have gotten me fired from most corporate jobs, and yet there's a strong chance that he'll become president.
On a final note, consider the voting demographics. In pretty much every election, the women trend left and the men trend right. If only men voted, the right would basically win every election easily. And that's true internationally, not just in the US. So I'm sure there are a few strategists thinking... "hmm... are we sure we can't repeal that 19th amendment? Or at least make it more difficult for women to vote?" Because that would be an instant knockout blow to the left.
I will say, I don't support any of this. I still consider myself something of a feminist, and I wouldn't fit in at all in a world of chuds. But... I see the appeal, especially for young men, and I think that might be where the world is trending, unless the world finds a more reasonable compromise in the gender wars.
I was definitely feeling this when attempting to listen to the gamergate summary posted below. Even though my own take has been pretty consistent now and when living through it, it just feels especially quaint and from a different head-in-sand era to offer any charity to the antics of quinn/sarkeesian and the media figures trying to circle the wagons around them. In comparison, the current popular thing is the asmongold "only accept total chud victory" / "welcome home to mcdonalds" celebrations at all the closures of 'modern' projects/studios/companies, while showing pictures of how much more their staff was now made up of women compared to the good old days, and having zero patience for even the slightest escape-hatch attempt for sympathy for lost jobs.
It definitely looks like the dominance of the "you're debating not to change the mind of your debate opponent, but those of the audience" angle. Once some people start being beyond the reach of shaming & guilting, and just let it rip, only to be met with massive growing popularity like fuentes/asmongold/etc., I think that's certainly showing the new era we're in.
There was a time when most of the popular MRAs on youtube were actually women, like karen straughan, who often had sons or at least positive relationships with their male relatives. I can't recall this ever being treated as a reason to dismiss their takes, or thought of as anything but positive. Meanwhile, we're currently at the point where any adult man who isn't at least vaguely benevolently chauvinistic/sexist is now suspected of simply being a "wifeguy"/"girldad" as an explanation.
Karen Straughan managed to occupy a very odd niche of a woman who ingrouped men. Whilst I didn't keep up with Straughan entirely, so I would not be in the know if she foided out at any point, she is still seemingly the only woman that has earnestly done this publicly.
Most of the time this doesn't happen until women are old. And then it's not always a case of them ingrouping men but rather outgrouping a lot of women. Similar to how Ann Coulter is often at odds with her own gender due to political differences.
If we contrast Karen with the modern 'conservative' women and many of the 'MRA' women, who placed themselves as anti-feminist in some way, they were and are just making feminist arguments in a roundabout way. Where 'feminism and the left' are bad because it's bad for conservative women. What's actually good for women is traditionalism! Well... That's still revolving around what's good for women. I always saw that as completely different from 'This is bad because it's bad for boys and men'.
And when one sees through that you recognize it's just another permutation of the eternal feminist paradox, where the definition of feminism rests on who is defining who the 'real women' are. And all feminists who disagree with one another do is assert that they and those who agree with them are the real women.
Most modern influencer women who play the role of the conservative/anti-feminist can't keep the act up for long. They're self interested parties. They don't ingroup men, they ingroup women. Or are complete narcissists. That's the lesson that's been learned. They will say and do things for money like a cam girl will.
I had thought the 'boy mom' thing would maybe spiral into women and mothers interested in the welfare of their sons and by extension boys and men in general, but it kind of says it on the tin. It's more about a new identity for women of sorts.
To conclude, one can always easily sniff out who is an actual interested party with regards to the welfare of men. They ask and answer 'Is this good for men, yes or no? The e-thots can't do this. The 'boy moms' can't do this. The wifeguys and girldads can't do this. It's not that you need to be a good liar even. There are plenty of grifters and frauds in these spaces. They just can't maintain the act.
Wouldn't it be a contradiction for any woman to become a thought leader as an anti-feminist? By definition she should be trying to not lead, and simply support a man. It's the same reason women would never support a male as a feminist leader.
The female influencers who I've seen play the act best tend to just kinda... flirt with anti-feminism but then just duck any sort of serious discussion. They're entertainers first and foremost, not political pundits.
Maybe?
But come on, that's like asking why there are no black men in the KKK, or why an Ashkenazi does not place emphasis on the latter part of their name. With the added dimension that, if you're asking why tomboys don't do this... men don't really like doing this either, so why would a woman who is closer to understanding to how men think -> "complaining is just a you problem, get good" embrace this either? I guess you could ask the same question of ex-women, but they're too small of a group to do that.
It doesn't make socioeconomic sense for an average woman to publicly do that. Privately, sure, but it's simply unhealthy to be a
Uncle Tomstrike-breaker in public for the same reasons it was unhealthy for mid-20th century men. The best you're going to get is how Charlie Kirk's widow acts.More options
Context Copy link
I don't think that is the case. Even using the motte definition of "believes that equal rights between men and women is just," there's no reason why someone who is anti- that would believe that women ought not be leaders. If we take the more well-understood definition of something like "supports the movement that is labeled 'feminism,'" then it becomes even more stark, because the idea that women could be thought leaders is neither unique nor even unusual to the feminist movement.
I can't think of a reasonable definition of "anti-feminist" that would map onto the real world that would imply that they must be against women being thought leaders.
More options
Context Copy link
No? There were female thought leaders from societies without feminism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is because society has substantial memetic immunity against self-interested men, for good reason. 'Traditionalism is good for women' is in part because under traditionalism men are supposed to be self-sacrificing to justify their leadership position.
I'm not seeing the good reason. We're not living under a traditionalist society. Our leaders are not self-sacrificing. It's just a death spiral of weak men failing shit tests put to them by self interested women.
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