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 -
Huh...
followed by something that is not the thesis here? I really tried, man, there's a whole section at the end. I'm sorry, I like your stuff generally, but this ain't it. I can only assume that you looked at the words and read something that was already in your mind and which was bothering you deeply. I hope you can find solace with that.
To be brief:
I assume this means "the men should not have gangbanged her." Personally, I'm generally against gangbangs, but on the understanding that 7 out of 8 are all in favor, here's the amended version: "the men should have understood that there were expectations placed on them above and beyond bringing penis to the gangbang." As far as I can understand it, and I'm not psychic here, the expectation was that she would be invited to future parties.
My point here is that, from the female perspective, it was the men who were not taking responsibility for their choices, and that failing to understand that perspective is what makes the problem intractable. (Yes, the most unfortunate duty placed upon men is that of reading women's minds. I don't like it either, but I have it on good authority that God had a plan for this.)
Oh, I accept she made a poor choice. Quoting myself:
But the missing part of the story is that the men made bad choices, specifically to have serial threesomes with a crazy slut and then try to totally disavow her after the fact. These bad choices are NOT appropriately punished by a rape conviction, or even a rape accusation. This is because, assuming her first account to be true, the men did not rape her. But they were bad choices, and the men at least deserved reputational harm for these choices. (I'd suggest the appropriate level of harm would be something like "you banged a fat chick" plus "you sucked your bro's dick when drunk" put together.) The fact that they did not appear to be suffering such reputational harm is what I understand is making a lot of women so angry.
The men who had sex with her did not totally disavow her. She remained in contact with Male #1 on friendly terms up until Halloween. Male #1 said "chi phi is your house" as far as having her attend the Halloween party. Do you have any evidence that Male #1 "dropped her" or treated her with anything besides kindness + romantic/friend-with-benefits interest?
(He was not even conscious when males #3-7 entered the room, if my reading of Jane Hoe's narrative is correct.)
A man (frat president) who did not have sex with her disinvited her and her sorority sisters called her a slut.
More options
Context Copy link
No reputational harm from being suspended and/or expelled, publicly named as a rapist in your school's newspaper, sued, and hounded on social media for years now? No, they want some more specific sort of reputational harm? Or, rather, you do.
Because men as a whole do not feel revulsion about guys who have consensual kinky sex with attractive coeds? I don't see a reasonable way of making that happen from our current state church sexual morality. Maybe not from any system.
More options
Context Copy link
The responsibility to do...what? Other commenters here have pointed out that the disinvitation to the Halloween party obviously seems to originate from the sorority queen bee. Were they responsible to defy her in this?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link