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 -
I mean if you say "marriage requires allowing your husband to abuse and rape you" then marriage will be banned overnight. This is not an improvement. Women have rights now and the reality of domestic violence is now something that isn't covered up by society. That genie is not going back in the bottle.
Therefore this idea is a failure of pragmatism if that's your goal.
Additionally what you are saying is really incompatible with most historical and modern interpretations of Judaism and Christianity, perhaps not Islam though, I don't know.
Ultimately it sounds like you want women not to have any rights or protections anymore, perhaps purely to maximize fertility perhaps for other reasons. If that is not what you want to advocate for then consider the ramifications of what you are choosing to focus on.
Well, yeah, it was outlawed sometime in the '70s with that exact justification.
The only problem here is that "abuse and rape" were trivially redefined as "doing anything I don't want to do that exact minute" one unit of Planck time after.
I fully believe women deserve the same set of rights and protections that men currently enjoy no matter what that set contains.
Right now, that's the empty set.
Okay then this is the problem. Fix that instead of letting men violently rape their wives.
It's not freaking rocket science.
I don't know why people here consistently successfully diagnose problems but then refuse to suggest anything other than the most extreme, stupid, or unethical solutions.
Yes feminism and modern gender politics seem to have caused problems. The solution is not going to be rape.
Funny you should mention that.
It already is rape, just female on male, and instead of exclusively permitting husbands threaten beating wives unless she does the sex, it's the State exclusively permitted to threaten beating the husband unless he does the labor (even if that's as trivial as "keep inviting her to parties").
I get that it's hard to recognize that because human beings aren't evolved to see women doing this as a symmetric problem due to male disposability (and human instinct hasn't figured out that women who intentionally fail to have children, if not treated just as disposably, will inevitably create the problems that modern gender politics does- because the conditions on the ground have literally never permitted them to do that).
I'm not really a big fan of rape either, but you can't solve this just by putting women in charge, and women need to recognize that and back off (men did in the early 1900s; now, it's Her Turn). And while my preferred solution is "find some tomboys and femboys, lock them in a room, and let them design the system", because at least they're staring down the barrel of more problems with the current system than the average man or woman- but then again, classical liberalism gives every man and woman the power to act that way.
[And yet, I do blame the classical liberals for this one. Conservatives really are too morally/intellectually compromised to decide when morality should change, but liberals err when they go out of their way to rob conservatives of their dignity for this "crime"- conservatives aren't smart enough to use that language, but it's what they mean. Liberals are fundamentally incompatible with the missionary position and are far better off needing to be actively sought after rather than intentionally destroying all life scripts point-blank "because they were stupid". It's what a precocious little kid would do; that's why South Park is that way.]
So I'm really not sure what else to say at this point.
"Being extreme, stupid, or unethical" is positively correlated with the ability and willingness to discuss problems. Doesn't mean they're capable of finding the solutions. And this is largely independent of gender; women are just as in/capable of finding productive solutions as men are, including "just give the other gender carte blanche". It's easier to let a family annihilator off the hook than announce you're pulling back and re-evaluate the systems that privileged her into getting away with it [compare gun control debates as a proxy for "male privilege to decide to violence today"].
My guy I really hate the feminists but if you manage to somehow find yourself twisting yourself into knots to defend forcible rape then you've proven them right.
The ability to defend (and launder) forcible rape is called Privilege.
It's only natural you'd have trouble seeing women doing that to men as unusual. The conservative impulse to be an Uncle Tom/Aunt Tammy is perfectly normal. Destructive, but normal.
When are women raping men????
When are women [forcibly stealing, or attempting to forcibly steal, something of value from men for personal gain]?
You're literally in a thread describing this exact thing. I have no other input.
Thefts of goods or services or time or money is not rape.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So you don’t believe in freedom? Free people should not be able to choose their own systems?
This is obviously an improvement because people had happier marriages back in the day. It is exactly what you say - pragmatism.
I want women to be happy. I love women, I’m a feminists in the sense I’m pro-women.
I want the common good. I want happy women. People don’t actually want rights. They want successful relationships and happiness. I’m giving them that.
And yes giving a husband the right to beat his wife sounds bad but it made women happier. Part of that is because men also had many duties to women like if they needed to work in a steel mill 16 hours a day to provide material comfort to their wife……they did that.
In the Sopranos Michael was chastised for putting hands on his girlfriend by a higher ranking mafiosa whose girlfriend was his niece. And the mafiosa said it was none of his business if he put his name on her. Because then he would also have obligations to her.
A big part of marriage is your making commitments to each other. For a wife a large part of that commitment is sexual availability and children. And a man has a duty to provide. And I do think the wife’s commitment is a permanent consent. That’s what makes marriage special. And yes sometimes girls are lazy and I think marriage means a man has a right to take what has been promised to him.
This isn’t the same thing as saying “I want to allow men to be monsters to their wife”. I don’t want that. But I do not think the government should be litigating what happens in a marriage.
The whole reason gays wanted marriage and not civil unions is because marriage is something special. These trade-offs versus today’s legal marriage which is really just a contract are worth it.
Ah, the Vox Day argument. Good times, good times.
Yes, you do. You are literally arguing in this thread that this should be allowed.
Maybe you would prefer they not be monsters to their wives, but you are arguing that beating and raping them should be legal. Incidentally, beating your wife has been illegal, if not very well enforced, for most of American history. So while "Holding her down and penetrating her against her will" might not have technically been illegal in the golden days before the 1970s when all marriages were happy and fruitful, "Beating her until she stops resisting you" actually was. And "Threatening to beat her if she didn't submit" would probably also have been technically illegal, if again, rarely enforced.
If you don't think the government should interfere at all, then where exactly is the line between "wife" and "property with which I can dispose of as I see fit"? Either you have to go all-in and say "Yes, I believe it should be legal to beat my wife senseless if she won't stop resisting me (or for any other reason, only God gets to judge)" or you have to acknowledge there are limits to what a man is permitted to do to his wife.
How about children? You're very keen on the laws that existed before the 1970s. I assume you also believe the government should not get involved if a man wants to beat his children.
You're very fixed on Christian marriage traditions. You can argue that America is a Christian nation, which it is, culturally, but civil and criminal laws are not church laws and never have been. Do you think people who do not take Christian wedding vows should not be treated as legally married? Or should Christian laws apply even to women who never swore to "obey" their husbands?
“ Do you think people who do not take Christian wedding vows should not be treated as legally married?”
That's an odd proposition. So you believe "marriage" doesn't exist for non-Christians? Would that mean only Christians have a legal right to beat and rape their wives? You said "marriage is forever" but also would allow for divorce.
I don't think your views are well thought out. I think you are just saying things because they sound vigorous and Retvrnish.
In modern America no. Marriage is forever and includes duties and responsibilities, other religions I would consider to have marriage in that Sense.
Modern American definition of marriage is not marriage. It’s a short term cancelable contract.
Marriage was firstly a legally and socially enforced arrangement between a man and a woman designed to reliably allocate resources and responsibility around offspring. By binding a specific man to a specific woman and her children, it created a workable answer to the problem of paternity uncertainty and gave the resulting family unit a clear claim on property, inheritance, and mutual support.
Modern economies offer earning vocations for women. We are in the age of Long Peace, we also have modern medicine, paternity tests, birth control and stable populations. The conditions simply aren't there to retvrn to your preferred idea of marriage.
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
Freedom? I believe in the freedom to not be forcibly penetrated without legal recourse when I am explicitly not consenting.
Your freedoms end when your fist (or penis in this case) touches my face is a classic line for a reason. You haven't really presented any evidence that any modern people would consent to marriage if it implies a reduction in legal rights, particularly this one and even if fine with it the state does plenty of things to protect people from certain kinds of mistakes or abuse. Domestic violence is an area where people are strongly interested in expanding these protections because even in the modern world some women will let themselves be beaten because they feel they have no other options.
Also, where's the evidence that marriages were happier back in the day? Fiction shows many examples of women celebrating the death of their spouses because of abuse that they couldn't escape. The inability to leave because of restrictions on divorce or alternate options does not imply happier marriages, it implies more human suffering.
If you want to encourage stronger bonds you have plenty of options that don't empower sexual or physical abuse.
There are plenty of ways to encourage the strengths of marriage that don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. What you are arguing for is frankly morally abhorrent.
You might imagine a world that did in part exist in the past where the husband is a decent man and works all day and comes home to a woman who sees sex and domestic tasks as her duty. And those people do exist today. But your moral and legal infrastructure has to account for the guy who is fresh out of prison, has children with three different women, smokes on the couch all day and beats the shit out of his wife for a thousand and one reasons or no reason at all.
So do I. But enough about being drafted into war or being expected to work inherently dangerous jobs to make a living.
Well, the solution "moral and legal infrastructure" settled on was just assuming every man is that man. In so doing, instead of expecting a wife we've given literally every opportunity and incentive to leave to do so and categorizing her failure to do so as consent, we beat every other husband and justify it with 'but he might start doing it someday, #yesAllMen'.
At this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country, localized entirely within your kitchen?Can I see them?
More options
Context Copy link
People should be free to choose marriage and not have the government in their marriage.
And again your jumping to this “all leads to bad things”……nobody is saying you can’t get divorced.
The best proof I have is that today men blame women for being bad women and women blame men for being bad men. This shows up in polling. The old system just worked. It’s a Chesterton Fence. However human psychology evolved the relationship rules I’m describing just work. It’s pragmatic. It’s common good.
That's not proof the old system worked better. What if the reason the new system sucks is social media, and the old system would have been even worse in the modern world?
Religions do not get to decide that their adherent (or even non adherents) are not impacted by laws. This is always a civic disaster. The entire project of western civilization was moving away from this.
The entire project of western civilization post pagan Rome was based on Christianity.
But regardless the old system just worked.
Christianity does not support abusing your wife.
And no one says it does. The question is about do we want the United States of America monitoring people’s spousal life.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link