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 -
No.
I think husbands should be good husbands. I do not believe a husband should have sex with her wife when she has legitimate pain or other issues. But I do not believe that is rape. Vows were exchanged. Both sides should follow their vows. But I do not believe the law should be involved in the relationship of a married couple.
I would never convict a man of raping his life because I don’t think the government should be involved in the relationship of married people.
So if a man beats his wife while she screams no please stop until she loses her voice and then he penetrates her and she spends the next three days crying and covered in bruises and bleeding from a torn vagina no crime was committed?
This was the law of the land until the 1970s. Sorry I have old school Christian beliefs.
I also do not believe a husband should do this to his wife.
He can burn in hell for treating his wife poorly.
I want you to imagine your sister being brutally raped and assaulted by her husband, beaten within an inch of her life, torn up inside, even if she gets a divorce she won't be able to have children again or walk ever again.
And what you aren't going to be mad about it because she was married?
If that's what marriage is to you then the majority of the country will demand it be banned.
Marriage was better before the 1970’s. I am not going to pick and choose which policies we did back then that made marriage effective. Everyone I ever knew had happy grandparents.
I would kill the guy.
So you think the government should stand in-between marriage vows? I don’t want the government in my bedroom with my wife.
We do have a third way. People who want the government in their spousal relationships should get civil unions. People want to get married should get married.
Citation needed. Inability to leave or resist domestic abuse is not "better."
Where in your marriage vows does it say that your husband has the right to rape or abuse you without legal recourse? Marriage is a predominantly religious social contract that does not supersede regular laws.
If your interest is in marriage as a religious entity I have so many questions. Do you believe in a separation of church and state? Why this religious thing and not all the other religious things? Can you find a reputable religious figure saying this is remotely appropriate or a good idea?
I am not saying you should have an inability to leave. Personally I don’t believe in divorce, but in extreme cases I am fine with allowing some divorce.
Citation needed: TFR was higher than. And just on vibes it seems like most people died with a loving spouse back in the day. I’m not sure how you quantify “happy marriage”, but when I was growing up it seemed like there were a lot of happy old people. It just worked.
Where: Bible. Marriage was a Christian institution. “Be fruitful and multiple” is the first divine command given by god to mankind. The purpose of marriage has always been about children. Wives have a duty to use their body to create little humans. America is a Christian nation.
How does this interfere with a separation of church and state? I’m literally saying the government should not stand between two peoples religious vows.
Can I find a reputable religious figure? Does God count as I quoted above? He commands this.
And to be 100% clear my interpretation of marriage was the law of the land for 200 years. Changing it seems like it has been a bad idea.
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.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link