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 -
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.
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????
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