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 -
As always, everything comes from the fact that women are born, but men are made.
Men only have value when they prove themselves. A woman, on the other hand, is of value the moment she finishes puberty. It is said that young women become social millioniares, which is true, but only half the story. The other half is that they are defenseless millionaires. To be a young woman is like being given a million dollars, but being forced to carry it everywhere in a clear backpack, in the roughest neighborhood in town.
The hero leaves society as a boy, struggles against adversity, grows as a result, and returns to society a man.
A heroine cannot go on this journey. A young woman is of great value as it is, and to leave society would mean instant predation and likely death.
The heroine's story is the mirror image, because the conflict is fundamentally social. In the heroine's journey, the young woman is already flawless, but she is not recognized by society (or at least the social class she aspires to). Instead of struggling against adversity to improve herself, she struggles against society, changes society, and is recognized and accepted.
A woman will write a story about a woman who struggles to be accepted and recognized in spite of her inherent goodness. Men read that same story and see a faultless female protagonst who undergoes no challenge and no growth.
A man will write a story about a woman with flaws, and how she struggles against them and is changed by the struggle. Women (especially 21st century ones) will read that same story and see a story about how women aren't allowed to be competent and flawless, and think the man is implying that women don't deserve acceptance.
If you've had the (mis)fortune of reading kid's books about scientists, the pattern becomes obvious. Books for boys about male scientists are about the challenges the scientist faces, the spark of inspiration, and the joy of seeing hard work rewarded. Girl's books about scientists don't have any science in them at all. The woman scientist's social challenges are detailed (nobody believes in her because she belongs to some specific groups), but she believes in herself, and because her self-belief is so strong, one day she is accepted and celebrated. The social struggle is foreground, the science is merely background.
We cannot escape our ancestral scripts. Man struggles against the world, and strengthened by it. Woman struggles against society, and is accepted by it.
I understand the opinion that women are born, but men are made, at least if we're talking about the real world. But this is fiction, storytelling. What stops men from writing stories where they're already wonderful and people just don't realize it?
People talk about good stories, flaws, struggles, and character growth. I think most of that is bullshit. Stories are essentially about people, not about the world. People come up with all sorts of reasons so they can be proud of the stories they like, so they can claim to have good taste, to be sophisticated.
But their tastes are ephemeral. Men and women clearly have different wants in fiction. So taste is biological. And if it's biological, then the very standard by which we judge a good story can shift with the generations.
Suppose I like stories about a Gary Stu who's perfect and loved by everyone. What if I become a tyrant, crack open people's skulls to check whether they share my taste, and execute anyone who doesn't? Only people with good taste get to breed. After a few generations, the world will be filled with people who love Gary Stu, and he'll become the new literary standard. Such is the great providence of nature.
Is the problem men? Is the problem women? I think it's consciousness.
Consciousness gives birth to the ego and to stories. The ego seeks to unify the me of the past with the me of the future. Unification across time. Stories and language seek to unify different people through shared myths and a shared destiny. We are all humans. Unification across space. It's a similar process, and both seek to avert contradictions.
People dislike contradictions. But do contradictions cause any physical harm? No, only mental discomfort. Animals don't agonize over them the way humans do. People suffer when their wishes contradict one another, when the me of tomorrow regrets the actions of my past self, even though I acted according to my wishes at the time. Likewise, people feel discomfort when they realize that others are genuinely different, that their wishes can contradict and conflict with their own.
Consciousness is ultimately about the self. The greatest pain and the greatest fear of humanity is the loss of self. At its core, it's losing your body. Losing your limbs, being unable to walk, unable to see. But it's also growing old, losing bodily functions, becoming unable to eat or speak.
And the body isn't just physical. There's also the mental body, your ego. The fear of losing your convictions, your dignity, your morals. And the mental body isn't just your individual mind, but also the enormous mental structures that extend beyond it. Your family, your company, your country, humanity.
Your body is what allows you to interact with the world. You can pick up an apple with your hand. But to do something bigger, to build a skyscraper, a spaceship, you need a larger body. You don't move your hand, you move your company, your nation. Just as your brain moves your limbs, your consciousness moves these larger bodies.
I'm not just a part of my family, my country, humanity. I am my family, my country, humanity itself. Arrogance? The brain is just one part of my body, yet it declares itself to be the entire me. So why should I be any different?
Consciousness is what makes this possible. And it absolutely demands unity.
To me, what people call Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a syndrome of the physical body, but of the mental body. It's the absolute horror of feeling your own body fail, no longer functioning according to your will.
I see the conflict between men and women in much the same way. When their wishes genuinely contradict each other, the unity of the self begins to unravel. What you thought was your own body suddenly seems alien to you.
Perhaps the culture war is simply a form of body dysmorphia. Consciousness and modern technology have allowed us to see the entire world as our own body.
And the body refuses to obey.
To me, this is an interesting question. From the female side of things, the story that comes to mind is Cinderella. Note that to become a beautiful and desirable woman, Cinderella didn't need to train with a Jedi master or do battle with some Dark Lord. She just needed a deus ex machina to provide her some nice clothes and a sweet ride.
So is there a male Cinderella story out there? What comes to my mind is The Once and Future King by T.H. White. It tells the story of a young King Arthur who is consigned to a subordinate and secondary role in relation to his foster-brother Kay. Possibly it served as inspiration for Harry Potter and Dudley which is also a sort of male Cinderella story in some respects.
But what's very different is that these male Cinderellas (1) go off on adventures; and (2) receive education and training. Only then can they assume their destinies.
So why the difference? The only thing I can think of is that generally speaking male main characters are aimed at male audiences and boys (and men) aren't very interested in stories where the male hero is already wonderful and it's just a matter of people realizing it.
In other words, it seems that this idea that women are born while men are made is believed at a very deep level by most people; perhaps it's even informed by our genes.
The Poor Miller's Boy and the Cat is pretty much exactly Cinderella but with a boy. Basically the king's daughter, in the form of a cat picks a poor and mistreated but hardworking boy to live with her in a golden palace. https://www.grimmstories.com/en/grimm_fairy-tales/the_poor_millers_boy_and_the_cat
I guess it's not as famous because it's a bit less plausible a fantasy for a boy to be picked out of obscurity by a princess than for a girl to be picked by a prince.
I read the story and found something which to me was very interesting. Basically, in order to get his reward, the boy must serve the princess for 7 years; he must chop wood; tend to the meadow; and build a house:
In other words, the boy had to prove that he was worthy.
While it's true that Cinderella had to do household chores, I would argue that the point of the chores was not to show how faithful she was, but rather to (narratively) show that society did not recognize her value.
So I would say that no, the two stories are not exactly the same. They are different in almost exactly the way described by posters who have argued that women automatically get value while men must earn their value.
To be sure, I don't dispute that if you looked hard enough you could find stories out there which go against this dichotomy. But it does seem like, at a minimum, the idea is very deeply ingrained in human thinking.
It's true, but what the boy has to do to prove to the cat he is worthy is pretty easy – just stick around and do the chores he is told to do. And it's worth noting that even in Cinderella, she is not literally taken from rags to riches with no agency. She has to 'do' a few things like blend in at a high society event, disguising her real identity; sprint out of the ball before midnight to avoid humiliation; and escape being locked in a room by her stepmother so that she can try on the slipper and prove she is the woman the prince danced with.
Narratively it's 7 years of labor. More importantly, it's very clearly framed as stuff the protagonist must do to in order to prove himself.
Those things aren't really framed as labors she must do to prove her worthiness.
So I'm still not seeing it.
No, she isn't proving her worthiness to the prince with these actions. She's proved her worthiness to us the audience through her previous years of suffering with dignity though. The prince etc is her reward for that from our point of view, even though he probably doesn't know anything about her other than her beauty. You'll see this sometimes the other way round where an action hero gets the girl at the end despite her having only a very vague idea of what he's just done. E.g. he runs out of a burning building and they kiss, all she knows is that he's survived. Narratively her love is the reward for what we the audience know makes him worthy. (In such stories there's usually also an A plot in which he saves the world or such.)
I could believe that in-story characters rewarding a protagonist just for being beautiful and themselves is more common with female characters. I think they still have to manifest their character in action for us the audience to see they deserve to be selected by the Prince though.
That's not how the story is framed. And in a fable for children, if such a connection were intended it would be pretty obvious.Just look at the Miller's Boy and Cat story. They don't exactly hide the fact that the protagonist is being rewarded for his 7 years of faithful service.
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