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 -
We haven't hit our weekly quota of gender posts yet, so, let's have another one. (This one's not about trans people, don't worry.)
This will be an unorganized series of bullet points because I'm responding to an unorganized bullet point video.
The Sentence I Only See Men Write: How writers flatten a female character
In the not too distant past, I was engaged in a conversation in which a familiar complaint was lodged: "Why aren't there more complex™ female characters in fiction?" (Are any real humans "complex" in the way in which that term is applied to fictional characters? I consider this to be a wide open question.) "Why are male literary characters allowed to be anything and everything, while female characters are consistently shunted into a small group of familiar and repetitive archetypes?" To which my immediate response was: "Well, the people who are most deeply invested in this issue and are clamoring the loudest for complex™ female characters are also the ones who most strictly police how female characters are allowed to act, and they complain the loudest when characters don't meet their stringent standards". Fortunately, the youtube algorithm furnished me with evidence to support my hypothesis (that being the linked video above).
Her first point about the "perky tits" thing is, y'know, perfectly valid and reasonable, point granted. That is a silly thing to write. My quibbles started with her second point about the "competence tax":
"Why anybody wanted a competent FMC to begin with". As though we, collectively, sit down with a book carefully chosen for its "competent" FMC and then ensure that the character meets every requirement on our checklist before continuing. This is an NPC's way of approaching art.
Anyway, isn't she just giving away the game here? To be a complex character (i.e. not a "flat" character, the exact phenomenon she claims to be opposing) is to have weaknesses and face adversity. But she immediately claims that a female character whose weaknesses are too prominent will be seen as "wounded", and readers will start to "worry" for her. She complains when she gets what she claims to want. Do you see the issue here?
Do woke feminists truly want female characters to be complex (meaning, multifaceted and sensitive, nuanced and reflective, yes, but also at times damaged, depraved, unloved and ostracized, perhaps even for perfectly valid reasons)? Could feminist literary critics really stomach say, for example, a female Shinji Ikari? Someone who has duties they are expected to fulfill, but who has no identifiable virtues in the classical sense, consistently fails to meet every challenge that is posed to them, and has to be literally, physically dragged into action by other people during the critical final battle (shortly prior to causing the extinction of all humanity due to what is essentially a childish emotional outburst)? I have an inkling that a hypothetical Female!Shinji would fall flat and fail to resonate, particularly for a female audience (regardless of political persuasion), although to be honest I'm not entirely sure why. Meanwhile Male!Shinji, despite not being anyone you could classify as a "role model", is still felt to express something important and universal.
To the extent that we have difficulty imagining a female Hamlet, or Leopold Bloom, or Humbert Humbert, I think it's due to a combination of men and women feeling that 1) such characters would be unrealistic, or would at least represent the extreme ends of the bell curve of possible female behavior, and would thus be seen as novelties, and 2) the Women Are Wonderful halo effect kicking in and causing people to want such characters to be shielded from unnecessary harm and risk. Perhaps these attitudes are immutable, perhaps they are not. But my point is that these attitudes are just as strong among the woke as they are among "traditionalists", if not more so, and this is part of what explains their preference for repetitive generic girlboss characters.
The video continues with some further Do's and Don't's:
I mean. I talk like that. And I'm a dude. Is that a bad thing? Should I not be doing that? (Yes, I know that you just clarified that it was ok, but you also called it insufferable, and you felt that it was important enough to include as its own point in the video, sooo...)
None of them are "bad desires", buuuuut only certain types of desires can actually "drive the plot", apparently.
At some point, the relentless girlbossification of all characters just starts to look like the demonization of perfectly normal and healthy psychological traits (many of which are more common in women, but all of which can also be found in men as well).
Is there really anything so wrong with your wish including "another person's name"? Is that something that a modern liberated woman is always going to feel a bit icky about? If there is any residual "structural misogyny" that remains in the culture of first world western countries in 2026, it lies in our hyper-individualism. Who can you go to today who will not tell you "be your own person, don't care what other people think, define yourself, your own opinion matters most"? Who will tell you the opposite? "Actually, maybe what other people think does matter. Maybe their opinion of you is more important than your own opinion of yourself. Maybe you need other people, in a very deep sense, and that's ok. It's just as legitimate as any other way of being". No one, that's who. (People who are adept at social games will of course tell you that what other people think matters, but usually only in a cynical and utilitarian way, rather than in a deeper personal sense.) Material dependence is actually relatively normalized, at least on the economic left. "Who do you think built all those roads?", "do you know how many government programs you actually use?", and so forth. But emotional or spiritual dependence? Unthinkable. Attitudes that are only fit for weaklings and children.
This is why the Freudian/Lacanian psychoanalytic tradition has the capacity to serve as such a powerful corrective to the excesses of both woke moralism and rightist traditionalism/hyper-individualism; it represents a sort of "middle voice" that has been culturally suppressed. Lacan stresses from the beginning that desire as such is always the desire of the Other ("what does the Other desire from me?"), thus there is no such thing as desire outside of a relational context. A desire that is completely purified of the Other's name is a fantasy. But I digress.
Let me reiterate, the mere fact that a character exists to fall in love is not flatness. It could be written in a flat and uninspired way, particularly if the author is a flat and uninspired person themselves. But those properties are not intrinsic to it qua life project or psychological trait.
Perhaps there are real humans who "exist to fall in love", or perhaps there are not. I pass no judgement on the empirical question. But to the extent that there are such real humans (or, to the extent that we can imagine them, and weave together the threads of such a character as they might emerge from the infinite sea of possible stories), their mode of existence is just as pregnant with possibilities, just as liable to contain secret worlds, just as much an inexhaustible well of pathos, as any other legitimate mode of existence that you might care to name. To assume otherwise would be to import the aesthetic and value judgements of "common sense" and adopt them wholesale; but it is precisely the task of art and the artist to interrogate these judgements and put them into question.
What makes someone an artist (as opposed to a dancing monkey) is their capacity to look at what has hitherto been considered ordinary, common, uninteresting, lowly, drab -- or, in the limit case, ugly, horrific, and evil -- and see the beauty in it that went previously unnoticed, teaching people to look at it anew. To the extent that these principles have hitherto not been applied to "genre fiction" or "commercial fiction", this is a skill issue.
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.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is really less about losing the body, and more about the wrong person being allowed to rule, and thus the body-politic if you like. The thought is that the ego of these people cannot accept that other people who win elections have the right to implement their agenda. They can’t accept Cthulhu swimming straight instead of hard left. And seeing that they aren’t getting their way causes distress, especially for those who have made politics their religion. It would be for them like what would happen to a Southern Baptist who wakes up one morning to find that America is now ruled by Sharia law. If you see that not only your religion under the thumb of those who disagree and who are suddenly allowed to rule over the country and them.
I've said before that I think the internet and culture are dealing with a lot of people who really only became aware of politics near the end of GWB (who they thought was clearly evil) followed by 8 glorious years of Obama and Hope and Change, and thought that would be the future forever (but that next election it would instead be a woman's turn, but still on the Left).
I think we honestly have far far too many people who have made politics into both their identity and their religion. The public is far too “engaged” and it leads them the believe that politics is the only thing that matters. Add in an unhealthy amount of Last Psychiatrist style narcissistic tendencies and you end up with a toxic stew that can only lead to mental health disorders and the destruction of the country through polarization.
Watch some World Series baseball. Carve a pumpkin. Get a hobby.
It appears that Bush demoralized moderate rightists whereas Obama did the same to moderate leftists.
I don’t see it as demoralized to keep politics to one of several things you keep track of. That’s honestly a good thing, in my view. Because politics cannot fill the voids that it’s asked to do by the radical left and right. It cannot make up for a lack of personality, nor can it make up for a lack of hobbies or social interaction. It cannot work as a religion either. And when politics is turned into all of that it ends up being a cause for verbal if not physical “jihad” where the others who merely disagree with you are to be subjugated and punished for being politically incorrect from your perspective. At that point, you set the table for killing people. It’s a dangerous game and I’m not sure where the lines will be drawn.
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