site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35495 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023

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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If it's only the outcome of online dating/social media norms, you could regulate their negative characteristics. If it's porn and vidya, same.

What does "regulat[ing] [the] negative characteristics" for dating, social norms, porn, or video games look like in a way that is compatible with liberalism?

There is a massive space between discussing solutions or giving empathy to people struggling and wanting to pass a "incels can enslave women" law.

I agree, but somehow I rarely see things in this space proposed and much more often see the "we need to take away women's rights" kind of solution.

But that runs afoul of the "nobody is owed a relationship" perspective; why is it that women who can't find the partners they want are given sympathy, but men who can't find the partners they want are monstrous?

I'm not sure I understand. I can be, and often am, sympathetic to men who have trouble finding someone to date them. Being sympathetic to someone in such a situation is quite distinct from thinking that this is a problem that demands a social or legal or political response. Where that sympathy ends is where those individuals advocate violating liberal principles to get what they want. I suspect women generally get more sympathy with their inability to find a partner because they are less likely to promote forcing society to provide one for them as a solution. Certainly less likely than similarly situated men are.

I agree, but somehow I rarely see things in this space proposed and much more often see the "we need to take away women's rights" kind of solution.

Empathising with struggling guys happens so much here that some people now have the idea that motters who say they aren't incels are just incels lying about being gorgeous hunks.

Edit: I'm not suggesting I think they're wrong.

I agree, but somehow I rarely see things in this space proposed and much more often see the "we need to take away women's rights" kind of solution.

I think part of the problem here is that you do sometimes need to restrict women's rights in order to protect men's, just as men's rights are sometimes restricted to protect women's. Framing "taking away women's rights" as incompatible with liberalism is a female supremist position, as it is equivalent to saying that men's rights must always give way to women's when they conflict.

I'm curious where you perceive their being a conflict between men and women's rights within a liberal framework.

It's quite common that the exercising of one's rights infringes in some way on the rights of others. Society then comes up with rules to balance the rights of one versus the other, usually putting some restrictions on both. As an example, consider sexual harassment. A man asserts his right to freedom of speech. A woman asserts his exercising of that right infringes her right to not be subject to unwanted sexual stimulation. Similarly, a woman asserts her right to wear whatever she wants. A man asserts her exercising of that right infringes his right to not be subject to unwanted sexual stimulation.

EDIT: Grammar.

The idea that women don't want to be sexually harassed because they become sexually stimulated is an idea that's absurd on its face. Accurate flair I guess.

Accurate flair I guess.

Unnecessary. Omit the cheap digs next time.

Fine, replace "stimulation" with "attention". My point still stands that the exercising of some rights can infringe on the rights of others and a liberal society needs to handle that.

I think the way this is usually handled is by defining the contours of the right such that they are not in conflict. I also think this is collapsing all morality into a rights based framework that I'm not sure I (or liberalism) are obliged to. People can do things that are immoral but which they still have a right to do.

I think the way this is usually handled is by defining the contours of the right such that they are not in conflict.

Well yes, and it is quite easy to frame "defining the contours of the right" as "taking away the right" when you think you should be entitled to different contours.

What does "regulat[ing] [the] negative characteristics" for dating, social norms, porn, or video games look like in a way that is compatible with liberalism?

Ban porn or heavily restrict access on the grounds of it being obscene or a harm to children.

Obviously, this is problematic in the view of many liberals today but more onerous and socially damaging restrictions can and have been imposed in the long reign of the ideology.

At worst, it's a constitutional amendment away.

much more often see the "we need to take away women's rights" kind of solution.

Perhaps I've missed them, but I've never seen anyone here propose any laws that take away women's rights to choose their sexual partners.

Being sympathetic to someone in such a situation is quite distinct from thinking that this is a problem that demands a social or legal or political response.

To be more succinct, we offer women social/legal/political responses to remedy problems that arise due to their inability to create a particular interpersonal relationship. We don't offer men social/legal/political responses to remedy problems that arise due to their inability to create a particular interpersonal relationship.

Perhaps I've missed them, but I've never seen anyone here propose any laws that take away women's rights to choose their sexual partners.

Not this week, but a couple of weeks back there was plenty of talk of explicitly limiting women's access to higher education, etc. along with banning birth control, etc. Now, no, this isn't explicitly taking away women's right to do so, but come on.

Perhaps I've missed them, but I've never seen anyone here propose any laws that take away women's rights to choose their sexual partners.

Fair enough, I'm not sure I've seen it so explicitly here but I feel like plenty of people have Darkly Hinted in that direction.

To be more succinct, we offer women a social/legal/political responses to remedy problems that arise due to their inability to create a particular interpersonal relationship. We don't offer men a social/legal/political responses to remedy problems that arise due to their inability to create a particular interpersonal relationship.

What are the responses we offer to women? Outlawing gender based discrimination in pay? That seems... fine to me? Again, I'm open to hearing what kinds of responses we should offer to men, but the people oft complaining about this seem light on actionable solutions.

What are the responses we offer to women? Outlawing gender based discrimination in pay? That seems... fine to me?

One has to not be paying attention in order to believe that that is the only response offered to women. Governments around the world have devoted significant amounts of resources towards rectifying the supposedly problematic gender pay gap and resolving women's underrepresentation in STEM and leadership roles.

For example, in my country (Australia):

Noting that the gender pay gap remained significant, the government announced a $1.9 billion package to improve women’s economic security. The sum takes in $1.7 billion over five years for increased childcare subsidies, as well as $25.7 million to help more women pursue careers in science, engineering and maths.

The package also includes $38.3 million to fund projects that assist women into leadership roles.

https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/childcare-subsidies-make-up-half-of-new-spending-for-women-20210510-p57qjk

Some quotes from the relevant budget statement:

The Government’s Boosting Female Founders Initiative provides co-funded grants to majority women-owned and led start-ups, and facilitates access to expert mentoring and advice. The Initiative, announced in the 2018 and further expanded in the 2020 Women’s Economic Security Statements, provides $52.2 million in competitive grant funding plus $1.8 million in mentoring support. The program commenced in 2020, with round one of the Initiative providing approximately $11.9 million in grant funding to 51 successful applicants. Round two closed on 22 April 2021.

And:

To further grow the pool of women in STEM, the Government is investing $42.4 million over seven years to support more than 230 women to pursue Higher Level STEM Qualifications. These scholarships will be provided in partnership with industry, to build job-ready experience, networks and the cross-cutting capabilities to succeed in modern STEM careers. This program will complement the Women in STEM Cadetship and Advanced Apprenticeships Program announced in the 2020-21 Budget, which targets women to enter industry-relevant, pre-bachelor study.

And:

The Australian Government is committed to supporting more women into leadership positions and to further closing the gender pay gap. The Government is providing $38.3 million over five years to expand the successful Women’s Leadership and Development Program. This builds on the $47.9 million expansion to the Program announced as part of the 2020 Women’s Economic Security Statement. This program funds projects such as Women Building Australia run by Master Builders Australia to support more women into building and construction. These initiatives form part of the Government’s response to increasing gender equality, extending leadership and economic participation opportunities for Australian women, and building a safer, more respectful culture.

https://archive.budget.gov.au/2021-22/womens-statement/download/womens_budget_statement_2021-22.pdf

That's from the 2021-22 budget statement, what has Australia been doing in 2022-23? Let's have a look:

Further measures in the Budget are focused on helping women into higher-paying and traditionally male-dominated industries. To boost the number of women in trades, the Government is investing $38.6 million over 4 years from 2022‑23. Women who commence in higher paying trade occupations on the Australian Apprenticeship Priority List will be provided additional supports, such as mentoring and wraparound services.

And:

The Morrison Government is making a further investment, building on the success of existing initiatives to improve leadership outcomes for women, by providing an additional $18.2 million for the Women’s Leadership and Development Program.

This includes $9 million from 2023-24 to 2025-26 to expand the successful Future Female Entrepreneurs program to develop and grow women’s core entrepreneurial skills. Funding will continue the successful Academy for Enterprising Girls (10-18 year olds) and the Accelerator for Enterprising Women, expanding it to include all women aged 18+, as well as adding a new Senior Enterprising Women program.

To support women facing unique barriers to leadership and employment, the Government is also investing $9.4 million to expand the Future Women’s Jobs Academy and to support gender balanced boards.

https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jane-hume-2020/media-releases/2022-23-budget-boost-support-australian-women-and-girls

Governments are not the only ones who have done this. Blackrock, the world's largest asset manager, is explicitly using their voting power as shareholders to force gender diversity in boards of directors.

We voted against one or more directors at over 3,400 companies globally. Corporate governance concerns - including lack of board independence, insufficient diversity, and executive compensation - prompted most of the votes against directors' elections," BIS stated."

According to BlackRock, insufficient board gender diversity was the main reason for voting against a director in the Americas region, where it voted against 1,554 directors at 975 companies - or 61% of the votes that the firm cast against directors in the region - for board gender diversity-related reasons.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210721080157/https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/news/4034687/blackrock-cites-corporate-governance-concerns-voting-directors-elections

When women complain, they receive commiseration, help and often outright preferencing. I can't say that I see the same thing occurring when men complain.

There is little gender discrimination based on pay; it's a gap that opens up when women choose to enter into relationships with men, have children, and enact gendered labor norms. My objection is to the idea that women who do choose to do just that are entitled to the same income as men, despite e.g. working fewer hours or in more flexible jobs than men in order to care for kids. The "pay gap" is largely a relational issue, driven by personal choice (and unfortunately constrained by gendered norms).

More broadly, we make a big deal of women doing more housework than men, but why should that be a social or political concern? It's a purely relational issue, similar to how men not being able to find a partner is a purely relational issue. We can very easily say to women, "get better!" and attract a mate who'll do equal amounts of housework; but we never do that and instead start hurling invective at men. But when a man can't attract any kind of mate, we stop at "get better!"

I've no objection to purely economic anti-gender discrimination laws. When laws and social attention get into the realm of structuring interpersonal relations, either everyone is worthy of protection by them (with equal emphasis on different gendered protections) or no one is.

The housework thing always seems odd to me -- these are consensual relationships. If it bothers the people they should talk about it, or leave.

(Also, apparently the leisure time of both is about the same, men are working longer, or doing things that don't get counted. I tend to be skeptical of these things, for the reasons noted in this thread).

Time use surveys suggest that men and women do about the same amount of work, just with a different distribution of paid vs unpaid.

I see a meaningful complaint there: if there's a large portion of women who want an equal or reversed distribution of labor but men do not want to switch the current distribution, I think there's room for legitimate activism there, even though women always have the choice to not be in a relationship with one of those dastardly men.

But it is fundamentally about changing social and gender norms to improve women's experience of relationships. Which is fine in my book, but I don't see a justification for that that doesn't apply to improving men's relational experiences (beyond men bad).

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats