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 -
Incentivize them how?
You say that "culturally enforcing monogamy" is equivalent to women being "restrained"; ok, by what mechanism will you restrain them?
As I often say:
Return to 1993.
Make it harder in general to attend college, which will incidentally make it harder for women to go to college, as a natural effect of making it harder to obtain funding for unprofitable degrees.
Women with college degrees are more arbitrarily selective of their mates, have more debt (and pick degrees that pay less), and are generally more liberal which correlates strongly with 'anti-male' sentiment. This is not universally true, but the impact is too large to ignore.
Fewer women going to college means, on the margins, more of them are likely to seek marriage.
Remove the economic privileges that make it preferential to hire women over men, we'd simply expect men to gain back more resources, which, as per the aforementioned studies, would mean more marriage, more families.
I see no reason not to do this because women themselves have only gotten increasingly miserable since 1993. THEY THEMSELVES are not any happier than they were back then, so something clearly went wrong.
Point of fact: this restrains BOTH Genders.
Again, I've said it before:
No sex before marriage solves the problem for both sides.
We could try making marriage a stricter, more meaningful contract again, too.
But nobody has a single hangup about restraining male behavior. There'd be little pushback if you wanted to pass a law that made it legal for women to unilaterally kick their husbands out of the house for alleged abuse, but specifically banned men from doing the same. This is the whole issue.
We're already restraining male behavior... why it it somehow beyond the pale to discuss restraining ladies?
I've brought this point up before with... oh it was YOU, SPECIFICALLY. 1 year ago. We are not making progress, it seems.
Really? I think there would be considerable pushback against a law that is that explicit about stating that female abuse doesn't happen and that only men can be abusers. I realize there is a sizeable contingent of feminist legal theorists who functionally believe this, but I doubt your hypothetical law passes anywhere in the U.S. At most, they try to write the definition of "abuse" in such a way that it's much more difficult to accuse a woman of it, and even that would be tough.
My tongue's partially in my cheek because... that's approximately how the law works (in Florida!) already.
A husband is ALLOWED to seek a domestic violence injunction but far and away in my experience its the wives/girlfriends getting them. In Miami-Dade County its about 73% women filing for them. In terms of who gets them granted its 80+% women.
And the effect of getting/filing an injunction is that the other person can't come near the 'alleged victim' which means... they have to leave the house, and can't even talk to the alleged victim.
So this isn't quite the exact law I'm talking about... but nobody seems to question the one we have on the books, as applied.
Okay, sure, but I'm very intentionally questioning the assertion you actually made, that no one would push back on a de jure law that only applies in one direction. That it de facto heavily benefits one sex over the other isn't surprising, but, you know, 27% of filings and 20% granted being men is a minority, but it's not nothing, or even statistically insignificant.
And, courts unfair to men women never held responsible yadda yadda whatever, but men are more often the ones being removed for physical abuse? I am shocked. To the degree these court orders are weaponized (a push or a slap becomes "threatened my life"), I would be very surprised if men aren't doing that just as often.
Can you point out any previous serious pushback against laws that explicitly favor women/protections for women?
We have the abortion situation, but voters tend to approve broader abortion rights, when asked. Its like, there is just no actual organized 'resistance' to a law that is couched as pro-female!
I think if you simply couched it as "protecting women from becoming unhoused by abusive partners exploiting the courts" you could turn it into a 60-40 in favor issue, at least.
Would YOU vote against that?
No. But I can't recall any recent laws that made a black-and-white distinction like what you are hypothesizing. If you can show me a law (in the US) that literally says, for example, "Abuse is defined as a male hitting a female," or something like that, I will reassess my opinion.
Would I vote against a law that explicitly defines abuse in such a way that men hitting women is abuse and women hitting men is not? Yes, I would.
What would you tell the female voters who accuse you of misogyny for favoring the ability of abusive men to kick women out of the house?
Anyway, I admit to laying a bit of a trap because its been red states passing laws aimed at protecting female rights, Which do try to draw a very direct black and white gender distinction.
Because of trans issues, you see.
Kansas passed something called, LITERALLY, "The Women's Bill of Rights" OVER THE GOVERNOR'S VETO.
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/victory-womens-bill-of-rights-passes-in-kansas-with-bipartisan-support
Mississipi's was called the“Securing Areas for Females Effectively and Responsibly Act”
https://magnoliatribune.com/2024/05/13/legislation-signed-into-law-defining-sexes-protecting-single-sex-spaces-for-women/
Alabama called theirs The “What Is a Woman?” Act.
https://natlawreview.com/article/what-woman-alabama-governor-signs-bill-declaring-there-are-only-two-sexes
Its kind of funny that news stories tend to specify these laws as protecting 'women' even though, admittedly, they are textually reciprocal. For some reason the legislators title them explicitly around the female interests that are invoked.
So yeah. Its pretty obvious to me that any time you can couch a policy change as "protecting the girls" you can get a huge amount of normie support for it.
I'm not a politician, so I am not concerned about that.
For someone who's the #3 He-man Woman-Hater on the Motte, I really don't understand your cringing attitude towards the prospect of female disapproval. I get that it's harder when you're out there in the dating market, and I won't lie, I am glad not to be there, but still.
Yes, I figured that, but as I expected, they aren't actually what I asked for. And even by your own admission, they are actually "textually reciprocal" (i.e., de jure they apply both ways, even if it is pretty obvious that no one is worried about trans men being excluded from men's spaces). So... you gave me oranges and said "Look at them unfair apples! Gotcha!" Uh, right.
I'm not even convinced "normies" buy the "protecting girls" framework here. To the degree leftists are in favor of trans rights bills, they see trans women as an oppressed underclass, but I am deeply skeptical as to how many really and truly perceive them as "girls," in the way that provokes the male protective instinct you are so despairing of.
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