site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 9, 2026

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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

most men and most women are not allowed to do sports in a meaningful competitive manner already

This might be true at the elite level, but despite being quite a bit slower than NCAA-tier elite women, as a guy I still feel "allowed to do sports" when I show up at a local foot race. At smaller races I sometimes even manage to place well in my age group.

IMO even individual sports benefit from a clear basis of comparison. I can be impressed at masters runners putting up solid times even well behind the elite winners. I think it'd be disheartening and disappointing if a 25 year old could win the 60+ division just because he "felt old". And women's divisions were created basically whole cloth in living memory (notably with opposition from some feminists in favor of a gender blank slatism that generally seems disproven today) to give these sorts of opportunities: I don't think we should part with them lightly.

If you're talking about a competition that has separate categories for men, women, juniors, masters, sport, first-time participants, and people who weigh more than 200 lbs., you're not talking about a serious competition but an event designed to attract the widest participation possible. I've been semi-involved with the organization of these kinds of competitions (I wasn't part of the organizing committee but involved with the host organization), and I can assure you that the resources don't exist to do any kind of verification beyond the honors system. A 25-year-old who "feels old" isn't going to sign up for the masters division just to increase his chances at a trophy for the same reasons that people who are actually good don't sign up for the sport division.

And these categories don't matter much for the average participant. I pulled the results for the Great Race, a 10k held in Pittsburgh every September. The top men's time this year was 31:05, and the top women's time was 34:46. The top men's master was 33:49, and the top women's master was 38:33. If the top woman raced in the men's category, she'd have finished in 30th place, which doesn't sound impressive until you consider that the men's category had 2,458 participants with a median time of 56:26. For comparison, the women had 2,671 participants and a median finish time of 1:03:02. The median man could certainly increase his success by racing with women, but going from 1,229th place to 671st place isn't the kind of improvement most people think of.

yeah running is in general a category where women and men are most equal, strength is generally where the differences lie the most. Look at a weightlifting competition and try to see what it looks like. I was shocked that me a total wimp who deadlifts 345 would be among the top lifters in the female division of a local comp.

IMO even individual sports benefit from a clear basis of comparison. I can be impressed at masters runners putting up solid times even well behind the elite winners. I think it'd be disheartening and disappointing if a 25 year old could win the 60+ division just because he "felt old"

What would also be disheartening (IMO) is if top runners in the 60+ age category demanded the same level of social status, respect, and money received by top runners in their 20s. And if those demands were taken seriously.

It's somewhat true already: they get trophies and podium time and even press coverage in excess of much faster athletes who place outside of the top three (prize money may go a bit further, but not to say the 100th finisher). "Local athlete won the [not young] age group in [big marathon]" is a pretty regular headline in local news in my experience. The oldest finisher sometimes gets coverage too.

It's somewhat true already: they get trophies and podium time and even press coverage in excess of much faster athletes who place outside of the top three (prize money may go a bit further, but not to say the 100th finisher). "Local athlete won the [not young] age group in [big marathon]" is a pretty regular headline in local news in my experience. The oldest finisher sometimes gets coverage too.

I'd like to see examples of 60+ runners demanding social status, respect, and/or money commensurate with that of top runners overall. And those demands being taken seriously.