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 -
Does "We" mean men, or do you think that removing women's liberties is compatible with a free society?
As for safety, I'm living in a massive, diverse, multicultural city where families can hang out safely in amazing public parks late into the night, and a hot woman can walk down the darkest, dingiest alleyway at 3 am in the morning without as much as fearing being cat-called. On the other hand, it's also a society run by rich people unprincipled enough to work with commies, whose main legitimation from the socially conservative masses is that the police will be badasses if someone does as much as play loud music too late at night in a ghetto, and even the dumbest semi-disabled old man can (and probably must) get a job sweeping leaves under the supervision of a pedantic harpy or something similarly simple in those amazing public parks.
In short, there are many social models, but there isn't one which is both free and massively restricts the freedom of 49% of the population.
I agree with you that modern society is overly empathetic, but this is a trend that goes back to the 18th century, as the intellectual classes began to promote the idea that benevolence is the ultimate virtue. It predates the decline of patriarchy and organised religion, and it's at least as notable in e.g. the upper echelons of the Catholic Church hierarchy (all-male and all-religious, more or less) as in a multi-gender corporate boardroom.
Additionally, as I recall personality psychology, the vast majority of men are about as empathetic as most women. The aggregate differences are at the margins, e.g. highly trait-disagreeable people are overwhelmingly men.
His argument is clearly that women sacrifice almost all their liberties for those two specific ones.
I'm not sure what that means. Can you provide more detail?
How much liberty do you think men would sacrifice to be able to vote and work?
That women voting and working uniquely causes them to sacrifice the rights they have as non-voting homemakers. That is the right to a home to make, a right to not be raped (and other molestation and violent crimes in public), the right to a functional government, etc.
None really. An unworking man, in the state of nature, is quickly dispatched by the rest of local humanity, or abandoned and allowed to starve.
More simply put, to understand the argument, you must understand the priors of it. One is that women are very bad at voting for things that are good for women. Particularly long term. They support things like welfare, soft on crime policies, anti bullying (physical only of course), which feminize public spaces, but allow for the truly sociopathic to take over society. Contrasted with the less empathic male voting patterns, it is taken that voting should be restricted to the class that is historically less likely to allow for the sociopathic capture of government.
Similarly, the prior is that female influence in the workplace does a few things: 1) It makes single income families out of reach for most households because it increases labor supply; 2) It also does part 1, because it reduces male effectiveness (productivity) over time, as women profligate workplace rules (HR) that provide small subsets of women short term wins in favor of the economy as a whole losing; 3) It increases reliance on government services, like public education, which lower overall productivity, allows for public employee unions to hold communities hostage, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link