site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   36353 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To quote myself from the old place:

Should be remembered that historically, at least in major Western countries, once women's suffrage was actualized, women were more likely to vote for conservative parties than for left-wing parties for a long period - it only flipped the other way in the 70s or the 80s.

"As already indicated, the “history” of the gender voting gap in Western democracies can roughly be divided into three phases (Inglehart and Norris 2000, 2003). The first phase (the traditional gender gap) lasted until the late 1970s/1980s and is typically characterized by a more conservative vote from women in comparison to men (e.g., Campbell et al. 1960; Norris 1988; Randall 1987). This was predominantly explained with women's more pronounced religiosity (see Manow and Emmenegger 2012 for a detailed discussion) and their lower labor market participation (i.e., Baxter and Lansing 1983; Blankenburg 1967). The clear-cut party competition, with regard to religion, traditional family structures, and a woman's devotion to her family, worked in favor of a more conservative female vote (e.g., Norris 1988; Studlar et al. 1998). At the end of the 1970s, the gender differences in the ballot started to vanish, or at least substantially diminish, in several countries, especially in Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands. This phase of so-called female party de-alignment has partly been explained by modernization and secularization processes, as well as by the accompanying decomposition of cleavages in general (Inglehart and Norris 2000). Shortly thereafter, in the 1980s, surprisingly new gender-driven voting differences emerged in some advanced democracies, such as the United States, West Germany, and the Netherlands (Inglehart and Norris 2000). This time, however, the gender gap was reversed and exhibited a female preference for parties on the left. Ever since, a third phase defined by a modern gender voting gap has entered the electoral scene. However, these new emerging electoral gender differences are rather seen as a reflection of overall societal value changes leading to the de-alignment phase (e.g., Inglehart and Norris 2000)."

What has flipped once might very well flip again, given the conditions.

Isn't that adequately explained by conformism? Women held up the dominant religion back then and they do so now.

No, not really. For instance, one example I've seen used is that many French republicans (for decades past the last French monarch actually was on throne) were suspicious of women's suffrage because they thought women would return a king to the throne. One argument was even that it would create instability, since there would then be pressure from the republican army to coup the king to return to a republic. What were the women "conforming to" then? Who determines the target of conformity? Men? But men were to the left of the women - the women weren't following the instructions of the men in voting, at least in all cases.

No, not really. For instance, one example I've seen used is that many French republicans (for decades past the last French monarch actually was on throne) were suspicious of women's suffrage because they thought women would return a king to the throne. One argument was even that it would create instability, since there would then be pressure from the republican army to coup the king to return to a republic. What were the women "conforming to" then? Who determines the target of conformity? Men? But men were to the left of the women - the women weren't following the instructions of the men in voting, at least in all cases.

That is a good counter-example that works against my theory. But to what degree do we know that women were actually more royalist decades after the revolution? Also, when was this? Didn't the French pretty quickly revert to a monarchy in all but name? I could see it being the case that republicans didn't like the female franchise and simply called it royalist because it was bad. Similar to how everyone and their mother is called a White Supremacist these days. Mind you, I am merely musing, I have absolutely no data to back this up.

I can give you some historical data. The initial message spoke about "decades past the last French monarch actually was on throne", and yours about "quickly revert[ing] to a [monarchy] in all but name".

  1. It should be noted that before the French Revolution, some french women had a right to vote in some circumstances: those that were declared heads of a noble family, because they were widows or single, or some religious women, were called to vote in the Etat Généraux. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

  2. The last french monarchy died in 1848. It is also in 1848 that all french men got the right to vote (before that, the right to vote was limited to a few rich men).

  3. The Second Empire lasted from 1952 to 1870.

  4. After 1870, France was a Republic, except for 4 years during Second World War.

  5. Women got the right to vote in France in 1944 (so right after second world war) and voted for the first time in 1945.

  6. Some people on the left argue that France is still some kind of monarchy (a "republican monarchy") since 1958 (Fifth Republic) as the president is very powerful. However, as the president is elected for a finite amount of time, I suppose that is not what you could call "a monarchy in all but name".

So I think "decades past the last French monarch actually was on throne" meant from 1870 to 1944.

But to what degree do we know that women were actually more royalist decades after the revolution?

It is a difficult question to answer, but the question was not only that they were royalist, but that they were supposed to be more religious than men. It is difficult to know if it is true, but it is certain that it was one of the main arguments advanced by the anticlerical Parti Radical, which was a strong centrist party under the Third Republic.

OP claimed that women are (too) empathic and that this leads to a number of (suboptimal) permissive policy choices that we tend to call progressive. Stefferi countered that there were periods of time when women were regarded as much more conservative than men, even when the Zeitgeist went in a different direction. The French example was meant to illustrate this.

My position is that women are the arbiters of social orthodoxy and are much more conformist than men. When the orthodoxy is religious, they're more religious. When the orthodoxy is woke, they're more woke. After a couple decades of Republicanism, they should be more Republican if that ideology penetrated the social consciousness deeply enough.

A number of counter-examples were raised. The rise of Hitler and the support he received from women is one, the supposedly more royalist French women is another. The question is: are those good counter-examples? The former is certainly a good counter-example to the OP's proposal that women prefer more empathetic and permissive policies. I am not yet sure if it is a good counter to my claim. It could very well be that the Weimar Republic was mainly an elite project with mores that ran counter to the sensibilities of the masses. A similar thing could be true about female royalists in France.

You might be right (I don't know). The main point of my post was to give historical data.

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