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 -
I'm not sure how this is supposed to answer the OP's question. Women are less competitive at sports because they're... more competitive? You seem to be portraying them here as competitive, anyway.
I would agree that "higher average agreeableness" would be a possible explanation for being less competitive at sports, but I don't see how this follows from your first point, and in fact it seems to contradict it. Women are more agreeable... and that's why they're always trying to tear each other down?
I mean, if you think words don't mean anything, then I understand your confusion. Let me illustrate with some examples if the difference between nakedly shitting in someone's soul, and actual competitiveness seems too abstract for you.
My wife eats healthy and exercises. Both because it makes her feel good, is good for her mental health, and it helps her auto-immune issues and family history of Crohn's Disease. And every single one of her friends, her mother, her sister et al are constantly making passive aggressive comments about it. Weird shit implying one way or another she's gonna get fat. Or that she's actually hurting herself. Or that she's setting impossible body standards for our daughter. Or that she won't look good if she gets too muscular.
What's the competition? My wife is already married, to me. The women are already married too! These women aren't trying to beat my wife in a race, or anything else for that matter. None of my wife's behaviors have the slightest indirect impact on them, beyond making them feel guilty about their own poor choices. So they whisper poison in her ear.
Now, compare this with Mike Tyson trying to get into his opponents head before they directly clash in the ring. Shit like "I'm going to eat your children" or "I'll fuck you till you love me." Attempting to intimidate a boxer before you fight directly in the ring in a time honored tradition, and how it counts as competitive behavior should be manifestly obvious.
So men are associated with the good version of competition - pure, honorable, based on rules and tradition, with a spiritual purpose. And women are associated with the bad version of competition - spiteful, lawless, poisonous, visited on people who want no part of it. Bit suspicious that it would break down so cleanly like that.
Why make it a gendered thing? Clearly all humans have the capacity to engage in both sorts of activity. Need we point out that men commit the vast majority of acts of rape, murder, and torture? Almost all mass shooters are men - how's that for poison? Granted, a lot of victims of violent crime are asking for it in various ways, but many aren't (I know from firsthand experience). So much for honorable and rule-governed conduct.
If I had to choose between being physically assaulted or being called fat, I'd generally prefer being called fat. If the question is who "shits in people's souls" more, then men do so much more shitting that it's not even a contest.
Men and women are different. Why wouldn't these differences surface in their approaches to competition?
Traditionally competition amongst women is much less direct than competition among men, I suspect oweing to the traditional venus for competition and lessor roles in public life.
Also it's typically only women that care about womens competition, if that.
This is changing quite fast. While obviously women disproportionately care, and men still care about men's sport much more, in Britain at least both women's cricket and football are becoming increasingly mainstream society wide, and with tennis it's been the case for some time.
Possibly in terms of watching competition as entertainment. It's a very small portion of women that participate in women's athletics via organized competition. Nor do the women who participate benefit in the same way that men do, as women's achievements are not valued as much by men as men's achievements by women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a great example. Evidently I touched a nerve, and thus total war, scorched Earth, is declared. Expand the scope of the argument without limit, and say every mean and hateful thing about the opposition you can passive aggressively throw out, as though it has anything to do with anything.
I appreciate you being so gracious as to provide such a sterling example. Takes a lot of courage to step into that role.
You know I’m a man right?
Anyway I bear no ill will towards you, so if you don’t want to continue the discussion we don’t have to.
I was being charitable and kind and assuming you were just pretended to be retarded as an example. Or are you saying that men can be just as passive aggressive as women can, because you, a certified haver of a penis, are so?
It's evident to me that you knew from your first post in this exchange that you were cruising for a banning, so you decided to go for broke and get your digs in while you could.
Banned for a week.
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