site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Relax, it's also sexism if they don't want to. First time?

Women don’t have agency, as can be seen in the article itself. These women don’t make decisions, they are “plagued by midcareer derailing”, “have not been properly prepared”.

How is it sexism if they don't want it? Sexism means the reason they are not in these positions is that external forces prevent them from doing so. To allege that the inner wiring of their brain has been corrupted by malicious social forces is conspiratorial and ignores that to some extent it is going to be the natural consequence of women having less testosterone. More testosterone = more status seeking = more desire to rise up the organizational hierarchy. So if they lack testosterone, less representation in management is an obvious outcome.

Honestly I can't tell if your message is sarcastic or not.

I don't know about sexism, but a principal component of feminism is that society asserts gender norms that can affect, usually negatively, both women and men. Eg when my aunt went to law school 80 years ago, there were 3 women in her class. Now, women made up more than half of law students. Similarly, male nurses were almost unheard of years ago. Those changes were the result in part of changes in preferences, but those preferences were, and are, shaped in part by norms.

Sexism means the reason they are not in these positions is that external forces prevent them from doing so.

No, not according to feminists. Ever heard of internalized sexism?

If you managed to prove that discrimination was non-existent or even favoured women in some cases, which has been done, they would retreat to this position. Even if men were absent or every single act of sexism was performed by women, feminist theory would still stand tall. Because it's an unfalsifiable castle in the air, floating above dozens of nested baileys.

As I alluded to, according to me and other critics, the deeper belief at the heart of feminism, is that women have no agency: they are either acted upon directly, or, if they act, someone else (men) made them act. Accordingly, all blame always devolves to men, no matter the circumstances. This tactic, of course , can prove the 'oppression' of any group one cares to name.