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 think this kind of discussion gets wrapped up too quickly in accepting a liberal feminist frame to even make sense. Now sure, we can talk about the merits of specific policies or realities in isolation, which have gendered outcomes and discuss approaches. But to try to wrap it into 'men' as a class vs 'women' as a class and holistically discuss the social deal, cedes the entire frame that this is the appropriate way to modularize social policy.
When I think about how good or bad I have it, I think about my family in a unit. What's good for my wife is good for me and vice versa. Within our family, my wife certainly has it "worse" than me because she had to go through childbirth to get a child, where I didn't. Everything else is an equal share of reward and burden, even if we divy it up differently, because we are one unit yoked together. I feel sorry for people incapable of thinking like that.
I fully agree that at a social level, 'women are victims but also exactly the same as men' thinking has poisoned the well, and I don't disagree with pushing back on that thinking generally and in specific policy or social norms. I don't think men should just roll over at problems that affect men. But I completely disagree with simply taking the feminist frame and trying to reverse it.
More options
Context Copy link