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 still thinking about the Barbie movie. It occurred to me that, among the many plausible readings, there's one in which it's a parable about the responsibility that comes with the red pill.
After Ken reaches Kenlightenment, he immediately uses Facts and Logic to convince everyone in Barbieland that patriarchy is superior to all other forms of government. All of the Barbies agree to live under this system, but Ken worries that they may change their minds. And so, after the Kens are put in charge, they schedule a vote to change the constitution so that no woman can ever hold a position of power again.
Ken didn't do anything wrong when he convinced women to choose subservience, but he did do something wrong when he tried to force their permanent subservience. It's not that he didn't care about making the world better for the Barbies, it's just that he cared even more about making the world better for him and the other Kens. And despite his confident exterior, he knew deep down that patriarchy might not actually be the best system, so he needs a failsafe. Ken went from Jared "freedom of association" Taylor to Richard "peaceful ethnic cleansing" Spencer. That's when he became the villain.
To be clear, I am not trying to actually read the intent of the filmmakers. I just find it interesting how everyone can see a reflection of their own values in the movie. Some of my favorite political satire is stuff that doesn't take a clear stance, and when political propaganda is done so clumsily that nobody is sure what stance is being advocated, it accidentally becomes great satire.
Like, I'm not even sure the film does have a political message. I would just as easily buy that it's supposed to be a comedy without an real agenda as I would that it has an agenda it poorly communicates.
I think Barbie is just a (good) movie, and it's a mistake to read too much politics into it. Although the media commentary on it and the typical moviegoer probably reads the narrative through a typical feminist interpretative lens, it allows for other ones as well: Barbieland isn't some egalitarian utopia, and the movie doesn't try to portray the Barbiarchy as some ideal state. There's a bit of dialog that overdoes it a bit, but it doesn't dominate the movie. It's only the most shallow interpetation to think it's all about how awesome girlbossing is.
I get where you're coming from but come on. This is a political movie and really not much else. As a toy commercial it's a failure that shits on the product, the company that makes it and even its own existence and isn't even aimed at the target demographic for the toy. It does have interesting aesthetics (which are the best part of it besides Gosling's stellar acting) but the main and heavy focus of all that's going on is politics. The politics of sex specifically.
I think it's preposterous to say that you shouldn't read politics in a movie where the word patriarchy is said unironically more than a dozen times and is an actual plot point.
This is political and again though I'd have preferred it to be a live action cartoon with those really nice aesthetics, it's ultimately trying to be art about the modern relationship between the sexes, and is actually kinda successful if probably unintentionally.
People say we'll forget this and Oppenheimer will be the one that's remembered, I think the opposite is true. Ken's arc is probably the most honest attempt at understanding men's place from the point of view of modern women I've ever seen. Even if it was stumbling over itself, was afraid to explore the full consequences of what happened and ultimately was probably mostly unintentional.
The most depressing thing about this movie for me is what it says about the condition of women, not men really. "Girlbossing is fucking awful and we hate everything about it but the only alternative is slavery therefore we must endure and oppress or get oppressed" is fucking grim.
The film is interesting because it's not a simple story abou a utopia being destroyed by dastardly men: it's clearly a pretty shitty experience for the Kens, it shows vectors of female power, and at the end it shows the Barbies mostly recreating the old shitty world instead of having learned anything, despite the talk of patriarchy and complaining of a single-sex dominated society.
Although I would agree that Greta Gerwig probably didn't intend for it to be some MRA rallying cry, death of the author and all that. The movie is narratively textured enough to support alternative interpretations, and the aesthetics and excellent acting by Gosling make it worth watching.
I guess what I meant by reading politics into it is that someone doesn't have to imagine Gerwig's politics, project them onto the movie, and be stuck in that interpretive box.
It's far from unknown for writers to write things promoting a point of view, and not realize that they've actually shown that their point of view isn't as great as they think. The more ideological the writer is being, the more likely this is to happen.
People in real life can be hypocrites without realizing it. So it's not that hard for an author to have the characters and themes in the work end up hypocritical without realizing it.
That's what you get when you think your outgroup is cartoonishly evil. Kens are oppressors because they're evil and what evil people do is oppress. They don't act to benefit themselves--they act Because They are Evil.
Not sure if you have seen the film? The Kens definitely aren't portrayed as evil, they're just misguided and naive and kinda sweet. Gerwig said she was inspired by her 4-year-old's emotional lability.
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