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 -
Continuing on with The Motte's theme of the week, the Australian Federal Government has given the online dating industry a year to implement a 'voluntary' code of conduct in the face of 'online sexual violence' or presumably face regulation.
This ultimatum seems to be motivated by “An investigation by the Australian Institute of Criminology last year found three-quarters of online daters had been subject to some kind of online sexual violence in the past five years.”
Finding the referenced report 'Dating App Facilitated Sexual Violence' (their term, not mine) seems to include amongst other acts:
- Pressured the respondent to give them information about their location or their schedule
- Continued to contact the respondent even after they told them they were not interested in having a relationship with them
- Pressured the respondent verbally to perform unwanted sexual acts (eg making promises, lying, repeatedly asking or insisting etc)
- Sent the respondent an unwanted sexually explicit message
- Sent the respondent an unwanted sexually explicit photo or video of themselves
- Pressured the respondent to meet them in person when they did not want to
This would include dick pics or non-consensual sexually explicit language sent through a dating app, along with other mundane dating activity. The march to broaden the definition of sexual violence to include 'making women uncomfortable' continues.Australia, is usually a follower of countries like Canada and the UK when it comes to these sorts of policies, but it does occasionally become the first mover when there is the chance of getting a cheap political win (and to seem like it is doing something in the face of more serious issues such as the housing crisis).
The linked news article is kind of buried down the state news media's front page and references the federal government's
karensocial services minister who has previously worked on 'cyber safety' committees. There is a fair chance this is a complete nothing burger that will blow over and is just the govt making noises rather than actually intending to follow through, but time will tell.I might regret engaging with this but... to me these rules appear targeted towards stopping sexual harassment. Most women consider pressure after she's said "no" harassment, unsolicited dick picks harassment, etc etc. And it really does feel unsafe. Now, some uncomfortable and unwanted communication just comes with the territory of being female in the dating world. I do think redefining (most) of these things as sexual violence is bad as it weakens the definition of sexual violence. But... a lot of these behaviors really are highly upsetting to many women, and the other comments saying this is just "normal dating" have me pretty worried about what these posters think is normal behavior.
Pressuring women for contact or sex when she has said no should not be normal. Unsolicited pictures of gentitalia should not be normal. Continuing to contact a woman after she's said no should not be normal. Lying should not be normal.
I think this is more an attempt to legislate men into treating women like fellow humans than trying to control dating. The way the sexes interact is complex enough that I'm not sure it really can be effectively legislated. Ultimately, I guess I agree that this law would be bad (or at least not have the intended effects), but a culture should also never be in a position where people think legislation is the only way for women to be treated well.
What's wrong with the men these days that people think this is the only way they will behave?
Then women must stop rewarding these behaviors. If you want to actually impose change from on high, your authority has to somehow punish Stacey when she accepts a date with Chad after she turned him down the first time. Just telling men that 'no means never' isn't going to work if they see that guys who get laid are being persistent and guys who aren't persistent don't get laid.
I'm not going to deny that lying, manipulation, and harassing women get men laid. That's been well documented. But if you think that manipulating, lying to, and harassing women is fine as long as it gets you sex, maybe... just maybe... you're the reason Australia is considering this
lawregulation.I'm going to take a step back here: Earlier today, I listened to a podcast on the Free Press, Bari Weiss' site. It was called Are we living through end times?, and was about the signs of social unrest that precede revolution. Our time has many of them. One of the primary signs of impending revolution is “emmiseration of the masses”. One of the things that happens during this emisseration is that people start to see that although their ancestors were able to achieve success playing by the rules, they can't anymore. They come to believe they now have to cheat their way to the top. And indeed, the cheaters win. They win in politics, they win in college admissions, they win at tests, and although the podcast did not address this... they now win in the bedroom too.
But a society cannot function if only cheaters can win. The entire system breaks down. And indeed, our whole sexual system is breaking down. 25% of 40 year olds have never been married, and 6/10 men in their 20s are single. Our birth rate is the lowest it's ever been. The situation is not better for women. I can't find the articles I wanted to cite here, so instead I'll link to an account by a university professor of the confusion she and her students feel when they are told they ought to feel happy about sexual encounters they found exploitative and upsetting. Note that it often takes women years to figure out why they felt used. Do you think Stacy likes it when Chad pushes her boundaries until she has sex with him?
The only winners in today's sexual culture are the small percentage of men who can have dozens of sex partners while an increasing number of men have none at all. We are in the middle of a sexual apocalypse, and we have got to find a way to reverse it.
This bill is an attempt to get men to play by the rules again. There have always been cheaters, but the costs of hurting women were too high for most men when the women they dated were their friends' sisters or people who were going to be in their social circles for years. Now that men can date women none of their friends know, whom they can arrange to never see again, and have a society gaslighting women into thinking casual sex is empowering, men can use underhanded tactics like these to gain an unfair advantage over other men. This is bad for women, it's bad for honest men, it's bad for men who resort to them to compete, and it's really really bad for society. When liars and manipulators win, it corrodes our culture's soul.
We can't function like this. This
lawregulation isn't the answer. Other posters are right that the worst offenders will find ways to slip through. This law is a bandaid slapped on a hemorrhaging amputated arm. Our sex culture needs a deeper culture change in order to work for most people again, but we have to find a way to fix this! Our whole future is riding on it.I'm behind you on "manipulating" and "lying". On "harassing"... I think you may be looking at the problem backwards. I think the stigmatisation of deep love is part of what you correctly decry here, and I think rolling that back in law but also in culture is a necessary part of any reversal. Say what you will about stalkers, they're about the least-likely people to cheat on you.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with most everything you say but the way you phrase certain things, as exemplified by the 'triggered' @Folamh3 reply you got, undermines it and makes it seem like you are coming from a point that completely misunderstands why these problems arise to begin with. At least as far as it relates to what I assume is a popular opinion here; that society changed in this way to a large extent because of women's empowerment.
Now, I think it would behoove us, instead of blaming some vague thing like 'society', to recognize just what happened. Why were things allowed to change to begin with? Why didn't the men, who then had power, stop it?
The verbiage in your post is steeped in the sort of meaning that feels similar to what one would hear from a lone brave professor who decided to teach the first woman who attended his lectures despite all the men in the class leaving in protest. Or the rhetoric of a universalist 'egalitarian'.
"Fairness."
"Our future"
There are no 'fair' solutions to this problem. The very idea of 'fairness' and 'equality' between men and women was part of what created it. There is no 'us'. The only 'working' societies in the world subjugate women. The universe does not owe anyone who wanders outside of that dynamic a solution to their self inflicted problems.
To that end, regardless of how highly you think of your post, I don't think you are saying a lot. The impression I get from reading it, for whatever that is worth, is that the drowning mans salvation lies at the bottom of the ocean.
Outside of that I am all ears to an actual solution to this problem that doesn't come from Catholic neo-reactionaries and the like.
Wow I can't remember the last time someone accused me of being "triggered" by something.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nice way to pass the buck there, blaming this on "society" rather than "feminist media".
This is antagonistic and a bit low effort. Do less of this please.
Understood, apologies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Stereotypical frat kids and the media they consume are not particularly feminist, but they still will find casual sex all kinds of awesome. The issue runs pretty deep.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not a law! No one is considering a law!
"You do this thing we want you to do 'voluntarily' or we'll do it for you" is the most transparent of fig leaves. That it's regulation by threat rather than code doesn't make it less de facto required.
I mean, I wouldn't even call it a fig leaf. There's no pretense the government isn't driving this. They had an announcement and everything.
But it remains the fact that there is no law being proposed and this remains an important distinction! The government is saying "hey we think this is a problem, come up with some ways to address it". So yes, it is compelling action. But it is allowing the apps to decide themselves on the specific action, it is not imposing penalties for breaches, and it is not putting legislation in place that will endure beyond the term of the current Minister. This is the lightest of light touches.
I agree with you that this is currently not actually a law, but I think you are being slightly dishonest when you claim that "No one is considering a law!" - this is the sort of action which frequently precedes legislation on the topic, as the problems the code is meant to address remain unaddressed. I find it hard to believe that even the most ardent supporter of a code like this actually believes that it will do anything at all to fix the problem of men continuing to propose alternatives when their first data idea gets shot down.
No, it isn't. I challenge you to provide me with even one example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
right-o. regulation. So law by a non-lawmaking agency. I'll update my post accordingly.
(Despite the sarcasm, genuine thanks)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I entirely agree. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone is willing to make the compromises that are necessary to solve this problem, because even suggesting most of them is taboo. There will need to be a technological solution or natural selection will eventually solve us for it.
What does natural selection solving it for us look? An Amish and Muslim future?
Don't forget the Quiverfull evangelicals!
I absolutelt endorse this future
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Laws catch the little sharks while the big ones just bull through. Maybe this is a feature designed to catch horny persistent careless-at-best individuals that aren't Chad.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not Australian, so it's not likely. But "lying" and manipulation and "harassment" (that is to say, not taking 'no' or even just evasiveness as 'never') have been part of the human mating dance at least since language was invented. Probably before.
That is correct. But what these rules do is empower cheaters more. The normal guy who is just trying to respond to an intentionally ambiguous situation is discouraged or punished. Chad, being Chad, doesn't care and does what he always does. And usually gets away with it.
Yes she does. Perhaps years later after Chad #5 or #10 or more she realizes that chasing that feeling was unwise, but at the time she loved it. And she put up barriers specifically to filter out men who wouldn't push them.
It can't fix the incentive structure. It can punish men who do things likely to get them sex, but all that does is empower even more the most brazen ones who for whatever reason can get away with it (i.e. Chad). It can force men out of the game, but the only way to get men to play by "the rules" is if playing by "the rules" can actually result in success.
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