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 -
My first post here, let me know if am doing something wrong.
Motte, bailey and patriarchy
I have noticed that when feminists talk about the patriarchy they often commit the motte-and-bailey fallacy. Before I continue it is important to note that as far as I know there is no generally accepted definition of patriarchy and how the word is used differs widely even among academics and "experts".
The motte part is a patriarchy theory as used in anthropology and sociology. This part is usually solid and you can use it as evidence that patriarchy is a real thing. Arguments for patriarchy from anthropology and sociology are:
The bailey part is a patriarchy theory as used in feminism. This part is much more speculative and authors rarely try to prove it. Arguments for patriarchy from feminism are:
How feminists typically use the motte and bailey fallacy: They make a claim of the bailey type, for instance "men are the majority of homeless because patriarchy hurts men too". When the opponent attacks the bailey and argues that no such patriarchy exists, the feminist will retreat to the motte and reply with "of course patriarchy is real, do you deny that wives take husbands names, do you deny that we still call ourselves 'mankind'?"
The important part of course is that arguments in the bailey part have no direct causal connection to arguments in the motte part.
I think the hidden logic for these types of claims look like this:
This is why patriarchy is hard to define. It can't just be the traditionalist trappings that have managed to remain, because it is something that needs to be in power right now manipulating society.
So I'd argue that rather agreeing with that the patriarchy exists, instead argue that it is a tool used to avoid the reality that traditionalist values can't possibly be the engine causing the problems of the western world today because it is just too weak.
It doesn't necessarily have to be manipulating society right now, historical structures have a lot of momentum and persist for many generations. The standard example factoid is about how railroad gauges today were determined by the width of Roman chariots, but you can see it everywhere.
Like, you don't have to believe that God is real and Lust is a Mortal Sin in order to be culturally inclined towards slut shaming. As long as everyone in your neighborhood believed that 100 years ago, and then modeled the type of puritanical behavior that calls for to their children, the children will go on emulating it in a self-reinforcing cycle for quite a lot of generations after they've stopped believing in the original reason for it. It just becomes 'how things work'.
That doesn't account for things getting worse. If gender issues are getting worse while traditional values are receding then there must be some other variable.
Aside from Roe being overturned (which pretty transparently was just traditional cultural elements bargaining with their leaders for the judges they wanted), things are getting better. So I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
That things are getting better is not a view internalized by feminists or the left, Pinker is not popular in those circles, and to believe that is basically to be naive. The whole point of "woke" was to wake people up to the idea that that kind of belief is for the privileged and not based in reality.
As someone actually in those circles I don't believe that to be the case at all.
I mean just for starters 'woke' was explicitly about black oppression, the spread to mean 'anything to the left of Desantis' is mostly a creation of the right.
But more generally, yeah, being woke is about noticing systems of power and privilege and how they affect people's lives, just pretty basic critical/material analysis stuff. That does mean that you are noticing problems and ways the world is bad. But there's nothing inconsistent between that and also noticing ways it is improving or better than the past.
Fair enough, I may have to update my model, but I still believe that in some sense there is a conspiratorial mindset towards to modern use of patriarchy, and I believe in some sense there is some feeling of things getting "worse" in a way that is behind it, see the negative reactions to the Stephen Pinker view of the world coming from the far left. And I do think there is an inconsistency between the loudness/anger/direness of the attitudes on the social justice left and any understanding that things are getting better. And I think that reflects the reality that things are more mixed than you portray, where you have the rising depression rates, higher loneliness rates, and how those are pressured by various gender-defined experiences (instagram for girls, school for boys, etc.)
(FWIW I know woke is largely defined by the right, it really doesn't matter, what matters is is it a clear/useful way of looking at what I'd call the loud social-issues-focused progressive wing of the left)
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
More options
Context Copy link