site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 16, 2023

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.

10
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is this a full blown victim blaming in the most influential printed medium by decorated feminist? Or am I overreacting?

New York Times: There’s a sentence in the new book that I was curious about, and this goes back to the questions about the trickiness of generalizing and of using a certain kind of rhetorical style: You’re discussing the rarity of false accusations of date rape, and you write, I’m paraphrasing, that there are mentally ill or damaged women who will make those kinds of accusations, and the only thing a young guy can do is not have sex with damaged or mentally ill women. That’s a bit of a flip way of addressing that problem, isn’t it?

Caitlin Moran: That’s possibly my most overt piece of feminism. Obviously #NotAllMen, but I have experienced enough men where the thing at a party is that you’re hunting for the girl on the edge of the pack who’s a bit drunk, bit needy. I can remember dads telling their sons in pubs where I come from, “Crazy bitches are always the best [expletive].” It’s just saying to men as a kind and loving mother with some wisdom that if there’s a woman who is mentally ill, disturbed or needy or unhappy or really drunk at a party, leave her alone. The last thing she needs is a penis. If she’s an upset, needy person and you [expletive] her and then the rumor starts going around school, she might need to, for the defense of her reputation, say, “He raped me.” You’ve put yourself in a dangerous situation because you’ve done a foolish thing.

nytimes.com: https://archive.ph/tZn3B#selection-457.82-457.95

How is this different from "You’ve put yourself in a dangerous situation because you’ve done a foolish thing by flirting with that guy wearing that dress"?

It seems that Moran is knowingly conflating three very different phenomena of the sexual marketplace. (Yeah, I just used that Manosphere phrase. For a good reason.) First of all, it’s true that there are many dads who will more or less advise their sons that “crazy bitches are always the best [fucks]”. But as someone who got this very advice, and has many male friends who claimed to ’ve gotten the same, I can say with certainty that this advice is normally given in the very specific context of assisting a hormonally charged teenage male virgin in order to experience memorable sexual pleasures in a way that leaves him with a positive view of women and sex so that he doesn’t turn into an “incel”.

Such advice stems from the assumption that this guy isn’t likely to gain such an experience from most of her female peers, because the average teenage girl will feel hesitant, scared and intimidated in that situation, and will just lie there like a dead fish or a log, just not being into the whole thing. The crazy bitch, on the other hand, will know how to give blowjobs and handjobs, take the initiative, be familiar with sex positions other than the missionary etc. Any girl with such an attitude will usually be considered a “crazy bitch” if the normal assumption is that women don’t experience sexual desire in the same way men do, and will not usually seek out casual sex for the sake of casual sex.

Now, it’s also true that “don’t stick your dick in crazy” is also an advice that is routinely given to young single men (Moran seems to allude to this being sound advice, but doesn’t use the exact phrase). In fact, I’m sure if you turned to 10 of the dads who used to suggest to their teenage sons to seek out crazy bitches 10-15 years later and asked them whether it’s a good idea to stick your dick in crazy, 9 of them would agree. This probably seems like a contradiction but it isn’t because the two pieces of advice are given in very different social contexts. As far as I can tell, the advice “don’t stick your dick in crazy” basically means “don’t make a move on some skanky-looking woman who obviously seems to be mentally inbalanced just because you think she’ll be a) good in the sack b) OK with casual sex”.

With regard to the spectre of needy, scared, insecure wallflower girls getting preyed upon at house parties by predatory men for a quick pump & dump, I don’t see how that has anything to do with any of this, and I think even objectively sexist men will mostly look at this as sleazy and cringe. Was there ever a society where such dishonest and manipulative behavior was condoned? I doubt it.

Anyway, the quoted part raises a couple of questions. Why does Moran seemingly equate being needy and drunk with being mentally ill? Why does she assume that anyone initiating sex with a drunk and “needy” girl does so with the manipulative aim of a pump & dump? What if the man is also drunk and needy? Why does she assume that such a girl will necessarily find the sex act hurtful and regrettable afterwards?

First of all, it’s true that there are many dads who will more or less advise their sons that “crazy bitches are always the best [fucks]”.

The only advice I got from my father was, "Keep it clean as a whistle, or it won't be blown."

Regardless, surely the "crazy" in "crazy bitches are the best" refers to a different phenomenon than the "crazy" in "don't stick your dick in crazy." As you note, the latter refers to women "who obviously seem to be mentally imbalanced." Doesn't the former refer to something else, such as a woman who is wild or a member of a subculture like punks or goths?

Yes and yes, hence why I'd question conflating the two.