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 -
There is a certain beauty to some definitions of Rectangle. The one I am singling out is
Why? this was the definition listed in my high school Geometry textbook. I remember it because the wording was a little peculiar. But, later I came to enjoy it. This is the kind of subtlety only a math nerd could appreciate.
I began to appreciate it once I learned how feminist theory defined patriarchy. The wording (doubtless there are many) I recall is, "a system of gender roles which is harmful to men and women" or some such. Some might say that this definition smuggles in a claim: that gender roles are harmful. That's not quite correct. You see, a non-harmful system of gender roles would simply not be Patriarchy as a matter of definition.
The reason I wrote this post was because of the earlier discussion that "Rape is about power, not sex." I was reminded of many past times I've heard rape defined this way. You might say that this definition smuggles in a claim: that men are motivated by power (or some such). But that is not quite correct. You see, a man who is motivated by sex is simply not committing rape as a matter of definition.
My textbook used the phrase, "at least one right angle," like Wikipedia uses a right angle. This is critical to leave the reader mentally itching, to leave him thinking that maybe a rectangle contains a mix of angles -- some right, and some not.
Behold! The full force of a theorem (not a definition)! So there is no doubt in the mind that there could ever be a parallelogram with mixed angles. This relation between the angles cannot be expressed with mere definitions.
Much later, I learned a name for this: The virtue of precision. Definitions should be as small as necessary.
What other imprecise definitions smuggle unproven claims?
This is not very representative of the feminist definition, at least of the academic kind which forms the basis of patriarchy theory. I'm sure you can find a street feminist to offer such a definition though.
The most robust concise definition of patriarchy I've seen offered by a feminist, which I believe essentialises the concept for feminism as a whole quite well is the one offered by Sylvia Walby in Theorising Patriarchy (1989): "a series of social structures, and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women." This really does encapsulate what feminism, all feminism, means by patriarchy at least at a basic level. Often bits and pieces are tacked onto it later, often to band-aid or cover-up over issues with their theory (e.g. "patriarchy hurts men too"). Walby's work on patriarchy is pretty foundational to feminist academia today, even though in some sense she was just formalising a lot of threads that existed previously.
The radical feminists make no distinction. They see the male sexuality as inherently linked to violence and oppression against women, and therefore basically all sex between a man and a woman is men raping women. Catharine McKinnon's Sexuality, Pornography, and Method: "Pleasure under Patriarchy" (1989):
The later, more contemporary intersectional feminists tempered or moderate this perspective, but ultimately they are cut from the same cloth and you can see the same principles underlying it, even if they're supposedly 'sex-positive' (that is, male sexuality, or male sexuality under patriarchy is linked to the need to dominate, and therefore oppress women). For example, bell hooks' Feminism is for Everybody (2000, but still extremely popular in contemporary feminist circles):
The impression I have gotten is that sex-negative feminism won the ideological battle, but sex-positive feminism won the branding battle. "Sex-negative" probably sounds too much like "anti-fun" to make headway with the public, so I suppose that all but the very most extreme can consider themselves (more) sex-positive (than somebody.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link