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 -
The upthread discussion about male role models reminded me of a web essay that I can no longer find (damn it). The author was a male English professor for undergrads. His course satisfied a general requirement, so his male student population broadly represented the student body. In the essay, the author observed that when his male students were given an opportunity to select a text or topic to study, the most popular subject was always power.
I don’t recall the author proposing any reason for that preference. We can come up with a couple.
Broke: They know that power is the ultimate aphrodesiac.
Woke: They are already toxically masculine. The professor should focus exclusively on books by queer women of color, who hate power.
Bespoke: They are thinking about the Roman Empire.
I’ll have to expand on that last one.
Ages ago, I came across someone asking why 19th Century Britain seemed to be so obsessed with Rome. One responder said “Britain found itself with an empire unexpectedly. The 19th Century British culture was looking to ancient Rome to give it context. How should they act? What is it like to have an empire? What can they learn?”
That sprang to mind as I was reading the essay. Those teenage boys knew that they were on the cusp of having power, over themselves at least. They should, at least. What does that mean? How should they behave?
My question, then, is: What would you recommend for those boys, to help them understand the power that they will eventually wield?
The best training for boys is to take up some physical sport or activity, especially one where they are not competing with, or lead by, women. Boys need to acquire discipline in some kind of mastery, it has to be physical, and it has to involve overcoming failure. Men need to learn the humility of their weakness so they can enjoy pride in their strength.
This is basically impossible in an academic context, but whatever. If I were a parent with young boys, I would enroll them in a martial art or sport of their choice. If I were a professor, I would teach a class combining yoga or swordplay and history. If I were an administrator, I'd organize collegiate sports. And if I were dictator, I'd eliminate Title IX.
I don't think you can lecture boys into understanding. I don't think there is any mental curriculum that will make boys wise. The best you can do is excite them and nurture their passion. The current system mainly bores them with tedium and makework. For most boys, I think you need to replace most of what we teach as "history" with battles and wars. Excite their imaginations. Once they are interested in learning, they will naturally appreciate the disciplines and work.
Any nice ones that won’t kill their brain cells or give them wrestler ears?
Taekwondo is good. There are a million varieties, sometimes called things like Choikwando, or else wrapped up as Karate. But they're all fundamentally the same package, from the point of view of an American consumer. They have different heritage and will strike and train in different ways, but those details are unimportant. Brazilian Jiujitsu is popular for teenagers and guys in their mid 20s, but everyone I know who does it is always pulling something. Boxing is good for boys, but very particular, and I'm not sure I would put my kids in a sport that hits their heads.
The thing to do is see what's in your area. It makes a great deal of difference who's in charge, and who they're trying to teach to. There are a lot of martial arts programs designed for kids to run around and hit things. You can find those anywhere. In my experience, the best programs are family schools that teach to a wide variety of age ranks and groups. The big problem with a martial art, over a "traditional" sport, is that the path is much less defined. If your kids get into basketball or football or hockey the local schools will have programs that they can show up to and train in and hang out with other kids. There are matches and games and championships and teams. Martial arts isn't like that. Competition is basically solo, and not everyone competes. There's a fast rotation of kids coming in and out as they get busy or bored, and so the crew of regulars who stay becomes particular and real. Which means, in my experiences, the best martial arts studios have children and adults learning together, in the same room, and this bridges most of the problems.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link