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 -
What Happened to Society's Life Script
In the fifties, the American dream was, for the vast majority of people, pretty obvious. You find a job with the main employer of the town, whether that was a coal mine or a factory or a railyard or whatever the case may be. You marry, if not literally the girl next door, then something close; maybe a high school sweetheart. If you were a woman you were then expected to stay home and be a housewife, and except for a few very highly-female coded jobs, that's just what you did. If you were a man you might have been required to serve in the army beforehand, but few people went to college; only if you were wealthy and/or very, very smart. It mostly wasn't your decision either way, about any of it. 'Should I go into the military, or skilled labor, or go to college?' wasn't a question very many people had to ask; usually what you did next after finishing high school was readily apparent, often literally by having only a single option or a very small set thereof. If you did have the opportunity to go to college- most people didn't- both the university and your parents had much more say in what you did there. And I think we should note- the vast majority of people here could find respect as a worker bee. This is important because the vast majority of people have to be worker bees to have a functioning society.
Today, that is not the case. Everyone who wants to can go to university, or near enough. Many people stay in university long past the point at which it does any good, in point of fact. The military is 100% volunteer, and few people live with access to a single major employer. Young people can't find spouses, and these days don't seem to be able to blunder into relationships either. Every individual can, with certain reasonable limits, do what he wishes, and nobody with institutional power seems keen to say no, that's stupid, do this instead.
And it seems that we have lost something, there. Occasionally conservative pundits will start talking about the success sequence- finish high school, work full time, get married, and then have children. There's some other obvious things that go along with it, like 'don't do drugs'. But the gist of the success sequence is, well, a (somewhat vague)life script. And realistically the success sequence is the sort of thing our culture should be putting more effort into promoting; it isn't the default message despite every idea therein being a good one.
I think the youth agree with me, here. Jordan Peterson's popularity, notoriously, came from offering boomer dad advice. Recently there's been discussion of positive male role models to replace Andrew Tate; Andrew Tate's pitch isn't much different from tons of other redpill influencers. What's different is he's selling 'you, too, can be like me, just do x, y, z'. Obviously he's a lying grifter, but his fanbase are mostly teens. What replacement for his (dumb)life script are these positive male role models offering? The pro-social version of Andrew Tate isn't the male feminist activist. It's Mike Rowe.
Unfortunately, "work hard, at a quite possibly unpleasant job" isn't a great sales pitch. But I want to circle back to the point I made ending my discussion of the fifties- most people have to be worker bees. In a functioning society there are few girlbosses because there simply are not very many bosses- the average person will always make the median income, live a not particularly impressive lifestyle, and live in flyover. To put it more pithily, average people will always be average. And being average isn't, well, a flashy and appealing thing. In the past, lack of options meant people became average worker bees. Today, people have the option not to do that; they may not be Indian chiefs and fighter pilots and surgeons and other high status jobs instead, but they're being something, and usually that something is below average, gig workers and basement dwellers. It has to be said, therefore- most people can't figure it out on their own. For every unrecognized genius there's a dozen schizos. Boring middle-aged advice serves a useful purpose; to throw out the social pressure to follow it was a mistake. The question becomes, then, 'how do we bring it back?'
There's a lot more to it than this, as there usually is, but here is a pretty serviceable summary of an industrial-revolution-one-two-punch
You didn't have a little family business out of your family home making rope, you were one part of the ropemaking company. Rather than owning a small pile and building on it you had a salary and a mortgage.
Modern appliances, particularly the washing machine, inadvertently erased what little was left for your wife to help out with while you were working
When Betty Crocker first came out with instant cake mix, you didn't even have to add an egg (obvious, now that you know). Women were despondent that they'd been reduced into "just adding water."
So that's apparently where the line was drawn and the scraps over which we've been fighting
Thank you for reducing the contribution of women in the home to "what little your wife does while you do Real Work".
Now that we have vacuum cleaners, washing machines, and microwaves, what need for men to marry at all? They can just do those five minute tasks in between coming home from their Real Jobs and settling down to have fun with online porn, online gaming, and ordering drugs and booze online.
Even our own lot thinks this is sexist language and want to replace it:
What contribution, indeed? The "little that was left for a wife to help out with" isn't anything important or meaningful, it's just idle women sitting on their hands while you toil and sweat as the breadwinner!
I think we're actually agreeing with each other that once upon a time women were integral partners to the family business from wake up to bedtime and then one day kind of found themselves looking around going "so...what do I do now?"
Husband is at work
Kids are at school
You are at home
For 8 hours
Everyday
With nothing to do but throw the clothes in the washer and start the Betty Crocker mix
That I didn't go on ad nauseum about how this was not a good thing and how women can do stuff too wasn't meant to take away from the broader point which stated more plainly is "one of the causes of modern ennui can be directly traced to the erasure of domestic labor thanks to appliances"
Go hug your grandma and ask her what life was like as a human washer and dryer - she will likely bitch to the moon with a big smile on her face
I know what my mother's life was like, I saw her handwashing clothes in a tub when I was a child. That's why I reacted so hard to the "all women in the 60s/70s did was sit around because now technology took all the hard labour away".
And if you're not hand washing laundry and baking and scrubbing floors eight hours a day, you're still doing routine housework, raising the kids, supporting your husband, doing the household budget. Maybe some upper middle-class women had nothing better to do than go to lunch and take pills, but that wasn't all women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Couldn't agree more.
What is off handedly dismissed as "domestic female labor" is really "the construction and maintenance of basic pro-social behavior patterns that enable society to function."
Outsourcing those duties to the state has been a disaster. This is as obvious a fact as one can summon. The state does not care about you and never has. The level of involvement and personal sacrifice necessary for humans to raise their young is bananas. No other mammal comes close. It requires an emotional bond that is nearly transcendent. Some of us would call this a "holy" connection and duty.
But others would say "just add water" to make the family.
There's definitely something to this. It's just hard to pin down what exactly went wrong. It feels to me like one of those "seeing like a state" things, where the traditional local system gets regulated into something that almost works, but it's a disaster.
Take the cake example. We never really needed cake. If it's really such a burden to bake a cake, you could simply... not bake it, and be fine (or even healthier, if you're eating too many sweets).
What we do need though, is social ties with our community. And one way to do that is to have a party, where you invite all the neighbors over to have cake with you, because a cake was this big special treat and you have to eat it when it's fresh. Maybe you also borrow a cup of sugar or something from them to help make it. And then maybe they reciprocate by inviting you over for cake next week, or something. This might look completely frivolus, like it's just housewives wasting time gossiping and eating sweets (and uh, sometimes it is just that...) but it also means you've got people to help with something more serious. Or just, you know, real people to socialize with on an equal basis, instead of passively consuming content from famous people. Apparently this kind of banqueting the yields has been a common part of human society since forever. And now, by making everyone more self-sufficient, we've lost that kind of social capital. Nobody is going to come over for a cake party if they can buy themselves a betty crocker cake for cheap and make it while they watch TV, or door-dash themselves a fancy bakery cake.
More options
Context Copy link
?? I think we're agreeing too! I'm one of those 'call it holy' connection and duty people.
Inadvertently dismantling the mother's irreplaceable role and creating this cargo cult where we all gesticulate wildly at how important it is to be a good mother has, as you said, been a disaster
Yeah I'm not trying to argue with you. Just talking to myself really, trying to flesh out different angles on what exactly happened there.
I guess the two different angles I see are "it was bad for women, because they lost their sense of purpose and now they're just bored, which is a very real psychological problem" vs "it was bad for everyone, because they were doing a lot of less-visible work in between those household chores, and we've only automated the most obvious stuff while the more subtle social work is no longer getting done by anyone."
The origin of the word 'trivia' seems obvious once you know it, there was a place in Rome where three big main roads met (tri via's) and the women would meet up to do their washing, get the news, and gossip. The foundation of the whole Western world
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This, but unironically. Especially since men's standards on those tasks tends to be considerably lower than women's.
This is part of the problem about the relations between the sexes, and why both men and women are dissatisfied. Women are finding out they can't have it all, and men are caught between what women's expectations are, and what they think they should be, and everyone is caught between what they are and the ideal. See the foofah about female models in video games; it's not something that is really important, but at the same time it's irksome when the complaint is "They made the women ugly" and no, they just made the women look more realistic. I suppose if we all calmed down and accepted that this is fantasy, and guys want fantasy big-titted sluts they can use as masturbation material (or not even that, just what they expect as a porn model for online female) and that this is not how real women look, but I suppose that's too much to ask for. Maybe customisation options where if you are that rara avis, a female gamer who wants to play Suicide Squad you can tone down Harley's looks, or if you're a guy who wants her to have mega-gigantic jiggly boobsock, you can both get what you want. And we all agree to live and let live.
Except they aren't doing this to the men too.
More options
Context Copy link
This all seems off the mark to me,
As a rule
Man's a fool
When it's hot
Wants it cool
When it's cool
Wants it hot
Always wanting
What is not
I dated a girl once who was prettier than a porn fantasy, nothing physical could be improved about her in any way. And one time I almost crashed the car on purpose because I was so fed up with her stupid neurotic shit (if anyone's curious that particular time was because we apparently had to get an oil change right then before dinner with her parents (or as she wasn't able to articulate but I was able to infer her dad would have thought less of her for not taking proper care of the car)).
The problem isn't that the fantasy is unrealistic, the problem is that fantasy is typically pretty unsatisfying.
More options
Context Copy link
If realism was what game devs pursued in their depictions of women, EA Sports FC (formerly FIFA) wouldn't give women stats comparable to men's. Note that these stats aren't just for show, a mixed team is possible in game and playing such a team is a perfectly valid strategy.
Like I said, it's all fantasy. I don't want to play a football game with a mixed team, but presumably somebody does, and enough somebodies to make it worth producing this edition.
But I don't see "they made the women ugly" when I look at the images being complained about and the woman looks normal to me.
It's a bit unfortunate that we likely aren't going to see the natural gender-flipped example, with media consumed (primarily) by women being pressured by a political interest group to make the men depicted in it more average. This would have to look like every k-drama started changing its male characters to balding dad bods and genuinely (rather than a cutesy female-fantasy version of) awkward spindly nerds with bad skin.
It seems evident to me that people aren't generally consuming fiction to see "normal", outside of some narrow domains of high art where the normality is made worth seeing by the abnormal level of insight by the author. To mandate that fiction depicts normality is political interference, with historical precedent all looking like things like socialist realism (not that its depiction of people was actually that representative in reality).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Specifically, the societal script is that women can have it all, that men should give it to them and that expecting anything in return (most especially including household work or sex) is anathema, justifying a tongue-lashing or worse. And you are playing right into that.
No, they didn't. They deliberately made them less attractive. That they made them "more realistic" is gaslighting from the social justice side.
Well, let's dig in to this. "Less attractive" by what metric? Why should they be attractive in the first place? Are the men ranked on being attractive? I mean yeah, Chris Evans Captain America whoo-hoo baby, but the general run of video game male first person characters?
It's a stupid fight and I don't want to get in to it. If guys want doll characters in high heels, fishnets and plunging cleavage bashing people's brains in with baseball bats, well... you do you. But it's not any realistic level of 'attractiveness'.
Here's the less attractive version of Harley Quinn, right? Oh my gosh, the new version doesn't have her arse swinging like a pendulum, this is an affront!
It's a silly thing to get worked up over. Guys want the exaggerated boobs'n'butt, sure, let them have it. But it's not "less attractive versus more attractive", it's porn attractive.
Can you name many conventionally unattractive male game protagonists from major franchises?
I went down a mental list, and all I could come up with was Mario, who barely has human proportions anyway. The other one was Link in the classic Zelda games, but that was fixed by Ocarina of Time (one of the developers’ wives famously asked for them to ditch the bulbous nose and the rest is history.
You have a wide variety of looks for male protagonists, but they usually fall into the pretty boy camp (Link, Cloud, 9S in Nier Automata) or they’re more classically masculine (Simon Belmont, Snake, Chris Redfield), or they’re somewhere in between, bishounen who project some masculine energy (see Alucard and basically all of Iga-era Castlevania, or brother Nier in Replicant). This is the way it always was and I haven’t seen much deviation.
Women have frequently fallen into the supermodel camp. You have Lara Croft, Bayonetta, Samus, 2B and the old Harley Quinn as classic examples. I prefer petite and/or cute, personally, so women like Lara Croft and 2B don’t do much for me, but, say, Zelda from Skyward Sword does and a lot of female characters from RPGs fall into that camp (a recent example would be Xenoblade 3, with Mio, and there’s a steady selection of Fire Emblem and Atelier characters over the decades that work fine for me). So my tastes have always been a bit underrepresented. Suffice to say masculine or chunky characters aren’t that popular with guys, and there’s room for guys with my taste but they’ll rarely be the only protagonist in a game outside select RPGs, which is fine. Heck, even Saber from Fate, who would realistically be muscular, doesn’t look like it.
I don’t play many AAA games, so I’m mostly unaffected by the trends I’ve seen. But the trend seems to be that every attractive female character is made less attractive by conventional standards, and every new female character is either ordinary or unattractive, which has never been the case with guys and seems to continue not to be the case. By what rubric in film, television, or popular art could you make the case that Aloy from the second Horizon game, or that protagonist from the latest Fable trailer, or the Forspoken protagonist, or that super-masculine woman from The Last of Us 2 is attractive to men in the general population? Maybe there’s some art from certain periods with large women, but that’s always seemed to be a result of the artist’s proclivities, not overall trends. I don’t recall seeing masculine women being all that popular with men in any period in history. Why have new characters who look like Samus seemingly become so rare? And why have things seemingly tilted away from those female signifiers of beauty, as in the case of Harley Quinn?
How many modern male characters have seen the equivalent treatment? I don’t even recall many recent male protagonists, but does, say, the guy from the latest Assassin’s Creed adhere less to conventional male standards? What about the guy on the art of Baulder’s Gate 3, who at least looks like he fits into the bishounen trope? What about the new Prince of Persia protagonist, who, haircut aside, just looks very fit, the Simon Belmont type?
Regardless, it looks like the principles of female character design have changed, where the principles of male character design have changed more incrementally if at all. I think that’s what people are latching on to.
Screw that, I'd just be happy if anyone could name a merely average-looking male game protagonist from a major franchise.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think Harley is beautiful, but then "vacuum sealed into her costume" isn't appealing to me. I think the character is unappealing in general because of the whole back story, and then Margot Robbie in the movie version of Suicide Squad just sealed the deal about "this is ugliness" for me. But I'm old enough that I think tattoos and dyed hair are signifiers of trashy, not hawtness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
By most metrics both the audience and the people doing it would recognize.
Are we doing merited impossibility now?
That's Harley Quinn's character in a nutshell; psychotic pixie nightmare girl.
Which is not reality, and if you want the blow-up doll version of that in a video game, okay go for it. But it's not beautiful, it's not what real women look like, and from the outside for women, it's a tedious trope.
Like I said, male and female sexuality is different. I'm not unsympathetic to guys going "my fantasy wank material is not appealing in this new version" about their traditional games, Lord knows I've whined about changes to my favourite materials in media. But games companies have to expand the market to make money, which means trying to sell to women as well.
Personally, I don't think games like Suicide Squad are appealing to women, but there may well be some women out there who like those kind of shoot-em-ups. So the game studios want to reel them in by giving them characters to identify with, like Harley, and that makes turning Harley from the blow-up doll to something more appealing to women a necessity. Again, I wouldn't take Suicide Squad for free because the concept insults me: oh yeah, go ahead and piss on Flash's corpse, that's so mature. But I'm carrying over my preferences from comics where I like the Justice League and don't like the idea of "so let's kill the League", even more "let's kill the League in demeaning ways because old-fashioned notions of honour and dignity are to be ridiculed".
I'm way more on board with the criticisms of having Lex Luthor be the voice of SJW by admiring the Amazons for being free of toxic masculinity. Those kinds of changes are truly worth fighting over, not cosmetic changes to Harley's butt so it's less jiggly.
Also, what the hell did they do to Amanda Waller? She's supposed to be a hefty lass, not this pop-eyed skinny bint.
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
I often think of the economic ramifications when I see memes about single men's apartments. You can see the outlines of the pod, but the pod seems to be arriving quicker than AI will fill in the role of the mediocre men with their tedious infrastructure-maintaining jobs. If a third of young Gen Z men will never marry, and another third will end up divorcees with their wages garnished, and they're happy with a $499 gaming console and a $249 TV, what happens to the economy?
I guess the answer is the state will have to find some way to expropriate a larger portion of these men's wages to ensure they can only afford the pod if they provide a lot more surplus value than they used to, ensuring that incel pod guy must still seek technical certifications and work 40 hours at his lame construction job. Will they be able to squeeze blood from that rock is a salient unanswered question.
There was a good motte post awhile back about the ancient Mesopotamian origin myth of women luring wild men playing in the mountains down into the cities to farm. But in the 21st century, the wild men are slovenly gamers and the women are preaching harpies.
/images/17105993514186654.webp
Link by any chance? I would like to know more.
Not familiar with the original post, but this is one of the earlier scenes of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Essentially, King Gilgamesh is ruling over Uruk as a tyrant, subjecting his people to cruel forced labor and exercising droit du seigneur whenever a couple is married. So the gods create a wild man named Enkidu to stop him.
Enkidu initially lives his life among the animals in the wilderness, almost more beast than man, cooperating with animals on the hunt, etc. But the gods decide that Enkidu needs to go forth into Uruk to stop King Gilgamesh and join civilization. Thus, they send a priestess/temple prostitute to Enkidu, and they lie together for seven days and seven nights. But on the eighth day, when Enkidu goes to rejoin his animal companions, they all shun him and flee from him, now that he’s been changed by the civilizing influence of sex. He thus has no choice but to go down into the city, where it is inevitable that he’ll fight with King Gilgamesh (and afterwards, become his closest friend).
The Epic of Gilgamesh is a very interesting poem, because in addition to all the timeless meditations on the mortality of man and whatnot, you also get an extremely rare and valuable look at how those who lived in history’s first civilized state understood and related to the development of the state—which, it must be emphasized, is a wholly novel, awesome, terrifying technology. Cities had existed for millennia before Homer’s Greeks, for centuries before even the Vedic Aryans. But the milleu in which the Epic of Gilgamesh was written witnessed the development of the very first cities; the world of Enkidu was all that was known prior. It’s thus no surprise that the poem both begins and ends with a meditation on the glory of the walls of the cities of Uruk, so many meters high, baked of clay….
I honor your generosity in sharing this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I do not have it, sorry. Pretty sure it was the old site.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The state will not do that. It will run budget deficits for a while, and eventually import third worlders to work backbreaking labor for pennies. Really, how much effort has Italy gone to to push bambocini into the workforce? Argentina? Other countries with ridiculous youth unemployment rates?
More options
Context Copy link
Why is a construction job lame? If you want more housing built, you damn well need construction workers.
I don't think the job itself is lame, but it does lead to a pretty undesirable lifestyle. Waking up before dawn, working outside in the freezing cold and boiling heat, giving you sunburns and chapped skin. Sweating and stinking, getting course hands and back problems. Lots of heavy lifting, but not in the way that makes you look attractive like a lean cut model, more just bulky fat. Lots of hanging out with other lower-class men drinking and swearing too much. Almost no women in the field at all. Then you have to go to bed super early so you can be up on time the next day. All of that is going to make it really hard to meet women.
More options
Context Copy link
Chicks don't dig it. The story goes that regardless of income, women aren't interested blue collar men. I don't know how true that is.
Do you want to be the one telling all your friends you just met the nicest guy and he's a plumber? It's true
If I were at all inclined to marry, then a plumber would be a respectable occupation for any spouse. I'm not middle class, I'm lower middle class at best from rural working class roots. My paternal grandfather was a navvy in England during three quarters of the year, coming back home to Ireland for the winter months. My maternal grandfather was a farm labourer.
The people I know, the family members I have, a good trade like plumber or electrician are decent jobs and nobody is looking down their nose at "you can only get a plumber as a match?"
Were I middle-middle to upper-middle class where all my antecedents had been white collar workers, maybe that would be different. But it's not the case that I instinctively recoil in horror at the notion of "oh no, I have to tell my friends my fiancé is a - gasp!- manual labourer????" 😁
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
More options
Context Copy link