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 -
Obviously such things are pretty light in available sources, but both Ancient Rome(plays in this case) and the late 19th century had mass-consumption media that describes courting for the hoi polloi in those societies, and Christian moralists writing in the early modern period provide another window. They describe a system in which husbands were often much older than wives, the woman’s parents were very involved(it seems pretty clear that Laura’s father gives his approval for Almanzo to begin showing interest in her in Little House on the Prairie), and that economic factors and reputation were considered the most important things in a potential suitor. One has to imagine, given that fathers tend to love their daughters, that screening out potential abusers would have been taken seriously in societies where husbands had the right of corporal punishment over their wives, but it’s not the sort of thing you see in mass media.
Vetting happened for the most part because your first interaction with the person was not a date.
Pre-app, the dating pool was restricted to two groups: people you knew personally and who were in your personal social circle, and friends of friends who were introduced by those friends to you. Yes in 1910 the parents were involved deeply, but really, even if they aren’t, it’s hard to bypass the vetting process of having to become known to the person you want to date in person before actually asking her out. My parents met in college on a date arranged by their friends. My grandfather sat behind my grandma in elementary school. The vetting was that you could observe them in lots of social contexts before deciding to date them. You’d go to the same school and likely the same church. You’d see him out and about on the streets. If he yelled at store clerks, you or someone in your circle would know about it.
The difference between that situation and an app, to me explain the exact reason why modern dating sucks for both parties. You’re not dating someone you know, and the only information available is either public records or information on his very curated social media feeds. Other than that, you’re going by looks. It’s super easy for a jerk to thrive in an environment where he cannot be held to account for his previous actions.
Sure, but the use of IRL social networks didn’t change with the sexual revolutions; it changed with the destruction of IRL social networks.
I'd say the two are necessarily interconnected. Existing social networks need to weaken and dissolve to a degree for the Sexual Revolution to happen, because social controls need to loosen for it to happen.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link