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 -
Yet this very forum had multiple posters saying things like "No self respecting man could vote for Kamala after picturing her kneeling under a mahogany desk." It might be stupid but it's an active line of attack against Kamala and her supporters.
In the context of her political career being largely the result of her sucking dick…when slider made the comment I think k he was disgusted about the literal whore tendencies of the potential future president of the US; not that she was a woman.
I'm not sure why that distinction matters, Kamala is the nominee, she did suck dick to get her first political sinecures from which she brought herself up, that attack is being made against her by her political opponents with a particular veilance towards white men, so the campaign must defend itself by appealing to white men and trying to give them permission to vote for Kamala despite her whorish tendencies without feeling like it excludes them from white masculinity. That's the point I'm making. Whether that attack is being made because she is merely a woman, or because or her sexual past, it's the same strategy and the same defense.
Above @MaiqTheTrue says it's odd to "imply that white men are deciding who to support solely on the basis of what other white men would think about them for holding those views and not because they actually believe in things." But the comments about "no self-respecting man could vote for Kamala because she gave a blowjob" are precisely meant to influence one's vote by implying that others will think less of you for doing so. I'm pointing out that this is a normal, and real, campaign dynamic and not some bizarre condescending fantasy.
For what it's worth, and maybe I'm outing myself as a pig here, given the information I don't think I'd ever vote for a woman who we knew didn't give head. If a woman is such a trad moralist that she thinks oral is a sin, what's she doing out of the kitchen? If a woman is such a stuck up feminist that she thinks it's degrading, I sure don't want that kind of man-hater in the white house. I want a president who gives and takes in her personal relationships.
Where is the 'suck dick' thing coming from? Is it just a shorthand for 'had a relationship with Willie Brown' or is there some specific reference I'm missing?
It's been specifically cited in most of the attacks I've seen against her, and I assume it happened because (as demonstrated below) it's the default. There might be a root story underneath where Brown mentioned it specifically, I don't know, but mostly it's just been the attacks I've seen.
I just found this which suggests the source of this specific attack might be a deceptively edited video where her answer to a question about drinking straws is made to sound as if she's talking about oral:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-kamala-harris-explicit-get-ahead-cnn-interview-real-1734378
I'm a little lost here. Why would we need a specific source for it? If she was dating anybody in 1994 she probably gave that guy a blowjob. If anything we'd need a source to show that for years a heterosexual woman stated specially that she did not give head.
As for why it's been specifically seized on? It's an act viewed as more submissive, while still being likely to have occurred.
It makes me think people couching it in those terms are mainly fixated on what they see as a degrading act, rather than actually being concerned with her supposedly transactional approach to life. I mean, like you say, oral is more common than not. If there's not a specific story of her trading BJs for appointments, it seems like it'd be fairer to characterise her as having once been in a relationship with political benefits. Are wives in general trading BJs for financial security? On some level you can put it like that but it's reductive and says more about the attitudes of the person choosing that phrasing than it does about the wives.
Very nice!
More options
Context Copy link
Definitely, and honestly I'm not sure the Willie Brown story is going to end up getting anywhere as a result. They're not threading the needle so far, at least online, and if the misogynistic or anti-sex "tee hee blowjobs" version of the insult gets around the world before the vaguely me-too and corruption tinged "trading sex for career advancement" version, then it might inoculate a lot of people against it.
That being said...
It's become standard ethical practice to avoid any and all workplace romance. It's widely considered wrong to sleep with a subordinate, and if a supervisor sleeps with a subordinate and then promotes them, the presumption is quid pro quo. It seems obvious to me that there is a moral hazard involved in electing a woman who used such a quid pro quo to kickstart her career to the presidency. It sets an example for young girls. I can think of worse and less qualified presidents and presidential candidates, but not since LBJ have we had a president whose entire career was built on early acts of low moral character.
Where your comparison to wives falls apart is that my wife isn't just trading me blowjobs for financial security. We are also mutually exchanging love, care, companionship, mutual support, being nice to each other's parents, faking interest in each other's dumb hobbies. But if Willie Brown appointed Kamala to various political sinecures in exchange for love, care, companionship, mutual support et al; that would also be corrupt. Reducing it the gross, bodily aspect is obvious, it's a political attack not patticake. But "Blowjobs for political jobs" seems like a fair if slanted interpretation of "casually dated a politically powerful man 30 years her senior who appointed her to various sinecures which boosted her political profile." Because none of the relational aspects, wholesome or pornographic, should have anything to do with who Willie Brown appoints to those positions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So basically the entire specific claim that "Kamala Harris is a whore who sucks dicks to get a job" is based only on her having been in a relationship with Willie Brown around the time when she got her first notable job, without a clear quid pro quo of any sort being established even in that case (even though it might be considered generally sus)? And people wonder why this might, in fact, just be considered general misogyny?
Yes? If it might be considered generally sus, it's bizarre for anyone's first thought to be "must be misogyny".
The dick sucking imagery seems picked purely for misogynistic reasons and also because it suggests a more transactional trading of sexual favours for appointments than actually appears to have happened (it was a years-long relationship).
You're leaving out the pretty important detail that he was twice her age at the time, 30 years her senior.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Willie said in interviews that there was an element of qpq, and he was generally known as that kind of pol, so it's not a crazy assertion.
ETA, the Brown quote
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think black men (or any colour of women) are particularly favourable towards people that sleep their way to the top? Indeed, white left-ish men might be the most forgiving demographic I could imagine on this issue?
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not upset about a woman sucking dick. I’m upset that Kamala was a whore. And no, she didn’t really pull herself up after that. She got institutional backing but wasn’t some superstar California politician. She became VP due to her skin and shape of her genitals. Now she became a nominee without having to go through an election process.
She basically may become president simply because she sucked some dick, wasn’t a complete flop in far left California, and because of her ethnicity and gender. That’s infuriating. I personally know a number of people more qualified.
Yes, I agree. But right wingers will need to thread that needle. They need to specifically criticize her for sleeping her way to the top and avoid criticizing her for being a woman who has (in 2024 America) normal sex. A lot of the messaging I'm seeing doesn't thread that needle and ends up saying: Give a blowjob, then you're a whore who can't be president. Without properly communicating the extra step of: give a blowjob to secure a political job.
The former is very much either a hatred of women or a form of anti sex criticism that is wildly outside the mainstream. The latter is a legitimate moral criticism and raises doubts about her qualifications.
((For reference: 85% of Americans have ever given oral sex, and the percentage doesn't fall below 2/3 until we're looking at those over age 70. It's a normal sex act.))
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Besides, a man who quickly rose through the ranks has likely done something less self-degrading, but more venal, such as assisting in a corruption scheme. Why would I prefer him as a leader?
I'm gonna hit the brakes here, sex for promotion is uniquely bad. Imagine a conversation between a supervisor and a subordinate, she hesitates because she doesn't want to ruin her reputation, he says "Nobody cares about that kind of thing, President Harris did it and look at her now!"
The example it would be setting for the country runs exactly opposite of what feminists have been screeching about with MeToo. If asking for sex for giving a promotion is bad, then giving sex in exchange for a promotion is bad.
As a rule, if a proscribed transaction, such as of drugs, takes place, the law doesn't prescribe equal punishment for buyer and seller. This can taken to the extreme to the Swedish Model, according to which, offering benefits in exchange for sex is illegal, but offering sex in exchange for benefits isn't.
Which is ridiculous and hypocritical in this case! Even turbolib friends of mine in victim advocacy have responded, in private, to my argument that kamala's history is concerning for this reason. If sex for promotion is bad, it's bad for society to see it working!
Prostitution is a different case because you can't really stop most street level prostitutes from selling themselves, it's poverty and lack of opportunity. It's a totally different transaction when we're talking about lawyers sucking dick for sinecures. Kamala wasn't choosing between sleeping with a man for a little bit of money to feed her starving son and working a minimum wage job, she was choosing to skip a step in the cursus honorum rather than spending years in obscurity as an ADA and building a reputation.
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