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 -
Anecdotally, Trump would benefit massively from removing spousal pressure on voting. This morning my dad joked to me that he'd like to vote for Trump to save me money on estate tax, but so much of my inheritance would be wasted in the resulting divorce that it wouldn't be worth it.
Far more women refuse to vote for tromp on moral grounds than men offended by Harris.
This was my first thought, too. I haven't read much of Marcotte ever, and certainly none in the about 10 years or so since Scott Alexander himself had made a blog post that referenced her by name, but from what I recall of her writing, she seemed to slot into a type of female 3rd wave feminist writer who tends to project all her own beliefs and insecurities onto men. One of the most well known bits of such projection is when it comes to dating, where some 30/40+ career woman seems confused why her great financial success and maturity isn't translating to romantic attention from high quality men and concluding that men must be so fragile as to be threatened by her success, instead of recognizing that, for the vast majority of heterosexual men, unlike for the vast majority of heterosexual women, a potential mate's career success counts for close to nothing relative to her looks, youth, and even her personality, which are things a middle-aged woman who spent most of her effort making it in the workplace hasn't been able to work on very well.
In this case, Marcotte seems to be projecting her own obsession with keeping the people around her politically/ideologically pure onto men, who she believes have even more power than her because of male privilege, without recognizing that this obsession with ideological purity, to the extent that they'd coerce them to agreeing with them, of their partners is not quite as common in men as it is in women*.
* This part is not proven and could certainly be wrong; I'm going off my own anecdotes and stereotypes, but I think this is a common observation by many men nowadays.
I think it's more of a Russell Conjugation, where actions that benefit the Democratic party are positive, while those that benefit the Republican party are sinister.
I remind my husband about all the bad things about Trump. He berates his wife about how terrible the libs are. I emphasize to my partner that if he really loves me, as a woman, he won't vote to take away my rights. He threatens to leave his girlfriend if she doesn't vote how he wants. I fortify my husband's resolve to vote against Trump when he gets tempted by bad arguments. He bullies his wife into voting against her own interests.
I'm not going to say I've never in my life seen a woman say something innocuous only to be snapped at by her husband who brusquely informs her that "we" don't believe that. But the idea that it is a crisis is just silly.
That sounds like probably a better explanation than there actually being any sort of difference in rates between the sexes. My own perception of difference between the sexes is also probably reflective primarily of my own social circles which I'm guessing is ideologically not too different from Marcotte's. It also occurred to me that this could be subculture-based rather than sex-based, where enforcing ideological purity of one's partner is important in Marcotte's social circles, and she's projecting that onto all Americans, including male Trump voters.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I honestly have no idea and I could come up with tolerably plausible stories in either direction. I'll be continuing my quixotic mission of nudging people in the direction of understand what a secret ballot is and why they should care about it for non-partisan reasons. There just shouldn't be anything cynical or partisan about saying that it would be good if everyone voted their own conscience freely and in private without the possibility of coercion.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, more men bend over for their wives than vice versa.
Anecdotally, the typical republican woman hates abortion than the men. So, the chance of them voting blue is nil. On the other hand, democrat voting men have no such single-issue hatred for the republicans.
More women vote than men, so logically if anyone is convincing anyone to vote it would go that direction.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link