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 -
Here, let me try an alternate frame, the Male Feminist as Something Like a Victim:
Many male feminists are fish swimming in water and unable to see it; they've been raised to accept certain social frames as authoritative, and so they grant authority to those social frames. They want to be Good Boys in a simple kind of way. However, the frames are full of huge amounts of problems.
No one is in charge. Sex positive feminists say very different things from sex negative feminists. Extremists get lots of air time, way out of proportion to reason. The abstractions used by any particular ideologue turn into a broken mess on contact with any particular woman. A lot of men want simple rules, vigorously followed, for their moral systems, and that is not an accurate description of the messy, decentralized tangle of messages they get if they grow up under what currently passes as feminist discourses. But it takes a certain amount of critical distance to be able to recognize all this.
Women are people, and so on the ground, many of them don't know what they want, some don't like to take responsibility for their own actions, many are also confused and conflicted by the various messy social messages they think they're getting, and so on. One of the most useful observations I picked up from early online proto PUA stuff 20 years ago was that feminist activists don't really know what women want, they often think women are wrong for wanting what they want in a false consciousness kind of way, they don't actually speak for women even when they claim they do, and you get a lot farther paying to women as particular individuals and thinking about the turbulent mess in their own heads rather than whatever cultural marxist abstractions feminists are inclined to reach towards. BUT if you're a certain unreflective male feminist, all of this giant mess is opaque to you. It's easier to try to find an authoritative voice and latch on to it. But that doesn't actually survive contact with real people.
Lots of strands of feminism are just flatly, nakedly wrong (and sometimes hateful, and often viciously incurious) about male sexuality, male emotions, male concerns, male compulsions and weaknesses, and so on. Many are wrong about basic things on fundamental biological levels, and they have deeply wrong-headed norms and advice that stem from that ignorance. This isn't a giant problem if you have some critical distance from those schools of thought and can ignore ideas that are fatally undermined by their anti-biology ignorance and biases. But if you're an unreflective Male Feminist, you're loading up programs about the world and yourself in your head that are actively harmful and at odds with reality to you and those around you.
A sex pest male feminist might well be a hypocrite or liar, I'm not trying to argue that isn't possible. I think there are lots of different varieties out there. But I have the strong suspicion that there are a lot of guys who have loaded up a bunch of simplistic feminist claims in their head as authoritative about morality and gender in the world, and then when the actual messy reality of their own physical biology shows up, and the intensity of their desires, and the shame of their compulsions and their weaknesses, they are entirely unequipped to navigate it successfully because the social tools they have been given are non-functional and not even addressing the correct basic facts.
Yeah, I suspect there's a notable difference between guys who become sex pests because they try to actually follow the amalgamated kludge of feminist rules of engagement as stated, and enthusiastically take women at their word, and end up "innocently" crossing a boundary or barrier they couldn't even see and getting pilloried for a remark or action they thought was permissible...
And those who adopt it as an intentional strategy to get laid and will operate as long as they can before getting called out.
Perhaps there ARE more of the former than the latter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link