site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025

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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I agree with @2rafa that these are all different archetypes who are seen in the wild, but I don't think there is any reason to believe that being a "male feminist" says much at all about how likely any particular man is to be a sex pest. Obviously people who dislike feminism and/or male feminists love theories that flatter this bias: of course they're predators; of course their feminism is performative; of course they don't actually believe what they're saying and it's just another tactic to get into women's pants; of course they act just like any other man and delude themselves that being a "feminist" absolves them. I doubt male feminists are more (or less) predatory in general, though. It's just when a particularly famous one (like Neil Gaiman or Joss Whedon) is found sticking his dick in someone he shouldn't have, it's broadcast widely because (a) they're famous! and (b) given their loud, performative feminism, which annoys anti-feminists, of course the latter will delight in crowing about their downfall and holding them up as a "typical" male feminist when in fact they are not.

don't think there is any reason to believe that being a "male feminist" says much at all about how likely any particular man is to be a sex pest.

Sure, but the vast, vast majority of muslims are not terrorists, yet most terrorists who fly airplanes into buildings are muslim. Most male feminists are not sex pests, but many sex pests turn out, ironically, to be male feminists. There may be some kind of cluster that is worth examining.

Statistically we can say that most such terrorists are Muslims, and we can point to clear and historical causes for this which even terrorists themselves would agree with. They actually tell us their motivations!

Is there any statistical evidence of most sex pests (however you want to define that) identify as feminists?

I have zero knowledge, evidence, or stake in the sex pest claim. Just wanted to point out the logical inconsistency that I saw in your claim.

That is, having the knowledge of "male feminist" would (indeed) give very little indication of "sex pest", even if it is true that the vast majority of sex pests turn out to be male feminists.

Thus, the fact of very little indication, which we both agree on, weighs very little on the OP's claim.

(b) given their loud, performative feminism, which annoys anti-feminists, of course the latter will delight in crowing about their downfall

I would add that for isomorphic reasons the actual feminists will disavow him as loudly as they can, adding to the overall prominence of the story.

So based on this we should assume that the theory that there are no more mfsps than regular sps flatters your biases?

Well, you can assume that, but I think you'd be making a few incorrect assumptions. Like for starters, do you think you know what my biases are regarding male feminists?

I would start with the null hypothesis: being a self-proclaimed male feminist provides no information one way or the other about a man's likelihood to be a sex pest.

All the theories about why it's a "red flag" (theories that are popular with both feminists and anti-feminists) seem to be largely anecdotal. I don't find those theories implausible, necessarily, but they all sound like just so stories. You know this male feminist, he turns out to be a creep, you invent a story to explain why a male feminist would turn out to be a sex pest. For feminists, it's to make sense of why a man who's supposed to be one of the "good ones" isn't; for anti-feminists, it's to explain why there must be something wrong with a man who'd embrace feminism.

This is no different than liberals and conservatives who make up theories about What's Wrong With Those People, shellacking a coat of evolutionary psychology onto it.

I think you are at the very least negatively predisposed to the anti-woke, but I am glad that wasn't the point you were making. I base this on your immediate recognition of the motivated reasoning used by the anti woke re mfsps -

of course they're predators; of course their feminism is performative; of course they don't actually believe what they're saying and it's just another tactic to get into women's pants; of course they act just like any other man and delude themselves that being a "feminist" absolves them."

coupled with the motivated reasoning you employ in your final sentence

of course the latter will delight in crowing about their downfall and holding them up as a "typical" male feminist when in fact they are not."

You say that based on no more evidence than the anti-woke say 'hey why do all these male feminists keep turning out to be sex pests?' but it must flatter your biases as you don't look any deeper.

If as it appears there is no data available on this, if for some reason academia are willing to write up thousands of studies on heteronormativity and androphilia and black feminism and queer theory, but are entirely incurious as to the intersection of male feminism and sex pestery, then all we can learn about are each other's biases, since we lack any evidence to change each other's minds.

As one of the anti-woke, I will tell you that I didn't latch onto the mfsp stereotype to explain why there must be something wrong with a man who'd embrace feminism - I do have some friends like that, but before the meme I thought male feminists were sycophantic, sanctimonious and misled but trying their best like everyone else. At that time, pretty much every man I knew called himself a male feminist. It was noticing how my pattern recognition system for believing stories about sex pestery kept getting tripped up if the accused was a male feminist that made the meme resonate.

Which is definitely bias, but informative bias imo which is why I call mfsp a stereotype rather than a just so story. I would do the same for your of course statement up there - I don't know think it's wholly accurate, but I think it points in the the direction of the truth, recency bias definitely plays a part. Reasoning from biases is never entirely accurate and only really works on these macro scales at all, but it's more realistic and useful than assuming we can't know anything without scientific evidence.

I think you are at the very least negatively predisposed to the anti-woke

Not really, or at least, no more than I am negatively predisposed to the woke. As I suspected, you have a poor understanding of what I think. That's okay, I get that a lot.

You say that based on no more evidence than the anti-woke say 'hey why do all these male feminists keep turning out to be sex pests?' but it must flatter your biases as you don't look any deeper.

I just wrote about all the theories that both feminists and anti-feminists present as to why "all these male feminists keep turning out to be sex pests," and why I think they are basically Chinese robber fallacies. Unless you have some stronger evidence. It's not about my biases (because you are wrong about them). It's because there isn't really any evidence that I am aware of that male feminists are more likely to be sex pests (or that sex pests are more likely to be male feminists).

I do have some friends like that, but before the meme I thought male feminists were sycophantic, sanctimonious and misled but trying their best like everyone else. At that time, pretty much every man I knew called himself a male feminist. It was noticing how my pattern recognition system for believing stories about sex pestery kept getting tripped up if the accused was a male feminist that made the meme resonate.

So are you saying that the majority of the male feminists you knew turned out to be sex pests?

So are you saying that the majority of the male feminists you knew turned out to be sex pests?

No they all stopped calling themselves feminists. One of them told me it was specifically because of the mfsp issue. But there was a joke at the time I'm sure you've heard - "of course I'm a feminist, I want to get laid bro". That joke stopped getting play shortly after the mfsp issue arose.

I just wrote about all the theories that both feminists and anti-feminists present as to why "all these male feminists keep turning out to be sex pests," and why I think they are basically Chinese robber fallacies. Unless you have some stronger evidence. It's not about my biases (because you are wrong about them). It's because there isn't really any evidence that I am aware of that male feminists are more likely to be sex pests (or that sex pests are more likely to be male feminists).

You wrote:

I doubt male feminists are more (or less) predatory in general, though. It's just when a particularly famous one (like Neil Gaiman or Joss Whedon) is found sticking his dick in someone he shouldn't have, it's broadcast widely because (a) they're famous! and (b) given their loud, performative feminism, which annoys anti-feminists, of course the latter will delight in crowing about their downfall and holding them up as a "typical" male feminist when in fact they are not.

That is the theory you put forward in the just so format. You have no evidence for it. Your biases led you to proclaim that "given their loud, performative feminism, of course the latter will delight in crowing about their downfall etc." with the exact same weight and force as the anti-woke said "of course they're predators etc." You start from the position the number of mfsps don't exceed the number of regular sps and once you hit upon an answer that flatters your biases you stop, just like the anti-woke do when they go 'of course he was just a predator the whole time'.

I thought that was the point you were making originally, that we're all held hostage to our biases, by setting up a link between flattered biases and of course arguments and then using that exact same structure in earnest, like an irony double dip or something. But if you didn't do it on purpose to make a point, then by your own reasoning either your biases are flattered by that of course argument or the first half of your post is just nonsense with no explanatory power. I don't think that's the case. If you would like to lay out your biases I can reassess, but if you are going to continue to be vague and secretive about them for no reason I assume I'm right.

You quoted my point. Yes, most people choose a narrative that flatters their biases. My biases are that male feminists are mostly performative but many are sincere, and anti-wokes tend to rely on Chinese robber fallacies.

There is, imo, no evidence to support the theory that male feminists are more likely to be sex pests, nor any evidence that they are less likely.