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 -
Do you know what makes abuse abuse- the real why of it being harmful? Because it's forcing the victim into an unnatural/undeserved submissive role they didn't assume.
Sexual abuse is that, but in specifically a way that has to deal with sex (just like how racism is this in a way that has to deal with race).
Now, we know what that looks like when men do it- take the sacrament in your mouth, my child- but men tend to dominate physically, so that's the kind of abuse mode we should expect from them. It's inherently playing the short game- sexual domination here has a clear beginning, a clear end, a clear definition, and a translucent white evidentiary trail.
Pre-20th-century schools and churches are overwhelmingly staffed by men and thus if left unchecked tend towards this failure mode.
What happens when the gender that likes to dominate socially/emotionally does it? Well, women tend to dominate socially/emotionally, so what we should expect from them is types of more subtle abuse over time that prevents boys from developing natural assertive/dominant behavior.
So they're playing the long game of attempting to run [sexual] interference on boys. Which includes things like punishing all physical contact (and what physical contact is allowed is colored as being a gay thing), showing them pictures of gay sex in an attempt to force them to see sex like adults do (and that mostly-innocent-yet-still-definitionally-sexual harassment should be treated as violent rape), making sure that boys who act like girls (not necessarily the stereotypical gay man, but deferring to the proper authorities, not developing their own strengths and ensuring that those who do use them are punished) are favored, and things that will ultimately serve to make them submissive, anxious, and above all unattractive. The worst thing in the world is if a girl exhibits male qualities- that should be discouraged at all costs (and if she fails to desist from that trans-gender behavior, the girl should be encouraged to self-mutilate; boys are also encouraged to do this, but for them, it's a Skoptskyist "cut your dick off to prevent you from sin" thing).
Public schools/daycares and management positions more generally are overwhelmingly staffed by women and thus if left unchecked tend towards this failure mode.
See now that attempts to deal with the second using the tools meant to deal with the first fail. A woman being physically sexually dominant towards a boy is seen as neutral to positive in the collective consciousness- men can't be hurt by women expressing dominance in the male way (popularly, "men can't be raped").
Thus, attempts to hold to account sexually abusive women with the same reasoning, and in the same way, that we do sexually abusive men do not resonate with the general public.
See now that attempts to deal with the first using the tools meant to deal with the second fail. A man being emotionally sexually dominant towards a girl is seen as neutral to positive in the collective consciousness- women can't be hurt by men expressing dominance in the female way (popularly, "trans women are women").
Thus, attempts to hold to account sexually abusive men with the same reasoning, and in the same way, that we do sexually abusive women do not resonate with the general public.
The long game can be punished, but you have to fully embrace equity to do that- men and women act in anti-social ways differently, and only punishing men gives women a blank check to be destructive (as they have been). An environment of equality can only punish men, but an environment of equity acknowledges that differences between men and women require, in aggregate, different tools to deal with.
This is because the average person doesn’t see a teenaged boy having sex as a big deal, and most of these cases are female high school teachers sleeping with their male students. It’s actually just a gendered double standard about sexual innocence.
You're not defining abuse correctly here. I do not believe most of these cases are abuse, because [abuse] is forcing the victim into an unnatural/undeserved submissive role they didn't assume. Women are instinctively submissive physically by default, so they'll likely be more vulnerable to this physically, while men are submissive emotionally by default, so they'll be more vulnerable to this emotionally.
Which is why, on first pass, it's generally considered abuse [by the above definition] when it's a male teacher fucking a female student, but not the other way around, even if the motives were the same. The woman's bearing 100% of the physical risk of the interaction; that's why the response to this is generally "nice". You can't rob someone by sticking a wad of cash in their face, and sex [for most people] works the same way.
The problem is that we're only set up to catch and punish instances of physical abuse. So of all anti-social sexual behavior perpetrated by women we're only going to catch the gender non-conforming behavior (that is, women + physical) while ignoring what they actually do, and trying to use the tools we use to punish physical (most anti-social sexual behavior by men is in this group) abuse by relating the two does not, and should not be expected to work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link