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 -
I like this framing. What do you think makes this predictable though?
Yeah unfortunately I agree... Christianity is still working through the implications of birth control but I on the whole think it's good for the Christian worldview. There was definitely a problem with sexism towards women, something that Christ explicitly warned against.
Honestly, maybe I'm reaching a bit outside of the standard reactionary "fuck you men, reeee" (though I definitely think this is a major part of it, and understandably so), since that's the only mechanism of action I can come up with.
The problem with sexism in the Church is that on plain reading the Bible outright justifies it. So, the wicked can point to any number of verses that says "women exist for the benefit of men"- like, say, Genesis 1- and have a solid argument that takes words words words to defeat. "Lean not on your own understanding" is fucking catnip to a traditionalist because it means you can do nothing and call it devotion (which the progressives have their own carbon copies of re: "alternate ways of knowing").
It's like the whole point is to grow together, where the interests of one converge into the interests of the other like some sort of... marriage or something. Not sure why the Church would know anything about that, though.
Nothing whatsoever in Genesis 1 says or even implies that women exist for the benefit of men.
I'd guess you're thinking of Genesis 2:20, and the idea of the woman as a 'helper' or 'support' for the man? I'd argue that it's quite a tendentious and implausible reading of that verse to simply interpret it as suggesting female inferiority or servitude, but at any rate, it is not in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 only mentions gender once, in 1:27 ("male and female he created them"), and that verse does not suggest any superiority or inferiority.
This is still suggesting inferiority on plain reading. It doesn't have to be, of course... but then we read a little further and we see "your desire shall be for your husband, and he will rule over you". Sure, the context is describing a curse, but that doesn't make it any less pre-ordained to occur.
So this is a real viewpoint, it's backed up relatively well by the text (both testaments), and even Jesus himself backs it up (by the way he addresses the woman at the fountain). Which means that the wicked, and wicked men in particular, will latch onto it and abuse it even in societal conditions that don't obey that fundamental curse as strictly as they once did.
The Church has to find a way to deal with those wicked men in a way that won't drive off the wise or damage the life script for the simple (they're running closer to biology, and traditionalist ways are objectively best for those people). Their success is mixed.
You mean in John 4? I don't see where that passage implies female inferiority? He asks the woman for a drink of water, and the text immediately indicates that he's asking her because the (male) disciples have gone into town to buy food, so it seems like he's comfortable asking people of either sex for nourishment. The woman's response does not mention sex either - she's surprised because he's a Jew and she's a Samaritan. The operative categories are ethnoreligious, not sex.
There is a subsequent discussion of the woman's husband, but again I don't see anything that implies that he considers her the inferior of men?
If I were looking for a gotcha passage showing Jesus giving priority to men or being demeaning of women, I feel like I could do better.
That was the impression I had from the exchange (though even if it was 100% true, which I honestly don't believe it is, I'm expecting a first-century Jesus to act in a way common to a first-century people where it isn't conflicting with the job He is doing; that's just the way it works). I'm not bothering to discuss the latter half of the NT because we both know they contain a bunch of this (or at least, the excuse to justify a bunch of this; there's still a lot of 'male should lead and be household's head' too with the implication that it's not a job suitable for women, which gets used as an excuse to underperform or fail to delegate then make that failure the woman's problem).
Interestingly, I find that if you read those letters in a slightly more sophisticated/charitable manner it contains a lot of relatively standard group dynamics stuff. Everyone is aware of, or at least able to conceptualize, someone not being able to shut up during the sermon, and odds are you conceptualize this person as female even if you're a woman. So that + cultural outlook = "women should be silent in church"; it's applying the cultural meme in brain-dead fashion to people for whom it isn't true that creates the issue, but t'was ever thus.
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
‘Still working through’ is mostly not true- the RCC has articulated its reasons for condemnation and other sects have made their peace with it.
I am not a Roman Catholic. The Church is broader than the Patriarchate of Rome.
What sect hasn’t figured out what their stance on birth control is? Most conservative Protestants make some well defined allowances, orthodoxy allows most contraception while pretending not to, and other groups generally allow any use of contraception. The church fathers are pretty clear that the answer to not wanting a baby is ‘don’t have sex’(and indeed condemn contraceptive methods by name), but the groups considering the church fathers binding have decided what to do about that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link