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 -
Beats me. Maybe queens of slay. Like all such popular slogans expressing the feminist ideal of limitless empowerment, I find it ridiculous, a facet of a promise that is unwarrantable at scale, and inevitably leads to disillusionment and personal failure.
I love the indignation here. Indeed, who am I to dare think... think what? It's very quickly traced from the underdefined abstract claim («women should accept responsibility for the reproduction of the group») to the specific attack on personal agency, indeed an assault: that @gemmaem should be forced to bear a baby. (Probably my baby? Some incel's baby? Yuck!) @FarNearEverywhere, to whom I was responding, offers another charming strawman:
What to do! When one side has a game-breaking move «act as if you are afraid of rape», burned into the brainstem and summoned frivolously – no discourse is possible.
My intuitive ideal is maximum agency and optionality for every individual that the society can sustain, in terms of actual material opportunities and not bickering over spoils in a zero-sum squabble. Honestly, if it were possible, I'd have relieved you, and everyone else, of the necessity to gestate an entire baby (or part of a baby, I guess). But surprisingly, women aren't too enthusiastic about artificial womb research either, despite attempts to frame it as an empowering development. Imagine if I suggested that, say, @2rafa's list, admittedly uncomfortably hardcore even for me, is augmented as follows: childless people who are otherwise subject to those career-damaging sanctions and prohibitive taxes can instead 1) postpone their reproduction, 2) pay directly to the «national ectogenesis fund» and 3) commit to have a child once the technology is ready. Men and women alike.
Do you think this would've been politically feasible?
And thanks for another illustration.
I love your writing, man. But do me a favour and finally get off that arse of yours and write a novel. Pains me to see this generation's Dostojewski wasted on internet bullshit, even though it's highly entertaining.
I mean, would it even be a novel, or just an autobiography with some Magical Realism injected into it? Dase certainly has the classical cynicism of the greats of the past, combined with the profound-yet-puerile attitude found in Russian moderns, IMO.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This list isn't even all that terrible. If someone wants to live a barebones 33rd percentile Western life they can still do so pretty easily childless under this regime. And this list doesn't force @gemmaem or anyone else to have children, all it does is impose a requirement that if people want to enjoy the upper echelons of the fruits of modern society, they do their part in contributing to its continuation.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, since you can't even explain what power it is that women have that you're complaining about, I suppose there is no substance here for me to argue with. You've made one vague gesture towards @2rafa's list of admirably gender-neutral constraints while simultaneously declaring it, understandably, "too hardcore."
You can't even really articulate the premise on which your misogyny rests, let alone substantiate it.
I think I explain it well enough. I can try to explain again from first principles. Power is asymmetry of control between agents. Power of women specifically is the power to tank any political project they don't like (say, one increasing men's rights) and shut down a discussion they don't favor (say, one casting women in unflattering light) with a gratuitous refusal to compromise or engage in good faith; the essence of this is captured in twitter catchphrases like «this makes me feel unsafe», or in your behavior toward me here. It is power because it reliably, irrespective of merits of each case, extracts sympathy out of women and out of men, producing a predictable asymmetry and skewing outcomes. This power is an active application of the well-known "women are wonderful" effect, which is in turn explained by evolutionary dynamics created by parental investment inequality, which you have already alluded to (but which, in modern society, doesn't necessarily hold outside of the context of gestation).
The premise of my «misogyny», or actually my argument about there being no realistic solution to undesirable societal effects of feminism, is that women (except members of retrograde religious societies), with you being an apt example, feel entitled to behave this way toward interlocutors, for good reason, namely that «the society» simultaneously encourages this self-serving mean-girl behavior and pretends it's compatible with the authority of an adult.
I will opt out of substantiating the link between feminism and adverse effects discussed (disproportionate, growing inability of young men to form relationships, high divorce rate, low TFR, etc.) because, again, I think the effortpost by @gorge, linked above, suffices as an introduction.
If I were to propose anything like a plan to «impose responsibility» on women in the intended sense, it'd be not so much about me being in control of your womb, «sex for meat» and other blatantly hostile potshots you ladies have come up with, as about nationalism and extended families, in following with the only example of a large, prosperous secular society without those issues that I know. Naturally I also know this cannot be engineered. 2rafa's plan, on top of being hardcore, is also unworkable, at least not in a democratic society.
You may have already encountered it, but if not I think you will enjoy this article by Richard Hanania: https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/womens-tears-win-in-the-marketplace
More options
Context Copy link
Still a bit light on the details. Are you too afraid of my mean-girl power to explain which men's rights women are taking away, or would you be willing to elaborate?
As for "casting women in an unflattering light," well, your premise that women are too mean and irrational to be allowed to participate in politics certainly does that! And I suppose you will claim that any counterargument that I make is merely an appeal to "women are wonderful." But I think my conduct speaks for itself, to any reasonable observer. Your accusation of habitual bad-faith argumentation on my part is unfounded.
This is a topic I really, really don't want to talk about or even think about, because it's one of the abysses that gazes back and keeps me up at night and also it's radioactive. But I'm already thinking about it and I just went through the entire thread of this top-level post hoping in vain that someone had already said it, so I guess it falls to me to explain the HBD-MRA model of patriarchy and its downfall.
Assumed: HBD, or at least the points of which that men are physically stronger than women, and that women are better at social - in particular covert manipulation - than men. For the latter part, also that women care more about safety than men.
The outcome of this in prehistory and most of history is explicit patriarchy that is somewhat more equal than it looks. Explicit female domination or excessive implicit female domination doesn't work because in extremis men would defeat women physically and rape and/or murder them (and in prehistory, of course, mass abduction and rape of other tribes' women was reasonably-commonplace), but women do better than it looks like they do because of course they do, that's what happens when you're better at covert manipulation and the primary drivers of culture. This was stable.
It went from stable to metastable at some point. Obvious potential contributors include the development of firearms, the immense increase in state power relative to personal power, and democracy + women's suffrage giving women an equal explicit share in that state power. I say metastable, rather than unstable, because there was still the social pressure toward not-being-a-feminist encoded within society and enforced by women at least as much as by men. This maintained the explicit patriarchy for some time, but only against relatively-small disruptions. When a large disruption came along, in the form of the 60s/70s counterculture, the social chaos allowed the "women are better at manipulation" effect to take over society entire. Thus, we get the current system, where there is some explicit pretence of equality but implicitly and even to some degree explicitly the deck is massively stacked in women's favour. This is also stable; rapist revolution on small or large scale is impossible because of state power, and now with both women's material incentives and individual social incentives pointing toward feminism, they aren't likely to steer the culture away from it.
The place where this model gets horrible and abyss-gazey is if you consider a patriarchal society better than a matriarchal one - most obviously to me, if you think that safetyism and its accompanying administrative bloat is strangling our ability to achieve anything, but also if you think that the matriarchal mode's oppression of men is worse than the patriarchal mode's oppression of women, or indeed if you think that matriarchy is incompatible with maintaining replacement fertility and thus with a society that isn't necessarily parasitic on others (I'm not convinced of the latter two, but obviously a bunch of people in this thread are convinced). Because then, according to the model, the only way to fix it is to undo some of the factors that made the matriarchy mode a stronger attractor than the patriarchy mode. And, well, I enumerated the options there, or at least the ones I can see, and the possible ones suck (particularly since - as even Dave Sim noted in his infamous essay - the sex differences in these things are statistical trends and not 100%-accurate stereotypes; revoking women's suffrage would very definitely be unfair).
Like I said, I try not to think about this; I would basically rather stick my head in the sand and hope for a miracle (space colonisation and genetic enhancement both seem vaguely like they might organically lead to solutions, although the latter has its own terrors). But you asked, and I ended up reading your post because of the mod-queue thing (this one wasn't there, but I always look at context), and I'd hate myself more for self-censorship than I would and do for spitting it out. So here you go.
Strongly patriarchal societies tend to lack innovation. They are too conservative for it. Think about much of the Muslim world, for example.
It seems to me that the world's most innovative societies are not strongly patriarchal or strongly matriarchal, they are somewhere in between or somewhere outside of that dimension entirely.
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am so grateful for your straightforward explanation.
In arguing against the idea that women’s ability to garner sympathy is dangerous in itself, I find that I am in a similar situation to the one that Yair Rosenberg outlines here:
Similarly, if I point out the cruelty that might result from denying women a voice in the political process, someone who subscribes to the HBD-MRA viewpoint that you outline can simply respond that any traction I can get from such an argument is proof that people sympathise with women. Accordingly, women constitute a danger and need to be treated with less sympathy in order to neutralise this threat.
We need to prevent the possibility of a downward spiral in which any sign of sympathy for your opponents is proof of the danger that they pose. Basic human sympathy ought to apply to everyone. When the state has as much power as modern states almost always do, this means that the state needs to be able to have sympathy for everyone in it. This means that everyone needs to have some voice in the political process.
When women protest that they ought to have a voice in our debates over how society should be run, this is not in itself evidence that women are unreasonable and power-seeking. Nor does the fact that people sympathise with this argument constitute evidence of some kind of overwhelming persuasive power that women have. To claim either of these things is to participate, clearly, in a spiral of nonsympathy.
Thank you so much for your explanation. If your understanding of what I am trying to argue against illuminates any flaws in my response, then I welcome your insight. You can’t argue against what you don’t understand. I appreciate the opportunity you’ve given me.
But it doesn't. When was the last time you saw an argument gain traction in popular discourse that a policy should be enacted because it benefits men qua men?
Or, alternatively, the total power of the state over every facet of our lives might be trimmed a little bit around the edges. There is an argument to be made that more state control in our gynocentric society does primarily result in the preferences of women being taken care of first and foremost. This is what the somewhat cringey "longhouse" discourse on the right alludes to.
Well, I certainly support sympathy for men and policy measures designed to help men in areas where they are disproportionately struggling, and I am open to the idea of trimming back the power of the state over some facets of our lives. So although I don't believe we actually live in a "gynocentric society," we might well be able to come to an agreement on some individual changes!
I've avoided wading into this because I tend to be more sympathetic to your view (at least, your resistance against posters who think you should have few to zero rights). That said, I cannot help sympathizing with your critics on some points. I am sure that you, personally, are sincere about believing that the all-encompassing model of The Patriarchy does not mean individual men can't suffer. But -
Can you give any concrete examples of measures specifically to help men that you would not oppose? Especially if those measures might in some tiny way inconvenience or disadvantage a woman?
Saying "I support sympathy for men" is like saying "I think racism is bad." Okay, good for you. Do you want a cookie? Glad to know you don't think an entire class of people literally deserves no sympathy (and there are regular posters here who do believe that). But in what way would you be willing to "help men in areas where they are disproportionately suffering"? The answers I have almost always gotten from feminists are generally along the lines of "Yes, men can suffer, but women suffer more, so until we have corrected thousands of years of historical injustice and oppression against women, focusing specifically on men is putting our energy in the wrong place." It's very similar to the narrative of "anti-racists," that even if white people (for example) can sometimes be persecuted or disadvantaged, the overwhelming historical trend has been in the opposite direction, so until we have "ended racism," the white people who are now getting the short end of the stick just need to suck it up.
While I do not think the men, or white people, who respond with "Well, fuck you then" and turn hardcore MRA or white nationalist, are choosing the most productive way to engage with the problem, I do feel some sympathy for them and understand why there are more of them.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I hear women say that a lot when pressed. But the issue is that men are often struggling in areas characterised by zero-sum conflict in which women have gained unfair advantages. Would you be in favour of abolishing implicit and explicit gender quotas; female-only scholarships, mentorship and career advancement programs as well as professorships; and DEI offices? Make family court fairer (which would mean women would get custody much less often and would be awarded less alimony)? Equalise public spending on health and social programs (which would mean that programs for women's health would receive less funding)? Make schools and universities more friendly for men (which would mean less coddling and abolishing Title IX shenanigans)? Change work place norms so that an accusation of sexual misconduct doesn't automatically result in social ostracism (which would mean that women who claim to be victims would face more scrutiny)? Etc. etc.
It all sounds great in abstract, but is usually met with fierce opposition when concrete policies are proposed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Created an account after lurking for a while just to add on to this comment. Another major consequence that @magic9mushroom missed in his current model is that at the end of the day society is built on men's strength. Pretty much every piece of critical infrastructure is created, installed and maintained by men. Their strength is the foundation on which society is built. The house you live in, the roads you travel on with your car, the internet cables, etc. As more and more check out of society for various reasons the more the foundation cracks and we revert back to the first model. Humanity has already exploited all the easy to reach minerals and energy in our current rise, a fall will be one that we most likely never a rise from again.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, for a quick but non-exhaustive list from the top of my head:
Equal opportunity in the work place (through explicit and implicit quotas)
The right to a fair trial (family court)
The right to face one's accuser (Title IX kangaroo courts)
Equal enjoyment of society's resources men disproportionally provide through taxes (health care spending, or the aforementioned differences in effort to adress male and female homelessness)
I will not list a whole host of outcome disparities (suicides, homelessness, sentencing disparities, work place deaths etc.) because they are more complicated and frequently an outcome of men's choices. Not that outcome disparities disfavouring women aren't frequently used by feminists to demand more freebies.
EDIT: But of course the most important right that is denied to men because of how women abuse their social power to steer political discourse is what Rainer Forst calls the right to justification: to be subjected only to those binding rules that have been adequately justified. This is what Dasein's comments are mainly getting at.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, as luck would have it, you provide details. E.g. this idea that you don't have to justify or spell out your own object-level ideas, instead moving from a sneer to another clever sneer, humorously nitpicking, questioning me and expecting some mealy-mouthed excuses to mock – this is, in itself, an attitude of a person used to wielding social power, to meting out rewards and threats. In fact you have started with accusatory questions and assumptions:
This is and remains sufficient, a catty snipe men do not receive well from each other, and in many other places a heavy, dangerous accusation.
As for men's rights, MRAs have their lists of complaints available on the web. If you are curious, you can find them. My point, however, is not men's rights, but the mode of engagement you presume permissible for yourself, because it is – for a woman, as I've been saying.
If I were to name one right I personally think is missing, that'd be general legal recognition of men-only spaces, i.e. not spaces which women aren't interested in entering because of their perceived low status, but ones they are not allowed into – precisely to avoid this kind of petty bullshit, and also to not ruin some nice hobbies and traditions. Boy Scouts, MTG, Compagnons, old clubs.
For some reason feminists are very hostile to the notion.
But yeah, let's go with me being too afraid. Rather, let's say I am exhausted. Women tend to think this such words make a good argument, so I assume you wouldn't think this an unfair move.
I do, in fact, generally respect exhaustion in my argumentative partners, you're not wrong about that. Unfortunately, in this case, you've made any number of statements that require answers. You accuse me of sneering, but you've been sneering at me this whole time, and suggesting taking away rights far more fundamental than a right to single-sex spaces. As for catty sniping, you're full of catty sniping! "I love the indignation here," you write. "And thanks for another illustration," you continue. It's true that I'm not spelling out my own object level ideas; I'm asking you to spell yours out because you keep leveling accusations at women that honestly seem far more true of you. Perhaps if you were better at engaging with women in good faith, you'd get more good faith in return.
Going to come in handy for the 2 women on the Motte, thanks for the insight.
Sarcasm aside, do you not realize that you making statements like that is exactly his point? That you can harness social shaming as a tool even in a place like a motte without raising too many eyebrows, and such statements are toxic to honest discourse to the nth degree. Be honest, you know you being a woman has nothing to do with how he is engaging in this conversation, if anything if you read @DaseindustriesLtd's other comments on other topics, he is holding back his punches. So why add in that little snide at all if not for shaming purposes? Do you seriously think "has women franchisement gone too far" is too spicy relative to the other things the motte discusses?
I hate to say it, but a lot of women are so used to using harnessing shame to win arguments that they don't even know when they are doing it (or that you can win arguments any other way) [1]. Your statement can roughly be translated to;
" Oh sweetie, no wonder you are having girl troubles, You don't even know how to talk to girls! just say your please and thank yous and you will get a girlfriend in no time" exact same thing as "Perhaps if you were better at engaging with women in good faith, you'd get more good faith in return." in the context of this conversation.
And there you did it. You poisoned the well, now unless one has the eye of Horus he will slightly doubt everything he (Daes) says because maybe you know what, he kinda might just suck with girls and is taking it all out on the internet. Maybe everything he is saying is just incel jibber jabber.
You are non-stop trying to shame him ala "can you guys believe this, he is being mean to girls!" over and over again. And if you can't realize that after being told explicitly, I don't know what to say. But do be careful of wielding weapons, lest they be wielded against you.
Here's some unsolicited advice. You can <argue for/against the point> instead of < arguing for the point as a woman>, the latter will automatically guarantee you hostility. Why? Because the latter is often a failsafe warning sign that shaming will be used if the discussion turns sideways and everyone who has their senses tuned after years of internet usage will pattern match regardless of the ground truth and get in a preemptive strike.
[1] FYI, even the most vilest of online incels or whatsoever woman-hating group you can conjure up not are really hostile to women when interacting with them. But they are hostile to "bitches", i.e women who are so used to arguing "as a woman" that they are gobsmacked by the notion that they might get hostility for reasons other than being a woman, i.e for being annoying/histrionic/naggy/whatever. Men get hostility all the fucking time from other men, but I suppose when you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
I do agree with Dasein on the substance and I do agree with your assessment above, but to be entirely fair, one's identity is a valid thing to mention when registering offense at something that is insulting to said identity. The reason it feels alien to many men is probably because they are used to the demonisation.
"As a man, I feel unsafe when you cast us in the role of perpetual oppressors" said no man ever.
More options
Context Copy link
Dase has made his opinion of women very clear, on multiple occasions. He thinks we are liars. He thinks we are mean. He thinks we habitually act in bad faith.
The style of sneering at female commenters personally that he is employing in this thread is very obviously coloured by his broader opinions.
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be allowed. I decided not to let it -- and the sneering alongside it -- go unchallenged.
I meant it, sincerely. Good faith works best as a two way street. That's just a fact of human interaction.
I've been on the Motte since it was the Culture War Thread. I'm one of the left-most people here. I've never flamed out. I've garnered two mod notes over six years; never a ban. I stay for the charity, when I can get it; I stay to be challenged and to see views I wouldn't otherwise see. Sometimes, I admit, I stay for the fight. But I always argue in good faith, even when it leaves me vulnerable. If you can't access that side of me, you're not trying very hard.
So you are committing the same NAXALT/AXALT fallacy that he claimed women are more prone to making. I.e not understanding distributions.
Yes, he could have avoided this by prepending "most" to his "women are X" clause or "more X than Y", but only a bad faith interpretation (or abject misunderstanding) facilitates that confusion.
I think one of the issues here is that criticizing women as a group is so verboten that any and all of it is taken with utmost offense. Consider "men are more aggressive than women", that is true. Consider "men are more boneheaded than women", also true. Not all men and all women, but those statements can be said without invoking the wrath of the male gender or anyone batting an eyelid at all. However when you levy an equal accusation at women, let's say being susceptible to NAXALT/AXALT fallacies, all hell breaks lose? How is that any worse than being aggresive or boneheaded?
As for sneering female commentators, The one female commentator brought it on herself coming in guns blazing with sneers out of the gate. You just entered the mud bath.
I wasn't the one to insinuate that you are operating in bad faith but you are refusing to face head-on the meat of his criticisms and instead hiding behind the fact that they were said in an unsavory tone.
Why don't you actually challenge the criticisms instead of bringing weak sarcastic platitudes or diverting the discussion to the tone of the conversation?
More options
Context Copy link
I feel compelled to point out that @DaseindustriesLtd was probably trying to make a Heideggerian joke with his chosen name.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a lie, as you know. I have not advocated disenfranchisement of women, yet you have already started gossiping to this effect; I believe that the change, as implemented, was a bad idea, but now this is a moot point (in the footnote, I add that there may be no workable political regime anyway). I have not proposed granting me control over pregnancies either, yet you feel free to insinuate this. Inasmuch as I have spoken of conscionable (but still unworkable) solutions, those were a) the artificial womb project, b) social engineering in the manner of Israelis. Perhaps some watered-down incentive structure along 2rafa's lines is also worth discussing, but my overall point is that it effectively entails big reductions in freedom of women, in the name of a natalist, clearly «patriarchal» objective, so it is politically unfeasible; its gender-neutrality is not that relevant. I concede that a substantial proportion of men will also oppose it out of self-interest.
Yes. In response to what? But perhaps the gravity of your accusation is lost on you; as well as the cause for my sarcasm.
Sure, I'm not being exceedingly courteous to you here. But I think I'm being courteous enough.
EDIT @f3zinker has helpfully reminded me that in another conversation I have indeed written down some concrete proposals, though they, too, are not politically realistic (premised on having authoritarian power to begin with). You can debate them if you wish.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, the freemasons are a society that women aren't allowed to enter, and they're doing just fine (well, apart from membership dwindling but that's not because of the power structures that be).
Your information is out of date, I'm afraid; the masons are accepting women nowadays.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not ilforte and not a direct example, but even if no rights are directly being taken away you can still have a subset of the population being reduced to second class status, see Jim Crow laws in the US and "separate but equal" wherein black people were normally given access to inferior versions of the things white people got, even though on paper they both got access to the same things (e.g. the black waiting room at a train station was worse than the white one, even though on paper both blacks and whites got a waiting room at the train station). And while on its own having a worse train station waiting room is a very minor inconvenience, multiply this by 100x with variants of this happening all over society and you suddenly have a very real issue on your hands.
Same thing with men/women in modern society, it is currently structured in such a way that even though on paper everyone is equal, men by and large get the short end of the stick even for things that hurt them more (e.g. more targeted help for female homeless, even though there are far more male homeless than female homeless) where if the genders were inverted would be considered a huge issue needing national attention (see how at the moment in the US the college enrolment gender imbalance is more lopsided in female favour than it was in male favour when Title IX was introduced as a remedy to the issue). Now you can (and people do) always make arguments about why we shouldn't interfere in the current situation, but those arguments also mostly applied when women were getting the short end of the stick, and they weren't considered good enough excuses then, but by and large are considered so now (well, except in those STEM subjects which still have more men than women).
Well, I would certainly be in favour of also having homeless programs that target men. I agree that there is a fair bit of momentum behind addressing inequities faced by women, and less momentum behind addressing inequities faced by men, and I am definitely open to arguments about which such inequities are particularly important (successful suicide attempts would be another obvious urgent one).
So I agree that there are issues that need addressing, here, but I don't think denying women the vote is likely to be an important step towards that. And although some feminists are threatened by the notion that men might also face inequities, I think the broader public, including women, is generally not inclined to view such things with outrage or bad faith argumentation, so much as an unwarranted level of neglect which we can work to overcome.
I don't think your local interlocutors have advocated for stripping women of the right to vote (though maybe someone has elsewhere in the thread). I've read them more as hoping for a shift in power at the level of culture and norms, but basically disparaging that this is possible.
Personally, I'm somewhat optimistic that we will find a better balance in the long term, but believe the short term will be bumpy. We've only had gender equality in the west for maybe half a century, and that equality is not perfect because some aspects of patriarchy have inertia and most feminine privilege remains unexamined due to the nature of the feminist movement. I think feminism is mostly downstream of the industrial revolution, but cultural evolution can take awhile and I think we still have a ways to go before we have adjusted to the economic substraight of the information economy.
I have, indeed, been strictly informed that it is not that women ought to be stripped of the right to vote but that it should not have been given to them in the first place in the way that it was. Reluctant pragmatic acceptance of my rights is obviously not as reassuring as actual support for them would be, but that is where that conversation stands.
Yeah, I saw that after I posted that response.
I think the impulse to say that the female franchise was a bad idea comes from the observation that women tend to be more prone to certain behaviors which lead to a toxic politics (women are generally the front-line enforcers of orthodoxy), which I think is actually true, but conveniently ignores the fact that men have their own set of such behaviors that are arguably worse (our violence at the personal level extends to supporting more state violence and jingoism). I think that mixed gender friend groups are generally healthier than single gender, and I tend to think that the same is true for the political realm as well as each gender provides some balance for the other.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link