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 -
https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1572949584837767173
The details aren't fully know yet but it's a bombshell of a news story for any sports fan, especially the NBA. It seems to be that the coach of the Boston Celtics had a completely consensual sexual relationship with a member of the Celtics staff and now the coach is getting suspended for the entire season. Not sure about discipline for the woman.
The Celtics went to the Finals last year (Heat fan gripe: the refs were the reason the Celts made it past the Heat in the Eastern Conference Finals - I've never been as heated {ha!} In my life over anything sports related in 30 years of watching as I have over this series) and this guy is considered THE up and coming coach.
He's married also.
What I'm seeing a lot of online is something along the lines of: you can't have a relationship with a subordinate, he deserves this, if not to be fired outright. Personally, I feel the statement of ' it's non of your damn business ' would have sufficed. This would apply to this guy on the Celtics or some head honcho at GNC or Walmart.
What does The Motte think?
It’s totally reasonable to have rules against having sex with your subordinates.
There would be an issue with punishing him despite not having those rules. But banning you from carrying on a relationship with a subordinate is totally reasonable.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's entirely reasonable to fire someone for having sex with their employee. This is not about abusing the woman, this is about abusing the organization power structure. Often responsibilities at workplaces are flexible, the people in charge assign out tasks in a way that's most fair and most efficient in their opinion. If a employee agrees to sex, it's very easy for the boss to give them lighter duties; if they disagree, they can be given harder duties. If I'm the boss' boss, I want my middle management to be assigning tasks in a way that earn me the most money, not in a way that gets him laid.
More options
Context Copy link
This kind of response is based on a belief in the hypoagency of women. Since the "believe all women" movement, I constantly see a denial of the agency of adult women.
I believe adult women have agency. If they consent then they consent, IF they say no, they said no. But there's this feminist belief that women cannot say no because of how they have been socialized by society. Which sounds like a fancy way of saying that adult women have no agency, especially regarding sexual matters.
Selective hypoagency is one of the greatest tools in the feminist arsenal for reaching their political goals. They can choose the manner and circumstances in which to ascribe agency (or not) depending on how useful it is in any particular situation.
For instance; Women cannot consent when getting involved in a sexual relationship with a male senior manager, but only after the relationship has turned bad; to do so beforehand would be considered infantilising. When a drunk man and women engage in sex no consent can be given due to the alcohol and this is considered rape by the man due to male hyperagency and female hypoagency. Women, it is often argued, cannot be held responsible for committing crimes and deserve lesser sentencing or even no jail time at all, often because they were pressured into the crime by circumstance (or a male hyperagentic 'ringleader'). Prostitution is something forced on women, ala sex trafficking, and thus being a sex client is often treated as a crime, but not the escorting itself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure how to think about this sort of thing. On the one hand, I don't like that society and feminists find so many ways to police and label immoral some aspect of just about every avenue men have to find partners, and I wonder if they would be so consistent if the sexes were reversed. I think it's possible for people in these situations to have an organic and balanced romance that forms over time, without any coercion. And really, I do think that most women in subordinate situations like this probably wouldn't fuck someone if they didn't want to, and would sooner quit and go to the press if they felt coerced.
At the same time, I've always been pretty against teachers and students hooking up. My high school had a ridiculous amount of male teachers that everyone knew were fucking some of the senior girls, or recently graduated senior girls. This always struck me as pretty wrong, in that I felt it was crossing a boundary. To be clear, I don't really think those girls were coerced into sex, but I do feel like a good person and teacher would have turned down the opportunities. I guess I'd always been more concerned about the other people in the situations, the other students in the class, and that this situation makes everything weird for everyone. And I've felt like it's the role of a teacher to be a role model, someone to look up to and aspire to, and that known romantic entanglements with students just shatters that, makes him just some sleazy bro.
I'm not sure I can exactly articulate how I've felt about this. Maybe these viewpoints are contradictory and hypocritical.
The pattern of younger-woman with older-man is very common in history, and both parties often prefer it.
But in the modern day it often looks pathetic to be fishing from the kiddie pool, like an adult showing up to a kids' sporting league and winning. Wow, okay.
More options
Context Copy link
The teacher example's got a lot to do with the proximity to the age of consent, though?
Then again I'd feel differently about like 3 different hypothetical situations of
50-something CEO sleeping with fresh, 20 year old Intern in first real job
30-something middle manager sleeping with mid-twenties graduate who is their direct report
40-something senior middle manager sleeping with middler middle manager who's also in their 40s.
Imagine working your ass off, being in that top 0 point whatever percent of the population that could ever be CEO of anything... And then sleeping with some woman your age. It sounds almost autistic: he didn't get the message (that sexual access is one of the main components of the payoff for male success).
I'm not saying sleep with your intern. Or never have a serious relationship. Just that the opportunities and expectations are different for different classes of people.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe. Though let's say for the sake of argument that we knew all these girls were 18. I'm generally fine with people sleeping with 18 year old women, if the women want to. But in this case, I think I'd still have an issue with it, due to the relationship. It could be that my disgust response is somehow downstream and influenced by the proximity to the age of consent, however, though I don't think so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Would you be okay with a guy fucking some of the senior girls or recently graduated graduated senior girls if he wasn't a teacher? Why?
My answer is that it would be okay for a high school teacher to marry one of his students; i.e. to make a lifelong commitment to supporting her and their children in exchange for exclusive sexual access. Conversely, it is not okay for a dude to pump and dump several high school girls, or recent high school graduates; the fact that the man in question happens to be their teacher is completely irrelevant.
I may be wrong, and others may contradict me, but I feel like the predominent view in society is that once a girl is 18, it's not wrong to have sex with her if she so chooses. I generally subscribe to that view. My issue is primarily with the high school teacher student relationship
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have a more or less concrete view of how women discourage promiscuity among themselves. After all, most of us here are probably aware that slut-shaming is usually done by other women, and so on. No reason to go into details here. I can also picture how women’d discourage promiscuity among men. Currently it seems a rather far-fetched scenario, but it’s fair to say that patriarchal systems have entailed a sex cartel among women (obviously not a fully voluntary one), and such systems have existed for a long time. So at least it has a track record.
Men trying to discourage promiscuity among women would run into the very obvious problem of most normies dismissing it as a sign of male jealousy, bitterness and inceldom, unless we’re talking about a rigidly patriarchal society, most of which don’t exist anymore. Normies will always be normies, and comprise the majority, so a cultural shift on an unimaginably large scale would have to happen for this to work.
But how would men discouraging promiscuity among themselves even work? Has it ever happened anywhere? (I suppose your scenario includes this as well.) I doubt it even has a track record. I know that it’s a common view among men that manipulating women into sex by empty promises and lies is despicable or at least pathetic, but that is obviously doesn’t explain all or even most of male promiscuity. It runs into the same problem – people will just think you’re jealous.
More options
Context Copy link
This might be crass but;
Why get power if not to use it to have sex? 14 year old me wanted to be a CEO to smash the hottest chicks, and many of them.
The whole "power imbalance" argument never made sense to me, like yeah no shit? Thats the whole point of the power inbalance!
It sounds like a made up rule/norm by jelouse women, its like "oh yeah please be rich and powerful, but dont use it to attract women" You cant have your cake and eat it too, men work themselves to the bone and stab each others back for power because it gets women!
Yeah I could have (and uh... may have) slept with many of my fast food coworkers. But let's not pretend that the caliber of women that are assistants to c-level execs are the same as girls like "Kassie".
A mediocre musician can get laid, but an excellent one has an order of magnitude better prospects in quantity and quality. The guy starting out at the climbing gym may get lucky occasionally, but the one that's known as the best one in the gym will have his pick of the litter. All of these things are power, and have access to different pools of women.
One of your points - that the highest echelons of corporate power don't have the price/benefit ratio of others - is correct. I'd argue further that amassing wealth as your vehicle towards greater sexual opportunities is a net negative as it makes you a target for some of the worst sort of women out there.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah 14 year old me wasn't the best at doing a nuanced cost benefit analysis.
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
More options
Context Copy link
In turn women are also tools in the game, to show to other men how much better you are for getting hotter/classier women than they can.
I used to believe what you say, but I don't think it makes sense. Simply physically getting into the panties of a hot woman isn't worth grinding yourself to the bone. It must be seen and known. By other people. Simply being powerful, being respected, feared, obeyed, exerting control over the course of things feels good as an end to itself not just as a means to get your dick wet physically in private, behind closed doors.
Success with women is an ego confirmation/validation that you are important, high status etc. That's not to say that powerful men don't enjoy the sex part, but it's not the only goal.
Human motivation is multi-faceted. We enjoy eating food, enjoy relaxing, enjoy accumulating resources and status, enjoy sex, enjoy being accepted as part of communities and friend groups, enjoy having good shelter and warm clothes etc. There's no need to pick one and claim that they others are just proxies for that one.
I absolutely drag my wife to work events for precisely this reason. Of course earning respect without them knowing what she looks like is a constant process, but there's a small but marked difference between people who have met her and those who haven't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sources are now saying not only were there possibly multiple women, but also one is the wife of someone in the ownership group.
More options
Context Copy link
On the one hand, I think the power imbalance line is largely accurate. I have been in multiple workplaces where a specific woman has been given advantages courtesy of being the romantic partner of the boss (it doesn’t have to be gendered like this, but it always has been in my limited experience). Everyone resents that woman, and everyone recognises the unfairness. A world in which workplace relationships are subject to lots of scrutiny is a fairer one.
On the other hand, humans be humans, yo. We are prosocial sexually promiscuous apes. Expecting people in a hierarchical organisation to just turn off their sexual feelings or even not act on them… it’s unrealistic. And I’d flag that many of the same fairness issues that arise from sexual relationships in the workplace also arise from friendships in the workplace (eg the boss is friends with Dave but not friends with Elsa; this leads to the boss giving more opportunities to Dave). And surely you can’t ban those.
Still, as a young, straight, married man keen to climb the professional ladder, I approve of stricter standards concerning workplace relationships. They should be tolerated, but there should be a ton of oversight, so that talented junior overperformers (cough) don’t get passed over for promotion in favour of less talented people that the boss happens to be fucking.
More options
Context Copy link
My instinctive thought is to agree with you that it’s none of their damn business, and I find the whole reasoning about “power imbalances” in these situations to be shaky at best. So I wish it wasn’t this way, but from the perspective of the organization, it is much better to strictly prohibit employee relationships for a number of reasons.
People have been using the phrase “don’t shit where you eat” for a long time before MeToo or anything in that same vein. There’s obvious conflicts of interest and bad situations that can come about from coworker relationships.
But aside from the normal drama of breakups and stuff, there’s major legal liability to the organization, especially in something as public as an NBA team. If the woman wanted to come out and say that she felt pressured to hook up with the head coach of the team, and the organization found out about it and didn’t do anything, it would 100% cause a massive media shitstorm. There’s no amount of evidence you could show about the relationship being consensual that would matter.
There is also the matter of corruption. A boss handing out favours for sex is no different from doing for monetary bribes, regardless of whether the people involved perceives of the sex as such, it corrupts decision making in the organisation and is poison for team cohesion. Even just the suspicion of this happening is toxic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bryan Caplan wrote on this subject a while ago. He thinks banning workplace relationships is one of the most repressive anti freedom things we’ve ever done. Most people spend a lot of time at work. I’ll just link to him because he’s smarter than me but I share his opinion.
https://betonit.substack.com/p/love-is-love-workplace-edition
Him being married is bad from a religious/puritanical perspective. But consensual relationships should not be punished.
Also real power is still real power today. Deshaun Watson isn’t replaceable or Elon Musks. Both got paid. But for all us little people don’t put your dick where you work and have good bumble game.
"Boss marries secretary" was a romance novel trope for a reason for a long time. And co-workers who fall in love and get married isn't the problem.
The problem is affairs where one or both parties are married; affairs that break up and then there is bad blood between the parties; as mentioned in another comment, where the romantic partner gets preferential treatment, etc. Look at Willie Brown and Kamala Harris, and the rumours there that she got her start only because she was his girlfriend.
Or cases like the one I heard about from a former job: the guy was married, had an affair with a subordinate, then left the job for a better one elsewhere. He also left the subordinate pregnant with twins, broke up with his wife, but didn't take his mistress with him to his new job and new town. That's a case where if the woman had listened to advice about not shitting where you eat, she would have come out of it better all round - but of course, it's all "but I love him and he loves me", until it ends badly.
(There's also another case, tangentially related to that job, where a person associated with the organisation had an affair and dumped his wife for the new younger squeeze; his ex-wife went ballistic and went to the cops about alleged dodgy financial dealings of his, which eventually saw him serving a jail sentence. Do not fuck around unless you are very, very sure that finding out won't send you to the slammer!)
We don't know the details of this particular case, and they seem to be suspending him for a season, which indicates he can come back to his job after the suspension. But in general, I think workplace romances are way too risky, for both parties - the woman, if the guy is just using her, and the man, if the woman decides after the breakup that she was harassed and coerced into the affair.
I honestly can't agree with Caplan that "don't fuck your subordinates unless you're gonna put a ring on it" is 'one of the most repressive anti-freedom thing we've ever done'. Right now, I do genuinely think that for men in a position of authority, it's protective - and if they still can't keep their trousers buttoned, what happens after that is on their own heads.
The workplace does not really seem to be relevant here. The main problem seems to be that a woman had an affair with an untrustworthy man who left her while she was pregnant and moved to another town. If the woman had changed to another job during the affair so as not to "shit where she eats", would the man have suddenly turned out to be more trustworthy and not leave her behind like that?
Compare to a made up example of a guy who one day went to his job at the warehouse where a crate fell on his head and he died. If he had followed the advice "never use public transport" he would not have been able to go to his job and would still be alive. Technically it is true, but it doesn't really demonstrate that the advice "never use public transport" is good.
I'm not sure if this example is also meant to illustrate how workplace romances are bad, because it is not clear if the new girlfriend was working at the same organization, but here too the workplace itself does not seem to be relevant in any way. The problem seems to be that the guy did something illegal which the wife knew about, and when he angered her she told the police about it. Would the wife have been less angry if the new girlfriend had not been a colleague, and thus he had not "shat where he eats"?
More options
Context Copy link
But the reason why it's so dangerous is because of the social/political pressure we've put on it. You've pointed out some egregious examples of work relationships but then you also have the McDonald's CEO. Is meeting someone on Bumble really preferable to seeing someone in their element for 40 hours a week?
Don't get me wrong - I think that treading carefully is super important with work relationships. But it's insane to me that we're forced dating through a phone-app pinhole and think that this was some sort of upgrade. I got out of the game before the App "revolution" and I'm overall very glad I did.
It generally makes it difficult lines to tread. I'm in a management position, and feel like I can be a lot more hands-on and mentoring with my male graduates/juniors than I can with females. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, but even a small % chance of it being a career/financial/reputational landmine means I've gotta be cautious.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Workplace relationships only became a 'thing' due to the rise of white collar work. Otherwise, jobs tend to be segregated a lot by gender. The service sector does have more mixing but I think the employees tend to be more diverse by age , class, or other factors that make relationships uncommon. At Walmart, for example, low-skilled workers tend to span the spectrum of being young (teenager summer jobs) to old (retirees supplementing social security or for the health benefits), etc. whereas office workers at a major companies will tend to cluster around 25-45 years of age and matriculate from a similar top-50 network of schools or like neighborhoods.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, that's a relief: I am a truly great bumbler.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's a danger in following such stories because it can distort one's sense of reality. If a mom follows kidnapping stories and 24/7 stranger danger news, she'll have a distorted view of how likely abductions are. Similarly, an inexperienced very online guy can think every woman is a ticking time bomb like this and they had better never interact with women without 5 layers of CYA. This sort of stuff is probably still rare, though it depends on your location and how famous you are.
There may be more to the story of why this guy was singled out for cancellation. Good or bad reason, but something other than the mere fact of the relationship.
If the problem is that he was married then this isn't the introduction of some weird new morals but a condemnation of the oldest kind: for adultery.
Relationships and marriages between coworkers are normal, I know many such couples. If every boss who married his secretary would be fired, we'd have many jobless bosses (though I think these direct supervisor cases aren't ideal and it's best switch roles within the company if such a relationship is established).
It's probably better not to search for romantic partners at work, if there is a way to avoid it (though some people have no life outside work as they work 80 hour weeks or something). Not necessarily because you will be canceled or fired or arrested but because it can be awkward after breaking up, your coworkers will know more about your private life than otherwise (she may gossip-complain about you to other colleagues when the relationship is going through a rougher time) etc.
Regardless of the particulars of this story (again, not talking about bosses only), there's a tendency recently to look suspiciously at any relationship with significant status/power differential towards the man. This will mess things up and cause tension and stress that people (especially many women) won't be able to even conceptualize properly.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with your take given the information we know now. The consensus amongst the rumor vine is that he was having an affair with at least one executive’s wife. That’s the only scenario which fits what we’re hearing.
Well the executive has to man up and keep his wife in line or dump the cheating whore and not be a pussy.
Yes, I'm sure you'd be exactly this sanguine if your employee fucked your wife. C'mon.
More options
Context Copy link
So by this logic the coach is also a cheating whore? Or is there a different word, because he's a man? And should his wife equally try to "keep him in line or dump him"?
Rake
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
noted hot take artist stephen a smith made it a race thing. there have definitely been white execs in the past who fucked their secretaries and no one cared, but that shouldn't let udoka off the hook.
i've also seen people complaining about how sports media is way more interested in this, or the michael vick dogfighting story, or the jameis winston crab legs incident, than brett favre participating in a welfare scam in mississippi, which just seems like comparing apples to oranges. favre has been retired for well over a decade, udoka is the head coach for a team that has the best odds to win the championship.
other than that we don't really know enough juicy details to say much about udoka's case. i'll register the prediction that he doesn't come back though
More options
Context Copy link
This is adultery and therefore scandalous.
But no wait this is 2022, so nothing makes sense and the crime is having sex with people you work with.
The idea that the employer shouldn't meddle in private affairs, though the French (and therefore correct) way to handle it is completely inaudible.
American society and its bunch of puritans never worked like this. And it probably never will. Moral ignominy means you lose your job, all the more if it's some public thing like this.
If only we had a way to make sure that a (sexual/romantic) relationship is socially acceptable (according to whatever the local moral rules are) within your community. Maybe we'd gather a bunch of friends and family together and give everyone the opportunity to chat with both parties, see that they are willingly there etc. Maybe even let the government know that you're fucking. And if someone opposes the sex-having (based on laws or morality) they have to bring their arguments up there and then. But from that day on, the sex between those people will be normal, accepted and expected.
But wait, no, that would be marriage and that's conservative and patriarchal (except when it's same-sex marriage - then it's liberating). We're supposed to enjoy the fruits of the sexual revolution, have flexibility etc. Just enjoy sex without marriage, no worries at all, pleasure is king. Oh, except a bunch of people can still scrutinize your sex life and decide at any point that the kind of sex you are having does not get the stamp of approval, retroactively.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'll register a weakly held prediction that there is some additional circumstance resulting in the harsh punishment. A friend floated that he heard a rumor that Udoka had multiple women affiliated with the team that he had relationships with. If that were case, I could see it causing enough of a political shitstorm for the team that they'd crack down on him.
More options
Context Copy link
"Ime Sunday Udoka is a Nigerian-American professional basketball coach and former player who is the head coach for the Boston Celtics of the National Basketball Association. He represented the Nigeria national team during his playing career."
I guess race is not a mitigating factor.
I want to go all the way around the circle and say it was inappropriate because of the power imbalance because he could destroy her career by calling her racist.
More options
Context Copy link
If he was fucking the wrong woman it could be aggravating one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link