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 think what rape culture is defined as is the rejection of current year ideas about consent, and the idea is that in locker rooms and frat houses the discussions about sex generally reject such ideas.
Now this is obviously dumb, mainly for the reason that current year ideas about consent are dumb. Like in the matter at hand, this young woman agreed to have sex with five hockey players. This was a bad decision, but she did in fact make it, probably because she wanted to make it, and I’ll wager dollars to donuts that she went to this celebratory gala understanding that she would be expected to have sex with hockey players, and not thinking that they valued her conversational skills.
And that’s the crux of the matter- current year ideas about consent are a repudiation of both patriarchy(which they call purity culture) and 70’s macho man stud culture(which they call rape culture). Young women make moronic decisions about sex relationships and romance which they usually regret and talking them out of those decisions is a key reason for the patriarchy/purity culture axis, and thinking those decisions aren’t a big deal/just a cost of doing business/on the woman is the main argument for the rape culture/macho man axis. Can’t have either, so you spin incoherent ideas about consent to make dumb sexual decisions a woman later regrets out to be rape.
I find current year sexual ethics weird simply because to me they assume that the woman is stupid. Like yes she’d gotten drunk. But she made every decision up to and including sex, knowing the entire time what each decision meant.
It's not that they're stupid, it's that they're hypoagentic, while men are hyperagentic. It is the man's job (on pain of imprisonment) to determine, at every point, what she wants and to make decisions in her best interests, even if she is saying otherwise.
But hyoagentic discourse seems by nature to assume that the person being talked about isn’t capable of being a real agent, because if they could, the discourse wouldn’t make sense. I can’t say that Klingons cannot be held responsible for trashing the place because you pissed them off, and simultaneously believe that said Klingons are capable of not acting out on their impulses. If you can easily bypass their rational agent’s brain, then and only then are they not responsible.
I’m responsible to care for myself as I am an agent. I’m responsible for my sobriety or lack there of. I’m responsible for choosing where I go and what I do. I think that’s my issue. It’s treating women and minorities as if they’re small children that don’t have free will of their own and can be easily tricked by white men into doing something stupid.
Until that goes sideways, and you manage to stick someone else with the bill. This is commonly called "having your cake and eating it too", "privatizing gains and socializing losses", or more commonly just "privilege".
Is it logically consistent, or matching even a small child's understanding of "fairness"? Of course not- either you do not have the responsibility to care for yourself as an agent and therefore should have none of the rights, or you do and have all of the rights(1).
But it is consistent with the Inner Party weaponizing the tendency of Outer Party men to prioritize the well-being of women over themselves (Orwell never explicitly elaborated on where the Junior Anti-Sex League comes from, though extrapolating that the only sexual satisfaction permitted Winston is an explicitly-ugly old prostitute, and considering more women than men believe that "men having sex with young women is bad", I think his conclusion is that it comes from women-as-class... an interest group to which Julia is a gender-traitor) in a sociobiological milieu where that no longer makes any sense.
Their biology hasn't caught up with the facts on the ground, and this creates a power imbalance bad actors are actively exploiting (as they are in this, and other, cases).
(1) Unless you're between the ages of [biological adulthood] and [local age of majority], where you have all of the responsibility but none of the rights- every time you hear the phrase "charged as an adult", or one of this group being charged for something that's only a crime when you're this age (underage drinking/drug use, firearm possession, nude selfies) this is what's happening.
More options
Context Copy link
You're assuming a consistency that isn't there. The idea is that women are fully equal adults when it benefits them, but easily manipulated sympathetic victims of male perfidy when it benefits them. That this views cannot be logically reconciled does not matter.
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