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 -
There is no shortage of men with progressive political views who possess the classical masculine virtues, and are therefore appropriate role models for young men. As an existence proof, we can look at male leaders in progressive politics. If you look at Barack Obama's engagement with his faith, family, community and career, it is obvious that he is good at being a man. Unless you think progressive politics is per se wicked, he also appears to be a good man. The same is broadly true of Joe Biden (he may be old, but he isn't effeminate), Justin Trudeau, Keir Starmer etc. Pajamaboy didn't become a meme because all left-wing "men" are like that - he became a meme because Team Obama chose to make Pajamaboy the public face of a campaign. If they had shown Obama (or most of his male cabinet members) lounging on a couch in pajamas, he would have looked louche rather than soyjack.
Given the political demographics of the community I grew up in, I can assume that almost all the older boys and young men I looked up to as a teenager were either Lib Dems or centrist Tories who would go on to back Remain. There were the usual number of men who met the requirements of a good role model.
So why do we say there are no good male progressive role models? There are multiple reasons, but in my view the most important is that the status-conferring institutions that boys and young men use to determine who is good at being a man are not working in the way society wants them to. There are environments (particularly if you are a black American teenage boy) where there are no available role models who are both good men and good at being men, but most of the young men who are looking up to Andrew Tate (or other bad men) have chosen him as a role model over good men because they think he is much, much better at being a man.
How did that happen? There are bottom-up and top-down factors. The main bottom-up ones are:
But the easiest thing to fix is the top-down issue. The top-down status-conferring mechanisms in progressive spaces are not conferring the status on good men which would make them good role models. And the reason for that is that it is that said institutions are using all their authority to praise women who display the classical masculine virtues for reasons which are good and sufficient if you are a feminist. When the physics textbooks portray Albert Einstein and Marie Curie as the two greatest physicists of the 20th century, they are stealing Richard Feynman's rightful status as number 2. The same thing happens on a smaller scale with girls in STEM, girls' sports, girl leaders etc.
More options
Context Copy link