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 -
Yes, that's called "being a fully mechanized nation". Most Western powers ran into this somewhere around the 1900s, and women were first granted rights above and beyond men (as in, "rights without corresponding responsibilities") in those nations around that time- you see that with the right to vote most prominently [without the corresponding duty to be drafted into a war they voted themselves into, something we see in Ukraine today], but prohibition and minimum-age requirements for brides are their doing as well.
I think the pedofascist was/is trivially correct when he made the point that these policies, from the start, are properly viewed as radical man-hating; tearing down the places they'll go after work and putting ever-increasing caps on the quality of women they can afford with no suitable substitute are not exactly pro-man things (worth noting 1984 begins with a description of "the only woman a middle-class income affords the average man is an ugly, infertile, prostitute", and then Winston finds a secretly-transgender [from a biological standpoint] woman who he has wild sex with before the Gender Police torture them to ego death; I believe Orwell predicted modern gender politics to a tee). In that light, first-wave feminists must have been motivated by the same hatred/anger that motivates third-wave feminists (and the white-knights for each wave similarly motivated), and it's always the legitimately transgender individuals that are used as tokens by said women only to later suffer from it (in this case, "the 1% of women who actually are competitive with the men want the right to pursue those opportunities"- something that would fit under the trans umbrella as 1900-1950s society would have understood it; today, the genders are reversed, where men are demanding the opportunities and privileges of women).
[Further effort post: the concept of transgenderism is coherent from a strictly biological standpoint, and our instinctive grouping of all non-straight-as-in-established-man-on-youngest-possible-woman sexuality into "biology should not predict this behavior therefore the people that do these things are malfunctioning" is also coherent, but the people who are transgender under this definition are not the people most people would claim it is today!]
But if the complete obviation of the biological male gender role was such an impending disaster, what let us avoid those consequences for so long? Well, the post-war WW2 boom pushed the economic balance in the West far enough towards men that it was the women who couldn't meaningfully co-ordinate to soak up so much wealth, but that was over by 1980 and the problem our great-grandparents failed to solve has returned to haunt us once again.
Korea, then, is experiencing this for the first time, in full force, being that they have only just made it to full mechanization (they weren't in a position to benefit from post-WW2 booms especially thanks to that civil war)... and being a US-occupied nation means they have to deal with the US' cultural outlook/propaganda, which is currently tilted in the gynosupremacist direction. It's probably worth considering how the Japanese managed to avoid this problem, but I think that was because they mechanized in that boom time and managed to lock in a "the genders aren't actually at war with each other" mindset (and their rule-following did the rest) [but they still haven't dodged the problem, because all the good gender relations propaganda in the world can't actually solve a problem of 996/economics].
The Koreans, by contrast, didn't make it in time- but they also happen to be blazing a trail (being a smaller nation) whose trajectory men (and women) in the wider West would be wise to observe, regardless of whether it fixes the problem or conclusively demonstrates it's not fixable.
I think it is true for Americans as well; states that have successfully kept angry/neurotic women from destroying the rights of parents to allow their children to enjoy life as much appear to have higher TFRs, even though their average income would take even more of a hit by having kids. Sadly I can't find a by-state breakdown of TFR for 1920 to prove that, so my evidence for that ends at the car seat thing.
It sounds like a very American thing, to assume that all wars are something you vote yourself into.
I don't think Americans think that about most wars we get involved with, either. There's rarely a chance to vote against them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link