site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   33901 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 12, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I would definitely agree that risk aversion is behind the pitch of college and jobs to young women. Part of that is rational- the bottom whatever percent of both sexes is less appealing than it was in the fifties(and this goes for men too), and how are you supposed to make sure you find a commitment-oriented ‘good’ guy anyways? I predict that, contrary to the usual pattern, a dating app which vetted the applicants on basic questions(stable and full time employment, criminal record, etc) would have more women than men, at least if it wasn’t just a matchmaking service. Part of this is also irrational; there’s a cottage industry dedicated to convincing young women that the risk of being mistreated by men is much higher than it is, so don’t get too wound up about the commitment you desire.

I maintain that the risk of Mr and now-Mrs good enough marrying, provided that they’re basically compatible adults seriously intending to make it work, is very low, but that many people ignore one or the other or the third condition. There are simply fewer Mr and Miss good enoughs than there used to be, it seems like modern secular(here used in the sense of ‘in mainstream society rather than a subculture’ rather than to mean ‘non-religious’) dating worries more about vapid nonsense than about big picture compatibility, lots of people don’t have the serious intent of making it work no matter what, etc.

I don’t have a good solution on a society wide level.

but that many people ignore one or the other or the third condition. There are simply fewer Mr and Miss good enoughs than there used to be

This seems like an unavoidable but broadly ignored factor.

The rough numbers really suggest the supply of 'marriageable' women is shockingly low. The demand is as high as ever. A young, stable, fertile woman is desired by men of almost all ages, even if they have no intention of marrying her.

And I'm sure its also the case that when it comes to sheer reproductive fitness, men have become lower quality too.

I don’t have a good solution on a society wide level.

I do have some, but they're not politically viable (until they are).

I have wondered if we could create a new version of the marriage contract: "Enhanced Marriage," which both parties can opt into that makes it MUCH harder to get divorced AND adds additional legal duties on both sides (and presumably some additional benefits) so that they are tied more strongly together. And maybe this starts to shift the equilibrium.

But this probably doesn't address the fact that there are just fewer relationships forming in general.

I have wondered if we could create a new version of the marriage contract: "Enhanced Marriage," which both parties can opt into that makes it MUCH harder to get divorced AND adds additional legal duties on both sides (and presumably some additional benefits) so that they are tied more strongly together.

There was an attempt at this with covenant marriage, but it doesn't seem to have accomplished much. That said, it'd be interesting to hear from mottizens who live in states where that's an option. It looks like it was watered down to make the law acceptable to the mainstream and undermined by the availability of no-fault divorce in other states.

And, while I can't speak for all social conservatives, I'd be reluctant to support any new version of this so long as Obergefell stands.

From "The Right to Marry" by Sister Y:

Sensing that marriage is now an empty institution, some couples have specifically contracted for the rights marriage traditionally gave them (but no longer does). In the California case Diosdado v. Diosdado, 97 Cal.App.4th 470, a husband and wife contracted that if the husband had an affair with another woman, he would pay the wife $50,000 on top of the divorce settlement, and vice versa. The husband did in fact have an affair, but the California court refused to honor the couple's agreement. The strong California public policy of no-fault divorce, the court said, prohibited courts from even enforcing the voluntary contracts of a mature adult couple:

The family law court may not look to fault in dissolving the marriage, dividing property, or ordering support. Yet this agreement attempts to penalize the party who is at fault for having breached the obligation of sexual fidelity, and whose breach provided the basis for terminating the marriage. This penalty is in direct contravention of the public policy underlying no-fault divorce.

That's right: in California, as in other states with a strong no-fault public policy, you can't even voluntarily make a credible promise of marriage and expect it to be honored by the courts.

A few states - Lousiana, Arizona, and Arkansas - allow what is called "covenant marriage," marriage that may only be dissolved on fault grounds. However, couples may not even use covenant marriage to credibly promise lifetime partnership, because either partner may simply relocate to a non-covenant-marriage state and initiate no-fault divorce proceedings there.

I’m interested in your view on how the quality of men and women has gone down, and as a treat, why. If I were to give a description, I’d say that the lowered quality was literally that they weren’t interested in making things work, rather than separate elements. That sort of intentional, serious attitude towards life is basically what you want out of a partner as table stakes, right? That they’ll have the hard fights with you and want to get through them instead of taking them out on you, that they’ll commit materially sooner rather than later, that they’ll stick with you if things aren’t breezy. Obviously material concerns matter too, but people (in my circle, maybe unrepresentative) make plenty if they’re even slightly dedicated. What’s your take?

I think to be honest most Americans are, to borrow a phrase from the Chinese, unserious as a people. Their need for an easy life and for getting exactly what they want exactly how and when they want it. It’s the mentality of a child. And I think this harms dating and marriage because being in a relationship with another living person requires work and compromise and commitment that more often than not people are less willing to accept.

I'm not convinced that the Chinese are so different as a people that they don't try to get exactly what they want exactly the way they want, whenever they can. Just look at the way media is altered for their market.

Sure the Chinese are not immune to “fuck you, I got mine” but at least in the past they were generally pretty capable of buckling down and sacrificing personal desires for the good of the family or the nation. Whether they still are remains to be seen, that hasn’t been tested on a large scale in quite a while.

Is that what the Chinese say? I’d be interested to read a translated article or whatever if you happen to have one.

I mean, to start with the obvious, the things that past generations would have considered important are just present at a lower rate. Stable full time employment is down among men(and this is the rough equivalent of 'access to farmland' that would have been very important in ~1850, don't @ me about how way back when jobs weren't important because they weren't really a thing). Women are fatter, more mentally ill, less religious, worse at home ec, and, yes, higher body count(not as high as redpillbros and incels seem to believe, but higher than in 1950). Pot in the fifties was fairly rare, and regardless of your opinions on its effects for the median user, it does seem to turn at least a substantial minority into giant losers when they weren't previously. Gambling addicts back in the day before draftkings were obvious. And it was just understood that if you were seeing a girl you proposed in a matter of weeks, maybe months on the high end(I'm not exaggerating the timeframe), making commitment up front more of a thing on offer from the average guy.

Now some of that is feminism(let's not kid ourselves about first wave-second wave-third wave- it all bears some responsibility, even with delayed impacts). Some of it is new technology(vape pens, gambling websites, gig work). Some of it is other societal trends, such as lengthy education and glorifying mental illness. Feminism definitely bears the blame for societal unwillingness to even talk about the problem; most people actually want a relationship in accord with fairly conventional gender roles and feminism at every stage has invested itself in abolishing gender roles, even in little stuff(women wearing pants may not, at the end of the day, matter very much, but it was a controversy in its day).

Gender roles are important, at the end of the day, this just basic set of expectations that each spouse has their job which comes before anything else. But at the end of the day, a 'just get rid of x' solution is almost always woefully insufficient. At a guess if we just threw feminism out we'd be wanting it back- probably because Andrew Tate would be the replacement. The structures which made a nonfeminist society- the strong gender roles- have to come back first.

I predict that, contrary to the usual pattern, a dating app which vetted the applicants on basic questions(stable and full time employment, criminal record, etc) would have more women than men, at least if it wasn’t just a matchmaking service.

If true, this sounds like a business opportunity, and not a particularly obscure one at that. Dating apps are basically all trying to figure out ways to get more women to use them, but I can't think of any apps that have tried this kind of verification. The closest I can think of are things like "The League", which requires users to submit an application (which consists of your Facebook and LinkedIn accounts, apparently?) and have it approved by the company before they can use the app, which is much different in that presumably they're not evaluating "basic questions".

I can't think of any apps that have tried this kind of verification

Oh there are some with that kind of verification, but they're usually for rich people.

That would be very ironic, since I imagine the kind of woman who would most value full time employment and the lack of a criminal record in a man would be unlikely to be described as "rich".

I suggest you go to the local courthouse and observe the number of women in felony rooms waiting for a man they are not married to to have his case called.

Given hypergamy, I wouldn't be surprised if a woman's wealth - or at least her earnings - are positively correlated with how important she considers her partner to be gainfully employed and to lack a criminal record (which might not lower status in all contexts, but which would provide greater risk in the man's ability to keep earning money).

My (admittedly clumsily made) point was more that rich women's male peers, including their matches on the apps, are almost universally employed and non-criminal, so such verification would be mostly useless. The distinction would be more useful for underclass women, for whom the verification system would reveal actual information about their potential male partners.

I maintain that the risk of Mr and now-Mrs good enough marrying, provided that they’re basically compatible adults seriously intending to make it work, is very low, but that many people ignore one or the other or the third condition. There are simply fewer Mr and Miss good enoughs than there used to be, it seems like modern secular(here used in the sense of ‘in mainstream society rather than a subculture’ rather than to mean ‘non-religious’) dating worries more about vapid nonsense than about big picture compatibility, lots of people don’t have the serious intent of making it work no matter what, etc.

Can you rephrase the first bit of this? I'm not following.

‘The tail risks of marriage(abuse, divorce, infidelity) between reasonable and eligible people who are compatible and committed to making it work regardless of the cost are lower than commonly believed’.

Ahh ok I see. Yeah thanks for this! I like to think I'm a good fit for marriage, but the tail risks definitely keep me awake at night. It sucks.

Women tend to take after their male partners; if you're dating a marriageable woman and the two of you know you're compatible then don't worry about divorce, just pop the question, because she'll copy your 'just make it work, no matter the cost' mentality.

If you have a woman who you’re dating who is a good candidate, learning to trust her goes a long way, and trusting yourself the rest. “Learning to trust” is not an abstract journey of the soul. Select things to trust her, and yourself, on, and see how they go when things get hairy. Stressful situations are effective here!

Buyer beware: I’m not recommending a good time, here.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats