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 -
As an old school sexist, I would strongly disagree. Women have much much less agency than men and pressuring them to enact major social changes is essentially pointless; men act, women are and all that.
Yes our society goes about it wrong. But single women are already more marriage minded than men. The 'living together for years' thing is driven by male preferences.
Yeah but this is mostly depression and other stress-responses that our society tries to treat with SSRI's because it's too politically correct to admit that women need to be taken care of by men. If she married a man who loved her it would go away in most cases.
Ah, but for men you need to include another criteria- plenty of emotionally stable adult men who could support a family simply don't want to. How many marriageable and marriage minded men are there?
If you were to give a rationalist-style quantifiable estimate of the agency gap between men and women, what numbers would you give for the SD gap, overlap percentage, and percent of women at or above the male average? I agree with you directionally, but I think that the actual biological difference is closer to the gender IQ gap than the strength gap, and in any case I believe that agency and general virtus is a nearly unalloyed good and should be more prevalent among the fairer sex.
More options
Context Copy link
That's the one thing that drives me mad when I see women complain about "so we've been living together for ten years and I think it's time he proposed but he says he's not ready for marriage and now he's talking about breaking up".
Of course he's not! He's been getting the benefits of marriage without being married for ten years! And you enabled that! If you're not planning on marrying within a couple of years, or if you're not one of the people who don't ever want to marry because it's just a piece of paper/it's a repressive relic of the patriarchy/our arrangement suits us as it is, then you should ask him to put up or move on. Don't hang on for ten or more years hoping that one day out of the blue he'll decide to move out of his comfort zone and do the romantic proposal, because he won't. Why should he?
This is why the #1 piece of dating advice to young women should be 'don't move in without a ring'.
Yeah. But of course we've had it dinned into us "oh marriage is a big commitment, you need to be sure you're (sexually) compatible, live together first to find out". Maybe that worked out when the end goal was "probably going to marry this person" but now it's "well of course we'll live together, might get married, might not, probably we'll break up and move on to new partners".
I'm not going to say "slippery slope" but social conditions erode over time if not maintained, or if weakening of the boundaries happens. Back when cohabiting was rare, there was still the expectation of marriage as the end point. So living together was expected to end with a ring and kids. Over time as cohabitation became more accepted, marriage moved more and more out of the picture. You can't change something and expect it to remain at that one single change point forever, because it won't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
At least twice as many as there are marriageable and marriage-minded women are out there.
That's my bet.
Except most cultural institutions and pressure are actively PREVENTING men from 'acting' and punishing them for doing so.
So we're still hitting the same problem.
Well yeah, if every guy from twenty to eighty is only willing to marry a woman aged twenty to twenty-nine, there's gonna be a shortage of Jills for every Jack.
I wonder. Your engagement here, and especially about the age thing, does sound bitter. But I think you were the asexual one, no?
It doesn't sound so much bitter as sarcastic. Ah, yes, someone has run the numbers on heavily selected women 20 - 30 vs much less selected men 20 - 40, and found that there are more men. Shocking. Who could have guessed?
This one yes. Theres another, which you dont see easily but she would know. I replied to this one because it was the second one I saw. Though I somehow thought that other one was in direct response to someone talking about the difficulties of children over 30.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I believe he describes himself as ex-gay (but that he has "never been a sodomite").
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well then men should overcome that.
And your average man is a porn addict, which it's at least as reasonable to be worried about as a woman's body count, so I kinda doubt that there's twice as many as reasonable marriage minded women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link