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, I didn't include the political affiliation criteria because that's one of the most malleable traits for women.
On the other hand, a full on seventy motherflipping percent of unmarried women vote democrat.
40% of women aged 18-29 identify as VERY LIBERAL or Liberal.
Have you not heard about the recent, RADICAL political polarization among young women?
These women ALSO largely refuse to date conservative/Republican men.
So men don't HAVE to filter these women out, these women are filtering THEMSELVES out. And they go on social media and aggressively police other women on this issue.
Whoops.
(btw this wasn't the case 15 years ago when you got married, so I humbly suggest your advice is based on a qualitatively different scenario)
Its all well and good to say "it worked out for me."
But the situation has gotten drastically worse. Not acknowledging this is a huge oversight.
And here it is.
"Men, be better."
Okay.
But now the best men get to sleep around with their pick of women and never have to commit.
The rest of the men have to compete for a smaller pool of women, because you can't even suggest that maybe we should make the pool of good women larger.
The relationships are not forming at all.
AT WHAT POINT do you start suggesting that we put pressure on women to lower their standards a bit and settle down earlier?
I remember a few years ago that putting 'conservative' on your Hinge Profile was literally a death knell for matches.
More options
Context Copy link
This is the final boss of gender relations. Somehow breaking women's cartel like behavior where they race to the bottom, crab buckets anyone who tries to better themselves, and acts like anything a woman does is justified because patriarchy. I have no idea how you change the conversation to get women to introspect, consider how they treat men/what they bring to the table, and be better. Our culture is dominated by a zeitgeist where men who have frankly any standards or boundaries what so ever are demonized, and somehow the most reprehensible acts of faithlessness, betrayal and even violence by women are met with sympathy as a floor, and frequently cheers of empowerment.
You know what's been great for my marriage? Turning off the TV, and going to church. There are a pair of Bill Burr bits I remembered as we made the decisions as a family to start going. One where he's talking about how he really doesn't believe any of that shit anymore, and he just quietly stopped going. And then a later interview where he talks about going to church again, because it's just good to be reminded what a piece of shit you are. And that definitely comes across when I started going. The insipid narcissism that infects the core of your being through virtually all of pop culture is insidious. I remember reading The Narcissism Epidemic almost 20 years ago now, and it's impossible to deny that it's kicked into overdrive since then. Trying to repeat the Penitential Act which I don't have memorized doesn't exactly purge the ambient narcissism our culture imposes on us. But speaking personally there has been a lot less ego driven conflict in my household.
If I had to do it all over again, and I hope I never have to since I love my wife and we've built a great life together and truly grown to complement and support one another, I'd consider trying to find a right minded woman at church. If this proved impractical for whatever reasons, I'd see how open they were to going with me. I have no idea how practical this advice is to a younger generation even further up shits creek than I was trying to navigate what I thought was terminal toxicity in gender relations in the 00's. But where ever you look, it's going to have to be in a subculture that has rejected mainstream American culture at least in part. I don't know, I guess I see a lot of tech bros marrying (I assume) high caste Indian women too.
More options
Context Copy link
Why is /r/twoXchromosomes not a banned hate subreddit? The comments there are demented, and also uncomfortably familiar from my IRL encounters with Leftists.
More options
Context Copy link
Why is it so impossible to be better? And why don't you simply date lower status women, and then elevate their status?
Because the odds are much higher that they divorce you and take your wealth and lower YOUR status.
Downside risk is serious, upside benefits are usually small.
McKenzie Bezos and Melinda Gates became billionaires... by divorcing billionaires.
What man would want that particular risk AFTER he went to the trouble of accumulating the wealth in order to be able to get the woman in the first place.
A woman would have to be worth that risk.
The absurdity of the situation is that men are told to accumulate more skills, wealth, and VALUE, for women who are less valuable and more likely to defect from the marriage, and thus to take much of the value the man worked so hard to acquire.
And literally EVERY SINGLE LEGAL CHANGE IN THE PAST 50+ YEARS HAS FAVORED WOMEN'S ABILITY TO DEFECT.
Why is it so impossible to suggest that women should settle earlier?
The stats are showing that:
Conclusion: MEN SHOULD IMPROVE THEMSELVES.
Hilarious.
It ain't working. the women ain't happy, the men are lonely, when do we admit that current advice is insufficient?
It seems fair to note that both of these divorces were due to infidelity by the man, and also that in the Bezos case her extremely large payout was due to her having functionally been Jeff’s business partner early on- a founding member of Amazon would be worth billions, that’s only fair.
There have been societies where a man committing adultery isn’t grounds for divorce unless he abandons his wife, brings home an STD, etc. Is that what you are advocating for?
More options
Context Copy link
Oh for hell's sake. McKenzie Bezos helped Jeff when he was establishing Amazon and she was in the steady job earning the money while he chased his dream. Then the marriage ended because HE, not she, fell for the next door slapper* and blew up his marriage (apparently they are finally getting married because she just threw a huge hen party recently).
I think in that case she's entitled to every penny of the divorce settlement. I'm not familiar with Melinda Gates' case but again that seems to be Bill not being able to keep it in his pants. The men in these examples are the cheating liars, not the women. Pick a different scare story than "oh no, if you wreck your marriage to the woman who raised your kids and was there in the early years before you became rich and famous because you chased a blow-up Barbie doll, you might even have to pay a fair share of alimony! clearly women are all only gold diggers!".
*This is what she considered appropriate to wear to a presidential inauguration. But go ahead, tell me how poor Jeff was taken advantage of by his rapacious wife.
I don’t see why a woman should have any right to a man’s earnings after termination of the marriage. Being a good companion and a good parent is easy. Making money is hard. If one parent stayed at home while the other worked, if there’s a divorce, the idle parent should owe compensation for the time they twiddled their thumbs and watched teletubbies on the other’s dime: they’ve had their fun, it’s their turn to work now.
I smell a stuffy prudishness in your condemnation these men: are you familiar with the modern concept of no-fault divorce? No one gives a shit who fucked who, and even less how the paramour dressed.
Right to spousal support started because, in the ideal world of "women do not work outside the home", once divorced a woman had little to no chance of income of her own. If you threw her out for a newer model, it was considered only fair to save her from ending up on the streets until she got a job or married again.
"The idle parent" shows your lack of comprehension of how a household works.
Funny, I thought the entire point of the rant about women was that men very much would give a shit if their wife fucked another man, and if she dressed like a slut. Or if she left her nice hardworking ordinary guy husband for a bad boy who looked cool but was trashy.
McKenzie was not at fault in the divorce, Jeff was: he broke up the marriage not because they had grown apart or because she was a bad wife and mother, but because he went through a midlife crisis and fell for a trashy vamp whose only assets are the plastic tits she constantly flashes.
Yeah but the game has changed on both fronts. Incomes are more equitable between genders, and whilst domestic duties are still difficult the average Divorcee isn't an Irish Catholic Mother of 14 that needs to wash and darn the socks by hand. I think there's a potential middleground between the two approaches in which it is possible to acknowledge marriage as a partnership, whilst still feeling that divorce settlements far, far, far beyond the amount it'd take to literally retire and have a comfortable rest of life are a bit outlandish.
More options
Context Copy link
God forbid any woman would find herself in financial difficulty and would have to earn a living, like any man ever.
Single guys spend maybe 2 hours a week on household chores. When they move in with a woman the weekly dose per household goes to 16 hours, without any kids. Most of the housework done by women is busywork, deadweight loss. They tidy and clean in circles, and if that’s not enough waste, they remodel. They brush the slabs outside, where people walk, and want the roof power-washed, where no one ever goes.
We’re not all the same, with the same rants, you know. I accept that adults can fuck who they want, as our legislation says, and I want that rule applied fairly.
You seem to have a great deal of hostility towards another woman, based on her appearance. I’ll put it down as a data point in favour of slut-shaming being mostly intrasexual competition.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In the case of McKenzie Bezos, she was functionally his business partner at the founding of Amazon and it simply hadn't been structured that way because they were married. This seems like a reasonable thing for the courts to decide in the event of divorce.
More to your point, being a good wife and mother is not, actually, easy. It isn't a super g-loaded task but housewives should be recognized for their valuable role and marital property in the event of a divorce seems fair. Neither Gates nor Bezos are poor after their divorces(which, again, were easily avoidable by those men).
She put a few stamps on early orders, that must entitle her to half the future earnings of the man who created and worked all his life as CEO of that company. I think not.
We live in a time where every wife feels like an “equal-value partner” in their husband’s business, and the laws we made agree with them. But they are not.
I understand it's always the man's fault and he always has to pay. If he cheats, well he got what he deserved. If she cheats, he failed to nurture a woman's love, he didn't treat her right, and you wouldn't want to slut shame a woman anyway, and besides, she 'contributed' to the marriage, so here's the bill again.
At every level of society, at every age, women get more than they put in. Starting at university, where they have been 56/44 for decades despite working far less, through marriage, divorce, and pensions, where they live longer after having contributed less. And the more we hand over to them, the more oppressed they feel.
That's very much not what she was granted in the divorce. She received a minor portion of their marital assets. Bezos kept the vast majority.
I do not own a house. My wife and I own a house. If somehow we had to divide our assets, I can't rightfully say it is all mine, get bent woman.
That is only a convention. Society has retained features of ancestral marriage that benefit women and jettisoned the rest. They come from a time where housewives would bring far more economic benefit into the marriage (a dowry, tending the chickens etc) .
What if I said: “get bent woman, it’s my money, you did not work for it. You never had full ownership of my assets, only the usufruct, and that limited right lapsed with the divorce.” Obviously the courts would disagree. But their opinion is not a law of nature.
Women are only so eager to get married, and then divorced, (and men reluctant) because our laws give them huge financial benefits for doing so. We have structured society so that the ideal, most high-paying career for a woman, is marrying a rich man. And then we wonder why they are not in STEM and contributing to society as much as men.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is not ‘always the man’s fault’ to believe that, in these two specific cases, it’s the fault of the man. Indeed, the rule of thumb most people would use to blame Jeff and Bill is that adultery is a major fault committed by the party who engages in it.
Life isn’t entirely fair, but ‘Jeff Bezos having to pay out to his early business partner because he couldn’t keep his pants on’ is not a great example. We live in a world where early google employees got it made even if they were cooks, ‘successful startups give huge payouts to early employees, even if they’re not worth it’ is just how our society works, and this is a delayed example because marriage necessarily changes property arrangements.
Your preferred religious morality rules are not applied fairly. Are you in a position to punish women financially for adultery like you think cheating men deserve? No. Because the system officially runs on very different principles (egalitarian & sexually permissive) that aren’t applied fairly either.
Partly because guys like you refuse to apply the same censure to women as you do to men, women get to pick which sort of marriage they’re in at any given time for maximal advantage.
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
More options
Context Copy link
You've got this backwards. The upside risk is infinite, and the downside risk isn't. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are still billionaires, btw.
The current advice is insufficient only in that it is not clear enough to men that they need to stop whining.
None of the men who have ever done anything of note ever at any point in human history have done so by meeting something that was fair. Your effort and the effort of the women you want to date will not be equal. It will not balance out. If anything, the shortcoming of the advice you have heard is that you would ever expect that.
Man was not owed the wilderness, and men are not owed women.
Men by and large stopped caring about the wilderness, and new (more rewarding) frontiers opened over that time.
Then men do not owe women anything, including consideration or respect. Hence the efforts to impose that by force paid for by social credit.
I mean they do owe them consideration and respect qua persons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Good comment, I agree entirely.
Men conquered the women, conquered the wilderness, and they should go about reconquering the women.
One day, this past 150 year interlude can be looked back on as the sexual post-apocalypse, before men as a whole reconquered and subjugated the world again.
Great post.
More options
Context Copy link
Yep.
You can either be rich enough to just absorb the hit, or so destitute you have nothing to lose.
For guys in the middle (i.e. WHERE MOST GUYS ARE), its just financial devastation.
Women aren't owed men's attention and support, by the same token.
And if men are making the logical decision that the prize they get for supporting and paying attention to women is not appealing, why SHOULDN'T they just ignore them?
What's the point of taming wilderness if you aren't then allowed to build a society in it?
What's the point of taming the ocean if you can't go fishing in it.
Why explore the universe if you are not given the credit for your efforts and risks?
You're basically characterizing women as a ENEMY, or possibly just a natural force that men must overcome.
In other words, as a force against ongoing maintenance of civilization.
Makes little sense to give such a dangerous presence much control of your civilization.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, they say they refuse to date conservative/Republican men. What they actually do is refuse to date conservative/Republican boys.
So are we talking about women or girls here?
The distinction is far less relevant than in the case of man/boy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link