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 -
And now she can get attention from almost every guy in a 20 mile radius.
The worst part, as I see it, is that every woman is AWARE they can hop on the apps for a quick confidence boost, casual sex, or even a free meal.
There's zero friction.
So even the ones who aren't actively using the apps are having their behavior modified by their existence.
Doesn't work when on a societal level we're trending towards the hellscape that is South Korean dating.
Even massive government subsidies hasn't helped
So we see that we in the U.S. haven't hit rock bottom yet.
i.e.
IT CAN IN FACT GET WORSE.
I don't have to be a blackpiller to say "Guys maybe we should TRY to change course because I see where this is going."
South Korea's problems are numerous, and the lack of desire of South Korean women to marry and have children is more that they perceive it as being a shit deal for them than that they are all sleeping around. (SK is still a pretty conservative country and most of them aren't.)
Most American women are also not just ordering up dick on Tinder.
When you say "We should change course," do you have any suggestions that aren't basically "Reduce female agency"? Because you seem to blame everything on women while rejecting any suggestion that unsuccessful men are to blame for their own lack of success .
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST I'M POINTING OUT A SYSTEMIC ISSUE THAT IS EFFECTING EVERYONE IN EVERY COUNTRY SIMULTANEOUSLY AND YOU THINK I'M PLACING BLAME ON ANY SPECIFIC GENDER, OR GROUP?
This is why the problem is impossible to discuss, everyone automatically assumes you're an incel, or bitter, or hate women, or are just motivated by envy or something OTHER than 'concern for the very trajectory of society.'
The only reason it reads any differently is because every other institution blames men explicitly. I don't have to make that argument, but pushing a different line automatically makes people assume you're blaming women instead. Even trying to make the case lowers your status and thus tends to make people take you less seriously.
There's no benefits to being the one person talking about it like this. Plenty of potential costs.
And so the issue goes undiscussed, let alone solved.
ahem.
No. I'm not blaming women. Women themselves are less happy than they've ever been. I feel bad for them too.
I'm blaming the lack of cultural pressure on women; a society that places zero expectations on women to settle or marry or have kids.
It is unsurprising that women live up to those expectations when Academia, Corporate America, Hollywood, Social Media, and all the dating apps are telling them they don't have to settle, ever.
Whilst continually telling men that they're worthless, from a young age.
Then giving men advice that provably isn't working. Anywhere. Then blaming men for this even though its clear there's something different causing it. "Why are the younger men turning aggressively to the right?" Because that's the only place that DOESN'T blame them.
Identify the cohort of males who are carousing and stealing women's most fertile years and cull them. Just straight up kill 'em.
If that's too extreme, we can just castrate them. Compromise!
That cuts out a major factor that is both preventing women from settling AND is making them less marriageable. Heavily punish males who exploit young women's emotions and leave them worse off than they found them.
If that's still too extreme, then maybe just ban dating apps altogether.
If THAT is too extreme, just require every dating app to VERY publicly disclose their actual success rates for men and women forming relationships, so people can make an informed decision when using them. There's a reason they don't disclose them normally. They're abysmal.
And then, reduce or remove all economic policies that explicitly favor hiring women so that women are less likely to marry a corporation. There's enough competition amongst biological men without having to compete against Megacorps anyway.
Then reduce or remove most policies designed to allow an unmarried women to live 'comfortably' on the public dime, thus becoming brides of the state.
Basically, remove the economic policies that keep women from enduring any significant difficulties, ever, from childhood on, so that women will actually need a man in their life for more than just happy fun sexy times. This is called "ALIGNING THE INCENTIVES."
But that's about the most politically unpopular idea possible, since poor, single mothers are genuinely the most sympathetic group out there, across the political spectrum.
None of these steps are 'reducing female agency,' in the sense women are still fully able to make whatever choices they want without the law stepping in.
But they're leveling out the system so its not completely and utterly slanted against (average) men's interests, as it has been for like 50 years.
Every single one of those suggestions is tongue in cheek because the whole problem is that NOBODY serious is willing to even suggest any solution that admits that women have every single social and legal advantage possible over the average guy, and thus there might need to be a correction.
There's no political solution unless enough men are willing to do some things that will upset women en masse, or some strongman takes power who just does it. And even then it ain't guaranteed, since this problem exists in dicatorships too.
all I'm asking from YOU is that you politely stand aside and don't raise a fuss if men start taking steps that will address the problem since you're clearly not interested in accepting any responsibility or otherwise intervening to help.
If you suddenly start interfering with attempts to address the problem, you're really not on men's side anyway.
Wait.
America doesn't have enough eligible bachelorettes because it has too many promiscuous fat single moms.
(maybe, I don't have an opinion about that)
But South Korea has even fewer marriages, because their women simply don't want to be wives and mothers, it's worse than just working. Despite the women being much more likely to be thin and simply not bother having sex at all.
So we should... execute the attractive cads, get rid of welfare, and ban dating apps until (looks at South Korea) we are left with a lot of celibate women working in low wage labor?
So you could go farther down the hole. You could ban the women from working even rather sad little jobs outside the home. Then they'll become hot trad wives!
Perhaps we should just have another war at that point and let the men kill each other. The King David solution.
Or bring back subsistence farming, that has a proven track record.
More options
Context Copy link
Going into a capslocking spiral does not make your point stronger. No, I do not think this is a systemic issue affecting everyone in the country simultaneously.
That's, uh, quite an immodest proposal. Besides vibes-based executions of anyone who seems a little too caddish, how do you propose implementing this as a practical matter?
It's hard not to see rants like this as "incel, bitter, and women-hating" when you insist that women are kept from "enduring any significant difficulties, ever, from childhood on" (do you actually... know any women? Would any of them agree with this characterization of their lives? Do you think they are all lying or delusional?) and that the solution is to make women need a man (you didn't even qualify that with "to raise a child" - I was accused of being unfair in characterizing your position as "force women to settle for someone and marry him whether she wants to or not" but that seems to be literally what you are advocating here).
Now you added a sort of "j/k... unless?" coda but if you didn't really mean a single thing you suggested, what do you actually suggest? If the situation is genuinely as dire as you claim, then we would be essentially facing doom without implementing the Dread Jim Protocols. Of course I do not think the situation is as dire as you claim.
No, you're asking me to stop arguing or opposing the measures you suggest. I will not be doing that.
I'm not on your side. I do not accept that you are arguing on behalf of men.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How many men would take the bargain of "you'll have to get married and have a kid, preferably a son, and pour resources into that kid to succeed by getting into the limited range of jobs deemed socially acceptable; this will mean no childhood for the kid but that's the price to pay. you also have to work. you also have to do all the housework and childrearing, because your husband will be working more than he is at home, will have obligations outside of official work hours, and the rare time he is home, all the domestic labour is on you because that's a woman's duty. also you will have an interfering mother-in-law who will expect you to obey her every command because respect for seniors and preserving family harmony is important."
Not many.
In my experience, most South Korean men, like our friend @faceh, are acutely aware of how difficult their own lives are and incapable of perceiving that women's lives may be difficult too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
pawnstars.jpg: Best we can do is to continue increasing the protections and freedoms afforded to women, and reducing the protections and freedoms afforded to men.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link