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 -
I'm really liking the discussion here but I'm going to call this point out.
Its true on the face of it. Society is set up so no woman need be entirely reliant on any particular man.
But its really just because they can outsource the duties normally handled by a spouse to other specialized MEN in their community, as needed. Men can be hired on a gig basis.
If she's physically threatened, she calls the police. Who are mostly male.
If there's a natural disaster, fire, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, flood, avalanche, etc. etc., the first responders/rescuers are largely male. DITTO for the guys rebuilding infrastructure in the aftermath, and who will be shipping emergency supplies in.
If she needs something at her abode fixed, her car repaired, heavy furniture moved... SAME THING. It'll be a man doing it.
And for economic security, well, the various programs that allow women to have shelters, welfare, food stamps, and other support, even if they're a unmarried, drug addicted, unemployed mother... are largely paid for on the back of taxes extracted from other men.
Its male labor all the way down. No, not every male, or maybe not even a majority, but the only reason women can even afford to express open spite towards male behavior is because men have built the prerequisite conditions for them to do so safely.
Its been shunted into the background somewhat, but oh boy do women still ABSOLUTELY NEED MEN to enjoy any standard of living and and ongoing safety from most physical dangers.
Men created and maintain the internet, too, and various apps, and that's now the preferred vector for women to complain about how useless and ugly men are. This is a supreme, SUPREME irony. Google "Chopped Man Epidemic" for a vantablackpill. Women who couldn't manage to set up a basic LAN are tearing into the exact type of men who make it possible for them to publish this stuff to the masses in the first place.
The current delusion (I will call it what it is) shared by many women that because they can work a job and provide for their own independent living means they don't need men at all is the symptom and somewhat the cause of the current gender discourse. And trying to point this out is very much taboo in polite society.
In short, I'm actually pondering whether we should organize any and all single men with decent-paying jobs into a unified income tax strike. Just refuse to pay taxes and see how society reacts to this simple act of peaceful rebellion. If men aren't needed, if women are capable of getting along without them, then things should putter along okay anyway.
What is the objective of this male general strike? What’s in it for the men, just teaching some women who making annoying videos a lesson? Why would any man who’s a productive member of society rally behind this?
That benefits men too! The time when the average man needed to farm the land, build a house and fix most things he owned himself is over. Men are just as reliant on the collective labour of society as women. Any blue or white collar male worker needs the police, firefighters, agricultural workers etc just as much as any woman, and can count on disability and unemployment benefits if things go poorly (maybe less so in the US, but that’s another issue).
And it’s not like women don’t do any “essential” work. The healthcare system would fall apart without the majority female nurses and staff. Childcare? Education? Who does the majority of the work when it comes to household and raising kids? Fighting over which is more “essential” is pointless.
You’re just doing the same old identity politics as the feminists you’re complaining about, just flipped.
To keep more of our money, I'd say.
Any other effects would be completely incidental. If society isn't offering any net benefits in exchange for the money paid into it, then it is quite morally defensible to stop paying in.
That was like 30% of the justifications put forth in the Declaration of Independence.
Why would any man want to continue to support a productive society that treats him like an expendable worker bee and doesn't even guarantee that he'll at least have the CHANCE to pass on his genes?
That's what the OP is getting at, directly. What's the point? Why stand by and be exploited?
There's a question their net contributions, clearly. Division of labor is good. But someone who is putting in more than they're getting out has direct reasons to question the arrangment.
Anybody who says "we don't need firefighters, we can fight our own fires!" and/or denigrates the role of firefighters is being stupid and discriminatory.
But anyone who says "we don't need men, we can take care of ourselves" is implicitly saying "we don't need firefighters, solders, builders, police officers, etc. etc. etc."
Its an even more fundamentally delusional worldview.
And it should be acceptable to call that out, no?
Yes.
So why is it so easy/reflexive to attack when men do it, but its impossible to find anyone serious suggesting that maybe women should lower their expectations a bit.
You’re American I believe, so fair enough your social services are inefficient and terrible (although you pay less taxes and earn a lot more than us Europeans), but that’s completely unrelated to gender.
This is clearly a personal grievance. All I can say is, you’re sitting inside watching content designed to make you angry, with the goal of hooking you on a corporation’s algorithmic content feed and selling your attention to the highest bidder. It’s not real.
It’s absolutely true that being plugged into the globalised online rat race is hopeless and depressing, so switch it off. Focus on your local community, your niche interests, and you’ll find people that value you for who you are. Join a commune or go pick fruits if you have to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I did, and 100% of the links are videos. I tried watching one of the less-terrible-looking videos, and it was still terrible; it started with a "preview" reel that was clearly just there to inculcate feelings of "WTF is going on" in order to maximise watchtime.
Could you summarise for people who don't feel like dipping their brains in the
brain-hackingengagement-optimisation industry?There's some largish subset of Gen-Z women who are claiming that in their daily lives, they almost never see 'hot' men out and about, and the vast majority of the men they do see are hopelessly ugly, don't take care of themselves, and are just horribly unattractive, meanwhile they also claim that most of the women they see are gorgeous, well-put-together, and otherwise "hot" and thus deserve better partners than they've got.
"Chopped" is apparently slang for "rough-looking."
And they further suggest that this is why men are lonely and undateable, since they aren't doing any interesting hobbies, aren't putting effort into dressing well or taking care of their appearance, and are generally "failing" to do the things that would make them attractive to women. And the implicit point in all of this is that the woman speaking is in fact hot and desirable and thus entitled to be as selective as she wants.
The reason its only videos is because that's how Gen Z communicates, which is why this might escape the notice of the older generations.
And of course, the added irony that this is taking place during "Men's Mental Health Month."
If this is a TikTok/ Twitter/ Insta thing, have you considered that the algorithmic video influencer mechanic is also what brought us mukbang, cinnamon challenges, contour makeup, Lil Tay, faking your own death for clout, etc. etc.?
The bad guy in a pro wrestling match is not actually trying to kill anybody with a folding chair, the monster truck with the teeth decals is not actually trying to eat the cars. The crazy infuriating shit influencers say (or their followers parrot) is not actually representative of what sane people act on in their personal lives.
Of course not.
I contend, however, that fewer people in the younger generation meet that definition of "sane people." Particularly young women.
Its becoming more common because people are becoming less sane.
This is a completely compatible set of views, supported by the evidence.
Because more of them are exposed to exactly this sort of ragebait and manipulation, constantly.
The internet isn't real life, but its correlating with something.
Anyway, here's a tiktok video with over 600k likes and 8000 comments where a woman breaks down in tears b/c a man she considers ugly gave her unwanted attention. (read: asked her on a date)
Is it a lie? MAYBE! But a lot of people believed it and completely support her position anyway!
Here's one with 367k likes and 64k comments claiming MEN are the ones not putting in enough effort into their appearance and there's just not enough hot men out there.
Ragebait? Could be, but a lot of women happily gobbling it up and affirming it. There's a comment with 64k likes claiming "I see a decent-looking man once a week."
Is it true? Do the people liking the comment BELIEVE it is true?
You tell me what one should make of this.
You are basing your worldview on random ragebait TikTok videos, a platform where the #peeyourpantschallenge had over four million views. Please, I implore you, talk to real people instead of doomscrolling dumb online discourse.
It’s absolutely true that most men put way less effort into their appearance than women. Like, c’mon. If you don’t believe this, tell me your skincare routine, how many hair products you own, and how long it takes you to get ready in the morning.
But anyway, that should be an advantage for you. Getting a nice haircut, moisturising regularly and buying a few well fitting fashionable outfits will already set you apart from the crowd.
Uh, No.
I've basing it on literally years of research on the topic:
I've researched the Low TFR Issue
I've researched the legal and economic side of it. Pointed out how corporations are technically competing with men for women's commitment.
I brought up the "how many marriageable women are actually out there question literally a year ago, then I ran some very rough numbers.
I've pontificated on why intersex relations have degraded over two years ago.
I've even researched the age-gap question.
This includes talking to real people, I can offhand name a dozen people in my circle experiencing the EXACT. SAME. ISSUES.
I beg you to try and give me some data that I haven't seen yet. You came in and assumed off of 3 comments that I've somehow NOT bothered to look into this issue at every level I can?
In fact, I've put in a LOT of effort to try to find the evidence that runs against this point, but in this search I keep finding videos like the ones I posted, which seem to confirm the data, the anecdotes, the personal experience. All of it pointing in the same direction.
Your attempt to dismiss my point out of hand without a single argument has been noted, and my opinion has remained utterly unchanged.
This is not a problem for me. I am not the one who needs to hear this advice.
I am the one telling you this advice is useless for most men under current conditions and you sound like a Boomer telling someone to sharpen up their resume and give the manager a firm handshake to get hired.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I will say, this is a lot better than there being a (new) epidemic of men being chopped up or having their dicks chopped off. I suppose if you wanted to get particularly creative, a particularly disgusting case would be an epidemic of meat intended for eating being discovered as, well, "chopped man"!
More options
Context Copy link
Look, listen, I'm broadly sympathetic to the points you're raising about relationships for younger people, but this ain't it. Women are more religious than men, and this just so happens to be a religious belief that they have to proclaim even in anonymous surveys, but that doesn't mean they actually believe it. See: Lizzo is beautiful, right up until you call a woman beautiful just like Lizzo.
Ironically men are attending church more than women now, the previous trend is just barely inverted.
Which suggests women have indeed found a replacement outlet for their religious tendencies. Things are getting janky.
But yeah, to the extent women are saying this, its ultimately just a shit-test or its them asserting high standards so they can pretend they're more selective.
Because they converted to another religion, which is conveniently not tracked by church attendance, as it's pretending to not be a religion.
Now I am wondering what the equivalent to the church service is for these folks.
Protest marches, for one, but surely they don't have weekly sermons in the equivalent of a chapel.
Like church, most people don't attend regularly. They just go to the holiday services (pride).
But as with certain varieties of Buddhism, most people will spend a period in a monastery (university) where they will engage in serious study and pious indoctrination.
More options
Context Copy link
Jon Stewart/John Oliver/the other guy with glasses/the View/&etc.
Hah, there's definitely some parallels to Televangelists there.
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
More options
Context Copy link
TLDR: A number of women are now going online and complaining that the majority of men are unattractive/ugly('chopped men'). The pushback from some of the more spicy internet content creators is that the women complaining about this are all mid, and have no space to talk.
Sadly, this isn't a new opinion. I've seen a number of threads in popular reddit forums(I know, I know) that have voiced similar opinions, that when going out in public, they never see men that they find attractive.
Assuming this is all done in good faith, it's a demonstration of just how women and men are different. I can go out in public and I'm going to see plenty of women I find cute, attractive, appealing, classy, and whatnot. That women don't have a similar mindset is, well, depressing, more than anything.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It will fail because men in the government want your money, not because women do.
Men who were elected mostly by women. Who want gibs.
This "women never do anything" perspective is one of the major pillars holding the status quo in place.
Everyone wants gibs. Cushy government jobs, questionable grants, corporate welfare and industry nepotism are not a gendered phenomenon.
Sure, but women want gibs more as a matter of simple fact. It is absolutely gendered.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't.
Neither do it, at face value, but you and I are a vanishingly small minority.
And OTOH, let's dig deeper: I don't want there to be gibs, but since the gibs are already out of the box, why shouldn't they go to myself as well as to the less deserving? With that framing in mind, I too want gibs.
I voluntarily took a pretty big paycut to avoid gibs. Admittedly, I am not exactly of a pure heart here, as I was enjoying said gibs for quite a while, but I claim partial credit for eventually refusing them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As if governments didn't collect taxes with brutal force for less noble causes than that for millenia.
Your point being?
My point being, the state of welfare for women is utterly irrelevant to what happens if men "just refuse to pay taxes", as per faceh, because governments extract taxes with certainty that doesn't care what they then spend them on. If all women were principled self-sufficient libertarians there would still be taxes.
But without a welfare state the taxes would, presumably, be smaller.
No, they'd just go to different people.
Ok, assuming this is true, this means there's space for money to potentially go back to men more, right?
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
I've made the point before that women are a potent political force, but an incompetent military one
If things get heated for real, the side that wins will absolutely positively NOT be the one that is depending on women voting for them.
So its a question of who has enough motivated men to 'force' the issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link