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 -
Women could be pleasant.
If all you have to offer is what's between your legs, and men flee as soon as they get it, I mean, sure one option to create a pussy cartel. The other is women would just be pleasant. Be nice, be warm, be loving, create a positive atmosphere. And maybe change your preferences in men too.
But that codes too "Stepford Wives", and women have rejected it for the political prospect of being a boss bitch and unchecked neuroticism.
Have you actually encountered these women who approach relationships by being boss bitches with unchecked neuroticism yourself, or are you reciting a culture war catechism or something you have seen others claim on the internet? I have been through and seen plenty of failure modes of relationships, but nothing like "the woman refuses to be nice, warm, loving or create a positive atmosphere for the sake of political LARPing" has been among them.
Such modern women do exist but it's generally not that they refuse to act like that. It's that it never even occurs to them that they should act like that in certain contexts, have no concept of it at all in the first place, and don't know how to do it even if they consciously want to. It's generally something nobody ever explained to them, never talked with them about, and had no woman in their lives whom they ever had a chance to emulate in that regard.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh they exist alright. They become more noticeable 30s and onwards as all the loving people slowly select themselves into relationships.
Good news is that it's curable, I've seen people grow out of it. But not everyone does.
Yep. And I've fallen into the trap of staying with someone on the HOPE they grow out of it and try to facilitate that and... nope.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The preferences are, I think, the big part. And the main of that is understanding what the desired end-goal relationship is, how that can be founded, how it can be maintained... and so on. Then the natural partner becomes more clear, and the virtues that a woman can cultivate beyond sexual attractiveness. But if you don't know what you want in the end, how can you tell the difference between a good partner and a bad partner, rather than simply an attractive or unattractive partner? And that in turn requires a vision or model for a stable romance, and considerations of old age, and so on and so forth. But it sounds like the women in question are, at best, thinking of the early phases of a romance. I'm not sure they're even looking ahead to something as minimal as moving in together, much less marriage or children. And if that's the case... yeah, I guess it tracks that when the author talks about how much effort her girlies are putting in, it's about getting the right outfit and putting makeup on, not figuring out ways to show off a loving and nurturing spirit (e.g. cookies, not that hard to make but very pleasing).
But on the other hand, I don't think it would matter to the guys they're currently dating how nice or not they are. Sounds like they'd tolerate a mean or dull woman just so long as she puts out, which is a pretty sad place to be. If those women are losers, then just imagine the guy who spends all his time trying to sleep with losers...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link