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 read your linked comment and right at the end:
Yes, this is almost precisely what I said about you.
And then this claim:
Is ironic because the communism has been benefiting the 'pussy' for years now.
Like, every single change to the economic structure of the country for the last 50 years has been in favor of women and against men. Tax money flows to help women get medical care (including abortions), to get into school, to get hired, and to otherwise live independently. This is generally pulled from the pockets of the most productive men. All the material wealth they rely on comes from male-dominated industries.
Its male labor all the way down.
So basically, the only thing that ISN'T being redistributed is pussy.
This is the core asymmetry that makes men feel as though the social contract is not working in their favor at all.
MY suggested solution isn't communism for pussy (I DARE you to find where I suggest it), and is dismantling some of the communism that's already in palce.
Negative. I'm making more now than I was with her, and more than, I believe, 90% of my age cohort.
I'm simply pointing out that I'd be way better off if the woman I thought was worth keeping had stuck around.
And that most women would be financially better off if they settled with a decent guy early on.
That's it. Save me the patronization, I have no need.
Ask the dozen or so women I've tried to date in the past couple years.
Literally none of them, LITERALLY ZERO have gone on to find fulfilling stable relationships. This mystified me until I did the research. Its simply because EVERYONE is encountering difficulties.
Some of them became single moms, some decided to get into deeper debt for a master's degree, some of them got fat. Some just putter along on their course.
If I was the problem, why weren't they scooped up by a better man?
I'm satisfied with literally every aspect of my life aside from the romantic one. I love my job, make good money, I'm in great shape, I instruct at my gym, I've got a healthy routine, a house (a rarity amongst my peers), a dog, a dedicated and supportive friend group, and enough free time to pursue some hobbies.
Life is objectively great. But that just makes the one portion that ain't working out all the more obvious.
Indeed, part of the issue is most women can't even meet my basic expectations for fitness, fiscal responsibility, and mental stability. And the ones that can are taken.
In other words, you have entirely and utterly misjudged my actual material position AND my arguments on this particular topic. And I don't consider my personal material position relevant to the argument anyway. I'm here advocating on behalf of guys who are worse off than me, so you can't just dismiss me as a miserable incel.
I don't just care about the men... I notice that WOMEN are dissatisfied with things as well. they've got everything they claim to want, and they're miserable.
But you don't tell THEM to put on their big-girl-pants and suck it up, do you?
What is annoying is that, as stated, the spiritual boomers don't want to ever, EVER admit that maybe we need to put a tad less pressure on men and tad more pressure on women.
Because as I've said before, what do you think happens when the current generation of young men hit their 30's, have no family, no marital prospects, poor economic prospects, and yet are continually blamed and put down as though its all their fault?
Seriously. What do you expect? I'm genuinely curious.
Again with the fat, it's always the fat... is it really that much of a dealbreaker?
I think fat girls are sexy af, so I'm biased, and I'm aware my biases are not shared by everyone. But, it can't be that bad, right?
If you want kids, its a concern.
ESPECIALLY if you want those kids to be raised to be healthy themselves.
Of course, Ozempic is giving us a chemical solution to all this.
And I am not asking for a rail thin girl, or a muscular one, or even one that goes to the gym regularly.
Just one that actually considers health important and takes necessary steps to maintain it.
It's a pregnancy risk, sure, but, life's full of risks. One of my ex's whole family was fat af, and they managed to reproduce.
Maybe next time before you pass on a fat girl, you could give her a chance for a little while, with the idea of suggesting Ozempic or an exercise plan once the relationship is more established? Just a thought. Could help widen your pool of available options a bit.
Possible. But obesity would have to be her only disqualifying factor.
Oh, did you know there's research showing that obese women aren't willing to date obese men? Even though most obese men would settle for an obese women?
Women are the ones judging obesity (in others) harshly.
Again, why is the onus on the men to settle, here? That's not the source of the asymmetry.
Because female bodies have value, and male bodies do not. You belong to the less valuable half of the human species. We just had a whole ass thread on this.
Although it should be pointed out, said thread also included a post from a woman who said that she felt like she's the one who has to settle, so, maybe the grass on the other side isn't as green as you think it is.
I get the underlying sentiment, but this is such an overextension of the concept that it's almost backwards. Yes, a woman can be literally brain dead and still fulfill her biological function, but in all areas except reproduction and survival in starvation-times, a male body is more useful than a female body—the value of literally doubled upper body strength and 1.5x greater lower body strength at base cannot be ignored. Add on top the other advantages of the male form (generally better grasp of logos, less susceptible to pathological emotionality, peeing your name in the snow), and it's apparent why men are universally considered the default sex.
Men are the ones writing long screeds on the internet about how they can’t get laid. Women aren’t. (Or when they do, it’s because none of the available options are quite good enough.)
This is not a random coincidence. It’s rooted in a biological asymmetry.
That’s all it means.
The women are videotaping themselves ranting on TikTok about how they can't get out of "situationships" and into decent relationships.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link