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 -
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democrats-want-reach-young-male-voters-how-get-them-is-up-debate-2025-10-06/
Reports like these have been an almost weekly occurrence all year. To state the obvious that none of these articles include: The Democratic Party and liberals engage in bulverism and bulverism alienates people. But is the problem purely liberals alienating young men or are conservatives also successfully courting them?
When is the last time, genuinely, you've seen any article published in any mainstream new media that was written from the perspective of a disaffected male where he was able to express what his perceived grievances were, and explain what he might want from a political party?
Or even something less direct: what about an article that takes men's complaints in good faith, listens to them, doesn't immediately blame them on the men in question, and considers that they're actually being honest about what they want and that we should devote some resources to addressing their concerns.
I've seen like a dozen from the past few months where a woman tries to explain why she thinks men have gone missing, or entreats them to 'come back' (here's a hint, don't publish it in the 'style' section), or an explicitly female perspective on how male's politics are concerning. Literally, read the article about how women having the desire to be with men at all makes her the actual victim.
Oh, remember that controversy over the "Tea" app that would let women anonymously report on alleged male misbehavior. Women of course were the victim of male rage in that whole debacle.
And we intermittently see articles like this, written by "Helen Coster" that handwrings over it as if its an intractable problem that we simply lack the technology to understand let alone address. But at least notes (correctly) that this is going to be catastrophic for Dems over the longer term.
Here's the only recent article I could find that even tries to consider the male perspective (and written by a dude) but it stops very short of elevating any possible proposals and of course balances the male perspective with the female.
I'm so. so. SO tired of there being literally only ONE side on the microphone, screaming the same 3ish complaints and then trying to entice men into solving the problem by compromising on everything they actually want and voting Democrat against their own instincts.
I'd say this is all proof by demonstration that the Democrats don't actually want to reach young men. It would be trivial to give them a platform to explain what they're actually looking for, to publish their words directly, rather than a third party puzzling about their internal processes and proposing half-baked 'solutions' that don't actually cede anything.
But they do not give men such a platform. The implication as I read it is that they really want men to just shut up and follow 'instructions' rather than voice concerns that, from the Dems perspective, don't matter, aren't actually concerns, and would require compromising on their various policy goals (and rouse the ire of their other interest groups) to actually address.
And this is all you would need to realize they will never, EVER actually make traction with the men, so place your bets for future political outcomes on that assumption. Also notice how J.D. Vance is quite adept plugging in to male cultural touchstones and echoing certain male concerns in a way that encourages them to engage with the GOP politically. CUE THE HANDWRINGING. Don't listen to J.D. Vance, the guy with the wife, kids, whose whole life is basically a male-coded success story. Listen to "Leila Atassi" instead, she sounds like an ideal commentator on masculinity.
This doesn't happen because to express one's grievances as a male is to invite ridicule from all (except a small group of other aggrieved), not just Democrats. Part of "traditional masculinity" is to not make such grievances. This of course leaves men at a severe disadvantage, politically -- it's fine to be a Stoic when you're the Emperor of Rome, not so much when you don't have the power to solve your problems yourself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link