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 -
Who else up watching election results? As of the time of this writing Decision Desk has called all of:
The Virginia governor race in favor of Abigail Spanberger (D).
The Virginia lieutenant governor race in favor of Ghazala Hashmi (D and the first Muslim woman elected to statewide office).
The Virginia Attorney General race in favor of Jay Jones (D lmao).
The New Jersey governor race in favor of Mickie Sherrill (D).
The NYC mayoral race for Zohran Mamdani (D, projecting a majority of the vote too lmao).
Both statewide Georgia Public Service Commissioner races for the Democratic candidates.
Polls are still open in California so no word yet there on the redistricting ballot measure. In other Jay Jones news the house delegate who leaked his texts is on track to lose her re-election, as part of dems winning a trifecta in the Virginia government.
The county by county level results I've seen show pretty much all of the above running ahead of Harris and Spanberger even running ahead of Biden in 2020. Is this indicative of what we might see going forward? Dems had previously overperformed in special elections this year but this is the closest to a general until next years actual federal elections. If these trends hold up not a good sign for Republicans!
That "IF" is doing absurd amounts of work here.
Anyway, literally none of these outcomes was too surprising or even concerning to me. I have managed to studiously avoid caring too much about these elections since my state has mostly just been a beneficiary of other states self-immolating.
The outcome that was ALSO unsurprising but I think has some really noticeable import is the Young Female Vote*:
and on the male side:
*Exit polling, so the real margins might look different.
Dems can pull a basic majority with young men, but still have 40+% going republican even in a good year. But are pulling huge majorities with the young women.
So there's a sizeable gendered political gap even in blue-leaning states.
If you're a young conservative dude in any of those states, good freaking luck finding a romantic partner. For the <20% of women who might partially agree with your politics, your competition is your 'fellow' conservatives, who overall outnumber the available pool of women.
Oh and then there's the recent research that "Male students show more tolerance for political enemies than females show for their own allies"
So in terms of 'trends,' What do you think eventually happens if young women continue voting for Democrats/lefties in droves... and have extreme intolerance for anyone who doesn't, while young men tack further right?
Your takeaway from these numbers is 'but who will the male conservatives bang?'. I think the more valid question would be 'why are the large majority of young women voting D instead of R?'.
The short version of that is that the Democratic policies are based on strong appeals to emotions, be it general anxiety, sympathy, or outright fear of vaguely specified catastrophes happening in the future.
Women are generally more susceptible to pure emotional appeals:
(I plucked this study at random, but there are MANY like it.)
Women also tend to be conform more to 'public' pressure. than men so it'd be unsurprising they'd follow each other's lead and cluster around the same parties/candidates if they think all the other girls are doing so.
THUS if you build your coalition largely around those groups that respond most strongly to emotional rhetoric, it will end up having an outsize amount of women in it.
Simple as.
The slightly longer version:
Women are just way more neurotic now.
So many of them are in a constant state of anxiety.
(Fun research I read recently: there's been a noticeable rise in young females' "Solo" alcohol consumption.)
This all means they are extra sensitive to fear-based messaging.
Which political actors are keen on exploiting. Make your voters believe that the sky is falling, the climate is overheating, the KKK is about to arise and re-instate segregation, children are dying en masse in some random country, that measles is making a comeback, whatever.
Make your voters believe the other party/tribe is the reason for these occurrence, or at least the main obstacle stopping them from fixing them.
And then propose that the crisis can be fixed (and your anxieties relieved) by voting the 'correct' way. And now you've got a motivated, easily controlled, almost fanatical voter based to mobilize around election time.
But, of course, voting never actually fixes the anxiety issue, because the source of the anxiety wasn't actually what they said it was. So you can exploit those anxious tendencies indefinitely.
Which is why liberals, especially 'extreme' liberals, have much, much higher rates of mental illness diagnoses than moderates and conservatives.
So the political message is simple. "You should be afraid. You should fear [external thing]. Republicans are causing [external thing]. Vote for us to make [external thing] go away."
Add in that Women have more student loan debt than men.
Add in that Women Consume more healthcare and spend more on prescription drugs.
Add in that Women are by and large more likely to be receiving welfare benefits from the state although THAT is strongly mediated by race (scroll down and click the "Filter by Characteristics - Individuals" tab).
And you can see why they would tend to cluster towards the party that promises to forgive student debt, make healthcare free, and preserve or increase various welfare benefits.
So it all seems pretty straightforward.
Notice that the women who buck this trend are the married ones. They're happier, less mentally ill (not less stressed necessarily), and more likely to vote Republican.
But there are fewer women getting married, so whichever way the causal arrow points, its not too surprising there's a large pool of single women that are more likely to vote Democrat.
So in conclusion:
There's one party that caters to the most insecure, anxious, fearful and conformist subsets of the population.
And there's an increasing pool of insecure, anxious, fearful, relatively conformist women for them to cater to.
2 + 2 = 4.
More options
Context Copy link
Republicans are the party of "your body my choice" and Democrats... aren't. It's not complicated.
Wasn't the pro-life/pro-choice gender gap formerly pretty small? That is, there used to be a similar amount of pro-life women as pro-choice up until the last decade or so?
Even more recently than that! The big split was only really post-Dobbs. It turns out that once you have skin in the game (abortion can actually be criminalized) people change their mind. I know the phrase arises in the abortion context but I think it is also a synecdoche for a certain kind of politics towards women generally. How many Democrats are talking about how women shouldn't be working outside the home? That we should repeal the 19th amendment? That women's participation in the economy or public life has been bad for society? There is a certain kind of politics that believes women ought to be in positions of legal, social, and economic subordination to men and it is heavily concentrated among Republicans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because young women want material things for free or with minimal effort, and Democrats are, at this time, the party that is vocally for redistribution.
Also, women in general like it when men do violence on their behalf, and Democrats are vocally the party of sheltering women from consequences. Don’t be fooled by young women jumping in on “Defund the Police” and other such slogans. For AWFLs, that only ever meant “Neuter the police as a force resisting the violence of POC males. Absolutely keep it as a force protecting me personally from violence, and also resisting any violence my co-ethnic males might engage in.”
Following on from that, and I will admit that this part is purely speculation, but my experience is that many more young women have a problem with self-loathing, vs young men. And Democrats are vocally the party of self-loathing for their constituents.
More options
Context Copy link
Did you seriously ask this question in the Culture War thread?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Complete Democrat political dominance? 80+% of women consistently voting for Democratic party candidates would be a nigh insurmountable electoral advantage.
Right.
Unless men decide they don't like that.
I've said it before, Women are a potent political force but an incompetent military/policing one.
If 60ish percent of men vote one way, and 80ish percent of women vote the other, and win, seems like a problem if the men who are in that 60% are ALSO the ones who would be tasked with carrying out/enforcing the laws they expressly disagree with.
Oh, and paying for it all too.
So here's the question I really want answered:
If less than half of the young men buy-in to the ideal of gender equality, what happens to a Democracy that tries to enforce gender equality?
WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA FIND OUT.
But will it stay that way, if a disproportionally male faction wages war against a disporportionally female faction, seeking to reduce them to a state of subjugation?
"God made men, and God made women, but Samuel Colt made them equal."
That works pretty well if we're talking about one-on-one encounters. In fact I endorse it.
But organized violence as a group is FAR AND AWAY a male specialty.
Hence why I said
If we ever got to a breakdown of order severe enough that men are banding up in militias, warbands, gangs, whatever, the advantage will turn extremely against women in general.
More options
Context Copy link
@faceh
Men won’t do shit.
@Celestial-body-NOS
Women won’t do shit.
Nothing ever happens.
To add some actual analysis here, I react to these discussions the same way I react to pop-sci articles about how we’re all going to evolve into a race of pale, long-fingered morloks in order to better access our computer terminals: it’s laughable to expect that these completely unsustainable systems are are going to last long enough to make any kind of difference whatsoever.
And as I’ve said before, I think if incel rage ever does boil over, it will probably be sublimated into some other ideological movement, be that fascism, Bolshevism, radical Islam, or radical Christianity.
More options
Context Copy link
The #1 best way, in this very moment, to test the willingness of either sex to stop hearts, is to look at the demographics of hunters.
As I’m sure you can imagine, the statistics on female participation in hunting are abysmal, somewhere between 5 to 1 and 9 to 1, and the statistics are almost certainly failing to account for the fact that there are plenty of female-owned hunting tags out there that are actually filled by the man. Yes, this is illegal. Surprise.
The ratios in target shooting are somewhat more equal, something like 3 women out of 10 shooters, but at the end of target shooting, nothing is actually dead.
Now, there are definitely female hunters out, there is no denying that. But, even there, we can try to observe the propensity for violence of each sex. This gets down into anecdotal information, but there are women who can take the shot but are for some reason incapable of doing the gutting and quartering, or if not incapable, vastly prefer that the man do it. War doesn’t tend to feature direct butchery, but it is pretty gruesome and I would consider unwillingness to do butchery as an indicator of an overall unwillingness to engage in aggressive, violent action. Also, if a man could shoot but not butcher, he would be relentlessly mocked by his buddies until he finally did the thing.
Nurses of course see plenty of gruesome things, but for healing and nurturing reasons, which I would argue makes it a much different experience for women.
So women are not taking Samuel Colt up on his offer in nearly the ratios we would expect if the two sexes were actually equal in matters of violence. As a result, my theory in response to your question is that women would mostly do what they have done for all of human history. That is, mostly help out the remaining men on their side with the lighter duties, with a limited minority of women actually participating fighting the fight.
If they win this disturbing hypothetical, they could be anywhere from magnanimous in victory, to as cruel as Comanche squaws. If they were to lose, 90%+ would just accept the new status quo. Women as a group aren’t ever actually going to be treated all that badly.
More options
Context Copy link
Equally dead when shot in the head perhaps, but not equally able to get to that point.
Maybe not, but it closes the gap considerably.
Agree to disagree? "Considerably" is vague, and I imagine that it does a lot more work for you than it does for me.
For evidence, I present to you...the entire world's history of physical violence. All of it. Ever. Up to the very present.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are we still doing the 90's "women can do anything men do, just as well" thing? They can't even match men in Call Of Duty, I doubt either the skill or apetite for actual warfare.
As with eSports, female participation and competence in war will increase with the deployment of the tranissaries.
Trans-friendly feminism is suddenly making some sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Time for the modern version of Lysistrata? Will the men fare any better this time around?
Its sort of already happening.
But no real demands are being made so there's no clear way to end the standoff.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What are you envisioning here? Are police going to refuse to make arrests for crimes? What crimes? Prosecutors refuse to file charges? Judges going to toss cases? Are you under the impression all parts of the justice system today think every law they enforce is just? I am very skeptical that is the case.
What do you think is going to happen?
The thing about the legal system is that it is always susceptible to cascades in any direction.
Lets say the new trend is that drug cases are not big deals. Police stop charging them, prosecutors dismiss the cases pending, judges find not guilty in the cases they try. But, if drugs become a big deal, police charge them, prosecutors prosecute them, and judges find guilty. The guilty pipeline is more fraught with obstacles, but is not uncommon.
Once the police forces of a place make a choice, only the males of that place can rebel realistically in a way that would be confrontation-ally successful. So the theory does hold. M-W polarization is not sustainable, as approximately 90% of philosophers have suggested over the last 2000 years.
More options
Context Copy link
That's a regular occurrence right now. At least in some progressive cities with progressive prosecutors. Maybe some day the right will pick up such weapons commonly used by progressives.
More options
Context Copy link
Depends. If the issue is most prevalent on a state-by-state basis, I think we see Police quit and move to more favorable jurisdictions., which worsens the crime issues in the Blue areas, which either 'forces' a political correction, or it spirals into decay a la Detroit.
Likewise, why, do you suppose, did Military recruitment surge in 2025 after literally hitting an all-time-low in 2022 under Biden?
Guys choosing to simply not join military/police forces would be enough to undermine a government's legitimacy in a given territory.
I think we see a political figure arise who notices and exploits the disconnect between the political priorities of the government and the actual political grievances expressed by a majority of men.
I think we should be very hopeful that its J.D. Vance or a guy like him. Vance clearly NOTICES the issue, and he's good at credibly establishing himself as "one of the guys."
Whether Vance will exploit this to the hilt remains to be seen.
But someone will.
I also think that an economic contraction will re-assert some 'reality' to the discourse, should it occur. We had a long era of economic growth post the 2008 crash and the Zero-Interest-Rate era. Plus the Covid Hiring boom.
lotta people getting laid off from cushy jobs, in many cases maybe the only real career-type jobs they've ever held. Women might finally, F-I-N-A-L-L-Y be required to either suffer from economic destitution or make some concessions to men to obtain the support of a good one.
If they can't marry a corporation who will take care of all their needs, and the Federal Government, for once, isn't bending over backwards to accommodate their complaints, well, the default fallback is probably either prostitution or marriage. And there's already a lot of prostitutes.
I do personally expect things to get worse before they get better.
Without @HereAndGone's snarkiness: why do so many of you salivate at the thought of women being forced to sexually service someone they don't want in order to eat? Yes, this was the norm in earlier ages. Those ages sucked a lot for almost everyone, given that the average person lived a precarious existence at best.
To desire a return to the sort of civilization in which you can get a woman because her survival literally depends on you does not seem to me like a normal, healthy thing to desire in a society with abundance enough that most people shouldn't have to consider starvation or enslavement a realistic possibility.
Even if this worked, would you not always be living with that gnawing awareness that she's only with you out of necessity? That you're literally just the next best thing to starvation?
It seems to me to not only be a spiteful and misogynistic attitude, but one utterly lacking in self respect.
The question is whether this level of abundance will remain sustainable on a level where average women are practically self-sufficient.
If they were practically self-sufficient, I think we would actually see more abundance, and that would be a very different and very interesting world. I think that world would have a high chance of dying out in a generation or two, but it might not, and that would very interesting.
The problem is that, even accounting for the fact that practically no one is truly self-sufficient in these times, women appear to be less self-sufficient than men, on average.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Consider it this way: when the Chinese government banned cram schools, one might think they were attacking a deeply beloved institution. People paid huge amounts of money to the cram schools, kids spent huge amounts of their time there. Surely they would be really upset at having them taken away?
But no, of course not. Everyone hated and resented the cram schools. They existed because of a specific set of incentives that were unchangeable from the inside, and that could only be changed by a large-scale coercion.
I can’t speak for the Dread Jim etc. because I don’t follow them, but IMO the point is that men and women more naturally form loving bonds when a) they are paired together, and b) their interests are broadly aligned.
Modern society has broken both of these conditions, in an attempt to solve the problems that arose in cases when the previous system went wrong. By allowing women to work in the same paying jobs as men, and by providing unconditional support, it deliberately ensured that women didn’t require a man to take care of herself. A noble goal to be sure, but the result is that the natural fear of opportunity costs, generalised fear and distrust of men, (and, yes, a certain hypergamous tendency) combine to ensure lots of women don’t end up paired. (The same dynamics apply on the male side to but I think to a lesser degree).
Likewise, we have worked hard to ensure that even when married, a woman’s interests are kept separate from her husband’s, in order to avoid genuinely nasty abuses that occurred under the previous system. Women now retain their property when married, they usually retain their jobs, and they can decouple with minimal difficulty. This means that even during marriage, a woman often has one eye on being ready for an exit and her own private interests often conflict with the interests of her husband and family.
IMO the goal is lots of loving, happy relationships. (With, yes, an inevitable long tail of grudging-but-functional relationships and some pretty nasty ones). This benefits a big fraction men very clearly, because the current system is straightforwardly inimical to them; it’s hard to say whether it benefits women because they will gain certain things and lose certain things and probably different groups of women will benefit. I would like to think that the averaged outcome for women would be better, but even if it is mildly negative, ultimately the end effect will be positive when averaged across the sexes.
I don't personally agree with passing whatever laws you think would be necessary to eject women from the workforce, but the principle behind it, that women are happier being married with children and that everyone would be happier if society aligned to encourage that instead of "independent women," is probably true. I object to coercion and restricting people's freedom, even freedom to make bad choices, so I am not going to subscribe to "We should make women do what's best for them" even if I really did believe it's what best for them and not motivated by self-interest. "Society would be better if people did X, therefore we will force X through legislation" is ironically the sort of authoritarian thinking communist governments try to implement to reorder society for the greater good.
This is a pretty autistic Motte-pilled take. "If we measure how much happier most men would be, and how much happier many women would be, we can calculate that the net increase in happiness X is greater than the decrease in happiness Y of the women who don't like this arrangement, therefore they can suck it up." Talk about your authoritarian central planning! But let's say it's true. Let's say we blithely handwave away your "long tail" of abuse and misery which was much of the motivation for the rise of the feminist movement in the first place.
Here is the part you're really missing:
The Dread Jims of the world (of whom there apparently many more than you might think, even in Western society) don't care about love and happiness. They care about themselves and sexual satisfaction, and removing the indignity of women being able to thwart them. I don't know what Jim's personal life is actually like, but having read enough of his essays, it's hard to believe he actually loves his wife or daughters, except maybe in the same sense you might love your dog. Some of them (like Jim) might talk in Biblical terms about God's intended role for men and women, but their motivation is much baser and cruder: they think women should be property. Literally. Unironically. Dread Jim wrote an essay about it. He isn't kidding and he isn't being metaphorical. Most of our blackpillers and incels aren't so explicit about it, but you can read it in their words. They aren't motivated by some philosophical notion of what's best for society. They're seething that women they want to have sex with can tell them no. Their goal is not "loving, happy relationships," because that implies that the happiness of women is important also, and they consider pleasing women to be a distraction at best, the source of all evils at worst. You are not cynical enough when reading the words they actually type.
You know the old feminist slogan "Feminism is the radical belief that women are human." It's rightly derided for its simplistic, bad-faith assumptions about those who criticize feminism ("What the hell do you mean, no one is saying women aren't human!") While I roll my eyes like most people when I actually see it on t-shirts in the wild, I am occasionally reminded, even here on the Motte, that there are in fact people who exemplify the mindset that slogan is reacting to. It is not surprising to me that, faced with men like this who make it clear that they see a woman as a collection of warm wet holes that unfortunately has vocal cords and a brain stem attached, some women react in an extreme and possibly self-destructive fashion. If you want to persuade women that they should "settle" for less than the unrealistic and absurdly high standards that supposedly they are all demanding nowadays, keep in mind you're not just telling them to settle for an average guy who'd be a good if unexceptional husband, you are (at least from the incel viewpoint) telling them they should settle for a man who viscerally hates them and will treat them like a fleshlight.
You can either say you don't care about that because society as a whole will be better off, or you can have some understanding for why this is a hard sell for anyone who does, um, think women are human.
More options
Context Copy link
The mistake is thinking that modern society broke men and women on a simple whim that could be reversed just as simply with a lil' bit of political will. In reality, we have had techno-economical changes that first uplifted many men and women from farming/peasantry to urban work, offshored a lot of labor that required raw physical strength to machinery, and interlinked industry in such a way that people no longer rely mostly on themselves and a few local craftsmen to produce all they need in life.
Meaning, the attempts to blindly RETVRN are not aligning the interests of men and women because regressing to the farmer economy is not really in most people's interest. Also, the men that are most interested in upending the status quo are, it seems, not really the kind of men who were capable of forming "grudging-but-functional relationships" before, let alone loving ones.
The way for west-of-Hajnal societies, I think, is nowhere but forward. Or, we can break down our factories, go back to villages and sit there waiting for the ever-dreaded Muslims, who have got a lot more experience in that kind of life, to overrun us.
Contra ergw and the rest, I do not believe most true incels are so productive that they must be appeased with government-issued wives or society collapses. It should be sufficient to let the incels have their AIfus, the femcels their serial killer LLMen, erect some basic fucking standards so that the eligible men don't poach the femcels too much and use technology to connect pair-bondable men to pair-bondable women for once. Instead of whatever it is the dating apps are doing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's a spiteful and misogynistic attitude, but the alternative you imply isn't good either -- that women get to eat through the efforts of men that they provide absolutely nothing for. His attitude is pro-rape; that alternative is slavery.
Are those truly the only two alternatives you can conceive of? You are literally incapable of envisioning, or observing, relationships between men and women that are not slavery?
That is indeed horrifying.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because the typical man disgusts the typical woman. The only way the average man gets laid on a regular basis if a woman is coerced into fucking him through some combination of physical force, legal authority, social pressure, religious indoctrination, and economic privation. The alternative is what we see now; masses of incels whose best chance at marriage is to wife up some post-wall roastie in her thirties, huge numbers of single mothers and childless cat ladies, legions of children traumatized by divorce, cratering birth rates driving us towards extinction, elites responding by importing infinite immigrants to replace the missing grandchildren.
The fact that the government steals at gunpoint from productive men to support women's """independence""" just adds insult to injury. The government taxes us to provide welfare to underclass women, uses the threat of lawsuits to force companies to hire middle-class women, and employs armies of men as cops and soldiers to physically defend all women. In other words, men are still providing money and protection for women, like we have always done, but now we do it collectively rather than individually, and get nothing out of it.
The message the political figure @faceh is talking about needs to deliver is simple: "We don't have to live like this. We don't. There is another way; a better way. But it starts with rejecting the zeroth commandment".
If the redpill view on women is correct, what's the alternative? You can accept being an incel and become a MGTOW, you can work towards a tradcon world where every productive man is rewarded with a wife, or you can try to become Chad and use PUA to pump and dump as many women as possible while enjoying the decline.
Still, it does fill one with existential dread. As AntiDem put it:
Since I was nine years old, I have known I never wanted to get married. And every time I revisit that and wonder "what would it have been like to get a partner/spouse?", some guy comes along with "women should be forced by the threat of actual starvation to marry me because that means I have the whip hand in that situation, and if you think that's a metaphor you aren't reading what I'm writing".
Thank God for spinsterhood, say I!
You should hear the cursing and swearing I'm doing right now. But okay, guys, let's cosplay Gor and force women into subordinate sexual service complete with leashes. Women can make themselves widows, and the rate of poisonings will go zooming upward. Be forced into a marriage, wait a little, disencumber yourself of the tyrant, and be a free widow. This worked in the Classical world and you want that back in the modern world?
We will see the return of veneration of St. Uncumber!
You want adultery and uncertain paternity to skyrocket? Because that's what you get when forcing women into unwanted marriage. Read the Canterbury Tales and all the jokes/stories about younger wives cuckolding their elderly, jealous husbands.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a big claim. Neither my anecdotal observation nor the data that I've seen supports it. According to this 2020 survey only 31% of US men are single. Now, out of the 69% of men who are not single, of course some fraction is partnered with women are either not having sex with them or are only having sex with them for reasons other than being attracted to them. I contend, based on anecdotal observation, that this fraction is not large. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you can put forward some data to support the claim.
However, no matter how large the fraction is, keep in mind that out of the US men who are single, there is also a fraction who would not be single if they lowered their standards.
More options
Context Copy link
You aren't citing redpill theory, which argues that we all act according to evolutionary imperatives to reproduce, which supposedly explains almost all male/female behavior. As reductive as it is, it does not posit that we are a loveless, hateful species unable to be happy with one another.
You are blackpilling. That's the "Females are hypergamous whores incapable of forming genuine emotional attachments to men because they hos" theory.
Indeed. If I believed your philosophy, I would see little reason to pursue a relationship at all.
If I were a woman in your world, I would expect death to be preferable to being forced to partner with men.
Now of course an outlook being bleak and nihilistic beyond words doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. But my empirical observation suggests you're wrong.
Certainly, you don't make a compelling case for any woman, or any man who doesn't absolutely despise women, to adopt your worldview and solutions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Golly gee, I wonder why those uppity females are not rushing out to marry men who think they should have the right to beat and rape them just like the Good Old Days when the choice was between economic destitution or making concessions regarding marriage.
This is why there was a whole thing about women having careers of their own, so there wouldn't be the risk of economic destitution. This kind of statement is one step away from "and in fact being enslaved was better for the slaves because owners were obliged to feed and shelter them".
You are not going to solve the problem of "why are men and women not getting on? why isn't marriage and children happening?" by telling one side "we want to force you into marriage with someone you would not choose and who can be abusive thereafter, because the alternative is indeed literal starvation and he knows you will be trapped".
Why the hell are you making it "being a whore is better for me than being a wife"? Don't we want women to choose to be wives and mothers, instead of "well if it's sex for meat, then at least let me not be tied to one provider"?
There's a peculiar tension in certain strains of gender-roles conservatism which simultaneously holds that motherhood is the highest and most virtuous calling to which a woman can aspire, and also that because women aren't directly engaged in productive labor that they deserve less (or no) say in decision making.
More options
Context Copy link
Serious question. Do you think concessions in a marriage are a bad thing?
No. I don't think there's such a thing as the romantic soulmate, the twin flame, or whatever other nonsense new term is floating around. There is no perfect Mr or Ms Right out there waiting for you. Settling is not a bad thing, and both of you need to work at the marriage to make it work. It's not going to be perfect bliss all the time, and probably yeah both of you will wonder about the other guy/gal you could have married at least sometime.
But that's not at all the same thing as "finally women, under the threat of starvation, will be forced to marry men they don't want or like". Men, too, can be forced into undesired marriages. I don't think forcing anyone is a good thing. And if you find out your spouse only married you as a meal ticket, what then? Do you demand they love you like the perfect romantic lover you dreamed of, in addition to being your coerced bondservant? People want to be valued for themselves. Being realistic about your chances and your options is not the same as being coldly calculating or dreaming of finally being able to force those haughty bitches who turned you down in high school to fawn on you for scraps.
To quote Tolkien from a letter to his son Michael in 1941:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Odd thing to say, when its becoming increasingly evident that married women are happier on average than unmarried ones. And that this has been true FOR a long time.
Oh, also side note. Single Women are more likely to be victimized by rape and homicide than ones in a commited relationship too. So if fear of violent men is a factor, you're making women WORSE off by discouraging marriage.
Maybe... just maybe... women have been lied to about the allegedly rapey, abusey, slavery-lite portrayal of marriage in the past?
Is it possible that this entire debate has been framed around an abject falsehood?
As we can see, the only evidence presented to rebut the idea that marriage is a good deal for women is a derisive dismissal of men as a gender as if the ONLY thing they can do to keep a woman is literally lock them up barefoot and pregnant, there's no POSSIBLE way they could entice them to stick around otherwise.
Of course. But that requires there to be an incentive to choose and pressure to make a choice and stick with it. Rather than the current zeitgeist of "take as long as you need, keep your standards as high as possible, there's no (social) penalty to remaining single, and if you don't get married don't worry the state will make sure you're basically comfortable anyway." In a world where all pressure to settle has been removed AND women are being told that marriage is a huge imposition on their freedom and happiness, "I wonder why those uppity females are not rushing out to marry men" when literally no person with authority anywhere is telling them to do so.
One thing I always find amusing is the conceit that women shouldn't have to depend on men...
But if they are now completely dependent on an uncaring corporate entity for their healthcare, housing, social life, and income, THAT is somehow the mark of 'independence.'
Explain to me how being tied down to a job with a (most likely male) boss who places constant demands on your time and labor but can also fire you at any time is AT ALL inherently better than being tied to an individual male that has at least publicly stated his own intentions to remain loyal to you up until death.
And of course a corporation can never give them kids.
Its actually an absurd sort of logic that women are safer and more comfortable in a corporate workplace than at home with children. Especially when female happiness has been on a constant decline for the last fifty years. They are not satisfied despite all changes in their favor, despite having 'better' jobs, fewer obligations, and fewer kids.
But hey.
I'm sure it will be fine.
Anyhow, this is just what I mean, bringing up men's issues and framing them in ANY way that might pose ANY inconvenience on women as part of the solution invites absolute antipathy. This is why women's issues are just easier to discuss seriously, since nobody loses their mind if you suggest imposing more costs on men to help out women.
Which is basically what we've been doing to an increasing degree for 50 straight years.
Married women are happy when they are treated as partners, not dogs on a leash.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Exploits it how, exactly? And what makes you think such a figure — with a minority of democratic support, and strong institutional opposition — wouldn't just end up shut out and shut down?
"To the disaffected, lonely men listening now, I promise I will stop the flow of tax dollars out of your pockets to programs that disproportionately benefit single mothers and childless girlbosses.
I will aggressively punish institutionalized discrimination against males at every level, and seek removal of any gender or other quotas that undermine meritocratic promotion or allow your salary to be undercut and your career derailed.
I will create large tax credit incentives for men who get married, hold down a job, and are raising children, and promote strong, male-led households where he can be the primary breadwinner without needing a second job or for the wife to work full time."
Or if you want a really simple one: "Men, I'm going to close off all non-skilled immigration except for attractive, fertile young women, and due to the looming crisis of declining birthrates we will issue emergency visas and expedited citizenship paths to any such women who get married and bear at least 2 kids."
Basically actually propose solutions, viable or not, that address the actual anxieties and misgivings that men have been expressing, and make them feel like they've got some investment in the movement.
Note that there is no real mainstream political figure, ANYWHERE, in ANY country that is able to make these sort of statements. Which has led to the current issue. Women's issues are central in the Overton Window, its impossible to even elevate male concerns to the point where they're discussed seriously.
By whom. They keep trying to do that to Andrew Tate, he still has a voice and following.
Charlie Kirk was talking about these sort of issues until he died.
Matt Walsh brings these issues up too and he's still got a large following.
The only option they'd have is arresting them and that'd probably not work out for them unless the person in question was actually trying to get seriously militant/violent.
And if this person is J.D. Vance, how the hell do you expect them to 'shut out' the sitting Vice President of the United States.
This is one I'm surprised I haven't seen mooted. Making it easier for passport bros to import wives seems like an easy stink bomb for the Trump admin to throw into the Democratic coalition, it would almost certainly cause them to chase their tails for months.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure there is; you need only look north. That won't get you into political power in that country for reasons that have a lot to do with geography, but at least the solvent half of the country will vote for you.
More options
Context Copy link
I would like to see that happen, but I'm dubious for a couple of reasons. First, we've set up our economies so that isn't really a runner, anymore. Unionised jobs which did provide good benefits and you could be the single breadwinner became corrupt and atrophied (see the fairly recent example of the longshoremen, for one). Industries collapsed during the 80s and the salvation was to outsource to cheaper labour and resources abroad, and to get more women into the workforce.
Second, a strong male-led household can be one where the man runs them into debt and other problems, or where the ostensible male head is weak and incapable. To work at its best, marriage should be a partnership. "This happens because I say so" can only work where "I say so" is reasonable and not "I've decided to take out loans, mortgage the house, and put all our savings into this sure thing a guy told me about, and if you don't like it, here's a black eye for you".
More options
Context Copy link
And when this program fails to get them enough votes, because the men who approve of such are outnumbered by the mix of:
Assuming, that is, that such a person is even allowed in the race to begin with.
Have you considered that maybe there's a reason for that? That, first, it might not play as well with voters as you think; and second, even if it could, that maybe the Establishment have tools at their disposal to ensure that any person who would make these sort of statements is totally prevented from ever becoming a "real mainstream political figure"?
The Cathedral/Deep State/Swamp. The Ruling Elites who actually decide everything, regardless of what the voters in the sham that is "democracy" think.
And is he running for office? How much electoral sway does that "following" have?
And where did it get him?
Same questions as Tate.
First, no, there are other options. Just do like in Europe and engage in "defensive democracy" — make sure both party establishments know not to let such a person ever get on the ballot. Second, I think arresting them would work just fine. First, because it'd be easy to develop any number of pretexts for doing so that the media can "sell" to enough of the public. Second, because what would it not "working out for them" even look like?
It almost certainly won't be.
In rough order of escalation? Get the GOP to nominate someone else instead. Defeat his campaign with lawfare a la Ted Stevens. Find a legal excuse to remove him from the ballot. Rig the election. Assassination by "lone gunman." Imprison or execute him after he's convicted in Nuremberg-style trials alongside the rest of the "Fascist Trump regime" as part of the start of the campaign to "denazify" America.
Democracy is fake, electoral politics is all kayfabe, the will of the electorate means nothing, us peasant masses are entirely powerless.
More options
Context Copy link
He didn't just die. He was murdered. So there is your answer.
Vance is married with a daughter. If he does it he'll stop when his daughter is old enough to understand.
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