site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26958 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

Serious question. Do you think concessions in a marriage are a bad thing?

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:

A man's dealings with women can be purely physical (they cannot really, of course: but I mean he can refuse to take other things into account, to the great damage of his soul (and body) and theirs); or 'friendly'; or he can be a 'lover' (engaging and blending all his affections and powers of mind and body in a complex emotion powerfully coloured and energized by 'sex'). This is a fallen world. The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall. The world has been 'going to the bad' all down the ages. The various social forms shift, and each new mode has its special dangers: but the 'hard spirit of concupiscence' has walked down every street, and sat leering in every house, since Adam fell. We will leave aside the 'immoral' results. These you desire not to be dragged into. To renunciation you have no call. 'Friendship' then? In this fallen world the 'friendship' that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This 'friendship' has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a 'friendship' quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by 'falling in love'. But a young man does not really (as a rule) want 'friendship', even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps. Allas! Allas! that ever love was sinne! as Chaucer says. Then if he is a Christian and is aware that there is such a thing as sin, he wants to know what to do about it.

There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes 'love' — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service', courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned 'his divinity' = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God's way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly 'theocentric'. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man's eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of 'true love', as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a 'love' that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).

...No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial. Too few are told that — even those brought up 'in the Church'. Those outside seem seldom to have heard it. When the glamour wears off, or merely works a bit thin, they think they have made a mistake, and that the real soul-mate is still to find. The real soul-mate too often proves to be the next sexually attractive person that comes along. Someone whom they might indeed very profitably have married, if only —. Hence divorce, to provide the 'if only'. And of course they are as a rule quite right: they did make a mistake. Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably to have married! Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might have found more suitable mates. But the 'real soul-mate' is the one you are actually married to. You really do very little choosing: life and circumstance do most of it (though if there is a God these must be His instruments, or His appearances). It is notorious that in fact happy marriages are more common where the 'choosing' by the young persons is even more limited, by parental or family authority, as long as there is a social ethic of plain unromantic responsibility and conjugal fidelity. But even in countries where the romantic tradition has so far affected social arrangements as to make people believe that the choosing of a mate is solely the concern of the young, only the rarest good fortune brings together the man and woman who are really as it were 'destined' for one another, and capable of a very great and splendid love. The idea still dazzles us, catches us by the throat: poems and stories in multitudes have been written on the theme, more, probably, than the total of such loves in real life (yet the greatest of these tales do not tell of the happy marriage of such great lovers, but of their tragic separation; as if even in this sphere the truly great and splendid in this fallen world is more nearly achieved by 'failure' and suffering). In such great inevitable love, often love at first sight, we catch a vision, I suppose, of marriage as it should have been in an unfallen world. In this fallen world we have as our only guides, prudence, wisdom (rare in youth, too late in age), a clean heart, and fidelity of will

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.

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.

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"?

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.

There's some interesting research showing that Lesbian marriages are more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual ones, and male-male marriages divorce less often.

I dunno, if women are even less able to sustain a relationship if their partner is a woman, it indicates that they're not very good at being a 'partner' at all.

And its still very odd gotten less satisified with life even as they have more rights than before

I suggest you're missing some critical factor.

And no this isn't a calling for women to be reduced to chattel. My whole perspective is that the spouses differing roles are complementary, but across the board the male will tend to be the one best-equipped to make decisions for the family as a whole.

Its pointing out that your thesis isn't very explanatory of why women are LESS happy despite MORE concessions than ever, and why women who DO find men to lead them tend to be less neurotic and more happy.

This doesn't necessarily determine how EVERY marriage should be run, of course.

My whole perspective is that the spouses differing roles are complementary

Three sentences earlier:

if women are even less able to sustain a relationship if their partner is a woman, it indicates that they're not very good at being a 'partner' at all.

The perspective explicit in this statement, and implicit in most other trad apologia, is not "men are good at some things and women are good at other things, so they should both stick to what they're good at", but rather "women are bad at everything other than their biological prerogative, so they ought to stay in their lane while the men handle everything else of import". Through this lens, women are "complementary" to men only insofar as the servant complements his master. Although modern trads are always quick to assure us that they mean no such thing, learned men of ancient times understood this:

There are three attributes for which I am grateful to Fortune: that I was born, first, human and not animal; second, man and not woman; and third, Greek and not barbarian.

Edit: I haven't ever seen this point made, but classical liberalism is a statement of value-finder supremacy. This is distinct from communism and fascism, which are worker-supremacy movements (when workers are in oversupply or undersupply, respectively), and monarchism/oligarchy, which are goal-setter/manager-supremacy movements.

This is why classical liberal societies (and those inspired by them) all converged on this viewpoint.

Through this lens, women are "complementary" to men only insofar as the servant complements his master.

Sure, but the excuse made to constantly assert this is that X designates servant, and further, used as an excuse to be lazy about/completely ignore that's a deadweight loss if a master X (or a servant not-X re: Peter Principle) exists.

This is why societies that are sufficiently mercantile tend to be the freest ones, since the base condition of what allows them to be so mercantile is a deficit of laborers to produce whatever it is they sell. They're more concerned about exercising and expressing natural talents because encouraging more of that makes the society more productive, rather than a dirt-poor society where that would be a net-negative due to lack of resources or market.

(Also, if you're a Christian society there tends to be an associated meme of actively checking for overlooked potential for what ultimately comes down to... better service. The US is obsessed with underdogs partially for this reason.)

"women are bad at everything other than their biological prerogative, so they ought to stay in their lane while the men handle everything else of import"

to the trads: they already know that, stop rubbing it in, that's only making it worse

And its still very odd gotten less satisified with life even as they have more rights than before

This is a reality that I think any honest feminist has to deal with. Is feminism about freedom for women, or is it about a better life for women, as measured by their own personal satisfaction? It would be an incredibly convenient world if prioritizing the former led to the latter, but the evidence seems quite clear that it is not the case and, in fact, there's strong reason to believe that it leads to the opposite of the latter.

And, as a feminist, I find it very easy to square: feminism should prioritize freedom (to equalize it between the sexes) over life satisfaction, and the costs to the women whose lives are now less satisfying due to feminism (but more free) is worth it for the benefit to the women whose lives are both more satisfying and more free. I just wish more feminists would openly and honestly acknowledge and state as such, that there will be tradeoffs, because there always are, and that some people deserve to suffer not because they're morally or ethically bad or whatever, but merely because they lack the wisdom/intelligence/etc. to make choices that lead to better outcomes for themselves when given the freedom to do so, compared to the alternative where they were not given the freedom.

This, of course, applies not just to feminism but more broadly to most/all liberalizing/libertarian ideologies. And the same criticisms as above apply just as well to those.

One still has to grapple with the fact that the women who are now less satisfied with their lives, and having less children, and voting for policies that tend to disrupt productive economic activity in favor of redistribution.

So they are ultimately selecting against the continued maintenance of an advanced civilization.

And advanced civilization appears to be a prerequisite for women having anything resembling equality with men.

If that's the case, then its simply not a sustainable equilibrium, and the ultimate collapse is going to be way worse for future women's interests.

Sure, but feminists generally square this circle by going

because there always are, and that some people deserve to suffer not because they're morally or ethically bad or whatever, but merely because they lack the wisdom/intelligence/etc. to make choices that lead to better outcomes for themselves when given the freedom to do so, compared to the alternative where they were not given the freedom are men

and note that this is the same as

because there always are, and that some people deserve to suffer not because they're morally or ethically bad or whatever, but merely because they lack the wisdom/intelligence/etc. to make choices that lead to better outcomes for themselves when given the freedom to do so, compared to the alternative where they were not given the freedom are black

and the way this is legitimized to a people who otherwise aren't just cartoon-villain evil is with varying other justifications that center around how being X is the best proxy for "lacking the wisdom/intelligence/etc. to make choices that lead to better outcomes". This usually takes the form of some scientific justification (melanin, testosterone, brain development, etc.). It generally works quite well for people of not-X, and the moral hazard for continuing that state of affairs leans in their direction.

By contrast,

because there always are, and that some people deserve to suffer not because they're morally or ethically bad or whatever, but merely because they lack the wisdom/intelligence/etc. to make choices that lead to better outcomes for themselves when given the freedom to do so, compared to the alternative where they were not given the freedom

is the liberal view, and liberals who still call themselves feminists are pointing at a legacy where this was at one point true for their group (or are low-information enough to believe it's still a problem especially thanks to those who work to generate the above justifications), but because they're just better than average human beings, their tendency to be sympathetic to those who claim to be on the low side of that moral hazard until they are crushed to death by a literal army of concern trolls.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats