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 -
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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".
I simply suggest this is not a common scenario, at least not in the relatively recent past.
And even if it were, it would require a strong male-lad society to police and punish such actors anyway. There's no scenario where "women can veto any given decision and husband has no authority to limit her" leads to overall superior outcomes.
The current experiment where women are allowed almost unfettered decision-making within a marriage hasn't really worked better for anyone, by most accounts.
I think "we live in a globalized world and everyone is aggressively sorted according to their skills and IQ" covers a lot of the issue.
If you're a low-productivity worker, then you're competing against cheap labor from around the globe. If you're a high-skill, high productivity worker you can still do well, but you have to go where the opportunities are. And then you'll be most likely locked into a high-stakes, high competitiveness industry with little margin for error and high demands on your time and performance. Which you will be compensated for, but which can he lost in short order if you screw up.
NOBODY seems to have a viable plan to 'ensure' the creation of stable, high-paying jobs which don't demand endless hours of work and/or take a massive toll on one's health.
But there's a LOT we could be doing to make it easier to create more jobs in the U.S. and lower the overall cost of living.
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