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 -
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.
Sure, maybe we can start by reverting the nudge theory that is now hugely in favor of women. Remove women as a protected class, there is no need for it. This could right away lead to many egalitarian policies, including things like equalizing payments for things like healthcare consumption, social security consumption and other things that they accrue by virtue of having more cushy jobs and living longer. We can push for real equality in terms of judicial decisions especially in family courts that hugely favor women and many more.
Just by doing that, you can incentivize more healthy dynamics between sexes when both of them can more appreciate what each does for another. There are some experiments already - e.g. since 2018 when Kentucky equalized child custody after divorce to 50/50, the divorce rate fell above the norm. I'd predict that the overall impact of all these policies would be quite dramatic.
More options
Context Copy link
Certainly, but it's also the thinking of anyone who writes legislation! I don't know you very well, but I don't think you are the kind of full-fat libertarian who thinks that all regulation should be repealed, that we should remove all central attempts at law-enforcement and go back to privately-leased thief-takers and bounty hunters, etc. etc. Assuming that you aren't, the next obvious question is, 'when and to what degree should we force X through legislation, and when should we refrain?'. My previous reply was an attempt to argue that for the last 70 years or so we have been too liberal in the area of 'relationships between men and women' and 'female employment', that the results have been bad on net, and we need to roll that back somewhat.
Well, there's a reason I'm writing here and not in a byline for the Times. But more seriously, this is simply a reversal of the argument from feminism for the last 70 years. That argument being that 'men have had a good run of it for centuries, and they now need to take a hit to vastly increase the happiness of women'. You may well be a principled libertarian who objects to this particular argument equally whether it comes from women or from men, but it is clearly not a moral bridge too far for many people.
I have two responses to this, neither of which will probably satisfy you:
The first is that I do not think we should aim for a 100% marriage rate. Some men (and some women) are simply so toxic that people will not marry them even under pressure, and that's okay. Good, even. Similarly there are people who simply can't be in a relationship for various reasons. I want to give the curve a firm shove back to times of much higher marriage rates, not to ensure that even the most spittle-flecked violent maniac gets a government-mandated girlfriend. But yes, there will still be sad cases. There are sad cases today too - we have domestic murders, abuse, and deeply vile things perpetrated up and down the land - but they are likely to increase somewhat under this system. And it is indeed a hard, even an impossible sell in a modern democratic society operating under today's social mores. I write these things for my own satisfaction and to clarify my thoughts, not as an act of political activism.
The second is that we are now in the realm of competing intuitions, axioms and viewpoints:
In practice, I suspect that your informal definition of misogyny is much more extensive, very broadly along the lines of 'sees men as being rational enlightenment agents who have high moral worth and deserve respect and high levels of liberty, and treat women with some combination of having reduced rationality, reduced moral worth (depending on the tradition) and believes that they should be constrained i.e. not granted liberties to the same degree'. Would I be right in saying so?
If so, I think you are then vastly inflating the number of misogynists and unintentionally hopping between the motte and the bailey by using the latter set of beliefs as dogwhistles for the former. I'm sure that's true sometimes, but I think it's also very untrue sometimes, and you can tell because it basically condemns all humanity prior to 1900, plus the Amish, many Mormons, etc. etc. all of which clearly contained men who valued and loved their wives for more than being a warm orifice. It's always dangerous to make assumptions about other people's POV but assuming I'm correct, I believe this is a place where your beliefs aren't quite cleaving the joints of reality correctly, though of course that doesn't mean you have to approve of either.
I am not a libertarian.
Well, I agree that in some cases that was effect (if not the intent) of legislation. No one thinks "I will stamp out visible tragedies affecting a small fraction of people at the expense of long-term happiness." The problem with all legislation is that even the best-intentioned legislators do not have a crystal ball or the ability to foresee all second and third-order effects.
So if you want to argue "Feminism was bad for society and we should repeal feminism," uh... I kind of agree with the first statement (for some value of "feminism") but I do not see how you achieve the second (given that "repeal feminism" tends to mean "repeal the entire concept of female emancipation writ large") without winding up at "Women are property." If you want to argue for that explicitly, I guess I can hear you out, but you are right that my moral intuitions are against it.
I dunno how you failed to see it in that essay, but have a look at some of his other essays. I'm sure Jim himself (and indeed, almost no one but the most psychotic incels) will actually own up to literally believing "I do not care if women suffer, they should be treated like the livestock they are." But I absolutely do believe that is Jim's conviction, and that the words of some people here have come about as close as they felt they dared to expressing that. And here is mild compared to some other corners of the Internet.
Are those men a small minority of the (Western) population? Yes. (At least, I certainly hope so and have to believe so to preserve what little faith in humanity I have remaining.) But they are a non-neglible portion of the vocally online and advocates for "social change for the betterment of the whole," and they are a substantial contingent of the sad incel constituency the less, er, explicit sex warriors are arguing we need to appeal to.
You're incorrect. My definition of misogyny is not quite as narrow as yours, but I reserve the label for men who genuinely dislike (if not hate) women and don't believe women's concerns or preferences should register at all. A tradcon who thinks women are less rational and have less agency than men and should stay at home and raise children is not necessarily a "misogynist" in my view. (Maybe sexist, though I actually have no problem with that kind of relationship- I only have a problem with a woman who doesn't want that kind of relationship being forced into it.) No, I do not think everyone who lived prior to 1900 was a woman-hating misogynist just because almost all of them had a "traditional" view of women.
I see, thanks. I apologise for misjudging your convictions in various areas. I don't think I have that much to say as a follow-up right now, beyond a few points:
Broadly, I agree with you, with the caveat that I don't think the mores and customs of the pre-1900s West or the Mormons/Amish/Harethi are as bad as 'women are property'.
I also agree with you here, which is why I would ideally like us to take a gradualist approach to this kind of thing, starting off with:
and going from there. I don't think that this is actually politically possible - even such relatively minor measures would only become possible if mores have shifted so far that those changes are the first movements of a giant landslide. It seems to be the nature of human society and democratic politics in particular to careen rather than adjust, and I think we will end up at the bottom of the slope no matter what. Not much to be done about that IMO.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
I'm skeptical as to the true extent that so-called femcels even exist in modern society but this is by definition impossible.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it can happen at all, not when half of voters would take the initial hit and have been heavily propagandised against, and a good chunk of the other half would prefer to please them. I just think that it probably should. Maybe things will change as the demographic pyramid changes, but frankly I don't think anything will happen until we have a collapse of some sort and probably not then either.
Moreover, I am not advocating for RETVRN to medieval peasant life or turning off the factories. I agree with @TheNybbler that a lot of white-collar female jobs are really direct or indirect government sinecures; beyond that we have a huge legal and social apparatus dedicated to making it almost impossible to be a large company that doesn't hire a large %age of women, and there is no technical reason why that can't be reversed to apply pressure in the opposite direction.
I don't think you and I are talking about the same people. I work in tech and a big chunk of my colleagues (as well as myself) are intelligent, productive, reasonably well-socialized... and can't get a date. I think @Goodguy gave the number of about a third of men being out of a relationship and AFAIK that skews high-IQ and high-conscientousness. 'Literally every single man' is too much of an ask, but if we can get the marriage rates up to 90% or so like they used to be, that would do it for me.
I don't think this works, for the reasons I gave. It might help but the problem is that pair-bondable people don't have the external pressure to actually break through their fears and actually pair-bond, or to bond on a long-term basis once married. I went to a pair-bonding event recently and it seemed to me that even the girls who had nominally come there to pair-bond were deeply ambivalent about actually doing so. That's the problem.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Those relationships exist, but they generally are outside the legal system.
More options
Context Copy link
Everything discussed tends to boil down to one or the other, and becoming horrified over noticing that doesn't change it.
In particular, when you say we're a society with abundance enough that most people shouldn't have to consider starvation a realistic possibility, you're glossing over the fact that that abundance is still being provided by people. And to provide for those who cannot or will not provide for themselves requires taking from those who can. So male incels have to work to pay the taxes for e.g. the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. That you find that normal and just and proper, they clearly find horrifying themselves.
Allow me to express my skepticism that these miserable "incels" whining that they are incapable of attracting a woman without compulsion are in fact the productive members of society suffering for the benefit of others.
You also, as per usual, make unfounded assumptions about what I find normal and proper and would actually agree to, given a choice.
Be that as it may, let's say we agree to cut every form of charity and allow non producers to starve. That still doesn't put every female under your boot, especially not the desirable ones. They'll still mostly have jobs. So you need to go well beyond cutting off benefits for non producers.
The black pillers and Dread Jim fanboys do not have some clear eyed view of sexual relations and how civilization is supposed to work. Dread Jim doesn't even get Islamic society right when he's ranting about it, and they are about the closest to implementing his ideals in the modern world.
Yes, I am in fact horrified to notice some people are unironically endorsing rape and enslavement. Libertarian cavils about welfare notwithstanding.
Actually, horrified is too strong a word. It suggests I still have the capacity to be morally offended and shocked. I've known for quite a while there are people this base. I'm just disappointed at all the masks coming off as we gyre.
Ah, Just Worlding rears its ugly head. Apparently no one could actually be economically productive and still suffer from lackanooky.
But not horrified to notice that you are endorsing enslavement, because you refuse to notice.
You're getting increasingly lazy in your argumentation. It's not "Just worlding" to notice the correlation between NEET gooners and incels. Is every single incel a non producer? No, but the flattering cope that by and large they are producers unfairly providing for whores who won't give them nooky doesn't correlate to any honest observation.
As for enslavement, what I notice is that you have reduced the argument to "Failure to enslave and rape women means enslavement of men." I'm not sure that is the position you intended to back into. I'm also not sure it's not. But it's certainly a Kulak-based take. Fascinating.
Let's say you're right and I'm failing to be horrified by enslavement of men because I don't notice it. (I reject your flawed logic, but let's suppose it holds, for the sake of argumen.) Are you claiming that believing women should be enslaved and raped is more moral because you admit noticing that's what you're endorsing?
If not every single incel is a non producer, then this argument applies to at least one incel, and dismissing it with "skepticism" is indeed just-worlding.
Certainly I have not reduced it to that. You can just not enslave the men. In fact, even if you enslave some women you haven't stopped enslaving the men.
Have you seen the meme that goes:
Man: "The average women is 5'4." Woman: "But I'm 5'8" though."
You're doing the meme.
Great, we both agree you shouldn't enslave people. Why did it take you so long to get there?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Jobs doing what, exactly?
Taking this scenario at face value, there are exactly zero NGO jobs. There are dramatically fewer government jobs, at all levels. If you allow for private, voluntary, charity in your scenario, that would save some of the NGO sector but it would certainly be drastically reduced.
I’ll call private sector marketing and PR type jobs a wash, because the drop in consumption from the absence of government charity might be counterbalanced by the increase in people’s take home pay.
I would argue that government charity is the only thing that makes HR jobs viable, but because it exists as a result of legislation that is not technically charity in a monetary sense, the HR ladies are saved.
Big, big cuts in the education world, because all the government education grants are gone. Most of these job losses will have to fall on the admin side of education, because as bad as teachers can be, they are still actually the ones providing the service.
Healthcare takes a hit, as fewer people go to the doctor in the absence of massive federal subsidies. Again, this mostly hits the admin, so doctor and nurse jobs are probably mostly safe.
There are no more corporate or farm subsidies, so everybody in those sectors has to get real lean and mean and actually identify their chaff, in the style of Musk taking over Twitter. Again, this is mostly going to fall on admin type jobs, not the wrench turning ones. And while I’ve met many tough as nails cowgirls out here in the Intermountain West, I’ve met four times as many tough as nails cowboys.
There’s a reason HR is something like 80% women and plumbing is 96% dudes, despite master plumbers making more money than HR managers, on average. Plumbing is actually hard work and women, even accounting for tough as nails cowgirls, mostly don’t want to do that.
Basically, in this scenario, are you predicting some sort of exodus of women from laptop jobs to Rosie the Riveter work? Because the only reason that worked the first time is that there was a dramatically reduced number of men available to do that work. You might notice that women have not staged a massive takeover of the factory floors in the intervening years, despite being given every opportunity. Even in software and data and AI, classic sit at a desk jobs, they are huge minorities!
In the absence of the current situation of massive (forced) government charity, there would be far, far fewer jobs that women would view as acceptable and high status enough to be worth doing. I think they would find other, similar things to occupy their time. For example, remote entrepreneurship, possibly. Women have been doing “Work from Home” since Eve.
Anyway, I am confident that this scenario, as you have presented it, would be both a better world to live in and also not a world where women are constantly being beaten and raped while barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
I, for one, think the evidence is that they would in fact be happier.
There is a lot of female-coded service work that is either not being done, or being done in the middle of the night by resentful women who also work a full-time job in the productive economy, because the market-clearing price for it is too high for the middle class to afford (either directly or via a service-sector business). If you solve for the equilibrium where a lot of female-coded bullshit jobs disappear and middle-class married couple households are significantly richer, there would be a lot more nannies, housekeepers, personal assistants, waitresses, receptionists etc. than there are now. They would also be better off (due to lower personal taxes) unless they were single mothers.
That society is one in which middle-class women who are still mostly getting married eventually and staying married may feel more pressure to marry rather than girlbossing as a spinster, but the working-class women who are currently driving the decline of marriage won't feel any more pressure to marry a schlub in preference to waiting tables.
More options
Context Copy link
That's not the scenario the "Make women property again" fanboys are advocating.
I think there are problems with your economic assumption that basically our entire infrastructure is running on top of welfare and without it there will be almost zero female employment (this was, in fact, not the case in previous centuries), but you seem to ignore the quiet part being said out loud. They don't want women being happy and married. Reread some of those posts again. They literally consider all women to be hypergamous whores whose toxic sexual impulses can only be constrained with force or threat of starvation. This isn't 'convince women they'd be happier in more traditional roles." It's not even "Kinder, kuche, kirche." It's unironic hatred.
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
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.
Arranged marriage satisfaction rates are generally higher than love match. Whilst the 'clubbing over the head and off into the sack' model of courtship tends to produce misery, I think this kind of reaction vastly understates the human ability to just kinda roll with things once a new reality has been imposed.
You can roll with it once the guy is in the same boat and you both have to make the best of it and can rub along in a friendly manner.
But I'm old enough that I remember, for instance, episodes of a late night (late night for Ireland back then) chat show talking about the children's allowance being paid without being means tested, and this being defended as a way to give married women money when their husbands (middle class as well as the dregs of society) would absolutely refuse to give them any money for housekeeping. Even respectable middle-class married women, so it was accepted, could be living lives of abuse and neglect due to abusive husbands.
The days of "yeah I can beat you and nobody will interfere because that's a domestic dispute, yeah I can control the purse strings and you have no options outside the home" are within living memory for some of us.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
I beg you to look at the actual stats broken out by age and notice that your own source says 41% of 18-29 year old men are single.
And that was 2020.
More recent stats suggest Its around 6-in-10 young men now.
Combine that with a rise in sexlessness.
So they're not even hooking up as much!
And there's also good data to suggest that its more women deciding not to settle than men's standards being too high.
Which is to say, pressuring men to settle won't help much.
I'm just pointing out that I don't think erwgv3g34's statement is accurate. He did not specify anything about an age group when he claimed that the typical man disgusts the typical woman, etc.
Also, I'm not pressuring men to settle. I myself, for better or for worse, do not settle in this regard.
Is there a problem here for many men? Sure. But I don't think it's nearly as extreme as erwgv3g34 thinks it is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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