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 -
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
Sure, but feminists generally square this circle by going
and note that this is the same as
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,
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.
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