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.

I should therefore quote Dr. Smith on the bad effects of too much education on men. Yes, it's bad for men too, it's just that it's worse for women.

Everyone on here telling me that he makes good points about the nature of women and decline of population even if it is couched in out-dated terms should be happy to find out how being educated has harmed them, right?

The Catholic church has, for many centuries, realized the importance of marriage and maternity in the upbuilding and strengthening of religious life in the community; and if the Protestant churches are not to be emptied of their male attendance, the protestant clergy must speak out in no uncertain tone against the present methods of education, which are turning out women by the thousands, with requirements so varied and so great that no young man can afford to marry them; a step, moreover, which he is deterred from taking by the discouraging report of those of his friends who have ventured to marry the women of their own class, and who have advised them, in the words of Punch : ' To those about to marry, don't.' Whether a man should marry or not is too often spoken of lightly and as a joke. But to those who believe in the immortality of the soul, and that the whole world avails nothing to a man if he loses it, the possibility of early and happy marriages becomes a question of the vastest importance and one which students of sociology, and the fathers of the nation should study with the most intense anxiety and care.

...The profession of teaching was once exclusively in the hands of the men, and it can not be denied that they have achieved some great results. But as education rendered an ever-increasing number of women unsuited for marriage, that is, unwilling to marry the available men, they invaded the schoolmaster's rank to such an extent that his salary has been cut down one half, and now he is unable to marry at all. Two well-known consequences have followed this state of affairs; first it is impossible to get men in sufficient numbers to become teachers for the boys' schools; and secondly, even big boys being taught by women, the effeminization of our men is gradually taking place. Although there are some instances of a mother alone having formed her son into a manly man, yet as a rule the boys require the example of a man's character to make them manly men. This subject has recently been dealt with in several elaborate papers by well-known educationalists, to whom it appears to be a real danger to the coming generation.

...What about the men? If the higher education prevents the women from being good wives and mothers, will it not prevent the men from being good husbands and fathers? To some extent it does, and in so far it is a misfortune, but to a much less extent than among women, for the simple reason that the man contributes so little towards the new being; while, on the other hand, high intellectual training enables him to win in the struggle for existence much better than if he were possessed of mere brute force. But nature punishes the man who has all the natural instinct cultivated out of him, just as it does the woman, namely, by the extinction of his race. For the struggle for existence among the highly educated men has become so keen, because there are so many of them, that great numbers of them are unable to earn a living even for themselves; while the supporting of a highly educated woman, with her thousand and one requirements, is simply out of the question. A president of a great company recently informed the writer that he had, in one month, applications from eighty-seven university graduates for a position equivalent to that of an office boy at fifteen dollars a month while out of one hundred millionaires, at least ninety-five of them are known not to have been highly educated; but, on the contrary, to have left school between fourteen and sixteen years of age. So there is such a thing as learning too much, without knowing how to do anything. Just as athletes may be overtrained, so men may be overeducated.

This great question has received the attention of one of the brightest men of our age — no less than the chief magistrate of the United States; while quite recently, in the British House of Lords, the Eight Reverend Dr. Boyd-Carpenter, Bishop of Ripon, from his seat in that august assemblage, has called attention to the lateness of the age for marriage and the diminishing birth-rate, foreseeing, no doubt, that these two factors would soon be followed by the emptying of the churches and the lowering of the high standard of British morals and character. The writer feels certain that, before long, this subject will receive the attention which it deserves from those who love their country and have the forming of its destiny in their hands. If he succeeds, by this or any other means, in drawing their attention to it, he will have fulfilled the object of his paper.

So gentlemen, the solution for the problem means:

(1) You should all convert to Catholicism
(2) You, too, should marry early for the salvation of your soul
(3) You should engender a large family (six to eight children)
(4) You should not let your sons be educated by female teachers as already in 1905 the rising generation of boys are all effeminate limp-wristed mama's boys
(5) You should not be over-educated, nor should you let your sons be over-educated. Avoid university if at all possible. Manual semi- and skilled work, or office work in business as future self-made millionaires, is the goal here for success in life. You know all you need to know by fourteen, now go out there and work!
(6) Marry early to young, ignorant, slightly stupid, possibly lower in social status than you, women who will be totally dependent on you for provision during wifehood, motherhood, and possibly widowhood and who will not have any views, opinions, tastes, or interests higher than maintaining her home and family. Presumably you seek out other men for stimulation of the intellect or just a conversation that is not about babies and furniture?

Everyone on here telling me that he makes good points about the nature of women and decline of population even if it is couched in out-dated terms should be happy to find out how being educated has harmed them, right?

You're right. The idea more education makes men and women miserable is poppycock, which is why South Korea was rewarded with making its young mens' entire lives revolve around entrance exams with the lowest suicide rate in the world!

What do you think you're accomplishing here? Yes the bureaucratization of everything, especially education, has hurt men. In this house we believe the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Is it inconceivable to you that someone might think this?

(1) You should all convert to Catholicism (2) You, too, should marry early for the salvation of your soul (3) You should engender a large family (six to eight children) (4) You should not let your sons be educated by female teachers as already in 1905 the rising generation of boys are all effeminate limp-wristed mama's boys (5) You should not be over-educated, nor should you let your sons be over-educated. Avoid university if at all possible. Manual semi- and skilled work, or office work in business as future self-made millionaires, is the goal here for success in life. You know all you need to know by fourteen, now go out there and work! (6) Marry early to young, ignorant, slightly stupid, possibly lower in social status than you, women who will be totally dependent on you for provision during wifehood, motherhood, and possibly widowhood and who will not have any views, opinions, tastes, or interests higher than maintaining her home and family. Presumably you seek out other men for stimulation of the intellect or just a conversation that is not about babies and furniture?

Co-signed for points 1, 2, 3 without seeing any need for defense or explanation. As for 4, yes, the negative psychological effects of raising boys as if they were defective girls under female direction were already showing by 1905. Girls should not be educated by men who expect them to behave as boys, either.

On point 6, of course, we are in complete agreement. I would kill myself in despair if I were not able to marry a modern Virago who was wisely taught to despise and be suspicious of me as a threat for my male-ness, to expect everything from me and give nothing, not even fidelity until death do us part, in return, and to loudly point and splutter if I suggested she or any woman were less than perfect.

But see, here's the thing. The guys here are not marrying young highschool women in order to have her be a stay-at-home mom of six kids. They too want freedom, a career, and as much fun as possible before they settle down. So sauce, gander, goose.

They too want freedom, a career, and as much fun as possible before they settle down.

In all seriousness, I think this is where you are going wrong. A lot of young men, especially here which skews conservative, were totally ready to start settling down young (or at least a year or two after university when they had an income) and raising a family. There’s a reason several people were yeschadding your post about young men being over educated, and I say this having done a PhD.

Painting with a broad brush, the problem from my perspective is that we were prepared to be lovers and providers, and the other side never turned up. Indeed, they seemed to flock in droves to the young men who openly disdained responsibility and family while those men were busy getting as broke and high and sexed as humanly possible.

I am ready to believe that this is a mutual illusion arising from young women disproportionately meeting the fuck-around men and not seeing the quiet ones who worked hard, and likewise young men nmeeting the girls who came to parties and not the quiet ones. I don’t say that it’s true, but it’s possible.

But this is how things looked on the other side of the screen.

totally ready to start settling down young (or at least a year or two after university when they had an income) and raising a family

Really? 25 year old men wanting to take on a wife and kid? Not impossible, but funnily enough in the context, I was reading a ghost story from the 1930s or so and in it the narrator describes how he doesn't want an early marriage - this is a man in his late 30s established in his career and with enough money to support a stay-at-home wife (no other sort for the middle-to-upper classes back then) and children.

So the attitude of putting off marriage was indeed prevalent among the educated classes back then, but it wasn't solely over-educated women spurning men of their own class.

Sure, that’s always been there too. There have always been lots of bachelors and playboys, especially amongst the upper classes. The working-class boys at the university were much more of the ‘get as much clunge as possible’ mindset which ironically probably put them in a better position to date and marry later on.

So many who wanted to play around. But also a good number who didn’t. For myself in my ideal life plan I wanted to meet a nice girl at university, move in together a year later, spend a couple of years getting to n ie each other and then marry and have children around say 26 years old.

Of course, if I had been popular with the ladies perhaps I would have got a big head and started fucking around. No way to say.

You couldn't be more wrong. I am struggling through post-graduate education to become qualified to be a provider for my future wife because I am aware I am repulsive to women without higher status and more money than them. My dating life has been an unbroken succession of disappointments because none of the women I've dated were comfortable with waiting for marriage to have sex - they wanted to fool around, and I did not. (Every relationship was one I went into intending to marry the girl if she was willing, BTW)

Feminism has liberated all the women around me of all expectations upon themselves, but men like me still struggle with all the pre-feminist expectations for men to be manly male providers, but taken away anything we might get in return. So what's good for the goose is only being given to the goose. This gander would love some, but isn't getting it.

My dating life has been an unbroken succession of disappointments because none of the women I've dated were comfortable with waiting for marriage to have sex - they wanted to fool around, and I did not.

Honest question: have you considered giving in on this point? If you'd potentially want to start a family with any woman you're dating, you must be reconciled to the idea of having sex with her at some point even if you genuinely lack the drive/desire. If it's a religious objection then, well, I'd have to know your religion, and you'd do better to talk to a priest; but AFAIK consummating a future marriage early doesn't tend to be looked on very harshly by mainstream Christian denominations even if it's not the ideal.

Of course, if you suspect that the women wouldn't have stuck around all the way to the altar either way, that's a different question. But taking your words at faith value, if your reluctance to have sex with potential fiancées is all that's keeping them away, I think you might be self-sabotaging your marital prospects here.

(And by the way, I'd also question your self-perception as "repulsive to women" if you can't be "a provider". Surely all the women you've dated wanting to have casual sex with you, and getting turned off when you confess you'd rather tie the knot first, clashes with the idea that no women find you physically attractive and your only hope of attracting a mate would be one who's after your bank account?)

Honest question: have you considered giving in on this point? If you'd potentially want to start a family with any woman you're dating, you must be reconciled to the idea of having sex with her at some point even if you genuinely lack the drive/desire.

Took me until I was 28, and my wife was a virgin as well, but waiting until marriage for sex is absolutely achievable. Based on his other comments in this thread I assume @Garfielf is Catholic, and I think his efforts to stay chaste (and to expect the same of his partners) is a laudable goal that shouldn't be abandoned just because it's easier.

Also it's definitely not a lack of desire for most ;)

Could you try actually, y'know, making an argument? Instead of just blasting "Here's what some guy said a century ago, agree or disagree?!?!"

I'm going to assume you disagree with the author here. Please explain why you disagree, that's about the bare minimum we ask for here. Sources and evidence are usually a nice add, but I'm hoping we could at least get the bare minimum from you so let's hold off on that for now

I'm confused. Which part of this am I supposed to disagree with? Everything written is reasonable and might even be true. It's certainly unfashionable and outdated, but neither of those things mean false.

The most clueless piece of what you quoted was at the end:

The writer feels certain that, before long, this subject will receive the attention which it deserves from those who love their country and have the forming of its destiny in their hands.

LOL. LMAO, even. The writer had too high an opinion of his fellow man, and indeed nobody loved their country enough to save it, and we've seen the results that he predicted come to pass.

Boys raised by women are feminine. Boys raised by female teachers in female-dominated public schools are feminine, not masculine. The age of optimal drop-out is probably 19 or 20, not 14 or 16, but I think the people with the most to do still are poorly rewarded for their formal education. You stay in college because you don't have the chops to found Microsoft, or Oculus.

Please do more than simply point and laugh. I'm not getting the joke.

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