site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24724 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 29, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Men aren't even offered the choice, to be blunt.

Women are, and they reject it.

You keep saying this. What little you've posted in the way of "data" is not very convincing, and the rest is vibes, which I will simply counter with my own impressions based on the people I see around me dating and getting married.

I am not saying there's no problem or that it isn't rough out there. It's just not the hopeless wasteland you keep presenting. Men and women are both getting a raw deal in a lot of ways, but you keep insisting it's all women's fault and poor <50% men never ever get a chance, which flies in the face of my observations.

We had a system that was workable somewhere around a century ago and it has been on the decline since approximately the 70's..

Comparing 2025 to 1925 has so many conflating factors that trying to reduce men's dating woes to "Women have become too selective" is like saying our modern economic woes are because we moved off the gold standard. There may even be a degree to which that is true, but someone harping about the gold standard as the reason for everything wrong with the economy today is ... probably not seeing things clearly. Yes, women today can be more selective than they were in 1925. What are the reasons for that? I imagine you don't like your position being reduced to "Women should be forced to settle or starve," but how else to interpret "The problem is that women today don't have to get married to a man they don't particularly like"?

Despite being non-religious, I don't entirely disagree that "the Christian standard" had certain advantages, and I give you credit for arguing that we should impose the old rules on men as well as women-- if we force women to settle, we should also force men to stop alleycatting. But I don't really think we can do either without reverting to a level of authoritarianism we didn't have even then. Given that most people are not as religious as they used to be, and without a religious justification, you're basically going to have to impose state-mandated dating controls. Sounds like a cure worse than the disease.

So ONCE AGAIN. The problem is with women.

So you keep saying. Women would argue that the problem is with men. We could go back and forth on to what degree this is self-centered female narcissism (your preferred theory) and to what degree this is men being of genuinely lower quality and women not actually needing to settle to avoid starving. You hate "men need to step up," but some men really do need to step up, and by that I do not mean they need to wife up carousel-riding Cathy at age 35, but I mean I see a hell of a lot of men who don't really bring much to the table at all other than "Penis, not a drug user (unless you count weed), has a job." Why would a woman want to settle for that if she doesn't have to? Why would you settle for that level of pickings?

I honestly do not see men who actually have something going for them unable to find a partner.

Assuming, of course, that their standards are not too high... You don't want fat Sally the checkout clerk or carousel-riding Cathy, fine. You insist on a 20-something slim attractive virgin who is agreeable and submissive? Hmm, good luck if you're not a 6/6/6. (Or a Mormon.)

I don't know what else to tell ya. If the solution to this was to browbeat men, we'd have solved it a long time ago because that's all men get from every angle is constant browbeating.

I don't think the solution is to "browbeat" men, but I think moral disapprobation on both sexes has been implemented, historically. That horse is out of the barn. Give me a solution that doesn't reduce to "Women need to settle or starve." Or just "browbeat women instead."

Women should be forced to settle or starve

I agree with your overall comment, but I've got to jump in here. 'Settle or starve' has never been the choice women had to make in the west. Not when we were hunter-gatherers (meat would shared within the band), not after the shift to agriculture (women can grow crops and make textiles for sale, hence the word 'spinster'), not after the industrial revolution (where there was ample factory and domestic work). Never.

Indeed, 'settle or starve' suggests that widows (who made up a huge percentage of women in societies before modern medicine) would just starve to death, which they didn't. People only starved to death during famines, when everyone was starving to death.

Except that spinsters lived, yes, but in poverty. So did domestic servants, prostitutes, etc. Women had a far smaller range of jobs available to them and earned far less from those jobs than men working them.

Yeah, I've already addressed this to our snarky friend. Historically it wasn't really settle or starve, but it was settle or probably have an impoverished and empty life. My issue is, as I said, with modern incels and incel-adjacents who say things like "If a woman won't be led, she won't be fed."

Here on the Motte, some of them have a fondness for saying things like "maybe we should use what worked for 5000 years..." and if you read what they are proposing, it's basically that. Yes, they have a myopic, ahistorical view of the history of sex relations ( even ancient tribal societies did not resemble Tarnsmen of Gor).

So you keep saying. Women would argue that the problem is with men. We could go back and forth on to what degree this is self-centered female narcissism (your preferred theory) and to what degree this is men being of genuinely lower quality and women not actually needing to settle to avoid starving. You hate "men need to step up," but some men really do need to step up, and by that I do not mean they need to wife up carousel-riding Cathy at age 35, but I mean I see a hell of a lot of men who don't really bring much to the table at all other than "Penis, not a drug user (unless you count weed), has a job." Why would a woman want to settle for that if she doesn't have to? Why would you settle for that level of pickings?

Because she does have to if she wants a long term relationship. The same 100% of women can't all have long term relationships with the 5% of men they swipe right on on the apps. If you are a college graduate woman working some office job, or at a school, you are a dime a dozen. You are the female equivalent of like a construction worker who drinks too much Budweiser during every Thursday night football game and ends up hungover at work Friday.

men being of genuinely lower quality and women not actually needing to settle to avoid starving.

I think of all the modernisms about the history of men and women that breaks my heart the most, this is probably it. Women only did it to not starve.

Whenever I feel like I might not be doing enough, I remind myself that inadequacy is impossible to escape as a man. If the men who came home from World War fucking Two weren't worthy, then it simply isn't achievable and never was.

I don't think the solution is to "browbeat" men, but I think moral disapprobation on both sexes has been implemented, historically. That horse is out of the barn. Give me a solution that doesn't reduce to "Women need to settle or starve." Or just "browbeat women instead."

There's nothing to be done. You can't have a solution that isn't just browbeating men that doesn't involve some level of browbeating non-men. It's impossible.

I think of all the modernisms about the history of men and women that breaks my heart the most, this is probably it. Women only did it to not starve.

I don't actually think this was literally the case! Though certainly the situation for an unmarried woman was pretty dire in previous eras. Maybe not quite starvation level, but there is a reason so much Regency and Victorian literature was about women trying to find a husband before they aged out of any hope of doing better than seamstress or nanny.

It's the modern guys who have, I assure you, here on the Motte and elsewhere, been more or less explicit about wishing women had to settle in order to eat. Granted some of them may be ironic or trying to be edgy. I certainly hope most of them don't really want women to choose between dick and starving. But there are a fair number whom I believe are pretty literal.

There's nothing to be done. You can't have a solution that isn't just browbeating men that doesn't involve some level of browbeating non-men. It's impossible.

Okay, but what's your solution that involves browbeating both men and women? As I told @faceh, that's basically been the line taken by most religions, and yet here we are. So do you propose morality laws, taking away all benefits for non-married or childless couples, or what? Some variation of those things has been tried also, with little success.

It's the modern guys who have, I assure you, here on the Motte and elsewhere, been more or less explicit about wishing women had to settle in order to eat.

They didn't make it up themselves. They picked it up from the broader culture, and slapped a coat of And That's a Good Thing! paint on it.

Okay, but what's your solution that involves browbeating both men and women?

Too many to count; the issue is that, like face guy's proposals, you'll reject them because they involve some measure of browbeating prescribed to non-men.

Too many to count; the issue is that, like face guy's proposals, you'll reject them because they involve some measure of browbeating prescribed to non-men.

Here's something which could be done which does not entail browbeating women:

Give men a path to achieve social status. For example

  1. The Amish forbid the use of modern agricultural machinery, which means that every man has a good opportunity to be a productive and respected member of the community.

  2. Orthodox Judaism gives men the opportunity to engage in advanced religious studies, up to and including rabbinical ordination. Which means that every man has the opportunity to be a respected member of the community.

  3. Since someone mentioned World War II, it's worth noting that the American men who were conscripted, to the extent they made it back in one piece, were awarded substantial social status.

In a society where (almost) every man gets a fair chance to achieve social status, the net effect is that (almost) every woman gets a fair chance to have a husband she can look up to. Which is a great way to get women into marriage.

Could these sorts of policies be implemented today on a large scale in the United States? I tend to doubt it. Feminists and other gynocentrists would freak out about any large-scale policy or social norm aimed at giving men any kind of boost. For feminists, EVERYTHING has to be about women, all the time.

And ultimately that's a big part of the problem, perhaps the core. Addressing the status quo around marriage, family, and birth rates will require norms and policies which assign special burdens and advantages on men and women. Our current society is just unwilling to accept special burdens on women or special advantages for men.

I shudder to think at what is likely to happen to relationships if 80% of the population ends up unemployed due to AI and we all get UBI.

Too many to count; the issue is that, like face guy's proposals, you'll reject them because they involve some measure of browbeating prescribed to non-men.

Nope, wrong. Don't presume to project sentiments onto me contrary to what I expressed.

Don't presume to project incorrectness onto me contrary to what I expressed.

What you stated, specifically about what I have expressed, was incorrect.

Too many to count; the issue is that, like face guy's proposals, you'll reject them because they involve some measure of browbeating prescribed to non-men.

The usual dodge here is "Both have to change. Now, let's start with the men..."

So ONCE AGAIN. The problem is with women.

So you keep saying. Women would argue that the problem is with men. We could go back and forth on to what degree this is self-centered female narcissism (your preferred theory) and to what degree this is men being of genuinely lower quality and women not actually needing to settle to avoid starving.

To be blunt, a lot of the complaints on here are men getting to see what it was like from the female point of view over those centuries of "no free choice for you but men can sow their wild oats and they decide if they finally want to marry at age forty".

My God, any potential mates are out there having sex, commitment-free sex, and are economically independent, plus picky about who they'll eventually settle for? They have options and freedom and exercise those options? How appalling!

Shoe on the other foot here, gentlemen, and very funny to see the solution being "force them to marry!". To take the example of one comment above, about "being this person is so disadvantageous in marriage, you are recommended not to marry" - if you're 34 and not married by that age, what is wrong with you? why so picky? why not get married straight out of high school (as some suggest women should be steered into it) and have your mother pick your potential spouse for you?

  • -12

Would you say that those men were acting in a noble and becoming manner? If yes, good riddance to you. If not, then you should ponder why you feel the need to giggle about men (who have never lived in that world or acted in that way) getting a taste of medicine.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If, sixty or so years ago, women en masse had decided to be rampant whores but the continent and socially responsible men had refused to dally with the trollops, we wouldn't be having this conversation about "women: why aren't they getting married and pumping out babies?"

It takes two to tango, as they say, and men were delighted to have free milk but not have to buy the cow. Now buyer's regret has set in? Ah well, such is life!

...men who no longer exist and do not complain about this topic today (or maybe they do in their nursing homes). I guess I don't get your point. Because some people were shitty back then it justifies other people doing shitty things today?

While the historical double standard is real, it was supported by widespread prostitution, not a one sided hookup culture. Seduction was literally a crime in these societies.

Yes, there were a handful of artists and very wealthy men who got away with it. They get away with statutory today(see Epstein et al), which is the actual equivalent(remember, the concept of a 'teenaged girl' as a box a young woman might fit into is actually very recent- most historical languages had equivalent terms which meant 'unmarried young woman' and they had similar legal rights and protections).

To be blunt, a lot of the complaints on here are men getting to see what it was like from the female point of view over those centuries of "no free choice for you but men can sow their wild oats and they decide if they finally want to marry at age forty".

I highly highly doubt that in centuries past any significant percentage of men lived this sort of playboy life. This strikes me as typical feminist BS where the experience of the average woman is compared to that of men who are extraordinary in terms of fortune and social status.

My God, any potential mates are out there having sex, commitment-free sex, and are economically independent, plus picky about who they'll eventually settle for? They have options and freedom and exercise those options? How appalling!

What they are missing is both knowledge and responsibility. Current women are not good at evaluating their worth on the dating market.

To be blunt, a lot of the complaints on here are men getting to see what it was like from the female point of view over those centuries of "no free choice for you but men can sow their wild oats and they decide if they finally want to marry at age forty".

This has never been the vast majority of men. You're hyperfocused on the top ten to one percent of men who have the luxury to do this.

Looking back at the past three generations of men on my father's side, not one of them did this, my father included.

The vast majority of men really are invisible to women, huh.

if you're 34 and not married by that age, what is wrong with you?

I've spent the past ten years trying to get together a job and a life that can actually support a family. So far it's been an utter failure, for one reason or another.

why so picky?

No sane woman would want to marry me.

why not get married straight out of high school

I never received any attention from woman in high school.

and have your mother pick your potential spouse for you?

Funny story my family had over Christmas dinner. My mother was commenting on how she was bragging to her hair dresser about how good her two sons are(myself and my brother), referencing all the things we do for her in terms of managing the household and all the special things we like to do one around the holidays. The hair dresser, in turn, apparently regaled to my mother how worthless her various relatives were regarding such things and how much of a pain they were.

And it couldn't help but occur to me, listening to this, that at no point during this entire conversation these two women apparently had, was there the wherewithal or instinct or desire to go 'Hey, I have/you have these two, single, adult men - I have/you have these single relatives, why don't you/I get them together as a social date and see if anything clicks'.

I'm beginning to wonder just how many generations of women have failed their sons by this point.

So you're happy to be linked with a worthless woman who doesn't manage the household or do anything in regards to family bonds or much of anything at all? Because unless you mean "hairdresser's worthless male relatives" (which is what she was complaining about) and "me and my brother", I don't see this working.

Your mother was boasting of her filial sons. Her hairdresser was talking about how the guys in her family were not like that. If you think that out of that "hey, we both have unattached male relatives, let's get them together and see if anything clicks" is what you want in order to get married to a woman and have kids with her, I don't think it'll work.

If you want to marry a hairdresser or woman of that social class, nothing is stopping you going to a hairdresser's salon and trying to find out if any of the women there are single.

The hairdresser in question was referring to the woman and men in her family.

I bring this up as a point because, presumably, she might very well have single, available family members looking to get married.

At not one point did my mother inquire about this, at no point did the hairdresser in question volunteer.

If you want to marry a hairdresser or woman of that social class, nothing is stopping you going to a hairdresser's salon and trying to find out if any of the women there are single.

Your confidence in my social acumen is staggering.

And it couldn't help but occur to me, listening to this, that at no point during this entire conversation these two women apparently had, was there the wherewithal or instinct or desire to go 'Hey, I have/you have these two, single, adult men - I have/you have these single relatives, why don't you/I get them together as a social date and see if anything clicks'.

Quite possibly that happened, your picture was shown; your job and height were stated; and you were rejected without being made aware of it. The dirty little secret is that single women who report difficulty finding relationships are almost uniformly super-picky.

This has never been the vast majority of men. You're hyperfocused on the top ten to one percent of men who have the luxury to do this.

Yeah, I made this point independently. Feminists (in fact most women) tend to engage in the "fallacy of the peak," in which they compare average women to super-elite men.

Quite possibly that happened, your picture was shown; your job and height were stated; and you were rejected without being made aware of it. The dirty little secret is that single women who report difficulty finding relationships are almost uniformly super-picky.

Hah. You don't know my mother. No, I'm fairly certain this didn't happen in the slightest. I don't even beleive she has a picture of me to show, come to think...

You are quite correct on the rest of it, though.

I would assume there are many men who would gladly settle for "vagina, not a drug user, has a job" as long as she is merely average in all other aspects as opposed to negative.

No drugs? That's no fun. I'd swap that for "nice to me".

That's almost where I'm at myself, although I have a handful more red flags now that I've been through enough.

I did a huge dating blitz in like 2021-2022 and I'm now happily married with children after doing a lot of first dates.

Honestly my criteria for 'worth a first date/potentially something' was prettymuch just

  • Has some sort of actual job/career path
  • Doesn't have somebody else's kids
  • Biologically female
  • Not obese
  • Not Tattooed (Personal preference thing and malleable if it's just one or two in reasonable locations)
  • Not obviously super slutty/druguser

Then I was willing to atleast meet the person, though it's shocking how many women couldn't get over those humps

it's shocking how many women couldn't get over those humps

It was shocking me in approximately that 2021-2022 period when I was re-entering the dating market. Now its just a default expectation (which sucks).

My criteria were pretty close to your stated ones. But something I came to realize is that a woman, in the current era, who does not have tattoos, with a low (less than 4) body count, ... they ALSO tend to be anxious/avoidant/flighty. Which explains why they aren't following the crowd/out partying/getting laid in the first place. They can seem ideal and even engaging early on and then disappear on you with little warning. Eventually the fear of commitment overrides the desire for companionship. The other issue I keep slamming into is women that check the boxes... but who are so focused on career/academics/family (even into their mid 20's!) that they genuinely don't have much time to date.

I'm considering a sincere dating blitz this year since literally the only real goal I haven't achieved for myself is finding a decent partner who will stick around.

But the whole thing about going on "a lot of first dates" is its necessarily taking a ton of time that I could be spending on things that actually convert into money or a finished product or actual fulfillment for me, rather than constant low-level psychic damage with the occasional spike of heartbreak.

My real hope is finding a decent 'filter' so those dates are at least with people who are in it with good faith and intentionality. I hate wasting time and money on a process that has a low success rate, my instinct is to search out ways to increase the success rate.

Last year a friend connected me with a single acquaintance of his who checked most of the aforementioned boxes at first blush, made it to three dates, which were all pleasant, then she moved back in with her parents for [reasons]. Fast forward a couple months, she meets a guy she knew from years ago while there, and they enter a relationship. I only learn of this when my friend relays the news. He was apologetic, but I told him it was actually the best dating experience I'd had in 5 years (he's married with kids, not his fault for not knowing the lay of the land).

The part that stings a bit is that this dude is a divorcee with two kids, and she just dove right into his arms. I can't even imagine what he offers over me, other than comfort/familiarity. There's that flightiness.

So looking for a 'fresh' start in the new year, but at a loss as to what channel I can try that I haven't already which would help ensure the women I match with meet that very basic floor of eligibility.

Interested in following along as you try and navigate this this year. For me the big goal this year is to defeat my pornography/masturbation addiction, spend less time online, and continue to participate in social spaces without expectations for dating.

The only insight I have on the porn issue is that I found that back when I DID have a partner, and I was getting laid with some regularity, the urge to pull up porn just evaporated.

Whatever it is about that urge, for me, when I feel secure that I'll be sating it in the near future (even within a day or two) with an actual human, I feel no need to settle for a simulacra.

Compare it to resisting the urge to snack on junk food during the day because you know you're having a steak dinner later.

The part that stings a bit is that this dude is a divorcee with two kids, and she just dove right into his arms. I can't even imagine what he offers over me, other than comfort/familiarity.

All else equal, it’d be business as usual for preselection. He has two kids, two datapoints demonstrating that some other chick has already bore his children.

The part that stings a bit is that this dude is a divorcee with two kids, and she just dove right into his arms. I can't even imagine what he offers over me, other than comfort/familiarity.

Post selection.

Funny enough, this is the second young woman I've known in the past two years who ended up with an (older) guy who was divorced with a kid, given that she happened to know him from her past (read: she had a crush on the guy when she was in high school). Post-selection indeed. There was quite a bit more to it than that, though.

The other one actually married the guy.

In the current case, the lady appears to be enough of an improvement on his ex-wife that there might be an intentional jealousy play going on (also, he still has wedding photos with his ex up on his Facebook).

Yeah I had a lot of experience with the sort of woman who's low body count and untattooed in the 2020s being some combination of Religious (which is fine but if I'm meh about a girl who doesn't believe in anything outside of marriage it's hardly worth pursuing), super insular or otherwise prone to being a gigantic flake. I got lucky with my now-wife since I was literally her first date on an app after she'd broken up with her previous singular partner after a longterm relationship due to him going full NEET Gooner, and in my case I feel like it's pretty plausible I wouldn't be here now with my daughter if I'd been 50 faces deep in the stack instead of the first one.

Either she'd have found somebody else solid enough, or like the majority of her long-term single friends, sisters and cousins that I've talked to she'd do the 'My dating experience is downloading Hinge for a week for a week-long period, having two dates and then uninstalling for 6 months to a year if neither of those suitors immediately blow her mind' loop that the majority of them seem to be stuck in.

I got lucky with my now-wife since I was literally her first date on an app after she'd broken up with her previous singular partner after a longterm relationship due to him going full NEET Gooner, and in my case I feel like it's pretty plausible I wouldn't be here now with my daughter if I'd been 50 faces deep in the stack instead of the first one.

Unfortunately true, but bless your luck on that. "Woman who just exited serious relationship b/c partner became unbearable but not abusive" is about the best pull you can expect these days. Proven ability to commit, and valid excuse for being back on the market.

Its semi-similar to how I met my ex. I had just gotten stood up for a date, we both happened to be online around 1:30 a.m., I managed to talk her into a date on the same day, and she kept showing up.

If someone pops up on a dating app that hasn't been jaded to all hell, you've got a VERY small window of time to match with them and get them face-to-face and then try and convince them to get off the app entirely.

Hence why I say that apps have 'gamified' dating. And I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't freaking luck of the draw.

'My dating experience is downloading Hinge for a week for a week-long period, having two dates and then uninstalling for 6 months to a year if neither of those suitors immediately blow her mind' loop that the majority of them seem to be stuck in.

God-damn.

For other sorts of behaviors this would probably have a specific diagnosis in the DSM-5.

But it validates my other assumption: meeting women in person is now tainted because even if they're not on dating apps, they are aware they can hop on at any time and be basked in attention. You might even manage to talk her into a date in person, but she might think "I should check my other options one more time" and hop on just to sate curiosity.

The final thing that blows my mind is that I talk to various guys who sort of get this fact, but also don't see how continuing to play the game is what makes it worse. Its like a person complaining about all the traffic on their commute, neglecting the fact that they ARE traffic.

If someone pops up on a dating app that hasn't been jaded to all hell, you've got a VERY small window of time to match with them and get them face-to-face and then try and convince them to get off the app entirely.

One of my favorite (in a dark humor kind of way) pairings is the "I was on an app for one time for 15 minutes and met the love of my life, so apps are great for dating" fresh-faced woman with the "1000-yard stare multi-year veteran of trying to date from apps" man.

One of my favorite (in a dark humor kind of way) pairings is the "I was on an app for one time for 15 minutes and met the love of my life, so apps are great for dating" fresh-faced woman with the "1000-yard stare multi-year veteran of trying to date from apps" man.

This is literally my marriage. I had about 18 months of deliberate dating grind before I met my wife and by the end of it after I'd lost like 20KG and optimized my stuff I'd been going on 2-3 first dates a week for the last couple months. It was ludicrous.

More comments

You keep saying this. What little you've posted in the way of "data" is not very convincing, and the rest is vibes, which I will simply counter with my own impressions based on the people I see around me dating and getting married.

I am not saying there's no problem or that it isn't rough out there. It's just not the hopeless wasteland you keep presenting. Men and women are both getting a raw deal in a lot of ways, but you keep insisting it's all women's fault and poor <50% men never ever get a chance, which flies in the face of my observations.

The marriage rate is down to like 47%. For young adults, even worse.

The relationship formation rate is down globally. Money quote:

The proliferation of smartphones and social media has been one such exogenous shock. Geographical differences in the rise of singledom broadly track mobile internet usage, particularly among women, whose calculus in weighing up potential partners is changing. This is consistent with research showing social media facilitates the spread of liberal values (notably only among women) and boosts female empowerment.

"Its the women" is the standard interpretation. Its just usually couched as them being 'victims' of social forces they are helpless to effect.

Are you spending much time around people who are ages 20-29? They're the ones reporting the most problems

The simplest piece of data to support my "50% of men are invisible" is the fact that, SURPRISE, about 60% of young men are single compared to 34% of women. 44% of Gen Z men reported zero, zip, nada romantic experience..

So who, then, are the women dating in this situation?

Give me a solution that doesn't reduce to "Women need to settle or starve." Or just "browbeat women instead."

Stop sending so many women to college. They absorb a ton of debt. They choose majors that don't pay as much. They take longer to pay down their debt, and it causes them a lot of distress. They 'burn' 4 or more years of their fertility for this.

And, of course, they come out the other side with massively inflated standards for a mate. The irony for women is that going to college tends to reduce their appeal as mates (not a given, but they tend to make choices that lead there) while making their expectations for a mate go higher.

Do this by making it harder to get student loans in general, going back to before the 1993 Student Loan Reform Act.

See if that moves the needle.

(And to be clear, yes, a lot fewer men should attend college too, by my estimation)

If even that is too much to stomach, I'd say you're not serious about addressing any of this.

I'm not fighting for this position because I desperately want/need it to be true. I wish it weren't. I'm compelled to defend it because I can't find any single supportable argument that points elsewhere.

Add on, of course, the recent revelations that white males have been systemiatically excluded from many, many opportunities.

All of this would of course combine to produce the large amount of Male Gen Z Angst and anger we're seeing bubble up.

It’s a lottery. The data shows that girl bosses tend to find great mates. Elizabeth Holmes got married because she’s still kind of hot and went to Stanford. And married to a rich kid. It still vastly boost mate value as a signal if you can back up the signal (Steve Jobs wife went to Stanford MBA).

Beneath the high end though and bringing debt to a relationship it’s probably a bad thing. And just getting a nursing degree for a second solid income if needed and being cute is a better plan.

Stop sending so many women to college.

Still not going to work, because now the "34-37 year old male, tall, in good shape, earning a high income" (1) doesn't want to marry just yet because there's so much out there to achieve both in professional life and in personal life having fun (2) ugh, why tie myself down to some dull 20 year old who can't even earn her own living and will be a leech dependent on me instead of a partner?

You can reduce the number of women going to college pretty substantially without actually getting it below the male rate.

The irony for women is that going to college tends to reduce their appeal as mates (not a given, but they tend to make choices that lead there) while making their expectations for a mate go higher.

How does this square with the fact that there's an almost 20 point marriage gap in favor of college educated women? College educated women are worse mates and have higher expectations, but are much more likely to be married? Most of the decline in marriage rates over the last 50 years has been among non-college educated women. Non-college-educated women have seen marriage rates decline from 79% to 52% while college educated women have seen marriage rates decline from 78% to 71%. Empirically, college helps women get married.

How does this square with the fact that there's an almost 20 point marriage gap in favor of college educated women? College educated women are worse mates and have higher expectations, but are much more likely to be married?

That Dataset actually only goes up to the 1990ish birth cohort. Check Page 43 of the PDF

Any shifts that emerged in the past 10-15 years are probably not reflected here.

And the last 10-15 years are when the most drastic shifts have happened.

I haven't found as much reliable data that is more recent, but...

The longer a student is in college — the least likely they are to get married, study says

Study Here

Empirically, college helps women get married.

If they find their partner while in college, this is likely true.

Of course, I'd believe that many non-college educated women are just shacking up with guys and not marrying them too (and popping out the occasional kid), whereas I'd guess college-educated women are just single and childless.

That Dataset actually only goes up to the 1990ish birth cohort. Check Page 43 of the PDF

Sure. It's asking about whether someone was married by age 45 so it is necessarily limited to people who are age 45 or older (birth year 1980 or earlier).

Any shifts that emerged in the past 10-15 years are probably not reflected here.

And the last 10-15 years are when the most drastic shifts have happened.

I'm curious about the precise claim here. For ~40 years between 1985 and the present the fraction of college educated women married by age 45 looks pretty stable around 71% (+/- a couple percent) while the fraction of non-college educated women married by 45 underwent a steady collapse from around 71% to 52%. Is the claim that in 10-20 years, when the current cohort is 45, these numbers will have reversed? There will have been a climb in the fraction of non-college educated women who are married? A decline in the fraction of college educated women who are married? Did going to college become a net-negative for women's marriage prospects just in the last 10-15 years?

The longer a student is in college — the least likely they are to get married, study says

The less likely they are to be married in the 25-34 age range. If people are unlikely to get married while in college then being in college means delaying marriage, potentially out of this age window.

Are you spending much time around people who are ages 20-29? They're the ones reporting the most problems

Yeah, actually. Most of my younger coworkers are actively dating and/or getting married.

Maybe I am in a very unusual bubble, but I actually don't think so.

Stop sending so many women to college.

As a practical matter, how do you propose to do this? We don't "send" women to college, they choose to go.

If your solution is "Campaign on social reform that encourages fewer women to go to college and more women to get married young and have children," okay, I don't object to that in principle, but if churches are failing to sell that message, how will you?

If your solution is "Don't let them go to college," well, no, I'm not going to jump on board the "Make women property again" Jimbus.

Do this by making it harder to get student loans in general, going back to before the 1993 Student Loan Reform Act.

Okay, I'll buy that. I doubt it will actually reduce the number of women who want to go to college. It might reduce the number of women who go to college for Afro-Queer Anti-Colonialism Studies.

I'm in the 20-29 age cohort and it's a wasteland for a lot of men. When I used to go to church every single guy in the young adult group was either married or completely single (and this ratio was something like 10:1 in favor of single-men). And this was a Catholic Church where people are supposed to getting married early. At work it is similar, although in my family things seem to be better (my sister and all my female cousins have long-term boyfriends who are certainly not chad, although my sister's boyfriend is 6' 4").

I tend to agree with you that many of the put "women back in a box" solutions are pretty unworkable. Although stable, happy marriage might be far preferable on long time horizons, dating an average person as another average person is much less exciting than freedom and independence. I see this in myself with dating: why would I go out to a bar or another coffee date, when reading/exercising/friend activities are so much more exciting and less stressful. It's probably even worse for young women, who are constantly bombarded with attention and opportunities.

I don't find the political speculation to be particularly useful, but perhaps we can glean some personal self-improvement type stuff from all of this. I think both men and women could be better about selecting for traits that actually would matter in a marriage. Stability, kindness, physical fitness, etc., rather than raw sex appeal or charisma. That kind of selection is something that you as an individual can control (and advise your friends about). For men I think this means desexualizing your brain (no more porn and masturbation), and under no circumstances simping. Seeing women as human beings like you not only helps you to evaluate them more accurately, but also makes them more attracted to you. For women, I think I would recommend something similar: stop consuming fantasy romance slop.

why would I go out to a bar or another coffee date, when reading/exercising/friend activities are so much more exciting and less stressful.

We need Everett True to get you bashful young men sorted out 😁

Although stable, happy marriage might be far preferable on long time horizons, dating an average person as another average person is much less exciting than freedom and independence. I see this in myself with dating: why would I go out to a bar or another coffee date, when reading/exercising/friend activities are so much more exciting and less stressful. It's probably even worse for young women, who are constantly bombarded with attention and opportunities.

Well, the way to solve this problem is for society to award social status to people who make the sacrifice of getting and staying married. That's how things work in religious subcultures. Yes, it creates hardship in certain cases, but it works.

Given that the vast majority of people already get married and that status approximates a zero-sum game, such an intervention would actually work by penalizing the status of unmarried/childless people (women). Of course, that's quite mean and doesn't make for compelling rhetoric, so it gets consistently brushed over in birthrate discussions.

such an intervention would actually work by penalizing the status of unmarried/childless people (women). Of course, that's quite mean and doesn't make for compelling rhetoric, so it gets consistently brushed over in birthrate discussions.

Sure, in general one of the big societal/public policy challenges of addressing these types of issues is (ironically) gynocentrism. Society hates to have policies and norms which (1) make any women feel bad; (2) are perceived as imposing special burdens on women; (3) are perceived as benefiting men more than women; etc.

Also society mandating that college degrees include passing tests that include engineering level calculus and physics.

Better still: abolish degrees; keep the tests.

What is the value add of requiring that someone spends 4 years in a building? Whatever it is, it cannot be worth it.

In a sane world, a GED would be worth more than a high school diploma, because you actually have to know something to pass the standardized GED test, whereas you can graduate from some high schools without knowing how to read.

Maybe I am in a very unusual bubble, but I actually don't think so.

I think you're in the bubble of "people who are generally social and talk about their personal lives."

Which an increasing number of young folks just... don't.

And its not an issue unique to the U.S.

We don't "send" women to college, they choose to go.

If they can 'afford' to. And if they can't get student loans as easily, fewer of them will be able to afford to, unless parents pay the way.

I'm really just trying to make adjustments on the margins here. If 10% fewer women end up going to college, and the marriage rate bumps up about 5%, I think that's a sign of improvement.

If your solution is "Don't let them go to college," well, no, I'm not going to jump on board the "Make women property again" Jimbus.

Look, I keep saying, I'm trying to push for 'moderate' changes now, because the Zoomers are probably not going to be as patient.

If you want to salvage the current 'equality' of the sexes under the law, you have to address this now. If literally any solution that inconveniences or upsets women is a nonstarter then it's not getting solved until we hit an actual crisis point.

If literally any solution that inconveniences or upsets women is a nonstarter then it's not getting solved until we hit an actual crisis point.

Well I think it's pretty clear by now that either (1) some game-changing technology or technologies will make the whole issue moot; or (2) religious subcultures with fertility-promoting norms will simply breed the problem out of existence.

Option (3) would be for secular societies to adopt policies and/or social norms which inconvenience or annoy women, something that seems very unlikely to happen any time soon.

If literally any solution that inconveniences or upsets women is a nonstarter then it's not getting solved until we hit an actual crisis point.

Yes. But the precondition seems to be true and as South Korea shows, any crisis point is far off.

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