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 -
Just to make a general observation about the gender war as a followup to my comment on the Promise Keepers organization:
I think we can generally observe is that women’s main complaint about men is that desirable hetero men are unwilling to exclusively commit. If we accept this, we can also see that this is actually two complaints rolled into one. 1. The men that are willing to commit are undesirable (icky, clingy, lame, “chopped”, entitled, toxic, porn-addled, skinny fat etc.). 2. The men that are desirable are unwilling to commit. (On a tangent I’d argue that most of the lipstick feminist complaints made in the mainstream media by middle-class women about men in general do usually boil down to the rather similar complaint that 34-37-year-old successful, well-paid, charismatic, tall, ambitious etc. urban men are in no rush to marry 31-34-year-old college-educated middle-class office worker women.)
If we look at this logically, to the extent that it even makes sense to try doing so (which is a valid question in itself), there are two potential remedies for this problem. 1. Focus on the undesirable men that are willing to commit and somehow transform them into desirable men i.e. alphaize the betas 2. Focus on the desirable men and incentivize them to commit i.e. betaize the alphas.
Now I don’t know about you but to me it seems self-evident that #2 has more potential for success no matter how you look at it and yet virtually everyone who makes any sort of recommendations regarding this entire issue (and that does not only include Red Pillers) is promoting #1. No, really – I’ve never seen anyone advocate for #2, not even the Promise Keepers or, for that matter, any other similar group that does not claim to be feminist and is at the same time pushing the nebulous concept of a new positive masculinity.
Am I seeing things that are not there or is this really not the case? Because as far as I can tell, it is. It seems like there is a general unspoken consensus in society that trying to compel sexually successful men to commit to women is a completely impossible, pie-in-the-sky idea that deserves no attention at all; that, in other words, expecting modern women to elicit commitment from the men they are attracted to is laughable lunacy.
They're phrasing it this way to dodge the core source issue. Men that are desirable won't commit because women aren't willing to accept anyone they don't 'desire.'
Its hidden in the term 'desirable,' and how that is not an inherent property of men, but rather a descriptor that is almost entirely created in the mind of the female population. And thus can change without the men doing anything differently. Men do not get to decide what women find desirable, they can only hope to determine what that is and try to comply with it.
I could give my long, comprehensive argument (with stats!) showing that men are by and large the same as they've ever been, but women as a group have elevated their expectations while simultaneously becoming less appealing as mates.
I won't. I'll just point out my previous argument that I've yet to see contradicted: About 50% of the male population are 'invisible' to women. They don't register as human. They aren't even on their radar as possible mates, they are background noise... until they attempt to interact then they're 'creeps' or 'incels' or whatever. These men aren't even in the competition because to be 'desirable' you first have to be 'noticed.'
It is a blackpill, but there is not a single piece of evidence really contradicting it. A man who is the combination of 'average' height, 'average' salary, 'average' talent, fame, renown, and 'average' physical strength will not get female attention under modern circumstances. Hence why 'maxxxing' of one form or another is so popularized. Men HAVE to stand out along at least one dimension, ideally multiple, to even rise to attention, much less be attractive.
Flatly put: women aren't even registering that there exist men who are less than 'ideal' but would still make great partners. In their mind its that top 20% who ARE the standard, and there's maybe another 20-30% below that they could eventually settle for after their own sexual market value diminishes.
That bottom 50% is invisible. They are not part of the mental calculation when a woman is competing for a mate. Ask most women to describe what they think an 'average' man is like and it'll be an average derived from the sub-population of men they actually notice and care about.
Find me a SINGLE woman who will openly say "I'm actually perfectly fine with marrying a man who is not exceptional in any particular way, as long as he fulfills his role as a man." And its rational for them not to say that because that's just inviting a bunch of sub average dudes to come running in hopes of slipping past her apparently lowered defenses. They don't 'win' by advertising lower standards.
If this factor is true and accurate, there's no point in trying to address it on the male side of the equation. None. Expanding the pool of 'desireable' men entirely depends on women expanding their definition of 'desirable' to include an actual reasonable portion of the male population. Otherwise, most women will continue chasing a sub-population of men that BY DEFINITION they cannot all lock down... unless they're willing to share.
And even then, you have to get these women to become appealing to more men too.
And there is no aspect of culture ANYWHERE in the West that pushes women to do things that make them more appealing. None.
Which shows precisely where we could start trying solutions, doesn't it? Maybe look at the obvious area we're NOT doing things?
So lets simplify it: "The men women find desirable have no need to commit because they have many, many options available due to women finding them desirable. Women resent that they can't lock down these men but are also unwilling to adapt their behavior."
Is impossible in practice as it would merely raise the level of what women find 'desirable' to compensate. This happens in EVERY arena where ranking is easy to ascertain. The benefits will accrue to the top 10-20% at best. Women will adjust desires upward without hesitation.
Won't work because even if we marry off the top 10% of men and somehow ensure they stay committed... you haven't suddenly made the remaining population MORE desirable to the remaining women.
Look, I don't think women are the problem. But the problem is with women. Specifically, in their mind, in that they've formed cultural expectations that, via feedback loops, are completely divorced from reality and renders their own desires unachievable.
So... you have to address their desires. Reality can't be manipulated to fit their desires, so it seems obvious to me that you gotta at least TRY to make their desires comply with reality.
Although we've argued about this in the past, I don't disagree with you, in very broad strokes, about your key points. Women's expectations have gone up, women's desirability has gone down, and a lot of people are finding it hard to find a partner. I think the reasons are actually a lot more complicated and multi-faceted than "Women are unreasonably picky (bitches) and aren't willing to settle," but sure, that's part of it.
I am going to repeat one point that I have brought up before and add another one I haven't:
This kind of sugarcoats the whole notion of "settling." You're right, most women would not agree to that statement. How many men would agree to that (gender-swapped) statement? Probably more men than women, because yes, there are men who will settle for literally any willing pussy, while there aren't many women whose sole criteria is "penis." But there are not many men who would really be happy about settling for a woman who just checks the "sex, mother" boxes and nothing else.
(Caveat: Obviously I am talking about the West here. We know that in many parts of the world, "vagina and fertile" are indeed the only criteria men have. Are those cultures models we would wish to emulate?)
So how about being likeable as a person, being attractive and pleasant, being smart or at least sensible? (As Mr. Knightly said in the very redpilled era of 1816: "Men of sense do not want silly wives.") Most men don't want to settle either, even if their standards for "settling" are lower than the average woman's. Not to belabor the stereotype about incels thinking their obese cheeto-crumbed-neckbeards are entitled to a hot fit young blowjob enthusiast, but it's hard to avoid the impression that it do be like that from many of the most vocal grievance-mongers. This is somewhat unfair, but it's also somewhat unfair to just write off women as being unreasonably picky bitches who will not settle for less than the "three sixes". Both these stereotypes exist, but you keep bringing up things like the OKCupid survey (from, like, 15 years ago), which given the limited and narrow datasets (the attractiveness surveys, IIRC, mostly ask people to rate based on photographs alone) do not convince me you really have evidence that "50% of men are invisible to all women" and that no women will "settle" for a guy who is just a basically decent, normal man.
My other point:
On the one hand: sure. If it is true (big if) that chubby grocery clerk Sally is waiting for her 6/6/6 chad to marry her and let her live her life as a TikTok-watching SAHM, Sally should really adjust her expectations. But your notion that women should "make their desires comply with reality" really gives me "If you don't find fat/black/trans women attractive, you should work on yourself!" vibes. I know you are not saying that, but you are saying something in that ballpark: that people are responsible for who and what they find attractive and should be willing to change their attraction for the social good. That is going to be a pretty hard lift for anyone.
Men aren't even offered the choice, to be blunt.
Women are, and they reject it.
Soooooo... what is the point of telling men to change?
We had a system that was workable somewhere around a century ago and it has been on the decline since approximately the 70's..
I consistently point out that the marriage arrangement, especially when following the fairly strict Christian standard, solves for most of the issues.
Top 10% males are expected to pick and stick with a woman, removing that man from the field. They are also expected to NOT go around deflowering virgins or maintaining a rotation of women. (they will anyway in many cases, but they have to keep it discreet and DO suffer social sanction when discovered)
Men and women are expected to pick a partner relatively early, and stick with them once committed. So you don't have women dating around for the better part of a decade, standards rising all the time. You don't have men growing increasingly frustrated through repeated rejections from women.
And perhaps most important, the focus of the marriage is ensuring stability for the purpose of raising kids. So we de-emphasize the whole "sleep around and have fun for as long as possible before settling" element.
And finally, the Christian expectation "no sex until marriage" ensures that women are less likely to get exploited for sex without commitment, men can reasonably expect that they will be giving commitment to a relatively chaste woman, and thus the risks to each side are truncated.
But we tossed that entire standard out, and replaced it with... NOTHING!
So its base instincts and ad hoc social arrangements all the way down!
And nobody's happy! Yayyyyyyyy.
And to the extent we think marriage is the ideal solution... men continue to prioritize it as a goal just as much as they always have. Women continue to prioritize it less and less. Men's desire to get married went from 76% to 74% over 30 years. Women's dropped from 83% to 61%. There's no question which gender is the driving force here.
So ONCE AGAIN. The problem is with women.
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.
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.
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 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 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."
The marriage rate is down to like 47%. For young adults, even worse.
The relationship formation rate is down globally. Money quote:
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Yes. But the precondition seems to be true and as South Korea shows, any crisis point is far off.
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