site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28029 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One interesting twitter debate going on right now is the billionaires prefer waitresses. Maybe not even interesting but complete culture war. The thing I’m seeing for the billionaires don’t marry waitresses is a very pedantic view of waitresses when I think the meaning is more like girl bosses versus attractive girl whose primary goal is not making money but finding a husband.

I do not know if anyone really disagrees with this. Like it’s a spectrum right? Only Jeb Bush married a girl who doesn’t even speak the same language but I assume was very cute. The spectrum is something like Laurene Jobs who did a little corporate prestige jobs and went to Stanford MBA then quit working versus Jeb Bush who just picked a big booty Latina at 18.

I feel like guys often pick the “waitress” over the girl boss. But the people saying the billionaires never pick the waitress are being excessively pedantic. The model isn’t a waitress. The presenter isn’t a waitress (Bezos). The art hoe isn’t a waitress.

I would say the best smart guys tend to marry the Princeton girl early like Bezos or Gates or Zuck. But over 30 the waitress traits start to show up.

Personally I would prefer girl who has career and interesting life but I have way more options in the waitress category of attractive with some things going on.

Got told people didn’t know the debate. I think this is the twitter posts that started it. debate

Billionaires seem to most commonly marry someone they knew from college or earlier. Being married is just a huge time saver.

Before engaging in this, can we get a clear definition for what you consider "waitress" jobs versus what you consider "girlboss" jobs? Or what attributes we are putting in each category? What are we actually talking about here? I just feel like everyone is going in circles about what "waitress" and "girlboss" and "prefer" even means.

I think the original tweet makes some sense without reference to marriage, if an elite man might choose to fuck a waitress without marrying her, she is still competing for his attention. She's like a spoiler in a playoff race: she's not gonna win the championship, but she might keep you from winning it.

I can only thoroughly define one person as not a waitress - Hillary Clinton. Personally I think Bezos wife is 100% a waitress. People seem to be saying she is “higher status” as a presenter. I don’t believe status alone keeps your from being a waitress. Depending on what you stress I think a lawyerly test would go thru these traits:

  1. Works with your mind/IQ
  2. Higher/lower status
  3. Job requires doing things that stress social ability in female codes ways
  4. Work in career explicitly for money (Jobs wife codes waitress a little)

Someone mentioned kindergarten teachers as a popular billionaire wife job. That to me codes very high on the waitress scale.

Yeah, I don't think I really see the Waitress Scale existing from what you've said, or I don't agree with you about where things fit on that scale.

When I hear "Billionaire marries waitress" I hear something very different from a schoolteacher.

What do you have against waiters and waitresses? It’s not scrubbing dishes but it’s still an honest working class job, you’re on your feet all day, managing the rush of busy service, you have unpredictable shifts at inconvenient hours, you have to deal with potentially angry customers who blame you when things go wrong and dealing with the general public in a service job can be hella draining.

Imo waiters deserve more respect than bullshit corporate prestige jobs and I feel like you’re doing waiters a major disservice by using their job as a shorthand for “attractive girl whose primary goal is not making money but finding a husband.”

I have nothing against waitresses. To be clear. I did not create the girl bosses for waitresses meme. Waitress is the existing internet terminology for the social convention when Men date down in abilities/class/status/etc. I can not change the words used for a thing because I personally find waitresses virtuous.

IIRC the most common job for the wives of high earning men, like for women from wealthy families generally, is 'k-12 teacher', narrowly beating out 'homemaker'.

Or in other words, "State surrogate mother" narrowly beating out "private mother".

I feel like guys often pick the “waitress” over the girl boss.

Depends what you mean by often. Sure, it happens sometimes, but not enough to affect the stats, which show a clear relationship between spousal income. Rich men are also less likely to marry a woman significantly older or younger. This article has details it with many nice charts.

It was probably more common in the past, when people married outside their own class more often (think the lawyer who meets a nice girl at the local church vs at grad school)

Astrid Menks was a cocktail waitress before meeting Warren Buffet in the 70s, though they cohabitated for 30 years before getting married. Today’s version of “cute waitress in the 60s” is “cute Instagram influencer with fake job”. Rich men still marry them, though maybe not billionaires.

That example is extremely interesting when you look it up, because she wasn't his wife for those thirty years, she was his housekeeper/mistress.

He was married - to a woman from his own background; their families knew one another, her father was his father's campaign manager. But she also had a singing career she wanted to boost, and in 1977 she left him and moved to San Francisco to pursue this. There's also hints that Buffett was close to Katherine Graham and his wife perceived this as an affair or something that would blossom into an affair, and she herself was involved with her tennis coach. So all that taken together meant she left him. But they didn't divorce, and by reports he was shattered.

Since he was also incapable of taking care of himself domestically (and I imagine the three kids, though they were in their early twenties now) she arranged for a replacement to look after him (and that's how it's described everywhere I look it up online, Menks was there to be his housekeeper first, bit of crumpet second). Astrik Menks is variously described as a cocktail waitress, server, or restaurant hostess, but she and Thompson (Buffett's wife) met at the same restaurant because Thompson occasionally sang there, became friends, and when Thompson left she handed Buffett over to Menks for her to be his caretaker:

Born in Latvia and later moving to America, Astrid met Susan Thompson—Warren's first wife—while working at a bar where Susan sang. Their friendship blossomed into something deeper when Susan chose to leave her marriage in search of independence. In this delicate web of relationships, Astrid stepped in not only as a companion but also as someone who would help manage Warren’s daily life—a role he desperately needed given his notorious lack of domestic skills.

From a book about Buffett:

Question

What was the role of Astrid Menks in Warren Buffett's life? Astrid Menks played a significant role in Warren Buffett's life. After Buffett's separation from his wife Susie, he was left alone and unable to take care of himself. Susie sent her friend Astrid Menks to check on him. Astrid, who was a restaurant hostess, ended up moving in with Buffett. After Susie's death in 2004, Astrid and Buffett got married. Despite his new marriage, Buffett was still primarily focused on his business.

This question was asked on:

Buffett was shattered by the separation, living alone and unable to clothe or feed himself. Susie kept in touch by phone, and eventually sent her friend Astrid Menks to check in on him. The restaurant hostess ended up moving in with the multi-billionaire and when Suzie died in 2004, the couple got married. Buffet sat by Susie's deathbd as she battled cancer, and was so broken after her death, that he wasn't able to attend her funeral. In his new marriage, Buffett was still unable to put anything but business first.

Another article on Buffett and reasons for separation, including the friendship with Graham:

Their relationship was strong and loving, their daughter Susie shares, but her mother wanted to develop a life of her own as her husband became ever more famous; like so many wives, she felt like she had lost herself in marriage. At midlife, it was time for her to reclaim her time, and what better way to do that than live apart together?

“She basically wanted a room of her own. They were very connected in a very deep way. They didn’t need to be in the same room.”

After she died from a stroke, Warren and Astrid tied the knot in 2006, although for many years Astrid believed he would never marry her because he was so devoted to Susan, so she was content being called his housekeeper and mistress.

He later regretted driving his wife away and blamed himself — there was a bit of a possibly romantic thing happening with Katharine ‘Kay’ Graham, then publisher of the Washington Post–saying in 2008,

“It was preventable. It was definitely 95% my fault. … I just wasn’t attuned enough to her, and she’d always been perfectly attuned to me. She kept me together for a lot of years. … It shouldn’t have happened.”

And that arrangement went on for thirty years. Buffett and Thompson never divorced, he regarded her always as his wife, he was there at her death bed, and only then did he finally marry Menks.

So not at all a conventional "cute waitress and fledgling billionaire" story! If it reminds me of anything at all, it's classical Chinese first legal wife and subsequent concubine/secondary wife.

If I believe this article the entire thing is fascinating; Buffett plainly is some sort of financial wizard, but utterly, totally incapable of functioning without a mother figure to run his life for him:

By now he was spending so much time in Washington that he began keeping a spare set of clothes in Kay's guest room.

Meanwhile, Susie was depressed about her marriage and believed Kay was an interloper pursuing her husband.

In the hot rush of a midlife romance, she let herself be seen around Omaha with John McCabe, her tennis coach.

However, Kay, a flirtatious 59-year-old, was spotted tossing the 46-year-old Buffett her door key at charity events and the two were seen together ever more often in public. By early 1977, gossip columnists had taken note.

Friends, though, observed that the pair had 'zero chemistry'. Whatever romantic elements the relationship may have had initially, at heart it was a friendship.

At 47, Buffett was worth $72million and ran a company valued at $135million, while Susie was doing charity work and trying to establish herself as a singer.

She was also spending a lot of time in San Francisco, and installing her tennis coach in a separate apartment.

It was around this time that Susie struck up a friendship in Omaha with Astrid Menks, a restaurant maitre d' whose Latvian parents arrived in America when she was five.

Small-boned, fair-skinned with ice-blonde hair, she had a Nordic beauty with a subtle hard-knocks edge.

At times she looked even younger than her 31 years. Susie asked her friend to look in on Buffett and cook an occasional meal for him. It was then that, while insisting she was not seeking a divorce, Susie suggested to Buffett that with the children grown up, it was time for her to spread her wings; to have a place of her own in San Francisco. She simply wanted to surround herself with art, music and theatre.

Buffett was devastated. He wandered aimlessly around the house, barely able to feed and clothe himself. He called Susie daily, weeping.

'It was as if they couldn't live together and they couldn't live without each other,' one friend said.

Buffett later admitted: 'It was preventable. It shouldn't have happened. It was my biggest mistake.'

As requested, meanwhile, Astrid phoned him and called round. Arriving at the door to cook a meal, she found a cave filled with books, newspapers and annual reports.

Buffett, incapable of functioning without female companionship, had been reduced emotionally to an 11-year-old boy. He needed feeding; his clothes were unkempt.

Astrid was the least pushy woman imaginable but when faced with this problem, she took control.

By early 1978, with encouragement from Susie, Astrid was cooking and caretaking. Gradually, however, the relationship became something more as Buffett began to accept that Susie wasn't coming back.

Susie herself was shocked. This wasn't what she had in mind when she told her husband they both had needs. In her mind, Warren's dependence on her was absolute; how could he need a relationship with anyone else?

It might have been predicted. Astrid did all that was required: doing the laundry, taking care of the house, buying the Pepsi, giving him head rubs, cooking the meals and providing companionship. She never told him what to do and asked for nothing in return.

As Susie adjusted to the shock, she came to accept the situation, which did make her life easier. Buffett was perfectly open about living with Astrid, merely saying: 'If you knew the people involved, you'd see that it suited all of us quite well.'

Astrid accepted that Buffett would never marry her, so she tolerated being called his housekeeper and mistress, while Susie accompanied him to social and business events.

Buffett said: 'Astrid knows where she fits with me. She knows she's needed. That's not a bad place to be.'

How is Lauren Sanchez Bezos closer to a waitress than a girlboss? Prior to meeting Bezos she already was a D list celebrity as a news anchor/TV presenter, and is a helicopter pilot that founded an aerial videography company (literally… a girlboss). She was also almost 50 with 3 kids from a previous marriage when they met. The overlap between her and a waitress (especially a 50 year old waitress) is… what?

The overlap between her and a waitress (especially a 50 year old waitress) is… what?

I have expressed my opinion of the second Mrs. Bezos on here before, and you're correct: an ordinary waitress likely has more self-respect and better morals.

That’s the scissor statement in this. Everything you described are hot girl jobs. Including company ex-husband probably funded and lost money on.

This is a Greek weather girl. That’s a presenter right? That girl gets guys for her feminine energy not because she spent a decade grinding at McKinsey. Greek weather girl

helicopter pilot that founded an aerial videography company

How is this one a hot girl job? Nothing about this sentence screams "hot girl". Pick-me girl job MAYBE. But when I read that sentence I imagine an Australian man who surfs, not a bimbo.

She did that after marrying for money. It’s a well known trope of rich husband funding his partners money losing small business. A hobby business isn’t the same thing as being a girl boss. I don’t know enough about this business to know how real it is. When people talk about marrying the waitress I don’t believe said waitress has to have zero interests or hobbies. If I’m being honest something about Bezos wife just vibes lower class. It’s like porn I know it when I see it.

Ah so waitress is a stand in for a “hot girl job”? I’m a frequent restaurant goer and across Europe that’s not really been the case. First off I’ve found most waiters to be male, although at family run restaurants you might have the wife bringing you the food while the husband cooks, and in that case the vibe is definitely more “motherly” than flirty. I’m guessing it’s different in the US which might be one of the causes of the scissor statement.

“Rich men prefer to marry rich women who got wealthy through their looks and personality rather than from grinding the corporate ladder” is a very different statement from “rich men prefer to marry attractive poor women in low status jobs rather than rich women”. Picking a supermodel over a CEO is not the same as picking a bartender over a CEO.

By “hot girl job” that needs to code as the primary reason they got the job and not one trait of many traits. The cofounder of Kalshi is clearly a hot girl but also a girl boss. Hillary Clinton was attractive at one point. A Bloomberg sales rep is always hot but that is clearly white collar work and therefore not a waitress.

Yeah, this whole "waitresses are supposed to be hot" is an American "Hooters"-esque derived observation that doesn't carry over to the UK at least. Here waitresses (and secretaries for that matter) aren't judged on their looks at all. Some of the biggest and most prestigious UK companies I've visited will have a woman very visibly in her 50s manning the front desk. The only time I see things where it explicitly looks like the person was selected for their looks for a front desk job is when I visit the offices of a US firm, it's very very obvious and stands out: yet another sign we aren't like them.

I think this is because American waitresses make most of their money through tips, where being attractive tends to generate more tips, so hot women are literally paid better in those industries.

Waitress is a mostly female job in the US, but they aren't selected for attractiveness.

Waitress is a mostly female job in the US, but they aren't selected for attractiveness.

Depends on where you go. It's no coincidence there aren't any fat ugly waitresses at good restaurants. (Nor fat ugly waiters) They're not solely selected for attractiveness, but they're definitely selected for it.

Depends on the restaurant. A lot of higher-tier restaurants have unattractive waitresses/waiters who are clearly food/cocktail nerds and ostentatiously good at their job. The hipster food revolution has put quite a bit more emphasis on appearing knowledgeable rather than svelte.

https://people.com/thmb/lOOxZbjW7fNtsWp-Z041mUHV1mI=/4000x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(499x0:501x2)/jeb-bush-472739c1c6fd4d899a54b704938af354.jpg

Jeb's wedding picture. I don't get this one, but they've got 50 years, under their belts so there clearly is something that works for them.

Jeb strikes me as a case of someone on the spectrum who's had a lot of training for public speaking.

He didn't date in high school and seems to have married the first girl he slept with.

Columba's history is kind of interesting. Her mother came from a well connected family, but married a dashing low status man. As a result she lived in poverty.

So Columba was basically raised to be on the look out for dorky men from upperclass families and do whatever it took to get that ring.

It doesn't sound romantic when I describe it like that, but they are both fully committed to making the marriage work.

Sometimes personalities just click. Ulysses Grant and his wife were like that.

I'm not on Twitter/X, so I don't know what this is about, and this is one of those times where a link would be helpful. Is the debate "rich guys don't marry poor girls, that's only in fairytales and Hallmark movies" or "rich guys like feminine women who hang off their arms and flutter their eyelashes at them, not hard-charging women competing for corporate jobs"?

Something like this

Yeah, that's dumb. Rich young men have fun with the wholesome waitresses before settling down to marry women of their own class. If the rich guy makes his money later in life, he's likely (again) to marry a woman of his own general level and background (see Bezos and Mackenzie, before he threw it all up in the air for the bimbo next door). Then when he gets mega-rich he may indeed dump her for the younger trophy wife from a lower background, but in general King Cophetua and the beggar girl is not happening much outside of Regency romances. People who come from money marry money, or those who are around money enough to fit into the lifestyle, so yeah the "ambitious girlboss" who can talk about her C-suite level job at fundraisers. The only wholesome waitresses getting into that level are those who did it while in college for fun, or after they graduated and took a year to 'find themselves' before returning to being Daddy's heiress.

Why are we assuming these men stop fucking dumb waitresses just because they're married. What's the culture war angle here, girls get some education so you can get your techbro founder interested in you at a rationalist party? Fuck that, just being a mistress or camwhore has about the same success rate. Play to your advantage, if the girl cant hack it in private equity or exploit parasocialist tendencies by camwhoring she can make money writing absolutely disgusting romantasy billionaire bestiality fics.That at least is still somewhat immune to western AI encroachment due to guardrails, but over in the East novelslop is already AI pilled.

What if you fail at “your own class”? I feel like I’m in this bucket for various reasons. I would have preferred a girl from my own education bucket (dms mostly open). Now I date down. I am fine with that. The choice between my own age girl boss or an Argentinian 28 year old seems easy.

Even today I doubt the majority of the women of that class are "ambitious girlboss" as opposed to "MRS degree". This discussion is trying to draw a false dichotomy between waitress and girlboss, when there is in fact a secret third thing, which is naturally upper-class women who want to get married, have kids, and probably run a nonprofit/vanity business to stave off the boredom of having the help do everything.

One interesting twitter debate going on right now is the billionaires prefer waitresses.

As usual for xitter, this is debate about empirical fact of the world, completely empty of any interest in checking whether the fact is indeed factual or fictional.

Billionaires are public persons unless they make extreme efforts to stay out of sight, it would not be hard to make proper class (and race, religion, education, look etc.) analysis of their marriages and then try to make some inference from this hard data. But why bother, this will be much like work.

I actually did look into something along these fairly superficial lines a while back. Allow me to be tangential. Did you know dermatologists, cosmetic surgeons and optometrists are the best-looking doctors? General practitioners and iirc pediatricians are the most meh. This from a Gemini Deep Research effort that looked at LinkedIn headshots and assumed thinness, JFK Jr. hair, square jaws, symmetrical faces and such = attractive.

Just thought I'd throw this out there.

It’s worth noting that twitterati who have crunched thé numbers found, unsurprisingly, that high income men prefer women with high education while having little preference on income.

It’s worth noting that twitterati who have crunched thé numbers found, unsurprisingly, that high income men prefer women with high education while having little preference on income.

Yeah, I was thinking basically the same thing. The concept of "waitress" conflates two separate issues: (1) the woman's income and career prospects; and (2) the woman's socio-economic class.

If the waitress' father is a physician and her brother is an engineer, that's one thing. If her father is a steel-worker and her brother is a trucker, that's something else entirely.

And in regular life, I see this kind of pattern show up pretty regularly: Thus husband is a highly successful doctor, banker, attorney, etc. while the wife is a part-time university professor; a government attorney working 9-5; etc. i.e. someone from the same class but not a high-powered girl-boss.

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