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 -
It's not just that: female sexual usefulness ends at 50ish in a way it doesn't for men. After menopause, is there really any reason ever not to just be FWB, retirement home style? Men can invest and save for this so they can afford someone who can still build a family but no amount of financial prudence will save that for women.
And sure, you could compensate with basic things like "not being openly hostile", but feminists are [by definition] at a disadvantage there, so...
What remains to be seen is how the spinsters are going to take it out on everyone else, because they will have some political capital to getting revenge on the men they feel they are entitled to, and will likely act accordingly. But there will be no State-mandated husbands (besides perhaps Big Brother, imposed with "protecting women" as the main justification- a concept that's 20 years out of date, but history shows this demographic does not care about that); it'll take on the character of a society-wide divorce.
No, this is 100% just the "I consent/isn't there someone you forgot to ask?" meme.
No, the general principle is "love is love so long as it benefits women-as-class", and has been that way since 1900 or so. This is why it's OK for young boys to be sex objects for gay men, but never young girls.
Interesting. I'd never thought of that in that way. It's not a psychological universal either - the "appropriate age" in Japan seems to have been about equal until relatively recently, for example. So cultural?
Yes. The women in that society have (for reasons that I think have a lot to do with not having a frontier to loot or expand into) evolved to defend/accept men's sexual interests just as much as men have evolved to defend/accept women's sexual interests. This is why you get things that look weird from broader Western perspectives, like female Japanese politicians defending loli hentai (and all of the other kinda-weird-kinda-sexual stuff they have going on more generally).
A Western woman would bitterly complain about "internalized misogyny" and be baffled by why an Eastern woman wouldn't be trying to Take Back What's Hers, but sufficiently advanced temperance/co-operation isn't meaningfully distinguishable from self-hatred (compare "voting against one's interests", or the justifications for free speech in general). And Western society doesn't really have good mechanisms for hammering out what that co-operation should be, or discovering why that temperance needs to exist, because up until 100 years ago the frontier could be depended upon to provide an alternate answer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Worry not, my friend, your virtue is safe from me as a life-long spinster who wouldn't take on a man if you threw in five million dollars/euro with him.
I do like the notion of men aged 50+ trading in their infertile wives once they've fathered twenty kids on her during her fertile years so they can do it all over again with a fertile young bride. Mmm-hmm. That's precisely what happens. If you're Rupert Murdoch, who seems to have got new babies by new wives pretty much, or at least three of his five wives plus one partner. Ditto Elon Musk.
I guess that's what Leonardo diCaprio is doing with his string of girlfriends? Remind me again, how many kids does Leo have?
You misunderstand: this is the notion of men aged 50+, who never got married, now never having any reason to. And the matching women, 50+, trying to punish them for never having married them.
I believe those femcels will demand state-mandated husbands. It might not take that form specifically, since men and women are different, but I suspect something along those lines will occur. Technically, it already is through progressive taxation.
You forget, of course, that men who never got married are not an unselected group- they’re very disproportionately men nobody wants. Some might have extenuating circumstances, sûre, but unmarried women as a class largely accurately see unmarried men as a class as undesirable.
In modern times, symmetrically, so are unmarried women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And straight women...
True; Adolescence is basically the distaff equivalent of whatever that salacious Victorian-era book about young teenage prostitutes was (and all the wokeshit is, to lesser degrees).
It's a clear sign there's something real nasty going on, but the relevant actors are too weak to deal with that (to the point that they're too busy getting off on the oppression, in that same awkward/harmful way women do when they stay with a man that abuses them in the ways typical of men).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link