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 -
The thing is... most "Tate followers" I've encountered irl are completely off brand of what shows like "Adolescence" depict them to be. These men usually display a cluster of traits that fits into the dark triad chad mould who experience near zero barriers to securing sexual/romantic access to conventionally high value women (attractive, educated, stable family backgrounds). I've seen dropdead gorgeous women voluntarily enter and sustain dysfunctional relationships with deadbeats, drug abusers and serial cheaters who treat them like fleshlights.
And these dynamics seem to emerge with little deliberate strategy on the men's part. They naturally elicit strong attachment responses and produce intense dopamine/oxytocin surges during sexual peaks that make the experience feel like an unholy symphony of fear, pleasure, pain and thrill (a recurring trope in women's "dark romance" novels and wattpad stories). And the man is positioned as someone who is uniquely capable of delivering this experience, so the woman becomes behaviourally contingent upon his impulses to maintain access to it.
And incels know this. They do not need some "Andrew Tate" to tell them what they can personally observe in their immediate social environments. They're out here perusing 2 dozen pickup tactics online in an attempt to secure, and fail at, what comes like second nature to Jeremy Meeks, for example. But IMO that's not what they're about. They're mad about the mainstream discourse insists that, unlike male horniness, female attraction is largely meritocratic (and more "refined), and that their dating failures stem primarily from deficient personality or some moral failing.
When narrative collides with lived experience, Streisand effect amplifies some of the rhetoric into reactive extremes. I don't see a structural intervention ameliorating this behavioural sink. A paraplegic can never become a runner, perhaps it's simpler to just break the news?
The basic insight of the red-pillers was that the dark triad is attractive to women and people who don't do so naturally can often exhibit or fake such traits and get success. Or, in the crude terms of a past generation: "Chicks dig jerks." And "At least some kinds of jerks. Be that kind of jerk."
More options
Context Copy link
Mainstream discourse might act like female attraction is meritocratic, but in my experience if one talks to actual women they tend to be quite open about the non-meritocratic nature of their attraction to men. I suppose, however, that the majority of straight men who have little sexual experience don't talk to many women in general, so they are not exposed to this. And if they were, it would likely not make them feel much better just because it's honest.
It's possible that women's attraction to men, despite not being meritocratic, is more meritocratic than men's attraction to women. In any case, I don't think it's less meritocratic. But that, too, is small comfort to straight men who don't have much sexual experience.
I agree with this. Although, a close lady friend asked me a couple times why she's never seen me on a date (my last relationship was in 2021). She asked if I was closeted, I said no. Then the next 10 minutes was her telling me I didn't have to be ashamed and that I can confide in her. I realised even mature, experienced women can't fully comprehend a reality where you could go 4-5 years without anyone showing interest. I won't claim it's 100% not my fault though, the peace is underrated and at this point, a relationship low key feels like an invasion.
More options
Context Copy link
The Blue Tribe has decreed that only feminists are allowed to have an opinion on gender relations, and feminists will insist that female sexuality is meritocratic on average (while defending any individual woman's choices to date badboys, especially their own) because to do otherwise makes women look bad.
This is made worse because the Red Tribe thinks that the people who should be listened to on gender relations are pastors who are , in the current year, more likely than not to say that female sexuality is meritocratic even if they are otherwise-conservative evangelicals. The idea that if you aren't getting laid you must not be praying hard enough is sufficiently pervasive in modern American Christian culture that even the otherwise admirable TitaniumButterfly AAQC hints at it.
It also didn't help that Roissy deliberately chose a term ("alpha") that implies female sexuality is meritocratic (but with a less pussified definition of "merit" than the standard one) while correctly insisting that it is not, and a lot of less talented manosphere writers following him didn't understand that he was using "alpha" in a sense where the positive connotations were ironic.
And access to the ground truth is not available to the men who need it because women do not discuss their own sexuality frankly around men they do not trust. Women being open about their non-meritocratic sexuality happens in all-female settings or in the kind of art fag-ridden mixed groups where straight men who can't get laid are already selected out. Hence the advice to read bestselling Amazon romance slop to understand what women want rather than asking them.
And any tangible advice is the usual blue tribe rhetoric sprinkled with some macho talk. Don't be insecure! Wife up that 37yo Christian mom with a totally not-unChristian history! Yet, socially stunted 20yo simps probably do line up for her. Just cuz a 5/10M is willing to fuck a 5/10F doesn't mean the reverse is true.
You’re not a stepdad, you’re the one who stepped up. Plus, the sperm donor of a biodad already knocked her up so you don’t have to, thus you’re the winner here.
Indeed, both progressives and modern mainstream conservatives are on the same page with regard to women’s Wonderfulness—and Fun, Freedom for women and duties, obligations, Being a Real Man and Stepping Up for men.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are ignoring, of course, that even secular, socially liberal red tribers do not see ‘getting laid’ as worth encouraging in itself. The goal is supposed to be a stable relationship that forms a nuclear family. That does not mean that the red tribe necessarily hates premarital sex; that means that it is not the metric by which romantic success is measured.
"If you're not getting laid, you're not praying hard enough" is a message that gets applied by cucked pastors to married sex as well as premarital sex.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen this as well personally. I think this comes down to a combination of point 4, and the meme of "fatherless behavior". These women probably have mistaken these tough guy, treat people like shit behaviors to being "manly" due to poor upbringing. The fact that many women choose these bad actors definitely doesn't help the situations.
Needless to say, my own father & mother are happily married and he is nothing like tate. So its not the case all women are gonna fall for that. They are screwed in the head and you wont be able to have a good relationship with them. And we should also be teaching girls what to be looking for in a man, beyond just "tall w/ money". A lot of people find a person sexually attractive, and then scan for other traits later. Not a good strategy.
We shouldn't be framing the current relationship issues as just a "your a lazy bum" problem. The fact that it exists across societies indicates a larger societal wide problem beyond just the behaviors of individuals.
See that's why I mentioned women with stable family backgrounds... for women who've never had a good relationship model growing up, it's not completely surprising that they repeat their trauma cycle. But why do smart, college educated women get manipulated by high school dropouts? IMO there's something to pin on nature here. These women view stability and direct communication as boring. They've lived a boring, predictable life, and now they crave life on the edge. They need the mystery, intensity and emotional distance to make the attraction work. Imagine you want adventure, would you go paragliding or golfing?
There could also be a generational issue, women in developed countries have never had more options in history. Overpopulation and rising living costs have generally made home ownership and childbearing almost unattainable for the middle class. Singlehood among women is celebrated in western culture. If family is assumed not to be on the cards anyway, women are free to explore the darker edges of their sexuality. I don't think this was nearly as common when our parents were growing up.
Hard agree with the last line though. I've been to a few big cities in India, and I was surprised to see similar dynamics play out over there. Which underscores my suspicion that this is just female nature in its raw, dysfunctional glory.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link