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 -
Do you have any evidence for your description, beyond your own impression of what you've seen? Because by definition, you are not meeting either the men or the women who are not going out. And would I be right to assume that you belong to one of the groups you are talking about (i.e. men who go out to meet women and get rejected)? Because you can see how that might colour your perceptions.
Because come on, it would be a remarkable coincidence if this civilisation-destroying technological combo (the internet plus smartphones) had massive effects on women's approach to dating but no effects on mens' approach to dating whatsoever, and in spite of all the evidence showing that it is affecting both sexes in more or less the same way and in the same magnitude.
I think you're correct that most of the change has been due to ambiverts becoming introverts and the overall range of socialization going down, but I'd add to it that there's a phenomenon where increasingly women who go out socializing are not interested in meeting men during that socializing, even in traditional spots for that kind of thing such as bars. I'm not really speaking from experience here, but we've had several posters talk about how younger women tend to stick together and just spend time with each other at bars/clubs/events in a way that wasn't necessarily true in the past. I don't think that's most of the effect, but there does seem to have been a change in how people socialize in public, even when they do.
That said, I'm in the "my idea of a good night is World of Warcraft" personality cluster. I found a partner who's part of the "my idea of a good night is Netflix True Crime documentary" personality cluster. We met each other in college, and I would say our relationship pushes us both to get out of the house more, do fun things, go on a fun date, go for a road trip, although we enjoy snuggling on the couch just as much.
She sent me some screenshots from this video the other day, and texted "We're the 0.74%. I'm glad I met you in college, it was the correct time to meet someone." I think introverted people tend to disappear into the ether after college -- that's true of me -- as the structured time with a cohort of similar-aged people ends after years of school and college. What's left in terms of "obligatory situations where you can meet people" is basically the workplace, especially for the increasingly irreligious who aren't 'joiners,' and that's... fraught, even on a good day.
A big part of the argument for coeducation back in the day was that it made it possible for men and women to meet in a shared collegiate environment instead of the old tradition, where the fraternity boys would throw parties and the girls at the nearby women's college would show up. The joke in conservative Christian circles is that women go to college to get the esteemed Mrs. Degree. My mother was actually recommended by her pastor to go to a regional Christian college because she'd had an engagement that blew up and still was eager to find a man to settle down with; she took the advice, and Mr. Urquan Sr. capitalized on the opportunity.
As for how you meet people after college, that's where it gets startlingly fraught and the modern, internet-enabled attitude of "if it's not required, I won't be there" becomes destructive.
I guess that's what I'm skeptical about. I was hitting on girls 15-20 years ago, and women going around in groups was normal then too. The old pickup guys designed strategies around it. The image of a young woman sitting at a bar waiting for men to hit on her was just a thing that happened on TV. Women, agreeable as they are, are more likely to say 'I'm just here to hang out with my friends' to a guy they're not interested in, rather than be truthful and say that they would be interested if he were better looking or more charismatic. So the guys on this forum are getting rejected, which is obviously frustrating, and taking the reasons women are giving literally, which is the classic male-female communication failing.
There doesn't seem to be good data from significantly far in the past but this source suggests that the decline in singles looking for love has been driven mostly by men, between 2019 and 2024.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree college is an optimal place to meet long term partners. Attraction can build through encountering people many times in different settings (in a group project, and then again at a party). You get to know someone deeper and evaluate them on less superficial traits. Sometime after college many single people seem to accumulate baggage/cynicism, where they used to have optimism/hope.
There are a couple interesting trends on my radar about college:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Literally your own link said that women are using instagram and pinterest more, while men are doing online gaming more. But that all gets rolled into "screen time. " Frankly i thought that was just common sense that doesn't need a source? Its not a remarkable coincidence that women and men are different.
'Women and men have different media habits' is obviously not the key part of your argument that I'm addressing, it's that the coupling recession is the fault of women and not the fault of men, contrary to all the actual evidence that both sexes are retreating from the social sphere. The reduction in people coupling up isn't driven by men getting rejected and women doing the rejecting, it's driven by the men and women who aren't going outside at all.
Because from the perspective of forming a relationship, staying at home scrolling Instagram and staying at home playing video games are exactly the same.
I do try and steer away from Bulverism, but this really seems like you're just a guy who has gotten rejected a lot and is bitter about it, and this is driving your explanation of why coupling is decreasing. Am I wrong?
There's getting rejected a lot, and then there's getting rejected with language that the mere act of speaking to a woman in public is some kind of violation. "And then he tried flirting with me, ugh. At a bar, of all places. Who does that?"
I've had women approach ME in bars only for nearby women to reflexively try to "save" her, because they can't wrap their head around a woman wanting to talk to a man and I must be up to no good. And yes, I am bitter about this.
This is maybe the worst factor.
If you approach (or are approached) in a public setting, you can expect a White Knight or bridge troll to intervene, at least passively, with the attempts you're making to advance things with your target. Suddenly you're having to put on a performance for a larger audience.
And sure if your charisma rolls are high enough maybe this isn't a failure condition
But its an added order of magnitude having to pass her shit-tests while there is a hostile-ish interloper you also have to pacify.
And wingmen seem to be a less common thing these days?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Like all men I've had my share of both romance and rejections. I am currently in a good long-term relationship. So, no, your personal attack on me is false.
My claim was that men are still purposefully going out in real-life spaces with the intention of meeting women, while women are increasingly relying on social media to get interaction from men. That seems both obviously true in my lived experience, and also true in the evidence that you cited. You seemed to make a very strong claim that "men and women are the same" from some random reddit link about "screen time" which isn't the issue at all. Scrolling Instagram vs playing a video game is very different, when one involves getting likes and DMs from the opposite sex and the other is killing NPCs.
But I admit I get a little defensive about this stuff, because I see so many young men getting absolutely gaslit by feminist dating advice. To put this in your words, I do try and steer away from Bulverism, but this really seems like you're just a guy who argues a lot on the internet and has gotten bitter about it, and this is driving your white knighting of women and attacks on young men. Am I wrong?
This conversation doesn't seem like it's going anywhere. I don't see a productive way to reconcile data with your 'lived experience'.
But I will address your last part:
That's everyone on this forum, including you.
Bitter about what?
My interest isn't in white knighting women. It's in lowering the temperature on the gender war. I'm happily married with kids and I want that for everyone. I think the decline is socialising, coupling, marriage and birth rates are all tragedies and so I argue (with data) against moralistic positions that blame either sex for what is clearly a technological issue. On this forum, that manifests as arguing with incels who think that the coupling decline is driven exclusively by women being bitches or being too picky, on Reddit it manifests as arguing with feminists who blame men for being misogynists or manchildren.
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