site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29410 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What's your reason for assuming the interventions needed should target men and male behavior.

Is there something that men have started doing differently that we need to correct?

What's your reason for assuming the interventions needed should target men and male behavior.

I think this touches on the biggest stumbling block in any societal effort to address the "relationship recession," such as it exists. Any proposal is going to affect men and women differently. If there is any perceived disadvantage to women; or if the perceived advantage for women is less than the perceived advantage for men, then women will freak out and society will have a very hard time adopting such a policy.

Here's an example:

We'd also need to raise wages for men who can not attend higher education, whatever the reason.

I agree that this is a good idea. When a man's finances improve, he is more likely to get married; when a woman's finances improve, she is more likely to get divorced (or stay single).

Ok, but suppose there was a policy proposal to create good jobs for men. Kind of like the Hoover Dam project in the 1930s, except with better safety standards. I assure you that feminists would freak out. The whole thing would be revised and water down until the majority of the benefits were going directly to women.

I think that absent some huge technological shift (e.g. artificial wombs; robot waifus; etc.) the only real solution is to wait for more traditional (and more fecund) subcultures to grow in influence.

I still struggle a bit with the mechanics of it all.

The reason things that upset women are political nonstarters is because they will have a disproportionate freakout, they'll get on TV shows and cry (exploiting DEEP biological wiring), they'll march in the street and scream, they'll directly confront people (knowing they won't be physically assaulted!) and they'll, ultimately, show up at the polls and vote against whomever dared make the suggestion in the first place.

But on the flip side, all you need to do in response, as a male politician, is say "no, we're doing it anyway." The women have no recourse beyond more screaming. They don't enforce the laws, and they can't actually go on strike and bring society to a halt. I note that when Roe v. Wade was overturned there was a similar massive freakout... and a few places passed some new laws, but generally speaking things normalized pretty fast. Abortion remains THE primary voting issue for women, but that's all they can do is cast votes and scream. You can plug your ears.

So I suspect we're just waiting to achieve a critical mass of men who are capable of saying "no, we're doing it anyway."

Either because they're just that Chadly or because they've got absolutely nothing left to lose.

Abortion remains THE primary voting issue for women, but that's all they can do is cast votes and scream. You can plug your ears.

Plugging your ears will not magically create a retvrned society where women instantly realize their proper role and shit.

The issue with trying to fix sex relations is that it is not going to be enough for enough male simps to stop caring about women. You want men to care about women, if not in the same direction that they do now. Care enough to grab them off the streets, or buy them from their fathers while garnering the fathers' respect, or do whatever it is they do in Muslim countries.

(Like - suppose I wanted to marry now, the last thing I want to do is to court some old fuck who's probably a backwards boomer opposite of me on politics and all that. I'd rather court the woman, notwithstanding all the woes of modern courting!)

And in the absence of the tradition that taught men to care about women that way, the only ones who will are the crazy ones who will put a crazy bent on it. E. g. Jim.

(Like - suppose I wanted to marry now, the last thing I want to do is to court some old fuck who's probably a backwards boomer opposite of me on politics and all that. I'd rather court the woman, notwithstanding all the woes of modern courting!)

Right, but at least you might expect that dad can be an ally in your quest to win his daughter if he decides you're worthy, he can scare off the other suitors and encourage/push the daughter to make her choice and stick with it.

I've had a bit of a history of pursuing fatherless women and the benefit of not having to earn the respect of a guy who considers his girl a princess is usually outweighed by her having zero discipline in her behavior and lack of experience interpreting male behavior correctly, so its like trying to domesticate a feral fox. You get bitten a lot in the process and they often slip away back into the forest anyway.

So I suspect we're just waiting to achieve a critical mass of men who are capable of saying "no, we're doing it anyway."

There are just a lot of men out there who are obsessed with female validation. But I agree that on the current trajectory, it's almost inevitable that women will lose their disproportionate influence over public policy.

The "simp" problem is hard to quantify.

I've come to believe that a lot of it isn't really Western Men obsessed with female validation. Thanks to the internet, its actually millions upon millions of third world males obsessed with bobs and vagene. But for the receiving woman... attention is attention. Money still spends.

I also note how many prominent 'male feminist' types keep getting outed as wanton sex pests and then devoured by the very mob they courted. We are selecting for guys who are able to avoid that trap.

Men really could use a better, coordinated method of keeping each other from pedestalizing women who don't give a crap about them, and, ideally, ostracizing the guys who defect hard and try to become good 'allies' as a means of gaining sexual access.

Thanks to the internet, its actually millions upon millions of third world males obsessed with bobs and vagene.

These sorts of Third World males select into red pill and Andrew Tate fandom more likely. Obsession with vagene + low patience for Western women's complaints is already pushing you into "misogynist" spaces that are pre-discredited.

I also see no reason to doubt that there aren't Western simps driving this because you see it in other cases, e.g. all of the celebrities crying and taking responsibility after George Floyd's death, and all of the stuff significantly less famous people did in its wake. All of the people "listening and learning" show the same outgroup preference simps do.

I've come to believe that a lot of it isn't really Western Men obsessed with female validation. Thanks to the internet, its actually millions upon millions of third world males obsessed with bobs and vagene. But for the receiving woman... attention is attention.

I would say that American society was very gynocentric in the 20th century, i.e. pre-Internet.

Most importantly, the trend of forcible transfers of wealth and social status from men to women was in place long before the Internet. The idea that men suck; that women don't need men; etc. was also well established by then. The taboo against saying anything negative about women as a group wasn't firmly established yet, but it was still floating around.

Ok, but suppose there was a policy proposal to create good jobs for men.

There was, and it wasn't particularly controversial.

There was, and it wasn't particularly controversial.

Was this initiative explicitly aimed at creating good jobs for men?

In the same way that Hoover Dam was.

In the same way that Hoover Dam was.

Ok, I understand your point. I am pretty sure that a law aimed at securing good jobs for men, if it were large enough to put a big dent the wealth transfer imbalance from men to women, would have to be explicitly designed for this purpose. Which means that a feminist freak-out would be triggered.

I do concede that something smaller could be done on the down low, though.

What's your reason for assuming the interventions needed should target men and male behavior.

The other possible solutions are probably a no go.

Targeting womens sexuality would probably be a dead end with little return. We as humans dont choose what we are attracted to. Women as a group cant undo their desire for men with money and status any more than i as a man can undo my desire for hourglass figure, youthful girls. The best we could try is having them tought to look for more personality traits outside of attraction, but that wont do as much as good as simply making said person attractive to start with. You cant negotiate it.

We also cant reverse the reality of our economic system: the service economy is here to stay. Social and Mentally intensive skills pay, and i dont see a way around this, itll probably continue as AI make progress.

Is there something that men have started doing differently that we need to correct?

I touched on some of this in the general post: Not graduating college at the same rate, more likely to have little to no friends (lack of socialization), many are even out off the workforce all together.

I know it seems that im kind of unfairly targeting men here, but i see little alternative.

We don't choose who we're attracted to, but we do choose how to act on it. Being a floozy should be just as shameful as being a cad.

One really big problem is that it's hard to offer men a compelling alternative to grifters like Tate, who promise a buffet of pussy, fast cars, and shiny toys. The role of "respected family patriarch" is off the table for obvious reasons, but we could at the very least stop lying to young men and maybe it'd stop them from turning to the grifters. Yes, being strong and competent will help. Almost no women will give you a direct signal of interest unless you're extremely attractive or she's extremely keen on you, so learn the subtle ones. Hit the gym. Learn to dance. Broaden your interests. Do interesting things. Be interesting. Learn to talk about it. Despite all the culture warring, men are still generally expected to be extremely agentic, so teaching them how to be more attractive should pay dividends.

Actually, we should teach both boys and girls how to partner dance so they can spend more time in each other's personal space without freaking out. Hell, they might even like it and decide they like each other.

I know it's not practical to implement, but we do need to teach the girls too. Men need to initiate, that's just the way it is, but then women then have the responsibility of turning men down graciously if they're being courted in good faith. I remember being an awkward teenager and once asking a stunningly beautiful waitress for her number. She turned me down, saying something like "I have a boyfriend, but that took balls. Girls like that." It was an unambiguous but positive rejection, and didn't cost her anything.

I remember being an awkward teenager and once asking a stunningly beautiful waitress for her number. She turned me down, saying something like "I have a boyfriend, but that took balls. Girls like that." It was an unambiguous but positive rejection, and didn't cost her anything.

Yeah. Tons of younger women seem to be unable to effectively flirt OR to effectively and gracefully reject an otherwise polite advance.

You can give men all the coaching you like, but if the women they're targeting either completely shut down/retreat... or get nasty in response, then they will RAPIDLY decide there's no point to it.

Doubly so if the reward for a 'successful' approach is just further humiliation on the actual date. And they know marriage and kids are probably not in the cards.

Yeah. Tons of younger women seem to be unable to effectively flirt OR to effectively and gracefully reject an otherwise polite advance.

You can give men all the coaching you like, but if the women they're targeting either completely shut down/retreat... or get nasty in response, then they will RAPIDLY decide there's no point to it.

I briefly touched on this on the original post. We can add this to the "Have more socialization at a young age between the sexes" solution.

One really big problem is that it's hard to offer men a compelling alternative to grifters like Tate, who promise a buffet of pussy, fast cars, and shiny toys.

It wouldn't be difficult if anyone with the ability to do so was interested in doing so. They are not.

Almost no women will give you a direct signal of interest unless you're extremely attractive or she's extremely keen on you, so learn the subtle ones.

The punishment for type I errors -- responding to a subtle signal when there isn't one -- has become so great that there's little opportunity to learn. If the punishment for failure is at best becoming known as "that creep" and quite possibly some sort of formal punishment, it is hard to find the boundaries. (Thus the earlier suggestion that the right thing to do if this happens is to change cities!)

Men need to initiate, that's just the way it is, but then women then have the responsibility of turning men down graciously if they're being courted in good faith. I remember being an awkward teenager and once asking a stunningly beautiful waitress for her number. She turned me down, saying something like "I have a boyfriend, but that took balls. Girls like that." It was an unambiguous but positive rejection, and didn't cost her anything.

There's nothing in it for them to do this, and in fact it does cost them. The problem the hotties have (or perceive they have) is too many approaches from uggles. Vicious shoot-downs and the prospect of formal punishment create deterrents that winnow the field in advance.

There's nothing in it for them to do this, and in fact it does cost them.

Short term perhaps, but long term they gain healthier relationships with half the human population and the opportunity for many of them to meet guys that could be great matches for them but who have been conditioned to never approach them out of fear of the social consequences.

Wouldn't it be great if HR reps could teach the less-than-stellar candidates how to create good CVs? Instead of having to sift through hundreds of eligible candidates, they could so so with thousands! Maybe there's even a hidden gem in there somewhere.

Women with options don't want less preselection, they want more.

If they have hundreds of eligible candidates, why isn't the job filled yet?

Why do you think the main goal is to fill the position rather than bask in the attention of high-quality candidates?

I know it seems that im kind of unfairly targeting men here, but i see little alternative.

I've proposed literally just return to a status quo ante of circa 1993 with regard to education policy/funding.

I don't think you have to 'target' female sexuality. Literally just level the playing field and stop subsidizing degrees that don't pay well or boosting female employment in careers they aren't suited for. Let the market correct.

And you will then have, on the margins, more men with relatively high status and a bit more wealth, and more women who haven't had their standards raised arbitrarily whilst becoming less appealing as partners.

And we start to reduce the political polarization of women because it is 100% clear that the college education environment is driving the women to the left in droves. Fewer Gender Studies degrees would be an unalloyed improvement.

If nobody is willing to make a policy change that risks upsetting females, the current course will only correct when something breaks.

I bring this up mainly because The Gender Divide is extremely pronounced among younger generations. There's zero reason to think this moderates later.

As the Boomers shuffle off, there's going to be a crack in the dam that currently protects females from social restriction and cultural 'retaliation.'

What do you think happens if a generation where an actual majority of the men don't even believe in gender equality achieves political power?

Implement some solutions now to correct course, or I'm genuinely afraid for how the Zoomers will end up addressing this problem that, from their perspective, stole their future.

There is no likely future where women retain their rights and privileges. That which cannot go on forever, won't. Correcting the problem now would lead to a softer landing, but it's politically impossible, so hard landing it is. Do not mistake this prediction for a preference.

There is no likely future where women retain their rights and privileges.

Well I think one possibility is technological changes which are so radical that these relationship issues are moot. e.g. robot waifus, artificial wombs, etc.

But I agree that absent radical changes in technology, feminism is ultimately a self-correcting problem.

I think this prediction is fraught with the same issues any prognostication more than a couple years out is, thanks to the rapidly changing technological landscape.

But yeah, if we see economic downturn for [reasons] this likely reasserts the gender dynamics, of necessity, because we can't afford to elevate women into critical positions, and the labor men provide will be far more valuable in those conditions.

However, I largely reject people who say anything is 'politically impossible.' Not after what I've seen Trump do. Throwing in the towel without making some calculated efforts is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I do genuinely think that if there's a massive cultural shift and political power starts coalescing on the right, women will gravitate there naturally and discard previous beliefs pretty readily.

I offer the small, tiniest bit of evidence by pointing out two things:

  1. The recent decline in young people identifying as LGBT. The increase in the first place was largely driven by women.

  2. The accelerating disappearance of the body positivity movement thanks to weight loss drugs. Or at least the "healthy at any size" division. (also many of its proponents just... died).

Simply put, if it becomes 'high status' to be a married stay at home mom, expect women to fall into line rapidly. Whether it is technology or politics or something else that creates the change, that's our best chance at a 'soft' landing.

I admire your optimism.

Only way I can keep getting up in the morning, honestly.

Cutting down on all the ambient "Men, Amirite?" seems achievable. Right now, only being an absolute panty-melter can get a woman to briefly forget she's supposed to hate her oppressors or whatever.

Agreed

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