site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29415 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.

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