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 -
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.
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.
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 are very bad at 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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link