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 -
My experience is that the problem there is mostly with women. Men still go out and attempt to meet women in person. But women stay inside using social media for 100% of their social life. Or if they do go out, they put out signals of "I'm just here to dance, do not talk to me!" as loudly as possible, while staying clustered with a tight circle of female friends and avoid male eye contact.
That isn't borne out by the data. Women socialise in person more than men (although both are seeing massive declines), and screen time is essentially the same for men and women. Among young single people, men are slightly more likely to be 'looking' (67% vs 61%) but I would imagine that reflects the more passive nature of female romance.
Most of what i would say is in the comments there. There's very different types of socializing and screen time. Women are more likely to socialize in person with a group of already exiating friends (usually all-female) and actively avoid meeting men outside. They're also using sites like instagram and pinterest the most. Men spend their screen time on things like games, twitter, and reddit, which are only barely social, then go out active trying to meet women and get mocked when they fail.
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.
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?
I've never understood how a second man helps in this situation; that's just another oppressor who might be a serial killer or have a podcast.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link