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 think, as far as society goes. Raising young boys, especially those coming from bad family backgrounds with these points in mind + some sort of government intervention policy would help shift the needle.
We'd also need to raise wages for men who can not attend higher education, whatever the reason.
We'd also need to crack down on the american food industry so that people can be skinnier, much of the increase in obesity is basically both the quality of and the amount of food we consume. Becoming attractive physically will help a lot. Thats 3 i can think off of the top of my head.
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?
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.
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.
It wouldn't be difficult if anyone with the ability to do so was interested in doing so. They are not.
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!)
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.
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?
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