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 -
No, no, no! This is exactly wrong. You cannot solve this problem by placing additional restrictions on men. We have been trying that for decades. It doesn't work. High status males don't need to be reined in. Women need to be reined in. But this is so unthinkable, even your otherwise redpilled comment instinctively veers off from that conclusion.
A man needs to know, when he marries, that he owns his woman from that day forth, the same way a man needs to know, when he buys a car, that he owns that car from that day forth, and that he will be allowed to defend that car with deadly force if needed, and that the state and his community will back him up if Daquan tries to dispute the ownership of his car. And if he does not, do not be surprised when nobody buys a car. The arguments for secure rights over women are isomorphic to the arguments for secure rights over any other form of property.
For marriage to work, a man needs to be able to kill his wife when he finds her in bed with another man. Instead, she files for divorce and gets rewarded with cash and prizes.
From "Why We Need the Double Standard" by the Dread Jim:
From the comments of "The Reactionary Program" by the same:
And from the comments of "COVID Public Service Announcement", idem:
If you execute or castrate ninety-nine fuckboys, but miss fuckboy number one hundred, he gets to spoil a hundred nice girls.
Whereas if you lock up and marry off ninety-nine girls, but fail to control girl number one hundred, you get ninety-nine happily married wives and one fallen woman.
To end the wars of the sexes, make women property again.
You keep posting the same thing over and over. To echo the folks who reported you: it's getting tiresome.
You know the problem with "make women property again" is that they were never property, at least not in the sense Dread Jim posts about. The model you (Jim) describe is a hentai fetish fantasy. Even the most patriarchal societies in history were not able to reduce women to livestock-you-fuck. Some ancient civilizations allowed men to murder unfaithful wives, but that hasn't been true in the West for centuries, so I guess marriage hasn't "worked" for centuries.
More options
Context Copy link
Man. You keep posting the same shit, and it hasn’t started looking any more compelling.
It does kind of make me curious about one thing. What are your opinions on Islam?
More options
Context Copy link
I really think this is just your lurid power fantasy. Conservative religious Westerners expect both men and women to remain chaste until marriage. So why don't you insist on that? Modern Western dating norms don't punish fuckboys or sluts so why don't you just push chastity for everyone? (if you don't just hate women that is). There are plenty of religious denominations in America that insist on chastity for all parties prior to marriage as a norm. And this is how it has historically been in Western countries. The conservative religious insist on chastity as a norm for all parties while the more secular or part inclined have a period of serial monogamy and/or courting. If you read Chaucer or Shakespeare I think you'll find that Anglo society has never treated women like chattel and plenty of people "had some fun" before settling down.
Now I will say that this period has expanded beyond reason and the endless dating roulette is something of a social ill. But why resort to something so draconian (unless you just really really want to). Northern European society never had anything like this and still had marriage or family formation. The Romans did but classical morality is totally alien from our own and it wasn't just this. I wonder would you accept your father having the power of life and death over you in exchange for the power of life and death over your wife? It doesn't matter though, because this way of thinking is just totally alien to Christendom, enlightenment philosophy and modern morality so it's a total nonstarter.
Believe it or not most men are not constantly terrified about being cucked. But couldn't you just allow the cheated on party to get all the assets in a divorce? Isn't that a more sensible solution to the problem you describe then reducing women to chattel. I feel like you could get a lot of people on board with that, so why not go for that? And why gender it? Why not say adulterers should get the death penalty? Also also your whole framing is wrong a women is not "rewarded with cash and prizes." she is rewarded with her half of the estate that's the whole point of marriage most people end up poorer after a divorce because they're wealth has been split in two. And in this day and age it's not hard to avoid that simply marry a women with a career or gasp one who makes more money than you. Then you get to divorce rape her when she catches you in bed with some Thot! If she doesn't poison your wine first!
I'm being a little tongue in cheek here but I just don't think it's that hard to find a faithful wife. Women want commitment and like casual sex less then men. Most of my social circle is composed of practical minded middle class people who are married and just don't have this soap opera drama you are describing. The don't need some draconian social order to force their wives to stay with them, and indeed why would want that? Why would you want a wife who is only staying with you under pain of ruination and imprisonment? Some of my friends parents got divorced when I was a kid but it wasn't the end of the world and most have now re-married. But divorce is down and it's not that hard to game the stats. Both on first marriage, both college educated, married after 27, same race, same religion, gets your starting odds down to 15%, Though I suspect (though lack the data) that believing women should have the status of chattel raises it significantly.
As well as presumably wanting your wife to be a virgin? If you were a member of a conservative religious denomination you could find one easily and if not why on earth would a secular Western women remain and virgin waiting for you?
The vast vast majority of Western guys do not think a woman is "spoiled" because she has had sex before. Western secular dating norms assume both parties have has several relationships before marriage. In our serious monogamous society, women see their sexual value go down for being virgins too long. A lot of guys after university will be more reluctant to date virgins and her girlfriends will view her as a bit of a loser or or a prude. Now some women will wait out of a sense of romance or anxiety about sex but there is a negative pressure on it in our society and the way you are thinking about this is just totally alien to modern western secular dating culture, and ignorant of it.
I think that these posts by you and Jim are really just a lurid fantasy. Do really think it's common for upper class women to sleep with poor refugees? But more I think you just want these solutions. I don't think you are actually proposing this to solve the problems you want to solve because there are much easier actually politically feasible ways to address what you are saying. And since wives have never been chattel in Northern European society I think you just really really want to own women who have no rights. I think this is just shady thinking to get what you want. You can go to Afghanistan and have that. To which you and Jim will no doubt respond， “But they are uncivilized barbarians!"... yes well exactly.
More options
Context Copy link
Are you aware that what you propose is literal nightmare fuel from dystopian fiction? Very few people would consider making 50% of the population property to be anything but pure evil. How would you convince anyone to want to live in a society like that, let alone defend it?
More options
Context Copy link
There's no need to "make women property" here. Removing their ability to avoid the consequences of their poor choices to a much greater extent than men should be more than sufficient.
Both are coup-complete problems, however.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I understand the usual response to that is "Lincoln done freed the slaves".
If, in the year of our Lord 2026, you unironically want to own a woman, then no wonder there's a problem getting women to marry and have kids. Why, if you have the choice between "get a job, earn a living, pay your own way and be free" versus "be totally dependent economically on a man who puts you in the same category as a possession like his car", would you pick the man?
Why are some comments here making me (1) eternally thankful to God Almighty for leaving out the wiring in my brain that goes "I want to fall in love with a man and be his" and (2) want very much for those producing such comments to be reborn as a woman under the conditions they so want to impose?
Can you not hear yourselves? Do you think any decent woman would want to go within a mile of a man who thinks she should be literal chattel? Do you understand why such comments and attitudes drive feminism, and indeed drive it to the extremes which are bad for everyone? Is anyone really surprised Chinese or Japanese or Korean women would prefer to be spinsters?
It is extremely clear from his links that he does understand this; much of the point of his (or, well, Jim's) proposal to make women chattel is so that feminists attempting to become spinsters could be chained up and raped.
(And that's terrible.)
More options
Context Copy link
The chattel thing is overwrought imo. But I think as policy, it’s rather better to target tge things that create stable and healthy societies rather than just “hedonistic capitalist consumption” as the end game. I don’t think anyone wants to be chattel in any sense. Heck, most people don’t want jobs, or to pay taxes, or to be governed by laws or institutions. The human being is an anarchist at heart, as can be seen by observing small children.
Of course the problem here is that a society run in that manner will very quickly become a society that nobody wants to live in. A society in which marriage is easier to end than most business contracts is one in which nobody wants to marry, and even among those who do, would be somewhat reluctant to have kids because they rightly worry that the marriage that makes the family stable enough to have children is not stable at all.
This isn’t much different from other problems. When a society decides that it wants to give support to people who don’t want to work, it finds it difficult to maintain itself. Nobody wants to clean sewers or pick up trash or work in a warehouse. Unless hunger compels them, those jobs won’t be filled. But if those jobs are not filled, you’ll live surrounded by garbage and sewage and the diseases that come from living in filth. If you decide you don’t want taxes, you will live cheaper, but there’s no police to call, the roads are not paved, and if some other country invades, it’s down to you and your neighbors to fend those people off.
Living in a civilization requires trade offs. And you can’t just think about it as just “I don’t want that restriction,” but in terms of what life wou be like when that restriction is gone for everyone. And I think we see the results. Fewer children, fewer families, and more loneliness is what you get. Is that a reasonable trade for the ability to dump your husband anytime you feel like it? I think I want a society with stable families and plenty of kids.
Sure, but trying to solve the problem by "let's take away all freedom from women and turn them into property" is going to be the fastest way to breakdown you could try. "Oh but it works fine in Saudi Arabia/other countries that cover women from the crown of their head to the tips of their toes and murders them with impunity if even suspected of looking at a man". Yes, quite, and do you think there is no such thing as adultery or promiscuity or prostitution in those societies?
If no man wanted to fuck a woman outside of marriage, then all the thots and cock carousel and the rest of it could not happen. As ever, it's both sides of the coin: men want sex more than women, but don't want women to be sexually active if it's not with them, and they want the relationship to end when they want it to end, and the woman should both be experienced enough to be able to satisfy the man sexually but also never have had a boyfriend before or after him.
How do you think that happens? How do you think a woman gets to be good in bed if she hasn't been sleeping with other men before you? Why complain about the friendzone if there is not the expectation that "if I'm interested in a woman, it is for sex, and she should reciprocate that"?
I don't want to be unfair to men. But I do think a lot of misery has been caused by Sexual Liberation, where women thought they could behave like men when it came to love and sex, and there would be no pushback and no more double standard and no more unhappiness. Turns out that you cannot have it all, and that men and women do have different expectations around relationships, and women giving in to male sexuality has not in fact made either sex happier. All the old prudish warnings about "men only want one thing" turned out to be correct, and it's deeply ironic that now men are complaining about this (women sleeping with men they find attractive even without commitment on the man's part).
We can't go back to the past, and unless people all suddenly convert to traditional Catholicism regarding sexual mores (and even many/the majority of Catholics don't stick to the rules), we're not going to put the sexual genie back in the bottle. Men want sex, but they seem to resent women both not wanting sex as much as they do, and thus not being sexually available, and wanting sex and being too available. Women are not blameless, but it's hard to be blamed for being frigid (if you won't sleep with Ted) and a whore if you will sleep with Ted, and with Joe before him when he was your boyfriend, and with Bill after him when he is your new boyfriend.
Suppose that by some act of the simulation overlords in the morning all women refused to have sex outside of marriage, demanded that their boyfriends commit to proposing marriage before entering into a serious relationship, and everyone had to wait until marriage to have sex. There would still be a ton of male sexual frustration around this, there would be the demand for porn and prostitutes, and where do you get prostitutes if not women who either have high sex drives or are driven to it by economic necessity? And so do we then go back to the happy days of silver nitrate eyewash for newborns, due to the risk of blindness from gonorrhoeal infection of the mothers, often given to them by their husbands who frequented prostitutes? The kind of historical background to this story by Arthur Conan Doyle, based on medical experience, where the grandson of a man who contracted venereal disease is suffering from the transmission of the same down the generations?
I have no idea what the solution is. But it certainly won't come from people like our friend speaking of "my wife" in the same sense they mean "my car" or "my shoes". We've had that, and it wasn't happy families, it was the kind of thing satirised by Dean Swift in "A Modest Proposal":
I don’t think I’d make any changes other than require the person who files the divorce to have an actual cause — cheating, abuse, neglect, addiction, etc. before they can just file the papers and court-fuck the other person out of a good deal of the family assets. Maybe I’d require some evidence that said party tried to work out the differences that exist. I don’t see that as making a woman property, maybe you do, I don’t know. I see it as providing the stability for the family that allows for having and raising healthy children, knowing that you aren’t one lost job or ten pound weight gain away from losing your family.
Oh yeah, I think no-fault divorce was a disaster. But society wanted it, so society got it. All in the name of "make divorce amicable, it's better for kids to have separated parents than live in a home where the parents are angry and unhappy, and everyone should be able to move on and start over again".
Lessons don't get learned until much too late.
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
High status males DO need to be reined in since they're the ones setting the social trends for most everyone below them in the totem pole.
If they are deigning to eschew monogamy and go around banging and impregnating various women with no intentions of marriage, guess what norms end up ascending?
Of course, we could just let those new norms dominate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link