site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   7351 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So "Into The Manosphere" is a netflix documentary, that im sure many here have heard of.

Here is a video on it that I watched, by a psychiatrist. Although I enjoyed it enough, there is a common sentiment that deserves to critiqued, one that was echoed in the video, that i will simplify with a youtube comment (note: this comment is in response to another comment, the context of which i will be representing by {} brackets):

See, this is what has always genuinely confused me, too.{Why should we be good men? Just be a good person bro?} Why is there so much emphasis on the man part{of male role-modes} (except maybe that's literally part of patriarchy, too)? I didn't grow up thinking about how to be a woman, I grew up thinking about wanting to be a scientist and wanting to travel and be a generally good and mostly happy person. The whole being a woman thing was just something society forced on me that I mostly resented. Just teach people to be good, healthy, functional people.

But a lot of men, including people I genuinely respect and agree with on sociopolitical issues still seem to think there's value in some type of male identity. And maybe there is, but no one has been able to explain it to me. But the need for some kind of masculine identity just seems like insecurity and needing a set of rules to live by from the outside, instead of doing the work of learning to be a whole, messy, beautiful human being.

And don't get me wrong. I think men get confined to a tighter box in terms of acceptable behavior than women, even as that box often comes with higher social standing. Sometimes, I feel really sad for boys that have to grow up in this mess. But also, how hard is it to just learn to be yourself without all the weird, gendered expectations? I'm really very baffled by it all.

I think this gender abolitionist framing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Men & Women are judged and valued by society differently. Men are valued based on their ability to climb up social hierarchy to obtain status. Women's value is more reflected by their attractiveness, and reproductive capabilities. Masculinity (attempts) to provide useful guidelines and structure to achieve this end. Women simply do not exist in the same space, so their variation of being a role model wouldn't be a good representation of the male position. It would be a kin to a white man trying to be a role model for black boys - the critical social context is not there.

Women don't grow up thinking about how to be woman, because much of what defines femininity is there by default. You are simply born a sexy girl - you simply gestate a fetus - and then give birth to it. There is little to no skill barrier required in comparison.

EDIT: Ok, the above statement was hasty initially. There are some aspects that are require skill in some capacity. Not all women are born pretty butterfly's, you need make up, nails, hair, ect, and this requires skill in its own right. But none the less, i wouldn't say this is equivalent to the skills sets required for Masculinity.

The problem with "being yourself" as so often espoused by liberal types is that, it provides 0 road map to achieving the traits that women (and people in general) value in men. & this is the same general issue I take with the manosphere opponents - Many of these individuals believe completely asinine and reality denying ideas like "Looks don't matter" or "You just need to be a good person to be attractive". The manosphere, for all its misogyny and toxicity, is at least calling out the reality of the situation: If you are poor, fat, and socially inept - as a man, you will be harshly judged and looked down on within our society. This is - arguably - one of the main appeals of the manosphere to begin with. If one really wants to see the manosphere go away - we need to start looking at these realities of life straight to the face. Only then can one begin to provide meaningfully positive alternatives.

Women don't grow up thinking about how to be woman, because much of what defines femininity is there by default. You are simply born a sexy girl - you simply gestate a fetus - and then give birth to it. There is little to no skill barrier required in comparison.

I’d phrase it as: society generally believes that men need to be prepared for marriage through conditioning, rewards and punishments, whereas in the case of women this is unneeded, because they are naturally a) monogamous b) inclined to become mothers. This isn’t incorrect as such, as women are indeed naturally monogamous, with the caveat that their promiscuity, to the extent that it is indulged, manifests as serial monogamy, which is something that has zero allure to promiscuous men. And the motherhood part obviously no longer necessarily asserts itself in a world of cheap and reliable contraception, abortion access, various distractions etc.

If you are poor, fat, and socially inept - as a man, you will be harshly judged and looked down on within our society.

I’d phrase it as: poverty is a state you’re supposed to remedy as a man by raising yourself up, being an ambitious worker, earning more money, acquiring more skills etc. As a woman your remedy is supposed to be eliciting commitment and financial support from a rich man. Society in general is willing to cut women slack and provide support in such situations if they fail, under the assumption that it’s somehow all the fault of evil men or something, but has zero sympathy towards men who fail. Also, social adeptness is seen as a necessary virtue for men if they want to mate but not for women.

Calling this pattern of behavior "serial monogamy" is like calling someone who gets shitfaced every other day "serially sober".

I'm stricken every time by the level of effort levied to whitewash and excuse women's promiscuity. I still haven't stopped thinking about the time I was told that women's desire to lock down the double alpha is somehow an impulse that a meaningfully monogamous society could be built on. Cool, I guess all we need to do is figure out a way that Ultra K-Pop Superstar can somehow monogamously marry ten thousand horny fourteen year old girls.

Unfortunately this is what it looks like to midwit normies, I think. What they see is that the average single woman is never sexually interested in multiple men at the same time, and wants to hold onto just one. So they assume that women are naturally fit for marriage and men aren't. It also doesn't help that society's entire concept of romantic relationships is gynonormative.

It also doesn't help that society's entire concept of romantic relationships is gynonormative.

What do you even mean by this?

It means there is an unstated social consensus that romantic relationships are to be assessed according to female norms by default.

If a guy and a girl are sort of seeing each other and the girl wants to make it ‘official’/serious but he doesn’t, he’s seen as a ‘commitment-phone’, Peter Pan, manchild, player, free rider etc. If this happens the other way around, she’s just weighing her options, not ready for anything serious, still seeking to find herself, finding her voice and place, still wants to have fun etc.

And if either party wants to end an ongoing relationship, we generally see the same pattern. If the guy leaves, he’s a jerk, asshole, uncaring etc. If he wants to remain, he’s a clinger, a creep, emotionally immature, it’s only that the woman feels trapped and wants to find herself again etc.

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