site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   25594 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've been asked by a mod to repost this here, so here goes!

What Is The Problem With Women?

We've often discussed, and it seems we will continue to discuss, what is going on in the Battle of the Sexes. I have to hold my hands up and admit that very often in such dispatches, I am the one defending women and criticising the behaviour and the attitudes of men.

But it is also undeniable that some women are fudging stupid. Or at the very least, so it appears. We've argued over "women prefer the Bad Boys to the Nice Guys" but there comes a point where it seems to be sheer self-destruction at work, because how could anyone stick with a guy like the one in this story?

So, to do justice to the gentlemen here with whom I have argued, here is the sorry story of a woman who apparently had not a brain in her head. Her family warned her off, her friends warned her off, even on a first date she knew this was a bad idea - and she still ended up marrying him and having two children with him while he was irresponsible, controlling, and abusive.

Why? I can't explain it to you in any way that makes sense. Even she doesn't know why, looking back. There are some hints that, in line with theories of such behaviour, she was drawn (for whatever reason) to abusive men, like a typical victim who keeps going back to the same kind of relationship after getting out of the last one. But as to what was at work here, who knows? I can't imagine any evo-psych explanation for this that makes any sense at all, not even the "women evolved to tolerate rape because women who resisted rape got murdered when the barbarian horde over-ran the village and killed all the men and took all the women" kind of thing.

An Irish divorce story.

In our Divorce Diaries series, we speak to people in Ireland about their experience of marriage and divorce. This week, a woman in her early 40s with two children under 10 years old tells her story

My sister knew my ex-husband slightly through a friend of a friend, and they actually warned me about him straight away, as in he’s a messer.

On the very first date, I should have walked away. He was very drunk and a mess from the very start.

I was in my late 20s, I don’t know where my head was at. I had been single for a very long time. I was kind of like, Jesus, will I ever meet anyone? I suppose I must have been desperate. That’s the only thing I can think of. And also, biological clock and all the rest.

We had a few dates and when I think back, I was always going against my gut. I had this weird feeling, but yet he was a very outgoing, funny kind of guy. You’d always have the craic on a night out. And all the girls were like: “Oh God, he’s so nice.”

And then – and this is what embarrasses me so much – he actually slapped me across the face on a night out, very early in, and I let it slide stupidly. I so regret that.

Also, my best friend told me not to go near him, that she didn’t like him. I said: “You just don’t know him.” I never really told anyone what he did to me – my parents, my sister – that he’d hit me across the face. I kind of felt silly.

It gets worse from there, until finally she won't put up with it anymore and leaves. Why she didn't run a mile after the first date, I have no explanation. This is a stupid (and indeed, dangerous) choice she made of her own free (so it seems) will. Nobody was urging or forcing her to take up with this guy, indeed it was the opposite. She had plenty of chances, and plenty of warning signs. She got pregnant, of her own accord again, (I strongly suspect the first pregnancy was the usual hope around 'a baby will fix this' and the second time, what, she had no access to contraception? highly unlikely) and brought two kids into an unstable situation where the father had no interest in contributing to the family. It was only when things finally became intolerable that she left.

And I genuinely, honestly can't blame men or The Patriarchy or anything else for this. The guy in question was a shithead but she knew that from the immediate start. There's nothing in her story, as told, about her family pressuring her to get married or settle down with anyone, much less this guy. She did it all herself.

It gets worse from there, until finally she won't put up with it anymore and leaves. Why she didn't run a mile after the first date, I have no explanation.

Explanation: Attraction is not a choice. Jerkitude is generally wetness inducing for women just as a young pretty face and slim figure are generally boner inducing for men.

For some women this can extend to jerkitude that includes beating them. As the saying goes, women would rather be with a man who beats them than one who bores them. Another related one is that woman-beaters always have women at their side to beat.

While some abused women claim they only attract abusive men, or that abusive men somehow have a sixth sense to target them, they’re actually selecting for abusive men. Kind, gentle guys get left on read while Slappy McFirstDate gets to smash. This viral tweet from a female account illustrates a similar principle using fuckboys:

I told my homegirl "I attract fuck boys" 

She was like "you're a woman, a pretty woman, you attract everyone. Then, you chose fuck boys"

I damn near jumped out the car

Rihanna could have dated any one of millions of regular non-famous men, and likely had suitors among many rich, famous men too. Yet, she still chose to continue getting railed by Chris Brown, including after the physical abuse became public. To have the cojones and ability to deliver a beating is a dominance signal. Teenage girls and young women only splooshed harder for Chris Brown afterward.

It's an open secret nowadays that chicks are turned-on by getting spanked, hair-pulled, choked, slapped, etc. in bed. Just like how evolution doesn't stop at the neck, this female revealed preference for getting violently dominated doesn't necessarily stop at the bedroom door for many of them.

@TitaniumButterfly recently recounted how his wife likes to say that "a husband is a Daddy you choose." This would be reflected by a common online dating profile quote of young women that reads "you can't choose your father but you can choose your daddy." For many women, this would appear to include physical disciplinary action from daddy.

I was in my late 20s, I don’t know where my head was at.

The #Fightfor35 continues.

While I think it is clear that women largely prefer a harsh and powerful man over a decent but weak man, with some limits on the harshness, I imagine most women would prefer a decent but powerful man over a harsh but powerful man. That being said, for a decent number of women the harshness is the point and the cruel man is their favorite. Not the funnest preference to have, I imagine.

I imagine most women would prefer a decent but powerful man over a harsh but powerful man

I'm certain most would express that preference, and about as certain that most would reveal otherwise.

They are truly alien creatures to us men and in such cases we're prone to typical-minding. Women are smaller and weaker etc., but it's a mistake to suppose that they experience the world the way men who are as small and weak would. We tend to evaluate propositions regarding female psychology by asking ourselves whether those same propositions would be true of us if we were in their shoes. But many behaviors which would be vices for males are virtuous for females, however subtly so.

Anyway, the problem here is that different thirsts for a person might be mutually-exclusively satisfied by different strategies. She wants several mutually-exclusive things, because the pareto-optimal reproduction strategy has to sort of multithread and jump to whichever option is advantageous at the moment. She desires to be cherished, adored, and protected; she desires to be taken without consent by the man against whom no other man can stand. It's difficult to imagine what actual human male can fully scratch both itches. But, then, nowhere is it written that complete happiness was ever on the table. It wouldn't seem to be adaptive.

I also happen to know that women are substantially more likely to orgasm with partners who beat them than with those who don't, though I hesitate to mention it because the data is not publicly-available and I have no real way to substantiate the claim. But once you start paying attention, the pattern is pretty clear.

Whether that's good or bad would seem to be mostly up to you.

Anyway, the problem here is that different thirsts for a person might be mutually-exclusively satisfied by different strategies. She wants several mutually-exclusive things, because the pareto-optimal reproduction strategy has to sort of multithread and jump to whichever option is advantageous at the moment.

I think this is the key point. Women (men as well) want multiple, often conflicting things in relationships. An easy example is a dominant guy who takes what he wants but who also puts her interests first. While maybe not theoretically impossible, in practice dominance and agreeability and conflicting traits, so you have to compromise on both if you only get to pick one man.

I also happen to know that women are substantially more likely to orgasm with partners who beat them than with those who don't, though I hesitate to mention it because the data is not publicly-available and I have no real way to substantiate the claim. But once you start paying attention, the pattern is pretty clear.

Whether the same man who is violent or not violent is more viscerally arousing to most women may be an open academic question. I'm unsure if it's a practical question however; as mentioned above, we pick our partners based on balancing tons of mutually contradictory desires. At least in my PMC/middle class bubble, charismatic but decent guys or 'assholes' who are within the normal realm of behavior, so generally normal guys who are less agreeable, rule the roost. It seems this may just a bubble effect though; everything I read about the underclass suggests thugmaxxing is the most effective strategy.

Overall, IME being a socially dominant man, which entails being moderately disagreeable, seems to be the dominant strategy. Being that type of guy will often get you called an jerk, since 'jerk' often just means 'you didn't give me what I want'. I think the notion that 'women desire a cruel man' does have some truth, but it's balanced by other concerns as well.

Agreed. It's gratifying when someone riffs like this.

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