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 -
This seems like it could backfire considerably. Why not just take whatever resources we would use to fund this and instead promote manly-man masculinity, by which we mean a stint in the armed services followed by a wholesome career as a firefighter or police officer?
This is also considerably more useful to society than teaching people ballet.
The point of teaching ballet and other soft activities, particularly for black men, is to tone down the manly man stereotype that is so commonly associated with them. I'd like for them to realize that you can be more than just a thug. But going beyond this, I think there is a case to be made that men need an element of creativity and softness to aid in their navigation of relationships with women, and with others within society, and that this can coincide with masculinity. The pretty boy archetype comes to mind here. Ideally, we get mostly masculine men, with a dash of sweetness and softness. Kinda like these guys.
When presented with the alternative of "ballet performer (non-remunerative)" it would hardly be surprising if guys (regardless of race) chose "thug."
I'm also skeptical of your case (though I haven't heard it yet). I think creativity and softness can help with women, but I can't help but think you're barking up the wrong tree: as far as I can tell women are, generally, into pretty masculine men. Relevant both to my suggestion and to the question of "what do chicks dig?" military service members are more likely to be married, not less, than civilians.
It would blow your mind if you could even imagine the quantity and quality of pussy straight male ballet dancers get (yeah, all five of them). But men actually aren't just motivated by that - intrasexual esteem is much more psychologically important than getting laid.
Hilariously, while drumming up my earlier reply to Nerd, I had done a quick Google and BAM!
There are some really funny ways to reconcile what you're saying and the first page Google result (people forget that married couples have more and often better sex than single individuals) but none of them sound particularly worth the hassle.
Not that I am trying to dunk on male ballet dancers, but I wouldn't go into the profession purely for the sexual opportunity.
It seems pretty obvious that men constantly surrounded by extremely fit, attractive women who don't spend all that much time around guys (because they're forced into obsessing over their dance) have difficulty staying faithful. But yes, it's not better than marriage - until she starts getting a little long in the tooth and the new ballerina is looking at you all starry-eyed. The same thing for bartenders and massage therapists, of course, just with a more variable field of play.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Survivorship bias, assuming one accepts the premise.
Men can subconsciously or consciously, detect occupations like being a male ballet dancer is a tournament profession with a substandard EV, with an even more ambiguous feedback cycle than giving it a go at say, becoming a professional athlete.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, yeah, but I'm not really denying this. My point here is that, black men in particular are hyper masculine to a substantially detrimental degree. They feel the need to do dumb shit like this. I think, with the correct social policy and guidance, they can become the men i linked previously. Yeah, pretty soft guys, but you can hardly say they arent masculine either.
People have been trying to present alternative-ideal role-models for masculinity for decades with nothing to show for it apart from softbois and performative males in the white population.
The Cosby Show didn't fix black guys, nor did all of Will Smith's oscar-bait drama films, and I don't think Tyler Perry has made much of an impact either. Even the determined black scholar archetype has become a racial-grievance-monger.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Military service members having a guaranteed income that massively increases upon marriage seems pretty directly relevant to the marriage question, especially given their female class peers' poor economic prospects.
Agreed, and I while I don't think waving one's hand and saying "jobs programs" is particularly likely to suddenly solve marriage rates, I do think jobs program education is more likely to have a positive effect than art sensitivity programs.
To be clear, being able to pull off the art museum as a date idea is very very good for your love life if you are a man. But at the end of the day, yes, a man's marriageability is mostly defined in economic terms- not always cash based, but economic.
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