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 is not a problem for black men. Men of any race benefit from masculinity in any event or situation where they are not
cuckedsissy hypno'dhumiliation ritual'dinvited into the realm of feminine dominated status politics. Sexual competition favors masculinity for men. Evolutionary psychology points to dominant masculine males as the most desirable people to mate with. Women and gay men (such as myself) are programmed from millennia of sexual competition and successful fertility and resource scarcity to seek the best mates they can.You go on to propose that black men should be encouraged to be less masculine, basically. In other words you are trying to bring him down to a level where you can compete with him as you are a non-black man. It doesn't work, it is ridiculous, it all falls apart the second you hit the real world. The black man "studying ballet and in education" is cringe but still more masculine than the white man "studying ballet and in education" and yet more masculine than the Asian man "studying ballet and in education." The ballet and reeducation is going to solve nothing but be a ridiculous charade. At the end you can point to the black harvard educated ballerina and say, ah good, he got the girl because he played the game on my white bourgeois terms: in elegance and sophistication and education, and now I don't have to rip apart my entire worldview where I believe men should be chosen based on their elegance and sophistication and education, rather than submit to the stark reality that women choose mates based on primal instinct of masculinity and dominance and physical power which you or the less dominant man knows he can't compete at and win.
Much of sex and race relations are totally conflated due to the dual-variable situation. Basically, the races of people who have more desirable masculine traits are the opposite stack from the races of people who have more desirable feminine traits. Black men are more masculine and dominant than white men who are more masculine and dominant than latino and asian men. Asian and latino women are more feminine and attractive than white women who are more feminine and attractive than black women. This is why so much of modern day US race relations are so broken: Polite society is dominated by women's concerns, and white women are more attractive than black women, and in a feminine twist of slave morality (or christian love, or judeo-christian David vs. Goliath ethics) women get to forever place the lives and souls of Black people above their own because it doesn't actually ever interfere with how they as white women are hotter than black women, and get to simultaneously reap the benefits of socially accepted dominant (black) male mate selection and humiliation of the inferior emasculated white or asian man.
The fact that white or Asian men come up with the solution you propose, over and over again, leads only to their humiliation and constant misunderstanding of what a woman wants from them. The answer isn't to bring the more dominant men into the same humiliation rituals they are burdened with, it is to avoid having to compete with more dominant males to begin with.
I suspect Black women are less feminine than their non-black counterparts because every Black women I've ever met is more masculine than I am (as a white male.) White men will never admit this but let's go through some observations. In sexual dimorphism within the same ethnicity, women tend to have lighter skin than men. So a Black woman is already starting from a distance and at a glance to have a more masculine presentation than any man who isn't darker than she is. In the extremes, of course, there are cute and feminine Black women like Duckie Thot who I think is very cute but she is at the far end of the bell curve in terms of neoteny and half of her female relatives are probably more butch than your average white or Latino or Asian man.
IMO there is a great dignity in ethnostates that doesn't exist in diverse settings. In Japan, there is a great diversity of people in a positive way. Your construction worker is Japanese, your lawyer is Japanese, your doctor is Japanese, your priest is Japanese, your emperor and your empress and your prime minister are all Japanese. There is phenotypical diversity in Japan, yes, but culturally, everyone is Japanese, and there is a dignity in that you know the place you end up in society is a product of your own work and your own ability. In America, your construction workers are Mexican, your lawyer is a WASP or a Jew, your doctor is Nigerian, your priest is Italian, your president is half nigerian or part cheetoh or whatever. What of the Mexicans who want to be a lawyer and not a construction worker? The Jew who would be happiest laying bricks? We have a great illusion of choice but once you notice the specialization of race linked to profession it's a bit sad.
Again there actually are black pretty boys. Usher is pretty. There are Black ladyboys and Black trans women and Black cross dressers and anything else you can imagine. Your insistence that there are no black pretty boys is an artifact of your judgment of Black people by white or nonblack standards. Black men can point at Usher or other pretty black men and say those are the pretty ones. If you are white and can't imagine Black men being pretty it's because you can't step outside of your viewpoint in your judgment compared with them which is the sexual selective competition problem I'm trying to illustrate. To contrast and reinforce the point, of course you mention asian "pretty boys" because if you're outside of the Asian community then nearly all Asian men are to the "pretty" side of things compared with you.
So I think the problem is women need to stop desiring dominance or rather they need to stop putting themselves in positions that require dominant positions. I have a friend who happens to be an obese Black woman. I have experience with weight loss so she sometimes asks me for advice about it. One time she confided in me that she had been thinner in the past, but that she was "afraid people would beat her up." This is a real fear, and is also consistent with needing to have a bit of weight to throw around to assert dominance. In the past 10 years I have weighed 300 and I have weighed 190 lb and from experience, at 300 people are much less likely to mess with you than at 190. Women, especially those who live in an urban environment, are put in positions where they feel they need to dominate things physically. Nomadic women in Mongolia or city girls in China- or even rural/nonurban northern European women, despite what the immigration doomers will have you believe, have no such social threats that they find themselves needing to become obese to assert domination. Women and poor people are not going to start dropping weight en masse until everyone does as it's a sort of cold war (american obesity skyrocketed at the same time that racial integration became more ubiquitous.)
This attitude is so arrogant to me, people do what they're programmed to do, why are you trying to socially engineer their behavior to begin with? She can choose the more sexy masculine dominant male over the really sweet guy, the problem isn't her, the really sweet guy if he's such a great partner needs to man up and express his masculinity in addition to his ability to take care of his mate and offspring at the same time. If someone whose brain is designed to opt for a masculine dominant mate who are you to encourage her to go against her millennia of programming in favor of you and your preferences, the less dominant male? What's in it for anyone but you?
Usher is not pretty. I was trying to think of someone like Lil Nas X who was all over the place for coming out as gay a few years back, but he's not really pretty either.
Prince was pretty. Little Richard was pretty in his day. There are pretty black guys, but dressing like a gay pimp doesn't make you pretty. Though I suppose if the comparison is with "guy built like a brick shithouse with a face that could crack walnuts", being "normally attractive guy who dresses metrosexual" does come off as pretty.
if you want pretty, male cast of average Chinese historical costume drama is pretty 😍 (this parody trailer for a real show is a smidgeon too on the nose, but they're not wrong about the 'suffering beautifully' part).
More options
Context Copy link
Come on, this is oversimplified to a degree it's wrong. "Masculinity and dominance and physical power" is only one dimension of what makes an attractive man. There's also charisma, verbal/emotional intelligence, appearance/style, competence, and (of course) status.
If you send the most masculine gangbanger to a party also attended by a sunny boy pro surfer, a lead singer/guitarist of a half-decent band, a frat bro lacrosse player, a male ballet dancer and a navy fighter pilot - and they all agree that gangbanging is low status - the gangbanger will not pull, not even secretly.
More options
Context Copy link
Seriously? He's projecting a very typical masculinity. Maybe it's restrained for his race, but pretend he's a deeply tanned Lebanese. Prince was definitely a pretty Black boy, though.
More options
Context Copy link
Um, Im not? This is largely in their interests. Black mens variation of masculinity does have an element of clear toxicity, driven by historical, societal circumstances, and governmental policy (and maybe we'll say here that HBD might be playing a role, but I'd like to focus on what we can control here). This clearly doesn't make them very attractive mates, a la them being more likely to be single. It actively damages their relationships.
Women find both masculine and "feminine" qualities attractive in men. Again, no ones arguing against being manly, I'm merely arguing for a slight tweak in masculinity to include some of these softer elements, that would aid in keeping a mate in the long term. If you insist on a slightly manlier variation of this, the comic-book hero Superman fits the bill fairly well.
We shouldnt be overstating womens preference for masculinity. Yes, women are looking for elements of masculinity when selecting mates, but the man in questions cant be too masculine, because that risks turning the strength aggression on her and the children.
I actually stand corrected! Excellent. For the record I actually forgot about Usher and RnB black men existed for a second (& sadly, we don't see them that much in the mainstream anymore). I'd like to see more!
This is counter-productive in almost all cases. A fit in shape person is gonna give a fat-ass an proper ass-whooping 99% of the time. Size matters to a point, but there is a distinction between sumo wrestler 200lbs, & Brock Lesnar 200lbs. But sure, inner city violence incentivizes masculint behaviour, fair enough. Solution? Crack down & lock them up.
Again, this is a false dichotomy. The goal is for our sweet guy to have both traits, that's basically the whole point of this post. I care for the black community, and I'd like to see them succeed. Having children "raised" by pookey and ray ray is counter productive to this end goal. Do I need emphasize that women aren't only attracted to just the hyper-manly health inspector?
On the decreasing likelihood of you not actually being a sufficiently advanced troll, thanks a lot. This is the best laugh I've had all week.
Again, on the off chance that you're not actually a troll, you do understand what you sound like, right? You sound like someone who has never actually talked or interacted with human beings enough. I'm serious. This and your previous argument about how "we should get men decent paying jobs". Yes, no shit. But shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first.
I don't want to tar men of system or wonks with the same brush but yes, of course the issues you're talking about are obvious. Your fixes, assuming they are even remotely feasible, would do just as much if not more damage. Go on, I'm waiting to see how you can fix black families - and while you're at it, fix income inequality, the prison-profit pipeline, black male incarceration, gang culture and schooling.
Inner city violence doesn't incentivize masculine behavior. Humans do. Humans. Ugly, brutish, cruel, self-interested humans. Black male culture valorizes strength, violence, and in the parlance of their culture, fucking a lot of bitches. Can you offer them anything close to this that satisfies those drives? And don't say Heinlein's bug war, jokingly or not. Let's not pretend those drives aren't shared by a lot of men. Although the vast amount of chemicals in modern food, water, and testicles might have done their part in damaging those drives, it's still up against thousands of years of men succeeding by caving in other men's skulls with rocks and dragging women to caves by their hair. Black men have found a solution that works for their sexual success. Sexual success became divorced from long term stable pair bonding a long time ago, it was called women's liberation and birth control, and as soon as that happened everything else falls into place. And those two genies are never going back in the bottle outside of the business end of a jackboot, so good luck trying.
In the immortal words of Freddie Gibbs:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link