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 -
Why do a lot of women not like acknowledging the practical aspects of dating? By this I mean that women appear to be put off by me simply discussing:
Of course I'm not discussing these topic with women I'm trying to actually date, I'm not that autistic. But if you're trying to actually find a partner to settle down and have kids with, how do you not take all of these into account? Not only does it reek of impracticality, but on an even deeper level, it appears that any attempt to practically model the dating world at all produces a negative female reaction.
(Maybe it's because some of these women don't ever intend on having kids and therefore don't ever have to be realistic about dating.)
Imagine you are a woman, what are your primary concerns?
1)Your partner should love you, even when you face problems he should not abandon you. 2)Your partner should have admirable qualities and should be respectable. (A very simple test, if a woman being told that she is just like her partner would make her feel proud and happy then her partner is respectable) 3) Her partner should not have many bad traits or deal breakers
Asthetic qualities are part of 2.
Good. Now men pursuing women are going to lie and game the system so that they fulfill these criteria, her concern is going to be spot them. This cannot be done on pure reason alone, this needs intuition. It's paramount that the man is not just hiding his negative qualities at the start of the relationship and would show them later.
Let's say a man starts talking about dating market, this clearly indicates that he is likely to be part of manosphere and right wing. This fails 3 and 1. To the best of her knowledge such men are likely to hate women and are likely to be mercenary. The movement has a very bad reputation.
This completely poisons the well and no romantic feelings are going to emerge because she is worried and couldn't trust the man.
The most important thing is that the man demonstrates that he is trustworthy and has admirable qualities, after that is done then further into the relationship he can talk about dating market.
TLDR: Unless you show yourself to be trustworthy you are going to be judged based on the reputation of your group.
Of course, there is no rule that if people are honest about themselves women would date them. Some people may just be completely undateable.
Romance isn't a means to an end for women, it's an end goal as of itself. You can't logically convince them to do it or accept subpar romance. In the past there was incredible social pressure so some women had to accept it but now there is not.
2 and 3 are not based on some mathematical formula, they are dependent on culture, what is subpar varries.
This is incorrect because what is respectable in women and what is respectable in men are different. In particular, giving a woman too many compliments for her personality without complimenting her looks sends the implied message that she is ugly, in a way which wouldn't for a man.
"You are such a nice guy"
“You’d be a great stepdad someday.”
Where the hell did I see it, was it on here or some other hellsite, someone posted about a woman saying "you'd make a great dad" and being highly insulted by this, that she was dumping him in the friendzone and not seeing him as the rugged manly stallion prime hunk of masculinity that he was?
Meanwhile most women were commenting "but that's a compliment, she thinks you're husband material!" but seemingly "husband material" is also judged "rejecting my smouldering sexiness" aka "not giving me the ride".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Having thought about it, I think there is a big issue you didn't mention, which is that the manosphere is low status.
Here's a thought experiment: Suppose that the man works in the entertainment industry. He's a studio executive or an actor. This is a red flag that the man is likely to cheat or abandon the woman. Hollywood is known for infidelity and divorce. And yet being in the entertainment industry won't scare off women they way it would if the man is part of the manosphere.
This is a large part. Men complaining about the dating market is low status. Men noting it's low status for men to complain about dating is low status. Men coordinating with other men to complain about the dating market and discuss solutions is low status.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That’s fair, and pretty obvious. What someone chooses to say on a first date reveals what they think is high-status and interesting about themselves. If that for you is discussion of the dating market in analytical terms, that’s pretty sad and does say something about where your head is at. As I recall, I don’t know that any first date of mine has had much analysis of anything — I’m introspective but that’s not really first date material. I guess I would sometimes be philosophical, but in an upbeat way, about how I like to think about the world and consider the way the world could be improved and how people could treat each other better. That’s the right level of abstraction on my interests for early dating. But the best relationship I’ve ever had started with me in full public speaking about ideas mode, I chalk this up to a rare alignment of the stars. (Astrology on a first date is also a red flag.)
But I don’t think OP was trying to discuss it on dates, as he said, but with friends. But it’s not really light friendship material either. You have to really know someone and they have to either be a high decoupler as someone else said, or you have to have a really good reason to bring it up. Same-gender friendships are more constructive for it than opposite-gender ones.
I kind of started rambling on but now I think about it, basically the relevant ideas are. SMV has a very bad reputation so people don't engage with it.
If they are fine with it people may not want to compromise on romance because it is not an instrumental goal, if someone wants to eat a sweet apple you can't logically convince them to a eat a unripe apple just because it is still an apple.
You could in the past with lot of social pressure but now women can be happy even without a man.
Even if SMV is true for a lot of people it doesn't matter for a subset of people because of the reason listed above.
Why waste time and feel bad thinking about SMV when you know your standards are not going to change, that is just going to make you sad.
I kind of get what you’re saying, but your wording is a bit freeform so I’m having trouble following you.
I think what you’re saying is, “women don’t engage with this framing because it has a bad reputation and will pollute you with it, even if you engage with it, it couldn’t affect your behavior much because you’re already doing what you can to be attractive and your standards aren’t a matter of choice so it doesn’t give you any new information, and the view talks about people’s relative status and that’s painful to talk about.”
Yeah, if that’s what you mean, that’s a solid explanation. I think the truth is that people generally understand the things about SMV on an intuitive level, and discussing it explicitly just feels too painful or too impersonal or too abstract in a way people don’t really ever apply to the things that worry or concern themselves the most.
In private, with trusted friends, of course people discuss harsh things about attractiveness and dating sometimes. But discussing gender issues in mixed-sex company is like discussing feces at the dinner table.
That is an absolutely hilarious metaphor, kudos
I'd disagree. If you understand what gives SMV you can optimize for that instead. If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of SMV altogether -- which is what a lot of women seem to do IME -- good luck optimizing for anything as a guy.
I'd disagree. If you have an accurate view on what kind of partner you can realistically get, you'd make a more optimal partner choice.
I mean this is the classic loop.
Dating Coaches/'ANDREW TATE'/whatever gives advice that's actually broadly actionable but couched in sexism whilst the Longhouse gives either nothing or actively counterproductive advice like 'be yourself' or 'wait and the right one will come'. Whilst the former isn't perfect, it's still far more likely to work than the latter but women don't like the vibe of the former thus complain. Endless loop of content hot takes.
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
More options
Context Copy link