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 -
I tend to disagree with this. Depending, of course on what is meant by "nice." Here's an example: Suppose you need help with something, such as moving a heavy object. So you ask someone you know if they can help you. Maybe it's the person down the hall in your college dorm. Maybe it's the person in the next cubicle at work. Most people would agree that the "nice" thing to do in this situation would be to help the person.
But when it comes to romance, if a man helps a woman in this way (and they are not already in a sexual relationship), it will reduce his chances of being sexually attractive to her.
So it's not just that being "nice" is given little weight. Being "nice" undermines the man's chances.
I see this as an exaggeration of something which is ultimately true. Being a slut definitely makes a woman less attractive to men for long-term relationships. Especially if the woman has bastard children as a result of her promiscuity.
Of course it's true that men put a lot of value on looks. And the current relationship and sexual marketplace in the West is heavily tilted in favor of women. So yeah, a slut who is decent looking will still be able to find a decent man.
So to sum up: Men are told that being "nice" makes them more attractive to women. This is completely wrong. Women are told that being sluts makes them less attractive to men (for relationship purposes). This is correct, although admittedly the slut penalty is not so great if the woman is childless.
In general, your point seems to be one of those false balance types of arguments. The unspoken argument is something along the lines of "Ok, so men are lied to about niceness, but women are lied to as well, so it's less of a big deal."
To your first point, you’ve just described Briffault’s Law. I don’t know how many people here would strongly contest that point, but I’ve observed much the same. Maybe “help,” here and there, depends on the circumstance but sure. If she’s asking me to sacrifice, she’s going to have to begin negotiations. The only people I will unconditionally sacrifice for is my family. Most of these arguments rarely end up disputing the points of the other side directly. Instead they argue on the length and degrees of different factors.
More options
Context Copy link
If a woman asks a man for help and he turns her down, you think she'll be more attracted to him? Why would you think so?
That’s not really his point, I think. His point is that if you’ve already served that purpose, there’s nothing further to gain insofar as you offered assistance freely without anything in return; and as such, you get marked as “that” guy. You’re basically a chump.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link