site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22hr ago (text post)   2789 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sure. That's basically tautological, in that only women can have babies.

And yet, the discussion centers on men's failures, when by the precise definition you're pointing out, cratering tfr is a 'failure' on womens' part. That's my whole point, it makes no sense to add pressure to men as a 'solution.'

Society refuses to even consider any solution that might upset women in the slightest.

men secularised first and fastest over the 20th century.

Men were always less religious on average, that was just standard understanding.

Until recently. Somehow this also coincides with various denominations allowing female pastors.

Once again, "loss of religion" very obviously impacts one gender more than the other.

Its the women.

And yet, the discussion centers on men's failures

Errm, no it doesn't? The three theses OP mentioned are neither about men nor women. Academic discussion doesn't focus on men (for the reason that the TFR data is mostly about women) and if you go somewhere like /r/natalism there's much more discussion about women than men, because women are the ones who have the babies.

Honestly, I have no idea where you got the idea that birth rate discussions focus on men. They really, really don't.

Honestly, I have no idea where you got the idea that birth rate discussions focus on men. They really, really don't.

Throw a couple more 'reallys' in there and I still won't find that believeable.

"The Missing Men of the American Marriage Market."

This study adds to a growing body of research that finds that the economic difficulties facing working-class Americans are bleeding into the most intimate parts of their social life. Much of the conversation has focused on working-class men themselves, and how that has been reflected in their own social struggles. This paper shifts attention to how those struggles may be affecting women and kids.

and

This study suggests that an important part of the story is a shrinking supply of economically stable men available for many working-class women.

Emphasis mine.

Two months ago.

"No one hates marriage. Women are just demanding better men."

Poor relationship quality, grossly uneven distribution of household labor and caregiving responsibilities, and spousal betrayal are key contributing factors. The evidence shows that marriage benefits men health-wise. The same benefits do not hold for women if marital satisfaction is low.

Almost daily, I see female patients in my office who cry over their husbands' selfishness and weaponized incompetence, which has consequences for the wives' mental health: "I want a partner who respects and loves me, not an extra child!"

Last month.

The "weaponized incompetence" meme has gotten some play too:

‘Weaponized incompetence’ can harm relationships. Here’s how to counter it.

The inherent unfairness of the situation and the accompanying invisible mental workload of running a household, including figuring out the family’s needs and the best ways to meet them as well as acting as a social secretary, can negatively affect a woman’s mental health, well-being and career. It can also diminish a couple’s marital satisfaction and sex life and put them at risk for divorce.

Last December.

I have literally, in my entire life, never seen an article published claiming that female incompetence was ever to blame for relationship failure. Indeed, the mainstream narrative is that women are incorrectly viewed as incompetent as a barrier to their advancement.

These are extraordinarily easy to find. THAT'S where I 'got the idea.'

That's where all the other men are getting said idea too, just for the record. Its widely noticed, I just like to call it out.

Can you name a single policy proposal in any Western Country (hell, try non-Western) that tries to improve TFR by increasing restrictions on female behavior?

I can point out several that are paying women directly or otherwise offering bribes/incentives to women to get married and have kids.

China HAS recently tried some restrictions on women, funny enough.

Throw a couple more 'reallys' in there and I still won't find that believeable.

How about if we look at objective source rather than you just pulling up some articles that annoyed you?

Google Trends data. Birth rates men vs birth rates women for the past five years. Searches for birth rates women are about four times as common. 'The discussion' about birth rates is predominantly about women, obviously. Always has been.

The fact that you can find lots of articles about women complaining about their relationships (also something they've been doing since time immemorial) isn't evidence to the contrary.

Can you name a single policy proposal in any Western Country (hell, try non-Western) that tries to improve TFR by increasing restrictions on female behavior?

I can't name a single policy from any country, western or eastern, that tries to improve TFR by increasing restrictions on male or female behaviour (except in the roundabout sense that baby bonuses are going to be a net loss tax-wise for childless people). The only thing that comes to mind is abortion restriction in Poland or various US red states, which is a big restriction on female behaviour, although advocates don't tend to justify the policies by talking about birth rates.

Has the west tried restrictions on men, either? This could easily be the west’s preference for the carrot over the stick.

Literally the entire alimony regime limits the ability of men to reproduce (unless they go deadbeat, which perversely encourages the stupidest and poorest to breed over the intelligent and conscientious.) Talk about 'splinter in thine eye, sequoia redwood in mine'! The health insurance market is a transfer of wealth from men to women. The entire DEI structure is a transfer of wealth from men to women. Social security - from demographics and life expectancy - is a transfer from young men to old women. The west has not tried a bachelor tax, or literally enslaving men. But they very may well do so, in the near future!

But the most timid of social considerations (well, maybe women should consider family to be important) immediately gets shouted down. Not even the most reactionary of radicals has something like a 'female tax' on their agenda. Or even lifting the extraordinary privileges the feminists have given themselves. And you say that we should try more restrictions on men?

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