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 -
More debates revolving around young single men in the mainstream media. Particularly, who the young women are dating due to them being disproportionately in a relationship. The article provides some insight, stating that many are dating older men and each other. This has led to a more intresting conversation of if older men are increasingly monopolizing women. Leaving younger guys out to dry supposedly, however a good chunk (acutally half, according to study from pew research). The data gives two large reasons, mainly: Having other shit to do & just like being single. What i always found frustrating with the mainstream progressive view of this matter is that they seem hell bent on blaming Men for this problem. Greg Matos, who wrote this (in)famous article which pretty much embodies the progressive view on the matter, has stated: “Women don’t need to be in long-term relationships. They don’t need to be married. They’d rather go to brunch with friends than have a horrible date,”. The argument from the mainstream being in a nutshell: that these single men are misogynistic, shitty bums and deserve to die alone. That take leads to some rather intresting conclusions however, when looking at the data. From the first pew research link and another one. The people who are most likely to be single are men who are: Black, young, only highschool educated, low income, and living with mom and pops. Are we suppose to assume, blacks, the youth, poor men, men without degrees, and guys without their own place are inferior romantic partners, and or more misogynisitic than their rich, old, white, college educated, apartment renting counter-parts?
Could it not simply be that these mens moral characters are fine, but they simply lack the resources and experience many women desire? Is such a thing their fault? Is the black man to become white? Or the poor man rich (or at least reasonably middle class)? Could there not be barriers preventing them from achieving such feats? In most cases, progressives would be open to outside forces interfering with ones ability to succeed. The matter is being treated as if all of this is entirely within their control, and their failures are a simple matter of poor character. The issue appears far more complex is you ask me.
Perhaps a bit of a divergent, but the entire dilemma has led me to a larger question of how much of life success (in dating, in work, in school) amounts to hard work. There was a post about on star slate codex sub reddit about how good IQ was at predicting life success. There is a bunch data about how expensive being poor is, poverty traps, and how difficult escaping it can be. Disputes over gender wage gaps. Not to mention all the discussions being had about how race impacts such outcomes. Id be interested if there was some huge of huge meta study done on what percentage of these factors (IQ, class, race, gender, ect) all impact your chances at life success, if anyone had such information on hand. Though my intuition tells me that such a study would be insanely difficult to do, if it even exists.
If you talk to women in their 20s you’ll learn that a chunk of them go on dates and expect a relationship with a man who has no intention of having one. This is because of social media induced higher standards, hyper-competitive labor market induced higher standards, the decline in slut shaming, and last but not least dating apps.
The solution (shaming, destroying feed-based social media, destroying dating apps, destroying female empowerment) would require a decade or more to see changes. The best thing an unattractive low income American man can do is simply find a foreign wife. Foreign wives have thousands of years of history and have birthed such great nations as Iceland. I’m not a fan of gender war terms, but American women are looking at pure stats when choosing a partner. There’s no reason why American men shouldn’t look at the pure stats when choosing a partner and pick a bilingual foreign woman with a low number of sexual partners.
The hard truth is that you have no chance of healing America’s problems in your lifetime. Simply do what is in your best interest. If you really have a low chance of finding an American wife, then look for a European, Argentinian, Brazilian, Chinese, Filipina, whatever chick who is interested in Americans. They will certainly be more conservative, thinner, less stressed than American women and your kids will be bilingual. Personally I would look for European, Argentinian, Uruguayan first.
My personal experience (Australian) is that those women aren't really seeking a committed relationship either. The key word here is actually 'committed'. Because sure, some of these women might be looking for a relationship, and fewer still even a long-term one, but they are in no way committing or planning to commit to them ('settling down'). They view these relationships as purely transitory, even if they don't articulate it.
To be fair, my experience is specifically talking about middle-to-upper middle class professional working young women (20s). But these are exactly the kind of women driving this social trend. These women aren't looking for commitment or wanting to commit, they are too busy progressing their careers, living a hedonistic lifestyle of partying, casual sex and frivolous spending, or some combination of both. Commitment and ultimately marriage and family is just some abstract thing for to worry about when they're older, after they've established themselves as a strong independant woman. When they hit 30 or even 35, that's when they'll start worrying about commitment. It's something you can postpone indefinitely with no consequences, right? That's if they choose to commit at all. Much time and effort has been spent convincing young women that effectively becoming an spinster is totally fine and even desirable, and won't make them miserable in the long run.
Same market for me and I feel like they tend to pivot a bit in the late twenties.
Combination of declining SMV, job progression starting to slow down from the kinda-automatic boost every 18 months/2 years and sudden realization of biological window. Nonetheless the whole 'I'll be married with kids in 5 years' thing ad infinitum is a thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you referring to the Celtic slaves the Norse brought with them during the settlement period? (My country doesn't get brought up much here, so I feel compelled to talk about this)
This is a hotly contested subject in Iceland. It's definitely true that a lot of Celtic women contributed to the gene pool during the settlement era (estimates as far as percentages go are all over the place), but the flow of Celts to Iceland had pretty much completely stopped by the end of the 10th century and Iceland spent the next ~800 years in desperate squalor that regularly shocked foreign visitors.
More options
Context Copy link
I really appreciate the creativity of this solution, and honestly seems like a great solution for anyone who wants to try it. Do you think that a significant proportion of American men could benefit from it?
I’ve had this strategy recommended to me before. Tbh it feels… gross? wrong? A very “rejected by his own people” vibe. I guess it beats dying alone though.
You’ve been here long enough, you should be able to come up with 10 NYT headlines that would shut this whole thing down if it ever gained traction.
Has an NYT headline ever shut anything down? In the internet age it's through the goose by the time the NYT reports on it: it's already been spawned on some chan or other, formed a tightly knit subreddit with 10,000 members, been denounced on Twitter, thinkpieced on various Substacks, reacted to by Slate. Only then does the Grey Lady deign to report on the "controversy surrounding" the group.
Having read the Vows section most Sundays for a while, by which I mean that some member of my family reads it and shouts the highlights at me while I read the Book Review, the NYT prints praise heavy portraits of un-woke marriages all the time. Whether it is old-man young-woman, or rich old man met partner at work, or two men who met when one was the other's TA at Brown, or whatever. It's one of the few really trad places left: if you put a ring on her finger, it is fine. Forgives all sins.
If these commitment-phile men exist, and marry these women, and live great lives together, there will be no problem. No backlash.
That's interesting to me. What do you define as "your people?" Someone of your social class? Someone of your race? Religion?
I've dated girls who immigrated from foreign countries, sticking the ladle right into the barrel isn't really "gross."
That’s because nobody cares about anyone’s individual marriage. Once the late 30s professional middle manager girl bosses start looking to settle down and realize the demographic of men they were hoping to fall back on as a last resort are all getting mail-order brides from the Philippines or something, now it’s a social problem, and subject to the editorial control of the “opinion” or “living” or “politics” section.
Honestly, more than any of these, it’s the accent. I can’t take anyone who doesn’t have a General American or upper-class English accent completely seriously.
Interesting. I've found whenever I fall for a foreigner, the accent starts to become cute, because it's theirs. Really for anyone, although it might not work for truly shitty accents like Australian or New Jersey.
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
So the man has no intention of a relationship, and it’s the woman’s fault? How does that work?
Because she picked badly. Plenty of men who would be happy with a long term relationship with her exist, she just has to date 2 SMV points down, this is completely in her power (not guaranteed, but nothing in life is). The fact that she continues trying to get those above her is totally on her, and the outcome of this is predictable.
Now you can blame the state of society that leads to men playing the field, but you can equally blame the state of society that leads to women's inflated expectations, however doing the latter gets you labelled an incel and the argument dismissed, so lets do the same with the former please.
More options
Context Copy link
A 28yo man with an excellent job, a wealthy nest egg, and a reasonable attractiveness and personality is an amazing catch for girls 18-38. If he has no intention of starting a family until 32, he can have a harem of women who are also intelligent and relatively successful. These women should know that they have no chance with him, and that it’s male nature to have as many women as possible. For some reason, most likely a glitch in the female brain that society used to remedy with expectations/shame, this doesn’t happen.
I find the “gender war” angle boring and unfruitful. We can think beyond culpability. The current setup simply doesn’t work from the standpoint of human nature and incentive. So a low income earner who is a dim prospect should simply find someone out of America, because there’s high odds his “stats matched” partner is being used by someone else or otherwise lacks the ability to discern her true level of sexual worth
Y'all are out here talking about how west coast men have to find a way to spend a year overseas to get a wife, but you won't leave your leftist enclave for another city in the same country? This thread is crazy.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want a bunch of San Franciscans emigrating en masse to SEC school towns and stealing a ton of high-quality women. But this is a huge fucking country with a wide variety of sexual markets that don't require learning a new language or risking a loveless marriage with weird power dynamics.
You can grab an incredible woman in the south if you have a reasonable BMI and can avoid just talking about AI and social justice at parties.
More options
Context Copy link
Having made my nest egg/fortunate through working in Gambling, I'd love to be a consulting bro. I got fortunate when my corporate structure shifted sufficiently that I became 'Head Consultant at (Minor consultancy that works exclusively with gambling companies)' versus 'Head of Department at Betbet'.
More options
Context Copy link
Anecdotally, this is completely untrue. It is possible to climb in social status / financial status still, albeit perhaps harder than in the past.
If any young men are curious, just go into sales. You make a lot of money, don't have to deal with bullshit if you're competent, and learn social skills from your job.
More options
Context Copy link
Again, I live in Seattle. Outside of maybe a fringe group of people who work in Amazon/Microsoft/etc. who have various issues, I don't actually see this at all. When I go to Tacoma, Federal Way, Everett, etc,. ya' know what I see? Adults on dates, in relationships, etc. People are mostly within the same range of attractiveness and age. I mean, I also see this in Seattle, but I'm making a point that even in a tech hub like Seattle, only a pretty small percentage of people actually work at those tech hub jobs.
Obviously, I'm not saying it's perfect out there, but if you honestly have a six-figure job at Amazon/Microsoft/etc. and can't get laid, it's a you problem, not a problem with all the terrible women who only want 40 year old doctors or whatever.
Also avoid SF/Bay Area. In SF we have "49s" - 4s that think they are 9s. Same situation as Seattle I assume, the gender imbalance is a big aspect of this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I realize this is a typo that was likely supposed to be "on fire," but "the world is one fire" sounds like a pithy metaphor for American-led globalization. And maybe also a catchy pop anthem from the 90's that never existed.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a KEY factor that I think gets ignored because it's simply not 'noticeable.'
Attractive, well-adjusted, career AND family-oriented people are already somewhat rare on the population level (not rare within certain social circles), and they're thus even rarer in the general dating pool because they won't spend much time seeking dates, and they will tend to stay with existing partners for long periods of time.
Arguably the very definition of "well-adjusted" and "stable," respectively implies someone who has ease seeking and maintaining relationships, including romantic ones.
So if you are seeking stable and well-adjusted you're somewhat thwarted if you can't catch one during the brief window in which they're available and looking. You can go the route of being patient and persistent, but that simply exposes you to the rest of the dating pool for a long time.
And since most of them pair off early, it is entirely possible that one can go through many dates and not ever encounter one, which will then feed into one's perception of the general availability of decent partners.
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is something that doesn't get brought up enough. Despite all the apps and the changes in urban dating, for men around here the best best is to go to a college that has significantly more women than men (which is most of them) and make it known that you are looking for a permanent relationship right now. If you spend your early 20s playing the field, you are more likely to be alone at 30.
Obviously, this isn't good advice for people who aren't going to college for whatever reason, but it seems like the guys around here are very interested in min/maxing their career odds by picking the right school and degree, but ignore their actual life plan and end up with a successful career and single.
If you go to a school that fits your personality, you will probably find women that fit your personality. I went to a Catholic liberal arts school (65% female) met a bunch of very nice girls looking for serious relationships, got into a serious relationship, and was married before 25. Moreover, 5 of my 7 brothers did the same thing (excepting the current sophomore and the one with severe developmental challenges who will never live independently).
Admittedly, this may negatively impact your perfect career path. Your earnings potential might be lower if you pick a school based on the likelihood you will find a mate there. You probably won't get to the US Senate or become the founder of a unicorn startup by picking a school like that, but most people who go to MIT won't do either of those things either. But you have a much better chance of living your life happily married.
More options
Context Copy link
In online rhetoric. But I think you'd need to show that revealed preference also backs this up and it isn't all just kayfabe.
More options
Context Copy link
If the women are “intelligent and relatively successful,” were they ever really in the dim prospect’s league? If not, why does the elite man bother with them?
This theory rests on a separation of marriage and sexual market value. Women are correctly assessing their sexual value, but incorrectly using it as a proxy for marriage value, which makes shaming a terrible solution. You’d need to break that expectation.
@FiveHourMarathon notes that the historical method was the threat of a shotgun wedding, effectively reducing sexual market value—by reducing demand, not increasing supply. Sexual value was brought more in line with marriage value. Shaming, on the other hand, is effectively subsidizing men, letting them pay less. That’s a bad policy and doesn’t address the gap between the two values.
Looking for foreign women is a sound strategy. It’s accessing a much larger supply; of course that will lower the clearing price.
“Elite” men will bother with any woman 6/10 or up, because sex is especially enjoyable when novel. This is like asking why the Sultan bothered with a haram when three of his wives were already hot.
Shaming is a solution because the fear of shame prevents the attempt at promiscuity to secure a higher value man they’ve deluded themselves into believing would settle. If the only way to get sex is through longterm relationship or marriage, and not through throwing your body at someone who isn’t actually going to settle, then promiscuity is reduced. It’s not as if in India, women don’t believe that they can get a better man than their husband; it’s that they can’t in actuality, and they are horny and just want a family. In other words if you stopped shaming women in India, many of them would do the same thing as in America: giving their body to men they have a low chance of securing, before realizing that time is quickly running out and their dating prospects are now worsened from lost time.
Dating apps have likely increased the self-valuation of women because of course the wealthy attractive guy will humor you until you intercourse. The problem I think is that it’s harder to go back to men in your league after such events, just like it’s harder to go back to natural bread after eating sugary white bread for years.
Haram marketing vs. reality
https://imgur.io/gallery/4ok52
This dude was able to make his nation provide women in line with his weird obscure fetish and you think that's a point against the novel haram theory.
Or these were 'left overs' and he was fulfilling a duty to his people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like the beauty standards/preferences of a specific ruler in a specific place doesn't mean he wasn't capable of securing the closest thing to Western attractive women he could have got in his time and place, if that was his thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why should they know that? They'll almost certainly find someone to settle with in the end, no? From a purely selfish perspective, aren't they winning?
If we're not adopting a purely selfish perspective, why isn't the man's nature equally up for criticism? If it's male nature to try for maximum partners, isn't it equally female nature to try to maximize mate quality to the exclusion of all else? Aren't both sides of the equation simply following their nature? If we are dissatisfied with this outcome, why claim it's one side or the other at fault? Both men and women need to rise above their instincts. Men need to drop their desire for maximal promiscuity, women need to drop their desire for maximal mate quality. This can and is done, in social contexts where people put effort into leashing their selfish desires. But of course, that's not what the modern world is generally looking for.
No? They've tricked themselves into spending their more valuable courtship years in a failed effort. The number of women who enter a relationship with a Chad and genuinely don't care that its going to end in a few months or years when he ends up with the homecoming queen is approximately zero.
More options
Context Copy link
It’s unlikely that they will find someone to settle down with. Human behavior is notoriously resilient to actually determining what is best. The number of childless women in their 30s is increasing.
The reason we should say it is more of a female fault is that only female behavior can really be modified in this way. Female promiscuity is what has been shamed in every single past civilization because that works. You can’t shame a bachelor for being promiscuous; I mean you can try and he will just ignore it because women are better than shame. But every Muslim and Hindu and traditional Mormon family knows you can shame a woman and that it will work. Nothing short of excommunication from civilization will make a man not screw as many women as possible. But for women? Literally just the smallest amount of shame and reputational damage. That’s it. From a practical standpoint, it is a “how we treat women” problem.
In all of those societies seducing a fellow member’s virgin daughter is a very serious offense, though.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
... haven't traditional societies been "shaming male promiscuity" in various forms for millennia, successfully? Not eliminating, but significantly reducing. Mormon men aren't fucking every modern woman they come across.
Do modern women find Mormon men attractive? Women are the fundamental gatekeepers of sex in the vast majority of cases.
You don't have to tell a one night stand you're Mormon though
Elaborating the hypothetical - If male sexuality was truly unrestrainable, and all men, no matter social conditioning, will fuck whatever they can ... all mormon men could just hop on tinder, not say they're mormon, and try to have sex with 'modern women'. And while that happens, it isn't universal - a solid fraction of seriously traditionally religious men take their religion's moral code seriously, and make good efforts at 'no sex until marriage', and some succeed. And it's hard to separate 'universal social shame' from 'genuinely held moral beliefs', but the former probably plays a part (compare to catholic guilt, puritans, etc).
I know several christians who, on account of genuine belief, save sex for marriage / committed relationships. They aren't threatened with excommunication. Generally, the idea that shame / social pressure don't affect men seems ridiculous.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but you can use the threat of violence. The primary method of keeping men in line historically hasn't been shame, it's been puttin' the shotgun in shotgun wedding. If we're looking for policies to implement: legalize violence against men who "tamper" with your woman. Whether that is adulterous partners, boys sniffing around your daughter, etc.
Problem is that this was dismantled purely on the grounds that it was bad...for women (being the definition of patronizing). Now, if you try to bring it back, you'll have to find some way of getting women to accept guardianship.
Which would not only go back towards likely having to shame and constrain women (or else why would they think it necessary?), it just seems functionally impossible in the West.
(There is an argument too that its less relevant for women: they've/we've constructed new guardian institutions that appear to not make the same onerous demands as patriarchs like: HR departments, Title IX courts)
The Stand Your Ground Against Sex Abuse Act protects parents who reasonably believe their daughter has been a victim of statutory rape from charges of assault, etc. The age of the accused is not a defense, as the parent might not reasonably be aware of it; as long as sexual contact has occurred the parent is protected from prosecution.
The Jacob Blake* Domestic Relations Law protects husbands who attack men who are sleeping with their wives or committed girlfriends. It is unreasonable to expect men not to, and too many Black and Brown men have been imprisoned for following their cultural instincts. Defendants can offer evidence that they were in a committed relationship at the time of the crime, and use it as a defense to Assault/Murder etc.
I don't really find those relevant. Our goal isn't really to protect women, it is to punish defecting men. The original claim was that it wasn't possible to shame men into marriage, I'm saying it is possible to force them to behave by violence.
*Only vaguely and incorrectly related, but hey who's gonna remember the facts!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If your plan for reducing obesity is for everyone to "rise above their instincts" and just eat less, people will still be fat. Though these parts are critical of the most prominent example of a "systemic" issue (racism), there is something to the idea of the system being to blame. Even the idea that our instincts, which have served us well up to this juncture, are to blame is suspect. Instincts are lindy; smartphones, and many other things, are not.
If the plan is everyone rising above their instincts as an atomic individual, purely on their own effort, sure. If the plan is deciding what outcomes we want, and then structuring our social system to punish the bad and encourage the good, as every society always does, then no, I think you can absolutely rise above instinctive outcomes. That means compromising individual freedom, though, so people don't want to do it.
We get what we incentivize, whether it's obesity or promiscuity.
We agree. I just wouldn't say your latter proposal is properly described as "rising above instinct."
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
Despite how much Millennials and Zoomers make fun of Cold War suburban "keeping up with the Jones'" standards chasing, widespread social media adoption seems to have driven the trend to eleven. Sure, the material aesthetic is somewhat different -- less quintessentially suburban -- but the rampant self-comparison to "influencers" who are often quasi-professionals at producing Instagram vibes certainly goes beyond healthy role models in many cases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link