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.
So the man has no intention of a relationship, and it’s the woman’s fault? How does that work?
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
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link