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'm getting a distinct sense that you are mustering arguments against (some) single men's perceptions of the women currently in the dating pool, and not even these same men's perceptions of women in general. If that's so, then accurate observations of women in general are not all that relevant.
Judging partnership traits of all women by looking at the single-and-looking women is like judging work ethic and know-how of all workers by looking at the unemployed-and-looking. Almost all current workers have passed through this stage, many more than once. Those with great, or even reasonable, work ethic and know-how quickly get jobs and become unavailable to other employers. The pool of the unemployed is therefore over-represented by those who have something unemployable about them.
Exactly the same observation explains any griping you hear about the men in the dating pool as well.
At some point in my long ramble, I had intended to address this. I do think there are distinct groups in the dating pool. And that there is a problem that is similar to encountering bad drivers on the road.
If you are an average speed driver you are paradoxically least likely to encounter other average speed drivers. The people you are most likely to encounter while driving are speeders who are passing you, and slow pokes who you are passing. The more of an outlier they are in their speed, the more likely you are to encounter them. Meanwhile all the other average speed drivers ... you'll only encounter a few of them that you are driving alongside of the whole time.
I think something similar happens in the dating pool. You are more likely to encounter the promiscuous fast movers going through many partners (speeders). And the technically single but rejecting all advances (slow pokes).
The other main determinants of the dating pool seem to be based on age, location, and culture.
Even a completely true statement about dating in New York City, might be completely wrong or backwards if you drive a few hours west to a small town like Batavia. Or college age senior, vs one year later working professional. Raised catholic vs raised baptist vs raised muslim etc. 2nd gen immigrant vs potential memberships in the SAR/DAR.
So I think a person in the dating market has a heavily skewed perception of who else is in the dating market. They are probably encountering speeders and slow pokes, but they are also probably heavily stuck in a specific subset of the dating pool. The speedsters/slowpoke problem seems inherent and unavoidable. But being stuck in a cultural subset is absolutely avoidable, its just not easily avoidable. I attribute my few dating success stories (where I helped someone go from single and frustrated to in a happy couple) entirely to just getting people to move out of their subset of options that don't fit into another subset. Convincing a guy that was only using dating apps or hookups with coworkers and getting him to try a kickball league. With the employment comparison this would be like looking in the wrong industry for a job when you are a better fit in a different industry. There is often a lot of momentum in staying in the same industry/social setting. But just making people aware of where the grass might be greener is enough to get them to move.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link