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 -
Women as a Monolith is Wrong
I am having a lot of trouble defining this argument I want to make, because its a classic motte and bailey situation. In the bailey is some version of "women are like x, and x causes all sorts of terrible things like less attraction from men, less kids, and ruination of society". In the defensible motte there is something like "of course not all women, there are some that remain virtuous, but maybe not enough to matter on a societal level".
The Bailey
Addressing the bailey feels trite, but also necessary.
There is a very real contingent of male youths that do not have enough exposure to feminine circles and social ability to navigate it in a way that allows them to acquire life partners. Men without sisters, female cousins, young female friends, etc. Maybe only their mothers and an aunt or two. They fully do not grok women as people and cannot understand them as anything other than sexual objects or distant uncaring scolds. They live in the bailey of this argument. A sad existence. Others only visit to make a point, but they are truly here in a hellish landscape of misunderstanding.
I've seen a few people extricated from this motte. Specific tale: A 6'3 male virgin that mistrusted all women as gold diggers, despite his painful lack of income. He participated in an obscure sport I play. One female participant in the sport was getting married. Invited 6'3 man, and suggested to one of her promiscuous female friends that maybe he just needs to get laid. The 6'3 man is laid at the wedding, turns out much more chill about women afterwards. Can even start dating, if not successfully, at least without full blown conspiracy theories about women trying to steal his non-existent money.
I personally grew up having a bunch of the hallmarks that make this bailey impossible to sustain. I have a younger sister. She was prom queen, sought after constantly in high school, guys in my grade were dating her. I have a mother that was very open to me about her per-marriage dating life. I had female friends that i managed to not sexualize, mostly because they were dating my male friends, and it felt very wrong to go after them. I had one or two ex girlfriends that turned out to be lesbians/bi. They were sort of off limits after i dated them and acted as a reality check on certain male-female interactions. I had female cousins of a similar age that I knew during puberty.
All of that culminates in a vague understanding of the opposite sex. I would have probably summed it up with these not so groundbreaking insights:
I think of these as not so groundbreaking thoughts. But teenagers do have to learn these things. And I do strongly believe that some teenagers are not learning these things or similar basic lessons. It leads to online personalities that feel pretty alien to most adults. We can't fit them into a normal model of human interaction without assuming them to be incredibly anti-female.
The Motte
This is obviously way harder to address. For a reminder, the motte in this case is something like "not all women are bad, its a small number dragging down the reputation of the virtuous ones, and leading the uncertain ones astray"
Any good motte is a spectrum. At the extreme indefensible end you have "basically all women are uber sluts". At the other extreme you have something like "some women are uber sluts, and it makes it hard on the many precious angel good christian girls to find their proper good christian boys for marriage".
Many ways to go after this, not any of them obviously correct.
I've posted some extremes. You probably will want to quibble with the details. That is expected, its rare to be as extreme as the extremes. But maybe not rare around here.
Again any good motte is a spectrum. If you are somewhere on that spectrum you are in the motte.
I'm not saying that as some kind of "fuck you for being against feminism". Being stuck in the bailey is sad, and I think you have missed out on some formative life experiences. Being in the motte is defensible by definition. But I still want to argue you out of it. Call me a stubborn idiot for that desire.
Sieging the Motte
Any good strategy on a fortified position requires multiple avenues of attack. Or at least completely overwhelming force on one of them.
I will first present possible avenues of overwhelming force.
Women are Humans
For certain avenues of Humanist and Christian thought this should be an overwhelming slam dunk. There is a responsibility on them to figure this thing out. If they need help they should request it. If they are failing they should acknowledge it. If they need more from men they should ask it. If they think what humanity needs involves changing their role in society they should discuss it. Its a sort of virtue ethics writ large.
Men are Broken
One of the big answers to "whats wrong with women in society" is always "well men suck". It is not automatically incorrect, even if something is truly wrong with women.
Men could have evolved for an environment too unlike the one we inhabit today. The stresses of adapting on the cultural and evolutionary level have overwhelmed us. We are seeking the quick bust of a nut, the ephemeral pleasure of a harem over the realistic pleasure and comfort of a loving wife.
Sieging the Motte pt2
Overwhelming force might not be so overwhelming for those steeped in the culture wars. I felt very disingenuous writing that last part. I don't think it is untrue. I do genuinely believe those aspects often overwhelm the brains of most people that get involved in this issue. Its just that for any budding medieval engineers that have heavily considered the aspects of motte defense and offense, they feel juvenile and half baked. Obviously that is where you start on the male and female culture wars. You must remember that there are normies out there that have not advanced as far as the enlightened folks of themotte.
We cultured few can explore the more subtle defenses of the motte. When overwhelming offense does not take the day.
Men and Women are Different
The first thing you might be wondering is "why is this not in the above section?". For most people, obviously men and women are different. There are biological differences based on hormones and genes. But I think what is different is a subtle and key distincter that makes this much less of a forceful offense, and more of a subtle one.
In my mind there is definitely a bunch of science and research that makes it obvious that women are better caretakers from ages -9 months to ~3 years. But there is also evidence that the absence of a father in the following 15 years has a negative impact on the child's earnings and general well-being.
Men and women serve different roles in society. 'hey cjet, why don't you say more obvious crap in your word vomit'. Its sometimes just necessary to state the foundational things. Because sometimes they might not be foundational to everyone.
I do remember having a debate class in high school where one of the proposed topics of "debate" was boys vs girls in sports. There was basically only one girl in the classroom willing to take on the girls side of the debate. Our teacher, a 5'3 self described 'wall flower', had to turn her down. Sometime before or after the story of her single-handedly breaking up a girls fight in the cafeteria by hulk pinning both of the girls to the wall in a stranglehold. Fucking awesome.
Its the algorithms
Its not ladies fault that they have been tricked into wanting so much D. Nor is it men's fault that they can't settle down for a lovely lady. No its the fault of the apps and the algorithms. They simple present too much available D and P. How can human brains overcome such alluring genitalia displayed in front of them and available for their easy consumption via quick hookups?
How about some self control? Crazy idea, but maybe we aren't the first generation to be presented with the concept of hookers. Maybe its called the world's oldest profession for a reason. The time to worry about this is not now, but about 10,000 years ago in ancient Sumer.
I think hookerdom is basically the price of short-term thinking. Choose the hot lady now right in front of you. Or the better match, the less crazy one, the one earning money in her career for the long term option.
If anything we have become too successful at not producing hookers, and not producing men that choose hookers. Or hookers adjacent.
Birth control is too effective
This is what the thought experiment of the last problem inevitably leads into. Ok, we have a hooker/slut culture. The obvious output of such a culture should be a bunch of babies. This doesn't happen because birth control exists. Ergo problem birth control.
We need to remember that birth control is a voluntary choice among at least one of the participants in sexual activity. To get rid of it means we want to substitute intentional choice in offspring for random chance. Which is fine if you are looking for raw numbers, but crappy if you want quality selection and upbringing.
The culture is just like messed up man
Kind of a last ditch psychological warfare against the defenses of the motte. Something is just icky and wrong with the culture. It just feels all wrong. Where is all my sweet strange puss. Why isn't my girl worshiping my hard schlong whenever it happens to get hard. Why aren't enough of my peers acknowledging how awesome and sexy I am.
You are thinking 'hey cjet, don't be an ass', but I'm just typing out thoughts I've had.
I do think there is a basic male urge to have it all. The strange puss, the loving baby maker, the children that look up to you as god, etc. I just also have an economics degree and i realize there are tradeoffs in life. Mostly I am in the "dad" spectrum of tradeoffs right now, with all that entails. Earlier in life I was in the "bachelor" spectrum of tradeoffs and that was fun for a little bit.
There is a philosophical conception of having as many of the nice aspects of tradeoffs as possible all at once. But I'd say that is generally unrealistic for most men. Figure out where you are in life, maybe figure out where you want to be, and adjust life accordingly.
Sieging the motte p3 / Sally forth from the motte
I probably didn't hide it that well. But I do think there are good defenses to the motte in this case of women.
To attack out of the motte, even past the bailey, I think it relies on the uniqueness of women. This goes back to women being human. Women are unique like men. Dumb statement, but also necessary.
Women are among the ultra religious, the ultra slutty, the ultra political, etc. We even shockingly have women that participate in themotte discussions.
I find myself always bothered by themotte discussions on dating. I have an abnormally female contingent of near relatives. One brother one sister. Cousins on my side 8 out of 15 female. Cousins on my wife's side 9 out of 16 female. 3 daughters no sons. 6 nieces, 2 nephews. As closest "grandparents" for my kids, 3 ladies, and one man. Nearest neighbors are a bunch of families with girls and no boys. Some slightly farther neighbors do have boys.
It all comes back to personal experience. I've known many different kinds of women in my life. I'm not a lothario that has dated them all. Simply having a large family has provided a wealth of experience. Any lack of experience there was made up for in the friends I've had over the years.
In general I'd suggest not viewing women as a thing to conquer/trick/subdue. There are intelligent women out there that would make a great partner in your life goals. Especially if those life goals involve family, happiness, well-being.
Adjusting to occupation
Okay the women armies have conquered you, what now? This is an abridged section. I'd like to add more, but its like super late and its been a few too many hours since I started writing.
I think there are significantly different groups of women. Lumping them all into a category is ok if you are going shotgun strategy at a bar. But it us much better if you can learn anything about them beforehand.
I think there are three general axis in modern society for women, and probably for men too. They are also human. But I know more about trying to date women.
Religious/Structured vs anti-religious unstructured
Spiritual/Neurotic vs atheist/rational
Left/Right
Different things will work for you. Different tradeoffs for each. I can think of relationships where one or sometimes two of these are fundamentally at odds but still works. Three off is definitely gonna fail, but probably produce some interesting kids. Speaking of kids, no guarantee they share any of these fundamental axis with you. Good luck raising them, relationship tolerances still apply.
Maybe I was supposed to be positive at some point. Suggest that the war of the sexes will be resolved. or that peace will eventually take over. Nah. That is up to you. There is definitely a trad wife out there for you. I believe that sincerely. You may need to compromise on how trad you want to go (amish anyone?), or how trad she needs to go (maybe she can have a job).
I have helped a few friends find love. I do have a knack for searching and accepting. If you are willing to take help in those directions I am willing to assist. Don't count out your lady friends. Or don't count out your dude bro lovers. I hope for a continuation of humanity via the mingling of genders and the traditional usefulness of penis in vagina cumming.
Feels like an odd thing to end on. But yeah, go humanity.
The simplest rejoinder:
"Women" as a collective are more monolithic than men. That is, they are more likely to cluster around certain values or ideas or, similarly people on pure instinct than men are.
A side effect is that women are better at organizing around their collective interests. If there's a cause that would benefit womens' material wealth or status, they tend to naturally group around and advocate that interest. In the worst cases this causes mass social hysteria and we get bad policy changes in response.
And technology over the past 30 years has vastly increased the ability for loose social organization to emerge and coordinate around group interests across large distances.
So I would posit thus:
Judging women as a collective/monolithic group will be more accurate as to the ground truth about them as individuals than would judging men. One still has to account for individual characteristics.
There's been a positive feedback loop where women instinctively use their social organization to advocate their own interest, more status and power accrues to women, this increases their leverage, which allows them to make bigger changes in their favor, and lock in old ones. As a result, policy changes are a one-way ratchet.
And women are very unlikely to admit to being so powerful even if you point out how every single policy change in the past 30 years (in the West) has massively favored them.
For some reason, fewer of them believe that women are respected in society
I want to reiterate, an increasing amount of women believe their status is decreasing, despite this being objectively incorrect by almost any metric you choose.
A huge portion (again, more monolithic!) of women harbor a belief that is the direct opposite of the truth.
So the third implication:
Which leaves us precious few options to try to work towards a better equilibrium.
This is encouraging but an incorrect statement of the problem.
The problem is there are not enough intelligent women who would make good partners to go around.
Run any kind of estimate you want to narrow in how many "appealing" women there are, vs. the number of men you're competing with to locate, attract, and lock down that woman. Any LLM can give you a fermi estimate and range of likely single women based on whatever criteria you can supply.
THAT Is the nature of the struggle. And you can't solve this by addressing men, the only answer to a supply crunch is to increase supply.
Guess what, this means addressing women.
If you can turn this into an actionable statement of how to go about finding them that actually accounts for the aforementioned difficulties, that will be more persuasive.
I've been doing active spouse hunt for about 4 years now. I have tried literally every tactic that has been suggested, and seen precisely why each one fails. And the failure mode is fundamentally due to the above stated issues. Women are more coordinated around their own interests, even when those interests run counter to the general social interest in people getting romantically paired up and families formed. And the general pool of single women is less appealing, by and large, as partners.
So the pool is smaller, while the demand for a good female partner is still extremely high, and females remain the bottleneck through which reproduction flows. Which means fewer women are being born, so the supply crisis gets worse. Men's behavior can't overcome an utter lack of marriageable women. Full stop.
If you are not willing to consider solutions that involve removing a few privileges that women currently enjoy I do not think you are serious about solving the problem.
As for my take, I think we're getting a technological solution before we get a social or political one.
For the first part I think there is maybe still a conflation going on. Not all women's interests consistently align. I do agree that they seem to be good at coordinating.
You can easily see this kind of divergence in a workplace. For example a workers union does not help all employees. It generally only helps current employees. It often actively hurts prospective employees to make these gains.
Same can happen with women. Sexual liberation in the workplace. Women advance up the ranks. Once they achieve high ranks and are at risk of being replaced by the new hotness, they coordinate to shut that avenue down via the me-too movment.
This can also explain how women feel that they are decreasing in status. Status is a zero sum game, and the main competition in status for most women is other women. A couple boss ladys hoarding all the status and rewards is a fully consistent story here.
For the second part, I'll reiterate what I said elsewhere. That I think there is a trad wife out there for you dear reader. Not that there is one out there for everyone. If my essay / rant were to become widely published and read by millions I'd need to strike that line out.
For actionable things to find her, I'd suggest changing your social setting. You've no doubt already done this, at least in minor ways. Usually it takes a long conversation to tease out where you can switch, and what places might advantage you. I know 4 years probably feels like a long time to be looking for a wife, but its not. Ten to fifteen years is a long time. Its also why I'd suggest starting when you are about 15, or at least by 20.
I was wondering what this would mean and afraid I wouldn't be able to bite the bullet. But hell yeah to that suggestion. I am the true feminist, equal treatment under the law. I'd be happy to take an axe, or a can of gasoline and a lighter to a lot of the privileges women enjoy from the government. I'm not willing to go handmaidens tale or something that extreme. But many things short of that seem reasonable to me.
Again though, some of this feels like specific groups of women lobbying for specific things they want without consideration or care for women as a whole and what they might want. I don't think they just mistakenly advocated for something they thought all women would want. I think they didn't care and advocated for what they wanted. Similar to how a union is happy to make firing bad workers incredibly hard, even if that screws over potential employees (since the employer is now going to be ultra careful about who they hire). The union will of course claim to be in solidarity with all workers. But that is the lip service. They aren't idiots and they know exactly what they are doing and don't care.
This is almost irrelevant. What is relevant is if they BELIEVE that they do.
Yes. My point. Do workers BELIEVE that forcing the boss to give them more pay for fewer hours is in their interests? Usually yes.
They are less likely to notice that this means more of them are fired, they get fewer breaks, the benefits get worse, etc. etc.
Nah, the real likely explanation is that women disregard the bottom 50% of men and see the top 10-20% of men as the actual competition. As long as they're lower status than THOSE men (read: they can't secure commitment from such men) they can easily BELIEVE they are decreasing in status, even if they continue to make more and more gains on the other 80%.
That's a consistent explanation I've yet to see refuted.
Great.
But the dear reader is still competing with everyone.
Be more specific. More actionable. What social settings are you talking about? I've tried bars (of various types), dance classes, hosted gatherings at my house, gone to speed dating events, gone to car meets, church, social media, the gym... the women are OUT there, but they aren't interested in being approached, or they are zeroing in on the top guys in the room, or they're already taken. You can automatically assume that they've got 50 matches in a dating app at any given time.
The problems I mention infest everything. And the fact is, no matter where you are, you're still competing against the options a woman thinks she has on the dating apps.
So what are you willing to do if we tell women "we're making it harder for you to get loans and go to college" and they all break down in tears and call you a misogynist pig and/or threaten to vote you out of office? How much of a hardass can you be when female tears are involved.
(Funny enough, the Trump admin may have found an end run around the problem)
You need to go somewhere where you can be in the top ten percent of men in the room. I can't get more specific and concrete without knowing you personally very well. If you are a loser in a space you are wasting your time. Getting to be a top ten percent guy in a space is going to take some dedication and effort. That is why it is a useful signal for women to look out for.
Not all women are on the dating apps, if they were the apps would probably be a much better place to actually find women.
I am not politician material. I'm a libertarian. Yes I've told women to their faces that they should get less benefits from the government. Yes they have brought out the "you don't care about me if you say that" card. No it didn't change my stance.
I have three daughters and I've become even more immune to female tears. If my beautiful sweet children that I love aren't gonna sway me with tears some random lady ain't gonna do it either.
I can absolutely be hard nosed about them. I also have absolutely no chance of getting elected. The two things are probably heavily related.
COOL. Now which of these rooms are likely to have higher quality single women in then?
My problem is not being that guy, its finding a place where its worth the effort of being that guy.
My repeated experience is that the women are just not up to snuff. I'm not looking for hookups so I'd rather not burn effort in places where the options aren't great.
But they all THINK they deserve to get "that guy."
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