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 -
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.
What have you tried, exactly?
Dating apps, on and off (because they are psychologically corrosive).
Dance classes (going to one tonight, actually), referrals from friends, bars (of various types), hosted gatherings at my house, gone to speed dating events, gone to car meets, church, social media, the gym. I'm currently pursuing a random DM I got from an (apparently) real woman on twitter that I already know isn't going to work out.
I am able to get dates. But the quality of woman I find is generally lacking, and they will ghost you without any warning even if you're 3 or so dates in. The norms around appropriate behavior are in shambles. Because women will accept zero correction of their behavior.
It is very expensive to keep paying for all these whilst seeing such poor results.
I've done everything except a Matchmaker or going abroad/mail order bride, basically. And I actually DID do a consult with an AI matchmaking startup, Keeper.AI and one of the founders himself told me "check back in 3-6 months" because they had no truly viable matches (as per their system) out of the 1.25 million women in their database.
The nearest/best one was a bit overweight for me, I was told. Ozempic to the rescue?
I wouldn't mail order but I would go abroad if you're in the anglosphere. Dating culture differs significantly within a country and between countries. In one place I dated for 2 years and never got stood up, in another place I got stood up frequently, in another I actually found a wife.
My top advice is just selection effects and heredity over everything. Men need to sample from as many places as possible through pure online dating but other than that you especially need to sample from wherever has the women the most like you politically and intellectually.
It still took me probably over a year and that's not counting the time I spent not using this strategy (that would make it several years), so 4 is not really out of the ordinary. Hopefully you will find something soon. The reality is that the system is messed up because it's all too costly and annoying in time and money even when it works out. What age bracket are you dating by the way? Marriage rates are down but young marriage is especially down so if you are dating under 25 it's clearly a systemic issue.
I sort of reject this solution because it exports the problem to that country. where are THEIR males supposed to go?
I mean, if I take a trip for other reasons and happen to find a wife, whatever.
Yes, and the political gap between young men and women is the largest its ever been. The women have flown off into la la land and nobody is correcting this trajectory.
Hence, the pool is too small.
I have no reason to think I will.
However, that is also not a reason to quit.
But understand that I AM OTHERWISE WELL SITUATED. I own a house. I make six figures in a decently high-status job. I am extremely physically fit. I am a martial arts instructor (i.e. I can physically dominate 90% of the male population), I am well liked, I can repair stuff, I'm not bad looking. And I'm six foot two.
There is zero reason I should be struggling.
And if I'm struggling, I can only imagine how bad it is for guys not so well situated. And I think its best to help out their plight too.
Basically anything above 21 and still in decent child-bearing shape. If I got my pick I'd aim for 25-27 (I'm most comfortable dealing with women in that bracket) but I have DIRECT EVIDENCE that I can pull 24-year-olds too.
But as to the filtering issue, finding a woman who is GENUINELY serious about getting married and is marriageable is the big one. There's no pressure on women to actually get married, and serious pressure on her to delay until she has her fun/her career is established. I don't think any individual guy can defeat this social pressure with a lot of assistance.
They marry your women. Go look it up you can find plenty of that, if you can't you are probably shooting for too low of a country. Don't marry a fillipina or cambodian.
You should assort on genotype and not phenotype. If you nail the genotype converging in your relevant beliefs will be easy. The easiest way to target genotype is to simply target a percentile among women. You do the same thing for height if you want tall kids (I don't recommend assorting on height now as that's frivolous and the market is in ruins) and intelligence. I believe that the median female is 4 IQ points dumber than the median man (a lot of people run denialism on this point but idk their issue), on top of greater male variability, which means that if I wanted to marry an at least 130 IQ man I can actually marry a woman with an IQ of only 121 or so.
Which countries would this be? Argentina and areas of not-indigenous S America? Indian/E Asian a little bit but still skewed heavily male taking female.
Even Bill Gates daughter took an Argentinian so definitely an equal play place.
Yes and the Catholic/southern parts of Europe are noticeably better than the US or UK when it comes to women. The protestant Continent is in between. He should probably start learning Spanish and French.
Catholicism seems mildly protective against the woke package as a whole, without necessarily defeating any individual piece. Including very liberal catholicism; even James Martin has some issues with the woke(boomer TDS, on the other hand).
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
More options
Context Copy link