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 -
A common refrain in the manosphere is that, to understand women, you have to watch what they do, not what they say. Revealed preference and all that.
It's a valuable heuristic, but it cuts both ways. Waxing poetic about virginal, loyal tradcath wives is largely a performance for other men on the Internet and would be forgotten as soon as a pretty IG influencer expressed any interest.
My wife's childhood friend is a virginal, loyal tradorth wife, so I've been invited to a few tradorth birthday parties and have been fed the choicest gossip. All I can say is tradness is inversely correlated with sexual adventurousness. Not saying there aren't trad wifes that consider their bedroom the temple where every rite honors the matrimony, but I'll bet most of their tradorth husbands will not cheat on them with someone who can do a striptease and a blowjob only because they will ejaculate prematurely.
The difference is, yes, actually if you go to some very conservative parts of the Midwest or still heavily Catholic partts of rural Texas, I'd actually bet you're right. I disagree heavily with those people's likely politics, but I don't doubt that most of them arre following the tenets of their religion. The problem is, those aren't the people on Twitter complaining about women having too many partners in college, but rather, it's basically dudes who spend too much time on Twitter that decided the sexual revolution was the reason why they didn't have a cute 19 year old to marry when they finished college (when the reality was, they'd be out of luck in 1962 as well).
Those particular guys might have been out of luck, but in general "having a cute 19 year old to marry when they finished college" was far more a thing in 1962 than now.
Mostly because only 10% of people finished college, so they were very high earning people with lots of social value. I bet the top 10% of college graduates who have any social skills at all, do fine.
If you dropped most of the people currently complaining about the sexual revolution leading to their lack of marriable women, and dropped them into 1962 with only their high school knowledge and no knowledge of the future to get rich actually wouldn't be as happy with their choices as they think they would be.
No, mostly because both the age gap at marriage and the average age for women at first marriage lined up with that better in 1962.
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
I agree, but I think that when you take a broader perspective the more traditional view wins out - when you look back in history, men do actually act in a way that implies virginity is valuable, especially men with options (royalty etc). Men aren't going for virginal, loyal tradcath wives for a variety of reasons (demand outpacing supply being a big one), but we live in a rather anomalous period for gender relations historically. It seems to me like looking at men and their choices in the present is akin to looking at a consumate gourmand stranded on a deserted island and claiming that his diet of fish and coconuts reveals that he doesn't actually care about eating good, well-prepared food at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link