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 overall highly online right's position on these issues is somewhat incoherent. I understand of course that the highly online right is made up of many people, so a degree of incoherence is inevitable. It is hard enough for even one person's political opinions to be coherent. Yet I think it might be interesting to examine some of the contradictions anyway.
First
The highly online right-wingers maintain that women were happier before the sexual revolution and that this counts as a mark against the sexual revolution. Yet they would not judge many other social phenomena mainly based on whether those had increased happiness. These are the same kind of people who like to glorify war, struggle, endurance in the face of opposition, maturity, a cool-headed and objective look at reality, providing for the tribe, and other such stereotypically "adult man" things.
Now, when a boy grows up and stops believing in Santa Claus, and then has to go make his own living, the boy might become less happy as a result. But none of these highly online right-wingers would argue that becoming a man is a bad thing because men are less happy than boys. They understand that becoming an adult man should be judged by other things in addition to just whether it makes a person happy. Yet they are not willing to look at the sexual revolution in the same light.
Ok, so maybe (if the phenomenon of decreased happiness is even real, which as To_Mandalay points out it might not be) women are less happy after the sexual revolution. Can't this just be explained by the fact that after the sexual revolution, women have more responsibilities, are much more present in the workplace, and have to navigate a more complex sexual landscape than before? But if a boy becoming less happy when he turns into a man is not necessarily entirely a bad thing, then why would a woman becoming less happy when she goes into the workplace be entirely a bad thing that needs to be reversed? For the boy and the trad woman alike, the increased responsibilities and stresses are one price of the greatly increased power and freedom that they come into once they become men and modern women, respectively.
Second
The highly online right-wingers tend to glorify evolution and eugenics. They delight in poring over genetic anthropology theories, presenting HBD arguments, and using genetics to explain why some groups of people are more successful than others. In light of this, the idea that there is something bad about 20% of men sleeping with 80% of the women seems a bit contradictory. Isn't that just evolution in action?
"Ah", some might argue, "but it is not eugenic or good for society for women to sleep with bad boy rappers and violent criminals. That is not the kind of eugenics I favor!". Sure, I understand that point of view. But then you are not saying that there is anything eugenically bad in principle about 80% of men going relatively sexless, you just disagree about which kind of 20% men the women should be picking.
In any case, the idea that there is something bad about most men going mostly sexless sits in unhappy contradiction with the highly online right-winger's typical tendency to glorify evolution, power, and success. As usual, the highly online right is split between a craving for socialism (sexual in this case, economic in other cases) on the one hand and a glorification of power, strength, and individual success on the other.
You minsunderstand the point of eugenics. It's not to promote what is most evolutionary advantagious. That requires no action and no ideology. The point to improve the next generation in acordance to out values. That generally means we want them to be healthier, happier, selfless, and more intelligent. That is why people didn't want poor (which are generally lower IQ), or criminals to have children, and is the reason for the Nobel sperm bank.
That said, ofc people use this kind of thing to argue their own genes and children are great. People are universally biased towards themselves. That applies for both eugenics and intersectionality.
More options
Context Copy link
Even moreso, isn't it based on exactly nothing?
I recently saw a tweet referring to some study (I think?) suggesting that it's more like that 20 % most sexually active men have a lot of sex with 20 % most sexually active women, about 20 % of men and 20 % of women have basically no sex at all, and the rest tend to just pair up to monogamous relationships. Bit too tired to find it at the moment, though, so I'm not basing this on very much, either. However, I'm not sure I've seen anything suggesting that the supposed 20/80 ratio is anywhere close to reflecting reality, even among the younger age classes.
I think it's just people generalizing their localized experiences and you're probably right that there are no research/studies/analyses that show that literally 20% of all men are sleeping with 80% of women.
That 20/80 ratio or the sentiment around is probably more grounded in reality if you localize to something like online dating (which is only has a small subset of the population) or perhaps specific dating scenes.
For example, if you look at Tinder, "it was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.". Of course, Tinder is not representative of men and women in general, or even dating apps in general but it is one of the most popular ones out there. There is also a similar analysis on Hinge which found that "the bottom 50% of men combined, which represents 1/3 of the total Hinge users, only receive 1% of the total likes." I also remember reading similar discrepancies in data from OK Cupid but I can't find the exact article right now. So at least in the world of online dating, there are big winners and losers amongst men.
There are some studies on the human genome that suggest that throughout human history, more women reproduced than men. I've heard some ratios around before like 80% of women and 40% of men, or twice as many women as men, but I skimmed through the study and I couldn't find the actual author make those specific number claims, only that "these results are most consistent with a higher female effective population size." So some evidence more women reproduced than men, but in terms of the ratio it's hard to say. There's this other study saying 8000 years ago 17 women reproduced to every 1 man, but that's 8000 years ago when civilization did not even begin to develop.
If you look at more modern data, though, roughly 80% of both men and women reproduce. Monogamy has become the norm and as a result, it's not surprising roughly equal numbers of men and women are reproducing. It is only data up to 2010 though and data strictly on reproduction and not on dating/sex, so maybe the tides are changing. I feel like the idea of polygamy/cuckoldry have entered the mainstream consciousness more in recent years, and there is also the idea of women setting for men they didn't want when they were younger as they become older and have fewer options.
Also, something to consider, it's likely that the people you'd want to date/marry are already out of the dating market (because they can easily find a partner). In other words, the people you come across often who are single/available are likely heavily skewed towards the type of people that are not desired in a relationship. So if you're actively dating and trying to find someone, on average the people you meet are worse than the average person because all the suitable partners are not part of the potential partner population anymore. This can lead to an incorrect conclusion about the population as a whole.
This is the inescapable factor about the dating market that really blackpills me.
The worse-than-average partners are the ones you have a higher-than-average chance of encountering on a randomly selected date. The more you try to filter these people out, the more incentive they have to bypass your filters. And thus the more they color your perception of what the potential options out there are 'really' like.
And I've seen it play out myself. Almost all my close friends have been married (seemingly happily) around 10 years now, and they're all great people and great partners... and they all got married (and dropped from the dating pool) during or shortly after college, which means the people who are left as I've gotten older are the ones who DIDN'T get married or couldn't maintain it.
Which is to say, people less suited to relationships in general.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, it’s categorically untrue that there’s any data that suggests that a small number of men are sleeping with ‘most women’, let alone 80% of them. Any suggestion as such is a misinterpretation of studies that say nothing like it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I freely accept that the 80/20 split is in of itself not a bad thing (for a western atomised society), what's bad is the traits currently being selected for by women. Men, like all humans, respond to incentives, and what women are incentivising men to behave like to get short term casual sex (which men value higher than women, and it's men's value system that determines how they behave, not women's), is not a good thing. I'm not talking about the long term genetic impacts, that happens over too long time scales to really matter, I'm talking about short and medium term social impacts on society.
In fact the biggest issue with that split is that men are more violent when they have nothing to lose, so society needs to give them something to lose if they behave badly (this can be stuff as simple as skins in their favourite video game). Alternatively you change the societal gender ratio to be more like that of a beehive by gestating 4 female embryos in an artificial womb for every male birth. If women can do everything men can then workforce wise this shouldn't be a societal issue.
A brilliant troll for sure. But unfortunately most necessary work outside the household is done by men. To a rounding error, all dangerous work is done by men.
More options
Context Copy link
How? Jane says to John "John, you're so bad boy, come and fuck me". John declines and does not respond. Jane finds another bad boy to have sex with. Dynamic continues.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link