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 decided to share my theory (if we can call it that) about the origin of the ‘incel’ slur. I’m not claiming it’s terribly original or anything but I welcome your feedback about it because it’s a pure culture war phenomenon in my view and I wonder if my theory is sound.
To start with the obvious, pretty much every human community that ever existed have had concepts of the feminine and masculine as collections of desirable traits. This entails that men and women who refuse to live up to these ideals are disadvantaged in various ways. One way is social shaming. Again, let’s leave it that here; I’m aware that I could go off on dozens of tangents here and add dozens of qualifiers and interpretations to make my argument nuanced and elaborate, but I want to keep this concise.
One way to shame unmasculine men is to use the slur ‘nerd’ on them. This was the norm for a long time in Anglo-Saxon societies, and it sort of made sense. After all, nerds are interested in things and machines, not humans, who are anything but machines. The traits that make you a nerd, especially a hard-working and employable one, are exactly the traits that are useless, detrimental even, if you want to be a socially savvy, sexually successful cool guy. If you’re too boneheaded to correctly read the carefully calculated, covert signals women send out to you to indicate sexual interest without coming off to their social circle as dirty sluts, you’re not a real man. Especially if you’re also not interested in playing team sports etc.
At some point though, the Third(?) Industrial Revolution happens, and the computerization of science and the economy is in full swing. The men most disposed to become computer scientists and programmers happen to be nerds. Before that, programming used to be seen a lowly, dull desk job, basically not different from being a secretary, and a significant chunk of programmers were single women as a result. But now, society starts believing that learning to code is a secure path to having a high-paying career and the American Dream. It seems that only the sky is the limit in the digital revolution and the booming online sector. Young women come to realize that calling undesirable men ‘nerds’ just comes across as dumb and baseless to most people.
However, none of this means, of course, that unattractive male traits just disappeared, or that society is open to abandoning social shaming as a tool of controlling men. In fact, due to an unfortunate combination of the unintended(?) long-term consequences of feminist messaging and socially harmful, pathological trends like online porn addiction, endocrine disruptors, sedentary lifestyles, social atomization, the disappearance of male rites of passage and male bonding rituals etc., it seems that a growing segment of men are socially illiterate, repulsive and dull skinnyfat manchildren. Women no longer want to dismiss them as nerds, but they definitely want to dismiss them as…something.
At this point, due to online trends, society discovers the ‘incel’ term, and just starts using it as a replacement of ‘nerd’, basically. Later, online journos discover that the term was actually invented by some Canadian female college student 20 years earlier who was a romantic failure and started a long-defunct online message board for other college women in the same situation, who applied the term to themselves, not as a slur, and definitely not as something that conveys anti-feminist views etc., but all this is long forgotten and nobody cares anymore, so it doesn’t matter. Fast forward a few years, and it becomes normal for leftist women and their male ‘allies’ to dismiss anyone and everyone as ‘incel’, even married men with children as long as they come across as sufficiently deplorable to the average feminist.
I encountered the same types who were using incel to had been previously been using MRA as an insult in reddit political subreddits.
The reality is that in culture wars, the groups that are bullied more are those who have shown weakness and susceptibility to it by accepting it, and those who have a lower status position. And men who do pander to women qualify. Obviously this in it self is a massive problem for movements that claim to be for equality, and you will sometimes see people use the arguement that X demographic cares less about identity politics for themselves, so it is fine and proper to maintain a caste system.
A bit like the over focus on white extremism, or "right wing conspiracy theorists". All these are smear terms and propaganda from a political space that favors framing things in a manner that is excessively disfavorable towards its outgorups, men being one of them.
It is also important to note, that it is blatantly a bad argument that the existence of niche subcommunities justifies such behavior. There is obviously a backlash against feminism, but modern loser men have never been more pro feminist, and previous generations of more sexually successful men, had more antifeminist views. Although, being attractive and more social is probably something women appreciate more than having more feminist views and not being too social. But that frustration a) it would be unfair on current societal circumstances including issues like hypoagency, female overepresentation in colleges, and a lot other things, to entirely pin on men as a class while not criticising women which is what the prevailing bias is towards b) it is something different than the narrative that ties the increasing more isolated behavior as deserving because they hate women. This guy has a decent if somewhat more pro male take on decline of marriage. https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage
An aspect of this strategy is to keep in line under a mental slavery and acceptance of their inferior role, various demographics who accept that it is just and roper for them to have a subservient role as allies. My view is that these ideologies really need to be thrown in the dustbin, but it isn't as if I think unfairness towards women is impossible. Although we should also be conserned with important goals of the common good and not take a self serving lazy stance that greater comfort for particular demographics is greater good. For example neither women nor society benefits if birth rates crash and we have a culture that abhors necessary pain and self sacrifice.
What we see here is another example of a supremacist ideology in favor of specific demographic, also unconcerned about the negative effects n society in general, that hides under the pretense of being morally pure, and its dissenters evil. It would be a beating a dead horse to say that a male incel supremacist/focused ideology where the selfish interest of an incel is maximized at expense of women, and society, is undesirable. I would expect most people here already agree with the undesirability of such approach. Well, people should realize such movements are exaggerated enormously and dangled as scapegoats to justify the opposite extreme, and reject such manipulations.
Although, controversially, I don't see why the interests but not from a self destructive manner for society, of even incels of people who would have come incels, needs to not be considered. As should that of women, even incel women. Hint, hint, we need to move towards a situation that there is more romance, marriages, and births. And part of having a sane understanding on such controversial issues is putting your foot down and saying that the legitimate interests of groups like whites, men, whoever, matter. But, like all interests those have a limit and it relates also to how they affect the legitimate interests of other groups. There is a massive gray area and room for debate, but this idea that only the interests of progressive favored groups matter, and the interests of other groups is inherently an extremist proposition, is precisely why things have gone in a direction that is hateful and mistreating of groups whose interests are treated as illegitimate.
While I am in favor of the suppression/end of various sacred cows movements and their limited hangouts that are extreme in this manipulative manner I don't think the ideal is to be the opposite extreme, but to try to wisely favor good tradeoffs. There isn't a good reason to buy into this idea that without such movements and factions only the most extreme chaos and opposite approach would happen. Part of these fears relate also to exaggerating the bad things from the past and not considering the good things that have been eroded by such movements. Nor the fact that we can in fact choose to accept whatever if any reasonable points have been made, while still we ought to reject the unreasonable, which cannot be done under the factions that are uncompromising which is what we are dealing with now.
And I'm going to say here that it takes two to tango, the Sexual Revolution was for the benefit of men as much (or even more) than women. Attitudes in the 60s-70s were "why should I be trapped and bound down by marriage, why can't I get sex outside of marriage?" Men were seduced by the promised lifestyle of free love and liberation, where they could have as much sex as they wanted with loads of willing women who would not demand committment and marriage from them. They didn't want their fathers' life of marriage and family and domesticity and 9-5 job where you work thirty years for the gold watch and pension. They wanted the new freedoms the new era promised, and that did not include "get married and have a kid by 25-30".
I'm certainly not excluding women and feminism here, but it was men as much as women who didn't want family and kids to get in the way of the fun the new world of good jobs with good pay, increased access to air travel, the opening up of global tourism and holiday destinations, and 'now you can spend your money on things that you enjoy' offered to them.
Whatever the responsibility of men in the 60s or 70s, it isn't the 60s or 70s anymore and there is also not an equivalence in the current arrangement. Frankly, I don't think we should care that much, about whether men or women are more at fault for the sexual revolution. Do you disagree, and think we ought to prioritize the original blame?
Average men are getting a raw deal which is worse than women. In addition to dating prospects, frustrated men get hostility, while women get pandering.
It is only a minority of men who come as winners in the current arrangement, and that is also at expense of society.
I mostly agree with Scott's Greer take I linked towards which also includes a part about dating apps. https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage
This is important, because people used to date more often through dates being arranged by friends and relatives, or meeting people through their community and in statistics showing how people meet, these have sharply declined, while dating apps have been replacing them.
There is also the issue of women dating up and their overepresentation in colleges and benefiting from affirmative action policies. Now, I recall when looking at statistics a rise in loneliness among women too, although there is certainly less pressure on them, but the current way things are arranged isn't necessarily great for women, even if it is worse for men. And even if there is pro female identitarian aspect to opposition towards changing things.
In any case, I don't think we should be paralyzed by narratives of original blame, on really any issues of consequence, but need to examine if the current arrangement is good, not necessary perfect, but working well, and if it isn't working well then it is time to change things. Of course, this is compatible with conservative changes, and reversing specific previous changes that resulted in things going in a worse direction.
I think if you're going to say it's all on women alone to be having more babies, and getting married young, and the rest of it, and discussing sanctions to force women to do this, it's no bad idea to remember that men are part of it too (unless you mean the women should all be in same-sex marriages and having babies by sperm donation?) and it was men who were eager to break the bargain of "marriage and domesticity for access to sex" in return for "access to sex, no need to marry or commit long-term".
You can't fix the problem by looking at one side; there are plenty of low-value men quite happy to have a string of kids by different women but not marry any of the mothers, and that's not the kind of "we must increase the birth rate" that people want when they discuss "why aren't people marrying and having kids?" Women may well be much too fussy and choosy now, but the shoe used to be on the other foot with men not wanting to be tied down before they got a chance to sow their wild oats and have their fun.
Pretty clear that you want to prioritize blaming men. These narratives that focuses on coming up with a story that is one sided blame game in the past to excuse a bad arrangement today have been getting very tiresome.
Men are getting a more raw deal in the current arrangement, and it is taboo to not pander to women. This doesn't mean that realizing such facts is being one sided against women. If we are ever going to move from feminist excesses, we should be willing to make such admittance, without overacting.
You are responding uncharitably to a very different post than what I promoted. One would think instead of promoting more arranged dating by friends and communities like it used to exist even in the 90s, problems with dating apps which might require possible regulation, and stopping pro female affirmative action my priority was going full Ceausescu! Such issues are not actually just focusing on blaming women and are ideas that go further than that. Now, I hinted some of these than being explicit, by mentioning them as problems. I definitely don't think our approach should be maximally coercive at expense of women...
Opposing the situation where women date up, overepresented in colleges in part due to Affirmative Action, in dating apps, there is a scenario where there is a prioritisation of minority of men and women trying to arrange dates with them, is far from what you paint. Another aspect I didn't focus as much is deferring family formation, with education being prioritised in the family formation years, in combo with an aspect of this being fear of commitment and even of raising children and birth. Where due to the influence of feminism the concept of it being taboo to say that we need more births, and also a promotion of careerism over motherhood, has also happened. Perhaps under the same feminist influence, is why you think I am talking about forcing women to have children, when I am more interested in societal perceptions, encouragement. Humanity wouldn't have survived so far if there hasn't also been an instict to have children and a desire, which we also see statistically where women want more children than they have. They used to fear birth less. And society should encourage what is good and discourage what is detrimental to it, and there is a huge gray line and debate in how to go about to do that and how far, and I am more interested in the right framework that coming with all exact solutions. I definitely wouldn't like Ceausescu like policies, which haven't been necessary in history to get above replacement rate birth rates and a society where a larger percentage of men and women were in healthy relationships.
Raising average male status and having a higher % of men and women dating, that is more widespread monogamy over a situation where women target for the top percent is not a nightmare scenario, but an improvement of the status quo. And even in that situation, as always was the case, there will exist people, including men who will lose for various reasons, including their own deficiencies.
It isn't actually that widespread of a problem outside of the black community. It is more lack of romance and low number of children among actual couples that is the bigger issue.
Look, I'm old enough that I remember the tail end of the Sexual Revolution becoming aware of it as going into my teen years. The attitudes then about men versus women were nuts by modern standards, and I don't mean "crazy ultra-feminists hate all men" standards, I mean "treating the other person as a human" standards. The attitudes parodied here where guys were tough and macho and women loved it, and the notion was to be sexually available because this was the new era of doing away with hang-ups. Men did benefit from it, so it does make me smile wryly to read all the crying now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Is it great that women can now be emotionally abusive to men? No. But in general guys are now getting a taste of the medicine that women had to put up with, and they don't like it. Newsflash: neither did women, hence feminism. "Women have the power in the dating market! Women are too picky! Women spurn nice guys and go for the alphas!" Yeah, the sexual market place used to be a male buyer's market, now it's a female one. And men can't shove off all the blame onto women, because men wanted to eat their cake and have it: women willing and available for casual sex, no demands for committed relationships or marriage, and access to novelty. Women were then conditioned into 'if guys can do it, so can you'. And now we have the results, where nobody is happy save for a few who can command premium attention, be they men or women.
If you're going to complain that women are not having babies, you need to look at the other side of "where do you get babies" because it's not out of thin air. Why don't women want marriage and kids? What are the social forces driving this? A lot of it is economic - unless you have one partner with a lot of money, it's not really feasible to be a stay at home wife and mother. If both of you have to work, then there's little chance to have kids because it all needs to be planned around education and careers, and then when you do, you're paying for childcare which is pretty much eating up one of your wages. You won't get a mortgage without two incomes, and renting is another problem (can you even find a place to rent, and if you do how high is the rent, and will the lease allow children?)
I'm not trying to blame men, I'm saying that there are no easy answers and putting all the blame on women alone is as unfair as putting all the blame on men alone.
Most of your post still focuses on the narrative of blaming men continually though as getting a taste of their own medicine, with one sided narratives which is the classic far left/feminist narrative with the twist that you don't see agency for the women with sexual revolution.
Your message includes excessive browbeating against men, which is the last thing we want.
You genuinely are repeatedly trying to have this discussion with me, of how blaming men is legitimate because of past sins, when my point that I have been discussing was that such an approach is not legitimate way to approach issues to begin with.
While I am not interested in forcing women to have babies and favor sensible changes that create a situation where more people are in monogamous relationships and have more children, I am in favor of society marginalizing factions promoting these narratives of one sided oppression and permanent revenge and getting even, which are not society's best interests but also sadistic glee against men is bad on its own right. Being against one's fathers, brothers, sons, and husbands, who are permanently blamed as being permanently responsible as men based on slanted one sided narratives, is not what we need.
The issues with that are numerous. An additional one is this: I don't accept the one sided story, and one where women don't have agency, but even if someone was to grant it, which I don't, then how are current men to blame for what other men did previously? So, it is another example of how such movement and narrative is destructive and just irrationally spiteful.
Ironically, what you argue fits perfectly the point of the blog post I previously linked: https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage
Bellow you argue the following:
Economic expenses of parenthood aren't fully explanatory because even in societies with decent wages and high welfare to parents have some these issues. Plus the issue isn't' just births but relationships and decline there too. The economic issue is probably a factor in relation with expectations and other issues I promoted related to education first as a model and so on. Various of these issues also relate with social norms that both men and women follow, not everything is more related to female behavior and incentives specifically.
Ultimately from the article I linked I want to highlight this which goes further than just blaming women:
You have been consistently mischaracterizing the idea that men are getting a raw deal in the current arrangement as blaming women exclusively, and are reacting to opposition to things like the bellow
This narrative does blame some men too, you know.
Although the issue isn't to prioritize blaming women, but to change things. If things are bad, and part of this relates to this idea of women not settling early enough and chasing the top, which is worse for men than for women for various reasons explained, including women dating up and benefiting from affirmative action, this is an entirety fair issue to observe. However, even this explanation does show that women also lose in some ways from this arrangement. They have less children than polled to desire, and the men they chase also often refuse to settle down. Then there are those issues that relate to both male and female behavior.
Maybe there is a room for trying to change current male behavior specifically, in addition to changes of both men and women but I agree with the article I linked that it can't come in the same one sided demand where the arrangement remains hostile to men, but only demands are made for men to step up. It can't be motivated by the same anti male feminist perspective where as you see it, men are tasting their own medicine.
At the end of the day people who care about improving things and have specific goals like a society with more healthy monogamous relationships and at least replacement fertility rate, should change things. Those who want instead to focus on retaining a sex negative feminist consensus are probably going to be an obstacle to that. Also, a level of sympathy for groups "getting a taste of their own medicine" is going to be helpful to promote the correct policies.
Yeah, and if men want that, they are going to have to face up to it that they can't eat their cake and have it: be 'sowing their wild oats' in their 20s with a bunch of hot, willing chicks, then settle down in their 30s with a modest wifey to pop out kids. If you want hot chicks willing to have casual sex with you, you are going to have a culture where women will expect the same sexual market value as men. If you don't want a culture of promiscuity and infertility, you are going to have to change back to the old values of "respectable men don't fuck around and will try and wait for marriage".
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