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 -
Two things:
First, Figure 1 is the share of under 35s who have not had sex in the last year. Figure 2 is the same, but only samples from people have have never been married, which is more relevant and shows no meaningful gap.
Second, you're responding to
When you're replying to a discussion about recent trends like antiwork, NEET-dom, shoplifting, and Red Lobster closures, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the trends you're choosing to bring up are on a similar timeline.
I'm not condemning men. I'm saying you're, at best, massively exaggerating your own complaints about women.
You claimed the statistics supported you. Now that they don't you're claiming the statistics aren't accurate. Why did you claim they supported you then?
I don't think it's appropriate to focus on a 1% difference in one age bucket and ignore the far larger differences in every other bucket that point in the opposite direction. Doing this falsely represents reality in an effort to push a particular narrative.
I agree there are more women actresses/subjects in pornography.
This is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that the statistics your post claimed supported your position do not, in fact, support your position.
I think that's a pretty reductive explanation. There is greater demand for pornography featuring women, and women respond to that. I don't personally think that makes women "more selfish", any more than men making more money than women makes them "more greedy". But these words are poorly defined enough that I'm not going to argue there is much objectivity here.
I've made one post apart from this one, which pointed out the statistics did not show what you claimed they showed. That's not targeting men.
You seem to think I'm some sort of white-knight SJW. I'm not. I've criticized women before. I've criticized progressive policies before (e.g. affirmative action, believe all women, lived experiences, etc.).
I tend not to do it here, because that stuff is in the water supply here.
It's rather grating that you insist that I'm being unfair to men when I've said nothing negative about men this entire conversation.
I also haven't agreed with the "culture of selfishness" thesis either, let alone claimed it needs solving or given a solution.
Again, I've made the very simple point that the stats that you cited don't support the thesis that you made. If you'd like to defend the other two statistics that you claimed support you, you're welcome to.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. Please stop saying I'm blaming men for anything.
I'll start with this:
From your original post:
You specifically chose to qualify this with "male", despite the fact that, as I pointed out with some actually-less-likely-to-be-manipulated (since they're of an economic nature and collected by the government, which has an incentive to know the productivity patterns of its prole cattle) statistics (which I love how you ignored), the problem with low employment and labor non-participation is actually worse among women.
Why "male"? Why not "black"? They're actually far less likely to be employed (unlike men, who as I showed actually aren't) than people of other comparable demographics. Let's say I made your OP, but instead I put "low Indian employment", and then as it turns Indians actually have a higher than average level of employment among the races (which may well be true). Would it make sense to you if I were flabbergasted that you thought I was being anti-Indian? Would it make sense for me to post "Please stop saying I'm blaming Indians for anything."?
You still haven't answered the fundamental question in all of your pointless, evasive verbiage: Why male? Why is male labor non-participation specifically the issue we're worried about here? Why not overall, or again female?
About statistics in regards to women, let me just say this:
You seem to have confused me for only talking about OnlyFans (which isn't a terrible statistical signal actually as it's mostly amateurs and of course women dominate it) or Bang Bros here. Let me rephrase: For a not insignificant portion of women (at least 5%, probably closer to 20% in some demographics, and obviously again going vastly up with lower age in particular and greater attractiveness), the average picture they put online of themselves is softcore pornography (if not just because it features their usual attire, which is softcore pornography attire, though of course most of them in that category choose to intentionally pose and present themselves in additional lustful ways as well). Meanwhile the percentage of men for whom this is true is well below 1.
There is a whole word just for describing the phenomenon of how women are excessively catered to by men without being expected to provide essentially anything in return: "simp". (Yes it is sometimes also applied to women, but not with nearly the same frequency/earnestness/intensity.) There is, as far as I know, no similar word with reversed gender connotations in such prolific use.
Every single one of these facts, in regards to which gender is more promiscuous and has contributed more to the breakdown of sexual norms and which gender is more selfish and expects to receive more from others for less in return from them, is a far stronger statistical signal than any cherry-picked survey stat you can post. It all comes down to a variation of the same old question: "Who do you trust: your lying eyes or our 'data'?"
They do support me, as again your own links show, other than again a small slice of the tip of the modern wokeist spear that you've chosen to focus on exclusively for some reason.
Why don't I just roll over like a puppy dog for a few years from some random graph you posted that apparently has the right figures? Let's take the cheating one for example. This can be blown up easily by asking some simple questions:
Do the women who responded considered the massive amount of offline and online thirst-trapping many of them must do (given again how much of it exists overall) "cheating"?
Do their boyfriends/husbands?
Do their boyfriends/husbands even know the full extent of it (in an age of Snapchat and plenty of other ways of hiding it)? And how pressured do they feel because of modern matriarchal norms not to contest it at all even though they would really like their girlfriend/wife to put some clothes on?
This is just one issue that makes the simplistic consideration you're engaging in wholly untenable if you're trying to be intellectually honest. Like I said, you can post as many cherry-picked surveys as you want: No amount of data trumps reality.
I mean, I could respond to you in a Reddit drone fashion by going on a dive and posting my own cherry-picked link dump, but surely we're all aware enough here of Scott's writings on metascience to understand that a graph is not a substitute for using your brain and empirical faculties, right?
But yes, I trust recent statistics less and less, as social scientists have increasingly openly declared war on the truth in favor of what's ideologically compatible with their brainwashing. So also yes when I say that statistics support my position, I'm not including any given random link from 2022 or whatever.
If you don't want people to assume malicious implications behind your words, then please stop being so unfair and biased.
You've insisted you're some great known critic of women here, but in our entire conversation that is supposedly (from your perspective) just about a neutral examination of modern selfishness, you have yet to even entertain applying the word to any common female behavior (or any female at all in fact) once. So spare me the disinterested observer pleading please because it is obvious hogwash.
If you want to have a conversation about selfishness as a trend, then include the other half of the population. Otherwise you obviously don't want to have a real conversation.
Wow, there's certainly a lot of conversation going on that I guess I've inspired! I apologize I haven't been active as I've been busy with my personal life, so I don't always participate off of surface level comments.
@you-get-an-upvote
Is correct, I posted the OP, not him. The focus on the male side of the lack of participation in the labor force is simply because that's the current headline and more noticeable trend. Population - wide employment participation seems to rarely fully recover after any financial or social crises. Even 7-8 years after the 2008 financial crisis labor participation never recovered. The male participation is more newsworthy, since the past 25 years has seen a 10% decrease of male labor participation compared to the ~3% decrease in female according to FRED. My goal wasn't to focus solely on males, but rather point out the most noteworthy trends and the underlying reasons behind them.
Whether males or females should increase their participation in employment is another discussion entirely.
/images/17162234284494343.webp
/images/17162234286686988.webp
Well, hopefully I've helped provide an explanation of that. And hopefully more and more men keep dropping out faster and faster. It has nothing to do with their selfishness though. It has everything to do with the selfishness of others who just expected them to keep slavishly giving and giving all that they always have traditionally while taking away more and more of the traditional benefits for their service.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am not @SomethingMusic
Yeah, my bad. I didn't check properly and just assumed with you jumping in on behalf of a somewhat older original post you were the OP.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link