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 problem is that "is liberal" tends to be an effective proxy for "is a gynosupremacist".
That's intensely corrosive to relationships for what should be obvious reasons, since someone whose axiom is "always take for I am better, never give for you are lesser" simply can't function in an environment of give and take (i.e. a healthy relationship).
And the reasoning is the same as the [steelman for the] virginity argument- "if she had any brains or working emotional regulation, she wouldn't have been given to man-hating in the first place", and being someone who could be vulnerable to social pressure/irrational hatred like that is a liability (corresponding copypasta: "if she's still a feminist, you aren't the one"). Will she fall back on blaming you just for being a man if and when things go bad? Will she take it out on your sons, resulting anywhere from simple quiet quitting to "I'm divorcing you because you won't gender-affirm the new daughter I would have rather had"?
I say this as someone who thinks "a lack of virginity means she's sex-obsessed with all men everywhere" is the spear counterpart of the above, and just as serious a problem, for the same reasons- as this is a clear symptom that the man has problems with his brain or emotional regulation, gives away a bit of underlying androsupremacy, and might take it out on you or his daughters if the relationship hits a rough spot (corresponding copypasta: "raising daughters is the ultimate cuck").
Every new video game or porno-tech (though I repeat myself) produced simply makes the definition of "much to the table" that much stricter. And I think this is relatively equal across genders- the amount of inherent boorishness/laziness in the average man, or inherent entitlement/screaming harpy in the average woman, that can sustain a relationship... is far lower than it was 100 years ago. Personality types that don't measure up are now much less likely to make it out of the gene pool (and that's even before getting to "is he stable?/is she attractive?") and will also be inherently more loudly resentful of this fact.
Almost no women IRL are like this. I’ve been on hundreds of dates in big liberal cities and I don’t think I ever met someone who meets this description. It’s a type of woman that exists basically only online and perhaps in some weird pockets you’ll never encounter in person anyway.
As for the virginity thing, I dunno, sleep with a virgin to get it out of your system. It’s just not important.
There's plenty of women like that, it's just that the "gynosupremacy" usually turns out to be pretty theoretical, and they're a lot more flexible / reasonable in their personal life.
It would be very helpful if you could quantify this risk, though, because as mentioned the consequences for misreading her are severe.
How heavily must a guy filter?
Don’t filter on it ex ante. Go on the date. If she really holds psychotic sexist views (she probably doesn’t) it’ll be quickly obvious.
Great.
But not my point. I can filter my dates by going on them, even if the ratio of crazy/not crazy is unfavorable.
I'm asking for a quantification of how many women out there are actually likely to pass the filter.
And, to really drive the point home, are there enough of them for most guys who want marriage and kids to have them, or do we have to acknowledge that the pie is too small for them all to get a slice, and thus we're actually in a state of heavy competition for a limited resource?
The honest answer is "I have no clue" we're talking about people's intimate relationships, and I just don't have that much insight into them. But going by what I was able to see, the odds are pretty good, like, in the neighborhood of 100%. I've seen a militant feminist bending over backwards for a 5/10, mildly successful autist who just fell out of love with her, and ended up breaking up, I've seen another psy-op herself into tolerating infidelity / polyamory / wtf it they were calling it, I've seen successful "I can fix her" stories. Now, I'm not saying ~100% of women are marriage material, but I just haven't seen a case where the "gynosupremacy" was the reason for a relationship to fall apart.
More options
Context Copy link
Like I have been saying, almost all of them. The number of normie women who want marriage and kids with normie men is almost certainly greater than the number of number of normie men looking for the same thing. That there’s a huge number of men-hating women out there categorically uninterested or unfit for marriage is a super weird cope made up in red pill/incel/sigma male Twitter. I know this because unlike these people I touch grass regularly and almost every single woman I interact with is normal and wants a normal relationship. Off the top of my head I can think of >10 single women in the Bay Area who are great and looking hard for their guy.
That a lot of these women are below men’s standards for other reasons (too fat, had sex with too many guys, etc) is a different issue and comes down to facing up to the fact that if you’re a 4/10 guy and want to get married you’ll probably have to marry a 4/10 woman.
You can do better than this strawman.
What if the normie women's definition of "normie" men isn't real? Like, what if there is a documented, quantitative disparity here between basic gender perspectives of the other.
I think the modal normie guy is just fine with a wife who had a few boyfriends before him, who puts on some pounds after they start dating (and definitely after marriage and kids) and who sips wine wearing her "The Future is Female" tee-shirt while they watch the Notebook again.
I think that same "normie" woman in that scenario is (not so) secretly resentful that her now husband plays Toby Keith sometimes when he BBQs, doesn't keep up with This American Life, put on a few too many pounds after they got married and lost his nice butt he developed playing Div-3 lacrosse, and wonders about "that chick Ashley" that his frat bros bring up after a few beers when they visit.
Expectations and the delta between them and reality matter. Your "4/10" comment is totally valid, but it also works both ways.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, great post. If you want a hot, relatively chaste, young, smart right-leaning woman, that’s not impossible, but you better be the equivalent of that as a man, namely a successful, attractive, charming, relatively young guy who probably has similar values, which in the case of chastity is likely some kind of religious conservatism. Young Mormon men seem to have no issue marrying chaste(ish) pretty blondes who will vote for Romney and deliver 3-4 children, because that’s their milieu. Too often some chubby suburban secular engineer whose primary hobbies are video games and online political discussion thinks he deserves the same.
Hot young people are in no short supply, and some substantial subsection of that group (assuming nothing truly weird or ambitious) likely meets anyone’s individual extra standards. But you have to make sure you’re part of that group, and you’re where the young people are (NYC, SF, LA, etc) and that you have things to offer that they want, too.
A 35 year old average looking guy of average means probably isn’t going to marry a 23 year old conservative trad virgin. If that’s the blackpill @faceh was talking about then, sure, it’s real. But at that point the unlikelihood of winning the lottery is a blackpill, and so is a peasant girl realizing she’s unlikely to marry the prince. If you’re in your thirties as a man you have to accept you missed the first wave of pairings (and arguably the second) and likely (unless extremely hot or successful) have to make do with women for whom the same is true. That’s no great injustice.
The fact that you think these are equivalent requirements shows how ridiculously lopsided the sexual marketplace is against men. All a woman needs to do is be young and chaste, which is something every girl was at some point and which practically guarantees hotness (to men) by itself, and vote for a party that half the country supports. Meanwhile, a man who has spent decades studying and working to become an engineer is told "whoops, sorry, that's not enough, you also need to have interesting (to women) hobbies, be physically fit, and have a handsome face; I'm sure you will find time and energy to do all while you are working at a ridiculously demanding intellectual job, and also you better get all of that done way before you turn 35 because otherwise the idea of you marrying a 23 year old is just creepy!"
In other words, every aspect of a man's life, from his career to his hobbies to his body, must be optimized for attracting women, and it is no one's fault but his own if he fails.
"Women don't care about your struggles, they wait at the finish line and fuck the winners." -- Richard Cooper, The Unplugged Alpha
There was a time when this would have been ordinary. When fathers would have been jockeying for the chance to marry their daughters off to a man of established means instead of standing by impotently as they spend their fertile years getting pumped and dumped by the prince in the futile hope that he will commit. God willing, that time will come again, when the insanity of feminism and the sexual revolution has been consigned to the trash can of history.
More options
Context Copy link
Great post (as always--you're a great contributor, which I think you know, but which bears repeating).
To further elaborate on this point--young Mormon men also seem to have no issue marrying a reasonable match. Some years ago a Mormon colleague invited me to his son's wedding reception. The bride was obese; the groom, a NEET. The groom's father said "she's a nice girl. I wouldn't say she's a great catch but let's be honest, neither is he." But he had done a Mormon mission trip and she had the right social attitudes. Now they've been married maybe 15 years, no kids (fertility issues). Neither ever completed college, they both do gig work to scrape by with the help of their parents (they're in their 40s now!). They have dreams and goals they're unlikely to ever achieve, but they have a common social milieu, and they're clearly better off supporting one another than they would be as atomized incels.
It's not a life I'd want, but I have to remind myself--it's the kind of life most people get. Most people don't even get a bachelor's degree. Most people aren't particularly attractive. If we reserve the "good life" for "high value" people, things are going to get real bleak, real quick. But without the social support structures encouraging men and women to accept a good match, rather than always "marrying up," that's where we're headed.
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