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 -
Ah, fuck it. I'll be blunt on the point. Yes, childbirth isn't pleasant, nor are certain elements of the pregnancy process.
But generally speaking society expects men to take on tasks entailing similar levels of discomfort (military service?) and for much longer durations than asked of pregnant women, in the end. And the guys might not even have a reward to show at the end of it all. The least a woman can do if a man pledges his eternal love and support to her, even if it means he has to work his ass off at an unpleasant job for almost his entire life, is go through the pregnancy process and give him a kid or three.
And "women can't overcome their fear of temporary discomfort to do the thing that ensures the survival of the species and can produce a lot of long-term benefits for her" is NOT EXACTLY A STRONG ARGUMENT FOR LISTENING TO THEIR CONCERNS ON THIS MATTER. If she wants to make the case that yeah, pregnancies can go badly, kids can be a nightmare, she has other priorities she wants to pursue that's fine, but I suspect the raw statistical analysis isn't going to overcome the fact that every single generation before her had kids. Many, many good things can only be attained by absorbing short-term pain or even extreme, drawn out discomfort. Being unwilling to bring new life into the world because it might hurt for a bit seems... immature... on the face of it.
Of course, we can agree that she is allowed to make her individual choices! But I think we should also agree she, as an intelligent, high-quality woman, should be internalizing all the costs of that decision.
That is why in my screed yesterday I suggested that we need to stop subsidizing women in the workplace and with welfare, so that the 'cost-benefit analysis' of finding a husband and giving him a kid falls more in favor of the family formation.
In which case, an "intelligent and high-quality woman" might be able to do the math and decide the discomfort of childbirth is worth all the benefits it would bring.
Because as I've pointed out, a woman who lands a high-quality man early on can literally have it all. He can take her on trips and out to parties, he can give her a career boost as needed, and he can give her kids and help her raise kids.
Attempting to do it all on her own seems like a real self-defeating premise when the historical model through which she can get support and companionship for her entire life is always available.
Anyhow, my brother and his wife had their first child just about a month ago, and having met her now, I can say that I would happily kill to protect her even though she shares a somewhat smaller portion of my genes than a child of my own would. Its crazy how much evolutionary wiring there is to make us attached to babies and find joy by merely holding or looking at them. The value of such experiences that are tied deep into our biology shouldn't be flippantly discarded.
I apologize if you’ve made this clear before, or if I’m confusing you with someone else, but I have to ask.
Were you conscripted at some point? Did you, in some other way, find yourself coerced into violent service in the manner you describe? Perhaps you “volunteered” under the tremendous social pressures acting on men, but now regret it?
Because it’s easy for me to view discomfort with childbirth and objection to the draft as two sides of the same liberalization of society. An assertion that the existence of an option does not oblige any man or woman to take it. That, knowing the risks and benefits, one might choose to reject the bargain, cutting a different path, so long as he promulgated the liberal principles which allowed him a choice in the first place.
And I know you’re someone who understands the masculine urge for violence. This is probably my favorite thing you’ve written. Men are clearly getting something out of the voluntary side of dirty, violent, tough jobs. Even setting aside the prospect of pay.
But here you’re suggesting that can’t be enough. That men, as a class, aren’t seeing the same benefits from liberalization. That the prospect of coercion or even just discomfort washes out any benefits men might claim. And that the least women can do to remedy this, the only way to make up for the hardships they’re imposing, is to “give him a kid or three.”
I don’t understand you.
I don't know anyone, regardless of political opinion, who thinks (in the US) that the Draft is even viable. Everyone would ignore it and the president who implemented it would quickly be found on a lamppost.
Right - the US Draft is like the Queen's/King's Assent in UK. Sure, in theory, they could veto something, but the monarchy would be effectively over the next day in an overwhelming vote supported by strong majorities of every party.
Anything that would require a draft would be met with unequalled volunteers anyway. I realize this part of the Internet thinks all of the Red Tribe thinks the military is all woke and ran by transgender furries and woke anti-racist generals, but the actual cause of the downtown is the best ecoonmy for low wage workers since the late 90's and much higher actual standards of recruits. But, if China or Russia actually did do some wild attack or whatever, and we needed recruits, they would come.
I would agree thats about how it would play out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. Status and achievement. Which is useful for...acquiring and providing for a family. Men have these drives because sitting around is probably a less successful strategy towards those goals.
There's a reason one of the benefits of jihad is a bevy of heavenly hotties. There's a reason the "cliche" male action movie involves bravery and/or violence followed by being rewarded by a
objectifiedlove interest. There's a reason many societies become less stable and men engage in more risk-seeking behavior when the number of available partners are low.Most people don't get whatever sort of grand satisfaction from their job elite feminists think all women are being denied by being reduced to mothers and partners. It's a toll to secure status, life and family. Men do certain difficult jobs because it's just a niche they in particular can slide into to pay their way.
More options
Context Copy link
Because it helps them work towards something. Same reason young guys might join gangs, even though the ends of such a group are antisocial, because it feels like a purposeful life. Controlling territory, feuding with rivals, terrorizing the countryside. We can't easily separate the male from his violent nature, but we can prevent it from falling into destructive patterns.
Kids intrinsically provide you with purpose, once you're 'saddled' with the responsibility of protecting these hapless, defenseless little humans from a fairly dangerous world. And in most cases you DON'T need to enact violence to keep your own kids safe (although if the need arises, you better have prepared for it, you won't pull John Wick skills out of your ass), but having CONFIDENCE in yourself, being able to stare down any problem without flinching, and defending your family from those that would harm it requires one HELL of an ironclad mindset, which I daresay most flabby 'soyboys' simply aren't able to cultivate.
Some people develop that motivation after the kids, but in my mind the capacities should be developed as part of becoming a worthy partner, and being able to demonstrate the 'value' to a mate.
And so I want to build up men who are capable of violence, but also capable of controlling it, reining it in, and deploying it only where necessary. And once that's done, you've got a male who is more secure in their ability to operate in society because he does not cower due to the everpresent risk of physical confrontation. And THAT is the sort of guy who is 'worthy' of finding a high value woman.
And I want to give those guys a PURPOSE to pursue. I do not want to loose a cadre of violence-trained men on a world without direction, goals, or purpose. But there are exceedingly few purposes that are going to appeal to such men other than those inbuilt instincts to procreate, build a family, and defending a homestead.
The male urge to be violent works to get them hyped up to go and kill the hated enemy in military operations, especially if you tell him he can plunder wealth in the process. On the homefront, you also have to appeal to his instincts to protect his family, his kin, his property, and give him enough direction that he doesn't HAVE to go around killing to assert his masculinity.
Or if you like, you have to balance the Testosterone with Oxytocin.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This describes an attitude that comes up in the conversations well. It's like an anti-naturalistic fallacy. Just because it is in our nature to pair bond and such doesn't mean those bonds are any less real or meaningful.
I guess the 'rational' way to describe it is that to the extent we have base instincts that form part of the variables of our utility functions, and while it is certainly possible that other aspects of the utility function can override or counteract those, it is also possible that neglecting them entirely will make us much less happy than we would be if we 'indulged' them.
Like by all means, make childbirth less painful, but the joy of having children seems to be a top 3 source of pure happiness for humans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What percentage of women can land a relationship with a high-quality man? Which apparently means a man who earns enough to support a household; who substantially helps with the kids; who has the time and money and inclination to go out on vacations and parties. To say nothing of at least half a dozen other attributes (willing to marry early and for life, attractive, etc) that are probably relevant.
Now, I'm not saying this in a "men need to step up" kind of way. It just doesn't seem accessible to the bulk of women today, and if that's the trade you're offering women, they'll implicitly calculate the risks and decide what path to take based on that.
This is a function of how many high-quality men there are, which is probably somewhat a function of how many men are raised in intact families and instilled with the necessary discipline, commitment, and common sense needed to maintain a family from an early age. And having family resources on tap in a pinch is probably a major help too.
In olden times, a father might not have let his daughter be married off to a guy who didn't have the proven resources to support her! It seems like we've removed this kind of guardrail and haven't replaced it with anything, thus leaving it to the women herself to correctly ascertain the quality of her suitor. Which is a task she may not be well adapted for.
Bit of a feedback loop, in that respect. Men raised by single mothers, in particular, are less likely to become 'high quality men' later in life, and will certainly be at a deficit when it comes to their assets. More intact families = more high quality men. More high quality men should, likewise, correlate with more intact families.
I am.
At the very least ensure there's a Basic Life Script for them to follow which gets them some kind of reward for making reasonable sacrifices along the way and shouldering the responsibility of creating a family.
It feels like we're in the middle of oscillating social defections where both men and women are refusing to 'improve' for the other sex because they perceive the other sex isn't willing to improve for them. Men, for example, perceive that many women aren't good at cooking, aren't willing to clean, and may decide to divorce them on a whim and take away their children and wealth. Women perceive that many men are childish and just want a live-in maid/mother substitute who will basically care for them while they indulge in meaningless hobbies. They're both right to an extent.
Men aren't willing to step up and sacrifice their independence for a woman with zero domestic skills or willingness to help maintain a household. A guy may as well get a male roommate if that's all a woman will provide.
Women aren't willing to learn domestic skills for a guy who isn't going to handle his own business, support her, raise her status, and execute on all his husbandly duties. She may as well be taking care of a child in that case.
I think that men are going to have to start making the first move here in asserting higher standards across the board, but if women don't reciprocate, what other options do men have?
It's a pile of complicated, interacting feedback loops.
I wonder if the initial solution might be less providing a happy path through a Basic Life Script and more curtailing a bunch of the dead end paths young adults find themselves on. A Basic Life Script requires things the government can't provide (at least directly). But there are lots of things in the modern world that are literally engineered to pull people on valueless, counterproductive paths. For men, video games, porn, gambling. (Elsewhere IIRC you mentioned social media for women, which I think would also qualify.) Limit those dead ends, and you might divert people who whose lives are degraded by them toward paths that lend themselves to the Basic Life Script.
Now that I go back and read your comment from a couple months ago, I realize that you basically said all that.
Yep. I've commented on the Superstimulus issue. Superstimuli are much more prevalent now than ever before, I don't think anyone can deny that. Livestreaming platform Twitch (a Gen Z staple) has been informally taken over by people pushing gambling websites or e-prostitutes hawking their wares. EVERY mainstream game played by literal twelve-year-olds has some kind of subtle or not-so-subtle gambling mechanics in them.
I think its fair to say that Gambling is more ubiquitous, drugs are more potent (and, potentially, deadly), porn is more mainstream, and outright scams are a constant danger. Hell, FOOD is more delicious and probably more fattening with sugar being in basically EVERYTHING. And getting sucked down any of those rabbit holes can be nigh impossible to escape, because they're much better adapted at keeping victims trapped than we are adapted to escape.
"Who would win, a literal child whose brain hasn't even developed higher reasoning, with a smartphone and internet access, or a remorseless, massive corporation that has spent millions upon millions of dollars optimizing its products and services for extracting money from every single person it gets its clutches on?"
Yeah, if we can, we should be trying to snip off the major downside risks that can ruin a guy if he strays just a little from the Basic Life Script at a young age.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which society expects military service of men? As far as I’m aware, there are only a handful of countries on earth with compulsory military service, and most of those impose the same requirement on women! American society, maybe outside of some fairly insular subcultures with a multigenerational history of military service, absolutely does not expect, let alone demand, military service of men. This is made obvious by the fact of how few American men serve in the military; I can’t imagine how much smaller the percentage is in other Western countries.
Modern Western society instead makes pretty much the exact same demand of both men and women: go to college, get the most remunerative job you’re able to, and work it until retirement age. American society very explicitly looks down upon women who are financially dependent on men, and mocks men who allow “gold diggers” to leech off of them financially. I think this myth that society demands everything of men and nothing of women is bizarre and clearly incorrect.
Most of the countries that no longer have mandatory military service still have some formalities to register yourself for a draft. And if engaged in sustained warfare that would require it, do draft people.
There is some ideological consistency here since the same movements that wanted to abolish or nullify the draft also wanted to do the same to motherhood as an obligation, but this is just the general consequences of a lapse in everyone's duty.
The army can't find recruits, people aren't having enough children anymore and society is a free for all with no cohesion. This was a predictable and predicted end of such policies.
More options
Context Copy link
Military Service.
Mining.
Policing.
Construction.
Firefighting.
Relevant Tweet from EndWokeness who is not a preferred source but put all the info in one place.
The most miserable, uncomfortable, physically demanding jobs are inherently male-dominated. As it really should be, given that the role of producing new humans is exclusive to women, and men have to make sure they have a safe, functional society to give birth and raise kids in!
And here's a response to EndWokeness that proves the point, unless you think seamstresses and makeup artists are critical social infrastructure that are miserable to perform.
Are men expected to "internalize the costs" for not picking such a job? Excepting military service in countries where conscription is in effect, of course.
They're going to end up homeless and alone of they can't find some way to produce value, that is all but certain.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
She's...in on the joke, right? She can't possibly believe that 'bridal shop owner' is a similarly essential job as plumber?
Looking through her Tweets, I'm thinking she's in on it (or at least just farming engagement). Says she isn't into politics, most political thing said being that she stands with Israel, references God a fair amount, seems to like Elon.
It seems she's some kind of digital content marketer/entrepreneur.
More options
Context Copy link
You tell me! It sure looks like she thinks she just made a blistering rebuttal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Objection, arguing facts not in evidence. Only seven countries conscript women, and even then they aren't put in roles that are likely to see combat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Drafting_of_women
Also almost every single country on earth has conscription or a draft.
How much of that conscription is truly conscription, as opposed to a volunteer army with extra steps? I know the Mexican and Russian drafts are incredibly easy to dodge, or at least were before the war in the latter case. I’ve certainly heard that the draft in Brazil is basically a meeting with a recruiter who just checks ‘not suited for military service because of low motivation’ if you don’t want to enlist. My guess is that outside of Finland, the koreas, and Israel, the draft is avoidable for middle class males who simply don’t want to go.
It was this way in Germany too, up until Conscription was cancelled.
IIRC in Turkey you can opt to spend your conscription period in the reserves. I'm quite confident that the vast majority of middle and upper income societies have some sort of loophole like that, and lower income countries are so crappy that A) the army is probably a better deal than whatever the alternative was and B) there probably isn't enough state capacity to actually do anything about it if you just ignore the draft officer 99% of the time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well! I readily acknowledge that I was wrong, by an order of magnitude, regarding how many countries still have active conscription. I have to imagine that my somewhat Euro- and Asia-centric news diet caused me to not really give much thought toward how African, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries handle conscription.
Still, I think my point about expectation of military service absolutely still stands as it pertains to First World countries. Of the European and East Asian countries, only a handful practice active and enforced conscription, and of those, several do conscript women. While it’s undeniably true that those women are overwhelmingly shunted toward non-combat roles, few of those countries is currently at war, so the men aren’t seeing any combat either.
However you have completely and utterly failed to demonstrate your main point:
Unless you have anything else to introduce, this statement is just as absurd and plainly false as before.
Please direct this comment at the person who made this claim, rather than to me.
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