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 -
Sure he can. He can change his standards. There's no, like, Law Of Nature that makes it impossible to marry women with the characteristics you describe in the first half of your post. Indeed, I imagine a large number of women in those categories (lesbians excepted) end up married to men at some point in their life. I don't understand why this complaint isn't isomorphic to a conventionally unattractive woman complaining about how she can't get a 6/6/6 man to settle down with her. If you have set your standards such that no one whom you would date would also date you, that seems like a you problem.
A natural result of women's improved social and economic standing. As their alternative to being in a relationship improves some people are going to choose that option instead of forming a relationship they may otherwise have. When one's negotiating position is better, one can get a better deal.
It's also kind of amusing to me to complain about women's pickiness given the acknowledgement in this comment that your own criteria would exclude a large number of women from your marriage pool.
I think this overstates the degree of agreement on what constitutes "wife material" among men aged 18-50. I suspect many men in this group will end up happily married to women who don't fit your described criteria of "wife material."
I am not going to disagree with you on this point, but I think that there are in fact many men who will make sub-optimal choices. We know what the statistics are when it comes to smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol, but both men and women continue to pick those habits up. Some of them may end up happy, and some of the people who smoke a pack of cigarettes a day won't get lung cancer. But that doesn't actually mean that non-smokers are idiots who passed up a happy, consequence-free life of nicotine-usage when they don't pick the habit up.
More options
Context Copy link
The ways this can go wrong are numerous, not the least of which is her refusing to perform any cooperation in the relationship and divorcing him to take the kids and money anyway.
The bet is not just about the upside. A guy lowers his standards and accepts a less happy relationship and STILL doesn't get to count on loyalty, cooperation, and stability since the current rules say "she can leave whenever she wants."
So we're in a situation where the guy's risk/reward calculation is impacted by the fact that
A) There are fewer women who want to settle down, and
B) There are fewer women who are worth risking a long-term commitment with, and all the guys are fighting for them anyway.
Yes, because there are obvious reasons why those categories increase the risk associated with giving commitment. Obesity leads to health issues and possible complications in pregnancy. That's a financial, emotional, and eventually health risk. Various mood and psych disorders contribute to marital dysfunction, and likewise increase chances of divorce. If she's a single mother you're going to expend resources raising a kid that isn't yours, with no guarantees that you'll get to have one of your own. AND she's already demonstrated a certain amount of poor judgment if she picked a guy who wouldn't commit and had his kid.
So a guy can choose to widen his criteria and accept a woman that has certain, I'll use the term 'baggage,' and if it ends up not working out for him, what is he left with? How much risk is it reasonable for him to accept in exchange for possible upside?
"Marriagable" women imply that the risk/reward calculation goes in her favor. There's not going to be as many as factors like this become more prevalent.
So why is the marriage rate so low now?
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2020/4/marriage-rate-blog-test
Why are fewer people getting married at all, much less "happily" married?
I realize at some point this is a question of probabilities but it seems to me all the downsides you list about non-"marriagable" women also apply to "marrigable" women. They can tick off all your boxes and still "divorc[e] him to take the kids and money." Or still be lacking in "loyalty, cooperation, and stability." Even "marriagable" women can "leave whenever she wants."
I'm very confident that women also believe they have compelling reasons for having the standards they do.
If a guy marries a woman without any 'baggage' and it ends up not working out for him, what is he left with? I don't see how the woman's prior "marrigability" is relevant to this question.
It is up to each of us to decide that for ourselves. On the one hand, if one takes too much risk one may find oneself in a bad relationship. On the other hand, if one is too risk averse they may be without any relationship at all.
This depends entirely on the particular individuals weight of the factors in question.
Because increased social, legal, and economic equality mean women are less and less dependent on marriage as an institution to provide for themselves. When you drastically improve people's alternative to X (as has happened for women over the last century with respect to marriage) then fewer of them will choose X.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link