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 -
It’s undeniable that the status of their partner is more important for women than for men. If you want to call that hypergamy, fine, but to me it’s trivial, and doesn’t translate to the vitriol that usually accompanies the term.
That this way of choosing partners is worse than men’s is not clear. I don’t see much evidence that women would rather stay single than men, for example women are often asking men to commit more, ie be less single. But in any case this is also a legitimate preference, condemning an entire sex on that basis doesn’t make sense.
Where did I condemn women, or implied that their way of choosing partners is worse? If it satisfies you, I will say that men's mate-seeking behaviour ranges from pathetic groveling on one end to callous hedonism on the other end, depending on their status. It is in no way better than women's mate-seeking behaviour.
More options
Context Copy link
Saying that women are hypergamous is not a “condemnation”. It’s supposed to be a neutral descriptor of their mating strategy. The strategy itself is neither good not evil; it’s simply a brute fact, the natural outcome of biological and evolutionary factors beyond the control of any one individual.
Of course no descriptor is ever entirely neutral, and you do see vitriol accompanying the term, simply due to the fact that TRP/manosphere circles attract a lot of vitriolic young men who can’t get laid and are angry about it. But hypergamy itself isn’t inherently a “bad” thing.
Like Marx's description of capitalism is supposedly morally neutral and a brute fact. It becomes this sprawling, undefeatable monster of negative attributes of the other.
I also disagree that hypergamy as redpillers use it ( meaning , women will leave them at the drop of a hat for a higher-status man, women in general are far more likely than men to think their prospective partners are below them, etc) correctly describes women's behaviour and attitudes.
I think either your understanding of the conversations taking place is flawed or you're just looking at lower quality redpillers. It never turned into this sprawling, undefeatable monster in the circles I travelled in - the term has a very specific meaning, and even the additional connotations it took on were related to and in service of that meaning. Women will absolutely not leave them at the drop of a hat for a higher status man(notice how all marriages on earth didn't break up so that the women could go join President Trump's harem), and among people who are actually having conversations (and not just incels transforming rage and sexual frustration into boring screeds) hypergamy is viewed as one of many factors involved in female mate choice. You don't need to have a 140 IQ to understand why such a drive would come into being, and at the same time it is something that men(who simply do not function the same way) would want to know about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link