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 -
I am not sure I would call it complete indifference, but isn't it well known enough that there is a marked difference between the empathy we give men vs women? IIRC it's common for FTM transgender people to comment on how much more hostile the world is. To writ:
(And isn't the quote below revealing?)
(There were other anecdotes I recall, e.g. a trans man quipping about how he learned that people were much more lenient to women talking shit than men, and that he quickly got called aside to talk about how he was acting inappropriately once he started passing - even though nothing had actually changed in behaviour; but the WaPo article was the first one I found and it seems good enough to illustrate my point.)
Not to mention the actual litany of things that we do privilege women over men for, from prison sentencing to divorce and custody to education, the complete etc etc. Even most of the examples used in the trans rights fight is one group trying to gatekeep womanhood vs another group of self-described women wanting privileges available for women.
My personal experience is that when I try to destress with people (e.g. venting about an 80 hour workweek, or a crappy boss) off work is that - yes, there will be friends and family to empathise, but you get a much higher incidence of "dude not our problem" and "stop whining", as well as a general presumption that I'll be fine and it's not serious, compared to women - who people feel more obliged to reassure and to take action on behalf of.
On the more absurd side, there are things like that youtube video "experiment" (yes, n=1, but you get the point) on public violence where the male-on-female violence got bystanders to stop the altercation/call the police immediately, but reversing the roles lead to people cheering for the woman beating the man and sometimes joining in!
It's an effect strong enough that we call it the "women-are-wonderful effect" (or part of it) and discuss how it's benevolent sexism; but we don't call the perception of competence or increased expectations (e.g. with regards to life success) put on men "benevolent sexism", do we? And isn't that itself a bit suggestive of how we're more receptive towards Women's Issues? (I don't claim to be immune from this either!)
Is that really a "marginal scenario" (with the implication that it's not part of a larger trend of scenarios that would impact men)?
(wow didn't realise I didn't actually post the link)
I don't disagree that if all we know about a person is their sex we might be inclined to start a woman off with more "empathy points" than a man, but the idea that it's a massive yawning gulf to the point that could it could be compared to a "Lovecraftian horror story" strikes me as absurd hyperbole.
This is what I wonder about. I suppose I wouldn't know for sure, because I've never been a woman. But...when I'm out and about in public, everyone else always seems pretty friendly. People smile at me, if I make a reasonable request of a total stranger ("can you hand me that," "can I take this chair," "can you break a fifty," etc.) it's usually granted, if I'm carrying stuff and drop some things usually someone will stop to help me pick it up. I guess I'm just not sure what else could really be expected of people you don't know in a public place. What are they doing for women that they aren't doing for me?
If you were a low enough value man, you would probably have different experiences.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it shows up more when making more substantial requests, like finding another person who will listen to you vent, or help you move. Or inviting people to your birthday party and hoping people will show up. Interrupting someone at a coffeeshop or party and asking for advice. Also, if there is a group, and the woman has some complaints about the group, her complaints will by default be taken more seriously. All these disparities are particularly large when comparing an attractive women, and unattractive men.
These disparities are partly hidden because most men heave learned over the course of life they need to put in the work and so already compensate for this. Men do find friends, and people to help them move, and go to their birthday parties, but they had to put in the work to bring value to establish these relationships. It's only when you step back and imagine the counter-factual, "Would I be putting up with this behavior if they were an unattractive guy? etc." that you see the difference.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that it's hyperbolic, but I do suspect that it is significant enough that most (esp. non-elderly) women find it very difficult to wrap their head around. Like, consider the median woman's understanding of what the male experience is on dating apps, and just generalise it across pretty much all social interaction.
What was it again, "privilege is invisible to those who have it"?
Ha, yeah. For example, a relatively well-known video of a young woman trying to get Tinder dates using her male friend's photos.
It's always funny to hear female supposition as to the male dating experience. Dating and courtship are just Acts of God that happen to them, so the view from the male side is completely alien.
A multi-year acquaintance-with-benefits, a total smokeshow (if she were chaste, like a virgin, I'd probably try to marry her), a few months ago asked me what proportion of girls that I message on Insta I end up "going out with" (likely girl-speak for a trip to Pound Town).
I told her to guess, so that I could stall to come up with a dodge that doesn't diminish her attraction for me (few things turn off women like perceived lack of success with other women).
She guessed 2/3. That is, she guessed two of every three girls on Instagram I message I end up pulling.
Jesus. If I could pull 2 of every 3 chicks I message on Instagram I might not be able to do things like hold down a job.
2/30 would be amazing.
I'd be pleased with 2/300.
Snippet from Norah Vincent's book ("Self-Made Man"):
"Dating women as a man was a lesson in female power, and it made me, of all things, into [a] momentary misogynist...I disliked [women's] superiority, their accusatory smiles, their entitlement to choose or dash me with a fingertip, an execution so lazy, so effortless, it made the defeats and even successes unbearably humiliating...women have a lot of power, not only to arouse, but to give worth, self-worth, meaning, initiation, sustenance, everything.”
I honestly have no clue how I got so lucky. Both women I've dated initiated first. Listening to other men I know it sounds miserable.
I have great sympathy for other Anglosphere men (and, tbh, older women) finding difficulties with romance. I do suspect there is a cultural component in play, though, and it probably doesn't generalise globally.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's a massive difference between 'casual sex is more appealing to men than women, and thus easier for women to get' and 'women have a 20% advantage in generic social situations' ... and "lovecraftian horror story". Women find it hard to wrap their head around the male dating experience, but not the male experience with life in general, both genders still pay taxes, get jobs, help their friends out when their friends are in trouble, etc.
I assume that the "lovecraftian horror story" is trying to gesture at the idea/stereotype that women find a lot of meaning in their relationships, and that they would be horrified if they had to go down to the male-norm level of social acceptance and connectedness. That said, I agree that "lovecraftian horror story" is absolutely preposterous and absurd.
But surely the problem with women empathising about "the male experience with life in general" is that yes, both men and women pay taxes, get jobs, help their friends out...but - even if it is not as stark as the extent it is in dating, there is still a significant qualitative difference in treatment precisely in the "get jobs, help their friends out". Maybe even the "pay taxes" bit!
Like, the experience of a woman complaining about working overtime is often qualitatively different from the experience of a man complaining about the same. Or the experience of a woman getting scammed vs a man getting scammed. Or a woman asking for help with moving vs a man asking for help. Or a woman getting raped vs a man getting raped. Or reactions to women having their locker room talk (my god, some women talk about men like meat from a deli) versus men for the same. Or even simple courtesies by strangers like holding the door open for you. Or people complimenting women vs complimenting men. Or disparities in divorce, or how if a man and a woman - in a relationship or not - have an argument who looks more sympathetic at first glance (all else being equal), ...
(I also find that male friend groups tend to be kind of shit at social support, as well. I have no clue how to fix this.)
Anecdotally, I've actually had pretty good dating experiences in general (compared to most/all other men I know), and I've seen see the stark contrast in empathy more outside of dating than in it (e.g. in a job environment, in education, with acquaintences, ...).
It's that sort of general empathy deficit/invisibility and poorer social support, spread throughout the entirety of social life and interaction for men, that normie women don't tend to grok. That "20% advantage in generic social situations" is precisely what women find difficult to wrap their head around not having.
Imagine walking down the street, and knowing that not in a single house there is a door open to you, except for the one you pay for. That not a single person you see will recognise you or say a thing to you. Imagine not having the social skills to engage, and any attempts you make being below the social skill threshold where the other person engages back.
It's not simply a +20%. It's a +1, and then +20%. The 1 is the lowest value level where people tolerate your presence. As a man, if your value is low enough, people will simply not tolerate your presence. Not many people experience this, including men, because their value is normally higher than 1. However, if your value is lower than '1,' people will be like 'get this guy out of here.' Simply dressing well and looking good is not enough - there is also a social skills component and other components to this.
Be default, as a man your value is 0.
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