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 was on one of these match maker services for free as a guy who got set up with women who were paying $50k+ per year for the privilege. The women might have been serious, but I certainly was not. Any of them could've found me and tried to fuck me for free on bumble.
On these services there are also women on there for free that the paypig men are getting set up with. I think they can't match the paypig women with the paypig men because the paypig women (30+, career successful, not necessarily hot or mother-of-your-kids material) aren't what the men are looking for.
Congratulations on being born on second or third base and running home! Let me guess: you put yourself through Harvard by working as a male model?
I understand that there are a decent number of obese, even morbidly obese, individuals in high powered careers, if doctors at a teaching hospital in the Northeast US are anything to go by. That being said...what exactly do you mean by "not being mother-of-your-kids material"? The only thing I can think of that would be disqualifying is functioning alcoholism, maybe stimulant use. Most of the other things I can think of - like serious mental illness or drug addiction - seem like they'd rapidly get people booted out of those high-powered careers. I suppose some might also be raging assholes, too...I don't know.
Some women just seem like, although capable in other ways, they would be extremely bad mothers.
Given the choice between marrying a randomly selected kindergarten teacher or hedge fund quant, both the same age and race and height/weight and the like, I’m picking the kindergarten teacher. And I suspect most men would be the same. Yes, I know the hedge fund quant is probably smarter and more generally capable. But she also seems like she would be mean to her kids on the occasions she pays attention to them at all. Maybe that’s just a stereotype. But I suspect lots of men have the premise that hasn’t worried about having kids before her biological alarm clock went off translates as ‘will be a shitty mother who resents having to do the work and makes up for it through neuroticism and misplaced high expectations’.
I don't know. I'm going to be a medical doctor. Once I'm an attending? Can I work just enough to keep my medical license and be a stay at home dad? I'd prefer the quant. She seems pretty intense and like she'd pass that on to the kids. Also like she would be blunt as fuck.
My bar for "extremely bad" is set a bit lower than "kind of a workaholic asshole"... that's bad, yes, but not on the order of "beats the kids", "denies them dental care when their teeth are rotting", "is an alcoholic and can't hold down a job", and other delightful things. This is bad, but not quite that terrible. Haven't met many quants. If they are anything like the female MIT students and radiologists and neurologists I met... sounds good. Maybe I'd think differently if they were surgeons just bc surgeons are often assholes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link