site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31991 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022

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.

24
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

An Indian Abroad in the UK

There's a Union Jack flying outside my window, juxtaposed against a generally dismal sky, lead gray and swollen with cold rain, just yearning to ruin the aspirations of fresh-faced visitors who would love to picnic in the back garden.

I suppose that's as good a mood as any for writing this post, having spent a week settling in, staring wide-eyed at the way the odd billion or so first-world denizens spend their lives, even in a country that's in genteel decline from its glory days.

Long-time readers here might recall my previous posts from my time in India, as I went from a fresh-faced intern to a cynical, bitter survivor of what passes for medical care there. For those who don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all moderately-decent posts ever posted on /r/TheMotte, here's a link to my repost on /r/Medicine, since Reddit's abominable search function makes it impossible to dredge up the original, which had one of the few comments Scott makes in these parts on it, still a highlight of my Reddit career:

https://old.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/j30vj2/my_experience_as_a_frontline_doctor_in_a_3rd/

At the time of writing, I was still yearning for escape from India, a squalid, small-minded and parochial place (although, if I had really wanted to, I could have mostly insulated myself from the worst of it, all that takes is tons of money and a willingness to ignore the human shit and suffering in-between expeditions from one enclave to anotjer).

And I'm not entirely home free, so far, I've passed one of the two licensing exams I need to practice in and emigrate to the UK, but pass that one I did, after studying harder than I ever have in my life (because I cared goddamnit, unlike all the times before when I was coasting through simply because it was expected of me), and in an example of positive reinforcement, it paid off, and I'm spending over a month in the UK, prepping for the second, which can only be given in-country because it's OSCE based.

But I've actually left India, and spent enough time here that I can collect some of my thoughts and musings while the awe has yet to wear off.

You know the first thing I noticed after landing here?

How fucking clean London was. No, really, some Indian cities have tried to clean up their act, but the sheer neatness and tidiness of the place was deeply disconcerting to me. I felt as if I was intruding somewhere I wasn't meant to be, a place kept lovingly clean with the devotion given only to private property back home.

The airport experience wasn't particularly different, most countries take pains to set high standards for their international terminals, being the place where many foreigners make their first and only impressions.

But having boarded the tube, still clutching our luggage close, I stared intently at everything around me, how clean and well-maintained it all was, the drastic improvement in the quality and grammar of all the text I could read, the superior typography of all the advertising.

Relatives who had been in the country had also instilled paranoid notions of how run-down and dangerous the neighborhood (full of immigrants) I was going to live in was. Either they were completely ignorant, or simply clinging to an outdated perception of the place, but it was a sleepy, pretty place, only the skin colors of the locals and endless arrays of convenience stores touting their "afro-caribbean" meats and spices that reinforced that. Still plenty of happy families and expensive cars parked outside, so I quickly dismissed their paranoia.

Oh, and closely tied for second place in terms of things that leapt out at me is how utterly multicultural the UK is. I certainly had heard about it, it would be lax of me to plan to move over without doing my research, and I was somewhat concerned about being buttonholed with other South Asians, but the sheer ease and comfort with which people of grossly different ethnicities interact was cool to see!

Third, but certainly not the least, was how streamlined and easy to use the public transport system was. The London tube certainly seemed intimidating with its half a dozen different lines, but once I examined the maps more carefully, I was able to get the hang of it quite quickly.

The buses run on time, with minimal hassle, and just while the prices certainly seemed steep to my Indian sensibilities, they make sense in context. Not seeing people crushing each other or arguing with a conductor about stops was a shock, leaving aside the fact that the buses themselves didn't drive like maniacs haha.

And London is goddamn empty, no seriously, even if I'm staying in a relatively sleepy part of the place, Central London was practically deserted I'm comparison to the metropolitan cities I'm used to. Traffic seemed minimal, and pedestrians were hardly the crushing mass I expected. Perhaps I need to visit New York again in order to dispel my uneasiness..

And people are generally law abiding. My girlfriend and I probably jaywalked and gave some of the local drivers an aneurysm before we realized that people actually cross the streets in an organized manner, whereas zebra crossings are more of a suggestion than a rule back home.

Oh, and nobody let loose on their horn at us, in fact, I hardly hear them at all! This is fucking alien to me, in India, horns are considered to be an extension of the driver, and the first and last resort for self expression.

Driving fast? Toot.

Driving slow? Toot.

Feeling annoyed? TOOT

Just want to express your sheer gratitude for existence and having a motor vehicle? A little toot for the road.

That sheer cacophony is the Cosmic Microwave Background Noise as far as I'm concerned, and its absence is unsettling haha.

On top of that, people seem quite polite and considerate, albeit that's been my experience with people in general. I guess I look too intimidating to fuck around with, but plenty of people offered helpful unsolicited advice when we ran into issues due to our ignorance as tourists, and it was all deeply appreciated.

We did a round of the local supermarkets, and I was absolutely blown away by the sheer variety on offer, like goddamn, you lot have better Indian cuisine than we do! And it's so convenient, everything comes nicely packaged, you can just buy freshly prepared tandoori chicken without needing to mix up half a dozen spices at home. I can empathize with Gorbachev, the West really does things better.

Also, being a couple is absolutely stress free. My girlfriend and I have been extremely risqué even back home, doing absolutely Bollywood-tier stunts like kissing on a moving train while I was on the platform. Thankfully, nobody made a fuss about it then, barring some dirty looks, but the fact of the matter is that nobody cares about us here, I can kiss her and hug her out in the streets or in the bus without a single fuck given (which I can't say about back in our room ;) )

There's hardly any dust to speak of, I could barely open my windows back home without ending up with noticeable coatings, whereas it's been a week and we don't even need to vacuum or dust.

There's also a notable lack of crushing poverty, it's hard to tell at a glance who is working-class, struggling, or quite wealthy. No signs of any homeless, not that the winter would be kind to them.

But you know what I miss the most, something ubiquitous in India?

Bidets.

Toilet paper is absolutely barbaric. Like seriously, what quirk of history made it so that wiping your ass with paper of all things is taken for granted? How does anyone keep their ass remotely clean?? At this point, the modern Western fetish of eating ass is probably the largest health hazard I can think of hahaha. That's the first thing I'm going to get when I find a place of my own, mark my words.

(This paragraph ought to elevate my post to the level of Culture Warring, if nothing else does haha)

But throwing some heavy shade on my happiness is the slow-motion implosion of the NHS, my employer-to-be for the foreseeable future. The situation is getting pretty bad, elective lists for surgery were already backed up for 2 weeks, now there's serious thought being given to simply unloading patients in the parking lot from the ambulance given the lack of room indoors. People spending a dozen hours in the A and E is commonplace, and even a day or more is a distressingly common occurrence. There are plans to strike in Jan, which I'm not able to participate in, but you bet your ass I would if I could. Things are rapidly becoming untenable, with either a massive shakeup (or more likely a collapse of the NHS followed by privatization) being on the cards.

And you know what? If the NHS did fail, it would still be superior to conditions back home. Please, read my previous post if you want to know what healthcare looks like for a billion odd people, with maybe a couple hundred million able to receive care to a standard that wouldn't provoke a lynch mob in the West.

And the UK is far from the richest part of the West. Americans have significantly more wealth, and salaries are pathetic compared to their US counterparts.

So what if it's in (debatable) decline? As painful as it must seem, there's just so much room before you even approach Third World conditions. Like seriously, you guys have no idea how much worse things can get before it gets that bad.

At any rate, I'm just grateful that the end of my time in India is in sight, and I'm studying my ass off for my last exam, motivated by my sheer dissatisfaction at home, and even more by the absolute utopia that the UK is in comparison. (My girlfriend wishes to add that in her absence I'd be eating microwaved meals and hardly studying, so much love to her 😘)

Here's to things not getting as bad as home, and may I not have to refer to India as that any longer!

Thank you for your insight, I was aware that London was the last refuge of Empire, and that the rest of England is often suffocated as all the lubricating blood of commerce flees to the Thames. Still, I didn't expect it to be this picturesque, and I fully intend to accept the significant COL penalty from living here if at all possible. (A junior doctor at my level makes around £35k, with a paltry 2k allowance for London expenses, good thing I don't really need the money)

I'll be passing through more of the country at the end of my stay, and I suppose I'll see if my generally positive impressions hold up.

On the topic of Third World cleanliness, I can assure you that the rest of South Asia fares no better than India.

Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal are certainly comparable in terms of dirtiness and squalor, whereas Sri Lanka is only somewhat superior.

That's almost 2 billion people living in similar conditions by my reckoning, and while I'm sure it's better in SEA, and some parts of Africa, I think it's fair to say that most of it counts as shithole haha.

(You people in the UK really need to invest in ceiling fans, I miss them even in Autumn, and they certainly make summers significantly more bearable even without AC)

On the topic of Third World cleanliness, I can assure you that the rest of South Asia fares no better than India.

Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal are certainly comparable in terms of dirtiness and squalor, whereas Sri Lanka is only somewhat superior.

Can you share any insight why that is so? Do people just not care what kind of squalor they live in?

That is a surprisingly difficult question, but I might have some ideas:

  1. Tragedy of the Commons, in its most naked form.

  2. There's a general lack of civic sense and feeling of stewardship, everyone is just used to public environs being shit, and thus don't feel particularly bad about littering or making a mess. After all, isn't everyone else doing it?

  3. Cultural inertia, there's no real expectation that public spaces should be clean, whereas everyone is scrupulous about tending to their own.

  4. Poverty making it difficult to raise funds to help mitigate the issue, or at least handle the worst offenders.

And all of those points lead into and exacerbate each other too. It is really a lot harder to be clean and tidy when you are poor even if you don't balk at the futility.

That said, you are privileged to be spending time in what (I say admittedly biased) is the best very large city in the world.

I must protest weakly in favour of Tokyo!

The rest of Britain, at least excluding London’s extended suburbs and a handful of wealthy university towns/cities (Bristol, Oxbridge, Brighton, maybe Edinburgh) feels more on the level of wealth of Poland, Greece, Portugal or the poorer Baltics (and indeed often worse than them).

Which parts of Poland/the Baltic States? E.g. Warsaw has a lot of opulence, but it's insane to compare all but the poorest UK neighbourhoods to Jar country. For example, I have been in rural villages in the UK that have a wide range of restaurants and many, many shops. I have been to rural villages of equivalent size in Poland that had one shop, and it was only open for a fairly small fraction of the day. And I've been to parts of rural Greece that really were poor in ways that I have never seen in the UK.

I can understand comparing Edinburgh to Warsaw in terms of wealth. I can't imagine being uncertain about Edinburgh vs. Łódź or Kaunas.

So what you're saying is that London is clean and polite, except for the assholes.

I don't know if I'm allowed to hand out honorary certificates of Britishness, not being a citizen myself, but I feel like you deserve one for that joke haha

Oh, that's nice. I'll have to throw that in the sock draw next to my British passport.

What did they ever do to deserve becoming a bong?

Jokes aside yes the lack of bidets is a big problem, every time you go to the toilet you basically have to assault your ass afterwards...

It's not too much of a problem to get installed once you find your own place, but still any public toilets you use like at work or in shopping centres etc. still won't have them.

And yes, people in the west, even at the very bottom of the food chain still have it pretty good in global terms. Merely having nationality of a western country sets a pretty high floor on how shitty your life can get as long as you don't try and actively harm yourself.

Well there is a dietary component. If you have enough fiber it's not unusual to have nothing in need of much cleanup.

I was outright constipated for 2 days because I was dreading having to use it after I flew in :(

Eh, if all else fails, I'll stick my bum out the window and let the British weather do its thing, it never failed me in that regard.

Once you acclimate to London, I recommend visiting Vienna. You'd be like: what? why did I ever think London was clean!!

I very much appreciate posts like yours, which give a personal, unusual (to me) in-depth perspective on something that I regard as a given. I was in India some years back for over a month, and I still remember coming out of Los Angeles airport (LAX) and being stunned how clean it is. How clean the air is. And the water--I can drink it straight from the tap! And the LA traffic... so orderly! Cars stay in their lane! Cows are nowhere on the freeway!

Best of luck to you and your girlfriend.

I hope to act on your recommendation! One of the underrated benefits of living in the UK is just being able to hop over to the continent and travel freely in the EU. There's a lot I'd love to see.

And thank you for the kind words, albeit they provoke anxiety that I'll need to find a new schtick on hard-hitting social commentary when my time in India becomes a distant memory haha

(I completely forgot about drinking the tap water, but to be fair, I used to do that in India too, people were probably excessively paranoid about it, though foreign bellies might not appreciate the senriment)

I know perhaps ten Kiwis who came to London on working visas to use it as a base to visit the rest of Europe. It's a popular strategy.

My girlfriend and I probably jaywalked

No you didn't. Another thing you may come to appreciate about British life: people are free to make their own informed decisions about when it is or isn't safe to cross the road.

Oh, that's a relief, I guess I've been watching too much American media and forgetting things aren't the same across the pond.

Or more likely, it's the fact that pretty much everyone was using designated crossings, and my Indian brain assumed there had to be some kind of penalty for not rushing across the street whenever you feel like it, traffic be damned haha

It's pretty unusual for anti jaywalking laws to be enforced in America, even if it is technically illegal in some cities. Usually you'd have to be being intentionally disruptive before the cops would give you a hard time. The only city I've seen try to enforce it was DC.

Yeah, my understanding is that it's mainly illegal to simplify situations where someone darts in front of a car and gets hit.

I only know about the late 90s attempt in NYC from a throwaway futurama joke.

It's funny you think this is related to your Indian heritage, because I always thought "there must be a law against it if nobody is doing it" was a thoroughly western concept. It's definitely a popular way of thinking with the Danes and Irish I know.

The UK is full of "things that are legal but not done." Sadly, not as much as in the good old days, e.g. British queuing is going Continental.

Indeed. I learned that from the Beatles.

Good to get some perspective as a pampered American, thanks for sharing. I definitely want to go back to London as an adult and see it for myself. Haven't been impressed with NYC but I've heard London is much better.

I'm curious, why did you choose the UK over the US? Is it just easier to get in from India?

The primary issue is that the USMLE is a much larger pain to get through, as well as the mandatory residency eating up 5 to 7 years of my life, with a shit work-life balance to boot. You would literally make more on minimum wage at McDonald's once you take into account the 80 hour work weeks. And there's 15k international applicants fighting for 4k seats bookmarked for them, so just passing the USMLE is hardly sufficient.

In contrast, once I'm done with the PLAB for the UK, I can practice right away, and pursue specialization at my leisure. The work-life balance is better too, although the pay is significantly worse.

I feel like that's the right trade-off for me, though I must admit I have been eyeing the USMLE of late haha

Hey that makes a ton of sense. As someone who has worked in a high-paying, stressful career for the better part of a decade, I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. I'm actively working to move into a lower paying but less stressful field. Of course, if I had been making peanuts during that time I may feel differently. Who knows.

You can always come visit the US for a bit and have high status as a foreign doctor. Especially if you have a British accent on your English.

I hope your new career works out!

And of course, the pay does get better, after my specialization I'll be making ~120k USD, which is a perfectly respectable salary, even if it's half the median income for a US counterpart. That certainly affords a few weeks spent on a balmy beach in SoCal.

(Albeit I think I already have a great accent, women think it's sexy, and it absolutely doesn't sound Indian. People who only know me via voice chat often thought I was Nordic or American for some reason haha)

here's a link to my repost on /r/Medicine, since Reddit's abominable search function makes it impossible to dredge up the original, which had one of the few comments Scott makes in these parts on it, still a highlight of my Reddit career:

I found the TheMotte comment. This website is good for searching Reddit comments.

Thank you for taking the time to find it! I'll be sure to bookmark both the comment and the site, they'll come in handy.

I beat you to it, sorry. Should have refreshed before posting!

The website you linked didn't work for me for some reason, so I had to fiddle with the search parameters on Google to find the comment.

Reddit's abominable search function makes it impossible to dredge up the original, which had one of the few comments Scott makes in these parts on it

Might this be it? I will admit, it was harder to find than I expected.

Thank you so much for hunting it down! I had spent half an hour dredging through my old comments before I found out Reddit simply doesn't show more than ~1500 in my post history, and my google-fu failed me.

It's nice to read the encouragement from Scott again, he's the one who inspired me to go into psychiatry, and having him respond was a highlight of my Reddit career haha

As an American who has traveled a fair amount in India and East Asia, I fully agree about bidets, though I prefer the East Asian style over the Indian "shower head" style.

I think the resistance to bidets in the US and UK is connected to a reflexive prudishness about them. When I had bidet toilets installed in my house a few months ago, my wife asked if they were "some kind of sex toy" and my plumber acted like I had asked him to indulge some weird fetish of mine.

An extremely minor comment, but one of the great things about Finland are these bidet showers in most toilets, next to the seat, public or private. I've used them to clean my butt after taking a crap for over a decade, it's great. I can't fathom why they aren't more popular, even here it's common for people to think they're for cleaning the toilet or something.

There's probably something I'm not understanding about bidets, especially because I've never really looked into them too much, seen one, or used one, and because they have so many people who sing their praises. But they sound so unsanitary! Wouldn't flecks of poop go flying out into the bowl and onto the faucets, wherein particles will then get recycled onto the cavities of the next person who uses the bidet? Also, does spraying water really get you that clean? I'd think that most times, you'd really need to rub in order to get yourself fully clean.

I think a much better solution is to just use wet wipes. They allow you to apply elbow grease, not just lightly shower yourself off. And then you don't have to also worry about getting showered with particles of someone else's waste.

The hand shower bidet has just about a 100% conversion rate. Almost literally everyone who uses one immediately admits defeat at its absolute utility over any other method of cleaning your asshole.

Use one and you too will change your tone. Some hand showers have such high water pressure that you can literally tear into your own asshole if you don't angle the stream slightly off. Because of said pressure the sanity issues you mentioned are usually not of much concern.

What's the conversion rate for people who use wet wipes already? I'm sure bidets have great appeal for people who were raised just to use toilet paper, but that's because just using toilet paper is a horrible practice that will never get you fully clean. But if you already use a mechanism that allows you to achieve improved cleanliness like wet wipes, I think a bidet sounds less like a no brainer.

having used all of these methods, IMO the bidet is the clear winner. it's not even close

What's the conversion rate for people who use integrated bidets? Seems less messy to have the prepositioned wand spray into a sealed hindquarters + bowl area than manually targetting spay. Most bidets of any design seem to also incorporate antibacterial additives for similar hygiene reasons.

The really off-putting but not necessarily unsanitary (although not great for plumbing when using soap) are hand faucets that feed into the cistern.

Nah, manually targeting is far superior. Its not as if you need to carry out kinematics equations in your head to not spray shit all over your toilet. Its more or less muscle memory for me.

All the disadvantages people are speculating about the hand shower bidets are actually more likely to happen with integrated bidets.

^ All personal opinion obviously.

A good bidet shower will get you clean reliably. You can of course always use toilet paper to verify, and also to dry your butt a bit.

The unsanitary bit is the air being filled with droplets of shit infused water, floating around the room wherever they please. Keep in mind that I put the toilet seat down before I flush and refuse to keep my toothbrush in a bathroom with a toilet in it for this reason.

I use a hand shower bidet, and flush the toilet with the lid open and keep my toothbrush in that same room. I'm still alive.

Yeah man, coprophiles straight up eat and have sex with shit and live, but that doesn't make me want to try it.

I doubt living after literally eating shit is not the same as living after maybe having a shit molecule enter your body.

You bidet guys think you are being hygienic because you limit the amount of poop on your butt. And that is definitely more hygienic than not limiting the amount of poop on your butt. But what I care about is poop in my mouth. So I do everything I can to limit that. It is no different, except that I think a little extra poop near my butt is better than a little extra poop in my mouth. And like Harold I don't want nappy rash so I use baby wipes, so it probably is only a few extra molecules either way. It is just that my way gets less poop molecules in my mouth.

Oh that's what we use back in India too, I wasn't thinking of the ones that just spray your ass from under the toilet seat haha

Other than the mild annoyance of swamp ass, which can be mitigated by just sitting still for a bit, they're so far ahead of tp it's farcical.

I took it for granted that people were generally aware that PDA was a very bad idea in India, but if that's news to you, I don't mind elaborating:

In general, absolutely! People being outright lynched for it is hardly unheard of, and some kind of violence being inflicted on them is a daily occurrence!

That's just the extrajudicial punishment, there are vague laws against public indecency that are capriciously applied against you if some police officer has an itchy ballsack, or an urge to get a few extra rupees as bribes that day.

You might not be safe from your own family, in some parts, honor killings are rampant in some rural parts of India, and even in more metropolitan regions, you're risking grave disapproval, which can be of serious consequence if you're not already established with a job and independent wealth.

As is the case for pretty much every sweeping statement made of a country of a billion+ people, the severity of the infraction depends on specific circumstances.

Super posh area full of liberal Indians? Think a mall, nightclub or an airport? Nobody gives a shit.

Middle class area where it's not expected? Anything ranging from disapproving looks, tuts, busybodies inquiring "Do your parents lnow?", to insults and being harangued by the kind of middle aged men and women who have nothing better to do.

Relatively poor and backward area, somewhere out in the boonies? The above, plus a very real risk of being beaten up and even killed!

I'm less afraid of it than most, but even I very much acknowledge the danger. We've done it in quasi-acceptable places, but a railway station is absolutely in the second or third group.

If I had to guess why I got away with it, it's because it was a quick kiss or two, and not some long passionate smooch while bending her over, that would have earned jeers at the least, plus I'm a 6 foot tall, bearded and relatively well built guy, if anyone wanted to pick a fight with me, they at least need to think if it's worth it.

But in general, it's a pretty risky game to play. We're just head over heels in love and simply didn't care at the time.

Toilet paper is absolutely barbaric. Like seriously, what quirk of history made it so that wiping your ass with paper of all things is taken for granted? How does anyone keep their ass remotely clean?? At this point, the modern Western fetish of eating ass is probably the largest health hazard I can think of hahaha. That's the first thing I'm going to get when I find a place of my own, mark my words.

Blame the Chinese!

"They (the Chinese) are not careful about cleanliness, and they do not wash themselves with water when they have done their necessities; but they only wipe themselves with paper."

-Some unimpressed Arab trader sometime in the 9th century

On the other hand.

Any thoughts on the really nice Japanese bidets? I miss them after having a taste of absolute asshole luxury.

Any thoughts on the really nice Japanese bidets? I miss them after having a taste of absolute asshole luxury.

I'll never forget the first time I went to the restroom at the University in Japan. The first stall had the fanciest toilet I'd ever encountered, with a wall of buttons controlling among other things the bidet settings. The second stall was just a trench in the floor.

Can't say I've tried the Japanese style, I kinda like the flexibility of the hand shower style, gets in those hard to reach spots ya know?

But yes, as is tradition since 2020, we must blame the Chinese for what ails our assholes haha

The really fancy ones will massage your anal sphincter with high pressure water while you control it with buttons on the side of the toilet! It can be very accurate.

Also the toilet seat is heated!

This is probably worthy of a Wellness Wednesday thread, but add me to the list of newly-converted bidet fans. I decided to try one out a few months ago, and holy shit (heh), you are right that after experiencing a bidet, toilet paper seems barbaric. I will never live without a bidet again if I can help it.

And you absolutely do not need a plumber to install one. A modestly priced model like you can order online or get at Home Depot just takes literally 10 minutes and a screwdriver to install.

Wait how are you having your "so this is the first world" moment if you have already been to the US, that too NYC?

Is London just that futuristic or am I missing something?

NYC is disgusting. The subway is dirty, and it smells bad. The sidewalks are dirty with the effluents of the trash bags left right outside, without even putting them in any kind of bins or containers. Americans are, as a general rule, dressed and groomed like slobs by European standards (not to mention high frequency of obesity, which is disgusting in and of itself), but in the busy places of the metros, you additionally have a lot of hobos and crazies, behaving erratically and generally presenting disgusting sight.

New York City is probably one of the worst places to tout as a high example of classy first world. It does have a lot going for this, and, to be fair, is much nicer inside the buildings than at the street level, but clean and nice it ain’t.

Americans are, as a general rule, dressed and groomed like slobs by European standards (not to mention high frequency of obesity)

If there is one place where this isn't true then that's NYC. People are insanely well dressed and fit. Both the rich and the poor.

you additionally have a lot of hobos and crazies, behaving erratically and generally presenting disgusting sight.

Yep

NYC is disgusting. The subway is dirty, and it smells bad. The sidewalks are dirty with the effluents of the trash bags left right outside, without even putting them in any kind of bins or container

Yep. My first thought when I arrived in NYC was that it feels like home. (my 3rd world city in India)

It was a long, long time ago.

Hint: The NYC skyline was quite different!

Lets hope you don't bring the same fate to London.

Let's be honest, is anyone really going to miss the Shard? ;)

Welcome to London, and happy to hear that you like it.

You can buy a portable bidet if you are staying in temporary accommodation. Turkish life hacks for you

At this point, the modern Western fetish of eating ass is probably the largest health hazard I can think of

One of my bird-classes in college was "Sex and Sexuality". The professor was strongly against eating ass. I just can't abide without it myself, but I agree 100% about the lack of bidets being monstrous. My solution has always been to start having sex in the shower prior to tossing salad, I don't think there's a way to responsibly do it otherwise.

I guess I look too intimidating to fuck around with

Are you particularly tall? Punjabi?

In any case, glad you've (pretty much) made it!

Bengali in fact, but I suppose that there some latent genes for height that were lurking somewhere, probably stunted for many generations by poor diets. Add in the beard, broad shoulders and deep voice, and nobody really messes with me.

And thank you for the well wishes, hopefully with this over it'll be smooth sailing from here on out!

Overriding the Constitution to avoid negotiating with janitors

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a little escape hatch that has gotten more attention in recent years. By now I suspect there are even a handful of Americans who have heard of the notwithstanding clause; a segment of the Charter that allows provincial/federal governments the ability to temporarily pass laws that violate certain Charter rights (essentially all the rights except those that pertain to the democratic process). The Canadian Charter is a very popular document (in my opinion, it's one of the best things about my country), and the notwithstanding clause gained a sort of mystical aura in Anglo Canada since 1982 as a big red button that Should Never Be Touched. Outside of Québec, it had only been used a handful of times, and for fairly minor issues that many times were deemed by the courts unnecessary after-the-fact. A few other times it had been employed as a sort of rhetorical tool or threat, ultimately avoided because the legislatures did their job and resolved whatever problem they faced without having to use it. The political norm against not abusing it had become very strong.

Enter Doug Ford. Not the most respectful of norms (in the style of his late brother, who as Mayor of Toronto did a number of turned-out-to-be illegal things, and I'm not talking about smoking crack). His first use of the notwithstanding clause was immediately upon gaining power in 2018, in order to halve the size of the Toronto city council in the middle of Toronto's municipal election. Traditionally the provincial government does not interfere in the affairs of municipal governments, but again this was tradition only and ultimately the courts found that the use of the notwithstanding clause was not necessary. In 2021 he used the notwithstanding clause again to limit third-party political advertising in the run-up to the provincial election that he handily won. In this case the courts did rule that his actions were unconstitutional as they were restrictions on freedom of expression.

But his third use of the notwithstanding clause is the most bizarre, norm-upsetting, and (to me) infuriating of all. The contract for the province's school workers (janitors, early childhood educators, school monitors, basically the blue-collar school employees) is up. The average employee in this union makes $46k CAD (~33k USD). Their wage increases over the last decade was lower than last year's inflation. And meanwhile the cost of living has exploded, especially in the province's most populous areas. So obviously the province owes it to these critical workers to give them a good deal, right? This is not a case of some fat public-sector union, and the provincial government and society at large has spent the pandemic fêting the heroics of these essential "front-line workers".

Well, no. Instead the government is using the notwithstanding clause to override their Charter right to strike. Note that this is not back-to-work legislation; that process involves binding both parties to a neutral arbitration process that tends to give labour a fair shake. Instead this is the unilateral imposition of a labour contract by the state, a first in modern Canadian history. The union has declared its intent to strike anyways, but because this would now be illegal, the potential fines for this are up to $200 million per day.

There are no legal countermeasures available to the union. The provincial governments in Canada are very strong by design, but this was supposed to be balanced by social norms against abusing these powers. But with the increasing polarization of Canadian society and centralization of power within political parties, apparently the weight of the potential backlash has been weakened. It was never the intent of the notwithstanding clause to give provincial governments the ability to just force people to work on the state's terms because they can't be bothered to negotiate, yet here we are regardless. Unless the Prime Minister (or the Governor General) were willing to intervene from on high and use their big red button that Should Never Be Touched (disallowance), there's nothing to be done. But that would kick off a constitutional crisis over janitors, and I don't think Trudeau has the balls; he's no friend of labour regardless and oddly buddy-buddy with Ford (that's another topic though).

Even if you were indifferent to the situation of the workers, there's reason for concern here. This kind of flagrant norm-breaking is what tends to start unraveling countries. The notwithstanding clause was not supposed to be employed this way; indifferent and repeated use of it could turn the Charter into a piece of paper. What's to stop other provincial governments from using their powers in this way? What's to stop retaliation when some other party inevitably comes to power? It used to be that Canadian politics was largely regional, with provincial and federal representatives responsive to local concerns and willing and able to keep their leaders in line. That's gone. The safeguards against misuse of power have disappeared.

The strike starts on Friday, and I'm going to be out showing my support. I've tried to keep this write-up somewhat tonally neutral, but I'm truly incensed about this.

The jokes almost write themselves at that point.

Why do you think that's an artefact and not the design? Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the state apparatus is based in many ways on the King, whose role is fundamental to the de jure and de facto operation of the state. Similary it would probably be more straightforward for the POTUS to make a new country than to do something like eliminate the supreme court and senate and replace them with a council of representatives of his choosing.

This is commonly argued, but I don't buy it. The constitution was almost amended in 1987. Why couldn't it be again?

How would it result in the dissolution of the state? That would require a constitutional amendment. If the provinces can't agree on an amendment, the constitution will just stay as it is.

Well yeah, including a process like this for provincial governments guarantees it’ll get used for crap like banning opposition parties right before elections and underpaying Janitors. And TBQH, after the federal government used a similar process to seize the property of dissidents(albeit temporarily), it was probably inevitable that provincial governments would use it for progressively dumber stuff. I mean, did anyone trust Doug Ford at any point?

Covid let the cat out of the bag on authoritarian ‘emergency’ powers that governments had very strong norms against not abusing. They will continue to use these powers to accomplish their agendas, over and over again, regardless of whether you like it or not, and given the incentives that apply to politicians making the rules, this will eventually be to tilt elections and renegotiate state obligations. Sucks, but it’s what happens.

How could they use the notwithstanding clause to ban political parties and why hasn't it happened yet?

But his third use of the notwithstanding clause is the most bizarre, norm-upsetting, and (to me) infuriating of all. The contract for the province's school workers (janitors, early childhood educators, school monitors, basically the blue-collar school employees) is up. The average employee in this union makes $46k CAD (33k USD). Their wage increases over the last decade was lower than last year's inflation. And meanwhile the cost of living has exploded, especially in the province's most populous areas. So obviously the province owes it to these critical workers to give them a good deal, right? This is not a case of some fat public-sector union, and the provincial government and society at large has spent the pandemic fêting the heroics of these essential "front-line workers".

Seeing as the median salary is 40k it seems to me that, unless I'm missing something here, these people are getting a very good deal for unskilled, safe labour.

Not sure about CA, but all of the "help wanted" signs I'm seeing in the US are advertising bare minimum 16$ an hour, or about 32k a year. That is for starbucks baristas, grocery store stockworkers, etc; if you have any experience, it's probably closer to $18. And I'm not in a city which is particularly high COL (not the lowest, but not like the Bay or NYC either--basically like most growing cities). The average employee making this amount sounds low to me, given recent inflation.

You might not be aware of this but the US has over 30% higher GDP per capita than Canada.

40*1.3=52 which is roughly the American average.

I am aware. I took the converted value of 33K, which is the comparison point I was using, at face value, since recently I've seen more people using PPP-adjusted numbers instead of just conversion rates (and which is also better than just using GDP ratio). If that's only adjusted for currency conversion, I don't know off the top of my head what the PPP-adjusted numbers would be, but I think it's closer than GDP alone would indicate.

(Also I think that's quite a bit less than the American average, google says GDP per capita in the US is close to 70k)

Comparing to Sweden, whose numbers I'm very confident in, we get:

American workers compensation of GDP: 76%

Swedish workers compensation of GDP:

78%

The U.S. is a much richer country than Canada. I have an engineering degree and I make just under $16 USD an hour or about $12 an hour after income tax. This is in a city with a relatively high cost of living.

Also, despite the lower wages, the cost of living is similar to the US.

Huh, so the American factories here in Ireland really are getting cheap labour even though they offer decently paying unskilled jobs by local standards. A barista gets €10.50/hr while factory jobs range from €12.00-16.50/hr.

Yeah but that's a recent change to some degree. Before coronavirus fast food workers in the US weren't making $16/hr outside of very expensive cities. And the Euro was worth more.

Depends a great deal on where you live and what the conditions are. I live in Denver, and I legit have no idea how I would even live on $33k a year. Rent alone would cost 3/4 of my post-tax income! So for someone living here, I'd say no that isn't a good deal at all. For someone living in a small Midwestern town, maybe that's a better deal.

Regardless though, even if they are getting a good deal that doesn't justify using the law like this to say "no, you can't strike and have to take what we give".

I'm not disputing that it's a bad use of the law, I'm objecting to the appeal to emotion in an otherwise interesting post.

It's not all unskilled labour. Some custodial labour is skilled, and there are other roles involved here (like early childcare assistants) that require degrees or specialized education.

I misunderstood what early childcare assistants were. I thought the teachers were called preschool teachers and that the assistants were just that, assistants, an title inflated way to say childcare worker.

A lot of these people are doing labor with a fair degree of skill. Bus drivers, maintenance guys, some janitors and early childhood workers, possibly nurses(not sure if they’re in this union)- all skilled labor.

That's not usually what people mean by skilled labour. Bus drivers, for example, only get a few months training.

Not only that, but being government jobs, they probably get excellent benefits and don't require them to work very hard. These jobs probably pay well above average. Low skilled government jobs tend to pay far more than equivalent jobs in the private sector in Canada.

Constitution aside (since the inclusion of that clause guaranteed its eventual abuse, and no one should be surprised by the current situation), if asked privately, nearly every parent would be in favour of preventing a strike. So it’s really the parents tyrannizing the workers, using the province as their attack dog. The trouble is, though, that in order to pay the CUPE workers more, the population has to be taxed, and taxation involves the threat, however distant, of death. So CUPE would be tyrannizing the people of Ontario, with the province as their attack dog. And since shutting down schools does not hurt the government they way shutting down the kitchen hurts McDonald’s, CUPE is threatening kids’ and parents’ time (the least renewable non-renewable resource) in order to hurt the government’s money (they make more of it every day), which is a form of hostage-taking, and must also count as tyrannizing the people of Ontario. So in this exact public-sector union dilemma I count CUPE as aspiring to be twice as tyrannical as the government of Ontario, and therefore, bizarrely, prefer that the government win this one.

I can’t see a way to defend abolishing public sector unions, but they at least have to be honest about the fact that, in the end, they’re not extorting money from greedy capitalists, but time from ordinary citizens (and permanent residents).

So it’s really the parents tyrannizing the workers

It's the law of supply and demand that is the engine here. The value of goods and services is determined conclusively by the intersection of supply and demand, and that is as true of labor as it is of anything else. No one is tyrannized by earning only what their labor is worth. The tyranny inheres in permitting collusive behavior in the labor market (unions, organized strikes) to inflate the cost of labor above what it is worth. Preventing the strike averts the union's attempted tyranny over school children, parents and taxpayers.

If janitors aren't being paid enough for our sensibilities, then by all means supplement their income with the welfare state, but apply it evenly to everyone who isn't being paid enough, not just for those lucky enough to be able to hold schoolchildren hostage to their demands.

I can’t see a way to defend abolishing public sector unions

Hopefully my comment provides such a defense.

Isn't a limiting factor of unions' ability to bargain the employer's cost of firing everyone, and then hiring and training new employees? If the unions were to argue (without caving) for a crazy amount, like one million dollars per year per member, then it would be more cost-effective to replace the entire work force. It doesn't seem like it is possible for union members to inflate the cost of their labor far above what it is worth (cost of training could make paying an inflated salary preferred in the short-term). Unless there are laws about companies firing their entire workforce/an entire union, which there could be (maybe in France, I've heard they have strong laws supporting unions) but I am ignorant about laws surrounding unions.

I agree that there are limits to what a union can extort above the clearing wage in a free labor market, but limited extortion is still extortion.

It seems strange to use the word "tyrannizing" in the context of the government voiding constitutional rights, but having it apply to the ones whose rights are being violated

Because this specific right isn't a real one, its a privilege. A right is something you can do as a human being as a result of existing. There is no right to be a government schoolteacher who is paid, because that requires dozens of prerequisites that cannot be assumed.

Is it actually a constitutional right at all if the constitution provides a "notwithstanding clause" that explicitly permits the government to violate it? I would argue that it isn't. At most it's a violation of norms.

The government always could have passed back-to-work legislation and send this to arbitration. But instead they chose to unilaterally impose a contract on the union.

Politicians have gotten handsome raises throughout the pandemic. Does that not count as extorting the public?

I don't think back-to-work legislation would be constitutional anymore. In 2015, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that striking is a constitutional right, a component of collective bargaining which is protected in the charter under the freedom to associate. And Ontario courts struck down the 2012 back-to-work legislation as infringing on the collective bargaining rights of school employees.

So using the notwithstanding clause seems like the only way to actually do this, since I doubt the courts will see janitors as essential as police or w/e (and I never read the full Supreme Court case, so who knows, maybe police and doctors are allowed to strike?).

Since then there have been numerous instances of governments using back-to-work laws. Off the top of my heads the feds used it for Canada Post in 2018 and CP Rail in 2019

Sure, it counts. But we’re not talking about who is evil and who is righteous; we’re talking degrees of bad in badly conceived system.

I support this sort of action against public unions, but it is unfortunate that the people on the receiving end are not overpaid do-nothing employees and are instead the toilet cleaners.

There’s a reason that the most famous/effective unions are historically hard labor. This sort of abuse is the strongest case for public unions.

Very interesting, thanks for the well argued post.

Being American, I'm uninformed as to how federalist the Canadian system is relative to your southern neighbor. I think most would argue the US to be more polarized than Canada, and certainly at this moment in time. I think federalism helps moderate polarization as a whole...? Razor thin presidential elections result in radical policy shifts every four years that cannot be moderating, whereas having states be the laboratories of policy allow truly disillusioned individuals to move to more amenable environments, and of course make it more obvious just what policies are good or bad over time. Experimenting on a local/regional level, on the other hand, feels a bit too fractured, especially considering negative impact on commerce at the national level, so state/provincial feels like a good compromise in between.

In other words, I question your assumption that having other provincial governments abuse the notwithstanding clause thanks to Ford's lead is necessarily bad. Yes, janitors, like most working class professions, feel sympathetic to the average voter, but that sympathy gives them political power disproportionate to what the free market may otherwise dictate. Why not see what happens to the province when public unions are forbidden from striking? Maybe it results in a leaner state that is better off for growth and attracts taxpayers.

In Canada, pretty much everything of note policy-wise is decided at the provincial level, minus international affairs/defence and building cross-provincial infrastructure. The federal government's biggest role is collecting taxes and then distributing it to the provinces. Even the biggest federal projects enacted in the last few years has been childcare (and soon?!?) dental deals which again, amounts to giving cash to the provinces to spend on specific things.

However Canada's political culture is obsessed with the federal government, as well as the United States. So we have a very unproductive public discourse. Take the convoy truckers; the COVID restrictions they were protesting against were almost all provincial (except the federal border restrictions, but we were just mirroring the US and even if we had struck ours down it wouldn't have made a difference). Yet it was the federal government and Trudeau who was the target of the protests. It's not like they were going to protest against the mainly conservative Premiers.

Yes, janitors, like most working class professions, feel sympathetic to the average voter, but that sympathy gives them political power disproportionate to what the free market may otherwise dictate.

I'm aware of this issue. Certainly there are specific public sector unions which use their position to extract excessive concessions from the government. But this union's raises in the past decade combined were less than inflation last year. They have not been milking the province for all they could get. To have the government refuse to negotiate with them and just impose a unilateral contract on them is galling. If the PCs had wanted to they could've just enacted back-to-work legislation, schools would remain open, and arbitration would take care of it and get a fair-ish deal for everyone.

Take the convoy truckers; the COVID restrictions they were protesting against were almost all provincial (except the federal border restrictions, but we were just mirroring the US and even if we had struck ours down it wouldn't have made a difference). Yet it was the federal government and Trudeau who was the target of the protests. It's not like they were going to protest against the mainly conservative Premiers.

The federal government is responsible for foreign policy. Thus, going to Trudeau to demand he remove federal border restrictions and also negotiate their removal on the other side is actually the correct course of action.

pretty much everything of note policy-wise is decided at the provincial level

Criminal code, environmental regulations, and border control (import/export) are all federal. Those are really powerful policy levers, especially because the former and latter effectively dictate how provinces run their economies; inter-provincial trade is not a driver of provincial economies to the same magnitude Canada-US trade is.

Anyway, since the current balance of political power in Canada tends to favor the economically-unproductive resource-poor parts of the country (as in, every province east of Ontario, though Quebec is a special case), the economically-productive ones tend to get real pissed off when they start going to culture war.

Like imposing that border restriction was- if the US border control had the same functional effect (and I agree that it did- most truckers were vaccinated anyway), then imposing a symmetric one was unequivocally "because fuck you". And in this light, it's also noteworthy that the places the protestors overwhelmingly came from have had effectively zero political representation in the Federal government since 2019 (the Liberal party has approximately zero seats west of Toronto, and because there are no votes but party line votes in Canada when it comes to anything of real consequence, this functionally equates to "entirely shut out of government").

As such, I believe that the fixation on the Federal government for political ills (and the protests worked against Provincial governments anyway- AB and SK lifted their restrictions more or less as the protest began) was and continues to be the correct choice.

Edit: misread your quote.

But this union's raises in the past decade combined were less than inflation last year.

Workers as a whole in the US saw a 2.5% decrease in real average hourly earnings from Sep '21 to Sep '22 according to the BLS thanks to inflation.

Would it have been better if employment law had a clause that automatically indexed all wages to inflation? I suspect not, as it would necessitate price increases that will further fuel inflation and possible bankruptcies and wholesale job losses for price elastic sectors. Instead, we have what I think tends to be healthy free-market reallocation of human capital, with some businesses reducing hours or closing because they are not profitable enough to increase wages to market levels, while others with higher ROCE manage to attract and retain workers. Even in sectors with high union membership, like teachers and cops, you see news headlines of teacher or police shortages that in turn force cities to raise wages or offer higher starting bonuses. That seems more politically palatable and less likely to be corrupt and inefficient compared to wholesale strikes.

So why not let the janitors vote with their feet if they feel underpaid, just like the average US worker?

But this union's raises in the past decade combined were less than inflation last year.

Though the union seems to be asking for annual wage increases of 11.7%. I'd imagine this is a 5-year contract. So the average will go from $48k to $80k. And this would be what every other union asks for. Basically doubling Ontario's expenditures.

All the more reason to engage in negotiation or arbitration, as expected, rather than pushing the constitutional “FU” button.

As a taxpayer, I want my government to use every reasonable tool available to keep costs down. Why should the government negotiate if it doesn't have to and if it might result in them overpaying their employees?

Is deploying this provision "reasonable"?

A government is more effective when it is predictable and accountable. Following the Charter is more predictable than breaking with it at random points. Waiving the potential for judicial review is a blow to accountability--at least from my American perspective.

More broadly, I think there's merit to some of the rights being suppressed here, and that it's unjust for the government to say they're protected up until they're suddenly not. That's not a right, but a privilege. I would be worried about a law which "notwithstandinged" Section 10 to deny me legal counsel, or Section 12 to decide that torture is fine just this once, or Section 2 to demand I convert to a religion. Freedom to form contracts isn't as sympathetic, but it's important nonetheless.

What recourse, if any, should the government have when the courts go rogue and start inventing rights that never existed before at the taxpayers' expense? Your argument seems to rely on the assumption that it's important to protect rights just because the Supreme Court decided it was protected by the constitution.

I'm not saying that it's good the government va always override the constitution on most matters. But I do think that it is good in this case, because allowing public sector unions to strike is harmful.

The federal government has the power of taxation which effectively gives it control over areas that are supposed to be under provincial jurisdiction. For example, healthcare is under provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government taxes every province and transfers the money only to those provinces with free public health insurance meeting its requirements. Provinces don't have to go along with this, but if they didn't then they would have to pay a heavy price, which the federal government can raise if needed.

Good on you for going out in support. I don’t see how this can be anything other than an injustice.

It's debatable whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms really protects the right to strike. It's true that the Supreme Court has interpreted it as doing so through the right of freedom of association.

I don't understand this. As a general principle, employers can have you agree to give up constitutionally protected rights as a condition of employment. You can get fired for violating a non-disclosure agreement for example. You can also be fired for your political views. That is their freedom of association.

After all, if you're fired, you're in the same position respect to your former employer as everyone else. You don't have a right to your job (that you aren't even doing). You certainly never had a right to be hired by that employer against his will.

So the provincial government is using its constitutional power to unilaterally revoke a right that the courts unilaterally invented, and it's probably for the public good, because I don't see how public sector unions can be justified.

Public sector unions work by restricting the supply of labour available to the government to inflate wages above market rates. This can perhaps be justified when it comes at the expense of corporations, but how can it be when the taxpayer is the one paying? This gives an unearned special status to government employees to extract rents from the rest of the population. If the argument is that they aren't paid very much, why not give them money that everyone with their income level can access?

You can read the two decisions that led to this here and here. The 2015 decision ruled that the Charter protected the right to strike because it was a essential to collective bargaining which was guaranteed by the 2007 decision, and because it promoted equality between employers and employees. I don't see how allowing public sector employees to extract rents from the general by giving them power equal to their government promotes equality. Equality means treating people the same, not elevating one special interest group above everyone else. After all, I don't have a right to get paid by the government while providing nothing in return. Instead, by virtue of who my employer is, I would be forced to pay government employees while they do nothing for me. I never agreed to this, while they did agree to do the work they are now refusing to do.

The 2007 decision ruled that the right to collective bargaining existed because it existed before the Charter (according to what it doesn't say and in any case I don't see how that means the constitution enshrines that right), because of human rights obligations (why does that have any bearing on the constitution?), and because it "reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter." As I explained above, it goes against the value of equality. It obviously goes against the value of democracy when it is the democratically elected representatives of the people whose rights are restricted and whose money is being taken in favour of this special interest group.

The relationship between collective bargaining and dignity and personal automony are nebulous. Why isn't my dignity harmed by having rents extracted from me? I suppose there is some dignity and autonomy gained by being able to renege on one's contracts and extort the general public, but it seems like the public's dignity and autonomy pay the price.

The notwithstanding clause serves a specific purpose, which is to uphold the principle of parliamentary supremacy. The courts were not meant to use the Charter to legislate from the bench and undermine the people's representatives. Pierre Trudeau even said at the time it was passed in 1982 that it changed nothing, it only enshrined already existing laws. Clearly not.

The 2007 decision ruled that the right to collective bargaining existed because it existed before the Charter (according to what it doesn't say and in any case I don't see how that means the constitution enshrines that right), because of human rights obligations (why does that have any bearing on the constitution?), and because it "reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter.

@johnfabian 's post raised the same question for me. Where did this right to strike come from? I wasn't able to get any farther than that line in Health Services. It's baffling. It seems less "found" than invented out of whole cloth.

Edit: actually, later in the document, they elaborate, going on for several pages detailing the history of labour relations up to the Charter, but IMO including nothing of relevance until:

Collective bargaining, despite early discouragement from the common law, has long been recognized in Canada. Indeed, historically, it emerges as the most significant collective activity through which freedom of association is expressed in the labour context. In our opinion, the concept of freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter includes this notion of a procedural right to collective bargaining.

This established Canadian right to collective bargaining was recognized in the Parliamentary hearings that took place before the adoption of the Charter. The acting Minister of Justice, Mr. Robert Kaplan, explained why he did not find necessary a proposed amendment to have the freedom to organize and bargain collectively expressly included under s. 2(d). These rights, he stated, were already implicitly recognized in the words “freedom of association”:

"Our position on the suggestion that there be specific reference to freedom to organize and bargain collectively is that that is already covered in the freedom of association that is provided already in the Declaration or in the Charter; and that by singling out association for bargaining one might tend to d[i]minish all the other forms of association which are contemplated — church associations; associations of fraternal organizations or community organizations."

(Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue No. 43, January 22, 1981, at pp. 69-70)

Which I think settles it. I mean, I don't think that's what most people would interpret "freedom of association" to mean, but if that's what was originally intended, then the court's decision is reasonable.

Rule by emergency law and decree has been fast becoming the norm across the western world. Savvy political actors are now realising this and the opportunities this can create in a myriad of areas that always annoyed the ruling classes. Labour action and not being able to pay below survival level salaries to unskilled labourers have long been one of those sticking points, especially since we decided any real manufacturing is beneath the white people so unskilled workers are just an annoyance to our economic systems.

So I don’t think this abuse of procedure is as absurd as you might think. Other provincial elites are likely watching it with great interest and considering the potential gains if it succeeds.

especially since we decided any real manufacturing is beneath the white people so unskilled workers are just an annoyance to our economic systems.

Who's "we" exactly.

Modern neoliberal post-industrial western societies. I (and probably the majority of the people) don’t agree that this is a good way to structure a society, but I am also aware that I live in a country where this process is clearly happening and it’s the (somewhat) unspoken elite consensus. So I get to play the game to make sure I don’t get crushed at the bottom of this new hierarchy

Modern neoliberal post-industrial western societies.

You're not getting out of that one so easy, I will be holding you personally accountable!

I might go easier on you, if you rat out your friends.

I can always cope out and declare myself too kebab

I’d like to see actual evidence for the claim that emergency law is taking over—outside of COVID, specifically.

I will second Hlynka in asking who, exactly, you mean by “we.”

I am not sure how one proves historical trends, while living through the said trend. But I will posit that if you took practically any western country and plotted the times the elites had to suspend or ignore the written and unwritten constitutional norms in order to get their will, you would get an exponential graph for the last 20 years or so. And there is no reason to think this is going to be slowing down since everytime some norm is is suspended there is broad elite support for doing more.

Almost every long term policy choice nowadays is justified by one or more of climate crisis, impending economic collapse if the central banks don’t print a couple trillions immediately once again, Islamic terror, plague wiping us out, energy crisis for europoors, right wing threat to democracy, impending Russian invasion of Eastern Europe etc etc.

The list grows at incredible speed. If a policy wish cannot associate itself with one of these crisis situations it’s as good as dead since western elites lost power to convince their citizens in any other way

Hopefully the province enforces all the fines, especially the ones against the union. It'd set a very bad precedent if people who aren't legally allowed to strike receive no punishment if they do.

Anyways, it's my personal opinion that public sector unions should not be able to strike. They have too much power.

It'd set a very bad precedent if people who aren't legally allowed to strike receive no punishment if they do.

By this reasoning, if Canada was run by a dictator and the law said that his edicts must be obeyed, you would hope that people would be punished for defying the dictator, because otherwise that sets a bad precedent for people being permitted to disobey the law and receive no punishment.

If a law allows arbitrary powers by the government, it's already setting a bad precedent. Allowing people to defy it sets a good precedent for keeping the government from exercising arbitrary powers, which is much more important than any bad precedent from letting people get away with violating laws.

I don't see how this law gives the government arbitrary power. It just forces government employees to do the job they agreed and are being paid to do.

The agreement to do this specific job normally includes a right to strike. The arbitrary power is being used to take away the right to strike that was in the agreement.

The government had an arbitration process available to them to avoid a strike. They chose to suspend constitutional rights rather than give lunch ladies raises that keep up with inflation.

It's a constitutional right that arguably shouldn't exist, and the lunch ladies are overpaid as is typical of government employees.

If Canadian lunch ladies are anything like in the US, they’re actually underpaid but get a more favorable schedule.

I guess it's not like the US then because in Canada, low skilled government employees tend to be paid much better than their counterparts in the private sector.

They have too much power.

The government could always send this to arbitration if they didn't want a work stoppage. Instead they violated the union's Charter rights.

There are certainly public sector unions that grow fat at the taxpayer's expense, but we're talking about a union whose average wage/salary is at about the Canadian median and has gotten dismal raises over the past decade. If they can exercise such power over the Ontario government they're showing it in an odd way.

Why should they send it to arbitration when it's in the taxpayers' best interest to pay them as little as possible? If the raises are so bad, why don't they work elsewhere? I think it's because they are actually well paid for what they do.

As someone not familiar at all with Commonwealth law, does this set precedent for other former British colonies? Can the King step in to re-establish norms?

Back in September a commenter here on the TheMotte posted an argument about fertility trends claiming that among rich countries fertility actually increases with feminism. I did not have time to respond at the time, but this is something that I have heard many times, so I wanted to make an effort post explaining why I don't believe the claim. Here are some examples of prestige outlets making the same claim, from a New York Times op-ed:

The culture of misogyny and gender inequality [in South Korea] may be affecting family life, in a country facing predictions of population collapse. Research shows that a low fertility rate in developed countries reflects backward attitudes over female gender roles. source

And here is the United Nations Population Fund:

Want to increase birth rates? Try gender equality. Many countries in Eastern Europe face what is often perceived as a population crisis....There is broad consensus on what needs to be part of such a policy package: Quality, affordable childcare starting from an early age. Flexible and generously paid parental leave for both parents (with incentives for men to take what they are entitled to). Flexible work arrangements, and providing equal pay for women. Programmes to encourage men and women to equally share care and household work. And affordable housing as well as financial support for low-income families. source

The original TheMotte commenter wrote:

However, what I have noticed is that rich female friendly nations do far better in terms of birth rate than rich conservative strict gender role societies. For example - France has a fertility rate around 1.8. 1.7 for the US. Germany 1.4. In the east with more strict gender norms the rich societies however have far more abysmal fertility rates - Japan 1.3, South Korea 0.8, Taiwan 1.1, Singapore 1.2.

I will address three big problems with the argument, and then I want to talk about the elephant in the room.

The first problem is that this is cherry-picking examples. We could just as easily cherry-pick other countries that show a reversed trend: Spain has a parliament that is 50% women but a fertility rate of merely 1.3. Finland ranks number one on female empowerment, sharing many of the same policies as Sweden, but has a a very low fertility rate of 1.3. In Ireland, where men only do 43% of the housework (which is low for Europe), women have a fertility rate of 1.6.

You might think we could get around the problem of cherry-picking by running regressions against a broader dataset. But turns out there are still too many researcher degrees of freedom. In playing with the data myself, and in reading about others who have played with the data, I could get anything from a massively negative impact of female empowerment on fertility, to no impact, to modestly positive. Here are some charts I made:

That parental leave or subsized childcare has no correlation with fertility rates should dispense with any notion that these are the magic policies that will fix fertility while reconciling child bearing with women pursuing careerist paths.

The second problem is that fertility rate itself is confounded by sub-cultures within a country. The poster children for feminist family polices with high birth rates are Sweden and France. However, their fertility stats are hopelessly confounded by the fertility of more patriarchal subcultures -- that of non-European immigrants. Unfortunately, it is fiendishly hard to find accurate statistics on how much this impacts the numbers.

France, for instance, bans collecting statistics by race. But this report showed 38% of new births in the cities were considered high-risk for sickle cell anemia -- meaning the parents are of Arab or African origin. That's a huge number.

In the United States, fertility is boosted by less feminist groups, such as recent immigrants, Amish, Mormons, and evangelical Christians. Israel's fertility is boosted by ultra-Orthodox Jews who have a fertility rate three times that of secular Israelis.

(continued in the replies due to excess word count)

Want to increase birth rates? Try gender equality.

I find this point interesting, because I distinctly remember a zeitgeist a few decades back in which "gender equality" was being pushed specifically because it would reduce birth rates to ward off Malthusian catastrophe. This was specifically in the lens of low Western birthrates being preferable to higher ones in largely Third-World nations. Admittedly, "the zeitgeist" is hard to cite, so perhaps I didn't really understand the full situation at the time.

I'm not particularly convinced that either direction is unilaterally correct: it's quite possible that the results are contextual based on a number of other variables, but it does provide an example of how "more feminism and gender equality" seems to be pushed (primarily by the Left) as a cure for all societal ills. That last part I think is a drastic oversimplification, but probably also a bit of a weakman of the actual arguments.

Here is a citation that of thinking from Scientific America in 2009 "How Women Can Save the Planet: [Empowering young women through education will help reduce overpopulation in areas that cannot support it and avoid extremism in the children they raise"

Or United Nations University in 2019: "Female Education: a Solution for a Crowded Planet"

Time Magazine in 2013: "Why Empowering Poor Women Is Good for the Planet Overpopulation isn't the great environmental fear that it once was, but there are still parts of the planet where large family sizes are a problem. Female education can help change that"

The most charitable explanation is that they honestly believe that empowering women will lead to a more optimal level of child-bearing -- thus more children in countries who are rich and encountering problems of low fertility and less children in countries that are poor and already overcrowded.

A less charitable explanation is that these arguments aren't made by the same people, but since "feminism good" is the only acceptable opinion if over-population is presented as a problem Cathedral editors signal-boost writers who believe that feminism can prevent over-population and if population decline is presented as a problem then they signal boost writers who can take some subset of the data to show how feminism can help with under-population.

It reminds me of the debate surrounding torture. It can't be admitted that feminism has downsides/torture can in some situations work. No, just world demands that the morally preferable solution is also better in every other way than the alternative.

Yeah, I was reminded of the debate here regarding torture watching this Breaking Points video earlier, where torture comes up in the conversation with the implication that actually yea, it works. I think when that issue is not salient everyone falls back on "of course torture works." And introspection certainly tells me it does. The idea that it doesn't work was a weird 2000s era blip born of disliking George W Bush and company.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lS3vyB7gcNA (a little past 3:30 in)

Noah Millman notably avoids this trap, writing,

There is surely still scope for both policy and cultural arguments, but the starting point for any discussion of fertility decline has to be that it is a global, cross-cultural phenomenon. The factors that correlate most-strongly with fertility decline are female literacy and urbanization. As a country urbanizes, and as it modernizes to the point where most women learn to read, fertility declines dramatically. As I’ve said before, if the alternatives to a low-fertility world are ISIS or the Khmer Rouge, I’m sticking with a low-fertility world.

As I’ve said before, if the alternatives to a low-fertility world are ISIS or the Khmer Rouge, I’m sticking with a low-fertility world.

Is Israel, a country in which even secular indigenous population has above replacement TFR, also likely to be perceived to be an example of a state to avoid? Probably not, but it goes unmentioned.

Sure, there is criticism of Israel's treatment of Arabs, but for Jews the Israeli government and society doesn't seem oppressive.

Millman mentions "if it stays much higher, as, for example, Israel’s has" but seems to consider it an outlier. Not sure why he wouldn't consider murderous theocrats or communists to be equally outliers, though.

TFR for secular Israeli women isn't quite above-replacement; it's only around 2.0, typically a little below. It's not plummeting the way it is in most countries, though, it's even back up a bit since the 1990s. Secular Israelis do seem to qualify as a completely-modernized-but-yet-stable demographic. There's also the Mormons, who I'd guess Millman might find objectionable (patriarchy: not just a metaphor!) but who at least ought to be considered a more tempting alternative than ISIS.

On the other hand, just using the word "alternative" seems to be assuming a level of agency that we see in the Hari Seldon books, not so much in real life. In particular:

I’m sticking with a low-fertility world.

That's ... not how the differential equation works.

Argentina has also had high fertility rates for a while as a developed and not particularly religious country.

As a country urbanizes, and as it modernizes to the point where most women learn to read, fertility declines dramatically. As I’ve said before, if the alternatives to a low-fertility world are ISIS or the Khmer Rouge, I’m sticking with a low-fertility world.

What if the alternative to low-fertility world was something like the 1950s United States of America ... why cannot that be an alternative vision?

As I’ve said before, if the alternatives to a low-fertility world are ISIS or the Khmer Rouge, I’m sticking with a low-fertility world.

That works until you are below replacement. At which point the alternative you are choosing is extinction, unless you have a good reason to think the fertility rate will increase before then.

I remember that as well. It was essentially secular population reductionists against often religious pro-natalism types.

The fashionability of Westerners telling people in the Global South to have fewer babies has diminished since then, weirdly putting progressives closer to Catholic conservatism stateside that hated the efforts of the United Nations etc.

We are quite specifically in the year when the global fertility trends - if you follow the closest trends through, say, this account - will reach the point where global fertility rate, ie. the average number of children per women, will go under the global replacement rate needed to keep a stable population level, which is somewhere around 2.3 (I would actually guess the replacement rate will rise a bit if the food crisis has the expected famine effects in African countries). In other words, pretty near the specific point where we can fairly conclusively say that the population boom is cancelled, that we know the level at which the population will peak, and after that level global population will start coming down, perhaps not even coming down all that slowly.

As such, one might expect that, consciously or unconsciously, in the coming years the arguments that we need to prevent overpopulation will generally start losing credence and arguments that we should instead be concerned about underpopulation will start gaining it, and indeed the process has probably already started! It won't involve most people admitting they're wrong or that they have changed their viewpoint or anything like that, just barely perceptible social indicators.

(cont, part 2)

The third problem is that many assertions about such-and-such country having a "traditional patriarchy" are completely wrong -- these claims are either exaggerations made by agenda-driven activists, or misconceptions of Westerners who only ever hear exceptional stories, and never the stories about how 99% time they are similar to us.

Starting the case of South Korea, we see that the New York Times has signal-boosted a few writers who have called South Korea "patriarchal":

Many men would rather not acknowledge that South Korea is an entrenched patriarchy and that toxic gender relations are taking a toll on society. source

And:

Other trends in South Korea strongly discourage births. They include rising opposition among women to child-rearing expectations by men in what remains a patriarchal society. More women in South Korea, rebelling against the country’s deeply embedded sexism, are foregoing marriage and motherhood in pursuit of education and professional careers.

source

But is this the true story of South Korea?

I went on a binge of reading articles and forum posts by actual South Koreans. By cherry-picking alternative evidence I can tell an entirely different story:

South Korea in the past decade has gone off the extreme feminist deep-end. Popular online communities for young women, such as WOMAD or Megalia,have been the hosts of campaigns of vitriolic attacks and physical assaults against men -- such as calling men vermin, posting secret nude pics of men up for mockery, wishing for North Korea to invade and kill Korean males. Nor is this not a fringe movement -- the online communities these views thrive on can reach up to a million young female users. While of course the majority of the content on these forums is mundane, when the topic of men comes up, only the radical feminist position is allowed. The Western media, not understanding the nature of South Korean feminism, denounces even a modest backlash against this extreme feminism as being mysoginistic.

At the government level, South Korea is more feminist than the U.S.A. in a number of ways: South Korea elected a woman president in 2013, followed by a male president who campaigned on promises to be a "feminist president." Ministry for Women claims that men are 'potential criminals' and have a 'social responsibility' to prove women that he is 'different from the others.' South korea ranks 10th in the UN's equality index, while America is 46th.

Korean media culture has villainized the domineering mother-in-law of old. The newer generation of mother-in-laws positions themselves as friends and equals of young wives. The rights of Korean women have enormously improved, and women are standing against gender discrimination and injustice. The patriarchy system has disappeared a lot, and daughter-in-law is no longer subordinate to their mother-in-law.

Korean feminism is more selfish than the Western version -- the new trend is to expect guys to be sweet k-drama fantasy men that enthusiastically cook as a hobby. Princess culture cherry picking feminist privilege, not empowerment, has really become an abomination. Korean government is pushing a female quota for police, despite women being held to lower standards and not actually doing anything at the scene of the crime.

Women are now a key part of the work force -- and held to the same standards of long hours as men are held to. Despite stories fed to western news organizations by activists about how South Korea is stuck in the 1950s, that is not true at all. Companies aren't firing women in droves as soon as they get pregnant, instead, they are often asking them how quickly they can come back to work because they cannot afford to lose them for long. There is no baby-making strike, despite what lying activists trick the gullible BBC into saying, all the professoinal working women in Korea are able to go back to work after having children and 50% of homes with children are now dual income. Korean women report that sexual harrassment is actually far greater in Europe and the USA than in in South Korea.

Which portrait of South Korea is more accurate? My own sense based on reading all the original posts and viewing the statistics is that South Korea is more feminist than the U.S. on some dimensions, and less on others. Choosing and weighting the categories in order to add up a total feminist score is an entirely arbitrary exercise. There is a general trend of extreme low-fertility among urbanites in modern cities with high real estate costs, little room for kids to play, and intense job markets. I suspect that South Korea's and Singapore's extra low fertility rates are probably more related to their population being more competitive urbanite than America's. I would guess that South Koreans in Seoul probably have a similar fertility rate to white college educated people living in New York City.

Neither are the Eastern Bloc countries some last hold-outs of patriarchy. Remember that Soviet communism was ultra-feminist for its time-period. The Bolshevik party in the 1920s set up women's departments . Divorce and abortion were available on demand (unlike in the United States at the same time):

In 1923 women's departments existed in most provinces; 35,539 women attended delegate assemblies in cities and towns, and 55,688 more in rural areas....The official message to women was that following the victory of the socialist revolution, women were equal. The Bolsheviks implemented concrete policies designed to equalize the status of women with men, improve their educational level, and involve them in society. ... The main thrust of the rural women's departments was to encourage women to participate in village soviet elections, attend women's assemblies, and promote Komsomol membership. The Bolshevik mission was to enlighten the "backward female masses," overcome their "religious superstition," undermine male domination, and draw them closer to the party. Russia After Lenin: Politics, Culture and Society, 1921 -- 1929.

Now, later on the West experienced second wave feminism while the situation in the Soviet Union was more stagnant. That is probably how the reputation arises for the Eastern Bloc being less feminist. But since the opening up the ex-Soviet bloc to western style TV, these countries are anti-traditional in their own way. Russia for instance, has American inspired reality TV shows glamorizing the "gold diggers" who leave their local towns for wealthy boyfriends in the city. Divorce rates in Russia are insane. Pick-up artists have reported on Poland being especially prime place to pick up women who cheat on their husbands.

As one prominent Russian nationalist recently wrote:

I have to admit that for many years I've been pissed off at our official Duginist rhetoric about the holy war of Russia as the center of world good, tradition and shit, with the bad West and the Euroatlantic civilization. There are two problems with these ideas.

First, it's all a lie. There is no “tradition” in Russia - not in the sense of an historical tradition and canon, but in the sense of a “living” tradition here and now. Russia is the country of total divorce, low birth rates, abandoned old age, an absence of elder men (and thus zero patriarchy), general cynicism, individualism, cult of consumption, extremely weak religiosity (unless we count DIY paganism and DIY esotericism as such), mass (not only elite) aping of any foreign fashions, torn historical and familial memory, indifference to everything national, concrete high-rise construction with no feel of the earth or a feeling of being masters on the land, and most importantly an extreme lack of trust in all social and collective institutions.

USA is an infinitely more “traditional” country than Russia. In USA, almost every other man has read the Bible - and will quote from it. But whatever, the second thing is worse.

In fairness, this is rant likely exaggerates the difference between the USA and Russia in other direction. My general sense is that in the Eastern Bloc both the men and the women are defecting harder than in the West. Outsiders with an agenda look and at this and see how poorly men are behaving and associate that with "toxic masculinity" which codes to them as "traditional patriarchy." In reality there is excessive bad behavior with both sexes and the bad male behavior has little to do with traditional patriarchy.

...on to part 3...

(cont, part 3)

The elephant in the room

Now that we muddled the situation by discussing all the confounders, unknowables, and conflicting evidence, we should adress the the elephant in the room: Every low-fertility country in the world today -- from South Korea to Sweden to Poland -- is wildly feminist by the standards of history, and by the standards of countries that have had high-fertility.

When we compare basic measures of modern feminism versus traditional partriachy -- % of women enrolling in college educated, % of legislatures women, divorce rate -- we see that contemporary South Korea and Japan are far closer to the modern United States and Sweden than it is to 1950s America.

Fertility Rate

Gross college enrollment rate for women

% national legistlators women

Divorce Rate

America 1820

6.42

0%

0.0%

3%

America 1890

4.39

0%

0.0%

6%

Japan 1925

5.18

0%

0.0%

10%

America 1950

3.31

5%

0.1%

25%

Saudi Arabia 2020

2.28

74%

20.0%

48%

Iran 2020

2.15

57%

6.0%

33%

America 2020

1.8

102%

24.0%

39%

South Korea 2020

0.84

88%

17.0%

42%

Japan 2020

1.34

62%

10.0%

35%

Poland 2020

1.38

84%

29.0%

33%

Sweden 2020

1.8

96%

47.0%

50%

Spain 2020

1.24

102%

47.0%

54%

Finland 2020

1.35

101%

45.0%

56%

Russia 2020

1.5

93%

17.0%

70%

Most Americans would probably be surprised by how feminist contemporary Iran and Saudi Arabia are. When these countries entered public consciousness we saw them as ultra-patriarchal, "medieval" and "theocratic" kingdoms. But by 2022, Saudi Arabia now sends 76% of women to college, has a 47% divorce rate, and allows a modest amount of women rpresentation in parliament. Most laws against women living alone or owning property have now been rescinded. Correspondingly, its fertility rate has plummetted from 7.1 in 1980 to 2.2 today.

When we want to determine if low fertility is an inherent part of wealthy modernity or of feminism we have a problem in that we have no control group. Every country in the world post-1945 either came under the dominance of the American hegemony, the Soviet hegemony, or the Chinese hegemony. All three of these empires were explicitly feminist. Feminism has been a core part of the United Nation's declarations and intiatives. America has pushed feminism in every country that matters, whether that be via the hard power of conquering Japan and rewriting their constitution, or the soft power of requiring certain governance and "human rights" intiatives in order to gain aid and favored trade relations.

This does raise a big question of whether wealthy modernity, feminism, and low fertility are all inherently linked together -- maybe it is not just historical accident that there is no control group. Perhaps we will address that in a future post.

There's Afghanistan as an example, where fertility is high at 4.2 births per woman in 2020. This fell from about 7 in 2001, presumably due to the US occupation and its emphasis on feminism. I think Afghanistan alone could prove your argument. Afghanistan actually was an ultrapatriarchal, medieval, theocratic kingdom.

Argentina and Israel are the only developed countries that have maintained above replacement TFR for long periods of time- do they notably buck the trend? I don’t think they do, I think it’s happenstance. But it’s worth investigating.

which was invented by powerful men for the purpose of basically sexually exploiting women without recompense

Men have always wanted to exploit women sexually without recompense.

In fact: one of the Church's missions was to prevent this. The assumption was that these male tendencies had to be controlled by the institution of marriage, for women's - hell, everyone's - sake.

What made the sexual revolution special? One theory:

But then, in a single sentence of its reportin 1970, the Committee grasped the central issue: ‘It is the promiscuous girl who is the real problem here.’ In this utterly sexist statement, the Committee actually understood the central issue – that the ‘moral turn’ in female sexuality destroyed the entire house of cards. Boys had always been boys, but female permissiveness meant that a generation of young women were turning their back on the discourse of pious femininity. With this realisation, the Committee could not cope, and by 1972 it voiced total exasperation with ‘the turbulent continent of morality’ and the unfolding ‘promiscuous age’.

Death of Christian Britain.

Men have always wanted to exploit women sexually without recompense.

So the idea of sex outside marriage, done with mutual consent and for the sake of mutual pleasure, is a lie? Is that what both of you are saying?

I can agree with that, with a few caveats.

  1. It's almost always socially deleterious to single hetero women who specifically made it their overriding wish to marry early, and are willing to organize their entire lifestyle around this. And I'm sure such women are relatively rare.

  2. This still does not mean that men were consciously, knowingly exploiting women i.e. the great majority of them very obviously did/do not believe/recognize that premarital sex in itself is almost always socially deleterious to women.

  3. Even when women come to this realization, I'm sure most of these women do not do so before the age of, say, 36. Which is sort of relevant here.

Not an outright refutation of any fact, but a challenge to the emphasis in the final para: i.e. all of this will happen so long as men maintain X-Y Systems. Here:

As a woman, there’s no reason to abandon feminism unless men [my emphasis] abandon the ideas and actions that brought it about quite naturally in response.

Point is that (high status especially) men have always tried to break this system. They managed - continually - to circumvent it. It was only truly broken - according to the exasperated Church - when women themselves rejected the underlying normative argument.

I mean...that passage I quote is telling you that men tried. They tried to hold back the dam. They were told to stop.

So whose revolution is it really? And in whose name does it persist? Whose ideas and actions (which now need to be abandoned) drove it? If men couldn't hold the line on the old system what new one is supposed to be magicked up when the original criticism of sexual protectionism still holds (any solution here would quickly be pilloried as "patronizing" or patriarchal)?

The collapse in Saudi tfr happened well before recent liberalization, and in fact the largest collapse occurred during the most severe period of post-Siege of Mecca religious reactionary conservatism, when Saudi society became much less feminist, the Niqab was mandated, the modern guardianship system was mandated, middle and upper-middle class women were largely removed from the professions, Saudi society became more markedly segregated even among urban elites and so on.

Saudi Arabia was already oil rich by 1980. The World Bank says that female college enrollment in Saudi Arabia has risen steadily and consistently and massively, from a mere 5% in 1980 to 75% in 2020 -- https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR.FE?locations=SA --, which correlates well with the decline in TFR during that same period. If there is a religious conservative backlash, they seem to have utterly failed at even arresting female empowerment, much less actually rolling it back, or else female college enrollment would have gone down, not up.

Second wave feminism was a necessary reaction to the sexual revolution (which was invented by powerful men for the purpose of basically sexually exploiting women without recompense),

Sex positive feminism and women-should-work feminism was pushed by elite men who wanted easy access to cute young women. Many women liked it too because it is crack for women to be around the highest status men. "MeToo" feminism is bolstered by dads who don't want to see their daughters run through by the football team, husbands who don't like their wives being seduced at the office, beta men who are resentful of alpha men hoarding the pussy, and elites who find metoo incidents as useful way to take down competitors. Many women on board with #metoo because sex-with-no-strings actually left them very hurt. Unfortunately, everyone has misidentified the problem as being one of lack of consent, as opposed to the problem being inherent to fornication and adultery.

Sex positive feminism and women-should-work feminism was pushed by elite men who wanted easy access to cute young women.

I’m not as familiar with the driving forces behind sex-positive feminism, but for women in the work place, ☝️ this is not only dubious, but appears bad faith and near-infalsifiable since a hand can be waived in the direction of some cohort of elite men and their plan(s) to get more women into the office, which of course they couldn’t and didn’t openly articulate, leaving no historical record.

Post-war, expand high school graduation percentages met with an increased demand for clerical work. Prior to then, women in the work force were more likely to be involved in manufacturing jobs (such as in the garment industry). Women found office jobs, which were far less dirty and dangerous, more appealing. And this, among other factors, led to increased participation in the workforce, and specifically by married women, who were less motivated to drop out of the work force as office work was more palatable.

After a couple decades, women began to expect to spend a significant period of their life in the workforce where prior generations had not. And from here, many women, of their own agency, began to pursue higher education and assert themselves professionally.

If you want to subjectively debate whether this was “good”, feel free to embark on that tangent. But if you want to objectively deny that a subset of women, through their own agency, pushed for greater economic opportunity and independence, then you’ll need to show your work.

I did add as a quick edit to my comment "Many women liked it too because it is crack for women to be around the highest status men."

In general, fault-lines of policy interest don't actually split men against women. Feminism is the work of one faction of men and women, and anti-feminism has also been the work of one faction of men and women. Feminism was not some victory of women over the opposition of men. It was a victory of certain women done with the support of certain men, often powerful men.

Prior to then, women in the work force were more likely to be involved in manufacturing jobs (such as in the garment industry).

Doubt. I think they were by far most likely to be domestics. I would be curious what percent of unmarried young women in the U.S. worked in manufacturing at its non-war peak -- I would be surprised if it was higher than 15%. I think you are right there was an increase in demand for clerical work between 1920 and 1970 -- but I suspect true need for clerical work has actually decreased since then. But instead we have seen a rise of "pink color" jobs in the hypertrophied healthcare, education and non-profit sector. IMO, these are mostly vanity jobs doled out by the government as sugar daddy instead of a husband. Feminism has created the jobs, not the need for the work created feminism.

Man you argue in bad faith. Where did I say feminism was all women versus all men? Where has anyone said that?

I originally noted the role of elite men in driving feminism. You challenged me in the reply by saying that women's agency also played a role. I replied to clarify that I believe that both men and women played a role in driving feminism.

Can someone explain to me how sex with no strings hurts people, and specifically how it hurts women more? In an age of contraceptives?

I'm not saying it's not true, it obviously is. I've been in situations where "sex with no strings" turned out to have a lot of expectations attached after all, while I on the other hand would be perfectly fine if we just went on with our lives. As would most men I know. (Maybe I'm some awful combination of high value enough to be given a chance, but not high value enough for it to be free.)

So it must be true, because they wouldn't bother pursuing anything more un

Can someone explain to me how sex with no strings hurts people, and specifically how it hurts women more? In an age of contraceptives?

There are two potential problems with "sex with no strings" -- either the sex is bad or it is good. If it is bad, it is bad. If it is good, high chance that one of the two people "catches feelings" -- and now that person has formed a bond with someone else who might not be good for them, or that into them. Forming a bond with someone who is bad for you is very damaging. And forming a bond to someone, exposing your nakedness and vulnerability to someone, and then having that person reject you is also tremendously damaging and hurtful. This goes for both men and women.

"Sex with no strings" is not something that was common among our ancestors, it is not something we have evolved to handle. Young men and women have not evolved to make good decisions in some lazzei faire sexual marketplace, nor have they evolved to even predict how they will react to sex. "Sex with no strings" is simply not something that can be predicted a priori. Impossible.

Sex did evolve to generate a powerful, intense bond with your partner (especially for women), which helps bind the couple together through the difficult years of child rearing. Sex with random people at best fritters this bonding power away, and at worst makes people bonded to partners who aren't properly screened or committed and thus will end up creating great hurt.

Alright, makes sense. I guess I'm just one of those people who doesn't form romantic bonds. Completely alien to me.

But I will note this reads a bit like ideology in that it conflates a useful social technology of monogamy with something natural and true. It seems like throughout history and today, powerful men had no issues with such bonding, and in fact one of the main motivators for men is access to a variety of women. Their goals aren't to faithfully commit to a single one.

But I will note this reads a bit like ideology in that it conflates a useful social technology of monogamy with something natural and true.

I would say that Christian teaching with regards to fornication and monogamy is rooted in natural law; natural law I define as follows: Given human nature, human sexuality, human group dynamics, the basic realities of the world, etc, natural law is the set of rules that result in the game theoretical optimum for most people and for society as a whole. So yeah, powerful men often like to fornicate, they also like to lie, cheat and murder too, all of which are violations of morality and natural law, it's good for them, but at the expense of others.

I should note though that even a powerful man who enjoys sleeping with a variety of women would prefer if the woman he sleeps with remains attached to him in concubinage. It is painful for almost any man to witness the woman he has slept with, sleep with someone else. If that is not painful for you, you are a true outlier.

More comments

Maybe I'm some awful combination of high value enough to be given a chance, but not high value enough for it to be free

Not sure that's awful: free lunches tend not to be the tastiest, while you still have the opportunity of not going hungry. Of course, sex is never really cost-free, but there are some men who are unlucky enough to be able to obtain it with minimal effort and in quantities mostly of their choosing, which is a great way to lose the greatest joys in sexuality.

I'm sorry but this reads like mega-cope. I think most of my friends of the "chad" variety find quite a lot of value in it.

For almost every guy, even those with the relevant genetic, economic, and other gifts, being a "chad" is actually quite a lot of effort, especially if you have moderate or high standards in women.

Why is the balance of women’s university attendance the sole gauge of feminism when many women were educated in even traditional patriarchal societies?

I would say it is one of the most important metrics that we can actually easily quantify and track. Unless it is a finishing school or Mrs degree, university attendance means everything that is the opposite of patriarchy: 1) the woman will be removed from the guardianship of her father 2) she will be making a big investment in developing skills unrelated to being a good wife or mother 3) she will be immersed in messaging from the university in the years leading up to application and during university that developing these work skills is super valuable and important. University attendance is simply massively more central to life than whether there are women news anchors.

There are other important metrics of feminism, but it is just very hard to get good data on them, especially historically. How easy it is for a woman to divorce her husband (this is imperfectly modeled by overall divorce rate)? How easy and unstigmatized is it for a single woman to live by herself or with friends? What is the default cultural messaging from TV and authority figures? How many women have sex before marriage (with someone other than their eventual husband)? What is the actual nature of university education -- is it an Mrs degree? Are women living at home or in a sex-segrated dorm under in locus parentis? Or it more like something out of "Sex Lives of College Girls"? What percent of young women are working outside of domestic work? What percent of married women with children are working full-time outside the home?

A major problem with other metrics of feminism is that it can be very difficult to distinguish de facto from de jure. During the late Roman empire paters familia was the law of the land, but in practice is was almost abandoned and the "three days a year" rule ended up being a loophole that greatly empowered women. In early 1900s America, it was mostly de jure illegal for a man to physically punish is wife, but a spanking or a slap would often be winked at or go unpunished, and even portrayed as normal in popular media. Catholicism canon law still makes it impossible to divorce -- but then in practice annulments are given out very liberally.

And so in Saudi Arabia we see reports such as:

“I have a routine: the weekdays are only for studying, and the weekend is for going out, meeting friends, and partying — yes, partying. In Saudi Arabia most things are prohibited, but we have ‘the life underground’ where we can do all the crazy, mostly illegal things without anyone knowing. Sometimes we go to our guy friends’ houses since we can’t invite guys over (otherwise our parents will destroy us), or a place like a private compound where non-Saudi people live, but we can enter as visitors.” —Aisha, 21

...

“Because of the guardianship system, my father can turn my life into hell, preventing me from doing anything, forcing me to do whatever he wants. But he doesn’t. Why? Because I told him if he beats me or abuses me in any way I will call the police. Even if the police can’t do much, my family is too scared of the scandal it would create to test me. But I am ‘careful’ about not giving my father a reason to punish me or take away my job, which to me is the only thing worth living for.” —Salma, 21

https://www.thecut.com/2017/09/young-women-living-in-saudi-arabia-interviews.html

In an actual patriarchy, the idea a woman would call the police on a father or husband would be laughable. Now other examples from that same article show women who are more controlled. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to know which is the more common case.

Saudi Arabia is still more patriarchal than the United States, but it seems to be a lot less patriarchal in practice than what the law or media coverage would suggest.

Why do you think that women have zero recourse to ill treatment from a husband under patriarchy?

I didn't say women have zero recourse from ill treatment from a husband under patriarchy.

More comments

This here. Back home I come from a culture that most westerners would call patriarchal (I scoff at the association but lets humour them for a second) . That doesn't mean I could just mistreat my future wife with no consequence. I was specifically raised by my parents to always respect women and put their needs before my own (what counts as "their needs" naturally varies between cultures) and if I were to mistreat my wife I would run the risk of my own family disowning me both for moral and honour reasons as well as because were they not to do this it would jeopardise my brother's ability to find a good high status wife for himself.

Plus family bonds are very important for us so being disowned isn't like the western "never talk to your family again but otherwise live your life as you were doing before" where you can still live a fulfilling life but rather a serious and highly damaging event, it's more like the ancient exile from your city state (almost as bad as execution, as Socrates showed by his actions in the Apology) compared to a modern hypothetical exile from a city (just go to a new city and find a job there).

As a woman, there’s no reason to abandon feminism unless men abandon the ideas and actions that brought it about quite naturally in response. I am open to a new settlement, but I have yet to hear one I support wholeheartedly.

What even is feminism in this formulation? As an institution it hardly seems static enough that this claim could be made. If feminists made clearly factually unsound claims that act against the actual interests of women then surely that would be cause to abandon feminism. Wasn't the sexual revolution cloaked in feminist garb if not feminist itself?

The usable interpretation of this is the really uninteresting "women should look out for their own interests" but it's dressed up to say something much more controversial. this whole post feels incoherent in that is pits feminist against feminist as if there is only one true line that should be obvious to everyone.

There’s a reason that the non-feminist women you’ll run into who are assimilated into more or less mainstream western society are pretty much all very religious- because of the presence of large numbers of men who can be trusted to behave in the ways nonfeminism tells them too.

which was invented by powerful men for the purpose of basically sexually exploiting women without recompense

In your view, was there any tangible difference in those days between prostitutes and such duped and exploited women, other than the latter foolishly not demanding any financial recompense for their services?

Not the person you replied to but I honestly respect prostitutes more than I respect "independent" women who sleep around for free. At least the former know their worth...

Point taken. But the idea that non-prostitute women should be 'compensated' for the premarital (and presumably hetero) sex acts they engage in is, I'm sure, definitely not something the majority of modern society accepts.

The poster children for feminist family polices with high birth rates are Sweden and France. However, their fertility stats are hopelessly confounded by the fertility of more patriarchal subcultures -- that of non-European immigrants. Unfortunately, it is fiendishly hard to find accurate statistics on how much this impacts the numbers.

I did some digging to see what I could find and, well, you're right. There is some data available, but it's mostly obfuscated by divergent definitions, different time periods or lack of categorisation.. Anyway:

Here's a Statistics Sweden source comparing fertility rates between foreign born and Swedish born women. On average over the last 50 years, foreign born fertility rate was 0.38 (or 22%) higher compared to the Swedish born one. The overrepresentation over time seems to fluctuate quite a bit, but remains roughly around that value.

Note that the Swedish born category does hide some members of "patriarchal subcultures" (for example, 6.2% of Sweden's population was born in Sweden to two foreign born parents), and the same goes for foreign born which includes significant proportions of Europeans, Southeast Asians, and so on - in other words, be careful when drawing conclusions from these figures.

Just as a fun exercise, I also found some population background statistics for the last 20 years to compare with Sweden's total fertility rate. Foreign background is defined here as either being born outside of Sweden, or having at least one such parent. The resulting scatter plot (which coincidentally is also a chronological series from 2002-2021) shows no strong correlation, although the same reservations as above stand - the data has some severe limitations.

The thing is, though, that when you look at a map showing European TFR's by region, the Swedish (and French) TFR's are also quite healthy in regions that don't contain the major cities of these countries (ie. where one would expect most of the migrants to live). Ie. the Swedish TFR is healthy all over the map of Sweden, not just in Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö (it's slightly lower in Stockholm country than elsewhere, though of course that's general urban fertility heat sink effect for you.)

There's actually quite a lot of immigrant fertility research from Sweden, and at least according to this study, when it comes to immigrant descendants born in Sweden, their fertility is actually slightly lower than those born of Sweden of two Swedish-born parents, though of course there is some fluctucation by group.

Sweden and France both have ultra-high fertility rate native religious minorities that are most common in rural regions and smaller cities.

The thing is, though, that when you look at a map showing European TFR's by region, the Swedish (and French) TFR's are also quite healthy in regions that don't contain the major cities of these countries (ie. where one would expect most of the migrants to live).

Well, to some extent - Stockholm and Skåne (containing Malmö) tops the charts, but Västmanland, Södermanland and Kronoberg beats Västra Götaland (containing Göteborg). Apart from Stockholm, immigrant populations really only start significantly decreasing as you travel north - which to be fair did also have a high TFR according to your image.

I would also add that the Swedish TFR has declined significantly since 2016 (as your paper says: roller coaster fertility).

There's actually quite a lot of immigrant fertility research from Sweden, and at least according to this study, when it comes to immigrant descendants born in Sweden, their fertility is actually slightly lower than those born of Sweden of two Swedish-born parents, though of course there is some fluctucation by group.

I only scanned the study quickly, but - interesting! Combining mine and your sources (here we go again with the different time periods and definitions.. Caution!), "full-Swedish" women beat those born in Sweden but with foreign backgrounds, but that group as a whole gets beaten quite handily by foreign-born women.

An updated version of that study would be welcome considering the paper mostly uses data sources from 2014 or earlier, but I feel I'm already spending too much time on this topic - there are many other factors far more influential on mine and the country's futures.

I only scanned the study quickly, but - interesting! Combining mine and your sources (here we go again with the different time periods and definitions.. Caution!), "full-Swedish" women beat those born in Sweden but with foreign backgrounds, but that group as a whole gets beaten quite handily by foreign-born women.

Both the roller-coaster fertility and this trend are explainable by women immigrating from high-fertility countries continuing to have an elevated fertility after immigrating, but in time acculturating to a lower fertility, and particularly their children doing so. The peaks in fertility rate seem to correspond with equivalent immigration peaks. Of course, one question then is whether this will be affected by the fact that many high-fertility countries, such as in the Middle East have been trending down heavily in fertility, too.

Thank you for this post, it was interesting.

Pick-up artists have reported on Poland being especially prime place to pick up women who cheat on their husbands.

The most shocking thing I got from this was being reminded that Roosh apparently found religion.

Is that the male pick-up artist's version of "I'm ready to settle down with a good man?"

Is that the male pick-up artist's version of "I'm ready to settle down with a good man?"

No. First, because sexual experience increases a man's Sexual Market Value, while it torpedoes a woman's SMV. And, second, because women who say that would happily go on riding the Cock Carousel, except that they are no longer able to (either because they hit The Wall and are getting passed over by their younger peers or because they got pregnant and ended up a single mother who is now looking for a bailout). Whereas a PUA like Roosh could have easily kept pumping and dumping women indefinitely. It seems he genuinely burned out on the hedonic treadmill.

I mean, even if we go by TRP older women can still keep riding the cock carousel. They stop because their other desires and values - security, stability, a partner to raise a kid with - would be compromised.

Roosh also could similarly continue to get laid continually - without the decrease in fertility that a woman would face - but, first off: even he is getting old (at 43). And, if he wants things like a family, he can't just delay forever either. And, if he now wants to switch to women who want relationships, some explanation that mitigates his past might be valuable.

TRP is right about men's particularly strong desire for youth and sexual novelty - perhaps their greatest point is just unapologetically reiterating what were once truisms - but that's not all men want either.

Thanks for this post, I remember seeing a similar comment on slatecoderindex (under the 10,000 years of patriarchy post, I believe). It is true that cities and the population density in these areas outright disincentivise child rearing by raising costs of living. This piece and others by the same author seek to rebut generally held notions regards demography. Would be curious to hear your thoughts on this.

I too dislike the term "traditionalism." What I am actually interested in terms of "retvrning to traditional ways" is learning from the bundle of social technologies and culture from civilizations that were on their upswing, particularly my civilization of Western Christendom. By "traditionalism" I am not interested the culture from ancient civilizations in their decline phase or from tribes that never surpassed the mud-hut phase (or at least, I'm only interested in learning them as examples of what not to do).

My general feeling is that if technology and wealth has made survival easier, it would be better to aim for even greater heights of glory, than to fallback on hedonism. Falling back on hedonism will eventually dull the abilities of a civilization, leading to its decline and fall.

The more I read about cities denser and more populous than mine, the more dystopic I see them. If a city were to truly ban cars, only the rich could afford to work less than half an hour’s walk plus two bus/train stops from their politically legible residence-box.

What are you talking about? Most people in Stockholm do not take their car to work and travel far more than 2 stops.

I used to go 10 subway stops and 5 bus stops on my way to university for 5 years and that was completely fine.

Sorry, I meant transfers. Also, I meant dense megalopoli where even the sprawl is too expensive for janitors.

I wrote for Singal-Minded (non-paywalled) on the topic of PayPal suspending accounts for what appear to be politically motivated reasons. I describe my experience with PayPal suspending my own account a few years ago, and how I managed to get it back:

I called, emailed, and waited on hold, but never got a straight answer from PayPal’s customer service drones. They endlessly repeated that I had violated PayPal’s acceptable use policy as if it were some mantra. If I asked for any detail whatsoever, their response had the tone of a schoolteacher frustrated at having to explain repeatedly to the same kid that crayons should not be shoved up one’s nose. I knew what I did to get my account deleted, apparently. If I wanted to hear it from them, I’d need a court order.

I took inventory of my options.

Here is what I did not have: money in the account, any serious reliance on it, or any wisp of nostalgia for the 14 years we shared.

Here is what I did have: too much free time and a whole heap of pettiness to propel things forward.

So I made a crazy decision. I read PayPal’s User Agreement.

PayPal, like many other companies, have a mandatory arbitration clause in their user agreements that require you to "agree" to waive your right to sue them in court if you have a dispute. I took PayPal up on the offer to settle our shit via arbitration but we never got that far because they quickly caved. I was prompted to write about all this after I met Colin Wright and offered to help him deal with his own PayPal bullshit. From my perspective, he refused my help but nevertheless kept writing opeds about the issue and soliciting donations. I heavily insinuated that he was intentionally holding on to his victimhood status as a grifting strategy. Turns out, I was wrong.

Colin has brought up the issue publicly multiple times since then (writing about it in Quillette and the New York Post for example), but he never responded to my email until I reached out to him for comment on this piece. He did share correspondence with me where prominent free speech attorneys told him, in an apparent contradiction to my claims, that he had no viable legal recourse to getting his account reinstated. I had transmogrified into a gadfly in his mentions, heavily implying Colin was intentionally choosing not to solve the problem, but I was off-base with my insinuation. Colin was bombarded with countless random people (besides just me) offering their one weird trick to solve the problem, and he had no reason to believe any of them knew something that experienced advocates did not. Colin has now initiated dispute resolution with PayPal using the steps I gave him, and I’m intensely curious to see how it will play out.

As best as I can tell, virtually nobody thinks to try to address the issue of politically-motivated corporate censorship with the tools already available to them. Not even FIRE talked about arbitration dispute resolution. This leads me to think this a low-hanging fruit counter-attack that's just ripe for the taking.

Edit: I found out about another instance of someone taking a company to arbitration and winning. See also the hacker news thread, esp. thathndude's posts where they explain how hiring an attorney (even one that doesn't do anything) can result in absurdly higher settlements.

Excellent post. All it's missing is a callback to Beware Trivial Inconviniences. This is just the same idea from the user-end, right?

I think this point generalizes quite a bit more than people appreciate. An example from elsewhere in the Culture War might be the proliferation of suppressors in the Gun Culture. Acquiring a suppressor requires an onerous and intimidating amount of paperwork and red tape, so for a long time most people just didn't bother. But then people in the gun culture got together and built themselves something analogous to a GUI on top of the bureaucratic command prompt, a system to guide people through the process and, perhaps more importantly, reassure them that the process actually could work for them. Suppressor ownership exploded.

I'm skeptical generally of rules-based systems because it seems clear to me that rules cannot constrain human will. On the other hand, if the rules work, why not use them?

How embarrassing for me to have forgotten that link, it's perfectly on point. I don't think I fully appreciate how much of a setback a trivial hurdle can be. My economics brain thinks "durr cost went up by only 2.6%" which obviously does not reflect in reality for how people are really affected. So it's naive for me to think this can be solved as a call to action to individual users, it's just not at all a realistic ask. This does mean that the pendulum can swing back if you have someone doing the grunt work and creating an accessible tool. This NYT article from 2020 talks about how this happened with DoorDash, but it also talks about a startup called FairShake that tries to automate the dispute resolution process and makes money by taking a cut.

You can go to or threaten arbitration against PayPay because

  1. You are a lawyer and you don't have to pay a lawyer to have a half a chance at winning and

  2. Paypal is a financial company and can't be quite as brazen as companies which don't touch the users money

Both your explanations are reasonable. Still, it wouldn't hurt if people tried to put up a fight more often with more companies. That would give us useful information.

I conceded that my legal background definitely gave me a strong edge here, but I think that was primarily in reducing the intimidation factor. Arbitration is intended to be a departure from the procedure labyrinth and inscrutable legalese that you find in traditional courtrooms. I would love to see how someone who isn't a legal professional wrangles with this process but I could not find any examples in my search.

I have two (anecdotal, sadly) examples - 1. Medicare disputes, and 2. Alcohol license administrative hearings.

(1) When I was in law school, I briefly worked an externship as the equivalent of a judicial clerk in the Department of Health and Human Services' Medicare Appeals Division. My primary job was to work up the administrative appeal case files for the Administrative Appeals Judges to look over and make a decision on. MAD got tens of thousands of appeals every year (despite being the third appellate layer of administrative bureaucracy concerning Medicare coverage decisions), but only had nine or ten AAJs at the time, so naturally we had to triage the cases. The ones without legal representation got priority, so every casefile I saw was an "unrepresented beneficiary."

Their appeals came in on everything from unevenly-scribbled letters, to perfumed stationary, to erratic, bullet-point-ridden emails. The exact same thing happened to them as one might expect - they got steamrolled. They didn't know the guidebooks that were used to make the determinations, weren't familiar with the procedural regulations, and even in a nominally non-adversarial process where everyone involved was bending over backwards to be charitable and understanding of these factors (or at least was making convincing mouth-noises to that effect), they lost, and lost, and lost. I finally checked out when I saw a case involving sticking an unrepped-bennie with tens of thousands of dollars of medical transportation costs because his doctors and durable power of attorney didn't know that a smaller local hospital had just started performing a complex heart procedure the guy needed (in fact they hadn't even mentioned it on their webpage as an offered service yet), and so referred him to a major city teaching hospital which was known to perform the procedure - while the bennie himself was completely unconscious and in such bad health that hospice care had been considered. Too demoralizing.

(2) In my current practice, I work a lot with state alcohol licenses. My state, like most, has a separate law enforcement agency that deals exclusively with alcohol licenses and alcohol-related crime, and within their sphere they are nearly omnipotent. I represent a lot of clients in administrative hearings before the Department where there's some accusation that my client has done something wrong, and so deserves to have their license suspended or revoked. I don't win much (as I said, nearly omnipotent), but the poor licensees I see try to handle the disciplinary process without an attorney? Again, steamrolled. And administrative proceedings, like arbitrations, are supposed to be stripped down, less-legalistic processes accessible to the layman. The problem is that the agency does keep a stack of lawyers around to represent themselves at these hearings (before their own judges, natch), and the laws and processes are written so broadly (in an attempt to be approachable and easy to understand for the laity, mind), that the agency can do whatever it wants. The successes I have are precisely because my legal training puts my clients on something resembling the same informational plane as the enforcement agency.

Now, I'm not a great attorney - Yassine is almost certainly better than me from pure experience if nothing else, and he probably is baseline smarter than me too - but I'm not a moron, and my experience tells me that no modern legal process, no matter how "informal" or "accessible" it is supposed to be, should be touched by a layperson without at least getting some advice or contextual information from an attorney..

no modern legal process, no matter how "informal" or "accessible" it is supposed to be, should be touched by a layperson without at least getting some advice or contextual information from an attorney..

Unfortunately one of those legal processes is "finding a lawyer". Which is why a lot of people when faced with a lawsuit will ignore it, end up with a default judgement, and dodge collection as long as they can rather than even attempt to fight it. The task is just too daunting and the chance of success (against someone who does know the system) next to nil anyway.

Because of the 6th amendment, criminal defense is very likely the most lawyered practice area possible. And because that's the realm I'm familiar with, I have a very skewed perspective of the "typical" case. I've seen a fair share of pro se petitions scrawled out in prison stationery, but those are extremely rare outliers.

Reading your post and being reminded of "Beware Trivial Inconveniences" makes me realize how much of a blind spot I have about the paperwork filing capabilities of the average person. Yeah, it's no surprise at all that they'd get clobbered. But the problems you're describing seem to be irrelevant to the choice between arbitration and traditional courts though. In either arena, having a dedicated professional is going to be an advantage. I'm not sure how you'd even begin to address that imbalance unless you significantly expand the public defender corps to cover more areas. Or maybe ban all lawyers.

I was specifically meaning to respond to the idea that people without lawyers or legal training should just start yolo-ing arbitration demands to orgs like PayPal doing shady stuff to them, which I don't regard as terribly helpful advice in light of my experience. Still, ymmv, and I'd love to be wrong. I generally regard arbitration as a bad patch on the unwillingness of the political system to acknowledge and respond to the volume of litigation that the laws (and the proliferation of procedural protections which extend the lifespan of lawsuits) are creating, and staff adequate judicial offices to dispose of those cases cleanly and quickly. Arbitration systematically favors repeat litigants, suppresses plaintiff awards in the face of tortious conduct, and encourages people to attempt to negotiate quasi-legal procedures without an attorney, which results in potentially meritorious cases getting dumpstered.

I was specifically meaning to respond to the idea that people without lawyers or legal training should just start yolo-ing arbitration demands to orgs like PayPal doing shady stuff to them, which I don't regard as terribly helpful advice in light of my experience.

I understand your point, but what's the alternative? and what do they have to lose?

I'm not sure there is an alternative, sad to say. And regarding their losses, well, depending on the arbitration rules at issue they could get stuck with costs (though excessive costs can lead to making an arbitration agreement unconscionable, particularly in CA, which is the only jurisdiction I'm barred in...), on top of whatever else they're dealing with.

and my experience tells me that no modern legal process, no matter how "informal" or "accessible" it is supposed to be, should be touched by a layperson without at least getting some advice or contextual information from an attorney..

As a lay person this sounds right to me. Or really that there can never be a fair fight between a lawyer and a non-lawyer. So if one side has legal representation and the other side doesn't ... then the winner has already been determined.

Arbitration is intended to be a departure from the procedure labyrinth and inscrutable legalese that you find in traditional courtrooms. I would love to see how someone who isn't a legal professional wrangles with this process but I could not find any examples in my search.

My mom was involved in an landlord/renter arbitration proceeding. Not sure if you only care about paypal arbitration. The outcome was very frustrating, maybe because as someone without much experience with the legal system what we thought was a clear win turned out to be a total loss.

She had a lease with an apartment. As part of the enticement to get her to move in they offered the garage attached to the apartment as a free part of the lease. Everything is fine. Lease renewal comes up. Instead of sending her a lease with the attached garage as a paid addition, they resend her the original lease that had the garage as a free add on. She thinks 'awesome' proceeds to sign the lease and not pay for the garage. If they had asked her to pay for the garage up front, she would have chosen to just not have the garage.

Anyways another year is up and they haven't received payment for the garage. They ask her to pay, she refuses cuz it wasn't in the lease. It goes to arbitration. My mom loses she is ordered to pay.

In my mind the landlord fucked up and sent the wrong contract. The judge says 'hey they sent the wrong contract, but you (to my mom) probably understood which contract they meant to send, so pay the correct contract'. Which I guess is fair. But I never got the sense that it would happen in reverse. Like if the landlord sent the 'pay for the garage' contract the first year instead of the 'garage is free' and then realized their mistakes, they could have taken my mom to court and still won. And the judge would have said something like 'hey you (to my mom) should really be careful about reading contracts, you signed it and you agreed to pay even if it wasn't made clear to you in the initial verbal agreement'. The reason I got this sense, is that just about every case before my mom's was also decided in favor of the landlord.

I don't get the sense that arbitration is 100% going to be in favor of the company. But I do get the sense that it is going to be about 90% in favor of the company. And going through a bunch of effort for that slim 10% chance of victory doesn't seem worth it.

This situation is exactly what the "Statute of Frauds" is for. For real estate contracts, usually including leases, what's on paper is supposed to be what counts. One problem with doing it otherwise and trying to read the minds of the parties is it's very easy for the judge to apply the "you should have known" rule or the "this is what's on paper" rule depending on which party it favors.

But I do get the sense that it is going to be about 90% in favor of the company.

I think @ymeskhout's original article said 94-99% in favor of the company.

I really don't get the outcome of her case, it frustrated me that they could just throw out the contract as written in favor of the person that wrote the contract. At that point why even bother having my mom sign a contract? They treated it more like a "terms of use" agreement. Like unless you move out you agree to whatever the company wants within some "reasonable" restrictions of what the company can ask for.

Have you not been to court? The laws on paper really don't matter until you're at a fairly high level (and have a lawyer). At the low levels, everyone in the system knows what's supposed to be and will brook no argument. The defendant is always guilty; the corporation is always right.

I've luckily not been in court very much, but that incident has certainly brought me that level of cynicism about things.

The annoying thing about this incident is that the cost of hiring a lawyer was probably going to be most of the cost of paying for the garage.

You're right about the intent behind "statute of frauds" although minor quibble is that it only applies to rental agreements longer than a year. But even where SoF does not apply by default, any contract can include something similar through an "integration clause" that says nothing outside the four corners of this written agreement counts (e.g. oral modification, or some other verbal promise).

In some countries such a lease would be refered to as a "contract of adhesion". And in any case, the party that wrote contract, would be assumed to posses a more thorough knowledge of its content. Any article that can be read multiple ways, would be interpreted to the detriment of the contract-writer.

But on the other hand, on this specific point, a meeting-of-the-minds did not occur as your mother thought her lease included the garage, while the owner did not.

Had the owner alerted her that she needs to pay extra for garage, after a period of significantly shorter than a year, this dispute wouldn't have gotten this far.

The owner alerted her after a few months, at which point she pointed out that the contract didn't include the garage. And that she doesn't want the garage if she has to pay for it. They went silent and then asked her to pay again at the end of the lease. She said no and they went to arbitration.

In some countries such a lease would be refered to as a "contract of adhesion".

It's not a contract of adhesion, as it was negotiable.

And in any case, the party that wrote contract, would be assumed to posses a more thorough knowledge of its content. Any article that can be read multiple ways, would be interpreted to the detriment of the contract-writer.

Yes, those are the standard rules. The lower-level adjudicators that ordinary people get to deal with don't follow those kinds of rules. They just kind of decide which party they favor and rule for them. And it's not the individual who they see once who they favor. (Except in jurisdictions which have flipped entirely the opposite way and decided the landlord is always wrong)

But on the other hand, on this specific point, a meeting-of-the-minds did not occur as your mother thought her lease included the garage, while the owner did not.

The contract terms were plain and (as you mention) written by the party disputing their plain meeting. That's enough to establish the meeting of the minds. Changing their minds a few months later shouldn't really cut it.

Thanks for sharing this, that sounds like an obviously frustrating outcome. Knowing very little about rental disputes, I also thought about the "meeting-of-the-minds" problem Syo brought up being an issue. I guess the strongest argument against your mom is that she must've known it was a mistake since the garage was part of an enticement deal. I'd be interested to know how arbitration outcomes compare to real courts for this issue, judges there aren't particularly known to be deferential to tenants.

She did know it was a mistake, but thought they'd be forced to eat their own mistake cuz it was in the contract. I can't remember the exact details but I thought they tried to make her sign a revised contract with the paid garage option. She refused to sign it cuz she saw no benefit in doing so, and thought that them trying to get her to sign it meant they'd have to abide by the contract they actually gave her.

but thought they'd be forced to eat their own mistake cuz it was in the contract.

Sorry to say, but it's not clear your mom was in the clear. What you're describing is a classic palpable unilateral mistake, where the remedy a traditional court would likely impose is either modifying the contract to make it "make sense", or canceling it completely. In general, contract law does not treat kindly people who think they've potentially hoodwinked the other party. It's not obvious to me that this result was caused by arbitration.

Fair enough, but its not like a lay person knows that. And its not like lay people don't get exploited by this kind of bullshit all the time.

She had told them she didn't want to pay for the garage when the lease came up for renewal. They added it to the contract for free for the second year. Had it been appropriately written with her paying for the garage she wouldn't have signed that lease.

There was confusion for her about that contract, did they give the garage to her for free cuz she said she wouldn't pay for it, or did they screw up in giving her the free garage? Once they came back and said "you need to pay for this" her response was "I don't want to pay for it, I'd rather not have the garage, but its in the contract I signed". They then try to get her to sign a different contract, she doesn't. Then they go silent for 8 months and bring it to arbitration.

It wasn't like she was trying to hoodwink them. There was a garage she barely used and didn't want to pay for, she had a job working 80 hours a week, and wasn't going to spend the time to get up to spend on contract and leasing law. Going back in time she would have adamantly told them to take it off her lease.

In my mind they might have realized they were in the right at month 4 and allowed her to rack up the additional 8 months of payments cuz they knew they'd win in arbitration/court at the end of it.

Another story about apartments. I was moving out of an apartment. I emailed our landlord in May to say that we were moving out by August. Landlord doesn't respond. I respond to the email in June, "hey do you need anything from us? We are moving out by August." No response until a few days from the end of June "we need two months notice of your official move out date". I'm like yeah, that is why I sent you the email in May. They say "you didn't give us an official move out date. Without an official move out date you didn't give us notice." Grr me: "[whatever the last day of July] is our official move out date". Them "Ok that is only a month away, you still owe us rent for all of August".

I asked some for some legal advice on reddit and the two people that said they had dealt in rental law said I was basically guaranteed to lose. I took their advice and just paid for that month. But seriously, fuck them. They could have told me that I didn't say the exactly correct magic words to fulfill a contract. Instead they just went silent and let me rack up another month of rent. I felt a little better after I blasted them on google reviews for their shitty email communication.

In general I just don't think you realize how damn frustrating the legal system and arbitration systems are for anyone not officially a part of it. From the outside it just looks like a thinly veiled system for saying "fuck you, you lose! Now pay us money!" I have zero faith in the fundamental fairness of the legal system, or most arbitration systems. If paypal or some bank stole a bunch of money I had stored with them, I wouldn't expect to get it back via a court or arbitration system. I'd go to the most popular friends I have and try to take the issue to the court of public opinion, and hope that somewhere there had "this one weird trick" that might work to get my money back, or hope that it blows up and they are forced to give my money back due to public pressure. That is coming from someone who loathes Twitter mobs. Yet somehow they appear to offer a much better chance of justice.

This whole topics has gotten me very worked up. And I consider myself and my mother well educated people that are generally very capable of navigating the bureaucratic world we often live in. I can't imagine how shit the system is for people who don't have the same level of bureaucratic navigation skills we have.

In general I just don't think you realize how damn frustrating the legal system and arbitration systems are for anyone not officially a part of it.

This is a completely fair point but I don't think I articulated myself in the best way here. I am not even trying to defend the legal system here. You're completely right that a lay person would have no reason to know about things like "palpable unilateral mistake" contract law. I personally think what happened to your mom was unfair, so when I'm citing the legal standard on these disputes that shouldn't be taken as an endorsement.

The issue here isn't whether the legal system is fair, it's not! This is especially so when you take into account pervasive power imbalances. Anyone with clout, power, money, intelligence, sophistication, etc will be able to clobber anyone who doesn't have those to defend themselves. So when I bring up arbitration, it's not in isolation, it's relative. Is arbitration dispute resolution fair on its own? No! Is arbitration "fairer" than traditional courts? I don't know, maybe, maybe not!

There are two main reasons an organization like FIRE doesn't use arbitration: (1) it does not set any legal precedent and therefore the outcome is basically only relevant to the specific case at hand, and (2) arbitration is often more expensive than litigation because you must pay the arbitrator's fee, which is typically $1000-$2000 per day.

I echoed the exact same concern about the lack of transparency in arbitration. Do you have a source on how arbitration is more expensive than litigation? It makes sense that arbitrators would be more expensive than judges who are paid a public salary, but that wouldn't be the full analysis. After all the most common benefit cited for arbitration is that it's much cheaper overall when you take into account the full costs (including attorney's fees) because the process is significantly less cumbersome than traditional courts. And in the specific context of whether consumers should initiate arbitration more, the cost is irrelevant if the companies are the ones footing the bill.

Still, I don't expect FIRE to use or even advocate for arbitration, but when they issued a statement on PayPal this is what they said:

Advocacy groups have also criticized the lack of due process provided to users who are suspended or banned. In many cases, PayPal doesn’t even tell users why it took action against them, other than to say they violated the acceptable use policy. Last year a coalition of groups including EFF and the ACLU called on PayPal and Venmo to “provide more transparency and accountability around its policies and practices for account freezes and closures, including publishing regular transparency reports, providing meaningful notice to users, and offering a timely and meaningful appeals process,” consistent with the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation.

I asked FIRE for specific proposals to improve due process and appeals they had in mind but they never responded. EFF/ACLU/FIRE can write all the letters they want, but companies have no reason to pay attention. Maybe someday they'll manage to pass some legislation that addresses this issue, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. So meanwhile, why not tell people about the tools already available?


What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats