This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Feminism is a hot topic, a user before mentioned his thoughts on it's origin, and that got me thinking. What is the social driver behind feminism?
Personally, I see it as a response to modern medicine and work safety standards, and the resulting rapidly booming population. Without historic mortality levels, it is no longer necessary for women to devote their lives to maintaining the population. With women free to do as they please, society suddenly finds itself with a lot of free hands that could be working, and so there is a push to remove the social systems that forbid women from traditional labor.
What puzzles me, is through what force does society implement change like this? It's not like we suffered the woes of overpopulation, and responded with feminist cultural change. This seems almost pre-emptive. But the arguments behind the feminist movement (I think) were based around freedom and equality. Was there a secret utilitarian agenda? Did things just coincidentally line up? Does society naturally drift towards freedom when the roadblocks are removed? Am I simply stupid and uneducated? I don't know enough to figure it out, but I feel like it's at least an interesting question. Thoughts?
I think there were a lot of factors. Most of the rest of this comment is going to discuss first-wave feminism because I think the conditions there are more legible.
On the economic side, before we can have women doing (outside the home, waged) work the economy needs to have a demand for women's labor and women need to have the capacity and desire to engage in that labor. Other comments have noted the increased mechanization of labor as a factor in the increase of demand for women's work. Decreasing the capacity gap between men and women makes them more interchangeable as workers. On the capacity side, the rise of labor saving devices in the home and public schooling gave women the capacity do engage in this work. The primary tasks that women spent most of their time doing were substantially reduced, freeing them up to use the time on other tasks. This gives us an explanation for how women could start participating more in work outside the home. Why did they want to? For this I think we have to turn to social factors.
On the social side, I suspect women wanted an income for the same reasons anyone wants one. Existing in our society requires money. The more money you have the more in control you are of your own life. Women probably wanted to engage in waged work to be more independent, autonomous, and in control of their own lives. There is no shortage of contemporary stories of women ending up in awful relationships due to lacking much by way of alternatives.
Another factor here, I suspect, is status. Our communities, both local and global, award status almost entirely on individuals who do work outside the home (then and now). If you are scientist you can get international recognition in the form of the Nobel Prize or various other science prizes. If you're a rich philanthropist your name can be a watchword for the arts, sciences, and all kind of international causes. By contrast if you're a home maker what kind of recognition or acclaim can you acquire? Sure people talk a lot about the importance of being a good wife and keeping a good home but where is the broader recognition of individuals? It's entirely absent. Women (and only women) are supposed to be satisfied with the status of merely being a good housewife to her husband while it's fine for him to seek international acclaim by one avenue or another.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link