This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I read a message on the departure thread about a (quickly moderated) pasta here being the most disgusting thing that user had read since a post some time ago about "There needing to be more teenage pregnancies."
I do not recall reading that post, I am an infrequent lurker and an even more infrequent poster, but I generally agree with the premise as it is stated. The reason is rather straight forward, the age of birth follows a fairly normal distribution (a quick search shows the average age of first birth shifting from 20-24 in 1960 to 25-29 in 2018) and I would rather live in a pro-procreation society that has to deal with outlier pregnancies tilted too young on the aging curve than too old. I am also just generally in favor of the structure and aesthetics of young people with more energy raising kids, empty nesting earlier in life and seeing their grandchildren grow up than the alternative.
It would be simple to grant a concession preferring society to tilt its incentives toward coupling earlier in life with reproduction beginning in the early 20s while maintaining a strong preference against teen pregnancy but I do not believe that is realistic. A popular folklore told regarding this topic is the proliferation of "Teen Mom" type shows scaring off young girls who grow up watching them. I am skeptical the degree to which this isn't just one small part of the larger societal and cultural shift, but let's accept the premise. Let's say a young girl watched "16 and Pregnant" while she was in middle school and decided she did not want a baby while she was still completing her education. Do you think that attitude even begins to attenuate once she turns 20? Of course not. She may still be in college, for one. But even once out of education, society is currently structured to have people believe they are 'young' as long as possible to milk money out of them on frivolous consumerism, while also persuading them any large life endeavor is impossible because of money and the forbearance of youth (i.e. "can't travel anymore"; the phrase "settle down"). Some of those concerns may be real - student loans, asymmetrical inflation in healthcare and housing, etc. - but I do wonder how much is the tail of the former wagging the latter.
The 1960 curve appears to show about 15% of women's age of first birth between 15 and 17. 2018 is above 20% for 30-34 and around 10% for 35-39. My peer group (educated UMC but not excessive wealth) is much higher than this and the numbers I've seen support that and suggest the trend will only continue accelerating. What is a greater tragedy, an 18 year old couple with no plan dealing with an accidental pregnancy or a 38 year old being told by her IVF doctor she is unlikely to ever conceive? The answer is clear to me and once you factor in the increase of birth defects after the age of 30 in the mother (from what I recall it becomes significant a bit older but still a factor for the father) I cannot more strongly support "There needing to be more teenage pregnancies."
I don't believe or would suggest we start turning teens into baby factories shortly after menarche or anything of that sort. Simply that the age of births is currently headed in the wrong direction, it needs to be reversed and a result of moving us back to the ideal average age of first birth (IMO, 22) would result in more teenage pregnancies. My mother was 20 when I was conceived, both her and my father came from large families still busy raising their younger siblings and neither had any money at the time. They figured things out, it took her until 25 to graduate and we weren't rich while I was growing up but they're still happily married and many years later are doing quite well financially after raising a couple kids. I believe this should be a goal to strive for and accept the consequences that come with it.
I understand the initial premise sounds a bit like one of Robin Hanson's off-putting thought experiments but what are the arguments against? I reject revealed preferences as one, at least until we have "35 and Infertile" or "30 and Miscarrying" as counterbalances to current societal pressures.
I feel like there's some kind of revisionist history going on with this whole conservatism is actually just fine with not being prepared to have kids, you'll learn it along the way!
That was absolutely not the impression or messagw I got growing up in the '80s and '90s. It was considered quite important to be prepared to have children. You don't just pump one out and hope for the best.
First off, I agree. I used to hear conservatives say things like "she shouldn't be having four kids if she can't afford them" or "you shouldn't have children if you're not prepared to raise them." I don't hear it so much anymore. But I think that's a good thing.
What does it even mean to be "prepared" to have kids? Nobody is ever prepared. Ever. "Preparing" for kids, so-called family planning, is just some shit that popped up in WEIRD countries since the pill came along. The jury is still very much out on the entire concept. And given our demographics the verdict does not look promising, at least from a societal health angle.
Anyway, what are the criteria? How old do the parents need to be? How much money do they need to have saved? How big should their house be? How far along in their careers should the be? How emotionally mature should they be? I guess all that depends on the bare minimum "quality of life" that one (personally!) thinks the child should have. But that's just kicking the can down the road -- I can't think of anything more subjective than "quality of life" outside of outlandish situations like the Omelas kid.
So "nuts" to people who want to dictate who is and isn't prepared to have kids.
Tl;dr this asshole isn't prepared to have kids. Having kids and raising them right requires maturity enough to put yourself second to them and maturity and devotion enough from mom and dad to sustain a healthy relationship through its hardest trial. Its not about money. Aside from the potential loss of Mom's income, kids are basically free and the state's various benefits nearly offset their costs.
We have another thread about extremely extended adolescence. 17-year-olds used to be mature enough by necessity to raise a family, go to war, sit on a factory job for 8 hours, work a field for 14 hours.
Overall it is probably good that our 17-year-olds do not need to do that any more. But they can still crank out babies like 17-year-olds did 300 years ago.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link