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.
The "more teenage pregnancies" has an archive here; that itself was just controversial, but the author also started linking hundred+ page PDF links with hardcore NSFW content that made the moderators have to deal with it and just generally making clear that they were either trolling at best, and... well, "turning teens into baby factories shortly after menarche" was the only reasonable read of their post, but it was way closer than I'd like to be anywhere near.
For the more general problem, I think there's definitely too much emphasis on later child-rearing in ways that are counterproductive both for those who can't or don't conceive at 30+, and even not great for those who do (both in health outcomes for the child, available energy, age-related issues for both parents). I think clearing up a lot of (charitably) miscommunication about those matters is probably going to be more effective.
(or, uh, institutional support for surrogacy on massive and probably also incredibly controversial scales.)
That said it's probably worth noting what a lot of the post-1960 curve is responding to. While a lot of US state laws date back to the Civil War era, enforcement and social norms largely treated those as tools for very limited sets of circumstances, rather than general rules. There was a lot more treatment of 16-year-olds as 'adults' for these purposes, and they stopped (and changed a variety of federal laws!), for a reason through the early 1970s. There's a few different causes, but one of the biggest was that most of the male half of such cases were not themselves teenagers, and that quite a lot of this turned out to be incredibly predatory. Anything that even risks bringing that sort of problem forward is going to (rightfully!) be a major landmine.
deleted
The sexuality and sexual experiences of our children is one of those few times where a clear bias exists within each and everyone of us and if the science gave us an answer the was counter to that bias then we would deny and burn down the science department. That is to say, it's one of the few dark spaces in scientific discourse where the science becomes irrelevant by the end of the day due to extreme public blowback.
So honestly by the end of the day all I can say on the subject is that you will almost likely never get a satisfactory discussion on the subject matter if you go against the current acceptable standard at any point in history, and arguing for or against even neutrally is not worth the social status loss risk of doing so.
And just to further clarify, my statements here are not from a they don't want to hear they are wrong about 16 being too young position, rather my lack of joy is from a I hate science having dark no go spaces when it clashes against social beliefs and comfort zones.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link