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 -
And now I feel stupid, for not mentioning that myself. It's not far off from what a then-girlfriend specifically told me was the reason for her high-intensity education+career trajectory: not having her economic future out of her control.
Is there? Alimony can't fix status issues. Even in a world where "taking care of high-status man" and especially "taking care of successful kids" aren't given nearly the status they deserve, "dumped by high-status man, plus the state ruled that you can't take care of yourself without his ongoing compelled assistance" is irreparably worse.
Alimony is already good enough to handle most economic security issues ensuing from divorce ... but in my ex's case being divorced wasn't the concern, having a husband unexpectedly disabled/burned-out/whatever was. IIRC (though it was long ago so I may be completely misremembering here) her parents had fallen into that trap, with her mother suddenly having to start a mid-life career when her father had health problems, and even if it had worked out okay for them in the end, she thought it would be much safer to get a head start while she still had slack in her life.
It doesn't have to. We don't tend to create such complicated structures to only alleviate status concerns, AFAICT
The status concerns are especially trenchant because they're tied to serious economic concerns, like spending 20 years in a marriage and then not being able to support yourself. If that economic element was removed (e.g. everyone had enough money through a very generous UBI or parental program) I think the relevant importance of the status loss would change
The reason Western societies have infrastructure for alimony and child support is that the economic considerations are seen as so important as to mandate it, not cause women/men lost status (if anything they've made it easier for them to lose status via no-fault divorce)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link