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 -
The abortion debate below brought to mind something I've been thinking about for a while. There's been a convergence of sorts between mainstream Republicans/conservatives and the far-right, but there are still many differences, such as on the Single Mother Question. The far-right (which includes most people on this website) views single mothers negatively, while the mainstream conservative view is very different. For instance, here's what Speaker Mike Johnson said about Medicaid:
Mainstream conservatives and the far-right agree that the welfare state serves to subsidize single motherhood, but only the latter thinks it's a bad thing. Mainstream conservatives' embrace of single motherhood is connected with abortion politics. One mainstream conservative pundit put it succinctly: "you can't be pro-life and anti-single mom." Many on the far-right responded to her tweet with "just watch me" and others scratched their heads, wondering what she meant. But there's a certain logic to it. Much of the motivation for abortion comes from women not wanting to be single mothers. You can respond to this in two ways:
The far-right prefers option 1, I've heard it many times on this website. But do you think it will actually be effective in changing behavior? I personally suspect that given the options of not having sex or having sex at the risk you might have to drive out of state and get an abortion and then get shamed by some online anonymous far-rightists, the latter will be the popular option. Just a vague suspicion I have. So it doesn't surprise me that many conservatives choose option 2. It also harmonizes better with the current conservative political coalition, which is increasingly reliant on the votes of low-class and non-white voters who have higher rates of single-motherhood. We wouldn't want to be elitist, looking down our noses at the salt-of-the-earth working class now would we?
There's at least one more possible response:
3. Bring back shotgun marriages. Make impregnation result in an automatic marriage and enforce much stricter rules for divorce in such marriages.
What if someone would rather be a single mother than marry the other person?
Too bad. Vanishingly few would truly rather be a single mother--rather they expect the benefits men normally bring to relationships be provided by society so they don't have to suffer the compromises necessary to make a relationship work. Such selfish entitlement shouldn't be encouraged by society.
Yes, everyone would like a good partner to raise their child. But sometimes the partner may be a net negative. Especially in a scenario where the father wouldn't have married without the law. In this case shouldn't it be allowed for someone to be a single mother? Because it would be better for the child. There are many cases where the traditional benefits men may normally bring to a relationship don't exist. For eg., some people stay unemployed and steal off of their partners. Or they spend all the money, including the one earned by their partner, on their vices like alcohol, gambling, drugs, etc. They also bring a lot of instability to the relationship in many different ways.
In my experience the much more frequent cause of single motherhood is not that the father is a net negative but that the mother is and society is so blinded by unwarranted sympathy for her that it refuses to do anything about it nor let the father, leaving the child to suffer while the mother's poor behavior is continually subsidized.
Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with this scenario right? Like I said, if the father wants to be in the child's life then court can decide custody. And if the mother is being a net negative, then it is still better that the child have some stability in their life atleast some of the time.
No, it has everything to do with this scenario. Right now the default is single motherhood and the father has to fight in court to change this default. This would make it so that the default is shared parenthood and the mother has to fight in court to change it. She still could be a single mother if she convinces the court that his behavior is bad enough to warrant divorce, but that requires actually demonstrating his bad behavior rather than simply her not wanting to cooperate with him.
Couldn't you make the default to be shared parenthood without the marriage part? I don't see why that can't be done. I don't know what area you live in, but where I live, fathers have a right to raise their children as much as mothers(as per my understanding).
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link