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 -
That's a bit of a trick.
"Equal Partners" in the sense that both are contributing to the household. But how does one measure the value or even magnitude of each contribution when they're inherently different in their nature.
If the guy builds the house, builds all the furnishing in it, and does the actual maintenance work on it over the years, (i.e., it ONLY exists thanks to his own labor)...
It is REALLY fair that the woman would get the house in a divorce scenario?
Well, we acknowledge she was the one who was 'keeping house' and doing all the day-to-day work that makes it a pleasant place to live and keeps it from falling into neglect which leveraged the value the man already provided, creating something better than what the man alone could achieve.
So we've got 'unequal' contributions by each side, but each has contributed value to the whole.
The actual contributions are usually not accounted for in a literal ledger. So we often end up with a guy who thinks he's being shortchanged because he created all of the necessary preconditions for a happy, successful marriage, and pulled his weight, and yet gets screwed over for trusting that he would be 'repaid' by his partner with her love and esteem and, eventually, a kid, and yet he's still getting screwed over when it ends.
In short, how does one balance material contributions with, I guess, mostly emotional and intangible but still valuable contributions?
Since the material contributions are legible, those are the ones that end up getting parceled out by the court. So the wife gets a cut of the material contributions made by the husband, but the man doesn't get to take away any of the emotional, intangible elements contributed by her. So he loses both the material wealth AND the intangibles.
You can imagine that this feels unfair.
I mean, I've pointed it out before, women end up marrying a corporation (for all pursuits and purposes) and it turns out that is pretty much a dead end for their 'emotional validation.' Eventually the biological clock ticks over, and the corporation will never be able to provide her with kids and the actual long-term loyalty that a good husband would grant.
But men have to match up to the corporation's material benefits while seeking a partner, anyway, because those factors are intangible and rarely counted in the calculus.
Its always and forever a question of 'compared to what?'
I don't think women are doing the math on what they'll get if they stick with MegaCorp for 25 years, laboring dutifully under their manager's eye, then what they'll get if they stick with a Husband for that same period, laboring dutifully under 'his' roof.
It becomes a bit annoying to have to justify men's contributions to upholding the entire edifice of civilization.
On the flip side, women, by dint of bearing and raising children, are obviously and constantly glorified for their contribution. As well they should be.
So men, demanding a little bit more leverage and control of their wealth so they can actually achieve good outcomes for themselves in the world they built seems utterly fair to me.
My actual point is that Divorce laws should really, in actuality, be designed around encouraging marriage and family creation and maintenance of a long-term bond. And OBJECTIVELY they are simply not doing that.
Billionaires getting divorced and splitting 10-12 figure households are a symptom of this, and a particularly noticeable one.
And guys who notice "wait, even the billionaire couldn't keep his wife, what actual chance do I have" are a lot more common than billionaires.
The incentives are simply not aligned. A guy wants a partner, a homemaker, and someone to bear and raise children.
No-Fault Divorce penalizes the guy by forcing him to give up his accumulated wealth and support the wife regardless of how well she actually behaved during the marriage. Whether he got a kid out of it or not.
So he is pretty damn motivated to try to keep the marriage afloat to avoid said penalties.
Divorce penalizes a woman by... ?
What is a woman actually losing out on by initiating divorce?
More options
Context Copy link