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 doesn't equalize things out though.
Consider that without any legal processes the woman takes most of the physical risks. Whether she chooses to carry the baby to term or have an abortion she will have some form of drug, operation, or birth to go through, then whatever physical changes stem thereof. The man in contrast can walk away. She has skin in the game that will impact her no matter what. He does not.
So if you think the job of laws is to incentivize both parties with skin in the game so as to discourage being irresponsible decision makers, the legal incentives should not match. The woman already has a set of built in incentives. The legal system should not be treating men and women equally, because their situations are not equal. In order to equalize risks men NEED to be penalized more heavily either socially or legally.
I can pump and dump my way across the Midwest leaving a trail of pregnant women behind me. A woman can do the same only every 9 months and only by accepting the physical consequences to herself each time. The social impacts are not equal due to the biological issues not being equal.
If you could do that, you'd be so extraordinarily handsome and charming that those women probably wouldn't mind, at least on a lizard brain level.
The stopgap mechanism you are looking for here is female mate choice.
Mate, its not that difficult. I'm in my 50's with a beer belly and average looking at best. I still get hit on regularly. Add in small towns with not much choice and its not that tricky.
Don't mistake the online stuff for what its actually like in most of America. Being an average reasonably charming guy with maybe one good quirk and confidence is all you need. In the 1 year after my divorce I dated 23 women between 25 and 40 and i wasn't even looking for one night stands. In my case a British accent helps. I've been hot on by waitresses multiple times on ways i never was back home.
You certainly don't need to be extraordinarily handsome and charming. I'm not. Just average and decently charming. Remember we're not trying to land 21yo super models if we're just trying to sleep our way around.
Oh, I had the foreigner-with-a-british-accent-in-the-states experience before. It helps enormously. But that is different from rawdogging your way through the nation like some dollar store Zeus.
And I would hazard the guess that the type of woman who lets a random stranger at a bar nut in them without protection is too busy to frequent bars most of the time, with all the pregnancies and abortions she'd be getting and whatnot.
Sure it's probably trickier to hit and quit right away, but turn up go on 2-5 dates and move on is probably a much easier path.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But we've already settled on this (certain red states notwithstanding). Women do face all the physical risk, but they also get sole right to decide if they're willing to undertake that risk. The issue is if they should have the right to force someone else to participate in that decision for two decades.
Remember we're looking at incentives. Sure the woman gets to decide if the baby happens or not, but the father still faces no direct repercussions from that.
The fact each woman in my pump and dump scheme gets to decide if they want to go through an abortion or not doesn't impact me directly. Without child support I can merrily do it as much as i like.
For there to be incentive for me not to do that, I must have some extra thing at stake. Me not getting to choose puts me back where I was. There has to be something beyond that. Something that can have a direct negative impact on me.
That used to be perhaps social pressure and the risk of a shotgun wedding or a beating from the womans family whose virtue was "spoiled". Now its child support.
All of those solutions recognise the man has no direct negative incentive to curb his behavior while the woman does (which doesn't mean all women do or will of course and birth control can reduce the risk of said disincentive).
If I sleep with zero women I have no kids, if I knock up 50 women and they all choose abortion I am no worse off than when I started. So that isn't a disincentive. Thats just allowing the women to undergo x to get back to the status quo. If I don't have to risk anything then, my behavior is not disincetivised. And given sex is fun and the urge to procreate, (especially if i don't have to do any work on raising the kids) my incentive is probably to keep doing it. The negative incentive needs to be high on a societal level.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link