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 -
Jobs doing what, exactly?
Taking this scenario at face value, there are exactly zero NGO jobs. There are dramatically fewer government jobs, at all levels. If you allow for private, voluntary, charity in your scenario, that would save some of the NGO sector but it would certainly be drastically reduced.
I’ll call private sector marketing and PR type jobs a wash, because the drop in consumption from the absence of government charity might be counterbalanced by the increase in people’s take home pay.
I would argue that government charity is the only thing that makes HR jobs viable, but because it exists as a result of legislation that is not technically charity in a monetary sense, the HR ladies are saved.
Big, big cuts in the education world, because all the government education grants are gone. Most of these job losses will have to fall on the admin side of education, because as bad as teachers can be, they are still actually the ones providing the service.
Healthcare takes a hit, as fewer people go to the doctor in the absence of massive federal subsidies. Again, this mostly hits the admin, so doctor and nurse jobs are probably mostly safe.
There are no more corporate or farm subsidies, so everybody in those sectors has to get real lean and mean and actually identify their chaff, in the style of Musk taking over Twitter. Again, this is mostly going to fall on admin type jobs, not the wrench turning ones. And while I’ve met many tough as nails cowgirls out here in the Intermountain West, I’ve met four times as many tough as nails cowboys.
There’s a reason HR is something like 80% women and plumbing is 96% dudes, despite master plumbers making more money than HR managers, on average. Plumbing is actually hard work and women, even accounting for tough as nails cowgirls, mostly don’t want to do that.
Basically, in this scenario, are you predicting some sort of exodus of women from laptop jobs to Rosie the Riveter work? Because the only reason that worked the first time is that there was a dramatically reduced number of men available to do that work. You might notice that women have not staged a massive takeover of the factory floors in the intervening years, despite being given every opportunity. Even in software and data and AI, classic sit at a desk jobs, they are huge minorities!
In the absence of the current situation of massive (forced) government charity, there would be far, far fewer jobs that women would view as acceptable and high status enough to be worth doing. I think they would find other, similar things to occupy their time. For example, remote entrepreneurship, possibly. Women have been doing “Work from Home” since Eve.
Anyway, I am confident that this scenario, as you have presented it, would be both a better world to live in and also not a world where women are constantly being beaten and raped while barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
I, for one, think the evidence is that they would in fact be happier.
There is a lot of female-coded service work that is either not being done, or being done in the middle of the night by resentful women who also work a full-time job in the productive economy, because the market-clearing price for it is too high for the middle class to afford (either directly or via a service-sector business). If you solve for the equilibrium where a lot of female-coded bullshit jobs disappear and middle-class married couple households are significantly richer, there would be a lot more nannies, housekeepers, personal assistants, waitresses, receptionists etc. than there are now. They would also be better off (due to lower personal taxes) unless they were single mothers.
That society is one in which middle-class women who are still mostly getting married eventually and staying married may feel more pressure to marry rather than girlbossing as a spinster, but the working-class women who are currently driving the decline of marriage won't feel any more pressure to marry a schlub in preference to waiting tables.
More options
Context Copy link
That's not the scenario the "Make women property again" fanboys are advocating.
I think there are problems with your economic assumption that basically our entire infrastructure is running on top of welfare and without it there will be almost zero female employment (this was, in fact, not the case in previous centuries), but you seem to ignore the quiet part being said out loud. They don't want women being happy and married. Reread some of those posts again. They literally consider all women to be hypergamous whores whose toxic sexual impulses can only be constrained with force or threat of starvation. This isn't 'convince women they'd be happier in more traditional roles." It's not even "Kinder, kuche, kirche." It's unironic hatred.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link