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 -
I am not sure that is entirely true.
First off, men are doing more than one kind of plowing. A man can easily father a couple of dozen children, but feeding them is a very different matter. Per acoup, a lot of ancient societies did not maximize their reproduction rate (mostly by delaying the marriage of women). To outcompete other societies, you do not want to make more babies than them, but more adults.
Secondly, if you live in times where you can lose 30% of a generation to warfare, you probably can not afford a 30% short time reduction in your capability to wage war. In the first system of warfare, your ability to inflict costs on other tribes in the area will determine what areas and resources you have access to.
Today, the requirement for strong people to plow the fields in back-breaking manual labor so that your population does not starve is mostly gone, but also, most countries care about other things than just how many warm bodies they house. While there are certainly plenty of women working careers which are essential to keep a country running, I think that men generally do their fair share of economic labor. Cut out a big chunk of the workforce, and times will be bad.
I think that the preference for men doing soldiering historically comes down to the fact that humans with high T used to make much more effective soldiers than humans with low T. If things were the opposite way, and the median woman had twice the weight and three times the strength of the median man, then your heavy infantry would have been basically women only, with men perhaps serving as skirmishers. The main reason few ancient societies sent their women into battle is the same why they did not send their 12yo boys into battle -- it is simply not the competitive advantage of that demographic, generally.
Aggression and physical conditioning are still very important to infantry combat, though- men sprint faster, jump better, etc. The physical advantages are all around, not limited to upper body strength(and given modern combat kit loadouts, this is likely less reduced in importance compared to the age of the phalanx than you might think). And non-infantry combat specializations might have different demands, but if one of them favored women the Israelis, Soviets, or North Vietnamese would probably have figured it out, and they didn't. IIRC competent artillerymen basically have to be male because it involves a surprising amount of moving heavy objects, at the very least.
Source, included in the record of a 2016 Senate hearing on this topic by John McCain
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link