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 -
Is this actually true, for a period of time in history long enough to be considered stable? I am increasingly unsure the idea of "men as the sole or noticeably primary breadwinners" being a historical constant as opposed to a brief (but recent enough to be remembered) anomaly.
It is my understanding that during the industrialization era both men and women would work in the factories. Before that, when the vast majority of the population was a peasant, men and women both contributed greatly to the household economy (just in different ways).
We can of course go further back than that, and consider hunter gatherers but even there I am told that women provide the majority of the calories for the family.
So I think the idea of retvrning to the brief housewife era is not the way to go. It was brief and does not seem to have been stable, nor do women seem to have enjoyed it. The core of the issue, I suspect, is that historically it took more than a single adult working together (both in terms of time but also skillset) to have a good life and this is no longer true for a majority. All relevant skills are commoditized on the cheap (food, shelter, security, clothing), or solved by cheap technology (washing machines, stoves, vacuum cleaners). What actual need have men for women and vice versa in modern society, except for sexual thrills which are largely proving to be insufficient for long term bonding.
The solution has to involve mutual need, it can't be one-directional or the other gender will defect.
More options
Context Copy link