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 basically agree with this line of reasoning, but at the same time, it seems like a rationalization to me. Arguably single motherhood is just as bad for Democracy, and probably worse since it is so very common compared to situations such as those of Belichick. And yet, outside of a few dark corners of the internet, I don't see anywhere near the level of hostility towards single mothers that I see towards men in AGRs.
I think single motherhood is bad too. It is part of low expectations society especially for blacks.
The family unit though seems to be the core of the American experiment. It can survive X% of that but I think breaks down when the mass of society isn’t invested in the American experiment together .
More options
Context Copy link
Yep. I wrote an article for a website called Topix ~2012 that was very respectfully written, claiming single motherhood was deleterious for children. The focus of the piece was almost entirely ON THE CHILDREN. Putting their welfare first. But it was rejected for "punching down" at single mothers.
No, it was rejected because the notion that "if you become a single mother, it might not totally be the man's fault" is offensive to gynosupremacist thought, and single mothers were just the political excuse to invoke that.
Nobody actually cares about the welfare of single mothers, or of children more generally, beyond their usefulness as an excuse to do this. Helping these groups is generally the domain of the religious.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, by contrast one can imagine a hypothetical article arguing that it's bad for children to have a father who is far older than their mother. I'm pretty sure the same reviewers would eat it up like a pack of hungry wolves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why is single motherhood bad for democracy?
I also think you need to look to your bubble if you don't see anti-single motherhood content out there. I still know a few guys with the traditional truck sticker on the topic.
To a big extent Democracy is dependent on equality. You need a large majority or the dominant vote being relatively equal people with similar values and goals. If that is not true then the population balkanizes. I think it would be fair to say children of single mothers are at a disadvantage.
You also introduce male-female voting gaps. If 5% of men have multiple partners, 20% are incels, 20% of females are single mothers, and then around 50% are paired off you have a very bifurcated voter base. The 20% who are incels all become Littlefinger types wanting chaos in a hope that in a new order they become the 5%. 20% of females want government money. When you have 90% of people in stable relationships raising children they mostly just want stability and good governance. Huge incel populations want civil war because they either die childless or become the new ruling class.
More options
Context Copy link
You mean the people that keep this country movin'?!
More options
Context Copy link
If nothing else, it makes it harder for young men to find a wife. A lot of them will reasonably decline to become a step-dad. And even among those who are willing, a lot of those single mothers will take themselves off the marriage market, to the extent that they were ever on it in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link