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 -
From the abstract:
So the authors are suggesting that, as women seem increasingly unwilling to couple up with men, the solution is to rid ourselves of the nuclear family entirely. If you no longer need a committed relationship to have kids, and having children is economically incentivized by the state, then the problem is solved.
This is certainly a refreshing take, compared to what we usually see here. Not returning to tradition, but moving towards further individualization and reliance on government. Is that what this is really about? Increase the power of our leaders by making people completely dependent on the goodwill of the state?
Skimming through it, this article reads almost like an overall warning rather than a genuine suggestion. Is this actually a veiled way for academics to criticize feminism and individualism? Show clear evidence of all the harms caused, theorize that things will become much worse, then propose a solution that is compliant with the ideology while at the same time obviously inhuman for anyone giving it serious consideration. It is almost like they are looking at the slippery slope of current dating norms and suggesting we move to its logical conclusion as an attempt to shock us out of it.
Its hard to tell these days.
I also have to suspect they added the female author on there to pre-emptively deflect certain types of critiques that would arise when people see what their data says.
Its why I suspect that we'll eventually, finally see a politician try to place male's concerns front and center.
I think there will definitely be some kind of backlash if things keep escalating. Even young women seem disappointed by the kind of men created under the current norms. The anxiety about approaching and escalating is unattractive. The ambiguous nature of any given relationship when the man does not clarify what he wants is uncomfortable.
It is hard to see how this can last.
This is perhaps my biggest concern.
If there is no controlled unwinding, the upcoming generation might be particularly amenable to a drastic policy shift.
Whatever happens when a young man is raised to internalize the opposite of the women-are-wonderful effect...
faceh, are you married? Do you want nine kids? People in past generations had large families, and raised those families in conditions much less appealing than the way we live today. Are you prepared to be economically responsible for a wife and multiple kids, and to be involved as a father with those children?
Because we all have to be honest. Large families stopped being the norm because spending that money on ourselves was more appealing. Not putting the physical, emotional, mental strain on ourselves was more appealing. Not having the shortage of time, space, and resources was more appealing. The 1926 Irish census is online. My paternal grandparents, at that time, were 10 people in 2 room house (2 parents, 8 children in ages from 17 to 2 years of age). My maternal grandparents were 8 people in 2 rooms (2 parents, 6 children in ages from 13 years to 1 month old). Nobody today wants or is able to live in those circumstances.
In my darker moments, I think if we do manage to crack the problem of cis men being able to carry pregnancies to term, it will be very revelatory. All the partnered guys on here who want four or five kids? Now you can have that! You can carry those seahorse pregnancies to term! Let's see how enthusiastic the "barefoot and pregnant" guys are when it's them barefoot and pregnant!
But those are the dark moments, so let's move to a better way of thinking.
We'll go back to how history used to be. You are making dark hints that this will be a terrible new dawn, for women it will just be Tuesday.
EDIT: Gentlement of The Motte, what do you want in a girlfriend/wife? What do you bring to the table? And please, "I have a good job and earn good money" is not enough. If you're going to treat it as "my value is solely financial", then why be surprised women chase after high-status guys?
Large families also stopped being the norm because people realised that spending the same amount of money on three kids versus nine results in a much better quality of life for the kids. They can get better clothes, healthy food, and afford a lot more free time. So it is not necessarily selfish! If you want your children's childhood to be as good as possible, it makes sense to limit the amount you have.
Is it better? Are the kids having more free time, because we're now starting to worry that all that free time is going on screen time.
Screen time is an entirely separate issue. Families were shrinking way before screens became commonplace.
Do TVs count as screens?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link