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 it the damn phones?. A new article from one of my favorite energy bloggers suggests that the cratering of fertility rates (which were stable for much of the late 20th century and early aughts) could be driven by the adoption of smartphones. I'm personally rather convinced by this hypothesis, as many of the other explanations given by both people on this forum (status) and in-real life (economics, fear about the future) fall apart with counter examples. You're really telling me that motherhood is now equally low status in the USA, Latin America, the Middle East, and South Africa to depress fertility below 2, or that middle-class young white people are so economically oppressed that they can't have kids? I don't buy it. The smartphone, and its related access to a 24/7, truly global media environment seems to the only material change that could cross so many geographic and cultural lines. There's also a ton of causal mechanisms: hypergamy for instagram baddies, less time interacting with people in person so fewer marriages and thus fewer babies, and atrophied social skills for when interactions do happen in the wild.
Of course a lot of the effects of the smartphone can't be decoupled from high-modernity in general and its culture of extreme convenience and isolation, nor from related technologies like social media and short-form video content. And the groups that seem to avoid this depression in fertility seem to avoid all of these technologies.
I haven't killed my smartphone just yet, but I did delete all my dating apps about a month ago and have stayed off of them for the longest time since I last had a girlfriend. More in person relationships for me in the future I hope.
I think it has more to do with society telling women to surrender to their base instincts when it comes to sex. It makes sense that straight up encouraging women to sleep around in their twenties would cause stable relationships to plummet which then reduces sex and fertility rates across the population.
I really don't think it is that complicated. Young women seem to deliberately shy away from romance and commitment, instead preferring more casual hook ups and friends with benefits. Society broadly encourages this. Even parents seem fine with it, not wanting to dictate how their daughters should use their bodies. This naturally results in family formation being delayed which then leads to fewer children overall.
Women do not have a base instinct towards promiscuity. They have a drive to be in a sexual relationship, which often sometimes gets exploited into promiscuity. But you are also, I suspect, just basing this off the most promiscuous 10% of the population.
I am basing this off personal experience. When speaking with the women I meet at my university as well as male friends with girlfriends, a few tings very quickly became clear to me.
I don't quite understand where the idea that women have a "drive to be in a relationship" comes from. From where I am standing it does not look like young men are manipulating innocent maidens with promises of commitment when they actually just want to fuck. If anything, young women seem somewhat afraid of commitment and tend to prefer the men that are less serious, finding solace in knowing that they won't have to worry about the responsibilities of a relationship.
As far as I can tell, the exceptions from the above consist mostly of women who were in relationships since high school, and women who are largely not interested in dating and romance in the first place (too anxious, focused on studies, etc.). There are also some who clearly prefer long term relationships, but even they tend to sleep around for a bit after a breakup.
All the previous decades of women complaining that men won't commit to them and getting pissy at the mere suspicion of infidelity?
Men also get pissy when their girlfriends are with another man. Yet the people claiming women have an innate drive to be in a relationship usually do not claim the same for men. The normal implication is that men and women are different in this regard. Besides, if you are going to point at women wanting to be in relationships throughout history, I would point to women being unfaithful throughout history. It's not like women are only into the man they are with at any given time.
The way I see it, men and women want to have sex with people they find attractive, but get jealous when their partner has sex with someone else. The committed relationship is a social construct that enforces norms around these expectations, and lets people know their partner is not with anybody else at the cost of only being with one person at a time. But it is not instinctual. People commit infidelity all the time, and those who don't still have to control themselves in the face of temptation.
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