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 -
Thuletide on Fertility
According to Thuletide, the age gap «pedophilia» moral panic, spawned by feminism and kicked into overdrive during the #MeToo era that began circa 2017, is a potentially civilization-ruining phenomenon. He is, of course, not referring to very real problems, like grooming gangs in Britain, but the fact that 18-year-old boys are frequently accused of being an "Epstein diddy blud" merely for talking to 17-year-old girls. If you wanted to vaporize our already plummeting birth rates, stigmatizing any age gap larger than that between identical twins is a great way to do it.
From Thuletide's Telegram:
From his Twitter, he cites the following. Older-male age-gap relationships produce more children, with total lifetime fertility peaking at +7 years (although the variation from +3 to +13 years is very small). The negative fertility effect of older wives begins immediately at +1 year and declines linearly; at +3.5 years, couples produce 0.5 fewer children, on average. Obviously, this is due to women's limited fertility window, which is much smaller than commonly believed: by age 31, around 10% of women are sterile and around 50% are subfertile (they have difficulty conceiving, decreased egg quality, etc).
He concludes on Telegram:
Sounds like a better plan than complaining about phones to me.
I am sure that you can cherry-pick some examples where an 18-yo was accused of being a pedo for asking a 17-yo for the way to the supermarket, and of course the psychopaths (in the mop sense) in woke circles will occasionally weaponize Problematic Age Gaps like they weaponize Problematic Anything, but I seriously doubt that the fertility crisis is due to 18yo boys asking out other 18yo's instead of 17yo's.
In the 1950s, a man could feed a family through unskilled labor. He might even buy a house after a few years. On the other hand, the median young man and his girlfriend of 1952 typically did not have a ton of other options than settling down -- backpacking through Australia, going to university, getting sucked in some video game and so on were all unlikely choices.
Today, the places with a lot of jobs are cities, but they are often expensive. The route to home-ownership looks like "study, do a PhD, work five years as a software consultant for a bank, pay the down payment of a house which is still barely in the public transport hub of your city. At this point you can then reasonably think about having a kid (provided you have a partner and have not aged out of the fertility window)." And of course there is still the possibility that AGI will take your job next year and you will raise your kid on what Elon Musk is willing to spare as an UBI.
Of course, it also does not help that handling a small kid is more than one full-time job. In 1950 women did not have a better option, but today they do. Men have certainly become more willing to help with the kids, but probably not to the point where they are willing to share the burden 50-50. If I am optimistic, I (a guy) might say that I might be able to take care of a baby eight hours a day, every day, until it is old enough for daycare (and the caretaking requirements relax slightly). Unfortunately, this would only work if I had a partner who was willing to take care of the kid 16h per day, and most women would very reasonably tell me to go fuck myself if I proposed that they take over two thirds of the care work. And this is before monetary constraints: I can kinda manage a 40h work week, but that is with the rest being leisure time. And while my job in academia pays reasonably ok (for now -- one of the benfits of having a long-winding education), at 28h per week it is not something which can feed a family with Western standards.
This is one of the points I was raising in the divorce discussions. This is why married with kids women look for part-time jobs, or full-time jobs that will not be career-building "work 60-80 hour weeks climbing the promotions ladder" type jobs. Because they're coming home from work and then cooking the meals, doing the grocery shopping, running the house, looking after the kids, handling if the parents/parents-in-law have health crises or need support, etc. which frees up husband to work the main job as breadwinner.
And then they get dinged in the divorce discussions as "but what did she do? nothing! he made all the money, it's totally unfair he has to split it with this useless leech!" and even worse if she was a full-time stay at home mom. Forget the TFR then, it's all "my money, my toys, not gonna share" for the boys.
Argh. I do think that there isn't a realistic expectation of what marriage and parenthood is like for both sexes. Both of you have to put in the work, both of you have to compromise.
It's not a new problem, there are plenty of humorous folk tales about husbands and wives complaining the other has it easier and swapping jobs for the day to get a taste of how the other half lives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link