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 -
Its the women. Any bottleneck on reproduction is almost entirely going to be defined by the population of reproductive-age women and their behavior. Phones, opportunity costs, education levels, loss of religion, literally ALL of those have demonstrably higher impact on female behavior than male. Given that we can't raise TFR without female participation (barring a future technological fix) seems silly to look elsewhere for solutions.
The other thing about the Fertility crisis is that it reads as an individual problem if you're unaware of the larger context.
Its difficult to think your individual failures are responsible for summer days getting warmer, or for icebergs disappearing. Although the political class really wants you to feel personally responsible, so some people do feel have such feeling.
But if you're having difficulty finding a partner to reproduce with, after giving it the ol' college try for a while, you will assume it has more to do with your local area, errors in your approach, or maybe you're not spending enough money or need to practice charisma, game, rizz, get in better shape, whatever to advance.
But digging into the stats and seeing its a struggle for the majority of the population, from a broad range of backgrounds, are experiencing the same issue and it does read as a larger, structural issue over which you have little control. And indeed, your ATTEMPTS to fix it will fail insofar as it increases competition in your local area.
I say again: Individual attempts to 'adapt' will make things worse.
Thats an unfortunate irony with the current dating 'meta.' The more men throw time, money, and effort into trying to reproduce (in direct competition with each other) the worse the overall equilibrium occurs because of how women adapt to this competitive environment. Having lots of people adopting individual strategies to try and get ahead makes the larger situation worse. Its a death spiral, in that regard.
Coordination around climate fixes is VERY VERY HARD, but if someone takes certain rational individual efforts to address it, that generally does not make the situation as a whole worse for everyone. Using fewer fossil fuels, reducing personal consumption has few externalities. Hell, if you think the crisis is inevitable, moving to a hardened bunker in an area safer from the damage doesn't hurt anybody else. Still, defection is very easy.
And on the flip side, of course, if you're convinced you don't want kids anyway, fertility rates won't register as an ongoing concern unless you're reading certain books and realize what a sub-replacement TFR means for globalized trade.
Sure. That's basically tautological, in that only women can have babies.
Much less clear. To pick one example, men secularised first and fastest over the 20th century.
The birth rate collapse isn't being caused by women being too picky. It's caused by less coupling, which is in turn caused by people socialising much less due to screens.
And yet, the discussion centers on men's failures, when by the precise definition you're pointing out, cratering tfr is a 'failure' on womens' part. That's my whole point, it makes no sense to add pressure to men as a 'solution.'
Society refuses to even consider any solution that might upset women in the slightest.
Men were always less religious on average, that was just standard understanding.
Until recently. Somehow this also coincides with various denominations allowing female pastors.
Once again, "loss of religion" very obviously impacts one gender more than the other.
Its the women.
Errm, no it doesn't? The three theses OP mentioned are neither about men nor women. Academic discussion doesn't focus on men (for the reason that the TFR data is mostly about women) and if you go somewhere like /r/natalism there's much more discussion about women than men, because women are the ones who have the babies.
Honestly, I have no idea where you got the idea that birth rate discussions focus on men. They really, really don't.
Throw a couple more 'reallys' in there and I still won't find that believeable.
"The Missing Men of the American Marriage Market."
and
Emphasis mine.
Two months ago.
"No one hates marriage. Women are just demanding better men."
Last month.
The "weaponized incompetence" meme has gotten some play too:
‘Weaponized incompetence’ can harm relationships. Here’s how to counter it.
Last December.
I have literally, in my entire life, never seen an article published claiming that female incompetence was ever to blame for relationship failure. Indeed, the mainstream narrative is that women are incorrectly viewed as incompetent as a barrier to their advancement.
These are extraordinarily easy to find. THAT'S where I 'got the idea.'
That's where all the other men are getting said idea too, just for the record. Its widely noticed, I just like to call it out.
Can you name a single policy proposal in any Western Country (hell, try non-Western) that tries to improve TFR by increasing restrictions on female behavior?
I can point out several that are paying women directly or otherwise offering bribes/incentives to women to get married and have kids.
China HAS recently tried some restrictions on women, funny enough.
How about if we look at objective source rather than you just pulling up some articles that annoyed you?
Google Trends data. Birth rates men vs birth rates women for the past five years. Searches for birth rates women are about four times as common. 'The discussion' about birth rates is predominantly about women, obviously. Always has been.
The fact that you can find lots of articles about women complaining about their relationships (also something they've been doing since time immemorial) isn't evidence to the contrary.
I can't name a single policy from any country, western or eastern, that tries to improve TFR by increasing restrictions on male or female behaviour (except in the roundabout sense that baby bonuses are going to be a net loss tax-wise for childless people). The only thing that comes to mind is abortion restriction in Poland or various US red states, which is a big restriction on female behaviour, although advocates don't tend to justify the policies by talking about birth rates.
Do you have an 'objective source' showing there was any significant impact on female behavior when 'various US red states' restricted abortion?
Just wondering.
I've no idea because I don't really care. I was only giving it as an example of policies which, even though they restrict women's actions, aren't designed around increasing birth rates. Because there aren't any illiberal policies directed at either men or women designed to increase birth rates.
And my point is that any policy that might actually work is going to have to be directed at women's behavior and will be decried as 'illiberal.'
So there's no discussion of such policies, only of making men step up their game.
Your disagreement doesn't seem to actually address the disparity.
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