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 -
Trumps proposing to pay families with SAHP $9,000.
Am I the only one who thinks the proposal is excellent, and that it is an inherent good to support families (even if its limited to more traditional ones)? Its probably better for us to support some families than not? The payment is certainly not ideal, perhaps an argument could be made for support working parents as well. But I think this is at least on the right track. We hear people complain about the cost of raising children all the time, (though I suspect this isnt a genuine complaint for most - many who are saying this probably wouldn't have children even if the cost were $0) but I think this may encourage the few who do actually think like this to go through and continue with more.
My only other complaint here is if Trump and JD Vance are primarily concerned with boosting the overall birth rate alongside helping working families, targeting male income and raising it should be paramount.
I'll say one thing, this is a beautiful example of how modern "conservativism" has completely erased itself in pursuit of nonsense cultural war grievances and virtue signaling. They're taking already appropriated money set aside for working parents meant to encourage them to be productive members of society and putting it into doing the exact opposite and promoting welfare dependency. Government money has to come from someone, so we're taking from people who actually contribute in order to create more leeches? That's crazy. But of course, socialist welfare thought is the default now, we can all just coast off the rich if we ban trade, nationalize their companies, give infinite subsidies (especially to the old), and keep ramping up on debt.
But ok maybe birthrates would be worth it, but this is a policy that is very unlikely to actually promote any new childbirths, given the failure of similar ideas wherever they've been tried.
SAHM are productive members of society. Working in corporate and making line go up is not the only productive use of a human, and raising children is in the top percentage of non-fake jobs one can have.
Sitting at home watching soap operas and scrolling tiktok while helicopter parenting your children away from learning basic responsibilities and competence is not productive.
Parents already spend more time with their children now. So much that in many ways it's to the detriment of the kids! My parents used to go out and play when they were young, now children can't even walk to a nearby pond in gated communities. I can't even let my own children have independence even if I wanted to (which I do), they literally are not allowed to grow as normal human beings used to because the cops might show up cause they're out on the front yard!
We need less "parenting" and more freedom so kids can actually be mature instead of still crying for their mommies in college!
It's a lose lose lose. This welfare society drains money from productive members, encourages welfare leeching, and cripples the growth of our youth even more.
This is absurdly uncharitable. I'm sure you can find women who are shirking responsibility and ruining their kids, but there are far more women who would do right by their kids given the chance to do so. Besides that, someone has to raise the kids, and their parents are going to do a much better job, on average, than daycare operators or teachers.
We already do spend more time with our kids than previous generations. The very basis that current parents aren't "given the chance to do so" is factually wrong.
Am I supposed to believe that the silent gen/baby boomer/Gen x parents were all just unloving and bad? No, I don't think that's the case.
What we do see however is overparenting. Helicopter parents who won't even let their tweens go to another aisle in a grocery store, who simply wouldn't let their teenagers out of sight in a mall even if malls were still a thing, people who show up and do their kids laundry in university! I had a great 25-26 year old intern fresh graduate who still had her mother trying to butt in once when something happened at my work. She's lucky I'm very forgiving and understanding of her situation and I know that she was embarrassed about it too (I even helped her find a better living situation) but it's another example of how a lot of parents are so crazy nowadays like that.
If I was a typical boss and wasn't well aware of how helicopter parenting was harming children and their independence already I might not have been as kind to her as I was, and she might have been stuck unable to free herself for even longer as she lost job after job because she got stuck with a crazy mother. This shit is getting far more common. Kids need more freedom and independence so they can grow and thrive, not even more time being dependent on their mommies and daddies.
I'm not talking about people not spending time with their kids, and I have no idea why you are going on that road. I'm saying that someone has to be around to keep an eye on little kids. You need to change diapers if they are young enough, make them some food for lunch, etc. None of this requires the type of helicopter parenting you are bringing up out of nowhere. But it does require someone to be home, and many parents feel that they can't afford to have only one income in the household.
How do you think that sort of thing can be measured besides time spent with the children?
Yeah, I'm a parent myself I'm well aware of this. Both me and my wife even took extended leave off for our children so we could spend the first year or so which we are fortunate enough to have saved up enough to do. But even then we still had daycare and stuff for them! Even at that very young age it is good for the children to have time away from us learning to navigate the world of other adults and their peers.
My kids are far more dependable and mature than many of the other children in parents groups I've taken a part in and that's because we are not coddling. And our kids are still less independent than what my own parents experienced in their youth, in part because we don't have the freedom to send them on errands and such. There needs to be less parenting among many of these families, not more.
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