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 -
Someone tell me if my intuition is completely off here:
Could it be that the traditional, pre-1960s lifestyle (single earner household, woman takes care of the home and raising kids, man makes all the important decisions etc.) is more able to adapt to different economic environments?
You can live this lifestyle when fabulously rich as is demonstrated by any number of "old money" type families. But you also see the poorest people on the planet live like this. Yes you have less total income compared to two people working full time but that is not factoring in children. In agrarian societies children are an economic bonus pretty early on, so you benefit from being able to have a constant stream of kids that are getting raised and can then contribute to the family farm. In modern society children don't work but children in households where both parents work full time accrue significant costs for nannies and other services. Whereas if there is a stay at home (or part-time) mom in the picture children are much less expensive and in many european countries the state will offset the difference in income. So if we accept that children are a necessity the traditional family copes better when income goes down.
Meanwhile the modern, atomized, atheistic, gay lifestyle also works wonderfully when you have loads of disposable income and time. You can have a rich social life, decadent parties even while being a single parent, at least in theory. However if there is an economic downturn and you suddenly can't pay your nanny anymore and you don't have enough free time and money to go out to socialize and keep your status high... You quickly become lonely, overworked, miserable and a bad parent to boot. The couple with two full time workers can adapt by having the woman give up her career (realistically) as soon as she produces more value for the family when she stays home vs when she works and has to pay for a nanny, cleaning person etc. But the single parent really is screwed.
More options
Context Copy link