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 -
This is true and definitely under-discussed by both men and women. Men don't appreciate it, and women prefer to blame external factors (lack of male support, housing prices, etc.) then admit that they simply don't want to endure the same struggle their female ancestors endured.
But -- this explanation has its limits. Modern women endure many painful undertakings at a high-rate, from training for marathons, to grinding for grades, to getting ACL tears from competitive sports, to climbing the corporate ladder, to pulling all-nighters for law school, etc, and they do this because they are told this is what good girls do and this is what gives them status. Even something like, "travel" is often unpleasant but considered worthwhile because of the benefits of the experience.
We shouldn't underestimate just how much modern schooling and culture is careerist. From the moment girls enter kindergarten its, "what do you want to be when you grow up?" Thus they are encouraged to struggle for the status of career, whereas motherhood is treated as an optional hobby. If treated as an optional hobby, and not a worthy struggle that is an essential part of a life well-lived, then of course many women are going to pass. Not going to college is an unthinkable failure -- but not becoming a mother is a "choice" that must be respected and no one has the right to pressure or shame women about this very personal choice.
Perhaps this is cope on my part, as I have kids and don't get out much any more -- but kids also completely reset what one thinks as important. Much of the "going out" I did in my 20s, from trivia nights at the pub to going to the movies to trying out the new exotic restaurant now seems frivolous and uninteresting. At a deeper level, a lot of young adult socialization is about forming networks that allow us to access status and ultimately money and sex. Having reached a stable level of both, socialization becomes a lot less interesting, and most of my socialization is now with fellow parents, since we have more common goals.
It's also nigh impossible to convey the wonderful parts of being a parent to a non-parent. Think of how much people used to look forward to the new Pixar movie. Now imagine having the cutest thing imaginable -- the thing that the cute character in the movie is only a pale imitation of -- and this cute creature is doing new and interesting things in your own home every single night. Why go "out"?
Part of the problem here is that modern parents absolutely suck at discipline. Most parents never learn or never feel empowered to tell their kid "Go play by yourself and if you interrupt me or pester me you will get a punishment." Modern parents are grudgingly allowed to punish kids for blatant infractions like hitting or stealing. But it has become unthinkable to punish kids for pestering or interrupting. This really needs to change. With proper discipline, most four year olds are perfectly capable of playing by themselves and not interrupting for an hour.
Well certainly in the confines of existing American democratic politics, no, nothing can be done. But the existing political situation is not long-term stable, and under a new paradigm many things could be possible. The question is whether returning to above replacement fertility is a regime-complete problem -- or a civilization-complete problem.
From the linked substack:
This is an interesting instance of "woke more correct" or of horse-shoe theory. She is making the same argument that ultra-rightist Dread Jim makes -- women are not hard-wired to preserve civilization or to choose reproduction. Every historical instance of women's liberation has led to cratering fertility and the destruction of that society. Therefore the rightist must go all the way: either women's emancipation gets rolled back or Western civilization will die.
More from the substack
One million dollars? Your offer is acceptable.
I'm not a parent but I've been on the other side of that way too often. I definitely get that impression, from people that I used to think were my friend, that now they think of my friendship as something temporary, trivial, and meaningless. The only thing that matters to them is their children.
It's... I don't know, I'm conflicted. Maybe you and them are right, that family is something "higher" that makes everything else seem small in comparison. But from my perspective, it's more like all of my friends are being brainwashed by a cult that forces them to drop connections to anyone outside the cult. They can now only socialize in approved "play dates" with other parents of children the exact same age as their own. And that's, like, 2 hours a week. Most of their time is spent in "family time" which I strongly suspect is just them sitting on the couch watching inane g-rated cartoons with the kids.
I think it's a combination of things:
That's a good breakdown. But I have to say, when you lay it all out like that... it sounds of grim, doesn't it? Not to go all "men's rights activist" but... it sounds like the typical modern man is in a marriage where he needs permission from his wife to go outside, feels guilty for everything, and relies on parasocial internet relationships to replace real-life friendships. Pretty dark. As a cope he says "Oh, I no longer need to spend time with real life frends like I did when I was in my 20s. Now that i'm older, it's so much more satisfying to stay at home by myself." And then he drinks himself to death.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm on the same side of the "being a parent" divide, so it's not that I don't sympathize, but I can't help but notice that this is exactly what it felt like when my older friends suddenly started obsessing over girls. Maybe this time for sure it's the natural course of human development that's wrong, but I wouldn't count on it.
I also remember that time from middle school. But uh, isn't that just a temporary phase? Most guys eventually learn to balance having a girlfriend with having friends. It's incredibly cringe how some guys will betray their closest friends and become completely pussywhipped by a girl they just met the day before. We don't need to encourage and reward that sort of behavior. But it seems like so much of modern American life is built around this ideal of "the nuclear family" where the father comes straight home from work, sits in "the family room" with his kids, watching TV, and has no friends or hobbies outside the house.
Yeah, and in my experience so it is with parents as they learn the ropes, and the kids grow up an become less absorbing. But I think it's understandable that new parents get completely overwhelmed.
Sure, but discouraging these sort of behaviors went both ways. Getting pussywhipped was cringe, but so was "scaring away the hoes" or whatever the kids call it nowadays.
I come from more of a clan culture, so the "nuclear family" thing looks weird to me as well. Not saying there's nothing in the culture around parenting that can't be improved, but no matter the improvements, the childless are still going to feel left behind, much like the girlfriendless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I just want to underscore this -- this is absolutely correct. Modern parenting (or "gentle" parenting, as the meme goes) makes life SO much harder than it needs to be. Kids do not need their parents (or a screen) to be entertained and you are a fool if you cater to their whims in this way.
I'd also gesture at the great work Jonathan Haidt has been doing calling attention to the dual problem of social media + complete lack of independence and freedom in childhood, but that's a whole other (huge) topic.
Agree and I will elaborate. My son is illiterate. This is fine, he is too young to be literate. He is just barely mastering speech of a very finite vocabulary (and is doing so speedily according to the doctors). But he still will just let me do the dishes while he sits down and "reads" books. Certainly he knows his favorite books (they involve large machinery). He grabs them intentionally off the shelf and peruses them for enough time for me to finish all sorts of minor tasks.
Now, could I work from home, alone, for a whole day and expect this behavior for a whole day? No that is insane. He has the energy of a greyhound and needs to go outside and get his 10k steps. He needs to climb at some point. But if you cant manage that at a FAMILY party what is wrong with you and your family? Can none of them be trusted to not kick him down the stairs? Do you all have houses full of vases and knives in every room? Last family party I attended I supervised 4 under 4 easily for an entire morning with only a few interventions by parents of those other than my son to change diapers (which I still could have done if I had the right size with me, b/c I did for him).
More options
Context Copy link
I think another dimension of this is many people seem to have somehow, magically forgotten that it’s not only okay but ideal to treat kids differently based on their age. I had a very frustrating conversation recently about how or if we should be talking to kids about the “bad” parts of history, and it was kind of shocking to realize that they didn’t realize that for example a 5th grader is physiologically incapable of the same complexity of thought as a teenager or an adult. That echoes over to discipline where they also don’t realize that again, a child’s brain is both highly plastic as well as not yet mature in a deep and fundamental way. Being strict and firm are not the same things… and yes, shoving a phone in front of your kid and going “they entertain themselves, how great!” is terrible for development.
A social policy of segregation will do that. Age cohorts are relatively strictly segregated in modern society, and from 15-30 most women and nearly all men will have observed zero children in a casual context (teaching doesn't count); not a surprise they have to learn from scratch when they have them.
Add to that the fact that most parents who become parents are going to lack the required experience in having authority, and you get a populace who doesn't know how to exercise it, don't know when it needs to be exercised, or have no experience with authorities that aren't arbitrary/capricious. So they're going to try and get by without it, because that's how they interact with everyone they know; why would smaller human be any different?
Maybe, but (and partially because of the above) the ages at which it's ideal to treat kids in certain ways are blown so hilariously out of proportion that there exist people who take seriously the notion that anyone under 25 is physiologically incapable of any adult thought. (The people who most loudly agree with this notion are usually 26.) I've seen 14 year olds with bedtimes on vacation, and it was fucking absurd.
Parents reacting to parents who [over]do the above are most likely the ones to try and be 'gentle' parents, but miss the fact that if you're going to do that, you have to be capable (and if you actually are capable of doing it, your kid is more than likely capable of working with it- which is also something parenting advice always forgets to mention especially when it comes to "a child's brain"), and most aren't. Same thing with liberal proponents of casual sex who had a traditionalist upbringing- you actually have to have a high level of emotional detachment with sex, because if you're lying to yourself you're going to get hurt and would have been better off the traditionalist way.
Fifth-graders participate in the bad parts of history, and are made aware of that if they turn on a TV. Probably best if they know how to avoid participating (a 5 year old would have no choice and this would be a net negative, but thinking that a 10 year old should still believe this doesn't happen to them is also absurd).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link