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 -
Use of herbal and mechanical contraception is well-attested as early as very ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Countless women throughout history have sought methods to prevent pregnancy. The fact that these methods were often crude, unreliable, ineffective, or only available to women of considerable means is certainly one reason why such women so often ended up still having children despite their best efforts.
What made the Sexual Revolution so incredibly society-altering is that it went hand-in-hand with mass availability of The Pill - the first widely-available, affordable, safe, wildly reliable and effective contraceptive ever created. The first time that sexually-active women could exert anywhere near this level of control and agency over whether or not they would become pregnant. And within a few decades of its introduction it had become nearly-ubiquitous in every society able to reliably produce and/or distribute it. If this isn’t a textbook example of revealed preferences, I don’t know what is. What reason do we have to believe that if the Pill had been invented in Victorian England, women wouldn’t have adopted it en masse?
Appealing to what evolution has created doesn’t hold much weight with me, because evolution has produced all sorts of utter horrors for the various species of the world. If the male praying mantis had the ability to conceive of and actively choose whether he would still like to reproduce, knowing full well that it will nearly-inevitable lead to him being violently decapitated, do you think we’d still see comparable mantis TFR numbers? Or how about male bees, whose dicks straight-up fatally detach during the act of conception? How many of them do you think would still answer nature’s call, given the knowledge and ability to choose otherwise?
In the modern era when much of traditional social structures had been drastically reduced and there was little social stigma to women having recreational sex and not becoming pregnant. After we created the modern welfare state, lots of people decided that labor wasn’t for them.
I think given that, no, Victorian women would not be choosing not to have babies because their status would increase as a mother, particularly of a son. This was even more pronounced in earlier generations. Culture matters. Our culture says “careerist women are superior” and women do what they can to meet that standard.
More options
Context Copy link
"Use of herbal and mechanical contraception is well-attested as early as very ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia."
Attested to by women of all stripes and social status, or attested to by women caught in status traps?
That cities are population sinks doesn't tell us that humans evolved to avoid having offspring (again, such a thing would be impossible for natural selection); we see frequently in history that the moment you get cities, you get reduced fertility as people get caught up in status games, behavior which doesn't happen muich in lower-scale societies where social trust is much higher, and social pressure can much more easily tamp down on defectors. This is because cities - civilization in general - are not conducive to healthy families, not that humans inherently don't want families.
Not familiar with Egyptian/Mesopotamian sources, but in classical antiquity contraception was well attested as a thing that existed and associated with a full spectrum of urban women- from prostitutes to upper class married women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The true problem for 'it's inherent for women to want to have babies' arguments isn't PMC girlbosses in suburban Virginia or whatever people may think are destroying society. It's that even in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where women continue to be very socially conservative in a variety of other ways - marrying early, openly religious, and so on, are also happily controlling their own reproduction instead of just jumping into babies as quickly as possible.
How does this even rise to the level of an argument against the idea that women inherently want babies? I have an inherent need to eat, but I don't scarf down the first bit of food that I can see as quickly as possible. I make conscious decisions like "I'm going to cook pasta for dinner tonight" and happily control my own consumption of food and I don't see any contradictions between those two positions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link