site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28507 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 2, 2024

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

All I'm asking is if you're willing to make the tradeoff yourself. Would you, personally, prefer to take the status of the woman in this arrangement? Would you marry a woman if, under no uncertain terms, she told you she wanted to have a lot of kids but you would have to give up your career to stay home with them? At the very least, it would eliminate the risk of any workplace fatalities, and no family court would award the woman primary custody in this situation.

Honestly that sounds like a dream, lots of leisure time, surrounded by little people who love me, no work stress. Of course, in the real world women dislike outearning their husbands and hate being the sole breadwinner, so perhaps a better question would be to ask if WhiningCoil would be willing to do this if he were a woman, or if women's marital preferences were different.

Would you marry a woman if, under no uncertain terms, she told you she wanted to have a lot of kids but you would have to give up your career to stay home with them?

This has been the primary motivation for me to continue working a sometimes-hard job instead of downsizing into an easier but lower paying one, to give my future self the optionality to fatfire and stay at home with a squadron of kids.

When that day comes, if married, I might keep working anyway to satisfy the future wife’s hypergamous/what-have-you-done-for-me-lately/it’s-not-enough-for-me-to-live-well-my-husband-has-to-suffer instincts, but at least having the financial optionality to fatfire and SAHD would be clutch.

Would you, personally, prefer to take the status of the woman in this arrangement? Would you marry a woman if, under no uncertain terms, she told you she wanted to have a lot of kids but you would have to give up your career to stay home with them?

I find this mindset fascinating, of asking a question like this in an apparent expectation that the answer would be obviously no. It would be pretty difficult for me to find a man in my life who would say no to such a deal; in fact, it would be the rare man who wouldn't consider this the relationship equivalent of winning the lottery, in terms of how good a deal they would see it as.

I agree, Rov_Scam seems to have forgotten to include any tradeoffs that would make such a situation as undesirable as the reverse seems to be for many women. Consider the following:

  • in this scenario the man is implicitly offered a stable long-term relationship when many (younger) men don't have one, and a significant number don't have any relationship but would want one

  • having many children means having lots of sex, and men appear to value sex more than women and have lower bars for attractiveness

  • men are physically stronger and have accordingly less to fear from domestic violence

  • men are more valued on the job market and would accordingly have an easier time returning to supporting themselves if the deal doesn't work out

  • the cost of bearing the children is still on the woman

Bullets 1 and 2 don't apply, since the implicit comparison is to marrying her without the unusual features stipulated.

I didn't think of 3 or 4. So only 5 seems to be of much weight.

men are more valued on the job market and would accordingly have an easier time returning to supporting themselves if the deal doesn't work out

This is the kind of thing that seems to be repeated often but for which there's basically no actual evidence.

In any case, one thing that's clear to me, at least about the men I'm familiar with, is that you could negate all such advantages, real or imagined, and even tack on a few extra disadvantages (of which there already are plenty which also haven't been mentioned here, but IMHO trying to go through some laundry list of stuff and weigh them properly is a fool's game whose conclusions depend entirely on the biases of the writer and none on the actual reality of the situation), and it would still look like a far better deal than what they're getting right now.

Would you marry a woman if, under no uncertain terms, she told you she wanted to have a lot of kids but you would have to give up your career to stay home with them?

Do you think this is some kind of a dunk? Every father I know, including myself, wishes they could do exactly that.

Would you, personally, prefer to take the status of the woman in this arrangement? Would you marry a woman if, under no uncertain terms, she told you she wanted to have a lot of kids but you would have to give up your career to stay home with them?

I literally fantasize about this.

Probably! Staying home with your family is awesome. And past a certain point, the kids keep each other entertained. I work from home and it feels like the best of both worlds, taking lunch breaks to read The Hobbit to my daughter. I'd much rather do more of that and less pointless stitching together of web libraries for more money than I probably deserve.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats