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 -
Once you've got a 17-year-old on Life360 (Slogan: "Family-proof your family"), you've pretty much fouled up completely anyway. If you want your children to achieve independence, making lax rules for them is insufficient; you need to actually allow them some actual independence. Or at least enough that they don't know you're still watching.
Drinking, at least, has been done by people possessing developing brains more or less forever. The "developing brains" meme is mostly an excuse for infantilizing younger people anyway -- look in the past at what young people were capable of and compare it to now for evidence. I'm not saying that drinking is GOOD for teenagers, but I'd be willing to bet it's less harmful than keeping them in a cybernetic panopticon.
This is good advice for a son. Not so much for a daughter.
Giving your daughter independence is how you ensure she gets her cherry popped by a fuckboy.
Since we do not, in fact, live in a society where women are transferred from the custody of their father to the custody of their (arranged and vetted) husband, it is as necessary for daughters to grow up as it is sons.
More options
Context Copy link
Then you don't let her go to sleepovers at all. You don't let her go then track her every second.
See, the trick in that situation is that he doesn’t actually have the power to stop his adult daughter from doing that. And he knows it. She can trivially acquire a boyfriend that can support her and physically defend her from her father when required.
Parents are naturally anxious about that, because if you’re going to pay the bills for the kid you are owed power (and power used to make true what just ain’t so is still power), hence the obsession with chaperoning (virtual or physical in times gone by).
Chaperoning isn't a practice of times gone by, it is still very much practiced in religious communities. My cousins all "courted" that way. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, it's much better than Life360.
But I will say that any restriction you can think up, there's a daughter I knew that grew up under than restriction and turned into a slut. It's life. Having kids is a gamble. The obsession is with trying to pin down outcomes that are ultimately random, and only mildly related to your actions as a parent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Monitoring your teenage daughter out of the house is lindy and normal.
Finding out from other parents what your teenage daughter has been up to is lindy and normal. Keeping an electronic leash on her is anything but.
That’s because electronic leashes are new technology, like air travel or dishwashers. If people in 100 AD had the ability to track their unmarried daughters electronically they would have done so.
But they could not, so they did not, so it is not lindy.
Correct, they used 24/7 chaperoning. One of these things is less invasive than the other.
Sometimes, as with laparoscopic surgery, newfangledness is an improvement.
There are societies with social classes which had 24/7 chaperoning. But certainly not many; it's far too expensive a luxury.
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