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 -
Nice book review.
I too wonder why prostitution or sex tourism is still so shunned. It's clear why the far left and far right hate it: the Fascist-Feminist Synthesis holds that women have no agency in such a situation, and that they must be protected from their own decision to offer themselves to beastly men.
But why does the center go along with this still? Residual Puritanism might explain some part, but I doubt it's the whole answer.
The same cast of Baptists and Bootleggers hates prostitution and sex tourism, and related things like porn and men traveling for geographical dating arbitrage. The Baptists are social conservatives who hate those things for the usual reasons; the Bootleggers are women in general who hate those things because more sexual outlets for men means less leverage and bargaining power for women. There is tremendous compass unity when it comes to blaming men for women’s coffee decisions.
Unlike drugs where the suppliers are blamed more than the consumers of drugs, the consumers of sex (men) receive all of the blame while the suppliers of sex (women) are absolved. You fucking donkey vs. oh dear, oh dear, gorgeous. The exploitation narrative is an alibi for Western women to signal and protect their Wonderfulness and cover-up their own self-interest, one that Just so Happens to paint men as villains and women the victims. Sex Work is Real Work and sex workers are Stunning, Brave, and Empowered victims of capitalist, patriarchal societies that oppress and objectify women; men who use prostitutes or consume pornography are disgusting perverts and exploiters of women just trying to make ends meet.
Everyone who’s not an incel or misogynist knows women don’t care about height or wealth, and that hypergamy is a redpill myth. So if Western men find greater dating success by traveling, it must be because they’re exploiting foreign women or doing something else nefarious. The modal secular Western woman hates sexual/romantic offshoring—the idea that she could be a Replaceable commodity in the global marketplace, that she might have to compete with foreign women for Western men—lest she has to work on keeping herself thin and making herself pleasant to be around. After all, she’s not some sort of pathetic Pick Me with internalized misogyny.
It's bad enough that some unattractive Western men cheat their rightfully deserved fates in eternal sexual/romantic purgatory by going abroad, leaving fewer simps, orbiters, and monkey-dancers for Western women. Ugh, gross. What if a substantial number of attractive men start doing so, as well? "Are we dating the same man?" Facebook groups would need to expand to be global in scope. A city-level problem turns into a planetary one; you're already struggling with the Penguin and then one day Doomsday shows up.
In general, it appears many Western women have a haunting fear that somewhere, a Western man might be happy without it actively benefitting Western women. Sometimes that somewhere is right in front of them. Hence the occasional, amusing thread in FIRE- or AITA-adjacent subreddits to the tune of “Sold my company and happily fatFIRE’d, but now my wife wants me to get a job—what do I do?” or “My husband retired and now I resent him, AITA?” where she then goes on to talk about him like Tony Soprano talking about his son.
Western women like to portray foreign women who date or prostitute themselves to Western men as the victims of poverty and exploitation, that women in regions such as Southeast Asia or Latin America have no other choice if they want to put food on the table or have a roof over their heads. It certainly couldn’t be that, for the most part, such women prostitute themselves primarily for the same reasons Western women do, the same reasons Instathots flyout to Dubai to serve as human toilets: buy the latest phone, get their nails done, buy more makeup, expand their shoe collection, buy more expensive clothes, travel to exotic places and take photos of themselves. And sure, it makes paying rent and buying food easier too because money is fungible. In any case, spreading one’s legs is easier and faster than slowly saving up from working a 9-5 job like some regular schmuck. Then when she's ready to settle down after having had her fun and marry a Western or local man, she can just pretend she was an angel all along.
When it to comes to the topic of foreign prostitution, it’s like the sudden view of Western women that the default lifestyle of regions of the world such as Southeast Asia is to live in mudshacks or underground tunnels, akin to the Vietcong in a ‘Nam war movie. If foreign women are as desperate and destitute as Western women claim, then shouldn’t the Western men who date or use the services of foreign women be praised for stimulating the local economy and lifting women out of poverty? Or maybe Western men should just Be Decent People and give foreign (and Western) women money for free.
Plus, what happens to foreign men in such supposedly destitute regions? Do they just go, “guess I’ll die” since they don’t have quite the same prostitution options as women do? I suppose one could tack on an epicycle by saying: Due to lingering patriarchal oppression from Western colonization and cultural imperialism, foreign women don’t have nearly the same opportunities as their countrymen do, thus have no choice but to do sex work.
You mentioned once that you have many female relatives who waited until marriage for sex. Given that this is practically unheard of among the native Angloid population, you must be a foreigner, but from where? The Balkans? South Asia?
What does that have anything to do with his arguments?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You do realize sex workers are capable of having relationships while also being sex workers, right?
In all seriousness, this doesn't work out. I know a guy who married a prostitute made good (not as a client, they met elsewhere). The problem with marrying someone who has sex for money is that the mercenary attitude to sex tends to leak into their relationships. She ended up treating the guy as a sort of long-term john, cheating on him when she wanted more spending money or when his salary was too low for her liking. Also, of course, all the original problems that led her to prostitution were still there: awful criminal family, drugs, low motivation etc. The guy was far from perfect but this isn't a dynamic you want.
I read an interview once with a prostitute who also had a boyfriend. She said she loved him very much, but it caused problems all around. When she was with him she was tired from having sex in her job and just wanted to take a break. When she went back to work, she felt like she was cheating on her boyfriend. Not sure if she was telling her boyfriend the truth about her job, but it caused problems all around.
More options
Context Copy link
That wording makes it sound like a relationship with an ex-sex-worker, not a current sex-worker. Or at least the guy thought they were no longer a sex-worker and turned out to be wrong about that.
If the guy believed being "good" requires not being a sex worker, then I can see how the relationship went poorly.
"Made good" is a turn of phrase. He married her. They were (supposed to be) in a committed, monogamous relationship for several years. There was some tension there, it's true, but he also did his level best to get her back on her feet and help her build the financial independence and social life she'd never been able to achieve on her own.
I think you have a very idealised view of 'sex workers'. This particular girl wasn't a free spirit being imprisoned by her awful sex-negative husband, she was a sweet, lonely girl who lacked the innate sense of self to turn down anything that made her feel good in the moment. She had been doing this since she left school, and it had left her physically broken and worn out in certain important ways. The cosmetic alterations she got, or had been encouraged to get by her pimp, had long term consequences that ruined her health. I can't say for sure, but I think she realised that she was rapidly running out of road, tried to escape, and kept getting dragged back in by drug addiction, criminal family members and chronically low time-preference.
More options
Context Copy link
That's a rather strange reading of what he said. Nowhere in there was any mention of her returning to prostitution.
You think she'd be showing him undying loyalty otherwise?
How did you interpret
then?
No, but believing your partner is fundamentally a bad person sounds like a poor basis for a trusting relationship.
That she slept with other men, not because she returned to prostitution, but as some sort of act of petty revenge, or behavioral conditioning on her husband.
You can believe someone did something bad in the past, but aren't fundamentally bad people. With prostitution in particular it's easy to believe the person was victimized into it, but when they're no longer doing it, it's still accurate to describe it as being "made good".
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
Does the far left hate it? Maybe I just don't have any exposure to the group you're calling "the far left". I understand it's not a normie view, but I somewhat often see pro-sex-worker sentiment in places as diverse as the leftist Tumblrs I follow, my IRL friends' Facebook posts, and Ars Technica comments (mostly when in comes up in the context of anti-sex-worker laws like FOSTA-SESTA).
The leftist take is generally that the female prostitutes are either empowered women or hopeless victims, and that the Johns should all burn in Hell. Some feminists prioritize the empowerment of women while mostly ignoring Johns (they still think they should probably burn in Hell), while other feminists think the presence of Johns is so terrible that the entire industry needs to be incinerated. Sometimes one or the other group will dominate. Other times there'll be compromises like in Sweden where prostitution is legal for women to sell, but illegal for men to buy. It's truly a shining model of feminist equality.
More options
Context Copy link
To the extent that I'm familiar with this political issue, I'd argue that the 'far left' in this case does claim to be pro-sex-worker in the sense that they advocate or at least claim to advocate for the protection of their rights as workers and see them as victims of an exploitative trade to be rescued. They see the entire industry as one manifestation of the horrors of late-stage capitalism and advocate for its eventual abolition.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, there may be a platonic ideal of non-exploitative prostitution, but that’s certainly not what it looks like in practice. Centrists care more about that than they do lofty ideals.
There's plenty of non-exploitative prostitution where the woman comes in as an independent provider, works whenever she feels like it, and stops of her own accord at some point. There might be some abuse on the sides, but that'd be far more easily stopped with legalization + regulation than attempting total bans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The elephant in the room is the association in the minds of many of prostitution with sex slavery. This is a perspective that people on the left, right and center share to a degree. With sex tourism an angle might be that some prostitution practices in third world might include coercion or underaged victims.
There are other reasons people have to dislike prostitution, but that is the biggest one.
Those include seeing it as a degrading practice for the people who engage it. For those of more conservative viewpoint, including centrists, seeing prostitution as having a negative influence on society which would be better off if people are having sex within their monogamous relationships and marriage.
It's a matter of supply and demand. No matter how much serious effort is made to normalize 'sex work', there will never be enough voluntary prostitutes among the native population of well-off Western countries to satisfy local demand. Prostitution and human trafficking necessarily go hand in hand.
More options
Context Copy link
I would argue that it should be in the interest of anyone who dislikes sex slavery to have legalized (and somewhat regulated) prostitution instead. In my opinion, the goal would be to treat sex work similar to tobacco. Sure, some people might smuggle in tobacco to avoid paying taxes, and some of the smugglers might rely on slave labor to increase their margin, but the average consumer of cigarettes or vapes is not going to go to the darknet to save a few bucks.
By contrast, there will always be some demand for sex work, and someone will be ready to supply it at a premium. Sometimes, this will be escorts, but sometimes it will be organized crime, which is typically bad for the sex workers.
Also, some men looking for sex behave quite immoral (and sometimes outright criminal) to get it. I think that is jurisdictions where sex as a commodity exists, they are at least somewhat less likely to spin an elaborate web of lies to get a woman to fall in love with them. (I am less sure about rape, likely for some men violent rape or roofies are a kink in itself, and they would still do it if they could just pay for sex instead.)
Regarding coercion, I think that all wage labor is at least somewhat coercive in a world without a solid UBI. Shelter and food cost money, and the labor market exploits that fact. I don't think that giving someone the option of earning their rent fucking people they would not otherwise fuck instead of flipping burgers for eight hours a day is a-ok. Obviously, more direct coercion is not okay.
Also, I think that a lot of relationships involve both sex and the transfer of material goods and can thus be seen at least as somewhat transactional. For one thing, rich people (especially men) are often able to attract partners who are physically hotter than they are, which clearly suggests that expected future material benefits play a role in evaluating partners. Nobody is talking about criminalizing that.
By this reasoning pretty much everyone should be in favor of legalized-but-regulated rape too. (Or legalized, regulated, bank robbery.)
Say what?
So your position is that prostitution always implies sex slavery? Someone tell Aella that she self-enslaved when she worked as an escort.
Also, some libertarians might consider taxes legalized, regulated robberies, and yet taxes are quite instrumental in discouraging the unregulated kind.
I will grant you that likely, there are two effects from legalization which work in opposite direction. The one is the one I described, where the legal goods replace the illegal ones. The other is that legalization creates additional demand, and a part of that which will be filled by illegal channels. Think weed, once you legalize medical marijuana, sorting out which joints are legal and which ones are not becomes difficult.
However, in the case of prostitution, this would be solved easily enough. Issue government IDs for prostitutes and decriminalize only sex for pay with registered prostitutes, while keeping the Johns on the hook for rape if they fuck someone without such ID who was coerced by organized crime.
I think he stated his position pretty clearly - it's the same one you outlined later about it being hard to sort out which goods are legal, and which ones are illegal. An example of any particular prostitute doing it willingly is irrelevant here.
Also Aella is hardly the most fortunate example for your case. She might not have a knife on her throat, but a common argument for the exploitation in prostitution, is that it's taking advantage of people who were messed up by rape and/or other forms of sexual assault, and I seem to remember her saying directly that it's what happened to her. If you get your "willing" prostitutes by raping them first, I don't know if you can call them "not-exploited".
There's a number of countries that have legal prostitution, and I don't think either of them decided to have such a restrictive system, and I don't think you will ever have one. With the incentive structure stemming from legal prostitution, you will always have a tonne of money backing the "legal, and not very tightly controlled" position.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I observe those things are called "work" and "taxes", respectively.
Damn, what do you do for a living?
I can't snap my fingers and get everything my heart desires without having to work for it; rather, if I don't work, I don't eat, and I die.
In that sense, I am raped by reality.
If being mugged by reality turns a liberal into a conservative, what does being raped by reality do?
Anyway, if you want to get all metaphysical about it, I'd say the state of being raped is less about not getting what you want, and more about someone else taking something from you against your will. That something also probably needs to be very intimate, since mere material deprivation would fall under the above-mentioned being mugged.
You’re not being self-centered enough.
Start from the initial condition that everything that prevents you from getting whatever you want, including the environment around you, is an adversary with intent; further, assume not getting everything you want is an injury.
In that sense I am coerced to labor for what I want, thus reality ‘rapes’ me.
(This is why all sex in a relationship, even when the weaker initiates, is rape in the eyes of people who unironically believe the above, as they see themselves as weaker than their partner yet won’t be provided resources unless they put out; sex work being real work naturally follows from this perspective, but it’s not the only perspective that implies it.)
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
Article: There are ten US states where more than a quarter of all cigarettes consumed are smuggled. In New York, more than half of all cigarettes are smuggled, so "the average consumer of cigarettes" does "go to the darknet to save a few bucks" (tax of 4.35 $/pack, plus another 1.5 $/pack in New York City).
I think I also read an article a while ago about how cigarette smuggling is a major business in Europe (maybe in Sweden or Poland).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like there'd still be a lot of pushback to sex tourism in a relatively wealthy country like Japan or South Korea or Taiwan, which would presumably be at the same level of concern in regards to "sex slavery". With the contempt I've seen, it seems more like an ugly guy in the US shouldn't be able to just go to another country to have sex, as that's cheating!
Few people who are in a decent sexual relationship visit prostitutes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Women have no agency" may be fringe, but "the poor have no agency" is fairly mainstream. (I would reckon that acceptance of sugardaddying and luxury escorts is far higher.) With regards to third-worlders, you could say the Kiplingpill was never actually fully removed from the diet.
That's an interesting perspective. Sure, we don't let poor people sell their own kidneys, but we certainly let them do a ton of other degrading or dangerous stuff, like be garbage collectors or work in coal mines. I haven't noticed the acceptance of sugardaddying and luxury escorts to be higher, and I'm highly certain it's not far higher.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe no agency might be fringe. But women having lower agency is not fringe but mainstream and not only far left and far right. Just not outright stated by some of the adherents of this since they might still want women to have equal influence or don't mind even women being overepresented in colleges.
It is still mainstream to think that women should be especially protected and are easier to exploit, can more easily go along with what is harmful for them, are more passive, defer decisions to others, and so on.
I suppose what you bluntly mean is that it's mainstream to assume that it's easy to lure (some) young girls into prostitution through empty promises of romance and commitment?
Not that specifically, although it can be a part of it and more that they are more passive and a greater subset of women can be pushed around by the more aggressive men, or even more aggressive women than would apply to equal % of men. Of course as we see with only fans, it would be inaccurate to assume that any woman that sells sex is necessarily coerced into it. And there are women who benefit from expectation of lower agency and lower responsibility where it is assumed that they aren't responsible for their own choices.
Low agency I would see it to be about taking ownership of one's own choices and taking an active role in directing one's life and one's affairs. It is about being responsible. Women do this less. Which isn't just about only vulnerability since higher agency men often take care of important things for the sake of their wives.
The feminist side sorta acknowledges this low agency view when it comes to the "protect vulnerable women", but blames the patriarchy and opposes it in some cases, and also forgets the negative side of female behavior when it comes to their quest to give more positions to women, including above and beyond their 50% share of population.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If some 20-year-old throws herself at a 40 year old centrist, he will go for it. Yet if you ask him about someone else, he will spout some “it’s creepy, that poor women” conformist sludge. Yet he is also aware of the knock-down “consenting adults, no harm done, women have agency” liberal argument. So he is unable to justify his middle position either in practice or in theory. It just looks like he’s socially pressured by middle aged women into parroting a feeling he doesn’t share or agree with.
Yeah, there's definitely a lot of that going on. "Age gap" discussions have always been farcical. It's OK for a 20 year old woman to take a loan or a job from a 60 year old man, but not to have sex with him? The double-standard is extremely obvious, and it's clear that most "age gap" stuff is just older women being angry at older men not finding them attractive as they once did.
I'd go as far as to say that ~90% of the angry online/feminist discourse regarding the age gap is driven by urban middle-class PMC single women aged 31-33 expecting in vain urban middle-class well-paid high-status PMC single men aged 34-37 to marry them.
More options
Context Copy link
For most normal human beings, sex is tied up with emotion in such a way that these other things are not.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. Although I admit, the age gap argument is the easiest to make, the one where the centrist will most readily concede. But imo it is fully generalizable to most issues involving women having sex : prostitution, porn, workplace sexual harassment, ‘college party culture’/drunk consent. Here again, the centrist is torn. He says one thing (we must protect women), but can justify another (women have agency). Part of his confusion comes from the fact that, as you mention, feminists/progressives and reactionaries are on the same side (women have no agency), so his usual ideological points of reference are all over the place and useless.
More options
Context Copy link
While this may be true, my only exposure to the "age gap" discourse is 40-something women posting on Tumblr about how the teens/20-somethings policing age gaps are talking nonsense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not quite.
When you view women through the standard "human fleshlight, plus domestic labor" lens (and the far-left and far-right agree that this is the best a woman can do in life; they just differ slightly in their approach to making that state of nature men's problem), prostitution and sex tourism offer a far superior product to domestic women.
Normally, to get a human fleshlight you have to marry it and you're stuck with it for the rest of your life; prostitution offers a massive variety and it's by the hour. Southeast Asia is considered the best place for prostitution simply because there's no minimum (w)age for prostitutes there.
Gynosupremacists are simply making sure there's no competition for domestic women, so they can get a higher price for their assets ('why buy the cow' and all that). Casting aspersions about the safety and morality of the competitor's products is a classic sales tactic.
The exact spear counterpart to this is illegal immigration; foreign men work harder and expect less than domestic men, so it's obvious why the femcels love them.
Because those sales tactics work.
There's a lot of horseshoe in gender discussions when it comes to the far left and far right, but I'm not sure the far left would go that far. Care to elaborate a bit?
I definitely agree there's a ton of this going on. I'd say "sex cartel" concerns account for roughly 80% of the discussion around prostitution, although nobody would admit it obviously.
I think the main difference between the far-left and far-right is how they deal with the biological ground truth that "women are useless, men are disposable".
The far-left leans a lot more into policies emphasizing the disposability of men (and that men exist to serve women, "all are equal but men are more equal than others", #itsHerTurn) while encouraging women to make sacrifices for some grand social project ("a good woman is independent and dominates men", "criminals and vagrants can't help it", and the like). Men are not permitted dignity in this society and their masculinity is taken for granted; that is why these societies tend to be communist (where any masculinity-driven private improvement belongs to your neighbors).
The far-right leans a lot more into policies emphasizing the uselessness of women (and that women exist to serve men, "man is head of the household", etc.) while encouraging men to make sacrifices for some grand social project ("women and children first", wars on neighboring societies/white feather effects, 996, and the like). Women are not permitted dignity in this society and their femininity is taken for granted; that is why these societies tend to be [what people actually mean when they say] fascist (where any femininity-driven public improvement is a waste of valuable resources).
This doesn't necessarily mean that these factions are going to state this openly (it's just relying on instinctive human behavior; anyone not following their instincts is naturally suspect), but it is why far-leftism and far-rightism naturally attract women and men (respectively) who are worth less. By contrast, centrist men and centrist women aren't just running solely on instinct (for a variety of reasons) and tend to hold views that are a mess of sloppy, logically-inconsistent compromise between those extremes.
Thanks for the clarification. I broadly agree with this.
More options
Context Copy link
I suppose what you actually mean is closer to "women are perishable, men are disposable"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are of course leaving out all the benefits of traditional marriage which are not ‘access to sex on demand’.
What other benefits? Aside from legal protections around having children, there's little else that marriage offers to men that a close male friend couldn't also provide, oftentimes at higher quality. And there's the issue of "marriage" and "close male friends" are often substitutes, i.e. men often lose their male support groups when they get married either due to time constraints or from the woman covertly sabotaging things (e.g. controlling the social schedule and deprioritizing them).
Access to your own children, full time or near full time companionship, having two adults in the house, and all the little things that tend to be improved downstream of having a woman in the house. Most people prefer a woman’s touch for their dwelling, and most men cannot replicate it for themselves.
If you’re saying ‘well men don’t need to marry for all that’- you’re talking about cohabitation, not prostitution. Those are meaningfully different arrangements.
I think this really varies from person to person. I've seen too many single guy friends get married, and then when I visit their home, it's totally dominated by their wife's style. Frilly cute things everywhere, and not a single visible trace of the stuff the guy used to like (or maybe it's hidden away in a single room, the mancave). The women in a modern western marriage just have so much power they can take over the house if they want to. One of the benefits (for the man) of prostitution is he can still get sex very conveniently but allso still have his own living space just the way he likes it. Including being roommates with a close male friend if that's what he wants, which most married women wouldn't tolerate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's possible that more of the benefits accrue to society in general than to the specific man, in a way that benefits defectors as long as society as a whole doesn't unravel (as it has been lately). For instance, having an involved father is a benefit to a boy and young man, as part of living in the kind of society where marriage is the norm.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hang on, the far-right want women pumping out children and raising them patriotically as good citizens of the nation. Hitler was very big on natalism, the whole point of the war was to acquire more land and increase the number of Germans in the world. The far left were among the first to conceive of birth strikes and were generally bearish on natalism.
Too much horseshoe, not enough 'different things are different'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link