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 -
As with a lot of this stuff, there's a crypto-class element to it. The low-class crack addict who gave up the baby hours after birth is a "mother" while the upper-class woman who raised the child for eighteen years isn't.
I don't see the relevance of your comment (adoption of existing children that would have gone unwanted / uncared-for) to this thread (surrogacy, commissioning a child that would not have come into this world “naturally”).
Are you trying to argue that the “muh trad”-posters in this thread are only secretly jealous of the rich gay jews commissioning the existence of children — that their sentiments here actually stem from class envy and their waxing on “playing Taboo”[colloquialism] around the word
naturalismis just a front?Not so much the rich gay Jews but upper-class people in general. They feel perfectly comfortable talking about the gay Jew, it's the blond haired, blue-eyed, highly educated, heterosexual, married WASP that they have an inferiority complex toward. Particularly when he's a Democrat or Mitt Romney-type Republican.
Take George_E_Hale's original comment:
I'm not saying Hale's lying. But you can give a very misleading view of the world by selectively shining a light on some and not others. I don't know of statistics on those who use surrogates specifically, but given that nearly all are affluent I'd assume they have a lower rate of divorce and family instability than the general population. If you relied entirely on certain dissident right personalities, you'd get a very warped view of which classes have the most stable families in America. I don't think it's a coincidence that the opposition to assisted reproductive technology has grown at the same time that opposition to having kids out of wedlock has declined and at the same time that the GOP has increasingly become a political home for low-income, less-educated whites.
A few months ago, this story was going around Twitter about women using fertility treatments to conceive alone:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/27/doing-it-with-no-partner-easier-single-women-using-fertility-treatments
Twitter trads were saying muh brave new world, blah blah blah. Because that's their worldview, bad things come from affluent urban people in big cities working in universities and applying technology to the human body, doing all this evil unethical stuff because they stopped reading the Bible. While I thought "hey, wait a second, this idea of women raising children without fathers is not new. We're up to 40% of children born out of wedlock, disproportionately among the poor and non-white. Why aren't you talking about that?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Speak plainly please, what are you suggesting here?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link