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 -
No because the scale or agricultural bias of the society is largely irrelevant to the biological fact that adult males are a disposable resource.
A society or tribe can afford to lose 90 percent of its male population in a manner that it can't afford to lose 90 percent of it's women and children. The former can (and likely will) bounce back to its original population numbers in the space of a generation or two, the latter is likely doomed.
If you believe in a strong theory of group selection, but the Fisher's principle proves that an approximately 50-50 male female ratios will prevail. Something, empirically provable, even in humans. Empirically males aren't disposable biologically. I'm not sure why you think the Lord your God thinks males should be disposable; either, as an ex-Catholic.
I think you need to explain what you think you mean by "empirically" in this instance because I'm not making a "should" statement im making an "is" statements and the existance of selection pressures that favor parity between the sexes over time does not change the fact that adult males are essentially disposable.
Sure, but in Western society, both Western Christianity and even before in pagan Greece and Rome monogamy was strictly enforced and this makes men not so disposable. Especially in a plow based farming economy that relies on male labor and in many cases restricted females from working many jobs. Males are not disposable, they are essential. I discussed this with you before about how infanticide is almost always biased towards killing female infants and male children are almost always favored in most societies including present ones.
No it doesn't, because a widow can remarry. The reason we used men for hard, physical, and often dangerous labor is that we can afford to lose them.
Likewise, the historical reason that male children have been preferred is that until very recently only male children could inherit, and this bias was very much tied to their disposable nature. What does a man do? A man provides.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
OP claimed that "revolution and social upheaval are often worse for women than for men", which isn't really true, because 90% of the men are lost while the women aren't, for the reason you describe. Losing 90% of your men is worse for the men, and requires explanation. But the explanation is that men can reproduce more, and thus benefit from either socially outcompeting or killing other men more than women do.
No it's not, because men are disposable. That's my point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link