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 -
Um yes and no. As others have pointed out, the "minimum deal" offered to both sexes is that you die in infancy or end up as "a product of human conception" in a miscarriage or abortion. (Lord do I despise that that particular euphemism)
That said I do think you are gesturing towards something real, and I find it indicative of just how thoroughly left-wing post-modernist nonsense has poisoned the intellectual discourse, that this is in anyway controversial. Through both accident of biology and explicit design, society has always expected more from men than it has from women. Why? because it is a simple biological fact that adult males are expendable. A tribe/society that loses 3 quarters of it's adult male population, can readily bounce back inside a generation so long as it's women and children remain safe and fed. Meanwhile a tribe that loses 3 quarters of it's women and children in a single go will find itself significantly diminished (if not on the verge of extinction) for centuries to come. Cultures evolve accordingly.
Thus we arrive at the nagging question at the heart of every man's existence; "what value am I bringing to the table?", "what is it that makes my continued presence anything other than an unconscionable waste of protein, oxygen, and other people's attention?"
The conservative answer to the above questions is simple. What does a man do Walter? A man provides. Chris Rock frames it a bit differently but he is illustrating the same fundamental (and I would argue universal) truth. A man's life does not belong to him, it belongs to God, it belongs to his family, it belongs to his friends, and to his tribe. No man is an island. From womb to tomb we are bound to others.
This of course flies in the face of the secular liberal gospel of "I am my own" and I think this is where a lot of the confusion and observed cognitive dissonance stems from. Much like the feminists who whinge about "where have all the good men gone" we have a generation of men raised by women who are trying to invoke rights and privileges without taking up the associated responsibilities.
If we remove the "and children" part of this, because we're talking about the relative value of men and women, not children, this isn't true at all. The growth of tribes was limited by food far more than the number of women. Consider, as you stated, a tribe that lost 3/4 of its women. Recovering to its previous population only needs each remaining woman to give birth three times. Easily done within a few years as long as you have enough food for all of them. Compared to the time it takes for a child to grow to productive age and the resources needed in that time, the time a woman needs between births is insignificant.
If you want to grow a tribe quickly, territory and the labor needed to work it are really all that matter. Under that framing, you could conclude that men are more valuable for growth, as they have a greater labor output and can defend territory!
Back to the question of why men are considered expendable: It's simply because men, being generally stronger, are more useful in war. They're the ones you want on the battlefield (pre-modernity). Naturally, culture adapts to make this palatable by adopting an attitude of male expendability. It's not that they are expendable, it's that we need to consider them expendable because we need to be willing to expend them in war.
You're conflating maximum sustainable population with transitory growth rate, these are two very different things.
I'm arguing that the maximum sustainable population, which does not depend on preserving women, is the only relevant factor. The rate at which you can produce babies doesn't matter much because it takes so long for them to grow.
Most tribes could produce more babies than they can support within a few years, regardless of losing 3/4 of their women. Unless you think 5-year olds can contribute to the defense of territory, the slight delay in baby production caused by a loss of women doesn't matter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link