site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31877 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I agree with the broader gist of this, but a few things to pick on.

Broad swathes of the job market are largely closed to women. Now I don't mean literally closed, in fact most job classes actively discriminate in favour of women and judge them more leniently for poor performance. What I mean is for the 80% of women who will one day become mothers, many jobs are simply impossible to juggle with that: Virtually every job worked outdoors, finance and law, construction, academia, etc. Not to mention that some of these professions make a woman less attractive a mate to a man because men don't value women for their incomes, but prize femininity and future capacity to have children and fit them into their lives.

I'm not sure that's true of law and academia, with some caveats.

And I think the passage below proves too much:

One in nine adult American women are either a teacher or nurse. Expand the top job titles to say 25 and that accounts for ~50% of total female employment. Women crowd into these fields partly because of innate biology, but also because these professions -- being dominated by women -- cater to women's fertility preferences. And what are these jobs like? Poorly paid drudgery for the most part.


  • I thought nurses were paid quite well? They are, where I practice. Looking up American statistics, nursing pays 77k median and 82k average in the States; I would think this qualifies as pretty good.

  • Look at top job titles for both sexes and you’ll find that most work is poorly paid drudgery. It is true that on the male side you get jobs like finance and engineering that are male dominated and are high status/remunerated well, but this is by and large not the majority of work for either sex. I would wager at least – likely significantly more than – 50% of men work as some sort of tradesperson, construction worker, retail, transport, factory working, security, or farming. This even excludes the poorly paid white collar drudgery that you could count administration and most of “tech work” in (For what it was worth, I did check the statistics with at least one Anglosphere country.) (I suppose you could quibble with how poorly paid e.g. tradespeople are, given the meme of 100+k cushy plumber jobs etc, but my understanding is that on average they don’t outearn teachers – and they get to wreck their bodies for it!)

  • Conversely, looking at jobs that aren’t poorly paid drudgery, women don’t do that badly, especially given that the shift towards large-scale employment of women is only a few decades old. Younger doctors – as a complete cohort – are close to parity, women now outnumber men going to medical school, and female-dominated medical careers aren’t necessarily inferior in pay (and surgeons are predominantly male but also the life of a surgeon isn’t what most women or men want out of life); lawyers are at parity IIRC; accountants and auditors are now mostly women;…

  • Considering the above, I think the effect of women clustering into fewer types of jobs is less pronounced than you posit. Sex gaps still exist, of course, but sex gaps in favour of women are in as many professions as sex gaps for men now, and on the whole the female-dominant professions look only somewhat worse compared to the male-dominant ones, and that only because senior management and engineering are still male-slanted. (Like, would you rather be a psychologist/a physiotherapist or a bus driver/a butcher?)

On the other hand, I think it’s fairly well that women tend to cluster around the lower-paid strata of each industry, even if the sex gap amongst both the highly-paid and the lowly-paid isn’t quite a yawning gulf. Even if lawyers are at parity (or over parity) at this point, I’m pretty sure partners are still mostly men; and despite relative parity in the lower ranks of academia more men than women attempt to go for professorship, even if the actual tenure-track population is surprisingly close to parity at this point (I think 44-56 or something?). I think that’s probably partial evidence for biological impulses lifestyle decisions having an impact on employment, amongside other factors such as the female workforce being much newer to the game than the male one.

*edit to clarify ambiguous sentence

I'm not sure that's true of law and academia, with some caveats.

Nor finance. And I suspect that 'etc' is not very extensive.

Is finance at sex parity at this point? Colour me surprised.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats