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 -
Sweden? The TFR was pushed up above 2.1 in the 80-90s after some reforms.
The swing up started too early to just be due to the boomers and our baby boom was kind of tiny.
There might be other explanations as well such as people who delayed childbirth finally got around to it (maybe due to better conditions?), which then didn't translate to sustained higher rates as the fertility then went down again.
Thanks. Can you go into more depth about how this can be traced to feminism/women’s equality? AFAIK in the 90’s and early 2000’s economic conditions pushed the US TFR above replacement but this was mostly not feminism; social conservatives(including non-white ones) found it easier to do the things they wanted to do anyways because the economy allowed it and progressives got a lot more moderate.
Well, I can't say for sure but it followed, with some lag, a series of extensive reforms in regards to parental leave, equality in the work place, state funded day care and so on, that at least seemed to boost female labour force participation.
It didn't follow immediately after these reforms, to the extent I'm aware, but something did boost Swedish tfr compared to nearby comparable countries.
It should be said that it also somewhat coincided with an economic boom and it's end somewhat coincided with the severe recession that followed. The general boom in the 80s happened in other comparable places as well though and they didn't experience nearly as big a fertility premium, and after the recession ended Swedish fertility largely rebounded to a sustained higher level at ~1.9, which of course is below replacement but still decent and sustainable in the medium term.
All this happened well before any large scale migration of higher fertility groups (that actually aren't that fertile once they get here it turns out).
Lastly, I don't think further efforts to boost equality will have much impact on fertility, I think other issues are far more important.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link