35 ms·

This post is akin to someone pinching me and saying "hey, we live in polarized country!" The so called culture wars just seem to be escalating.

wffurr 5y ago
What part of this is in any way related to "culture war"?
- rayiner 5y ago
  Attitudes toward balancing risk versus convenience are cultural. Historically, the United States was pretty accepting of risky and risk creating activities. These days much less so. Attitudes toward driving are deeply cultural and affect many aspects of life. I just got back from Dallas. It’s extremely car-oriented, with a vast network of express lanes connecting far-flung suburbs. It also has low housing costs and tons of kids and kid-related activities. These are all related: wrangling one kid on a subway train is doable, much less so three. When you say “driving is bad” you’re touching on myriad aspects of how people have chosen to structure their live, including their reproductive choices.
  - screye 5y ago
    I know you meant the car centric anecdote to be an analogy and not the point itself, but I must nitpick. Public transportation/buses/subways are honestly quite convenient even if you are wrangling 3 kids around. The problem is that public transportation in the US at its best (NYC, Boston) is still a far-cry from actually 'good' public transportation systems. In many places kids as young as 11 are able to independently navigate the city without the parents help when public transportation is well built. If anything, car dependence means that kids take 5 more years (16) before they can be independant and parents will often struggle to meet diverging needs of 3 children when the car is a single bottleneck. Not-just-bikes does a great contrast between North America and the Netherlands to highlight how car-dependence can lead to struggles as a parent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98 Also, given that most upper middle class families usually have 3 cars (2 for parents work and 1 for a 16-yr old child), if public transport allows you to go from 3 -> 1, that's already a huge plus. It is not like families in European capitals do not own 5 seater hatchbacks. Public transport isn't against cars. It's is against car essentialism. If anything, moving people to public transport will improve the experience of those who need cars by declogging highways. Lastly, car essentialism, highways, the suburban dream and white flight were all distinctly post-WW2 phenomena and heavily subsidized to be that way. It is by no means a part of American culture. Most pre-ww2 cities such as the ones in the NE had perfectly acceptable public transportation for the time, which has since not been maintained as well. Even smaller cities such as Portsmouth NH and Portland ME are incredibly walkable, dense and public transport friendly. (rural culture is an entirely different point. If you own 10,000 acres of corn fields ofc you own a tractor or a pickup. No one is suggesting public transportation for them) Older American suburbs are actually far less cardependent than you'd think: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVeSiWTU74s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVeSiWTU74s) Dallas style urban design has existed for less than 70 years, and was specifically engineered by politicians and corporate interests rather than being a natural outcome of American cultural desires.
    - JamesBarney 5y ago
      Arguing that a phenomenon is less than 80 years old doesn't mean that it's not a part of American culture. And there is more than just public transportation keeping 11 year olds from navigating the city by public transit. We also have crime rates far higher than western Europe or Asia.
    - closeparen 5y ago
      Making public transit suitable for unaccompanied children would involve an unacceptable, probably illegal curtailment of the freedoms of mentally ill homeless people to do as they please in public spaces.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      The birth rate in transit friendly European cities has collapsed, so I’m not sure what that gets you. You make a good point about older children, but if you have 3 kids (American women in average want closer to 3 than to 2) you’re going to spend 15 years or so with at least one kid below 10. Of course you can have three kids in the city, but you can also do your laundry by hand. That doesn’t mean people want to go back to that way of living. And birth rates in cities were never particularly high in the modern era. Most people in America at the turn of the 20th century lived in rural areas. Also, a bunch of other stuff has changed since the pre-suburbanization era. Both parents typically work, and have to reconcile commuting to work with child care drop off and pickup (which isn’t necessarily located near transit). That said, I know someone with three young kids living in Chicago without a car. But she’s a champion, and most people aren’t as hard as her. Dallas-style cities make a lot of the ancillary aspects of parenting much easier.

wffurr 5y ago

What part of this is in any way related to "culture war"?

rayiner 5y ago
Attitudes toward balancing risk versus convenience are cultural. Historically, the United States was pretty accepting of risky and risk creating activities. These days much less so. Attitudes toward driving are deeply cultural and affect many aspects of life. I just got back from Dallas. It’s extremely car-oriented, with a vast network of express lanes connecting far-flung suburbs. It also has low housing costs and tons of kids and kid-related activities. These are all related: wrangling one kid on a subway train is doable, much less so three. When you say “driving is bad” you’re touching on myriad aspects of how people have chosen to structure their live, including their reproductive choices.
- screye 5y ago
  I know you meant the car centric anecdote to be an analogy and not the point itself, but I must nitpick. Public transportation/buses/subways are honestly quite convenient even if you are wrangling 3 kids around. The problem is that public transportation in the US at its best (NYC, Boston) is still a far-cry from actually 'good' public transportation systems. In many places kids as young as 11 are able to independently navigate the city without the parents help when public transportation is well built. If anything, car dependence means that kids take 5 more years (16) before they can be independant and parents will often struggle to meet diverging needs of 3 children when the car is a single bottleneck. Not-just-bikes does a great contrast between North America and the Netherlands to highlight how car-dependence can lead to struggles as a parent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98 Also, given that most upper middle class families usually have 3 cars (2 for parents work and 1 for a 16-yr old child), if public transport allows you to go from 3 -> 1, that's already a huge plus. It is not like families in European capitals do not own 5 seater hatchbacks. Public transport isn't against cars. It's is against car essentialism. If anything, moving people to public transport will improve the experience of those who need cars by declogging highways. Lastly, car essentialism, highways, the suburban dream and white flight were all distinctly post-WW2 phenomena and heavily subsidized to be that way. It is by no means a part of American culture. Most pre-ww2 cities such as the ones in the NE had perfectly acceptable public transportation for the time, which has since not been maintained as well. Even smaller cities such as Portsmouth NH and Portland ME are incredibly walkable, dense and public transport friendly. (rural culture is an entirely different point. If you own 10,000 acres of corn fields ofc you own a tractor or a pickup. No one is suggesting public transportation for them) Older American suburbs are actually far less cardependent than you'd think: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVeSiWTU74s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVeSiWTU74s) Dallas style urban design has existed for less than 70 years, and was specifically engineered by politicians and corporate interests rather than being a natural outcome of American cultural desires.
  - JamesBarney 5y ago
    Arguing that a phenomenon is less than 80 years old doesn't mean that it's not a part of American culture. And there is more than just public transportation keeping 11 year olds from navigating the city by public transit. We also have crime rates far higher than western Europe or Asia.
  - closeparen 5y ago
    Making public transit suitable for unaccompanied children would involve an unacceptable, probably illegal curtailment of the freedoms of mentally ill homeless people to do as they please in public spaces.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    The birth rate in transit friendly European cities has collapsed, so I’m not sure what that gets you. You make a good point about older children, but if you have 3 kids (American women in average want closer to 3 than to 2) you’re going to spend 15 years or so with at least one kid below 10. Of course you can have three kids in the city, but you can also do your laundry by hand. That doesn’t mean people want to go back to that way of living. And birth rates in cities were never particularly high in the modern era. Most people in America at the turn of the 20th century lived in rural areas. Also, a bunch of other stuff has changed since the pre-suburbanization era. Both parents typically work, and have to reconcile commuting to work with child care drop off and pickup (which isn’t necessarily located near transit). That said, I know someone with three young kids living in Chicago without a car. But she’s a champion, and most people aren’t as hard as her. Dallas-style cities make a lot of the ancillary aspects of parenting much easier.