Med schools these days are weeding out more and more candidates that refuse to stand against some of the craziness of the times. I'm not just saying abortion here, but also gender "transition" for children and what have you. I don't know that I'd trust any sort of surveys of med school students right now on the subject because even if the survey is "anonymous", I don't know that many people have any trust that someone, somewhere isn't marking these things down somewhere, and after putting so much time, effort, and money towards getting that medical degree, the easy thing to do is pipe up with the "correct" answers. Furthermore, there's a bias against "red states" with new doctors to begin with, most being more rural, and this issue, I am sure, is an excuse.
As far as the "tradwife" thing. The piece starts brilliantly, but I think falls apart somewhat, especially since the author can't help but use some of the extreme stereotypes of the "movement". I'm Orthodox, and a stay-at-home mom to five. We lived in Chicago when the oldest two were little, and although it's not necessarily uncommon, there's a prevailing attitude that a mom staying at home (and even more a wife staying at home) is somehow a gold-digger and lazy or is wasting away her potential slaving away for the husband and kids. I'm not thrilled with the "tradwife" stuff, but there's got to be some way to teach that "less is more" in the way of material possessions and that simple and traditional are often the way that they are because in a large percentage of cases, they work.
Like you, I'm a bit hesitant to put too much stock in an anonymous survey. Self-report surveys are the less reliable of all social science research. The data as presented may very well support the argument that residents are less inclined to take a residency in a state where abortion is restricted. But abortion laws are the only factor being investigated. So, as you suggest, abortion may very well be only an excuse.
The tradwife piece does seem to lose focus about halfway through. Part of the problem (and its a problem with Filipovic's post as well) is the "social scientization" of contemporary moral discourse.
As I wrote to a friend recently about CRT:
While I think there's a good intuition buried in CRT, like the humanities in generally I think proponents depended too heavily on rhetoric borrowed from the social sciences. What they misunderstand in doing so is that their argument is only true (or better, valid and reliable, https://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/STATS/valid.html) under carefully defined conditions.
Outside these conditions it might have some usefulness but, again, only under empirically defined conditions. This is why, to your example, your criticism is spot on and also likely to raise CRT hackles! You're pointing out that whatever might be the truthfulness of their MORAL insight (that even otherwise good laws can and do have negative externalities for those on the margin), their EMPIRICAL rhetoric is appropriately open to criticism as we work to determine the conditions under which good laws have negative consequences for the socially marginal. And, just as important, we need to define (again empirically) who and under what conditions an individual is marginal.
So, yes, "being tough on crime" or the "war on crime" has harsher consequences for men as a percentage of the population than women. We can even raise the question about the justice of certain laws (say criminalizing drug use) result in a particular demographic (again men and specifically black men) being stigmatized and subsequently socially marginalized.
Anyway, you get the idea. A lot of careless thinking out there.
Med schools these days are weeding out more and more candidates that refuse to stand against some of the craziness of the times. I'm not just saying abortion here, but also gender "transition" for children and what have you. I don't know that I'd trust any sort of surveys of med school students right now on the subject because even if the survey is "anonymous", I don't know that many people have any trust that someone, somewhere isn't marking these things down somewhere, and after putting so much time, effort, and money towards getting that medical degree, the easy thing to do is pipe up with the "correct" answers. Furthermore, there's a bias against "red states" with new doctors to begin with, most being more rural, and this issue, I am sure, is an excuse.
As far as the "tradwife" thing. The piece starts brilliantly, but I think falls apart somewhat, especially since the author can't help but use some of the extreme stereotypes of the "movement". I'm Orthodox, and a stay-at-home mom to five. We lived in Chicago when the oldest two were little, and although it's not necessarily uncommon, there's a prevailing attitude that a mom staying at home (and even more a wife staying at home) is somehow a gold-digger and lazy or is wasting away her potential slaving away for the husband and kids. I'm not thrilled with the "tradwife" stuff, but there's got to be some way to teach that "less is more" in the way of material possessions and that simple and traditional are often the way that they are because in a large percentage of cases, they work.
Thank you Katja for your comment!
Like you, I'm a bit hesitant to put too much stock in an anonymous survey. Self-report surveys are the less reliable of all social science research. The data as presented may very well support the argument that residents are less inclined to take a residency in a state where abortion is restricted. But abortion laws are the only factor being investigated. So, as you suggest, abortion may very well be only an excuse.
The tradwife piece does seem to lose focus about halfway through. Part of the problem (and its a problem with Filipovic's post as well) is the "social scientization" of contemporary moral discourse.
As I wrote to a friend recently about CRT:
While I think there's a good intuition buried in CRT, like the humanities in generally I think proponents depended too heavily on rhetoric borrowed from the social sciences. What they misunderstand in doing so is that their argument is only true (or better, valid and reliable, https://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/STATS/valid.html) under carefully defined conditions.
Outside these conditions it might have some usefulness but, again, only under empirically defined conditions. This is why, to your example, your criticism is spot on and also likely to raise CRT hackles! You're pointing out that whatever might be the truthfulness of their MORAL insight (that even otherwise good laws can and do have negative externalities for those on the margin), their EMPIRICAL rhetoric is appropriately open to criticism as we work to determine the conditions under which good laws have negative consequences for the socially marginal. And, just as important, we need to define (again empirically) who and under what conditions an individual is marginal.
So, yes, "being tough on crime" or the "war on crime" has harsher consequences for men as a percentage of the population than women. We can even raise the question about the justice of certain laws (say criminalizing drug use) result in a particular demographic (again men and specifically black men) being stigmatized and subsequently socially marginalized.
Anyway, you get the idea. A lot of careless thinking out there.
Thanks again for your comment!
In Christ,
FrG