Crémieux Profile picture
Aug 23, 2023 17 tweets 6 min read Read on X
One of the best pieces every published in The Atlantic is this 97-year-old piece by "A Woman Resident in Russia".

In it, she described the chaos that resulted when Communists destroyed the institution of marriage.

Let's read about what happened when Soviets ruined marriage🧵
"To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did."

Russia boasted it had no illegitimate children. True. They eliminated the "illegitimate" category. Image
"Men took to changing wives" and 300,000 abandoned children resulted. Image
"It was not... unusual... for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions." Image
"I recall another victim of the breakdown of families ties.... She was divorced by her husband after their first child was born. He then married another woman, had a child by her, deserted both, and returned to his first wife, by whom he had a second child." Image
Not all women suffered from the breakdown. Some exploited it.

"Women of light behavior" would blackmail men into paying alimony. Image
Some men found ways to profit from this as well.

They would trick a woman into marriage, use her as an employee on the farm, and then divorce her when the season was through. Image
It wasn't just rural areas that buckled under the effects of marriage dissolution.

One group of students became indignant at accusations of licentiousness and declared that having sex was the only real amusement left, so they deserved free abortions. Image
Some chapters of the League of Communist Youth decried people who wouldn't do hook-ups and even organized circles to encourage free loving. Image
The Communists were ideologically committed to the idea that the state should rear the children.

This proved too expensive, so this "annoying test of Communist theories" could be given a failing grade. Image
The debates over a new, free-love abiding law took place in the Tsar's throneroom, with its gilded walls and vaulted ceilings, and the throne, replaced with a simple wooden platform. Image
The opposition to the law suggested it would abolish marriage, destroy the family, legalize polygamy, and ruin the peasantry.

Trotsky and Soltz offered contradictory explanations for their positions. Image
Smidovich and Kollontai provided their own opinions as well.

Kollontai wanted a social insurance scheme, like a sovereign fund for abandoned kids. Incidentally, she was the ambassador to Norway. Image
"If opinion on the proposed law is divided in the cities, the feeling in the villages, where eighty per cent of the Russians live, is overwhelmingly against it."

Here's what one peasant spokesman had to say: Image
"The... circulation of revolutionary ideas on the desirability of abolishing the family has not... eliminated old-fashioned passions of love and jealousy."

"Even Communist women have been known to commit suicide because their husbands' attentions were diverted elsewhere." Image
The Soviets eventually did crack down. Free love could not last, and this brief experiment in it led them to abandon attempts to bring it about.

The Communists simply couldn't uproot human nature.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Crémieux

Crémieux Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @cremieuxrecueil

Nov 22
The First Law of Behavioral Genetics holds that all things are somewhat heritable, but a new adoption study suggests some exceptions, and they're a doozy.

You know what's not heritable? Belief in Genetic Determinism.Image
This is a funny result at first blush, but I'm not so sure what to think of it.

The authors suggested that their measures were reliable, and so the limited systematic within- and between-family variance wasn't due to unreliability, but I'm not so sure.
The reliability measures were not test-retest reliability, and test-retest and internal reliability measures do not necessarily agree.

As an example, the U.K. Biobank's cognitive test has a moderate-to-high internal reliability and a low test-retest reliability.
Read 8 tweets
Nov 22
Can you improve student outcomes by promoting growth mindsets?

Authors with financial conflicts of interest—for example, with growth mindset books or offering corporate trainings—publish studies that say 'YES!'

Authors without financial incentives to say 'yes'... they say 'no'. Image
Now here's a twist:

In unpublished studies done by financially conflicted and non-conflicted authors, the effect sizes aren't distinguishable and they're consistently minor.

The financially conflicted are aware of the fact that growth mindset doesn't work, they just lie. Image
They lie by omission, to be clear, and this is definitely their fault, not the fault of journal editors who won't publish nulls.

Why? Because these authors would speak up against their financial interest if they were honest.
Read 4 tweets
Nov 22
In the distant past of the 1970s, audit studies—where you send in fake applications to check differences in callback rates—used to show evidence of a preference for males in different jobs (OR > 1).

Not so much anymore🧵 Image
Each point on that plot is the result of a different study. This is a large meta-analysis of audit studies, with a lot of different effect sizes to choose from.

For example, we can look across jobs that are masculine, feminine, or not sex-typed and we get different results: Image
In the gender-balanced and male-typed jobs, bias is small, but in jobs that are feminine, it seems like women are preferred to men.

Comparing these coefficients over time, the bias in favor of males never really was significant, and now what remains is a pro-female bias: Image
Read 9 tweets
Nov 21
Would you like to hear an Arab fairy tale?

This is the story of the Fisherman and the Genie.

The tale begins with a poor, older fisherman who casts his next exactly four times each day. Image
First, he catches a dead donkey.

Then, he pulls up a pitcher full of dirt. And on his third cast, he drags up pottery and some glass.

It's a frustrating day. Image
On the day's last catch, the fisherman calls upon G-d to provide him with luck, and he casts his net.

Out it goes, and up comes... a copper jar! It's emblazoned with the Seal of Solomon (you know, basically a Star of David), and the fisherman is delighted because he can sell it. Image
Read 40 tweets
Nov 19
There is a widespread myth that the obesity epidemic started in or around 1980.

This is based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between body fat percentage and BMI, which is used to classify someone as "obese".

🧵 Image
You can see this nonlinearity replicate in numerous contexts.

For example here it is in the Heritage Family Study. Image
The distribution of BMIs shifts right as bodyfat percentages increase across the distribution, but the mean and variance increase faster than body fatness does due to that nonlinearity, which shows up because it's part of how BMIs are constructed. Image
Read 17 tweets
Nov 19
Attempts to explain the obesity epidemic through contamination, toxins, conspiracies, seed oils, sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, lithium, or whatever else always strike me as annoying.

What we must explain is an increase of ~200-350 calories a day in energy balance. That's all.Image
Many papers have noted this.

They've produced helpful diagrams like: Image
And like this, showing that what must be explained is a small, daily surplus of calories: Image
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(