by Massimo Pigliucci
* Yet another thing that is profoundly and disturbingly wrong with Texas.
* Republicans redefine rape, making a distinction between normal rape and forcible rape. Classy.
* Play the to lie or not to lie game, and find out which ethical philosophy fits you.
* Josh Rosenau's more in-depth take on Harris (and Coyne). A scientific worldview is not the same as doing science.
* My review of Harris' book, The Moral Landscape, is out in eSkeptic (and soon in Skeptic magazine).
* Abortion does not increase mental health risk, but having babies does. So mental health is not a good argument for either.
* Sarah Palin is really a Russian spy. Here is proof.
* Philosophy to help shape a cast of ethical warriors? Sounds like Plato is back...
* One more analysis of Olbermann's departure, and it is pretty much on target, I think.
* My Amazon review of Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender." A must read for those interested in nature-nurture. Stay tuned, she will soon be a guest on the Rationally Speaking podcast.
* Should victims have a say in sentencing criminals? An Aristotelian approach.
* Science magazine's Hall of Fame chart topped by a philosopher: Bertrand Russell!
* Five Ayn Rand fans on a train... (Remember to rollover with the cursor.)
* Many atheists are in love with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Should they be?
* The new Rationally Speaking podcast is out! Historian Tim Alborn on the meaning of anniversaries.
"It is nowadays commonly accepted knowledge that there are profound innate differences between genders. I'm not talking about the obvious anatomical ones, but about the allegedly (radically) different ways in which male and female brains work."
ReplyDeleteReplace "brains" with "minds" and you're talking about the entire history of humanity.
"When prominent figures -- like former Harvard President Larry Summers -- get in trouble for talking about behavioral gender differences as if they were established facts backed by the power of evolutionary and neuro-biology, a chorus of defenders rises up to decry political correctness and to present the Summers of the day as a valiant fighter for rationality in the face of relativism and demagoguery."
That's because he actually is a valiant fighter for rationality in the face of relativism. While postmodern bullshit doesn't reign supreme in everyday life, it dominates much of the academic world, including the humanities. In departments of the humanities, the ridiculous view that sex differences are "socially constructed" is actually the dogma.
--
On a different note, your review of Harris's book isn't up for display yet.
Ritchie,
ReplyDeletethe link to the review of Harris' book is now fixed.
As for Fine's book, it has nothing to do with postmodern relativism. It is an accurate debunking of the many unsubstantiated claims about the biological bases of gender differences. There is no denying that there are differences, but much of the research is sloppy, and claims like those of Summers are simply idiotic. He ain't no hero, my friend.
It's really hard for me to see how Summers' claims are "simply idiotic." If Wikipedia's account of his remarks is roughly accurate, he was at most understandably wrong. But his stance sounds like one that could be given a decent scientific hearing, as Pinker has suggested. Are you suggesting that stance given by Fine is clearly more rational to that given by Pinker in The Blank Slate?
ReplyDeleteOn a different level, most of the outrage at claims of mental differences between the sexes has nothing to do with the minutiae of scientific argumentation. I have not read Fine's book, but I am sure that all the critical theorists who got incensed at Summers' remarks had no inkling of the scientific counterarguments that Fine has to offer. You have to understand, these people really think Judith Butler is a genius. These folks are my professors. When they talk about gender norms as though they're arbitrary and ought to be subverted, they do so unironically.
My point here is that whatever scientific debate can be had over sex differences, there is a hugely dogmatic opposition to scientific arguments in favor of sex differences, and this dogmatic opposition has none of the nuance that Fine's arguments likely have. By contrast, there is no academic dogma against the belief that women will be interested in Aerospace Engineering if we just design the right pamphlets and change the schools.
2 little things about Sam Harris' review, I can't disagree with the main points:
ReplyDeleteI believe Richard Dawkins has said that he doesn't believe that religion is the root of all evil, and his producers forced the title onto his program.
On Julia's bestiality argument I suppose we could shift the argument to the suffering of the animal (a value decision) and then use Neurobiology to decide between a quick death and a long(?) possibly distressing experience.
downquark, yes, I know about Dawkins' disclaimer. I did not know about it when I wrote the review, Shermer took his sweet time before publishing it.
ReplyDeleteAs for Julia and bestiality ;-) yes, you can alter the argument in a variety of ways. My point was simply to show how a real argument in ethics proceeds, not to indicate that that was the end of the debate.
Ritchie, I hear you, I am just as annoyed by relativists and postmodernists as anyone else. But I also have actually spent twenty years of my life working on the experimental science of nature-nurture (in plants, because they are easy to manipulate), and I stand by my assessment that Summers' comments were idiotic.
ReplyDeleteThis is for two reasons: a) there is no convincing science one way or the other. Fine's book does a good job at debunking claims by Pinker et al. and show that they are based on very shaky grounds. She also clearly shows some really interesting empirical evidence on just how subtle the cultural-environmental effects are, even in very young infants.
b) Given the dearth of evidence, it is simply irresponsible to make a claim like Summers', because it is going to reinforce stereotypes and to directly affect the lives of thousands or possibly many more women. Since Summers is no idiot, however, I probably should charge him with intentional sexism.
I'm not really backing a horse in the nature/nurture debate, but you might want to reconsider this:
ReplyDelete"[...] more importantly that the widening consensus among scientists and the general public about the innateness (and consequent inevitability) of gender differences has a measurable and pernicious effect on women."
If, for example, there isn't a biological explanation for, as the argument goes, male risk taking which, relative to women, lands a few males in the most prestigious social positions while a great swath of males end up in the very worst situations (prison, homelessness, low mortality, poverty, and so on), then the most pernicious effects of a rush to wrongly describe the slate might very well be felt my men rather than women. These effects are, at the very least, equally as important as the effects women might face.
Too often, discussions about gender differences degenerate into maudlin exaggerations of the relative risks faced by women. Something, I suspect Fine's book will likely suffer from.
James, since men are historically the gender that has had most of the power and advantages, I'm really not too concerned in erring on the other side out of caution.
ReplyDeleteTimes change and so should our worries. To the degree that history is a good reason (and it's not a great one), in this case it amounts to a good reason to worry about men. The likelihood of a systemic mistreatment of women at the hands of junk science is far less likely than a systemic mistreatment of men, if only because of the historical advantages held by men - or rather, our awareness and general condemnation of those advantages, combined with our willingness to accept anything and everything that further maligns the male character (whatever that is). Even when that history is distorted, as it so often is, the distortion is generally aimed at maligning men.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason to worry about women in particular; they are doing just fine. The fact is that men are worse off in our society than women are, and the disparity is only growing. The open question is why. Worrying about how answers to that question might effect women, while not completely irrelevant, somewhat misses the mark.
"men are historically the gender that has had most of the power and advantages"
ReplyDeleteHow do you explain then the lower life expectancy, higher incarceration rates, total domination of the most unwanted professions,higher suicide rates,higher incidence of homelessness and all the social ills that men "excel" at?
Men compete against other men for power that they can trade for women. "Men" or "women" are not interest groups. One cannot be more powerful than the other. ITs more in a man's interest to side with the women against other men than the other way around. The same goes for women
I am really hoping (and i bet you do) you have a more sophisticated opinion on this matter than just pop-culture aphorisms like these
Kostas, James,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure in what universe you live, but obviously not mine. Women are still discriminated against, hold fewer positions of powers, are paid less, and are less educated than men. So, no, I'm not worried about men being "worse off", nor do I think that women are doing "just fine."
We live in a universe where few men hold positions on the very top of the hierarchy and alot positions at the bottom. There might be reasons for the wages and education that have nothing to do with discrimination. Power has little to do with it. Men are worthless without power while women are not. Its all about the choices available to men and women
ReplyDeleteI just saw James's post. I agree 100%
ReplyDeleteFew men hold positions at the very top of the hierarchy because perhaps there are the fewest positions at the top? And fewer women?
ReplyDeleteAlso, who should properly be maligned except those who abuse the powers they have made themselves the most responsible for?
Massimo--
ReplyDeleteI often hear the income disparity touted as evidence of discrimination, when in fact it evidences no such thing. We all know that a wealthy 45-year-old man can construct a harem for his own gratification, while a wealthy 45-year-old woman is hardly more datable than your average 35-year-old woman. Men have incentives to pursue wealth that women don't, period.
Ritchie, really? Isn't that begging the question? How do you know, exactly? And besides, the evidence is of women being paid less *for the same job*. What sort of just-so evopsych story are you going to give me for that one?
ReplyDelete"Few men hold positions at the very top of the hierarchy because perhaps there are the fewest positions at the top? And fewer women?"
ReplyDeleteObviously thats the reason why. My point is that these men are fewer than the ones at the bottom and that by calling them simply "men" doesnt mean they re in the same boat at all.
No one should be maligned. And again, how would one abuse this power? What would a powerful man lose if women gained more power? He d still be on the top of the male hierarchy. And even so, what responsibility do modern men have for the deeds of men of the past(as James pointed out)? What about the men who dont have any power? What possible justification would there be to malign those men for the actions of the men who defeated them and control their destiny? Shouldnt it be exactly the opposite? Why do we have to draw a line between men and women? They dont compete with each other(for the most part). Men compete against men and women against women(again, for the most part). The line is between powerless people and powerful people,regardless of gender. This mentality is based on a "philosophy" that is completely one-sided and biased.
I'm not going to be giving you a "just-so evopsych story" for it. I have been trying for ten minutes to find an article that distinguishes between the male-female income disparity in the US and the pay disparity for equal work. But are you disputing the different financial ambitions of men and women? They are surely a factor in the actual income disparity (not the disparity in pay for equal work).
ReplyDeleteAs for the sexual power of wealthy middle-aged men, compared to wealthy middle-aged women: it's not an evopsych story. I knew this when I started reading Dave Barry for the fun of it. We could, of course, go into the evopsych of it, if we had to.
Ritchie: exactly
ReplyDeleteMassimo:
Answer to first question: Come on ! As Ritchie said we all know that. At least there is research showing that men are attracted to younger females and women to older (and wealthier) males. That should settle it.
As for your second question, its a little bit more complicated. It could be explained by what Ritchie said: motivation. Maybe not but regardless its importance is relatively minor and its worthless unless you can provide a detailed mechanism of how this "discrimination" actually works. When i see this index quoted its always coupled with a single word "discrimination". Thats not good enough (unless of course you and the majority take it for granted that women are victims of men in which case arguments are not really neseccary). I dont need a special explanation and especially not an evopsych explanation. To be honest, this is the index (from all the useless ones) that makes me think more.
Discussing both innate gender differences AND gender discrimination at once appears to me as conversational suicide.
ReplyDeleteI guess the reason for discussing them both at once is that overstating the science might lead to greater discrimination against women; this appears to be Massimo's contention. I do wonder what, concretely, he is afraid of here.
"Neurosexism" is a pretty different beast from straight-up sexism, and you can get the latter in heaping, unselfconscious shovelfuls from watching five minutes of network TV.
Meanwhile academics talk about possibly innate gender differences, typically all the while acknowledging the inconclusiveness of the science as well as it's non-normative nature - and we need to be censorious of THAT?
ianpollock makes a good point. There is virtually no risk of garden variety business sexism being increased by neuroscientific research. Almost nobody's social views are influenced by empirical research (no matter what people claim), but in this case the prime perpetrators aren't even going to notice. Do you think executives who grope their secretaries do so because they've been reading David Buss?
ReplyDeleteIn universities women are treated better than men. They have their own scholarships. Women are strongly encouraged to enter majority-male fields, while nothing is done in particular to get men to join majority-female fields. Women make up the majority of undergraduates. They have "women's centers" for whatever reason.
There's really not much misogyny in the academy to speak of; there's much more misandry, which often comes from moronic critical theorists.
Wow, hard to believe, but here are some answers, for what they are worth (I imagine not much, since I doubt I'm going to change anybody's mind):
ReplyDelete> What would a powerful man lose if women gained more power? <
Ehr, more power?
> what responsibility do modern men have for the deeds of men of the past? <
A lot, since we have the position of advantage we have in part *because* of what previous men did.
> Why do we have to draw a line between men and women? They dont compete with each other <
Are you kidding me?
> At least there is research showing that men are attracted to younger females and women to older (and wealthier) males. That should settle it <
Settle what? You think that's biology, others think that's culture, I think it's both. So what?
> are you disputing the different financial ambitions of men and women? <
Yup. Why would a woman *want* to be paid less for the same job?
> I knew this when I started reading Dave Barry for the fun of it <
Ah well, glad we bring in the heavy duty scholarship...
> Meanwhile academics talk about possibly innate gender differences, typically all the while acknowledging the inconclusiveness of the science as well as it's non-normative nature - and we need to be censorious of THAT <
Who said anything about censorship? But why exactly is it that (male) scientists can get away with largely unsubstantiated claims, as long as they reflect the prejudices of the (male dominated) society in which we live in? You seriously think that a perfunctory disclaimer makes everything all right? Science has huge prestige in society, if a scientist doesn't have good empirical reasons to talk about socially delicate issues he should simply shut up- of his own accord.
> There is virtually no risk of garden variety business sexism being increased by neuroscientific research. <
Really? Why? Neurosexism is just as pernicious as the old school anatomists who just knew that women (and black) are inferior because their brains are smaller.
> Do you think executives who grope their secretaries do so because they've been reading David Buss? <
No, but reading evopsych blubber - which is very popular among certain upper income white males - sure doesn't help.
> In universities women are treated better than men <
Is that a fact? Based on what, exactly? Hasn't been my experience during a quarter century in academia.
> They have "women's centers" for whatever reason <
Because the people holding the real power don't need "centers."
> There's really not much misogyny in the academy to speak of <
Wow, you really must be living on a different planet.
Ritchie, while agreeing with your first paragraph, I don't think there's any need to play the "who's got it better" game here.
ReplyDeleteI was rather trying to establish whether we can even have a conversation about the etiology of gender differences (and a conversation will always include mistakes, overstatements, corrections etc.), without noticeably encouraging sexism. It appears to me we can, but apparently Massimo and others disagree.
"Discussing both innate gender differences AND gender discrimination at once appears to me as conversational suicide." - ianpollock
ReplyDeleteTrue. Another reason why showing a bias in one regard, while commenting on the other, is a bad idea. Hence my initial point.
"I'm not sure in what universe you live, but obviously not mine" - Massimo
I live in the universe where men are more likely to be assaulted, killed, homeless, jobless, to die from illness, be imprisoned, and be convicted; where they have far fewer tools with which to protect themselves from discrimination (basically none), while discrimination against men is open policy from the legal system, to academia, to private industry. The universe you live in was dreamed up by NOW's marketing team. The plight of women, particularly in North America and Europe, is a fantasy. The reality of outcomes speaks for itself. Men are more likely to find themselves among the very worst off, and least likely to find recourse once there. How is that even possibly in a society that is characterized by discrimination against women? The answer is that it isn't possible.
Maybe it looks differently to me because I have some Rawlsian intuitions, intuitions that motivate me to be most concerned about those who suffer most in our society - and I like to err on the side of caution.
Anyway, I'd just urge that you reconsider the limits of damage that can result from bad science.
James, I think you are confusing "men" with black men, for whom those statistics do hold.
ReplyDeleteAs for women's plight being concocted by a NOW marketing team, as I said, parallel universes.
@James:
ReplyDelete>Men are more likely to find themselves among the very worst off, and least likely to find recourse once there. How is that even possibly in a society that is characterized by discrimination against women? The answer is that it isn't possible.
Actually, it is. Who said only one gender could get screwed over at a time? Sexism is not merely "discrimination against women;" it involves an insane attitude toward both men and women (and genders in between). The same attitudes that cast women as demure, silly waifs (hence discouraging their career advancement) also cast men as strong and situationally violent (hence more likely to end up in prison). (Inter alia...)
@Massimo:
Re: censorship, I was mainly referring to Summers.
>Science has huge prestige in society, if a scientist doesn't have good empirical reasons to talk about socially delicate issues he should simply shut up- of his own accord.
... Except that by doing that, they (he?) cede the conversation to the two other main interested parties: (1) straightforwardly sexist defenders of religious/folk psychology; (2) "critical theorists" who think breasts are socialized into existence.
Look, it is increasingly obvious that whether or not any given single claim (say "greater IQ variance among males") turns out to be true & reproducible cross-culturally, there are going to be at least a few significant innate differences in psychology between genders. We are going to have to learn to talk about them, and we might as well start now.
"James, I think you are confusing "men" with black men, for whom those statistics do hold." - Massimo
ReplyDeleteIn Maryland, the ration between male and female imprisonment is 19:1. Believe me, it's like that everywhere.
The likelihood of men being imprisoned over women far and away exceeds the likelihood of black men over white men (the worst I've heard is 8:1). Not surprisingly, the difference diminishes somewhat when you compare black men against black women - most likely because of various forms of racism. It's worth noting that the long term trend is a reduction of this disparity.
In other quarters of reality...
At my University, like most universities, last year more women were admitted than men, and of those who are admitted, a greater number of women will graduate (if current rends continue). There is a long list of bursaries and awards for women only, and none for men (not one). There are special centers and associations for women only; none for men. If this doesn't amount to being "treated better", then what possibly could?
We may be in parallel universes, but mine is the universe that we all actually live in. Or at least, it's a closer approximation.
James, Kostas,
ReplyDeleteYour points regarding the situation of men represent false dichotomies to the extent they are even relevant to the issue of discrimination against women. The problem of creating an equal society in reference to gender, race, etc., is on a different axis from the problem of the well-being of people in different groups. A homeless man is still privileged on the matter of gender relative to a wealthy woman, and that's wrong regardless of the situation of each.
Kostas wrote: "Men compete against other men for power that they can trade for women."
That may be the way things are in society in which powerless women are dominated by barbarian men, as we see in some our lesser subcultures, but taken as some sort of law of nature it's pseudo-scientific rubbish: things need not be that way; we're smarter than that. Part of the value of equality for women is that spares them from being the possessions of powerful men, and frees them to be around who they want to be, to live the lives they want to live. You can be for that while also being for improvement in the situation of men.
Kostas writes,
ReplyDelete"My point is that these men [at the very top of the hierarchy] are fewer than the ones at the bottom and that by calling them simply "men" doesnt mean they re in the same boat at all."
No it means that in the typical social hierarchy, there are very few of any of us at the very top.
And as I pointed out before, even fewer women in that part of the boat.
Massimo:
ReplyDelete> What would a powerful man lose if women gained more power? <
Ehr, more power?
This is too simplistic. If they gain power at the expense of other men then so much the better for him. Which is my point again: Men stand to lose morewhen other men gain power at their expense than when women gain power at the expense of other men.
> what responsibility do modern men have for the deeds of men of the past? <
A lot, since we have the position of advantage we have in part *because* of what previous men did.
That only (kinda) works if you accept the premise that we have an advantage(*1), which i dont so any argument based on that premise is useless to me except in hypothetical arguments(used with caution, as always).
>> At least there is research showing that men are attracted to younger females and women to older (and wealthier) males. That should settle it <
>Settle what? You think that's biology, others think that's culture, I think it's both. So what?
Settle the question you asked to Ritchie. I think its pretty straightforward and i dont feel the need to add something.
> are you disputing the different financial ambitions of men and women? <
Yup. Why would a woman *want* to be paid less for the same job?
Your answer is not related to the question. Ritchie is asking whether you are disputing that men have more incentives to gain money in general, not for the same job or whether women dont feel the need to get an equal pay for equal work (which would be silly)
Paul:
ReplyDeleteYour points regarding the situation of men represent false dichotomies to the extent they are even relevant to the issue of discrimination against women. The problem of creating an equal society in reference to gender, race, etc., is on a different axis from the problem of the well-being of people in different groups. A homeless man is still privileged on the matter of gender relative to a wealthy woman, and that's wrong regardless of the situation of each.
Can you please tell me how a homeless man is privileged in any way over a wealthy woman? Can you name one thing he can do that she cant? I also find it funny how you mention an "equal society" (*1).
That may be the way things are in society in which powerless women are dominated by barbarian men, as we see in some our lesser subcultures, but taken as some sort of law of nature it's pseudo-scientific rubbish: things need not be that way; we're smarter than that. Part of the value of equality for women is that spares them from being the possessions of powerful men, and frees them to be around who they want to be, to live the lives they want to live. You can be for that while also being for improvement in the situation of men.
I find this language completely inappropriate and unwarranted. If using subtly negative language with respect to women is innappropriate (which it is) then so it must be for men(even though this isnt subtle at all). Also the use of "powerless" , "dominated" and "possesions" are sneaking all the assumptions that i reject into the conversation, not to mention that they reflect personal value jugments(and not facts) that i most certainly disagree with.
As for extending that to a "law of nature" as you put it, thats not so far fetched and certainly not "pseudo-scientific rubbish" (again, the language). Its almost a universal across cultures and even species (that correlates to the ratio of the size between the male and the female of the species which as we know is different than one when it comes to humans). What would be more natural than to provisionally assume it to be true (null hypothesis)? I dont care if this hypothesis goes against your ideology (or everybody else's) one bit and i dont see why the burden of proof should be shifted in my direction just because i represent a minority. Also, even if it can be anulled by providing certain circumstances, why should we do that? If i go out and work for 10 bucks and trade it for a pound of cheese am i dominating the cheesemaker because he needed my money? Or maybe hes dominating me because i needed his cheese? Cant i choose not to trade this money for his cheese if i think someone else's cheese is better and/or cheaper? Cant he refuse to sell me the cheese if i ask for a lower price? If i choose cheese as the metric of well being then cheesemakers will be on top but that doesnt mean they re any better off than anybody else simply because they need the cheese to trade it for all the other stuff they want.Sure its good to have cheese but who would call for equal cheese-having opprotunities? We re all perfectly fine with that simply because thats just how the way things are in a universe with limited resources.
(*1): Let me make this clear: Pointing out metrics and indices that show women to be worse off than men doesnt count as evidence of "domination" or discrimination just like pointing out cheese-having doesnt mean that non-cheesenakers are dominated or discriminated against by cheesemakers. If you want REAL gender equality you have to look at all the indices, including the ones that show women to be better off and weigh them. If i accept the ones you re pointing out as discrimination or domination against women then you have to accept the ones i am offering (which you re so easily dismissing,since my position goes against the zeitgest and therefore all the burden of proof is on me) as discrimination and domination against men, which is something i could agree with. Why exactly can lower life expectancy and high incarceration rate can be used as evidence of discrimination against blacks (very reasonable argument) but not as evidence of discrimination against men? If you ignore that then you re being intellectually dishonest or maybe just lazy. You have to accept the fact that a gender-equal society might have to restrict some of the powers and rights of women to benefit some men in some cases and this might hurt some women. You cant point to people at the very bottom of the hierarchy and call them privilleged without offering a good reason.You cant be fair when fighting fot the rights of women to gain access to all positions(which i firmly believe they already have) without fighting for the rights of men to become house-husbands or even fight to limit womens rights to become housewifes. You re doing all these things at once when you use language like that and the only reason why you can get away with it is because my position is considered to me marginal (at best) and is not supported by high profile individuals and not because of any arguments. Look at all your posts. Look at how dismissive and ironic your tone is. Essentially you havent provided any arguments at all. You take it for granted that you can use terms like domination and discrimination and i am obligated to respond to that. I dont feel that at all. I feel like your attitude is just determined by the cultural climate. A climate in which no meaningfull dialogue can be had
ReplyDeleteDear Paul,
ReplyDelete"A homeless man is still privileged on the matter of gender relative to a wealthy woman, and that's wrong regardless of the situation of each." - Paul
Yes, yes, I've heard this theory before. It's not very convincing. If it is true that a class can enjoy less benefits and/or suffer greater burdons but still be "privileged", I really need to know what you think "privileged" means, and I'd wonder by what magic one considers women not privileged (if not by a measure of burdons and benefits). Privilege, to the degree that the word means anything anymore, describes an unjust distribution of burdens and benefits. That's all it means. To be privileged, one class must enjoy more benefits and/or suffer fewer burdons relative to some other class.
Of course, the old canard goes: sure, men suffer more than women, but not BECAUSE they're men. And no matter how many times one tries to explain what "statistically significant" means, this bogus interpretation of the facts persists. The fact is that men are overwhelmingly more likely to suffer in this life. And it's a fact that many, yourself included, are more than willing to brush aside for the sake of those who are less likely to suffer. If that is not privilege premised on gender, then what is?
"Actually, it is." - ianpollack
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that it wasn't possible that women could be discriminated against, but that it isn't possible that a society can be "characterized" as one that discriminates against women while men suffer more. The fact that both might suffer from sexism is irrelevant. Let's think of it in terms of something else. Imagine that I said it would be impossible to describe the United States as characterized by its unpaved roads. You might respond: sure it would be possible, there are both paved and unpaved roads. And I would respond, yes, but unpaved roads are not what "characterize" the United States. To the degree that the United states can be characterized by roads, it's characterized by its paved roads.
I know the image of the suffering women is ruthlessly reinforced in our society, but the facts just don't bear the claim. Certainly, the claim that we have nothing to worry about with regard to the welfare of men and a lot to worry about with regard to the welfare of women, is absurd. If a systemic disregard for the welfare of one gender over another is not sexism, I can't imagine what is.
Again, I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind about this conversation. Boy the things you learn on this blog. Still, here are some additional points:
ReplyDelete>"critical theorists" who think breasts are socialized into existence <
Ian, can't be serious, nobody claims that. And you know me better than to think that I would cede ground to either religious nuts or postmodernists. But scientists have responsibilities when they make claims that affect how people see themselves and the society they live in.
> it is increasingly obvious that whether or not any given single claim (say "greater IQ variance among males") turns out to be true & reproducible cross-culturally, there are going to be at least a few significant innate differences in psychology between genders. <
Except that few such results are available. And even if they turned out that way, that still doesn't tell us much about the inevitability (let alone the desirability) of the alleged biological differences - which is the crux of the discourse here.
> In Maryland, the ration between male and female imprisonment is 19:1. Believe me, it's like that everywhere. <
James, that is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about, unless you are claiming that somehow those men are in prison as the result of anti-man discrimination by women.
> At my University, like most universities, last year more women were admitted than men, and of those who are admitted, a greater number of women will graduate <
Perhaps, but the percentage of men finding work in academia is still much higher than that of women. Not let's see, graduation rates may largely reflect individual accomplishments. Are you sure that hiring practices do the same?
> That only (kinda) works if you accept the premise that we have an advantage, which i dont so any argument based on that premise is useless to me except in hypothetical arguments <
Kostas, well, naturally, if you don't accept reasonable premises than you can derive whatever conclusion you wish from your personalized premises.
> Ritchie is asking whether you are disputing that men have more incentives to gain money in general, not for the same job or whether women dont feel the need to get an equal pay for equal work <
First, the question under debate is the latter, not the former. Shifting the question is known in logic as a red herring, and it's a logical fallacy. Second, even Ritchie's question is ill posed. The pertinent one to this discussion is whether there is evidence that the (alleged) incentives that men have over women to make more money is genetically-evolutionarily based. Good luck with that one.
> it isn't possible that a society can be "characterized" as one that discriminates against women while men suffer more <
James, that's only because you are comparing apples and oranges, and you apparently don't see that claims of discrimination aren't mutually exclusive. A society can (and ours most certainly does) discriminate against women, but also against black men and against lower economic classes. It is the combination of these three discriminations that yields the sorry state of our society.
Massimo:Clearly you re having a hard time. I devoted an entire footnote to arguing that the facts youre quoting dont entail an advantage for men.I included a little rant about how arguments like these are always ignored and dismissed outright.So What did you do? You ignored it! (and didnt even include the marker in the repost). I stand by what i said until someone presents a counterargument. Calling it unreasonable just makes things worse (i assert something after reviewing some facts and if you dont accept my assertion you re unreasonable)
ReplyDeleteNo, the question under debate is the former because it was posed by Ritchie and btw was the only one posed by him. Theres no fallacy anywhere. You are just confusing his question with yours. Also, its irrelevant why men have those incentives. No one brought it up beccause no one cares.What if they are innate. Would you change your mind? What if they are learned? Would you care then? This is an almost completely seperate discussion. I did touch on it because of something Paul said.
You dont understand what James is saying. I dont understand what your answer has to do with his response to Ian
Kostas, I find it amusing that people now put footnotes to blog comments, but hey, this is an open discussion forum.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if you don't understand my points, or what James is saying, then you might want to consider what we write more carefully before responding.
I would also like to remind you and others that I simply do not have the time to respond to every single "rant" (your words). I wish I did, though it probably wouldn't be good for my emotional health.
But since you asked twice: your analogy with cheese-havings is senseless. We are not talking about simple correlations here, we know a lot about social dynamics.
Your point about black men vs. men in general is well taken, but again, the reason one data set counts as evidence of discrimination and the other is just a sad statistic is because we know a lot about the social dynamics that cause those numbers, not just the numbers. You may want to read a bit of the pertinent literature.
And the fact that you "firmly" believe that women have already achieved equality is very convincing evidence that you live in a parallel universe, or that your ideological blinders have not been removed.
I am pretty sure i ve seen footnotes before(here) thats why i did it.
ReplyDeleteI understand very well what James is saying. All i am saying is that you dont.
I completely understand you dont have time but in this case i think it would be better not to address my post at all. Let the rest of us figure it out if you dont have time for it.Btw it is a rant thats why i called it that.
I really like my analogy and i dont see how its sensless.Its not meant to do much but what its supposed to do, it does well.
We know alot about the social dynamics of white men too you know. I am not making stuff up. These statistics can be explained in terms of discrimination and domination of men. Since you refer me to the literature i will do the same. I would recmmend "The Myth of Male Power" which is a little too pop-styled but i am pretty sure its arguments are on the same level, if not better, than the ones justifying all the policies that i find ludicrous and you probably worship. The author is being very resonable and is anything but a zealot or a partisan.
Again, you are reading too much into the facts. The fact that women dont hold these jobs doesnt mean necessarily that they are being discriminated against. They might be perfectly capable of choosing them but not doing so for other reasons. You ll find some arguments about that in the book.
If you read this book and you dont think theres anything to it, i ll just say like you did that you re being unreasonable.
I've read "Delusions of Gender" and I highly recommend it. I was very impressed by the thoroughness of Dr. Fine's examination of a large number of supposedly scientific claims. As a professional scientist for >30 years (genomics), there are few things I find more irritating than over-stretching conclusions, especially about something as complex as the human mind, based on a very limited number of studies that often have issues such as a low "n", flimsy statistics, or lack of replication. It is of course no surprise that these conclusions are almost always enforcing gender stereotypes, not only those damaging to women but also those damaging to men, such as the alleged inferior language ability of males. These claims make for perfectly sensationalistic "science" journalism, and once they are in the popular press, they are hard to dislodge. Dr. Fine insists on scientific correctness, not political correctness. Contrary to what some commenters on this blog suggest, possibly without having read the book, she is not against the existence of intrinsic sex differences or denying biology, just insisting on good scientific standards. It seems to me that this is exactly what Massimo is saying here, too. Thanks for your review, Massimo.
ReplyDeleteMassimo to Kostas: The pertinent one to this discussion is whether there is evidence that the (alleged) incentives that men have over women to make more money is genetically-evolutionarily based. Good luck with that one.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. On the other hand, at least some of the pay gap between men and women (e.g. the infamous 76 cents/dollar statistic) can be explained in ways that are not due to gender discrimination (intentional or otherwise). For example, to quote an article from a few years back:
Factors may include: more women choose lower-paying professions than men; they move in and out of the workforce more frequently; and they work fewer paid hours on average.
Why that's the case may have to do in part with the fact that women are still society's primary caregivers, that some higher-paying professions require either too much time away from home or are still less hospitable to women than they should be.
I should mention here that, inasmuch as the "women as nurturers" stereotype is a causal factor, there are a host of ways that societies can encourage gender parity in child care (e.g. the Netherlands example comes to mind), such that the degree of influence here is by no means set in stone.
But, however much a research challenge it may be, I think it's no less a fair game for biologists to investigate the genetic-evolutionary factors behind such gender-role stereotypes, as it is for social scientists ans historians to investigate the institutional factors. Of course, some people (on both ends of the political spectrum) will abuse this research in ethical and political dialogue. But I think we can handle that rationally, without resorting to taboo treatment of the subject.
oh, and another footnote !
ReplyDeleteAbout my ideological blinders: I used to be quite sympathetic (but also a bit indifferent) to the feminist or "gender equality" movement. I like women as much as the next guy and I, as most men, in a sense value them and their feelings more than those of men. I always thought the rhetoric was overblown and the statistics cherrypicked to some extent but i didnt care. I found the argument about language (using male pronouns for hypothetical people, etc) especially strange and for some time i used to write he/she instead of he. But when i saw how this ideology is being abused by my female friends to justify completely unjustifiable actions and by politicians to justify ludicrous policies, coupled with my realization that the climate is such where its essentialy heresy to oppose these beliefs made me change my mind. I find it shocking how men arent willing to speak up and tell their side of the story. These ideologues essentialy go unopposed and this is just wrong. All other subjects i debate for fun. This one i debate for real.My only problem is that i cant find people to debate with on a reasonable basis.This is one of those things i really believe in and i believe in time society will change to recognize this issue.
PS: I also think it's important to critique bad research on methodological grounds, and I appreciate Massimo's efforts in that regard. If sociobiology & evol-psych are particularly guilty fields in this regard, then I want to know about it. (Caveat emptor and all that.)
ReplyDeleteThis series illustrates for me at least what happens when one tries to analyze the relative effects of power (and in its many forms to boot) and in turn the effectiveness of the power wielders (in their diversity of forms to further boot) without considering the differences of purpose served in those assorted and overlapping powers by those who have evolved to best wield them - or with the least necessity to do so if you will.
ReplyDeleteSubstitute naturally selected objectives for purpose and maybe that will help unweave the web of what is essentially ignorance of our strategic functions rather than some other mode of prejudice.
I've read Summers remarks and I can't tell what he said that was "simply idiotic". Perhaps you could clarify.
ReplyDeleteCVC, to claim that there is scientific evidence that women don't have the same aptitude as men when you are the president of Harvard is pernicious and irresponsible, considering that there is no such (convincing) scientific evidence and that you are leading one of the premier institutions of higher learning in the world. Perhaps "idiotic" doesn't quite capture it, but pernicious certainly does.
ReplyDeleteFor the gender discrimination debate
ReplyDelete"And the fact that you "firmly" believe that women have already achieved equality is very convincing evidence that you live in a parallel universe, or that your ideological blinders have not been removed."
ReplyDeleteMassimo, equality is such a loaded and abused term I don't think you would reach consensus on what gender equality is let alone if we have reached it.
I think a better question is do you find the situation X acceptable.
down, I'm sorry about the loaded language, but I do get upset about these things. Because I care, and it's hard for me to believe that some people buy into pernicious notions as if they were established facts. Then again, we do live in the era of Fox News, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, so there's worse.
ReplyDelete"There are constant and unsupportable allegations that women suffer discrimination in these arenas, and we show conclusively that women do not," says Williams.
ReplyDeleteIf this isnt exactly what i am saying, then i dont know what it is.
Motherhood can make women less likely to choose research careers than male scientists of equal ability, or lead them to choose academic positions with larger teaching loads but more regular hours, sacrificing time for research.
What did i say? Heres what i said:
Again, you are reading too much into the facts. The fact that women dont hold these jobs doesnt mean necessarily that they are being discriminated against. They might be perfectly capable of choosing them but not doing so for other reasons. You ll find some arguments about that in the book.
This article is supporting my position 100%. The only thing missing is the male perspective.That is looking for factors that limit mens options and looking for solutions to them (maybe there are none in this case). Women cant get both a family and a career? Lets fix that(cool, lets do that). Men cant get a family without a career? Who cares? (uncool, not in the culture, theres no awareness so noone cares)
You can imagine how upset i feel then. Vilification of men and portrayal of women as victims is a pernicious notion and not an established fact. If you really care you have to think long and hard about it.
Kostas, c'mon, man. First of all, the article immediately continues to say that "Their analysis contrasts with reports that suggest overt discrimination remains a significant problem," and naturally you simply chose to believe what fits your preconception.
ReplyDeleteSecond, societal barriers *are* a form of entrenched sexism.
Third, the article in question concerns only academia, one of the few work places where institutions have constantly and consciously put in place gender equality policies. The rest of society lags far behind.
Men's vilification indeed.
My answers to your points are in my previous post.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all the part that i quoted contains the references to the opposite opinion. I hope you re not implying that i am quote-mining. Secondly i said "this article" meaning that all these hold true to the extend that their results are correct. When you reference someone else's paper do you REALLY know their results are correct? No, theyre just as good as the people who wrote it and the people who reviewed it. Lastly,referring to the preconceptions, i could say right back at ya (but thats kinda childish,even though i guess i already did it.Hm...)
Ah, nice i like it when we lower the bar a little.
We went from discrimination to "societal barriers" and "entrenched sexism". I really like that. Thats what i called earlier a reasonable basis. Sexism inst the same as discrimination. When policies or language reinforce (or i would say,enforce) traditional gender roles ,that would be sexist. And i agree that tearing down the barriers is a laudable goal. But the thing is men also have a traditional gender role end enforcing it is also sexist because it forms societal barriers for men just like it does for women.
Also i know this article is about the academia and i hinted at that a little bit when i said "there might be none in this case" My point was that discrimination inst the only explanation (and i emphasized that very clearly) so its not affected by the scope of the article.
As for your last remark, i don get it.
massimo,
ReplyDeletethe point you made in your review of harris' book regarding euthyphro sparked a thought. namely, it seems you can think of the sentence as something akin to a formula, and you can plug in different variables to see how they work:
The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the X is beloved by Y because it is X, or X because it is the beloved of Y?
now, say X=ethical and Y=science...is the formula valid?
it seems to be a germane question that exhibits a broader application of the platonic dialogue by showing that the character euthyphro can be embodied just as easily by people in ancient greece as in modern intellectual circles. the hubris harris exhibits (on occasion, at least) reminds me of euthyphro, and it makes me think i might be better off re-reading the dialogue by plato than the new book by sam harris.
There is ample evidence supporting Summer's remarks, evidence I suspect you aren't interested in for ideological reasons. Why observing the fact that men have a greater variability in IQ than women is "pernicious and irresponsible" eludes me. I find it amusing that the same people who say men and women are exactly the same also claim women are delicate flowers, whose math ability is harmed by a speech someone gives.
ReplyDeleteIs Y a female?
ReplyDeleteMy last comment entered the void for some reason.
ReplyDeleteI've never denied that there is discrimination against women, though you seem to have formed that impression somehow. The discussion here is about your denial of discrimination against men. Both that it even exists, and whether or not it merits concern.
# Problem One - understanding social science
Rather than being something I have failed to see, the "multiple axis of discrimination" you hope might account for the propensity of male incarceration is not present to be missed in the first place. Even if another axis of discrimination (or basket of axes) accounted for the numbers, that account would merely shift the question of male status elsewhere. For example, nineteen males are in prison for every female because males are poor, becomes: why are males so much poorer than woman? And so on. The significant characteristic doesn't suddenly disappear.
Now, if by "social dynamics" you mean assumptions or theories about patriarchy and so forth, well, that's just circular reason. Something like this:
Y: Patriarchy!
X: but men seem to be suffering disproportionately.
Y: not because they are men though.
X: How do you know?
Y: Patriarchy!
X: Of course. How stupid of me.
Social dynamics cannot deny that men are in prison because they are men, rather, any theory of social dynamics must account for the fact. The data is prior.
# Problem Two - we may have differing conceptions of justice
Consider for a moment that there isn't a magical force called "social dynamics" that can explain away the significance of male misfortune. Let's assume male misfortune is a fact.
Men are either dominating prison occupancy because of how males are treated, or because of how males are (nature/nurture). According to my sense of justice: if these facts are accounted for by how males are, then we need to pay extra attention to the special needs of men; and if these facts are accounted for by how men are treated, then we must pay extra attention to how the rest of us are treating men. Dismissing it as merely a "sad story", to me, is not a just option.
Conversely, your sense of justice seems to be dependent on "discrimination"; that is, outcomes only matter when we can be certain that disparities are the result of “discrimination”. It seems to me that this is the equivalent to saying: it only matters if the cause is nurture, but not if it's nature. Maybe you want to clarify.
# Back to the main argument
Regardless, as I understand it, one camp points to societal expectations generated by traditional male roles as the explanation for why males are vastly more likely to find themselves incarcerated; that is, male misfortune is the result of discrimination. Feminist scholars seem to think this is the case - they even call it "the patriarchy".
In the other camp are those who explain male misfortune with theories that claim men have evolved to take more risks which gets them into all sorts of trouble, or something close to that. The feminist camp doesn't like this explanation because it also accounts for why men dominate the top of the bell curve, but that's neither here nor there.
So, bringing this back to my initial point. The fact of whether male misfortune is explained by nature or by nurture will inform how we act toward it, not whether we should act, or whether the fact of male misfortune exists. If we get that wrong, we may cause more harm than good, and since male misfortune is a greater problem than female misfortune (and it is), the risk of getting it wrong holds a greater risk for men than for women.
Of course, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that both are at risk from hasty conclusions, but certainly, if one is to be weighted the most at risk, it has to be men.
# Midterms!
My midterms are arriving, so, I don't really have time to maintain this. I'm happy to read any response though. Take care.
C. Van Carter--
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to rush to Massimo's defense, but what are you getting at with the talk of "women are delicate flowers"? He may be crazy, but he doesn't think that!
d,
ReplyDeletenice try, but I don't think the formula would work that way (you would have to modify it so that X is a behavior, and ask whether X is ethical because it is approved by science - but the reverse wouldn't work!). Still, yes, Harris does display some of Euthyphro's hubris, except that form him science is a god.
cvc,
Summers' remarks are unfounded because it turns out that the variance effect doesn't hold up to close scrutiny, as Fine's book shows in some details. I don't know what to make of the "flower" remark.
James,
I really don't think that incarceration of men has anything at all to do with discrimination. Who is doing the discriminating? The women who run our justice system?
That Fine takes "stereotype threat" seriously suggests she will believe anything that supports her equality hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteYou claimed Summer's comments "directly affect the lives of thousands or possibly many more women." While I think women are sensitive creatures, I don't think they are that sensitive. You assert this while at the same time claiming there aren't significant mental sex differences.
I find it odd that the less subjective a field is, the more women are affected by discrimination. Women and men are the same, yet women's scores on math tests are inhibited by an alleged imprecise atmosphere of sexism.
cvc, it isn't a matter of women's sensitivity, it is a matter of reinforcing unfounded stereotypes, which has consequences, serious ones.
ReplyDeleteAnd your dismissal of Fine's book is a bit too cavalier, and clearly belies your own ideological bias. Why don't you read the book first, then we'll talk?
Alternatives earlier suggested as to "why males are vastly more likely to find themselves incarcerated:"
ReplyDelete"male misfortune is the result of discrimination" versus
"men have evolved to take more risks which gets them into all sorts of trouble"
First, men aren't incarcerated because of something in our culture that incorrectly makes it seem they are more deserving of it than women, and/or that women are somehow responsible for getting men to agree to discriminatingly incarcerate each other.
Second, men have evolved to take more risks, but for the benefit of their survival as a species. They are in that sense the most expendable, and the trouble they get in is as much or more the fault of needing women as of women knowing better to stay out of it.
Men evolved to fight the battles, and their battles are fought in the main against each other.
To repeat, men continue to be expendable where the necessity for taking risk continues to concern us.
We've lost entire generations of men in wars, yet our civilization and our culture (such as it is) survives. Mens' incarceration these days (in the US anyway) is mostly the result of drug wars. They grow it, they sell it, and they fight over the territory. One could argue that women bear responsibility for maintaining the laws that make war profitable - but again the bulk of the profits go to their men.
So who in the end is discriminating against who, and who's taking risks just for the fun of it?
If not in some sense everybody?
I fail to see how Summers remarks have "serious consequences" for anyone. That we should avoid discussing what the majority of researchers in a field think is true, because doing so might hurt some people's feelings, is ludicrous.
ReplyDeletecvc, you just don't get it, do you? It ain't got nothing to do with people's feelings. It has to do with discrimination in education and job opportunities. If people by into the idea that women are genetically/biologically/whatever less good than men at certain jobs, then their teachers discourage them to go into those professions, and employers are less likely to hire them. And yes, there are plenty of data showing that this isn't an hypothetical. Again, see the references cited by Fine. Oh, right, *she* is biased...
ReplyDeleteOh boy, my comments keep getting eaten. I think it's because I'm closing the browser too early.
ReplyDeleteOk, Massimo and Baron P,
I'm not sure why you're both looking for a direct line of discrimination from women to men. Men are just as capable of discriminating against men as women are capable of discriminating against women.
Men are expected to provide. Some people are poor. Poor people commit crimes mostly because they are poor and need a way to provide. It follows that mostly men will commit crimes. Mostly men go to jail. Therefore, male misfortune is a direct result of discriminatory gender roles. It's actually much more complex than this, including more explicit forms of discrimination from enforcement to legislation, but this is a nice causal chain.
Also, men are not less risk adverse because of war. Fighting wars fell to men because men were already predisposed to risk. Men were relatively predisposed to risk because human societies which risked women did not survive. Societies which risked women did not survive because population growth is limited by the number of females, not by the number of males, making recovery after crisis and population gain difficult. This is the source of the initial division of labour that we are currently disentangling. Of course, whether this is a nature or nurture characteristic is up in the air. That men are less risk adverse is a fact. The question is only whether it's because of how men are taught to be men, or because of a biological propensity, or because of some combination. Whichever is the case will determine how we proceed with regard to men.
Back to Symbolic Logic, again!
"Also, men are not less risk adverse because of war. Fighting wars fell to men because men were already predisposed to risk. Men were relatively predisposed to risk because human societies which risked women did not survive. Societies which risked women did not survive because population growth is limited by the number of females, not by the number of males, making recovery after crisis and population gain difficult. This is the source of the initial division of labour that we are currently disentangling. Of course, whether this is a nature or nurture characteristic is up in the air. That men are less risk adverse is a fact. The question is only whether it's because of how men are taught to be men, or because of a biological propensity, or because of some combination. Whichever is the case will determine how we proceed with regard to men."
ReplyDeleteYou could have also mentioned the fact that men are faster and stronger than women.
Just saying.
James,
ReplyDeleteIt seems now you're arguing or concluding that nature is discriminatory when the question addressed earlier was whether modern cultural practices are discriminatory. My guess is that we'd need to know which is which before deciding what if anything to do about it.
What I should have also said was it seems James is now arguing that it could be nature that's discriminatory. But that gives nature some credit for abusing its own sense of order - and while I think it has one, I doubt that it's a gender centric one.
ReplyDelete"You could have also mentioned the fact that men are faster and stronger than women. Just saying." - Ritchie the Bear
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid you've gotten the cart in front of the horse - creatures tend to get relatively large and fast when they bear the brunt of the dangerous work. Regardless, small men have never been exempt from warfare, and the physical size and speed of individuals is far less important than the number of individuals. After all, if it was only about strength and speed, the most successful peoples would have been the ones where men and women both fought, the more the merrier. It just hasn't worked out that way.
Don't sweat it though, the myth of male might gives a lot of people problems. As a rule, it's generally nonsense: two average people have a considerable advantage over one average person, no matter what sex they are (except in the movies of course).
Baron P,
I was explicitly agnostic on the question of nature versus nurture. Massimo's fixation on discrimination is a red herring anyway, so don't get too carried away by it. Social justice is a matter of burdens vs. benefits, not discriminations vs. irrelevancies. I was happy to let him lead the argument in that direction, but now that it's led nowhere, he'll hopefully be inspired to investigate into his somewhat outdated view of social dynamics.
James, if by agnostic, you mean that "nothing is known or can be known" about what you see here as the "question of nature versus nurture," then the problem we got is not just in Houston.
ReplyDeleteYou can't make some simplistic statement like "men are expected to provide," and get away with it by an agnosticism as to why such expectations exist.
If it's men's burden to provide, then by your own argument it must be to their benefit. And is that then some automatic/axiomatic rule of justice in the universe that exists regardless of the nature of our nurture, or vice versa? Regardless of how the providential herring came equipped with redness?
Baron P,
ReplyDeleteBy agnostic I mean, I do not have that knowledge. That's what the word means.
That men are expected to provide is an empirical fact (to the degree that any social fact, is a fact). Is is the role assigned to them socially, particularly if they are poor. I'm not "getting away" with anything by pointing to it.
"If it's men's burden to provide, then by your own argument it must be to their benefit." - Baron P
Just to straighten out some misunderstandings in language. "Burdens" and "benefits" are standard nomenclature is political philosophy. They refer to how we weigh social justice. The basic idea is: if I have fewer burdens than you, or more benefits than you, we would point to that discrepancy as an unjust distribution. Think of it as an economy of social relations, or of the social justice versions of debits and credits.
At no point in my argument do I say anything remotely to that effect that every burden is met with a reciprocal benefit, nor is it entailed by my argument; however, I did say that human societies benefited by men taking the brunt of the risk - in that the society survived. Women also benefited, but without the burden.
Where nature versus nurture becomes important is as an explanation for why men are still taking the brunt of the risk. Is it because of how men are, or because of how they are taught to be? Or so goes the question. I simply do not know the answer to that question (hence my agnosticism).
Now that the battle of the sexes appears to be winding down (and I shall be reading Fine's book when I have a chance, I think), what did people think of the victim-input-in-sentencing article?
ReplyDeleteSeems like a largely bad idea to me. For one thing, I like a legal system that sees me as a number, not a person. For another, it would probably only increase the already way too huge role of moral luck in punishment.
Come on, can't you see that you've set up a series of dichotomies that pass for the only questions to be dealt with here, and on some arbitrary basis that to the rest of us is not at all persuasive? And spare us the "standard nomenclature" excuse for what otherwise could well be your error. (And if what you're espousing is political philosophy, it's some version that would even make Locke wince.)
ReplyDeleteRepresentative example: Why men are "still taking the brunt of the risk" involves more questions that the "either-or" set that you've confidently come up with.
"Is it because of how men are, or because of how they are taught to be? Or so goes the question."
No, that's only how the question goes to those whose curiosity will be limited to the expected answers.
Did the forerunners of our males evolve because the risks came first in nature, and strategies were formed to deal with them, and replicative gender centric strategies in some cases, while in others not? That's just the beginning of many that would follow from that one alone.
And as to "taught," is it how men have only recently been taught to be (and if so, by who and what), or how some earlier teachings in that respect would seem to have become instinctive, or the other possibility that your thinking seems to fit with - that things just happen?
And if as you say you don't know the answers to the questions you have arbitrarily posed, how did you come up with the presumptions that those were even relevant to the subject of male risk taking versus females - who take one hell of risk in having children in what may be an evolutionary trade off - or does that raise a somehow irrelevant question as well? Such as did women learn to bear children, and of so, because they had a choice and took it, or didn't have? Or is the whole idea of learning to be male as opposed to female just that little bit ridiculous?
'And spare us the "standard nomenclature" excuse for what otherwise could well be your error.' - Baron P
ReplyDeleteOh boy. So, let me get this straight. I would have made an error had the words I used meant what you thought they meant rather than what I have said I intended them to mean? Can it really be my error while the meanings of the words are yours?
"And if what you're espousing is political philosophy, it's some version that would even make Locke wince." - Baron P
Even Locke! Read Rawls' "A Theory of Justice". What I have been espousing, in terms of social justice, is more or less lifted straight off those pages. Welcome to the 20th century. Winces and all.
"And if as you say you don't know the answers to the questions you have arbitrarily posed ..." - Baron P
What questions do you think I've posed?
"... how did you come up with the presumptions that those were even relevant to the subject of male risk taking versus females - who take one hell of risk in having children in what may be an evolutionary trade off - or does that raise a somehow irrelevant question as well?" - Baron P
What "presumptions"? What does "those" mean? How do the risks of childbirth refute anything I've said? Is there an argument anywhere? I don't see one. You might want to start with what you think I've said, and move forward from there.
@ianpollock re: victim impact statements/sentencing
ReplyDeleteYay, a change of subject!
I have two worries.
The first is that criminal justice isn't for the victim's benefit, but for all our benefits. The victim has no more right to specify sentencing than I do or you do.
The second is where victim impact statements are presented to a judge before the judge passes sentence. This is often used as a sneaky way of introducing evidence. Victim impact statements are filled with information that, had it been available before conviction, could have led to a different judgement. I don't mind the idea of victim impact statements as long as they are entered into evidence before conviction, and are subject to cross-examination and all the other rules of evidence.
It seems that James' argument, straight from Rawls, boils down to this, that it's men's burden to provide, but it's not to their benefit, and therefore unjust and therefor men are discriminated against, but it has nothing to do (or not directly) with the rights or burdens of women. And if it's not the fault of nature somehow gone awry (because nature doesn't grant or take responsibilities) then men have brought this on themselves.
ReplyDeleteFeminists, who allegedly (via Wiki) "took Rawls to task for failing to account for injustices found in patriarchal social relations and the gendered division of labor, especially in the household," were simply wrong, and haven't met their burden of proving otherwise.
He's gone on now to tell us how the adversarial rules of evidence in our justice system could be used more to the victim's advantage (cue the big guffaw), so I guess we're done here.
And no, I'm not going to go back and show him where he's asked what I think he's asked, or said what I think he's said, because if he thinks he didn't ask or say those things, and he's content with that, then he's successfully avoided any further argument. Moot.
Straight out of Rawls again? But I don't think he said anything about cross examination in that context. Perhaps because the victim often tends to be the main witness for the prosecution, already subject in that case to cross examination.
ReplyDeleteAnd as to the "sneaky" scenario presented, if during the trial process the victim would have reason to withhold exculpatory information so that somehow that same information would be detrimental to the defendant in the sentencing process , the cross examination opportunities will be wasted from the getgo.
If one has any experience at all in the courtroom they would know that the 'sneakiness' would more involve the defense's efforts to suppress evidence of guilt, than the prosecution's misguided efforts to use it to better effect in the retributory portion of the trial.
Baron P,
ReplyDelete“It seems that James' argument, straight from Rawls, boils down to this ...” - Baron P,
I'm referring to Rawl's theory of social justice which says, grossly oversimplified, that disparity at the top is acceptable as long as all changes that redistribute benefits and burdens preferentially benefit the worst off in society. This is the framework of justice that underlies my entire argument. It's why the absence of women in prestigious tenured positions is far less important than the over-representation of males in prisons (and the long list other factors I mentioned). Remember, prison was Massimo's choice, not mine. I've been arguing to his advantage, not mine. So, you're wrong about the role Rawls plays in my argument. Now you know.
“... that it's men's burden to provide, but it's not to their benefit, and therefore unjust and therefor men are discriminated against, but it has nothing to do (or not directly) with the rights or burdens of women.” - Baron P
I didn't say it wasn't to a man's benefit to provide. I said that it wasn't a woman's burden. I also didn't say that it had nothing to do with women's burdens; however, while women are not suffering in prisons, soup kitchens, unemployment lines and so on, to the same degree that men are (not even close), clearly this arrangement is more of a burden for men than women's burden's are to them.
“And if it's not the fault of nature somehow gone awry (because nature doesn't grant or take responsibilities) then men have brought this on themselves.” - Baron P
I've said nothing of the sort. Remember... I'm agnostic about nature versus nurture. You should also look up the word “expectation”. People do not bring expectations on themselves, and men are EXPECTED to provide.
'Feminists, who allegedly (via Wiki) "took Rawls to task for failing to account for injustices found in patriarchal social relations and the gendered division of labor, especially in the household," were simply wrong, and haven't met their burden of proving otherwise.' - Baron P
Which arguments are you referring to? The feminist arguments that I know of, yes, were wrong. Mostly because they were confused about the limits of measuring burdens and benefits. They believed that household duties could not be measured because no currency is involved in the transactions, but that's just nonsense. We weigh things without financial transactions all the time. Of course, maybe you're referring to another argument. I can't really know as you've not really said anything.
“He's gone on now to tell us how the adversarial rules of evidence in our justice system could be used more to the victim's advantage (cue the big guffaw), so I guess we're done here. And no, I'm not going to go back and show him where he's asked what I think he's asked, or said what I think he's said, because if he thinks he didn't ask or say those things, and he's content with that, then he's successfully avoided any further argument. Moot. “ - Baron P
My complaint was that victim impact statements were OUTSIDE the adversarial system. How exactly does that amount to a criticism OF the adversarial system? Face it, you have no idea what you're talking about and couldn't mount a coherent argument if your life depended on it. Adopting an arrogant attitude does not compensate for an absence of understanding.
Any more questions?
P.S. the comment after the one I'm responding to here is a serious accomplishment. You've almost managed to misunderstand everything that possibly could be. *commence sarcastic applause*
Oh yea, I forgot this too.
ReplyDelete"And no, I'm not going to go back and show him where he's asked what I think he's asked, or said what I think he's said, because if he thinks he didn't ask or say those things, and he's content with that, then he's successfully avoided any further argument. Moot." - Baron P.
It's hilarious that you refuse to reiterate what you think my argument is only two short paragraphs after you reiterate what you think my argument is. How do you expect to understand what other people are writing when you can't get straight about what you've written?
I'm also not trying to trick you. Here, I'll do you a favour and lay out the basic structure of argumentation.
Person A: makes claims.
Person B: reiterates those claims to show that he's understood them.
Person B: critiques claims.
Person A: reiterates person B's critique to show that he's understood them.
Person A: critiques critique.
repeat...
Also, the rhetorical pretense of addressing a crowd of comrades rather than addressing the person you're actually speaking addressing is, well, cowardly and bullying. But considering you and I are the only ones still reading this thread, it's more sad than anything.
Hey i am reading it too!
ReplyDeleteJames, you do, as Massimo said, live on a different planet. As to the basic structure of argumentation, you've left out that the structure will be dependent on its purpose. My purpose, misguided though it may be, is/was to pass on what I think I've learned from experience. Yours seems to be to pass on what you think you've learned from a few semesters at whatever school you're now attending. Stuff nobody but you has learned that well before? Except apparently your purpose is to prove to yourself you've learned it.
ReplyDeleteYour argumentative style is to debate, and with you it seems to be a lying contest. You come up with some fictional proposition that you pretend to know is true, and if another shoots you down, you come up with a different back story.
You can't see that all your argumentation is almost hopelessly simplistic, a tower of rationalistic babble in which you take great joy in the construction.
So as to your gender fantasy, I've said all I have to say, and rather than revisit the substance of our arguments, you want us both to somehow do a rewrite of yours. And I'm expected to cooperate because its all my fault that you've been misunderstood.
There's a reason why I'm the only one left here to deal with you - no-one else wants to. Nor do I any longer.
Except I really should address your abject ignorance as to the real life workings of the adversarial system. Not that I expect you'll benefit, because you've only seen that system work in your fantasy world - while I and others have actually experienced and learned from it.
So stay tuned for some music from the real world.
OK, I didn't have a lot of time for this, but what he hell, it's James I'm dealing with. If it only serves to irritate him then it can't be all bad.
ReplyDeleteJames writes: "My complaint was that victim impact statements were OUTSIDE the adversarial system. How exactly does that amount to a criticism OF the adversarial system?"
I don't see where James said they were outside it, or consequently made that a criticism. He simply/simplistically made a rather stupid comment about the sneakiness of the prosecution, and in fact the whole post was hopelessly simplistic.
And if there was no criticism to be had about the adversarial system, it could be that he's sublimely unaware of its inadequacies. Rawls hasn't sent him any thoughts to that effect apparently.
James, your alleged Rawlsian intuition hasn't thought the problem through - the Rawlsian intellect's gone missing, He was for example rather good at the process of elimination, and so far you haven't been.
As I wrote earlier, to be consistent with your "sneaky" scenario, the victim would have to have withheld exculpatory information rather than the substantive, and expect somehow to use it against the defendant in the sentencing process.
And what else but the exculpatory would be in the victims interest to withhold in the business of obtaining a conviction, since the punishment desired for retaliatory or other purposes must rest first on getting that conviction? But since the offense convicted of may, despite all efforts, be of less severity than the actual circumstances warrant, the victim's incentive at the sentencing stage would surely be to get in evidence earlier disallowed in the interests of the defense, and thus against the interests of the victim.
So anything the prosecution would "sneak" in later would be something they would have wanted entered earlier that was, in the victims view, unfairly hidden by the rules - such as is most hearsay evidence, or speculation, or sound but uncorroborated assumptions, etc.
So then how would this be the prelude to sneaky if it's all about an open process?
And if the rules had not allowed the victim to present some testimony earlier to the jury, how is it 'sneaky' to present same later to the judge under the presumption that he'll not only allow it but find it useful? And you perhaps are unaware that the defense will seize on any chance to appeal on the basis that evidence that bore substantive examination has somehow been sneaked past them.
All this leaving the victim with the items to be avoided during trial as stuff to be seized on by the defense as exculpable. But you don't 'cross examine' the exculpable until it's otherwise attainable voluntarily. "Is there anything else you want or need to tell me," doesn't usually work if the prosecution doesn't want it to. And if it does, then there goes the conviction that the victim needed first.
So in short, the victim has no motive to withhold evidence that by so doing would jeopardize the conviction, and no motive to put forward anything that would do so as well.
So what's in theory left that could be presented to the judge at sentencing that had not been subject earlier to cross examination? Why, the exculpatory! But how to twist that to advantage would seem to be the problem, unless James can explain it.
But wait, could not the victim just as well present her feelings to court during trial?
ReplyDeleteNot, unfortunately, if by the rules of evidence they rank as opinions that are deemed prejudicial. In other words there are things the judge can supposedly consider objectively that the jury can't. And thus not trickery to have him hear them. And if in some odd sense these opinions would have been otherwise exculpatory, the defense can request at the very least a mistrial.
So our 'sneaky' scenario seems to fail on all counts. Unless of course the prosecutor's shifty motive would be to have the victim lie to the judge, which for some odd reason wouldn't have been possible to the jury. The judge presumably unable to suspect or spot a lie as well as the jury. The prosecutor as an officer of the court presumed willing to risk presenting what he/she had to know to be a lie beforehand.
Not bloody likely.
Oh and as to the level of his understanding that James takes pride in, here's an example that's a classic:
ReplyDelete"You should also look up the word “expectation”. People do not bring expectations on themselves, and men are EXPECTED to provide."
Thanks Kostos. If I wasn't the one being abused, I would have lost interest long ago. You're a more patient person than I.
ReplyDeleteO.k., so, instead of my usual style of addressing every (attempt at) an argument, I'll just tackle one.(Notice the ridiculous rhetorical flourish I'm employing here, the one where I talk as if I'm not addressing Baron, but am addressing some larger and grander audience... so lame. Sorry B.)
"James writes: 'My complaint was that victim impact statements were OUTSIDE the adversarial system. How exactly does that amount to a criticism OF the adversarial system?' I don't see where James said they were outside it, or consequently made that a criticism. He simply/simplistically made a rather stupid comment about the sneakiness of the prosecution, and in fact the whole post was hopelessly simplistic.” - Baron P.
Well, let's look back at what I've said, shall we Baron? Since we're such good friends now, and such honest interlocutors.
“The second is where victim impact statements are presented to a judge before the judge passes sentence. This is often used as a sneaky way of introducing evidence. Victim impact statements are filled with information that, had it been available before conviction, could have led to a different judgement. I don't mind the idea of victim impact statements as long as they are entered into evidence before conviction, and are subject to cross-examination and all the other rules of evidence. “ - James
What to make of all these complicated words? Let's draw our attention to “I don't mind the idea of victim impact statements as long as they are entered into evidence before conviction”. That sounds a lot like James (talking about myself in the 3rd person is perversely amusing btw) is advocating that victim impact statements be treated like evidence, and drawn into the adversarial portion of the legal system rather than tacked onto the end of the trial process, where the adversarial process (and cross-examination) is no longer in effect. Doesn't it seem to say that? I really think it does. So, how does “I [Baron P.] don't see where James said they [victim impact statements] were outside it [the adversarial system], or consequently made that a criticism” attest to anything other than your poor comprehension skills?
Wow, how many fallacies have I collected in you honour Baqron P? It's become quite a list. But let's, just for fun, take a quick tour of the car accident that has been Baron P ...
- insert romantic montage-ready soundtrack -
ReplyDelete“Oh and as to the level of his understanding that James takes pride in, here's an example that's a classic: [insert statement by James]” - Baron P.
Fallacy: the belief that by merely repeating a statement you have mounted a rebuttal or added information in some way.
“James, your alleged Rawlsian intuition [...]” - Baron P
Fallacy: the belief that referring conspiratorially to an attribution somehow amounts to an argument against the validity of that attribution.
“OK, I didn't have a lot of time for this, but what he hell, it's James I'm dealing with. If it only serves to irritate him then it can't be all bad. “
Fallacy: the belief that acting in bad faith is somehow ethical or admirable.
“You can't see that all your argumentation is [...]” and “come on, can't you see that you've set up a series of [...].”
Fallacy: the belief that the mere allegation of an argument's falsity amounts to an argument or proof of falsity.
“[...] men have evolved to take more risks, but for the benefit of their survival as a species.” - Baron P
Fallacy: that men differ from women in regard to species.
“Your argumentative style is to debate, and with you it seems to be a lying contest. You come up with some fictional proposition that you pretend to know is true, and if another shoots you down, you come up with a different back story. “ - Baron P
Fallacy: posting to the internet while drunk is wise.
“Yours [purpose] seems to be to pass on what you think you've learned from a few semesters at whatever school you're now attending ... your purpose is to prove to yourself you've learned it. “
Fallacy: the belief that one can take a handful of facts and extrapolate from them a rich character profile.
Seriously man, you need to get a grip. The real list is much longer than this. I don't mind because I dissect arguments for fun - the way other people do crosswords. You're just entertainment for me at this point. If you want to keep going, I'm happy to do so, but if you want to continue without being an embarrassment to yourself, you're going to have to mount a more focused campaign. Try picking a very focused point, and making a thorough argument in its favour rather than the shotgun approach.
Be disciplined. Focus. Don't let your emotions string you along. You can do it.
James, I hate to tell you (well not really) but the reason I appeared to address the audience and not you, was because I was addressing the audience and not you. (But I did suspect that you were listening.)
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, the sentencing process IS a part of the adversarial system, as is the appeal process, etc. On my part of the planet anyway.
And yes, men differ from women in regard to their species. Still having a problem with that?
And yes I really "can take a handful of facts and extrapolate from them a rich character profile."
I do it for amusement, and of course to entertain the audience.
Audiences thrive on the inferential by the way - its what they EXPECT.
Example:
"I was happy to let him lead the argument in that direction, but now that it's led nowhere, he'll hopefully be inspired to investigate into his somewhat outdated view of social dynamics."
I'm fascinated by the exercise of this fun type of fallacy. Oops, bad faith? My bad?