Particularly distressing to see Scott describe men's rights as a "made-up, reactionary concept". Not unusual - men's requests for fairness have been scoffed at for at least 50 years - but saddening.
The generally pointless, time-wasting semantic debates that tend to devolve into motte-and-bailey or no-true-Scotsman arguments might be avoided if society just had a healthy respect for non-identification. It should almost never be controversial to not identify with a label; someone who doesn't identify with anti-communism or antifa can't be reasonably suspected thereby of being a communist or fascist, respectively. Complaints that one's issues with an ideology are mere nitpicks aren't really persuasive. As a general rule, it is reasonable for people to shy away from brand-name ideologies for the sake precision and nuance in expounding their views.
"Women can abort a child she does not want, but a man cannot legally refuse to fund a child he does not want."
A man can not abort a child because men don't have an uterus (cis men at least). But after the child is born, both men and women cannot legally refuse to pay child support. Child support laws are not gendered. If Britney Spears has a child with an unemployed man and after 3 days she leaves her child, the father can charge Britney Spears for child support. You are wrong to call child support laws oppressive to men, Bryan.
And of course there are orders of magnitude differences in being not allowed to have an abortion and not allowed to skip child support (which no gender is anyway).
What I said was is that child support laws are not gendered and therefore not oppressive to men. Do you think a mother who earns more than the father has a right to leave her kid and not pay child support?
A mother who earns more money than the father has obviously not the right to leave the kid and not pay child support. You know that.
Mothers can not abandon their child at a hospital. What are you talking about? If it's about safe haven laws, these are for both genders too. If one parent makes clear that he/she doesn't want to take care of the child, the other parent is allowed to put the child in a safe haven.
Women are by law obligated to pay child support, just like men. Because men earn more money, men pay more child support than women, if you wanted to hear this so badly. So the law is not oppressive to men, it's just that men earn more money. Calling child support laws anti-male is like calling tax laws anti-white and then asking "Do you really think blacks pay as much taxes as whites?"
"Child support" explicitly harms the higher earner and provides an unearned income to the lower earner precisely because the higher earner tends to be the man. We all know this: it's not even hidden. (I'm putting "child support" in quotes for reasons I'll get into below.)
No woman can be required to pay "child support" for a child that is not biologically hers. Men can: a man can be required to pay "child support" for a child that is the product of an affair - and it's common - but a woman cannot; a man can be required to pay "child support" because he failed to respond to an assertion of paternity and it has been almost impossible to remedy the "error" - and it's not rare - but a woman cannot; and efforts to address both of these injustices have been fiercely opposed by women's organizations. Indeed, women's organizations have even supported "child support" awards being made against men who committed no crime greater than forming a positive relationship with the child of a girlfriend! (Way to encourage positive relationships!)
And, of course, a woman can abandon a child without penalty after it is born as long as she does so without informing the father of its existence; a man cannot.
"Child support" laws are outrageously biased. If each parent actually performs 50% of the child care, the one who earns more will be forced to pay substantial amounts of "child support" to the other - again, this is transparently done because women traditionally expect to be supported by the men in their lives, and this almost always transfers money from men to women for no better reason than tradition benefitting women. In addition, custody tends to be biased against the higher income-earner: we all know the justifications offered and they're all anchored in traditional gender roles - that, in this case, happen to suit women.
"Child support" payments do not have to be used to benefit the child; they can be used for anything at all, and courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this. Note that the payment is forced on the grounds of "the best interest of the child" but once the recipient parent has the money, that standard evaporates. And, indeed, they are explicitly designed to enable the recipient parent to live at a lifestyle they could not themselves afford even if they weren't raising the child. This is simply traditional gender-role codependency, enforced by law.
Finally, yes, calling child support laws anti-male is indeed like calling other laws racist - the most well-known example being the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, although it's easy to come up with plenty of others. Yes, laws that are facially equal can be motivated by sexism and racism, and we all know that. Yes, laws that are facially equal can have dramatically sexist or racist consequences, and we all know that. And yes, "child support" laws are an example.
An alternative way to put it: "child support" laws are dreadfully unfair to whichever parent has been earning more. They not only form a tax that transfers income based on the slimmest of rationales; they convert the higher-income parent into a human income-generating asset owned by the other.
These laws are gender-neutral: they abuse the higher-earning parent regardless of gender. However, historically and currently, because it has been men who have tended to earn more, it has been men who have been most vocal about the unfairness of these laws.
Nevertheless, the laws are unfair: if they impacted both sexes equally, they would still be unfair.
Also, there is substantial evidence that the reason they are unfair is that they were written with traditional gender roles in mind, explicitly to (usually) benefit women. In that sense, they are sexist. But even if that were not the case, they would still be unfair.
In addition, certain aspects of "child support" and "family" law more broadly are overtly sexist.
Well, feminists and racial activists are perfectly happy to call policies that are not explicitly oppressing a specific group but still have a disproportionately high effect on that group "anti-x" policies. I am, perhaps wrongly, assuming you are coming from a feminist perspective, since you are very much arguing that women are treated more unfairly than men.
As such, I suppose I also should have assumed you'd employ the motte and bailey defense as Bryan points out.
Your statement implies that women abort children only because they can’t afford it or don’t want to pay for it. Does having to pay for a child that has already been born ever cause a man to pee their pants every time they sneeze for the rest of their life? Or resulted in them receiving an episiotomy?
“To be honest, I don’t talk to people who talk this way. I don’t think Scott should talk to them either. They’re a lost cause. I am happy to converse with almost anyone who wants to politely exchange ideas, but arguing with hysterical fanatics is futile.”
In hindsight, this is why it was a waste of time to do the last round table discussion you did on NPR.
I think if a stereotype accuracy holds for a negative view for a group of foreigners (e.g., "People from X country are more prone to crime", and when you look at the data they indeed do commit significantly more crime), then you can say that people who are skeptical of X people are not totally irrational, they have a justified prejudice against them.
Tho I can guess how Caplan would reply to this (which would involve probability and trait distribution calculations).
There are many asshole vegans online (and in the real world)*.
Bryan's view of feminism would be like saying, "People who call themselves vegan are mean to me and friends on Twitter. Therefore, just ignore all the issues of factory farming."
*As I talk about in the "The End of Veganism" section here:
Particularly distressing to see Scott describe men's rights as a "made-up, reactionary concept". Not unusual - men's requests for fairness have been scoffed at for at least 50 years - but saddening.
The generally pointless, time-wasting semantic debates that tend to devolve into motte-and-bailey or no-true-Scotsman arguments might be avoided if society just had a healthy respect for non-identification. It should almost never be controversial to not identify with a label; someone who doesn't identify with anti-communism or antifa can't be reasonably suspected thereby of being a communist or fascist, respectively. Complaints that one's issues with an ideology are mere nitpicks aren't really persuasive. As a general rule, it is reasonable for people to shy away from brand-name ideologies for the sake precision and nuance in expounding their views.
"Women can abort a child she does not want, but a man cannot legally refuse to fund a child he does not want."
A man can not abort a child because men don't have an uterus (cis men at least). But after the child is born, both men and women cannot legally refuse to pay child support. Child support laws are not gendered. If Britney Spears has a child with an unemployed man and after 3 days she leaves her child, the father can charge Britney Spears for child support. You are wrong to call child support laws oppressive to men, Bryan.
And of course there are orders of magnitude differences in being not allowed to have an abortion and not allowed to skip child support (which no gender is anyway).
So...are you seriously trying to say that women are obligated to pay child support as much or more than men?
What I said was is that child support laws are not gendered and therefore not oppressive to men. Do you think a mother who earns more than the father has a right to leave her kid and not pay child support?
Yes, the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy and not pay child support for 18 years. Even if the father thinks she's murdering his child.
If the mother does give birth and then changes her mind, she can abandon the baby at a hospital and not pay child support.
A mother who earns more money than the father has obviously not the right to leave the kid and not pay child support. You know that.
Mothers can not abandon their child at a hospital. What are you talking about? If it's about safe haven laws, these are for both genders too. If one parent makes clear that he/she doesn't want to take care of the child, the other parent is allowed to put the child in a safe haven.
You have completely dodged my question.
Women are by law obligated to pay child support, just like men. Because men earn more money, men pay more child support than women, if you wanted to hear this so badly. So the law is not oppressive to men, it's just that men earn more money. Calling child support laws anti-male is like calling tax laws anti-white and then asking "Do you really think blacks pay as much taxes as whites?"
"Child support" explicitly harms the higher earner and provides an unearned income to the lower earner precisely because the higher earner tends to be the man. We all know this: it's not even hidden. (I'm putting "child support" in quotes for reasons I'll get into below.)
No woman can be required to pay "child support" for a child that is not biologically hers. Men can: a man can be required to pay "child support" for a child that is the product of an affair - and it's common - but a woman cannot; a man can be required to pay "child support" because he failed to respond to an assertion of paternity and it has been almost impossible to remedy the "error" - and it's not rare - but a woman cannot; and efforts to address both of these injustices have been fiercely opposed by women's organizations. Indeed, women's organizations have even supported "child support" awards being made against men who committed no crime greater than forming a positive relationship with the child of a girlfriend! (Way to encourage positive relationships!)
And, of course, a woman can abandon a child without penalty after it is born as long as she does so without informing the father of its existence; a man cannot.
"Child support" laws are outrageously biased. If each parent actually performs 50% of the child care, the one who earns more will be forced to pay substantial amounts of "child support" to the other - again, this is transparently done because women traditionally expect to be supported by the men in their lives, and this almost always transfers money from men to women for no better reason than tradition benefitting women. In addition, custody tends to be biased against the higher income-earner: we all know the justifications offered and they're all anchored in traditional gender roles - that, in this case, happen to suit women.
"Child support" payments do not have to be used to benefit the child; they can be used for anything at all, and courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this. Note that the payment is forced on the grounds of "the best interest of the child" but once the recipient parent has the money, that standard evaporates. And, indeed, they are explicitly designed to enable the recipient parent to live at a lifestyle they could not themselves afford even if they weren't raising the child. This is simply traditional gender-role codependency, enforced by law.
Finally, yes, calling child support laws anti-male is indeed like calling other laws racist - the most well-known example being the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, although it's easy to come up with plenty of others. Yes, laws that are facially equal can be motivated by sexism and racism, and we all know that. Yes, laws that are facially equal can have dramatically sexist or racist consequences, and we all know that. And yes, "child support" laws are an example.
An alternative way to put it: "child support" laws are dreadfully unfair to whichever parent has been earning more. They not only form a tax that transfers income based on the slimmest of rationales; they convert the higher-income parent into a human income-generating asset owned by the other.
These laws are gender-neutral: they abuse the higher-earning parent regardless of gender. However, historically and currently, because it has been men who have tended to earn more, it has been men who have been most vocal about the unfairness of these laws.
Nevertheless, the laws are unfair: if they impacted both sexes equally, they would still be unfair.
Also, there is substantial evidence that the reason they are unfair is that they were written with traditional gender roles in mind, explicitly to (usually) benefit women. In that sense, they are sexist. But even if that were not the case, they would still be unfair.
In addition, certain aspects of "child support" and "family" law more broadly are overtly sexist.
Well, feminists and racial activists are perfectly happy to call policies that are not explicitly oppressing a specific group but still have a disproportionately high effect on that group "anti-x" policies. I am, perhaps wrongly, assuming you are coming from a feminist perspective, since you are very much arguing that women are treated more unfairly than men.
As such, I suppose I also should have assumed you'd employ the motte and bailey defense as Bryan points out.
Your statement implies that women abort children only because they can’t afford it or don’t want to pay for it. Does having to pay for a child that has already been born ever cause a man to pee their pants every time they sneeze for the rest of their life? Or resulted in them receiving an episiotomy?
I don't think you want to hang the right to choose on those.
Actually I do want to hang the right to choose on bodily autonomy. That should be the only thing that matters.
“To be honest, I don’t talk to people who talk this way. I don’t think Scott should talk to them either. They’re a lost cause. I am happy to converse with almost anyone who wants to politely exchange ideas, but arguing with hysterical fanatics is futile.”
In hindsight, this is why it was a waste of time to do the last round table discussion you did on NPR.
Professor Caplan: Is there a time or place, now or ever, in which xenophobia is a rational and reasonable response?
Xenomorphs. Definitely in that case, so there is at least one!
:)
I think if a stereotype accuracy holds for a negative view for a group of foreigners (e.g., "People from X country are more prone to crime", and when you look at the data they indeed do commit significantly more crime), then you can say that people who are skeptical of X people are not totally irrational, they have a justified prejudice against them.
Tho I can guess how Caplan would reply to this (which would involve probability and trait distribution calculations).
I finally came up with the analogy I've wanted.
There are many asshole vegans online (and in the real world)*.
Bryan's view of feminism would be like saying, "People who call themselves vegan are mean to me and friends on Twitter. Therefore, just ignore all the issues of factory farming."
*As I talk about in the "The End of Veganism" section here:
https://www.losingmyreligions.net/
PS: Thanks to Scott for getting Bryan to engage more thoroughly.
That doesn't seem at all like an honest or thorough engagement with what Bryan is saying.
Yea, unfortunately that's Matt's m.o. it seems. He is consistent, although one can argue whether that is a virtue when one is consistently like that.