I haven't read your book, and while I think I read all of Neera Badhwar's previous post, I don't remember clearly enough to say for certain.
That said, it feels sloppy that we're talking about both how women were treated in 1960 and and how women are treated today. The treatment of women in 1960 is evidence that we needed the movement in 1960, but is hardly evidence that we need it today.
The position is that Feminism in the 1960s was a harmful/unnecessary movement/identity and the position that Feminism in 2022 is a harmful/unnecessary movement/identity are very different. Maybe you hold both positions, but arguing about the 1960s clutters the much more useful discussion about what we should be doing today.
I can see some value in demonstrating that such a movement has been effective at improving the treatment of women, but it's a separate discussion from "here are the trade-offs being made today; let's discuss where the line is best drawn." (e.g., how cautious should we be about workplace harassment, how should we treat accusations, etc.) It's fine to have both discussions, but clear delineation is important.
Maybe it's because I take it for granted that the women's right movement did a massive amount of good that I feel this way, but it's at the margins where debate is valuable, and debate of where we're going too far or not far enough *today* that's of particular value and relevance.
The conflation of 1960s feminism - which I’m greatly thankful for - with the modern version (that’s being passed off as some “third wave” bs) make both yours and Neera’s arguments difficult to fully appreciate. While there’s merit to what you’re saying the last third of your rebuttal left a lot to be desired...
You say -- But the idea that “Men had always been encouraged to be immoral” is odd. I don’t recall ever being so encouraged.
That’s not the point. Neera’s saying IF giving women the power of birth control was denied becoz it encourages them to be immoral then shouldn’t we apply the same standard to men?
Re IVY leagues - going to college was not encouraged. It is not ok to say that applied to a very small % because it’s symbolic and representative of other denials. Plus by this “it’s only a small %” argument isn’t it only a small % of men who suffer as a result of false sexual harassment charges? Where are the huge numbers there?
Serving on juries - again Neera states that “the reasons for not allowing women were demeaning” and you skirt that issue. If men were denied that right because they’re not smart or balanced or rational enough then yes it would be demeaning to them.
You also call out the need for paying attention to the merchants’ pov and letting couples decide for themselves. Agree but none of these “choices” exist in a social - cultural vaccum and sometimes we need to speak up. It’s not just about political rights alone. It’s why we protest bad cultural practices and call for better safeguards. Hijab anyone?
Overall you call out Neera but it’s actually disappointing to see two top notch libertarians unable to make sense of the much needed balance we need to arrive at.
Thanks for pointing out where Bryan skirts the issue! But I didn't say anything about 3rd wave feminism, or confuse the past with the present. I discussed the past only because B. did so in his reply to Kat Murti's comments and in his book (which I haven't read). The overturning of R v W shows that feminism is still all-important. I've just finished my second reply to B's blogs, so you'll see it soon.
Although, Bryan, I largely agree with your take against Neera’s, I wonder how strong the evidence really is regarding the graph of how people meet others over time. While office romances have dropped, so have romances initiated through family and (even steeper drops) through friends and at college. Perhaps the graph is only evidence of how easy technology has made it to meet one’s match via apps designed to make that easy.
Regarding the “encouraged to be immoral” claim, I think that’s probably simply a poor phrasing of a real phenomenon. Prior to the “sexual revolution,” I do recall (and I’m older than you) a fairly common double standard where a woman who had many lovers was looked down upon while a man who had many lovers was not. It’s not that he was ENCOURAGED to “be immoral.” It was that he was not disapproved of for “being immoral.” While a similarly situated woman more likely was. Having acknowledged a double standard, I don’t think this has been true for several decades, since the wide availability of The Pill, so I don't see it helping Neera's argument.
Of course it's not true now. I was talking about the past because Bryan talked about the past. In any case, my point was that the pill was frowned upon because it was thought to encourage immorality. But the parallel situation in the case of men - freedom to have sex without the fear of pregnancy - was not. I've just finished my rebuttal of B's reply to my reply. I don't think you'll be able to "largely agree" with Bryan after you read it :) In the meantime, read Reena Kapoor's reply above.
Monogomy in men was considered a virtue and required by the marriage vows of the primary religion of society. While everyone understood that infidelity was worse in women, it's not as if men were openly flaunting having a harem. Even the kings of Middle Ages had to give up their concubines and beg the pope for a divorce.
I think the proper context for this particular issue was pre-marital sexual experience. Sure, monogamy after marriage was/is valued for both men and women, but in my youth (60s, 70s), coming to the marriage bed as a virgin was valued in a woman, while experience in bed was more likely valued in a man.
Really? I'm an old guy but I must admit to not having heard men insisting on or stating a desire to marry a virgin in quite a while. Any citations to support the claim this is a thing for modern men?
It always amuses me when I read “modern” discussions on feminism in the 70’s. Feminism, post the year 2000, especially “Me Too”, in my opinion, is just about the worst thing that has happened to women and especially men.
It has brutalized women and wussified men.
I turned 18 in 1978. I lived through a lot of what you all are talking about in these pieces. Women were viewed as property well into the 1960’s.
My first ever Substack post addressed the recent Roe v Wade opinion change. It’s why I started writing again.
It covered all of the things women couldn’t do in the 70’s, around the same time the the original supreme court opinion was written.
In 2005, I bought a house. I was in the middle of a divorce in Ohio. Ohio is a dower state. What’s dower? A medieval idea that says women can’t own property.
I had to have my to-be-ex sign off that he wouldn’t claim any rights to the house I was buying. Know that he used this for all it was worth at the time.
In 2022 I sold that house. The bank that was providing the mortgage to the new buyer wanted proof that my ex of 17 years had no rights to the property.
> Ohio is a dower state. What’s dower? A medieval idea that says women can’t own property. What’s dower? A medieval idea that says women can’t own property.
Hmm, I read https://www.findlaw.com/state/ohio-law/ohio-dower-rights.html. This reads as the opposite of sexism? The law initially was intended to protect widows and divorcees when not on the deed of the property, they could block the sale. It was later expanded to husbands, and that seems to have irked you?
Could you elaborate why you find this law sexist today? I am not sure I understand.
The biggest clue is, why did I have to prove in 2022, to the new buyers mortgage company that my ex of 17 years had no rights to a house I was selling.
Think how that might have felt for a moment knowing the history.
He was in Utah, he bought a house at the same time, I didn’t have to sign away dower rights for his purchase. Do I have a stake is his real estate? When he sells, will he have to prove I don’t have a stake? I doubt it.
The other thing to think about, is, why are only 3 states “dower” states still? Are the rest of the states not protecting spousal rights?
This issue goes pretty deep, but here’s what I found at a surface level.
“Depending on where you live, you might be subject to an 1800s law that dictates what happens to your property when you die. Dower rights, a product of English common law, once entitled wives to one-third of their husbands’ real property when they died. Dower rights laws are rare today, but there are still a few states that maintain them. If you live in one of those states, it’s important that you understand how dower rights impact your property.” https://www.quickenloans.com/learn/dower-rights
This law became the template for other states to grant married women the right to own property. Many states adapted this law into state codes. Ohio didn’t.
My read says if a spouse does not have the other spouses name on the deed of say the marital house, the next in line to inherit, not the other spouse, can decide who gets the house. It doesn’t say anything about blocking a sale.
In 1953 when this code was written, in Ohio, women couldn’t hold a mortgage without a male cosigner. Today, with modern interpretation the assignment of dower could protect both spouses. But then, with a 1953 interpretation, if a husband died, and the woman was not on the deed, someone else decided who inherited the real estate.
This particular segment of code hasn’t been revised since then because it is open to a more relaxed interpretation today. It is a result of recent Ohio history where they attempted to abolish dower in Ohio in 2018 which resulted in some of the codes being revised:
“ Regardless of its origins, most commentators (including title companies, real estate attorneys, real estate trade organizations, legislators and others) agree that dower is a sexist, archaic, superseded and troublesome doctrine that should be abolished.”. http://www.ohiorelaw.com/2018/08/abolition-of-dower-rights-in-ohio-now.html
Even though, I still had to prove my ex of 17 years had no rights to the house I was selling in 2022.
So yes, given the history here, it’s about as sexist as it gets.
> So yes, given the history here, it’s about as sexist as it gets.
1) Law to protect widows when they are not on the deed. Maybe sexist, but with the intention to protect and at the time necessary and probably did a lot of good.
2) Law becomes applicable to husbands to make it **not** sexist anymore
3) You are upset because the non-sexist version now forces you as a wife to consider your husband rights.
Maybe the law is archaic, and I can see it sucks, but calling it sexist because it negatively affects you as a woman does not sound very logical. Even today I expect more husbands to have your problem than wives.
You confuse easily. It was an ex-husband. The law always was applicable for husbands. Findlaw, your source, inaccurately describes the Ohio regulations.
In Ohio, today yes. In Ohio, in 1953, when the statute was written, no. Women were not allowed to be on a mortgage without a male co-signer then and up to 1974. That was changed in 1974. Yours wouldn’t have been a question pre 1974.
What I took exception to was that after 17 years of paying a mortgage on my own, I had to prove the ex had no claim, even though he signed off on it in 2004. It’s a mentality that still exists here and it’s wrong.
Had I said I was single, it wouldn’t have been a question at all and that’s probably what I should have said, and now I know better.
Your equation of most women always living their lives with a background fear of sexual assault and rape with a fraction of men in prison is really revealing. And a man being "forced" to support a child is worse than a woman being forced to be pregnant and give birth? Yowza.
> But that doesn't mean I write books saying "Don't be a vegan" or write endless columns about the persecution of non-vegans.
Caplan explained why he chose to write such a book. It had something to do with how the ideology has impacted his workplace and over time the US society at large. If vegans had the same sort of impact (dominant narrative, food policing, suppression of speech, etc) maybe you would write a "Don't be a vegan" book.
Either way, criticizing his choice/focus is not engaging with the argument presented.
> Just because there are asshole vegans doesn't mean the cruelty of factory farms isn't a serious problem.
That's a strawman of Caplan's book in two ways:
1. It claims that he's not addressing the core claims of feminism today, but only those of some radical assholes. You've not supported that claim.
2. It implies that he downplays serious/real problems. Which serious problems did he downplay?
> Have they seen the world? What percentage of Presidents have been women? [...]
Finally, you go on to present a few cherry-picked facts, as if this supported the feminist claim that women a treated less fairly than men, a problem that Caplan specifically addresses. Did you read the book?
It's just the title essay. Most of the book's essays are NOT about feminism. Minor point but I think it should be acknowledged. Bryan did not write an entire book opposing feminism.
2007 is also when he was writing his graphic novel "Amore Infernale", which I recall him saying involves men's rights but that might have been in a post on the Economist's Free Exchange blog which search engines won't pick up anymore.
And the title essay of his book is explicitly addressed at his DAUGHTER with the aim of making her life better, not Aaronson's.
I'm responding here rather than at your blog because I saw in a previous post you linked that you deleted a comment you disliked and then (confusingly) continued responding to it even though no one else could read what you were responding to.
It's perfectly coherent to say that society horribly mistreats BOTH women & men, but that one's comparative advantage is focusing on one or the other. There are plenty of people who support multiple charities, even while those charities have workers who just work for that charity and don't find it objectionable that their donors also support those other charities.
I agree with this which is why I feel a much more practicality important criticism of the modern feminist movement is that (for all it claims to do otherwise) is that it still largely frames the issue as male oppression of women. In fact, as one should expect a priori, men tend to do less policing of women's roles and behavior than other women do (just as women do less policing of being macho or a provider than other men).
Practically, I think many critics like Bryan are motivated by the sense that much feminist rhetoric isn't really an attempt to just help women deal with troubling barriers/expectations they face but is instead prosecuted as a kind of male/female rivalry.
That's unfortunate because I do believe there are plenty of undesirable social pressures and expectations imposed on women (as their are on men) it's just that, especially now, they are generally imposed by other members of that sex. Ofc that recruiting incentives make that hard to organize against.
"men tend to do less policing of women's roles and behavior than other women do"
Bryan himself is policing women's behavior more than women do by saying women are hypersensitive because they are against sexual harassment (Metoo). The whole manosphere, from Jordan Peterson to Andrew Tate, exists solely to shame women for not being feminine enough. There's no female comparison to this.
I think gender wars are unnecessary, we could just all agree that sexual harassment is bad and no one should be shamed for not behaving "traditional", so it's very sad to see how MRA like Bryan have to make it a men vs. women thing.
A few responses. First, even if true, that doesn't contradict my claim. Of course men sometimes police women's behavior and vice-versa. I only made a claim about who does it more.
Second, there is a huge difference between critisizing a view/movement (even if he's dead wrong and his views are harmful) and calling out women for behaving in too masculine a fashion. Bryan isn't any more critical of women advancing these views then men.
Look, I've been pretty clear elsewhere that I think Bryan's approach to this issue is kinda ridiculous and unhelpful (though he is correct on some of the narrow issues about who has it worse that focus is the problem...fighting to fix problems facing women or men shouldn't require deciding who has it worse overall anymore than trying to find a cure for cancer requires saying it's worse than Alzheimer's).
So maybe it's true that if people adopted his view that would make it harder to fight sexual harassment. But that just makes his view misguided it doesn't make him a supporter of sexual harassment. That's like saying that because someone believes (totally wrongly) that harsh drug laws are needed to protect minority communities (when they are, in fact, a huge cause of racial inequality and harm to minorities) they are therefore trying to oppress minorities. Nope, they are just mistaken.
> Fear of being accused of sexual harassment is now a big problem for a large share of workers. I maintain that the latter problem is, on balance, much bigger. MeToo has responded to complex trade-offs with fanatical zeal, to the point where workers fear to initiate any workplace romance.
So, a woman complained about EA being seemingly unsafe/uncomfortable environment for women. Turns out, it was partly based on false accusations which were proven false. Scott Alexander brought it up. And, for some bizarre reason, some people believed it was a bad thing to bring it up. Because it's important to empathize. With women, of course.
> it makes me sad that the top comment on this post is adversarial/argumentative and showing little emotional understanding/empathy (particularly the line "getting called out in posts like this one"). I think it unfortunately demonstrates well the point the author made about EA having an emotions problem:
> > [quote from post] However, there is an important distinction between interrogating someone’s research and interrogating someone’s lived experience. I fear that the attitude of truth-seeking and challenging one another to be better has led to an inclination to suspend compassion in the absence of substantial evidence of wrongdoing. You’re allowed to be sorry that someone experienced something without fully understanding it.
It's like it doesn't occur to some people that men are humans too. Unless it's not a claim that victim should be believed by default (but 'you're allowed to be sorry that someone experienced something' presupposes it, so...). But then, what's even the point of posting?
Anyway, later Scott wrote this:
> I understand that sexual assault is especially scary, and that it may seem jarring to compare it to less serious accusations like Bob's. But the original post says we need to express emotions more, and I wanted to try to convey an emotional sense of how scary this position feels to me. Sexual assault is really bad and we need strong norms about it. But we've been talking a lot about consequentialism vs. deontology lately, and where each of these is vs. isn't appropriate. And I think saying "sexual assault is so bad, that for the greater good we need to focus on supporting accusations around it, even when they're false and will destroy people's lives" is exactly the bad kind of consequentialism that never works in real life. The specific reason it never works in real life is that once you're known for throwing the occasional victim under the bus for the greater good, everyone is terrified of associating with you.
And somehow that wasn't convincing apparently:
> I would still push back against the gender-reversal false equivalency that you and others have mentioned. EA doesn't exist in a bubble. We live in a world where survivors, and in particular women, are not supported, not believed, and victim-blamed. Therefore I think it is pretty reasonable to have a prior that we should take accusations seriously and respond to them delicately.
Like... no, we don't. We live in a world where this is seemingly default opinion. This person seems to focus entirely on negative outcomes to women (was raped; wasn't believed), while being unconcerned about men who (didn't rape; weren't believed they didn't rape).
Scott:
> I think "everyone knows" (in Zvi's sense of the term, where it's such strong conventional wisdom that nobody ever checks if it's true ) that the typical response to rape accusations is to challenge and victim-blame survivors. And that although this may be true in some times and places, the typical response in this community is the one which, in fact, actually happened - immediate belief by anyone who didn't know the situation, and a culture of fear preventing those who did know the situation from speaking out. I think it's useful to acknowledge and push back against that culture of fear.
> I realize this is an annoyingly stereotypical situation - I, as a cis man, coming into a thread like this and saying I'm worried about a false accusations and chilling effects. My only two defenses are, first, that I only got this way because of specific real and harmful false accusations, that I tried to do an extreme amount of homework on them before calling false, and that I only ever bring up in the context of defending my decision there. And second, that I hope I'm possible to work with and feel safe around, despite my cultural goals, because I want to have a firm deontological commitment to promoting true things and opposing false things, in a way that doesn't refer to my broader cultural goals at any point.
I have memories of being in graduate school in the late 1960s. The deferral of military service for graduate students had just been ended, and the male graduate students were scrambling to get draft-exempt jobs. They watched the news from Vietnam (aka the war news) on the TV in the common room, and many were visibly stressed. Even if they escaped service that year, they were still on the hook until age 26.
Meanwhile the female graduate students could concentrate on their studies and then on their careers, without fear of interruption for military service.
The "Bill Burr (comedian) Why Men Deserve More Pay Hour Principle:" Men are expected to let women and children get on the lifeboats first. Men are expected to check out whether a burglar is downstairs. And they are expected to fight the wars. That's why they get "the extra dollar" per hour.
Several of the commentators below are puzzled about Bryan's and my discussion of women's social situation in the past. I address it because Bryan does: he argues that women were probably better off in the 1950s than they are now.
One thing that could make a difference is if men would have the right to "judicial abortion", meaning that if one does not want to become a father, he could make a legal statement for abortion in judicial and social sense, thereby not becoming a father.
>Sexual harassment has long been a big problem for a small share of workers. Fear of being accused of sexual harassment is now a big problem for a large share of workers. I maintain that the latter problem is, on balance, much bigger.
I think mst people assume that sexual harassment is a much bigger problem per person affected, and this outweighs it's relative rarity. (This might be more true now than before due to more women in the workplace.)
>Sexual harassment law, in contrast, makes it illegal to have any workplace that says “Accusations not welcome here.”
Such a workplace would obviously attract people looking to commit sex crimes. Although it might still be legal in some jurisdictions if you explicitly made every employee a sex worker (you might need to publish security footage in places that allow porn stars but not conventional prostitutes; the whole premise sounds like a porn scenario anyway.)
>At minimum, these three facts argue for a high burden of proof for sexual harassment accusations, combined with harsh punishments for not just falsehood but hypersensitivity.
I genuinely don't understand why you think this follows, I think your argument is missing a step. This isn't a dunk, I'm just missing something.
>The voluntarism and tolerance perspective. Whatever couples voluntarily decide between themselves is probably fine.
As soon as no-fault divorce was legalised, it skyrocketed, with divorces mostly initiated by women. That suggests a decent fraction of women were *not* remaining in relationships voluntarily, in the sense that they preferred to leave.
>Unless unfairness toward women is especially severe or overlooked, why focus on unfairness toward women rather than unfairness toward humans?
Division of labour? Many charities focus on things other than the Worst Thing.
Also, many feminists do pay attention to ways men are negatively affected by gender norms and emphasise that they want to end sexism towards "all humans". This is a very common position! You might object that the *name* feminism belies this, but for some mysterious reason women invented the feminist movement.
>If only women were forced to serve on juries, who would imagine that this “demeans” men?
Again, looking at feminist criticism of things men aren't allowed to do ... yes?
>Due to extraordinary levels of prison rape, it is not in fact clear that women suffer more rapes than men in the U.S. But in any case, men clearly suffer much more violence than women overall. So why is there so much focus on “violence against women” rather than violence per se?
Male-male violence, especially in prisons, is much more frequently between targets who are similarly criminal and thus often regarded as more "deserved" (and possibly less tractable a problem.) Non-prison rape is seen as a problem for, and within, "civilian" society which is more amenable to tactics like shaming.
Also, quite a lot of the support for male victims I've seen, including opposition to the way prison rape is normalised, has been from feminists using feminist arguments.
>Rightly or wrongly, states that ban abortion once again put women and men in the same boat.
Come on, this is *clearly* not true! I'm pro-life, but pregnancy and childbirth are obviously *fairly major* consequences here that men don't share.
>Horribly unjust in a worst-case scenario, where the husband plans to abscond with the money? Or in normal scenarios where husband and wife keep living and spending together?
Obviously the latter; do you agree that's clearly unjust (if perhaps rare enough not to change your stance), then?
>But you haven’t presented notable evidence that women are (or were) more victimized than I initially acknowledged.
You accepted two of their examples! Birth control and Ivy League admissions! Is your contention that they weren't "notable"?
I'm like 99% on your side on this, but I will point out two things.
"It is easy to end unwanted attention by ending all attention. Easy, absurd, and tyrannical. "
Personally, I think "no romantic relationships at work" is a very rational perspective and I would prefer it that way. I just generally think work is a place to make money and your personal life should stay very separate. This goes beyond just romantic issues, I hate this "bring your whole self to work" stuff.
If you aren't supposed to have any relationships at work, then we don't have any misunderstandings.
The problem with #MeToo is that people not even trying to form relationships can get accused on flimsy grounds and have their lives ruined.
"Whatever couples voluntarily decide between themselves is probably fine. Total strangers should keep their mouths shut, and even close family and friends should think twice before expressing an opinion."
It depends. Richard Hanania is currently defending the righteousness of having his 15 year old son get a girl pregnant.
How about "adults following the "half + 7 rule" with no other red flags should be given the benefit of the doubt".
In general I think you take "nonjudgementalism" too far. I doubt you would really apply it to your own children if they started engaging in highly suspect behavior.
I think this is one of the most insane notions. People spend the plurality of their time at work. For it to be sworn off as a potential source of romantic partners is bonkers.
> Personally, I think "no romantic relationships at work" is a very rational perspective and I would prefer it that way.
If I see how many young women dress at work I doubt many secretly agree with you. And your rationality does not seem to take into account millions of years of evolution; If we could be close together for a lot of hours a day and not mate we'd probably not be here in the first place.
I think this only works when we segregate the sexes. I never thought I'd think this but the idea is growing on me.
I've never been a believer that our raw instincts led to optimal outcomes. I'm proposing to give young women what they need, not what they want. The definition of rationality is that we have some ability to tame those instincts to improve outcomes.
As far as feasibility goes, I think "don't have relationships at work" is a lot easier of an equilibrium then "have relationships under some circumstances nobody can agree on and if it doesn't work out for any reason its a giant blow up that fucks everything up."
I think an important problem would be that even if you think that men and women are treated equally fairly or men are treated slightly more fairly, given robust historical trends its pretty clearly the case that in the near future women are going to be treated significantly more fairly than men and it doesn't seem like anything would be able to change this.
I think both men and women are currently treated about the same, but as time goes on men are going to be treated worse and worse, with the decline in sex amongst young men being a pretty good example, also in academia and the workplace you will see continued anti male preference. Just in general looking at younger generations they seem much more anti male, the future is certainly female.
I'm not sure that's true if we include implicit social pressures placed on men and women. I see women a the time subject to more criticism and pressure to live up to certain standards. It's just that it's mostly other women doing it, not men.
I could almost sense it, lack of sex as one important reason why "men are treated less fairly than women." It's very telling how deep sexual entitlement is rooted in all these gender debates. I feel like the whole anti-feminist/MRA movement exists mostly because of sexual frustration from guys like Scott Aaronson or Elliot Rodger.
Not a fan of various anti-feminist/MRA movements, although I think having a wife and kids is important for the mental wellbeing of the vast majority of men (and women). I think the Scott Aaronson case was very interesting (https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/) and I think your account of it "He was clearly angry at feminists because he blamed them for being incel when he was young." is pretty misguided, and would highly recommend reading the post in question (https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2091#comment-326664).
You clearly do think that men not having sex is "treating men less fair than women", so that says it all. It's the extreme sexual entitlement. The belief that men not having sex is oppressive and a very big problem for society. A horrible way of seeing the world. And of course it leads to people starting to search for ways of how to control women/female sexuality so that all incels can get laid.
I don't have any beliefs about moral entitlements and such, I just look at the way various social effects influence people. With respects to younger men not having sex I think this produces lots of generally undesirable consequences, and its worth trying to figure out ways to mitigate that. You should really read Scott Aaronson's original post as well as the reactions shown in Scott Alexander's piece, I don't think treating Aaronson with hostility is warranted.
I would not consider myself a member of any sort of anti-feminist/MRA movement, nor am I a fan (if you read the comment below this you can see me say "Not a fan of various anti-feminist/MRA movements".
I would also recommend reading further on in the thread you see arprin make numerous false claims and ignore my corrections, for example "There is no evidence for more unhappiness among women today, and it's very telling how you use links from more than 15 years ago. And moe importantly, female unhappiness has nothing to do with not having sex with incels, I'm sure most women are glad that they don't have to sleep with men they're not attracted to." I also think its quite telling that after I directly address one of your main points of contention, with strong evidence to the contrary namely "here is a 2022 working paper (https://www.nber.org/papers/w29893) and here is a podcast discussing some of the more recent stuff (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/are-women-really-less-happy-than-men/)" His first point was after I referenced the classic "https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf"
arprin didn't seem to know where to find the GSS data instead sending a image from reddit of a graph someone made in what appears to be powerpoint. Here is where you can download the data btw (https://gss.norc.org/get-the-data/stata) as I said earlier, arpin is trying to make general inferences of a study with only 53 people in the relevant age range and response, as opposed to using (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=0) the data of which of course contradicts what arprin is trying to say, I do have to agree with you though "this is a pretty good example of why it's a bad idea to reason from your feelings..."
I haven't read your book, and while I think I read all of Neera Badhwar's previous post, I don't remember clearly enough to say for certain.
That said, it feels sloppy that we're talking about both how women were treated in 1960 and and how women are treated today. The treatment of women in 1960 is evidence that we needed the movement in 1960, but is hardly evidence that we need it today.
The position is that Feminism in the 1960s was a harmful/unnecessary movement/identity and the position that Feminism in 2022 is a harmful/unnecessary movement/identity are very different. Maybe you hold both positions, but arguing about the 1960s clutters the much more useful discussion about what we should be doing today.
I can see some value in demonstrating that such a movement has been effective at improving the treatment of women, but it's a separate discussion from "here are the trade-offs being made today; let's discuss where the line is best drawn." (e.g., how cautious should we be about workplace harassment, how should we treat accusations, etc.) It's fine to have both discussions, but clear delineation is important.
Maybe it's because I take it for granted that the women's right movement did a massive amount of good that I feel this way, but it's at the margins where debate is valuable, and debate of where we're going too far or not far enough *today* that's of particular value and relevance.
Agree. We don't see anybody campaigning to end Prohibition anymore. It already got ended.
The conflation of 1960s feminism - which I’m greatly thankful for - with the modern version (that’s being passed off as some “third wave” bs) make both yours and Neera’s arguments difficult to fully appreciate. While there’s merit to what you’re saying the last third of your rebuttal left a lot to be desired...
You say -- But the idea that “Men had always been encouraged to be immoral” is odd. I don’t recall ever being so encouraged.
That’s not the point. Neera’s saying IF giving women the power of birth control was denied becoz it encourages them to be immoral then shouldn’t we apply the same standard to men?
Re IVY leagues - going to college was not encouraged. It is not ok to say that applied to a very small % because it’s symbolic and representative of other denials. Plus by this “it’s only a small %” argument isn’t it only a small % of men who suffer as a result of false sexual harassment charges? Where are the huge numbers there?
Serving on juries - again Neera states that “the reasons for not allowing women were demeaning” and you skirt that issue. If men were denied that right because they’re not smart or balanced or rational enough then yes it would be demeaning to them.
You also call out the need for paying attention to the merchants’ pov and letting couples decide for themselves. Agree but none of these “choices” exist in a social - cultural vaccum and sometimes we need to speak up. It’s not just about political rights alone. It’s why we protest bad cultural practices and call for better safeguards. Hijab anyone?
Overall you call out Neera but it’s actually disappointing to see two top notch libertarians unable to make sense of the much needed balance we need to arrive at.
Thanks for pointing out where Bryan skirts the issue! But I didn't say anything about 3rd wave feminism, or confuse the past with the present. I discussed the past only because B. did so in his reply to Kat Murti's comments and in his book (which I haven't read). The overturning of R v W shows that feminism is still all-important. I've just finished my second reply to B's blogs, so you'll see it soon.
Although, Bryan, I largely agree with your take against Neera’s, I wonder how strong the evidence really is regarding the graph of how people meet others over time. While office romances have dropped, so have romances initiated through family and (even steeper drops) through friends and at college. Perhaps the graph is only evidence of how easy technology has made it to meet one’s match via apps designed to make that easy.
Regarding the “encouraged to be immoral” claim, I think that’s probably simply a poor phrasing of a real phenomenon. Prior to the “sexual revolution,” I do recall (and I’m older than you) a fairly common double standard where a woman who had many lovers was looked down upon while a man who had many lovers was not. It’s not that he was ENCOURAGED to “be immoral.” It was that he was not disapproved of for “being immoral.” While a similarly situated woman more likely was. Having acknowledged a double standard, I don’t think this has been true for several decades, since the wide availability of The Pill, so I don't see it helping Neera's argument.
Of course it's not true now. I was talking about the past because Bryan talked about the past. In any case, my point was that the pill was frowned upon because it was thought to encourage immorality. But the parallel situation in the case of men - freedom to have sex without the fear of pregnancy - was not. I've just finished my rebuttal of B's reply to my reply. I don't think you'll be able to "largely agree" with Bryan after you read it :) In the meantime, read Reena Kapoor's reply above.
Don't we take this a bit too far.
Monogomy in men was considered a virtue and required by the marriage vows of the primary religion of society. While everyone understood that infidelity was worse in women, it's not as if men were openly flaunting having a harem. Even the kings of Middle Ages had to give up their concubines and beg the pope for a divorce.
I think the proper context for this particular issue was pre-marital sexual experience. Sure, monogamy after marriage was/is valued for both men and women, but in my youth (60s, 70s), coming to the marriage bed as a virgin was valued in a woman, while experience in bed was more likely valued in a man.
It still is valued today, it’s a core difference in the sexes.
Really? I'm an old guy but I must admit to not having heard men insisting on or stating a desire to marry a virgin in quite a while. Any citations to support the claim this is a thing for modern men?
I’m 63 this year.
It always amuses me when I read “modern” discussions on feminism in the 70’s. Feminism, post the year 2000, especially “Me Too”, in my opinion, is just about the worst thing that has happened to women and especially men.
It has brutalized women and wussified men.
I turned 18 in 1978. I lived through a lot of what you all are talking about in these pieces. Women were viewed as property well into the 1960’s.
My first ever Substack post addressed the recent Roe v Wade opinion change. It’s why I started writing again.
https://collettegreystone.substack.com/p/roe-v-wade-advice-for-protestors
It covered all of the things women couldn’t do in the 70’s, around the same time the the original supreme court opinion was written.
In 2005, I bought a house. I was in the middle of a divorce in Ohio. Ohio is a dower state. What’s dower? A medieval idea that says women can’t own property.
I had to have my to-be-ex sign off that he wouldn’t claim any rights to the house I was buying. Know that he used this for all it was worth at the time.
In 2022 I sold that house. The bank that was providing the mortgage to the new buyer wanted proof that my ex of 17 years had no rights to the property.
Where was modern feminism is this case?
Wearing pink pussy hats. That’s where.
> Ohio is a dower state. What’s dower? A medieval idea that says women can’t own property. What’s dower? A medieval idea that says women can’t own property.
Hmm, I read https://www.findlaw.com/state/ohio-law/ohio-dower-rights.html. This reads as the opposite of sexism? The law initially was intended to protect widows and divorcees when not on the deed of the property, they could block the sale. It was later expanded to husbands, and that seems to have irked you?
Could you elaborate why you find this law sexist today? I am not sure I understand.
The biggest clue is, why did I have to prove in 2022, to the new buyers mortgage company that my ex of 17 years had no rights to a house I was selling.
Think how that might have felt for a moment knowing the history.
He was in Utah, he bought a house at the same time, I didn’t have to sign away dower rights for his purchase. Do I have a stake is his real estate? When he sells, will he have to prove I don’t have a stake? I doubt it.
The other thing to think about, is, why are only 3 states “dower” states still? Are the rest of the states not protecting spousal rights?
This issue goes pretty deep, but here’s what I found at a surface level.
“Depending on where you live, you might be subject to an 1800s law that dictates what happens to your property when you die. Dower rights, a product of English common law, once entitled wives to one-third of their husbands’ real property when they died. Dower rights laws are rare today, but there are still a few states that maintain them. If you live in one of those states, it’s important that you understand how dower rights impact your property.” https://www.quickenloans.com/learn/dower-rights
“Married Women’s Property Acts, in U.S. law, series of statutes that gradually, beginning in 1839, expanded the rights of married women to act as independent agents in legal contexts.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Married-Womens-Property-Acts-United-States-1839
This law became the template for other states to grant married women the right to own property. Many states adapted this law into state codes. Ohio didn’t.
“Before 1974, women were not legally permitted to obtain a mortgage without a male cosigner.” https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/history-of-women-in-real-estate/
Ohio revised code:
Written in 1953: Assignment of dower. It’s a big run-on sentence but here it is:
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5305.01
My read says if a spouse does not have the other spouses name on the deed of say the marital house, the next in line to inherit, not the other spouse, can decide who gets the house. It doesn’t say anything about blocking a sale.
In 1953 when this code was written, in Ohio, women couldn’t hold a mortgage without a male cosigner. Today, with modern interpretation the assignment of dower could protect both spouses. But then, with a 1953 interpretation, if a husband died, and the woman was not on the deed, someone else decided who inherited the real estate.
This particular segment of code hasn’t been revised since then because it is open to a more relaxed interpretation today. It is a result of recent Ohio history where they attempted to abolish dower in Ohio in 2018 which resulted in some of the codes being revised:
“ Regardless of its origins, most commentators (including title companies, real estate attorneys, real estate trade organizations, legislators and others) agree that dower is a sexist, archaic, superseded and troublesome doctrine that should be abolished.”. http://www.ohiorelaw.com/2018/08/abolition-of-dower-rights-in-ohio-now.html
Even though, I still had to prove my ex of 17 years had no rights to the house I was selling in 2022.
So yes, given the history here, it’s about as sexist as it gets.
Thanks, but you confused me more.
> So yes, given the history here, it’s about as sexist as it gets.
1) Law to protect widows when they are not on the deed. Maybe sexist, but with the intention to protect and at the time necessary and probably did a lot of good.
2) Law becomes applicable to husbands to make it **not** sexist anymore
3) You are upset because the non-sexist version now forces you as a wife to consider your husband rights.
Maybe the law is archaic, and I can see it sucks, but calling it sexist because it negatively affects you as a woman does not sound very logical. Even today I expect more husbands to have your problem than wives.
You confuse easily. It was an ex-husband. The law always was applicable for husbands. Findlaw, your source, inaccurately describes the Ohio regulations.
> You confuse easily.
True, but I often find out that there is something there when I am confused. So sorry for being stubborn.
Last question. If you had been male, and your ex-husband was you ex-wife, would you not have needed 'her' signature?
In Ohio, today yes. In Ohio, in 1953, when the statute was written, no. Women were not allowed to be on a mortgage without a male co-signer then and up to 1974. That was changed in 1974. Yours wouldn’t have been a question pre 1974.
What I took exception to was that after 17 years of paying a mortgage on my own, I had to prove the ex had no claim, even though he signed off on it in 2004. It’s a mentality that still exists here and it’s wrong.
Had I said I was single, it wouldn’t have been a question at all and that’s probably what I should have said, and now I know better.
Your equation of most women always living their lives with a background fear of sexual assault and rape with a fraction of men in prison is really revealing. And a man being "forced" to support a child is worse than a woman being forced to be pregnant and give birth? Yowza.
https://www.mattball.org/2023/02/the-path-to-internet-fame-2-of-2.html
> But that doesn't mean I write books saying "Don't be a vegan" or write endless columns about the persecution of non-vegans.
Caplan explained why he chose to write such a book. It had something to do with how the ideology has impacted his workplace and over time the US society at large. If vegans had the same sort of impact (dominant narrative, food policing, suppression of speech, etc) maybe you would write a "Don't be a vegan" book.
Either way, criticizing his choice/focus is not engaging with the argument presented.
> Just because there are asshole vegans doesn't mean the cruelty of factory farms isn't a serious problem.
That's a strawman of Caplan's book in two ways:
1. It claims that he's not addressing the core claims of feminism today, but only those of some radical assholes. You've not supported that claim.
2. It implies that he downplays serious/real problems. Which serious problems did he downplay?
> Have they seen the world? What percentage of Presidents have been women? [...]
Finally, you go on to present a few cherry-picked facts, as if this supported the feminist claim that women a treated less fairly than men, a problem that Caplan specifically addresses. Did you read the book?
It's just the title essay. Most of the book's essays are NOT about feminism. Minor point but I think it should be acknowledged. Bryan did not write an entire book opposing feminism.
> He is clearly intelligent and only reacting to the fact that one of his pals was attacked by lunatics calling themselves feminists.
Bryan is not primarily motivated based on Scott Aaronson's experience. He was interested in Men's Rights LONG before:
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2005/01/the_forgotten_m.html
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/07/mens_rights_stop_laughing.cfm
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2007/12/men_of_respect.html
2007 is also when he was writing his graphic novel "Amore Infernale", which I recall him saying involves men's rights but that might have been in a post on the Economist's Free Exchange blog which search engines won't pick up anymore.
And the title essay of his book is explicitly addressed at his DAUGHTER with the aim of making her life better, not Aaronson's.
I'm responding here rather than at your blog because I saw in a previous post you linked that you deleted a comment you disliked and then (confusingly) continued responding to it even though no one else could read what you were responding to.
It's perfectly coherent to say that society horribly mistreats BOTH women & men, but that one's comparative advantage is focusing on one or the other. There are plenty of people who support multiple charities, even while those charities have workers who just work for that charity and don't find it objectionable that their donors also support those other charities.
I agree with this which is why I feel a much more practicality important criticism of the modern feminist movement is that (for all it claims to do otherwise) is that it still largely frames the issue as male oppression of women. In fact, as one should expect a priori, men tend to do less policing of women's roles and behavior than other women do (just as women do less policing of being macho or a provider than other men).
Practically, I think many critics like Bryan are motivated by the sense that much feminist rhetoric isn't really an attempt to just help women deal with troubling barriers/expectations they face but is instead prosecuted as a kind of male/female rivalry.
That's unfortunate because I do believe there are plenty of undesirable social pressures and expectations imposed on women (as their are on men) it's just that, especially now, they are generally imposed by other members of that sex. Ofc that recruiting incentives make that hard to organize against.
"men tend to do less policing of women's roles and behavior than other women do"
Bryan himself is policing women's behavior more than women do by saying women are hypersensitive because they are against sexual harassment (Metoo). The whole manosphere, from Jordan Peterson to Andrew Tate, exists solely to shame women for not being feminine enough. There's no female comparison to this.
I think gender wars are unnecessary, we could just all agree that sexual harassment is bad and no one should be shamed for not behaving "traditional", so it's very sad to see how MRA like Bryan have to make it a men vs. women thing.
A few responses. First, even if true, that doesn't contradict my claim. Of course men sometimes police women's behavior and vice-versa. I only made a claim about who does it more.
Second, there is a huge difference between critisizing a view/movement (even if he's dead wrong and his views are harmful) and calling out women for behaving in too masculine a fashion. Bryan isn't any more critical of women advancing these views then men.
Look, I've been pretty clear elsewhere that I think Bryan's approach to this issue is kinda ridiculous and unhelpful (though he is correct on some of the narrow issues about who has it worse that focus is the problem...fighting to fix problems facing women or men shouldn't require deciding who has it worse overall anymore than trying to find a cure for cancer requires saying it's worse than Alzheimer's).
So maybe it's true that if people adopted his view that would make it harder to fight sexual harassment. But that just makes his view misguided it doesn't make him a supporter of sexual harassment. That's like saying that because someone believes (totally wrongly) that harsh drug laws are needed to protect minority communities (when they are, in fact, a huge cause of racial inequality and harm to minorities) they are therefore trying to oppress minorities. Nope, they are just mistaken.
> Fear of being accused of sexual harassment is now a big problem for a large share of workers. I maintain that the latter problem is, on balance, much bigger. MeToo has responded to complex trade-offs with fanatical zeal, to the point where workers fear to initiate any workplace romance.
It's scary that some people just won't let go of the idea that potential victims should be believed by default. I thought this attitude... died down a bit? IDK why really. But yesterday I stumbled upon a post, on Effective Altruism forum (specifically, thread of comments below): https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/t5vFLabB2mQz2tgDr/i-m-a-22-year-old-woman-involved-in-effective-altruism-i-m?commentId=R7uP533Xr7sL75Yqx
So, a woman complained about EA being seemingly unsafe/uncomfortable environment for women. Turns out, it was partly based on false accusations which were proven false. Scott Alexander brought it up. And, for some bizarre reason, some people believed it was a bad thing to bring it up. Because it's important to empathize. With women, of course.
> it makes me sad that the top comment on this post is adversarial/argumentative and showing little emotional understanding/empathy (particularly the line "getting called out in posts like this one"). I think it unfortunately demonstrates well the point the author made about EA having an emotions problem:
> > [quote from post] However, there is an important distinction between interrogating someone’s research and interrogating someone’s lived experience. I fear that the attitude of truth-seeking and challenging one another to be better has led to an inclination to suspend compassion in the absence of substantial evidence of wrongdoing. You’re allowed to be sorry that someone experienced something without fully understanding it.
It's like it doesn't occur to some people that men are humans too. Unless it's not a claim that victim should be believed by default (but 'you're allowed to be sorry that someone experienced something' presupposes it, so...). But then, what's even the point of posting?
Anyway, later Scott wrote this:
> I understand that sexual assault is especially scary, and that it may seem jarring to compare it to less serious accusations like Bob's. But the original post says we need to express emotions more, and I wanted to try to convey an emotional sense of how scary this position feels to me. Sexual assault is really bad and we need strong norms about it. But we've been talking a lot about consequentialism vs. deontology lately, and where each of these is vs. isn't appropriate. And I think saying "sexual assault is so bad, that for the greater good we need to focus on supporting accusations around it, even when they're false and will destroy people's lives" is exactly the bad kind of consequentialism that never works in real life. The specific reason it never works in real life is that once you're known for throwing the occasional victim under the bus for the greater good, everyone is terrified of associating with you.
And somehow that wasn't convincing apparently:
> I would still push back against the gender-reversal false equivalency that you and others have mentioned. EA doesn't exist in a bubble. We live in a world where survivors, and in particular women, are not supported, not believed, and victim-blamed. Therefore I think it is pretty reasonable to have a prior that we should take accusations seriously and respond to them delicately.
Like... no, we don't. We live in a world where this is seemingly default opinion. This person seems to focus entirely on negative outcomes to women (was raped; wasn't believed), while being unconcerned about men who (didn't rape; weren't believed they didn't rape).
Scott:
> I think "everyone knows" (in Zvi's sense of the term, where it's such strong conventional wisdom that nobody ever checks if it's true ) that the typical response to rape accusations is to challenge and victim-blame survivors. And that although this may be true in some times and places, the typical response in this community is the one which, in fact, actually happened - immediate belief by anyone who didn't know the situation, and a culture of fear preventing those who did know the situation from speaking out. I think it's useful to acknowledge and push back against that culture of fear.
> I realize this is an annoyingly stereotypical situation - I, as a cis man, coming into a thread like this and saying I'm worried about a false accusations and chilling effects. My only two defenses are, first, that I only got this way because of specific real and harmful false accusations, that I tried to do an extreme amount of homework on them before calling false, and that I only ever bring up in the context of defending my decision there. And second, that I hope I'm possible to work with and feel safe around, despite my cultural goals, because I want to have a firm deontological commitment to promoting true things and opposing false things, in a way that doesn't refer to my broader cultural goals at any point.
I have memories of being in graduate school in the late 1960s. The deferral of military service for graduate students had just been ended, and the male graduate students were scrambling to get draft-exempt jobs. They watched the news from Vietnam (aka the war news) on the TV in the common room, and many were visibly stressed. Even if they escaped service that year, they were still on the hook until age 26.
Meanwhile the female graduate students could concentrate on their studies and then on their careers, without fear of interruption for military service.
The "Bill Burr (comedian) Why Men Deserve More Pay Hour Principle:" Men are expected to let women and children get on the lifeboats first. Men are expected to check out whether a burglar is downstairs. And they are expected to fight the wars. That's why they get "the extra dollar" per hour.
No, they get it because they do more productive jobs, that's the whole reason.
Women and children have actually lower chances of surviving in maritime disasters: https://qz.com/321827/women-and-children-first-is-a-maritime-disaster-myth-its-really-every-man-for-himself
Some commentators want to know why I discussed the past situation of women instead of just the present. The reason is that Bryan discussed it.
Several of the commentators below are puzzled about Bryan's and my discussion of women's social situation in the past. I address it because Bryan does: he argues that women were probably better off in the 1950s than they are now.
One thing that could make a difference is if men would have the right to "judicial abortion", meaning that if one does not want to become a father, he could make a legal statement for abortion in judicial and social sense, thereby not becoming a father.
>Sexual harassment has long been a big problem for a small share of workers. Fear of being accused of sexual harassment is now a big problem for a large share of workers. I maintain that the latter problem is, on balance, much bigger.
I think mst people assume that sexual harassment is a much bigger problem per person affected, and this outweighs it's relative rarity. (This might be more true now than before due to more women in the workplace.)
>Sexual harassment law, in contrast, makes it illegal to have any workplace that says “Accusations not welcome here.”
Such a workplace would obviously attract people looking to commit sex crimes. Although it might still be legal in some jurisdictions if you explicitly made every employee a sex worker (you might need to publish security footage in places that allow porn stars but not conventional prostitutes; the whole premise sounds like a porn scenario anyway.)
>At minimum, these three facts argue for a high burden of proof for sexual harassment accusations, combined with harsh punishments for not just falsehood but hypersensitivity.
I genuinely don't understand why you think this follows, I think your argument is missing a step. This isn't a dunk, I'm just missing something.
>The voluntarism and tolerance perspective. Whatever couples voluntarily decide between themselves is probably fine.
As soon as no-fault divorce was legalised, it skyrocketed, with divorces mostly initiated by women. That suggests a decent fraction of women were *not* remaining in relationships voluntarily, in the sense that they preferred to leave.
>Unless unfairness toward women is especially severe or overlooked, why focus on unfairness toward women rather than unfairness toward humans?
Division of labour? Many charities focus on things other than the Worst Thing.
Also, many feminists do pay attention to ways men are negatively affected by gender norms and emphasise that they want to end sexism towards "all humans". This is a very common position! You might object that the *name* feminism belies this, but for some mysterious reason women invented the feminist movement.
>If only women were forced to serve on juries, who would imagine that this “demeans” men?
Again, looking at feminist criticism of things men aren't allowed to do ... yes?
>Due to extraordinary levels of prison rape, it is not in fact clear that women suffer more rapes than men in the U.S. But in any case, men clearly suffer much more violence than women overall. So why is there so much focus on “violence against women” rather than violence per se?
Male-male violence, especially in prisons, is much more frequently between targets who are similarly criminal and thus often regarded as more "deserved" (and possibly less tractable a problem.) Non-prison rape is seen as a problem for, and within, "civilian" society which is more amenable to tactics like shaming.
Also, quite a lot of the support for male victims I've seen, including opposition to the way prison rape is normalised, has been from feminists using feminist arguments.
>Rightly or wrongly, states that ban abortion once again put women and men in the same boat.
Come on, this is *clearly* not true! I'm pro-life, but pregnancy and childbirth are obviously *fairly major* consequences here that men don't share.
>Horribly unjust in a worst-case scenario, where the husband plans to abscond with the money? Or in normal scenarios where husband and wife keep living and spending together?
Obviously the latter; do you agree that's clearly unjust (if perhaps rare enough not to change your stance), then?
>But you haven’t presented notable evidence that women are (or were) more victimized than I initially acknowledged.
You accepted two of their examples! Birth control and Ivy League admissions! Is your contention that they weren't "notable"?
I'm like 99% on your side on this, but I will point out two things.
"It is easy to end unwanted attention by ending all attention. Easy, absurd, and tyrannical. "
Personally, I think "no romantic relationships at work" is a very rational perspective and I would prefer it that way. I just generally think work is a place to make money and your personal life should stay very separate. This goes beyond just romantic issues, I hate this "bring your whole self to work" stuff.
If you aren't supposed to have any relationships at work, then we don't have any misunderstandings.
The problem with #MeToo is that people not even trying to form relationships can get accused on flimsy grounds and have their lives ruined.
"Whatever couples voluntarily decide between themselves is probably fine. Total strangers should keep their mouths shut, and even close family and friends should think twice before expressing an opinion."
It depends. Richard Hanania is currently defending the righteousness of having his 15 year old son get a girl pregnant.
How about "adults following the "half + 7 rule" with no other red flags should be given the benefit of the doubt".
In general I think you take "nonjudgementalism" too far. I doubt you would really apply it to your own children if they started engaging in highly suspect behavior.
I think this is one of the most insane notions. People spend the plurality of their time at work. For it to be sworn off as a potential source of romantic partners is bonkers.
I feel like we are different species.
You don't shit where you eat. And you don't inject personal bullshit into your paycheck. This applies to romance and everything else personal.
There are literally billions of other women on the planet, find one outside of the office.
My problem with #Metoo is that it brings personal drama into the workplace, mediated by the worst of all creatures, the beuracrat.
> Personally, I think "no romantic relationships at work" is a very rational perspective and I would prefer it that way.
If I see how many young women dress at work I doubt many secretly agree with you. And your rationality does not seem to take into account millions of years of evolution; If we could be close together for a lot of hours a day and not mate we'd probably not be here in the first place.
I think this only works when we segregate the sexes. I never thought I'd think this but the idea is growing on me.
I've never been a believer that our raw instincts led to optimal outcomes. I'm proposing to give young women what they need, not what they want. The definition of rationality is that we have some ability to tame those instincts to improve outcomes.
As far as feasibility goes, I think "don't have relationships at work" is a lot easier of an equilibrium then "have relationships under some circumstances nobody can agree on and if it doesn't work out for any reason its a giant blow up that fucks everything up."
I think an important problem would be that even if you think that men and women are treated equally fairly or men are treated slightly more fairly, given robust historical trends its pretty clearly the case that in the near future women are going to be treated significantly more fairly than men and it doesn't seem like anything would be able to change this.
I don't think men have been treated more fairly than today. Why do you think men aren't treated as fair as women?
I think both men and women are currently treated about the same, but as time goes on men are going to be treated worse and worse, with the decline in sex amongst young men being a pretty good example, also in academia and the workplace you will see continued anti male preference. Just in general looking at younger generations they seem much more anti male, the future is certainly female.
I'm not sure that's true if we include implicit social pressures placed on men and women. I see women a the time subject to more criticism and pressure to live up to certain standards. It's just that it's mostly other women doing it, not men.
I could almost sense it, lack of sex as one important reason why "men are treated less fairly than women." It's very telling how deep sexual entitlement is rooted in all these gender debates. I feel like the whole anti-feminist/MRA movement exists mostly because of sexual frustration from guys like Scott Aaronson or Elliot Rodger.
Not a fan of various anti-feminist/MRA movements, although I think having a wife and kids is important for the mental wellbeing of the vast majority of men (and women). I think the Scott Aaronson case was very interesting (https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/) and I think your account of it "He was clearly angry at feminists because he blamed them for being incel when he was young." is pretty misguided, and would highly recommend reading the post in question (https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2091#comment-326664).
You clearly do think that men not having sex is "treating men less fair than women", so that says it all. It's the extreme sexual entitlement. The belief that men not having sex is oppressive and a very big problem for society. A horrible way of seeing the world. And of course it leads to people starting to search for ways of how to control women/female sexuality so that all incels can get laid.
I don't have any beliefs about moral entitlements and such, I just look at the way various social effects influence people. With respects to younger men not having sex I think this produces lots of generally undesirable consequences, and its worth trying to figure out ways to mitigate that. You should really read Scott Aaronson's original post as well as the reactions shown in Scott Alexander's piece, I don't think treating Aaronson with hostility is warranted.
I guess this is a pretty good example of why it's a bad idea to reason from your feelings...
Yeah indeed, the anti-feminsist/MRA movement is full of men who feel bad about themselves and lash out at feminists and women.
I would not consider myself a member of any sort of anti-feminist/MRA movement, nor am I a fan (if you read the comment below this you can see me say "Not a fan of various anti-feminist/MRA movements".
I would also recommend reading further on in the thread you see arprin make numerous false claims and ignore my corrections, for example "There is no evidence for more unhappiness among women today, and it's very telling how you use links from more than 15 years ago. And moe importantly, female unhappiness has nothing to do with not having sex with incels, I'm sure most women are glad that they don't have to sleep with men they're not attracted to." I also think its quite telling that after I directly address one of your main points of contention, with strong evidence to the contrary namely "here is a 2022 working paper (https://www.nber.org/papers/w29893) and here is a podcast discussing some of the more recent stuff (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/are-women-really-less-happy-than-men/)" His first point was after I referenced the classic "https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf"
Perhaps the more striking error would be referencing the GSS which as I pointed out "I looked at the raw data and the GSS data seems terrible only 23 men sampled in the 18-22 range and 30 females in the 12-22 range similar number for 23-25 range, the date I linked Is much better (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=0) has about 10 000 people." here is a very comprehensive breakdown of the data (https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/suxt2k/diving_into_the_2021_gss_data_on_the_amount_of/)
arprin didn't seem to know where to find the GSS data instead sending a image from reddit of a graph someone made in what appears to be powerpoint. Here is where you can download the data btw (https://gss.norc.org/get-the-data/stata) as I said earlier, arpin is trying to make general inferences of a study with only 53 people in the relevant age range and response, as opposed to using (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=0) the data of which of course contradicts what arprin is trying to say, I do have to agree with you though "this is a pretty good example of why it's a bad idea to reason from your feelings..."
Scott Aaronson was already married & with offspring when he wrote that famous post. He was talking about his past when he was a miserable Dworkinite.
So what? He was clearly angry at feminists because he blamed them for being incel when he was young.
He actually clearly wasn’t, but ok.
Read what he wrote:
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2091#comment-326664
Then quote which part is "clearly angry at feminists".