Tyler seems to be trying to build a sort of ecumenical definition of feminism, where feminism is defined more by chosen point of emphasis rather than overall worldview, and therefore actually consistent with advocacy on male issues, just as one can be anti-cancer and anti-malaria at the same time, but choose to focus on one. Some feminists even take this tack in the abstract, saying things like 'men should do their own advocacy rather than expecting feminists to solve all of men's issues in addition to our own' when asked to explain the asymmetry of their interests.
In practice though, 'male issues advocates' and feminists inexorably clash. They clash of course because where male and female interests conflict (e.g., debates over parental custody, treatment of people accused of domestic violence), feminists often take the side of female interests over procedural equality, but also because choice of emphasis is viewed as a zero-sum game. Most feminists believe women's issues are much more severe than men's and therefore view the 'men's issues' side of things as similar to advocating for the oppressor; even when morally correct in theory, it is seen to reflect a ridiculous disproportionality; e.g., setting up a fund to defend rich southern plantation owners falsely accused of crimes in the South in the 1850s. Sure, there are probably some such cases genuinely warranting redress, but it reflects absurd priorities.
Some self-identified feminists do of course take a fairly ecumenical view of gender issues, but they tend to struggle to find acceptance among mainstream feminists.
What you say is certainly true on one understanding of the term "feminist". If you went and looked at the beliefs of groups that loudly self-declare themselves to be feminist that very well might be right.
OTOH, I bet if you go and survey people and ask them if they consider themselves a feminist you'll get different results since many people who fought against discrimination back in the 60s firmly identify as feminists even if they feel their struggle brought about (on net or close to it) gender equality.
As Tyler points out, it just doesn't seem like the term is a very helpful one. If you care about making yourself understood it's probably better just to avoid the term entirely.
I'm surprised how many think that feminism "should care more about men's issues." The issues men face are taken care of, I guess it's just that they aren't seen as gender-specific. Worker's issues are men's issues, small business' issues are men's issues, farmer issues are men's issues, gun owner issues are men's issues, veteran issues are men's issues, LGBT issues are men's issues, fight against police brutality is a men's issue, etc.
The fact that none of these issues could be made a gender-specific issue has probably lead "men's rights activists" to search for other issues they could capitalize, like homelessness, work deaths, suicide victims, homicide victims, etc. But in reality, not only are these issues not gender-specific either, it's also true that western countries do a massive amount to fight against these things and no one is against this. I live in Germany, there is no involuntary homelessness here (I doubt it's much different in the U.S.), work deaths have gone down massive everywhere in the west because of safety regulations, crime has gone down massive, everyone talks about mental health. So men's rights activists found the issue of child custody, which is the thing where I don't know whether they have a point (I'm not sure if there's a bias against fathers in family courts), and the issue of male victims of domestic violence, where they clearly don't have a point, as there are actually shelters available for men in western countries, but they remain unused most of the time.
But if we are being honest, there is only one issue that is actually gender-specific for men and that many men are facing: The issue of dating struggle and loneliness. And here, there is indeed a massive amount of men's advocates: The Manosphere. They are the real "men's issues advocates" that actualy get massive amount of following, although I fear they are doing a terrible job.
I don't know what your actual position is on the issue of race and police brutality, but I think it's an instructive example: there's stronger evidence that police (really every step of the criminal justice system, from killing unarmed suspects to sentencing) is biased against men than against black people. The disparity is larger, and more of it can't be explained by confounders. So George Floyd etc. can be treated as a racial issue, than #malelivesmatter should be a big deal to you. On the other hand, if you demand more evidence to consider it a legitimate 'men's issue,' then you have no reason to consider race an important factor in police brutality or criminal justice system debates.
I absolutely don't think police brutality is a race issue, and I despise BLM and all the lootings.
I wonder now that if you think that police is biased against men (lol), do you also think police is biased against blacks? Do you believe in "systemic racism" against blacks, just like seem to believe in systemic sexism against men in police? Do you also think that the fact that over 50% of homicide victims are black is caused by anti-black racism?
Most 'women's issues' aren't gender-specific either, they're considered women's issues because they disproportionately affect women, much like the putative men's issues.
Mind you, I don't necessarily think anyone should care that men are disproportionately victims of violence, it may have nothing to do with sexism, but then that's also probably true of the wage gap, and domestic violence against women. The latter is purely consequence of men being naturally more likely to be violent than women. Male perpetrators of domestic violence are actually treated worse than female ones. Most women's issues likely aren't about sexism also; they're only regarded that way by people who erroneously buy into the blank slate hypothesis.
You guys are placing an awful lot of eggs I the social justice/equality/fairness basket here.
Quite frankly, you're arguing about feminism like....men (nerdy men at that).
I prefer the Steve Sailer definition of feminism, which he phrases a few different ways about amounts to "I, woman with more masculine than average disposition, should rise in relative status to other women who have more feminine dispositions."
(or hilariously in the trans age, that literal men should rise in status as women above normal women)
This especially explains why a lot of feminism is about arguing with other women.
All the rest of it is just words. You start with the vibes and regurgitate the talking points you think will actualize the vibes.
Take "slut walks", the feminist cause of the day when I was a young man. The idea that such nonsense could slot into some logical discussion of gender fairness is laughable. Sure, they regurgitate a bunch of easily refuted stats about rape or something. But really, it sure looks like a bunch of not so attractive women who want to not feel so bad about what they have to do to get male attention.
When I worry about what my daughters will take away from feminism its an awful lot of bad habits and attitudes unrelated to fairness. I wouldn't want my daughter being in a slutwalk even if the gender pay gap wasn't made up.
Feminism: the view that society generally treats men more fairly than women
over
Feminism: the view that society generally treats women more unfairly than men
The second one feels more descriptive. The focus of feminism is less on men and more on women. For example, the "Pink Tax" is framed as women are charged more for the same product, not that men are charged less.
1) Under Tyler's definition someone might focus on and organize around solving problems that are specific to women because they believe they have a comparative advantage in doing so. I mean this is the norm for organizing around diseases (the people raising awareness/money for Alzheimer's, heart disease etc.. etc.. often do so because they can harness motivating personal passion and feel the satisfaction about fighting back against something that hurt them not because they think their disease is more harmful, has a better ROI etc.. than other diseases.
So doesn't it make perfect sense for people who have experienced sexual harassment and other challenges that are particularly faced by women (and thus may have extra insight, passion etc..) to focus on fighting those problems even if they think there are other, equally serious, issues faced by men. They just want to focus on fighting the problems they faced just like most people.
2) While one can debate back and forth what is the 'best' definition for the term feminism with respect to a variety of notions of best it seems like both you and Tyler agree that there is considerable disagreement as to what feminism means.
Given this disagreement and the fact that your arguments would proceed equally well if you'd called it "inequality feminism" or just made up any old term (since you are providing the definition) why make your book less persuasive to all those people who either understand feminism in a different fashion or simply want to avoid fighting over something as meaningless as a definition. For instance, many women who were part of the fight for equality back in the 60s when there was no question women were subject to discrimination feel strongly about their identity as feminists even if they believe women don't have it, on net, worse anymore.
I tell people that I am a feminist in order to signal that I’m not one of those awful guys who hates women.
If my daughter tells people she is a feminist, she is signaling that she is not part of a conservative or religious group where women have a lesser status.
I don’t think that people who would call themselves non-feminists are a group that Bryan would like his daughter hanging out with
Not identifying as a feminist is completely normal. That's one of the points Bryan has made. But Bryan's daughter is going to belong to a social class where identifying as a feminist is more normative, which is why he feels he has to explain to her that the masses of normies who wouldn't identify that way aren't wrong.
"Not identifying as a feminist a good first step." Dropping -isms is very good step to seeing an issue without the censorious socio-political lens from casting shadow on easy to see behavior and actions.
Just as an aside, I've been reading your work since the early days of EconLog and was fascinated by the the things you would choose to write about. I remember a few years later reading an essay by Arnold Kling, a co-author at EconLog in which he described you as an intellectual bully, but I don't think he meant it entirely as a negative statement but more a matter of intellectual incompatibility. After reading the reply to professor Cowen I can understand this all the better. You have a persistent and vigorous reasoning and writing style. Off-putting but only to those who favor consensus over revision, even when revision is necessary,
I agree here. Bryan tends to be very exacting about vocabulary and word use. Tyler's willingness to drop a caricature, or deflection (or even non sequitur) like, "But if men are treated so badly in society...", even unintentionally suggests that exactness matters less to him.
Regarding "intellectual bullying", I am reminded of Robert Nozick claiming that his philosophical approach was "non-coercive" (in contrast to other libertarians like Rothbard).
> Calling a “series of proposals” that “would improve the lives of many women” an overall “improvement” again presupposes that our society treats men more fairly than women.
No, to a utilitarian it would be an improvement EVEN IF women were currently treated more fairly than men. Similarly, to a utilitarian it is better for the rich to get richer even if they are currently better off than the poor. I really would expect an economist like Bryan (even if he rejects utilitarianism) to know this.
Tyler has a clue when he writes that feminism's definition should be "weighted toward the status of women". Combine this with Bryan's definition and you get:
"the view that society generally treats men more fairly than women with regard to status"
This explains the beliefs and actions of feminists of all types. They don't want gender equality in logging or trash collecting, but they do in engineering and politics. It isn't that the former occupations are advantageous or not for men; that's irrelevant because the jobs are low status. Bringing up undeniable statistics on violent crime or combat won't change anyone's mind, because those aren't status issues. If a women is harassed, that feels like a power difference, which is a status problem. If street gangs murder each other, there is no status reduction, because that's just what gangs do. Obviously, feminists are more concerned with the former situation.
You make it more difficult than it is. Feminists perceive a negative bias against women in some fields like STEM. Maybe there is, maybe not (I'm not sure about STEM).
Many "men's rights activists" want equality in child custody or boys grades in schools because they perceive a negative bias against men and boys in these areas. Maybe there is, maybe not. However, it would be absurd to say "If you want equality in child custody, you also have to want want equality among nurses, teachers, cosmeticians, etc.", If there's a bias in an area, you can be active against it and be for more equality, without pushing for equality everywhere.
Violent crime: Yes, people in gangs and prison, who are the majority of victims of crime, are mostly male, but among the rest of the 99% of the population, victims of crime are mostly female. Doesn't that matter? Mr. Caplan thinks that men aren't treated better because the top 1% of society are mostly male, then why does he think that men are treated worse because the bottom 1% are mostly male? That doesn't make sense. You have to look at the median 98%, where women ARE treated worse. Apart from the fact that "Women are treated worse" is his own definition of feminism that no one uses.
Do you think that in fields like mining, oil drilling, etc., there is negative bias against women? I contend that no one even considers a question like this because those occupations are low status. (Also there are so few women there that nobody thinks about it. But where men are so over-represented, you would expect the bias to be so much worse!)
Secondly, I think feminists are much too concerned about the 1%, and the status that comes with it. Federal politicians and CEO's of top companies are about as elite as you can get, and there seems to be a push to have more women in those positions. Perhaps your experience is different, but whenever I hear about disparities or unfair treatment, it's about desirable, highly-paid jobs.
>“One reason for that being that they have never lived the lives of women.” Again, a thinly-veiled accusation of not just unfairness, but excess unfairness. After all, women have never lived the lives of men, but almost no one uses this fact to impugn their “understanding of the import” of anything.
Thank you! I was reading up on the orthodox academia views on male privilege and it was emphasized that men, not having lived as women, often don't even recognize their privilege. And there seemed to be no acknowledgement or self-awareness at all that the underlying logic is perfectly symmetrical.
Women have never lived as men. How do feminists know there isn't some female privilege they're overlooking? I say there is, and so do some trans-men who have transitioned and pass as men. Men and women are both "privileged" in various spheres to varying degrees and I guess if you tried to calculate who has it better overall, it's probably a wash.
It seems to me that you're chickening out. The belief that "society cares more about women's problems - much more," which you espoused in your original post on Don't Be A Feminist, is - to put it kindly - difficult to reconcile with your back-down position that "I say that the unfairness men and women endure in our society is very similar overall".
Don't back down. If you believe that society cares much more about women's problems, then it seems to me that you are led to a belief - one I have reached - that in fact the unfairness men endure in our society is considerably more severe.
If you look past the "who nominally occupies all the positions of power" question - as you partly do - the evidence is pretty compelling. Men train for and work in careers based more on income potential and less on personal interest, and work substantially more hours over the course of their lives, and consequently bring home most of the household income; there are enough studies showing men do at least as much household chores (men's chores are invisible) to call any suggestion that women are carrying the bulk of the burden into serious question; they have less free time overall and far less time with their children; they have only brief retirements; they have worse health and substantially shorter lives; they have worse mental health and vastly higher suicide risk; they die on the job literally orders of magnitude more often than women do; they are a full order of magnitude more likely to be a victim of violent crime including murder; they are almost equally likely to be a victim of domestic violence up to and including murder but there is virtually no awareness of nor support for them at all, and a past administration even tried to redefine violence to cover up the near-equality of victimization rates so that the absence of support mechanisms would be less glaring; procedural protections against false accusations have much lower social and legislative support if the accusation is by a woman against a man; they are much more likely to be in jail and receive much stiffer sentences for the same crimes; in divorce, their marital obligations weaken their argument for continued contact with their children; in divorce, the wife's ongoing obligation to them is usually zero, while they routinely face not only the loss of what they've worked for but also crushing ongoing obligations to someone they may already have had to carry financially for years (usually, the more carrying they've done, the more crushing the obligations); they are subject to enslavement by the military (which, bless its institutional heart, is totally opposed to the idea) while women are not, in large part because politicians realize wars would be much more difficult to prosecute if young women - rather than young men - were coming home in body bags; when there are fatalities - whether in natural disasters or war - the number of women and children killed is emphasized, underlining the idea that men's deaths matter less; they can safely be ridiculed in popular culture (and they are); need I really keep going? My fingers are tiring.
These points have been made for years, and they're routinely dismissed as "angry men" mimicking the women's movement to try to "preserve their privilege." Cassie Jaye's TED talk addresses that dismissal: it's been wrong for at least 50 years and it's worse than ever now.
Don't chicken out. Society cares more about women's problems - far more. We're nowhere close to having equal levels of unfairness.
How can you say that men working longer is unfair for men? This is literally the mother of all preferences. Men in the west can be unemployed and live from welfare forever, but most WANT to work, how is that unfair or "oppressive"? You sound like a feminist who says that the "22% gender wage gap" is unfair and "oppressive".
Literally the same with health outcomes. Which society has done more for the health of its citizens than the western ones? It comes down to your life choices. Mental health is more talked about than ever before, and most of it is focused on men.
I can't understand how anyone can mention the fact that men are most murder victims as "proof" that men have it more unfair without mentioning that most perpetrators are men. It's like saying blacks are massively oppressed because 53% of murder victims are black. Or would you actually say such thing?
Women are ridiculed everyday in popular culture. I don't know how you can't see this. Even in politics, women are attacked all the time. Look at what Donald Trump said, or Matt Gaetz about "only ugly women want abortions", hell even Chappelle makes fun of Candace Owens' "smelly pussy."
Yes, you are definitely an angry man. As you are looking for disparaties to prove oppression that doesn't exist. This is like "murderism", a thing made up by Scott Alexander to show how ridiculous it is to see oppression where there isn't.
Partly because the upper part is clearly parody, the middle part raises interesting topics and the lower part - back to parody - tries to dismiss me for being an angry man.
Yes, I'm pretty angry. It's no reason not to take me seriously.
I do sound just like a feminist, reversed. And yes, feminism wants it both ways: anything that has an unfavorable aspect to it for women must derive from unfairness rather than a personal choice; anything that has an unfavorable aspect to it for men must derive from personal choice rather than unfairness. To the extent that personal choice accounts for all of it, fair enough - although I think unfairness plays some role too. But, our society worries about women's complaints, responds to them, tilts the playing field to help them - while dismissing men's complaints. That's how it creates unfairness.
Mental health focused on men? Get real.
When you say that men are most murder victims because men are more likely to be violent, you a) speak some truth and b) engage in quite a bit of victim blaming. In our society, there is a huge amount of focus on violence against women - we have a VAWA, in fact. Why? Because... women. I notice you don't assume that women who are murdered are a sub-group of women who are more likely to be violent - why not?
If 53% of murder victims are black, I would say something very bad is happening. I would say that ignoring it, accepting it, may be evidence of gross unfairness toward black people, yes. It's not proof of oppression, but it's an issue that should not be ignored and accepted with a shrug. If it were happening to women, it would not be.
Trump, Gaetz and Chappelle say those things - which are gross and extreme - precisely to shock. When the media engage in casual ridicule of men, they are not aiming to shock: they do it because that's entirely acceptable, and funny. It often IS funny.
And of course you ignored family law - for which the only applicable word is unconscionable - and the lower value of men's lives in general. We've all been so indoctrinated about these things, it's hard to see them at first.
"But, our society worries about women's complaints, responds to them, tilts the playing field to help them"
How does society worry about women's complaints? Do you think feminists control the legislation and wanted abortion bans?
"Mental health focused on men? Get real."
Of course it is. Men make fun of the attempts, but there is much more help than ever and everyday people are saying "Men in trouble, give therapy a chance", etc.
Most violent crime of men is in organized crime, how is that not drastically different than domestic violence. And do you think society doesn't care about violent crime when men are victims? The homicide rate in the U.S. was cut down in half from 1992 to 2020. So this is very pro-male, right?
No one was shocked by Gaetz or Chappelle. Ridicule of men gets criticized all the time, Gillette lost billions because of their "toxic masculinty" ad.
There is no proof for a negative bias against men in family courts. 90% of men don't pay alimony and men receive custody in 50% of all cases that go to court. Theoretically a bias could exist, but MRA never proved it.
Finally, men's lives are not valued less in general. This is another myth from MRA, the "male disposability" thesis that only exists for creating victimhood.
Normally when Bryan and Tyler argue, I agree with Tyler. I think this might be the first exception. I think Tyler takes a certain amount of pleasure in lobbing bombs at Bryan, and sometimes that leads him to start chucking grenades when it isn't really warranted.
1. Having received my copy, I was a bit surprised about just ONE blurb. I have US-titles with a dozen pages of blurbs. ;) Only Scott Alexander, the Great, was brave enough. As he wrote on his blog: "He asked me to write a blurb, then rejected my first few suggestions (“Bryan Caplan committed career suicide by writing this book; you owe it to him to make his sacrifice meaningful by reading it” and “I didn't think Bryan was ever going to be able to top the ‘education is bad’ book, but he definitely did”). He did end up including something by me on the back cover. I must admit I was kind of hoping it would be hidden among many other reviewer blurbs so that my name wasn’t too prominent, but I guess all those other potential reviewers chickened out, like I almost did." end of quote https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-september-2022
Where are the blurbs of Alex, Robin, Scott S. ...? It is not such an evil book and many profs do have tenure, right?
2. After TC's post, I felt I should first read Mill: "John Stuart Mill’s On the Subjection of Women remains one of the very best books ever written, on any topic, and indeed I have drawn my views from Mill. Everyone should read it." - Anyone here did?
Quite frankly, this back and forth on a topic that is not of much importance, seems to be an useless intellectual exercise. Bryan and Tyler are better off talking about if the Quantity Theory of Money is underrated.
Plus an useful thing to do when it comes to definitions is simply go back to a time shortly before the Great Awokening (circa 2010) and see how something was used and it almost always is the best definition of the thing. LGBT rights in 2010? Gay people should be allowed to marry. LGBT rights in 2022? Children should be allowed to surgically mutilate themselves. Same for feminism. Use the 2010 feminism understanding/definition.
The link about the "forgotten men" is weird. Men doing the majority of jobs who are physically demanding is because men are physically stronger, not sexism against men, and doing these jobs is not really a bad thing, they can be good jobs. There is literally nothing to complain about. Yet he sees it as another way how being a man is bad and men are "forgotten".
This seems to be the tactic used by men's rights activists: Focus on made-up issues or on some actually bad things that are faced by a tiny minority of men, and then conclude from that "men have it worse than women and no one cares". It's basically male identity politics.
Lol, can you think of any biological differences that might explain 'women's issues?' It's fascinating to see people vacillate seamlessly between sex-realism to explain disparities that favour women and social constructivism to deny the possibility of non-sexist explanations that favor men.
I guess you're talking about the things-people narrative? Maybe, I don't care (seriously), equal representation isn't an issue for me, as long as there is no negative bias going on. Feminists often say STEM is anti-female, but maybe women are just less good at this; mens' righst activists say family courts are anti-male, but maybe mothers are just better nurturers. Anyway, I don't care about having 50/50 everywhere.
Stuff like harassment and assualt is something that is never okay, so it will always be an issue. And being called too emotional, irrational, illogical and the reason for woke madness, falling birth rates an the destruction of the west, all for not being a mother and housewife, is pretty bad too.
Tyler seems to be trying to build a sort of ecumenical definition of feminism, where feminism is defined more by chosen point of emphasis rather than overall worldview, and therefore actually consistent with advocacy on male issues, just as one can be anti-cancer and anti-malaria at the same time, but choose to focus on one. Some feminists even take this tack in the abstract, saying things like 'men should do their own advocacy rather than expecting feminists to solve all of men's issues in addition to our own' when asked to explain the asymmetry of their interests.
In practice though, 'male issues advocates' and feminists inexorably clash. They clash of course because where male and female interests conflict (e.g., debates over parental custody, treatment of people accused of domestic violence), feminists often take the side of female interests over procedural equality, but also because choice of emphasis is viewed as a zero-sum game. Most feminists believe women's issues are much more severe than men's and therefore view the 'men's issues' side of things as similar to advocating for the oppressor; even when morally correct in theory, it is seen to reflect a ridiculous disproportionality; e.g., setting up a fund to defend rich southern plantation owners falsely accused of crimes in the South in the 1850s. Sure, there are probably some such cases genuinely warranting redress, but it reflects absurd priorities.
Some self-identified feminists do of course take a fairly ecumenical view of gender issues, but they tend to struggle to find acceptance among mainstream feminists.
What you say is certainly true on one understanding of the term "feminist". If you went and looked at the beliefs of groups that loudly self-declare themselves to be feminist that very well might be right.
OTOH, I bet if you go and survey people and ask them if they consider themselves a feminist you'll get different results since many people who fought against discrimination back in the 60s firmly identify as feminists even if they feel their struggle brought about (on net or close to it) gender equality.
As Tyler points out, it just doesn't seem like the term is a very helpful one. If you care about making yourself understood it's probably better just to avoid the term entirely.
I'm surprised how many think that feminism "should care more about men's issues." The issues men face are taken care of, I guess it's just that they aren't seen as gender-specific. Worker's issues are men's issues, small business' issues are men's issues, farmer issues are men's issues, gun owner issues are men's issues, veteran issues are men's issues, LGBT issues are men's issues, fight against police brutality is a men's issue, etc.
The fact that none of these issues could be made a gender-specific issue has probably lead "men's rights activists" to search for other issues they could capitalize, like homelessness, work deaths, suicide victims, homicide victims, etc. But in reality, not only are these issues not gender-specific either, it's also true that western countries do a massive amount to fight against these things and no one is against this. I live in Germany, there is no involuntary homelessness here (I doubt it's much different in the U.S.), work deaths have gone down massive everywhere in the west because of safety regulations, crime has gone down massive, everyone talks about mental health. So men's rights activists found the issue of child custody, which is the thing where I don't know whether they have a point (I'm not sure if there's a bias against fathers in family courts), and the issue of male victims of domestic violence, where they clearly don't have a point, as there are actually shelters available for men in western countries, but they remain unused most of the time.
But if we are being honest, there is only one issue that is actually gender-specific for men and that many men are facing: The issue of dating struggle and loneliness. And here, there is indeed a massive amount of men's advocates: The Manosphere. They are the real "men's issues advocates" that actualy get massive amount of following, although I fear they are doing a terrible job.
I don't know what your actual position is on the issue of race and police brutality, but I think it's an instructive example: there's stronger evidence that police (really every step of the criminal justice system, from killing unarmed suspects to sentencing) is biased against men than against black people. The disparity is larger, and more of it can't be explained by confounders. So George Floyd etc. can be treated as a racial issue, than #malelivesmatter should be a big deal to you. On the other hand, if you demand more evidence to consider it a legitimate 'men's issue,' then you have no reason to consider race an important factor in police brutality or criminal justice system debates.
I absolutely don't think police brutality is a race issue, and I despise BLM and all the lootings.
I wonder now that if you think that police is biased against men (lol), do you also think police is biased against blacks? Do you believe in "systemic racism" against blacks, just like seem to believe in systemic sexism against men in police? Do you also think that the fact that over 50% of homicide victims are black is caused by anti-black racism?
Most 'women's issues' aren't gender-specific either, they're considered women's issues because they disproportionately affect women, much like the putative men's issues.
Mind you, I don't necessarily think anyone should care that men are disproportionately victims of violence, it may have nothing to do with sexism, but then that's also probably true of the wage gap, and domestic violence against women. The latter is purely consequence of men being naturally more likely to be violent than women. Male perpetrators of domestic violence are actually treated worse than female ones. Most women's issues likely aren't about sexism also; they're only regarded that way by people who erroneously buy into the blank slate hypothesis.
You guys are placing an awful lot of eggs I the social justice/equality/fairness basket here.
Quite frankly, you're arguing about feminism like....men (nerdy men at that).
I prefer the Steve Sailer definition of feminism, which he phrases a few different ways about amounts to "I, woman with more masculine than average disposition, should rise in relative status to other women who have more feminine dispositions."
(or hilariously in the trans age, that literal men should rise in status as women above normal women)
This especially explains why a lot of feminism is about arguing with other women.
All the rest of it is just words. You start with the vibes and regurgitate the talking points you think will actualize the vibes.
Take "slut walks", the feminist cause of the day when I was a young man. The idea that such nonsense could slot into some logical discussion of gender fairness is laughable. Sure, they regurgitate a bunch of easily refuted stats about rape or something. But really, it sure looks like a bunch of not so attractive women who want to not feel so bad about what they have to do to get male attention.
When I worry about what my daughters will take away from feminism its an awful lot of bad habits and attitudes unrelated to fairness. I wouldn't want my daughter being in a slutwalk even if the gender pay gap wasn't made up.
Any reason to use this:
Feminism: the view that society generally treats men more fairly than women
over
Feminism: the view that society generally treats women more unfairly than men
The second one feels more descriptive. The focus of feminism is less on men and more on women. For example, the "Pink Tax" is framed as women are charged more for the same product, not that men are charged less.
Two quick points.
1) Under Tyler's definition someone might focus on and organize around solving problems that are specific to women because they believe they have a comparative advantage in doing so. I mean this is the norm for organizing around diseases (the people raising awareness/money for Alzheimer's, heart disease etc.. etc.. often do so because they can harness motivating personal passion and feel the satisfaction about fighting back against something that hurt them not because they think their disease is more harmful, has a better ROI etc.. than other diseases.
So doesn't it make perfect sense for people who have experienced sexual harassment and other challenges that are particularly faced by women (and thus may have extra insight, passion etc..) to focus on fighting those problems even if they think there are other, equally serious, issues faced by men. They just want to focus on fighting the problems they faced just like most people.
2) While one can debate back and forth what is the 'best' definition for the term feminism with respect to a variety of notions of best it seems like both you and Tyler agree that there is considerable disagreement as to what feminism means.
Given this disagreement and the fact that your arguments would proceed equally well if you'd called it "inequality feminism" or just made up any old term (since you are providing the definition) why make your book less persuasive to all those people who either understand feminism in a different fashion or simply want to avoid fighting over something as meaningless as a definition. For instance, many women who were part of the fight for equality back in the 60s when there was no question women were subject to discrimination feel strongly about their identity as feminists even if they believe women don't have it, on net, worse anymore.
I tell people that I am a feminist in order to signal that I’m not one of those awful guys who hates women.
If my daughter tells people she is a feminist, she is signaling that she is not part of a conservative or religious group where women have a lesser status.
I don’t think that people who would call themselves non-feminists are a group that Bryan would like his daughter hanging out with
Not identifying as a feminist is completely normal. That's one of the points Bryan has made. But Bryan's daughter is going to belong to a social class where identifying as a feminist is more normative, which is why he feels he has to explain to her that the masses of normies who wouldn't identify that way aren't wrong.
Good point
"Not identifying as a feminist a good first step." Dropping -isms is very good step to seeing an issue without the censorious socio-political lens from casting shadow on easy to see behavior and actions.
Just as an aside, I've been reading your work since the early days of EconLog and was fascinated by the the things you would choose to write about. I remember a few years later reading an essay by Arnold Kling, a co-author at EconLog in which he described you as an intellectual bully, but I don't think he meant it entirely as a negative statement but more a matter of intellectual incompatibility. After reading the reply to professor Cowen I can understand this all the better. You have a persistent and vigorous reasoning and writing style. Off-putting but only to those who favor consensus over revision, even when revision is necessary,
I agree here. Bryan tends to be very exacting about vocabulary and word use. Tyler's willingness to drop a caricature, or deflection (or even non sequitur) like, "But if men are treated so badly in society...", even unintentionally suggests that exactness matters less to him.
And the person Bryan looks to as being so exacting is Robin Hanson (again, in contrast to Tyler):
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2007/07/discover_your_i.html
Regarding "intellectual bullying", I am reminded of Robert Nozick claiming that his philosophical approach was "non-coercive" (in contrast to other libertarians like Rothbard).
> Calling a “series of proposals” that “would improve the lives of many women” an overall “improvement” again presupposes that our society treats men more fairly than women.
No, to a utilitarian it would be an improvement EVEN IF women were currently treated more fairly than men. Similarly, to a utilitarian it is better for the rich to get richer even if they are currently better off than the poor. I really would expect an economist like Bryan (even if he rejects utilitarianism) to know this.
Tyler has a clue when he writes that feminism's definition should be "weighted toward the status of women". Combine this with Bryan's definition and you get:
"the view that society generally treats men more fairly than women with regard to status"
This explains the beliefs and actions of feminists of all types. They don't want gender equality in logging or trash collecting, but they do in engineering and politics. It isn't that the former occupations are advantageous or not for men; that's irrelevant because the jobs are low status. Bringing up undeniable statistics on violent crime or combat won't change anyone's mind, because those aren't status issues. If a women is harassed, that feels like a power difference, which is a status problem. If street gangs murder each other, there is no status reduction, because that's just what gangs do. Obviously, feminists are more concerned with the former situation.
You make it more difficult than it is. Feminists perceive a negative bias against women in some fields like STEM. Maybe there is, maybe not (I'm not sure about STEM).
Many "men's rights activists" want equality in child custody or boys grades in schools because they perceive a negative bias against men and boys in these areas. Maybe there is, maybe not. However, it would be absurd to say "If you want equality in child custody, you also have to want want equality among nurses, teachers, cosmeticians, etc.", If there's a bias in an area, you can be active against it and be for more equality, without pushing for equality everywhere.
Violent crime: Yes, people in gangs and prison, who are the majority of victims of crime, are mostly male, but among the rest of the 99% of the population, victims of crime are mostly female. Doesn't that matter? Mr. Caplan thinks that men aren't treated better because the top 1% of society are mostly male, then why does he think that men are treated worse because the bottom 1% are mostly male? That doesn't make sense. You have to look at the median 98%, where women ARE treated worse. Apart from the fact that "Women are treated worse" is his own definition of feminism that no one uses.
Do you think that in fields like mining, oil drilling, etc., there is negative bias against women? I contend that no one even considers a question like this because those occupations are low status. (Also there are so few women there that nobody thinks about it. But where men are so over-represented, you would expect the bias to be so much worse!)
Secondly, I think feminists are much too concerned about the 1%, and the status that comes with it. Federal politicians and CEO's of top companies are about as elite as you can get, and there seems to be a push to have more women in those positions. Perhaps your experience is different, but whenever I hear about disparities or unfair treatment, it's about desirable, highly-paid jobs.
>“One reason for that being that they have never lived the lives of women.” Again, a thinly-veiled accusation of not just unfairness, but excess unfairness. After all, women have never lived the lives of men, but almost no one uses this fact to impugn their “understanding of the import” of anything.
Thank you! I was reading up on the orthodox academia views on male privilege and it was emphasized that men, not having lived as women, often don't even recognize their privilege. And there seemed to be no acknowledgement or self-awareness at all that the underlying logic is perfectly symmetrical.
Women have never lived as men. How do feminists know there isn't some female privilege they're overlooking? I say there is, and so do some trans-men who have transitioned and pass as men. Men and women are both "privileged" in various spheres to varying degrees and I guess if you tried to calculate who has it better overall, it's probably a wash.
Rich outlive poor, whites outlive blacks, women outlive men; huh.
It seems to me that you're chickening out. The belief that "society cares more about women's problems - much more," which you espoused in your original post on Don't Be A Feminist, is - to put it kindly - difficult to reconcile with your back-down position that "I say that the unfairness men and women endure in our society is very similar overall".
Don't back down. If you believe that society cares much more about women's problems, then it seems to me that you are led to a belief - one I have reached - that in fact the unfairness men endure in our society is considerably more severe.
If you look past the "who nominally occupies all the positions of power" question - as you partly do - the evidence is pretty compelling. Men train for and work in careers based more on income potential and less on personal interest, and work substantially more hours over the course of their lives, and consequently bring home most of the household income; there are enough studies showing men do at least as much household chores (men's chores are invisible) to call any suggestion that women are carrying the bulk of the burden into serious question; they have less free time overall and far less time with their children; they have only brief retirements; they have worse health and substantially shorter lives; they have worse mental health and vastly higher suicide risk; they die on the job literally orders of magnitude more often than women do; they are a full order of magnitude more likely to be a victim of violent crime including murder; they are almost equally likely to be a victim of domestic violence up to and including murder but there is virtually no awareness of nor support for them at all, and a past administration even tried to redefine violence to cover up the near-equality of victimization rates so that the absence of support mechanisms would be less glaring; procedural protections against false accusations have much lower social and legislative support if the accusation is by a woman against a man; they are much more likely to be in jail and receive much stiffer sentences for the same crimes; in divorce, their marital obligations weaken their argument for continued contact with their children; in divorce, the wife's ongoing obligation to them is usually zero, while they routinely face not only the loss of what they've worked for but also crushing ongoing obligations to someone they may already have had to carry financially for years (usually, the more carrying they've done, the more crushing the obligations); they are subject to enslavement by the military (which, bless its institutional heart, is totally opposed to the idea) while women are not, in large part because politicians realize wars would be much more difficult to prosecute if young women - rather than young men - were coming home in body bags; when there are fatalities - whether in natural disasters or war - the number of women and children killed is emphasized, underlining the idea that men's deaths matter less; they can safely be ridiculed in popular culture (and they are); need I really keep going? My fingers are tiring.
These points have been made for years, and they're routinely dismissed as "angry men" mimicking the women's movement to try to "preserve their privilege." Cassie Jaye's TED talk addresses that dismissal: it's been wrong for at least 50 years and it's worse than ever now.
Don't chicken out. Society cares more about women's problems - far more. We're nowhere close to having equal levels of unfairness.
How can you say that men working longer is unfair for men? This is literally the mother of all preferences. Men in the west can be unemployed and live from welfare forever, but most WANT to work, how is that unfair or "oppressive"? You sound like a feminist who says that the "22% gender wage gap" is unfair and "oppressive".
Literally the same with health outcomes. Which society has done more for the health of its citizens than the western ones? It comes down to your life choices. Mental health is more talked about than ever before, and most of it is focused on men.
I can't understand how anyone can mention the fact that men are most murder victims as "proof" that men have it more unfair without mentioning that most perpetrators are men. It's like saying blacks are massively oppressed because 53% of murder victims are black. Or would you actually say such thing?
Women are ridiculed everyday in popular culture. I don't know how you can't see this. Even in politics, women are attacked all the time. Look at what Donald Trump said, or Matt Gaetz about "only ugly women want abortions", hell even Chappelle makes fun of Candace Owens' "smelly pussy."
Yes, you are definitely an angry man. As you are looking for disparaties to prove oppression that doesn't exist. This is like "murderism", a thing made up by Scott Alexander to show how ridiculous it is to see oppression where there isn't.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
I can't tell if this is serious, or parody.
Partly because the upper part is clearly parody, the middle part raises interesting topics and the lower part - back to parody - tries to dismiss me for being an angry man.
Yes, I'm pretty angry. It's no reason not to take me seriously.
But just in case you're serious...
I do sound just like a feminist, reversed. And yes, feminism wants it both ways: anything that has an unfavorable aspect to it for women must derive from unfairness rather than a personal choice; anything that has an unfavorable aspect to it for men must derive from personal choice rather than unfairness. To the extent that personal choice accounts for all of it, fair enough - although I think unfairness plays some role too. But, our society worries about women's complaints, responds to them, tilts the playing field to help them - while dismissing men's complaints. That's how it creates unfairness.
Mental health focused on men? Get real.
When you say that men are most murder victims because men are more likely to be violent, you a) speak some truth and b) engage in quite a bit of victim blaming. In our society, there is a huge amount of focus on violence against women - we have a VAWA, in fact. Why? Because... women. I notice you don't assume that women who are murdered are a sub-group of women who are more likely to be violent - why not?
If 53% of murder victims are black, I would say something very bad is happening. I would say that ignoring it, accepting it, may be evidence of gross unfairness toward black people, yes. It's not proof of oppression, but it's an issue that should not be ignored and accepted with a shrug. If it were happening to women, it would not be.
Trump, Gaetz and Chappelle say those things - which are gross and extreme - precisely to shock. When the media engage in casual ridicule of men, they are not aiming to shock: they do it because that's entirely acceptable, and funny. It often IS funny.
And of course you ignored family law - for which the only applicable word is unconscionable - and the lower value of men's lives in general. We've all been so indoctrinated about these things, it's hard to see them at first.
Anyway, thanks for the response!
"But, our society worries about women's complaints, responds to them, tilts the playing field to help them"
How does society worry about women's complaints? Do you think feminists control the legislation and wanted abortion bans?
"Mental health focused on men? Get real."
Of course it is. Men make fun of the attempts, but there is much more help than ever and everyday people are saying "Men in trouble, give therapy a chance", etc.
Most violent crime of men is in organized crime, how is that not drastically different than domestic violence. And do you think society doesn't care about violent crime when men are victims? The homicide rate in the U.S. was cut down in half from 1992 to 2020. So this is very pro-male, right?
No one was shocked by Gaetz or Chappelle. Ridicule of men gets criticized all the time, Gillette lost billions because of their "toxic masculinty" ad.
There is no proof for a negative bias against men in family courts. 90% of men don't pay alimony and men receive custody in 50% of all cases that go to court. Theoretically a bias could exist, but MRA never proved it.
Finally, men's lives are not valued less in general. This is another myth from MRA, the "male disposability" thesis that only exists for creating victimhood.
Normally when Bryan and Tyler argue, I agree with Tyler. I think this might be the first exception. I think Tyler takes a certain amount of pleasure in lobbing bombs at Bryan, and sometimes that leads him to start chucking grenades when it isn't really warranted.
1. Having received my copy, I was a bit surprised about just ONE blurb. I have US-titles with a dozen pages of blurbs. ;) Only Scott Alexander, the Great, was brave enough. As he wrote on his blog: "He asked me to write a blurb, then rejected my first few suggestions (“Bryan Caplan committed career suicide by writing this book; you owe it to him to make his sacrifice meaningful by reading it” and “I didn't think Bryan was ever going to be able to top the ‘education is bad’ book, but he definitely did”). He did end up including something by me on the back cover. I must admit I was kind of hoping it would be hidden among many other reviewer blurbs so that my name wasn’t too prominent, but I guess all those other potential reviewers chickened out, like I almost did." end of quote https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-september-2022
Where are the blurbs of Alex, Robin, Scott S. ...? It is not such an evil book and many profs do have tenure, right?
2. After TC's post, I felt I should first read Mill: "John Stuart Mill’s On the Subjection of Women remains one of the very best books ever written, on any topic, and indeed I have drawn my views from Mill. Everyone should read it." - Anyone here did?
Quite frankly, this back and forth on a topic that is not of much importance, seems to be an useless intellectual exercise. Bryan and Tyler are better off talking about if the Quantity Theory of Money is underrated.
Plus an useful thing to do when it comes to definitions is simply go back to a time shortly before the Great Awokening (circa 2010) and see how something was used and it almost always is the best definition of the thing. LGBT rights in 2010? Gay people should be allowed to marry. LGBT rights in 2022? Children should be allowed to surgically mutilate themselves. Same for feminism. Use the 2010 feminism understanding/definition.
Bryan, are you really so jealous of the attention Jordan Peterson gets?
Good on Tyler to take you (slightly) to task.
https://www.mattball.org/2022/09/my-review-of-response-to-bryan-caplans.html
He never said anything about Jordan Peterson, rather Bryan was writing from a men's rights perspective before Peterson became well known.
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2005/01/the_forgotten_m.html
https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2007/07/09/mens-rights-stop-laughing
I don't think you know all that much about how Bryan thinks, and the reasoning I saw in the post was quite poor.
The link about the "forgotten men" is weird. Men doing the majority of jobs who are physically demanding is because men are physically stronger, not sexism against men, and doing these jobs is not really a bad thing, they can be good jobs. There is literally nothing to complain about. Yet he sees it as another way how being a man is bad and men are "forgotten".
This seems to be the tactic used by men's rights activists: Focus on made-up issues or on some actually bad things that are faced by a tiny minority of men, and then conclude from that "men have it worse than women and no one cares". It's basically male identity politics.
Lol, can you think of any biological differences that might explain 'women's issues?' It's fascinating to see people vacillate seamlessly between sex-realism to explain disparities that favour women and social constructivism to deny the possibility of non-sexist explanations that favor men.
I guess you're talking about the things-people narrative? Maybe, I don't care (seriously), equal representation isn't an issue for me, as long as there is no negative bias going on. Feminists often say STEM is anti-female, but maybe women are just less good at this; mens' righst activists say family courts are anti-male, but maybe mothers are just better nurturers. Anyway, I don't care about having 50/50 everywhere.
Stuff like harassment and assualt is something that is never okay, so it will always be an issue. And being called too emotional, irrational, illogical and the reason for woke madness, falling birth rates an the destruction of the west, all for not being a mother and housewife, is pretty bad too.
typo: "you almost surely consider yourself a feminism."
feel free to delete this comment