Categories
misandry misogyny MRA rape rapey reactionary bullshit scott adams

Screech it from the mountaintop

Not me.

Here’s an interesting case study in how one’s ideology can color one’s perception of the world:

The blogger behind Gucci Little Piggy – he used to comment here, but alas I can’t remember his name — took notice of my last little post about Scott Adams. Here’s what he wrote about it:

Many are calling Adams a misogynist – none are screeching this pejorative louder than David Futrelle who may finally get that honorary castration that he’s been working so hard for.

Setting aside that somewhat surreal bit about castration, what’s interesting about this comment is that I didn’t actually “screech [that] pejorative” — loudly or otherwise – in my recent posts about Adams. No need to shout, or screech, something that at this point is pretty obvious. In my last post on Adams, I mocked his narcissism, not his misogyny. In my earlier post on the Pegs and Holes nonsense, I wrote this:

It goes without saying that Adams’ notions of human sexuality are profoundly insulting to both men and women . On the one hand, he’s suggesting that men are basically all potential rapists walking around with, er, turgid pegs;  and, on the other, he seems to regard women as little more than passive (if stubbornly recalcitrant) receptacles for these male “pegs.”

I think it’s pretty clear to anyone who has been paying attention that Scott Adams is a misogynist. I also think it’s pretty clear that he’s a misandrist as well. (Two great prejudices that taste great together!) I’ve explained why I think this, and cited the specific things he’s said that have led me (and rather a lot of other people) to these conclusions. The only “screeching” going on here is in Gucci Little Piggy’s imagination.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

147 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

Um, hmmm…should jokes not make some kind of attempt to make enough sense to be funny?

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

Uh oh… Bee might be Eoghan now :O Or Bee is actually Louie! :O

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

Hee hee! Yeah, I almost felt like Louie was some regular poster “dressing up” like a troll at first, like aMiRA, but it went on way too long. But I’m curious. If it’s not Eoghan using a different voice, then it’s some other weird troll who’s been here before, I think. Maybe it was Scott Adams!

Or no. Not enough talking about how Scott Adams is a certified genius.

I was almost thinking it was Natasha, because I had totally forgotten that she and Eoghan are good friends, but the voice is different.

denelian
denelian
9 years ago

he has a totally different writing style than the other trolls i recognize here.

it’s a style i recognize, but can’t quite put my finger on…

G.L. Piggy
9 years ago

SallyStrange:

We’re still talking about my blog right?
No dude. You are irrelevant, merely another jumping-off point for an ongoing conversation.

How severe is your autism?

And if I’m irrelevant then I’m afraid of what that implies for you.

Spearhafoc
9 years ago

How severe is your autism?

You know, some of us here actually do have Autism. It would be nice if you could not be a colossal douchebag about it.

chocominties
chocominties
9 years ago

Wait wait wait … so, as a single, non-dating woman who is going to always feel the sting of the wage gap without a husband “making up for it,” am I like, going to have some man *appointed to me* or what? Because otherwise, this idea of “there’s no wage gap cuz men give women money” doesn’t quite work.

KristinMH
9 years ago

the money is legally theirs and he can be evicted at any time

*ears prick up Fred Basset-style* Hmmm???

Anyway.

Denelian, I too recognize Louie’s style. It’s the same style as your boyfriend’s creepy uncle who’s the family joker – and by joker, I mean he likes to tell horrible unfunny racist and sexist jokes to embarass you/at your expense and will probably grope you in the kitchen after Christmas dinner. But it’s just Louie! That’s just his way! He doesn’t mean any harm!

Ami, thanks to you I now have “Louie, Louie” stuck in my head. I will retaliate by mentioning…SINGLE LADIES! The song you cannot escape!

*evil laughter*

denelian
denelian
9 years ago

Kristin;

in a delicious instance of either serendipity, irony, or FATE, my boyfriend’s creepy uncle who did INDEED try to grope me [at my boyfriend’s father’s WAKE] after spending 2 days regaling us with his LOVELY humor [how are a women and pig alike? they both want everything! sigh] is named LOUIE! the jackass then went on to try to steal the bar that my b/f’s dad owned, and tried to steal the TV. also told my b/f that i had had sex with him, at my insistance [thankfully, my b/f? has a working BRAIN, and effing KNEW BETTER. Louie was creeeeeeeepy]

and… now i have this weird amalgam of both Louie Louie and Single Ladies in my brain…
i’m DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
also, “Louie” no longer looks like a name.

theLaplaceDemon
theLaplaceDemon
9 years ago

I dunno if you’re still reading this thread, G.I. Piggy, but just in case you are –

[citation needed].

More specifically:
“our different biological natures are made to be forced into a rigid legal and social system. If you take 150 million males, a lot more of their behavior spills over the boundaries of what we’ve accepted as socially positive behavior and into the illegal or antisocial realms. This has to have a natural element to it. And keep in mind that our moral and legal systems are social constructs. They were developed for society by members of society. ”

That looks a wee bit like an “appeal to nature” fallacy.

1. What are our “different biological natures”? What sources do you have to demonstrate that said nature is truly 100% “biological” (for which I assume you mean “genetically predetermined,” correct me if I’m wrong) and not either socialized or epigenetic?

2. How do you know these antisocial behaviors aren’t socially constructed/shaped? Why does it HAVE to have a “natural” element to it?* Do you have evidence for that claim, or do you just find it intuitive? And again, seriously, define “natural.”

*Honestly, the whole debate – which comes up regularly in the media and on teh internets – is sort of silly. Genes don’t exist in a vacuum, so in a sense there is no “pure” genetic trait free of environment.

ithiliana
9 years ago

Chocominties: Not to mention how I screw up the system as a never married woman earning my own living whose lifetime partner is another never married woman earning her own living, but living together.

No men!

NO MEN AT ALL.

I think the official term for this is feminist separatist utopia, ahahahahahhahahah.

namae nanka
namae nanka
9 years ago

“*Honestly, the whole debate – which comes up regularly in the media and on teh internets – is sort of silly. Genes don’t exist in a vacuum, so in a sense there is no “pure” genetic trait free of environment.”

nothing exists in vacuum, so in a sense there is nothing pure? Honestly, that is one of the worst ways to put down an argument, often a new refuge for those who reluctantly gave up the blank slate. Environment does have an effect, but it’s ridiculous to say that it makes the debate “silly”.

“What sources do you have to demonstrate that said nature is truly 100% “biological” (for which I assume you mean “genetically predetermined,” correct me if I’m wrong) and not either socialized or epigenetic?”

If it were not(of course, not your 100% pure), you wouldn’t need to come up with such stupidities:

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2011/06/swedish-school-wants-to-make-conception.html

just exchanged one church for the other. Except the old church didn’t use fantasies for human nature.

” How do you know these antisocial behaviors aren’t socially constructed/shaped?”

Their being antisocial is socially constructed.

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/mens-rights-feminism/weakness-is-a-mighty-weapon-for-fragile-feminist-crybaby-girls-the-sexual-harassment-industry

namae nanka
namae nanka
9 years ago

“Um, hmmm…should jokes not make some kind of attempt to make enough sense to be funny?”

I wonder the same about ‘feminism’.

VoiP
VoiP
9 years ago

>>And if I’m irrelevant then I’m afraid of what that implies for you.<<

So what? Who cares? We're all just posting on the Internet. I know I'm a total unknown, and I don't give two shits.

You, however, seem to be all eaten up inside about whether or not people pay attention to you, given your recourse to the “I know you are but what am I” tactic.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Ah… Human stupidity… I’ve looked at it. As I said before, I don’t think they’ve cornered the market, but it’s not for lack of trying.

theLaplaceDemon
theLaplaceDemon
9 years ago

@namae nanka –

No, it’s simply an acknowledgment that environment can effect both gene transcription and the effect of the transcribed protein. It doesn’t mean genes don’t matter, but it does mean that context matters.

And those are not exactly what I would call empirical sources…nor do they really back up your claims. Actually, they seem to be simply an attempt to divert attention by saying “SEE? LOOK AT THE DUMB THINGS FEMINISTS SAY AND DO!” without actually citing sources that back up your claims.

Look, it wouldn’t surprise me if, on a population level, there were behavioral differences between men and women that could be tied to certain genes. But to just assert a difference, based on anecdotal experience or what “everyone knows” exists, and to then come up with a biological/evolutionary story for why that’s the “natural” way of things is careless.

Teasing out gene and environment interactions is hard, especially in a social organism you can’t do truly controlled studies on. The fact of the matter is that we just don’t know how behavioral genetics plays out in humans. But people talk about men and women’s “natures” as if the discussion is over. And that’s just misuse of science.

luke123
luke123
9 years ago

There *is* a wage gap. In sex work women an average are paid a lot more than men.

Ah but, it’s because there is more risk in it for the women ? Yes, that is probably part of the reason.

And in other industries, it sound plausible that men are probably paid more because they take on more responsibilities, work longer hours, more risk…etc.

luke123
luke123
9 years ago

Were all laws made by men ?

It’s terribly naive to think that women had no influence on the lawmakers.They were men’s mistresses, wives, daughters, courtesans …

And there were plenty of powerful female rulers throughout history.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

Actually it is because women are the desired sex in that kind of work Luke.

As for other industries, it generally is because men are considered to be more valuable even in the absence of proof that he is.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@luke123:

The wage gap is not about how one job differs from the next. Its about how incomes between the genders are different, normalized for type of work.

“And in other industries, it sound plausible that men are probably paid more because they take on more responsibilities, work longer hours, more risk…etc.”

Here’s the fundamental issue; in addition to women simply being paid less on average for the same work, they also are subject to fewer raises, promotions, and hires. Thus, even if women were being paid the same for the same job, men would still be paid more by virtue of being placed into better positions. Its not a matter of what’s riskier, its a matter of bias towards males.

source, and a couple relevant quotes.

“Some people think that if women move into male-dominated occupations in larger numbers, the wage gap will close. However, there appears to be a gender-related wage gap in virtually every occupational category.”

“Women are more likely than men to work part-time. However, most gender wage comparisons leave out part-time workers and focus only on full-time, year-round workers.”

luke123
luke123
9 years ago

@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

It’s good that we have established that women are more desired in the sex industry than men.

In other words ‘equality’ doesn’t work very well when it comes to sexual desire. There is a fundamental between men and women.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

hey, if porn was geared towards both sexes then it would not be possible for women to command the higher wages. Or for prostitutes or any other type of sex work.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@Luke123:

I’ll give you a chance to check my link, but I want to clear something up. Equality doesn’t mean everyone is paid exactly the same. There is a matter of who is more educated, who can perform the task better, etc… As I see it, the fight for equality is to remove gender from the equation of pay. Its true of other things as well; when it doesn’t matter whether you are a man or a woman, be it in crime, housing, industry, or politics, equality has been acheived (at least between genders).

luke123
luke123
9 years ago

@kirbywarp

There might be some factors that make women more costly for an employer than men. Pregnancy leave, child care…

And if they really think women are collectively treated unfairly be employers, maybe women should start their own companies, or go and work at companies that are led by women. It’s not like there is a conspiracy that bars women from working for themselves ?

But I doubt that there is any evidence that working conditions are better an average in companies with a female CEO or board of directors.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

@luke123 But there have actually been studies that show that, when controlled for various factors (such as percieved risk), sexual desire across gender is extremely similar.

Source: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/

(yes, anyone who’s seen this before knows I love to use it. But it’s such a great study!)

The differences are much more likely due to social causes. Females are not supposed to be sexual, and thus are not only pushed away from sex work by supposedly not being capable of enjoying it (thus increasing demand for female sex workers), but also are pushed away from seeking male sex workers for their services (assuming, of course, a hetro female, which does make up the major demographic), and thus decrease demand for male sex workers. Very basic supply and demand rules, coupled with social stigmatization of female sexuality.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

Edit: sand typos. *perceived

And since I didn’t quite say it: the major issue, and the one both you and the ‘genius’ Adams are having a problem with, is declaring these issues as biological, when you have no proof to this. This is a problem, especially when there is research, such as the study above, that actually show that the gender differences in sexuality are essentially nil.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@luke123:

I can’t find sources saying what the working conditions are of a company with a female CEO. Its buried in links about how the gender gap decreases for companies whose male CEOs have daughters. *shrug* go figure. Given that, I’d say its pretty likely that companies with female CEOs do have a lower wage gap.

“And if they really think women are collectively treated unfairly be employers, maybe women should start their own companies, or go and work at companies that are led by women. It’s not like there is a conspiracy that bars women from working for themselves ?”

Well, who knows. The number of female CEOs is far below the number of male CEOs, but I don’t know the stats on how many women own start-up companies. But of course, this doesn’t actually negate the fact that the gender gap exists, and its a problem. Your argument in the second and third paragraph are tantamount to “Well, women should stop being lazy and go make their own companies” and “Well, companies with female CEOs don’t treat their employers any better.” Even if both were true, it wouldn’t excuse the fact that different genders are treated differently solely based upon gender. Idle speculation on what the facts are won’t negate reality either.

luke123
luke123
9 years ago

““Well, women should stop being lazy and go make their own companies” and “Well, companies with female CEOs don’t treat their employers any better.” Even if both were true, it wouldn’t excuse the fact that different genders are treated differently solely based upon gender.”

So instead of doing something productive, you whine about it.

It’s ok to tell the MRA Nice Guys who can’t get laid to quit whining, but it’s not ok to tell feminists who think there is a wage gap to get off there asses ?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@luke123:

I’m saying it won’t solve the problem. Women starting their own companies will not cause the bias against women to go away. The wage gap is not caused by women not being in control of companies. I hope I’m being clear here. Whether or not women start their own companies (I am all for this happening, by the way), it will not solve the gender wage gap.

Also, not getting laid is a very different problem from not getting fair pay for your work. Equivocating the two is… well.. foolish.

Johnny Pez
9 years ago

Luke . . .

I am your father.

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

It’s ok to tell the MRA Nice Guys who can’t get laid to quit whining, but it’s not ok to tell feminists who think there is a wage gap to get off there asses ?

Beautifully said.

Here’s what I’m wondering – if women make up like 52% of the population, and men are biased against them, how does that work? Aren’t they the majority anyway? If they started their own companies wouldn’t they be more successful and stuff?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@Ion:

Yeah, its amazing how every single woman and man in the world don’t just get together, hold a massive vote, and have women vote in pretty much anything they want. They are the majority. Wonder why this hasn’t happened yet?

About the company stuff, I already responded, so refer to my previous posts. But, out of curiosity, why haven’t you started your own business yet? Should be pretty simple, the way you and luke describe it. You’d be so much more successful, and stuff. You might even become a successful troll. XD

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

Based on the responses I’d say I was successful troll already. 😛

But you still haven’t answered the question: If some women decided to start their own company, based on feminist principles, with wage equality and all that, why wouldn’t it work? Are you saying there would be some massive male conspiracy to keep them from succeeding? And how the hell did we get to this from Scott Adams and Screech?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@Ion:

Ask Luke. *shrug* Anyway, if you don’t change the way other businesses are set up, you won’t solve the wage gap. It’s like… Adding a non-segregated bar won’t solve racism. Not to say such companies shouldn’t be started, but acting like “if only women would just get off their lazy asses and start their own companies, gender discrimination would go away” is like I said before. Foolish.

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

Adding a non-segregated bar won’t solve racism.

Just one, no. But if enough people did it, it might just start something.

So what’s your solution, then?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@Ion:

Bring attention to people’s biases? Use AA as a tool to enforce fair hiring practices? Keep the dialog up so that people are aware of sexism? I’m sure other people could tell you about activist groups that campaign for this sort of thing. Starting new businesses that have fair hiring and promotion practices will also help.

Also waiting till the previous generation dies off… That helps. [/cynic]

trichquestions
9 years ago

Just wanted to say this is a terrific blog and I’m enjoying the dialogue. Also, Ion things *have* been happening for years already. It’s a slow process made slower by the people who don’t have much inclination to change anything. Or lengthy arguments on the internet 😉

That said, I don’t think it’s merely whining or complaining to state your opinion in a blog. It engages people at least, and maybe some will be open to changing their mind. It’s not a guarantee, but it does serve an important purpose.

ithiliana
9 years ago

Dear Troll Dudes:

Women have been starting and running their own businesses for a long time–running a boarding house in the 19th century when your husband who cannot divorce you runs off to another state and nobody gives a damn is a business. Restaurants (my aunts and cousins ran their own restaurant for decades), ditto. Beauty parlors, ditto.

And today–they’re starting an even greater range:
“Recent reports say women are starting new businesses at 1.5 times the rate of men.”

http://smallbiztrends.com/2010/05/fastest-growing-women-owned-companies-attributes.html

http://www.sba8a.com/

http://www.sba8a.com/

http://www.bluesuitmom.com/career/womenbiz/
“Recent reports say women are starting new businesses at 1.5 times the rate of men.”

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/U-S-contracting-gender-gap-spurs-push-to-reserve-1438111.php

But don’t fracking pretend that women’s businesses operate in a vacuum–I’m sure there is gender disparity in who is considered seriously for start-up funds, and credit, and all that, simply because that disparity exists.

And not every “business” is a Fortune 500 fer crying out loud–most men don’t head up those kinds of businesses!

And while I cannot find any reliable statistics on the percentage of small businesses total that fail in the first year or two, the reports run from 40-90%, and that’s NOT just for women.

So shut the fuck up about “why don’t women start businesses.” They do, and a few minutes googling would have told you they did. And they always have, within the legal limits imposed on them by governments and legal systems controlled almost exclusively by men.

ithiliana
9 years ago

Kirbywarp: Amazing how they cannot understand the concept of systemic bias, innit?

I googled for women own companies and found out there’s a shitload of stuff out there that I’m fairly sure our visiting trollz know zip about.

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

It’s ok to tell the MRA Nice Guys who can’t get laid to quit whining, but it’s not ok to tell feminists who think there is a wage gap to get off there asses ?

Beautifully said.

So … I guess you guys are saying that feminists like Lilly Ledbedder should become fair wage activists and try to get laws passed to support equal pay?

Or that women’s groups around the world should organize protests of pay discrimination.

Or that women should bring law suits against companies that discriminate against female employees.

Yeah, that is really beautifully said, Ion and Luke. Way to comprehend.

ithiliana
9 years ago

Bee: High fives (SIX TIMES!) with you over links of DOOM!

Yeah, right, women don’t do anything, just sit around and whine and eat chocolate; they aren’t starting small businesses at a greater rate than men, they aren’t organizing protests and bring law suits and engaging various educational and academic acts, nope, nothing at all.

That’s why nothing has changed during the last century.

Oops…..

G.L. Piggy
9 years ago

TheLaplaceDemon:

I think it’s silly to believe that differences are due 100% to either genetics or environment. Both evidence and intuition support the claim that they work in tandem to produce differences in the group “averages” for behavior. But there is most certainly a biological element to it.

Allow me to appeal to authority. Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate” has a remarkable chapter on gender differences. He goes through the differences in the positions of gender feminists and equity feminists and points out that the former are operating from a blank slate framework. But the blank slate is being steadily refuted. Pinker cites several pieces of evidence:

*Sex differences are universal across human cultures. All cultures divide labor by sex; these differences would naturally be sexually selected for over time helping create what are often called gender roles.
*The larger body size of males predicts aggression and competition. This manifests as violence or “rough and tumble” play – behaviors that lie on a spectrum.
*Primates exhibit the same tendencies
*The diversity of mitochondrial DNA is greater than Y chromosome DNA. Fewer men through history have passed along their genes. Men compete; women choose. Some men take opportunistic route and use rape to pass along their genes. This behavior can be triggered i.e. in wartime or when the woman being attacked is poor or minority, but it is a consequence of genetic disposition being triggered by environment.
*The John Money “experiment”: an infant had his penis screwed up and was made to live as a girl. Money, a sex researcher, was a blank slatist (gender feminist) and said it wouldn’t matter; the child would lead a normal and happy life as a girl. The child was not happy and despite being raised as a girl behaved similar to boys. Later in life the person found out what happened and “changed” back into a male. Damage was done, the man killed himself several years ago. You’ve probably heard of this case.

When you lay “society” – a system of laws and norms that seeks to eradicate violence and aggression in all of its forms – over that natural framework, males – moreso than females – will lie outside of said framework.

I guess another way to say this more precisely is that males are usually playing catch-up to the increasingly rigid rules and laws of society whereas females usually fit better into the prevailing social norms and legal structure.

This does not excuse males from acting outside of the confines of polite society. We have laws for a reason; I think both Scott Adams and myself (and almost any other man) would agree that rape should be illegal (I expect hostility towards that statement, as in “No duh”, but keep in mind that rape has not always been illegal back through our human existence).

The “appeal to nature” is misplaced. An appeal to nature implies that someone is excusing behavior that would seem to be naturally gained. But society – being unnatural itself – cannot address the question of whether natural instincts are moral or immoral. We’re all living in a morally relativistic world (unless you believe in God, but there aren’t many on either side of this discussion who do). When humans engage with society they must make adjustments to their behavior. I think Adams’ entire position is that when these adjustments are suggested or codified, it will obviously be the males that have the most difficulty meeting these demands. And sometimes there is a buffer zone wherein males are viewed a little more skeptically by society – as if they are being watched and monitored for fear that they will actually act in an antisocial behavior.

This is a very interesting way to look at social structure – IMO.

darksidecat
darksidecat
9 years ago

@G.L., you evidence is mostly nonsense.

“Sex differences are universal across human cultures. All cultures divide labor by sex; these differences would naturally be sexually selected for over time helping create what are often called gender roles.” This is false, as a matter of anthropology. A more true statment is that some cultures divide some labor by sex, and that some of those actually use sex as a requirement for placement within those labor roles (see, for an alternative example, the Navajo who traditionally allowed children of either sex to select the opposite role), not all cultures recognize only two sexes or genders (see, for example, India), and what labor is divided into what role varies massively between cultures (for example, hunting was considered a woman’s job in Ancient Crete).

“The larger body size of males predicts aggression and competition. This manifests as violence or “rough and tumble” play – behaviors that lie on a spectrum.” Elephants are very large animals, but not incredibly aggressive ones. Size difference is sexual dymorphism can play a number of different roles. There are also plenty of species with smaller females where females display competitive violence (such as, oh, fucking wolves and dogs).

“Primates exhibit the same tendencies” What same tendancies? Bonobos have virtually no intraspecies aggression and they are a primate. Some primates are almost exclusively lesbian and opperate with all female social groups distinct from male groups. Some primates have intraspecies, intra-group male aggression, but even in those species, kin group relationships factor in as well as size.

“*The diversity of mitochondrial DNA is greater than Y chromosome DNA. Fewer men through history have passed along their genes. Men compete; women choose. Some men take opportunistic route and use rape to pass along their genes. This behavior can be triggered i.e. in wartime or when the woman being attacked is poor or minority, but it is a consequence of genetic disposition being triggered by environment.” Your argument here is a non-sequiter. Really. There are innumerable reasons that egg cell carriers might reproduce more, including their far lower risk of premature birth and certain genetic disorders. Without modern medical techniques, even without much war egg cell carriers outnumber sperm cell carriers among individuals who survive to adulthood. Also, in polyandrous cultures (which do exist, even now) marriage with a woman and several brothers has been observed. So, the Y chromosomes could match up more through this methodology as well. In addition, this competition theory of yours fails to account for the fact that mitchondrial lines show far greater geographic spread as compared to their Y chromosonal line counterparts. Large groups of a singular Y descent are often cloistered in small geographic areas, whereas mitochondrial lines are not generally clustered.

“The John Money “experiment”: an infant had his penis screwed up and was made to live as a girl. Money, a sex researcher, was a blank slatist (gender feminist) and said it wouldn’t matter; the child would lead a normal and happy life as a girl. The child was not happy and despite being raised as a girl behaved similar to boys. Later in life the person found out what happened and “changed” back into a male. Damage was done, the man killed himself several years ago. You’ve probably heard of this case.” Money was no feminist. Money’s goal in this experiment was not to foment feminism, but to justify is IGM practices. Also, the child at issue here never had functioning or appearence conforming female genitals and was told at around eleven about the circumstances, and had very abusive parents and a family history of suicide (the twin brother raised as a boy also committed suicide, the father had committed suicide as had several other relatives). Not the best case study, fact wise. Of course, the anthropological studies of cultural cross gender raising of children (something that occurs in a number of cultures, including modern day Afganistan) and on intersexed children’s relation to birth assignments don’t give the clear cut answer you are putting forth here, but, hey, confirmation bias is fun for you, yes?

If anyone wants me to do another long comment to address the logical and philosophical fail of the consclusory paragraphs of G.L.’s comment, just say the word.

VoiP
VoiP
9 years ago

Please, darksidecat? I don’t like Pinker’s arguments, I like G.L. Piggy’s even less, and that was smart as hell.

darksidecat
darksidecat
9 years ago

Since Voip asked for it 😉

“When you lay “society” – a system of laws and norms that seeks to eradicate violence and aggression in all of its forms – over that natural framework, males – moreso than females – will lie outside of said framework. ”

Society is not a system designed to eradicate violence and aggression. Some societies make that a central goal, many do not. That is why phrases like “militaristic society” and “slave based society” are perfectly cogent. Again, you use the phrase “natural” here in a normative sense, which is a logical failure (I’ll get back to that). However, let us say we have a society which does count amongst its goals eliminating violence. You would still need to prove that males are more likely to commit in-group violence (using in-group to include the larger societal group here, not sub-groups, even though that often is the case). Also, punishment systems do not put the people who violate rules outside of their framework, rather, they are designed specifically to deal with the problem incidents.

“I guess another way to say this more precisely is that males are usually playing catch-up to the increasingly rigid rules and laws of society whereas females usually fit better into the prevailing social norms and legal structure. ”

This is where the phrase “prove your premises” comes in really handy. Okay, I suppose you think you have proven a biological pre-disposition to violence as more common in males, even though you have not. But you aslo need to prove that social rules have become increasingly more rigid. Small societies with non-codified rules can be incredibly restrictive in practice. You confuse the trend towards statutory codes with an increase in rules, but this is not always the case. Common law rule systems can be very restrictive, and the vaguer definitions can actually be helpful in expanding what is eligible for punishments. Also, you pretend that the only social norms and legal structures are those which address violence. However, this is not the case. I cannot think of any example of a society where this was the case. Strict social and legal rules restricting women’s sexuality, dress, and reproduction (among other things) have historicallly been extremely common and are extant today in large degree. Also, you fail to take into account that laws and social norms are created by humans. Within modern western societies, the people who hold the most power in legal institutions are men. The law codes of these cultures were written by men with men as the intended subjects (there is, in fact, long case precident to establish the notion that codified laws which almost always say “a man” and “his” when defining victims and perpetrators also apply to women). It seems that even if women did tend to be able to follow these rules better, that is a side effect, not an intended goal, as these laws are almost always written by men with men in mind.

, “This does not excuse males from acting outside of the confines of polite society. We have laws for a reason; I think both Scott Adams and myself (and almost any other man) would agree that rape should be illegal (I expect hostility towards that statement, as in “No duh”, but keep in mind that rape has not always been illegal back through our human existence).”

Well, if it is a predisposition, it would not serve as a complete excuse. However, we tend to consider voluntaryness of an act as part of assigning responsibility. Is this predisposition you posit supposed to be one which can be followed or not followed voluntarily? Or is it more determinative than that? Even in the most favorable one for you claim, though, it being more difficult for person A to not do an act does in fact tend to make us decrease A’s perceived level of responsibility. Unless, of course, you think level of moral responsibility is not a factor in determining punishment, your statement here is contradictory to your views.

The “appeal to nature” is misplaced. An appeal to nature implies that someone is excusing behavior that would seem to be naturally gained.

No, it does not. The appeal to nature fallacy is where a person assumes that natural=good without explaining why or properly defining the parameters of the natural. The question of how much a non-voluntary action is blameworthy, or a voluntary action made more likely by a non-voluntary predisposition is blameworthy, is a distinct question. The fact is that we do consider non-voluntary biologically caused acts to be less blameworthy, at least in certain cases. For example, we do not consider it proper to charge an epileptic with assault if they give someone a black eye during a seizure. It is you who have failed to establish how non-voluntary you think this predisposition to violent acts is.

“But society – being unnatural itself – cannot address the question of whether natural instincts are moral or immoral.”

Now there is something that looks like an appeal to nature fallacy! How is society unnatural? What impulses are “natural” ones and what ones are not? Why couldn’t an “unnatural” institution judge what is and is not moral? Define your terms or your statement here is basically just gibberish.

We’re all living in a morally relativistic world (unless you believe in God, but there aren’t many on either side of this discussion who do).

The absence of a God does not demonstrate moral relativism (nor does positing a god solve any of the philosophical issues of establishing objective morality, see Euthypro’s Dilema). Most of the big moral realist philosophies do not posit a god (for example, utilitarianims, Kantian ethics, or the always popular in practice egoism). Even disproving objective morality’s existence does not get you right to moral relativism. Because, moral anti-realism is still an option and one which makes far more sense that moral relativism (moral relativist theories, when people attempt to define them, generally turn into objective standards in a twisty way).

When humans engage with society they must make adjustments to their behavior.

Must they? And is society the sort of thing one engages with in a non-metaphorical sense? Humans are a social species, that much is clear. It is not apparant how a human could exist extrinsic of social groups’ influences, because even if the human left the social groups early, they still would have influence from their upbringing. How humans behave extrinsic of human social groups is probably a near nonsensical question, or the answer is to look at other social species behavior when completely isolated from birth (warning, that one is not pretty). It might be better to try and conceptualize behavoiral variations in individuals in response to a variety of social stimuli.

I think Adams’ entire position is that when these adjustments are suggested or codified, it will obviously be the males that have the most difficulty meeting these demands.

Maybe that is Adam’s position, but it is a silly one. See the problem outlined above in regards to social adjustments. Still, again, we could easily conceptualize a society that codifies many restrictions on female behavior but fewer on male behavior. You might argue that a society which did this would be more violent than one which did the reverse, but that is irrelevant to the fact that there is no real reason it seem impossible to do.

And sometimes there is a buffer zone wherein males are viewed a little more skeptically by society – as if they are being watched and monitored for fear that they will actually act in an antisocial behavior.

The sometimes qualifier saves you here. I think there are some societies that have norms that might look a bit like this, so I will give you this one. But, still, you have to prove that this is the best way or the only way in order for it to relate to any larger point. After all, there are societies that view people with darker skin tones with suspicion, but that is unwarranted and silly. Societal suspicions agaisnt a group do not prove the suspicions true, or that the suspicions would be true extrinsic a culture with said suspicions (I am getting at stereotype threat issues there in the end bit, if that seemed confusing).

This is a very interesting way to look at social structure – IMO.

If by “interesting” you mean “full of unsubstantiated bullshit, logical fallacies, and self contradictions”, then yes.

VoiP
VoiP
9 years ago

Thank you! 🙂