4 ms·

Something to consider is that when you look down, the bottom is not low status jobs. It is living on the streets, prisons, and mental institutions (prisons hav

Something to consider is that when you look down, the bottom is not low status jobs. It is living on the streets, prisons, and mental institutions (prisons have largely supplanted these, at least in the US).

ska 8y ago
I don’t see how that was excluded from what I said, can you elaborate ?
- lliamander 8y ago
  The idea that our social institutions systematically favor/reward men over women seems to be contradicted by the fact that men are also disproportionately represented at the absolute bottom of the social hierarchy. It does not necessarily disprove the hypothesis of systematic sexism, but it is an observation which requires explanation. Update: fixed wording.
  - ska 8y ago
    Oh, gotcha - that is one of those things that seems superficially contradictory but isn't. But it does need discussion. I'm no expert on feminism but most of what I've heard [people who've though a lot more about this than I have] say/write on the subject acknowledges this as one (of many) aspects in which our society treats people unequally in gendered ways. Perhaps unsatisfying, but they also tend to view it as not their principal priority to fix; which I guess is fair. For completeness, I would add the "welfare trap" to SkyBelows list, which then pulls in a lot of women. The "bottom" here is not a very comfortable place to look, and involves a sad stories from many different directions. I think one of the ways it reflects in a gendered way is that for men at the lower margins we (i.e. "society") are more likely to say 'you are on your own, deal with it yourself' and for women more likely to say 'we know better, here is what you are going to do'.
    - lliamander 8y ago
      > I'm not nobodies expert on feminism but most of what I've heard [people who've though a lot more about this than I have] say/write on the subject acknowledges this as one (of many) aspects in which our society treats people unequally in gendered ways. I recognize that you are in some sense just the messenger here, but I will just point out that this response appears to use a form of equivocation. Saying that society merely treats people (of both sexes) unequally in gendered ways is not the same as saying that society favors men over women. This kind of equivocation is what is called a Motte and Bailey[0]. > Perhaps unsatisfying, but they also tend to view it as not their principal priority to fix; which I guess is fair. Aside from the logical error, I don't mind that they their priority isn't helping disenfranchised men. Indeed, an important requirement to effectively helping people is to keep your scope narrow. > For completeness, I would add the "welfare trap" to SkyBelows list, which then pulls in a lot of women. Totally fair. > The "bottom" here is not a very comfortable place to look, and involves a sad stories from many different directions. True. [0]https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
      - ska 8y ago
        I didn't present it well - though I'm not convinced it's quite in Motte & Baily territory. It can after all be perfectly consistent to hold both views (i.e. that society treats people in various gendered ways and favors men over women on average) - you just have to be careful about what you are taking as evidence for what claims. The original statement is perhaps even more in danger of falling into this and similar logical fallacy - the existence of a subset of disenfranchised men is not evidence against society favoring men generally, while it is evidence against that being universal.
        lliamander 8y ago
        > I didn't present it well - though I'm not convinced it's quite in Motte & Baily territory. I could also be reading into your words more than is there as a result of my own prior experience. > It can after all be perfectly consistent to hold both views (i.e. that society treats people in various gendered ways and favors men over women on average) - you just have to be careful about what you are taking as evidence for what claims. It is possible to both perspectives at the same time, but it seems a bit like addition of epicycles to Ptolemaic cosmology: an post-hoc modification to the general theory without much deeper examination into the inconsistency. Of course all scientific models are off in some regard, it doesn't prevent them from being useful. But it is good to be aware of the edge cases in our model, in case it turns out we need to update it. > the existence of a subset of disenfranchised men is not evidence against society favoring men generally, while it is evidence against that being universal. Let me pose it this way: The question isn't just why are there men who are disenfranchised. If society is systematically biased against women, then why are they disproportionately absent from the lowest tiers?

ska 8y ago

I don’t see how that was excluded from what I said, can you elaborate ?

lliamander 8y ago
The idea that our social institutions systematically favor/reward men over women seems to be contradicted by the fact that men are also disproportionately represented at the absolute bottom of the social hierarchy. It does not necessarily disprove the hypothesis of systematic sexism, but it is an observation which requires explanation. Update: fixed wording.
- ska 8y ago
  Oh, gotcha - that is one of those things that seems superficially contradictory but isn't. But it does need discussion. I'm no expert on feminism but most of what I've heard [people who've though a lot more about this than I have] say/write on the subject acknowledges this as one (of many) aspects in which our society treats people unequally in gendered ways. Perhaps unsatisfying, but they also tend to view it as not their principal priority to fix; which I guess is fair. For completeness, I would add the "welfare trap" to SkyBelows list, which then pulls in a lot of women. The "bottom" here is not a very comfortable place to look, and involves a sad stories from many different directions. I think one of the ways it reflects in a gendered way is that for men at the lower margins we (i.e. "society") are more likely to say 'you are on your own, deal with it yourself' and for women more likely to say 'we know better, here is what you are going to do'.
  - lliamander 8y ago
    > I'm not nobodies expert on feminism but most of what I've heard [people who've though a lot more about this than I have] say/write on the subject acknowledges this as one (of many) aspects in which our society treats people unequally in gendered ways. I recognize that you are in some sense just the messenger here, but I will just point out that this response appears to use a form of equivocation. Saying that society merely treats people (of both sexes) unequally in gendered ways is not the same as saying that society favors men over women. This kind of equivocation is what is called a Motte and Bailey[0]. > Perhaps unsatisfying, but they also tend to view it as not their principal priority to fix; which I guess is fair. Aside from the logical error, I don't mind that they their priority isn't helping disenfranchised men. Indeed, an important requirement to effectively helping people is to keep your scope narrow. > For completeness, I would add the "welfare trap" to SkyBelows list, which then pulls in a lot of women. Totally fair. > The "bottom" here is not a very comfortable place to look, and involves a sad stories from many different directions. True. [0]https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
    - ska 8y ago
      I didn't present it well - though I'm not convinced it's quite in Motte & Baily territory. It can after all be perfectly consistent to hold both views (i.e. that society treats people in various gendered ways and favors men over women on average) - you just have to be careful about what you are taking as evidence for what claims. The original statement is perhaps even more in danger of falling into this and similar logical fallacy - the existence of a subset of disenfranchised men is not evidence against society favoring men generally, while it is evidence against that being universal.
      - lliamander 8y ago
        > I didn't present it well - though I'm not convinced it's quite in Motte & Baily territory. I could also be reading into your words more than is there as a result of my own prior experience. > It can after all be perfectly consistent to hold both views (i.e. that society treats people in various gendered ways and favors men over women on average) - you just have to be careful about what you are taking as evidence for what claims. It is possible to both perspectives at the same time, but it seems a bit like addition of epicycles to Ptolemaic cosmology: an post-hoc modification to the general theory without much deeper examination into the inconsistency. Of course all scientific models are off in some regard, it doesn't prevent them from being useful. But it is good to be aware of the edge cases in our model, in case it turns out we need to update it. > the existence of a subset of disenfranchised men is not evidence against society favoring men generally, while it is evidence against that being universal. Let me pose it this way: The question isn't just why are there men who are disenfranchised. If society is systematically biased against women, then why are they disproportionately absent from the lowest tiers?