3 ms·

> 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

> 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
    > an post-hoc modification to the general theory without much deeper examination into the inconsistency. I don't see it that way at all ... it is clearly true in a statistical sense that outcomes from a small sub-population do not necessarily tell you much about the general population at all. It is obviously possible that there is a general systematic bias in favor of men across most segments of society, but a different stronger bias against some sub-population of low-status men that easily compensates for it. Allowing for this (indeed proposing it) doesn't require any mental gymnastics at all, merely an allowance for complexity. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it doesn't even run afoul of Occam. > if society is systematically biased against women, then why are they disproportionately absent from the lowest tiers? I proposed one possibility above, in terms of how their issues are dealt with. More generally though, it's not entirely clear that women are absent here - it really depends on how you draw the line "lowest tier". It's true that men are represented more highly in homeless populations (65/35 ish, if I recall correctly) and prisons (even higher). So it is of course interesting to ask why that is. Part of that might be answered by what interventions are available and taken up before that point (e.g. we know there are connections between homelessness and mental health, and we know women, for what ever reasons, are more likely to receive treatment. Are these connected to homelessness stats? Or how much of prison representation relates to prosecution and/or sentencing stats?). We also know most homeless children are with their (majority single) mothers. It's plausible that social programs work a lot harder to get children out of this status, and indirectly their mothers. Not sure what affect that would have on the overall stats. It's much less clear to me that this is a good definition of "lowest tier" though, clearly some prison populations and most/all homeless are in there, but it inclusive enough? What about other populations? Sex-trade workers are disproportionately women, and most of them are very low-status, but relatively few are counted as homeless. Etc. etc. I would have to know a hell of a lot more of the poverty literature before I would be comfortable that I understood where to draw this line. Anyway we have probably reached the depth of viable conversation in this medium, or close to it. And that on a subject that is difficult to get honest engagement with. Thank you for being reasonable the whole way through, it's rare and I appreciate it.
    - SkyBelow 8y ago

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
  > an post-hoc modification to the general theory without much deeper examination into the inconsistency. I don't see it that way at all ... it is clearly true in a statistical sense that outcomes from a small sub-population do not necessarily tell you much about the general population at all. It is obviously possible that there is a general systematic bias in favor of men across most segments of society, but a different stronger bias against some sub-population of low-status men that easily compensates for it. Allowing for this (indeed proposing it) doesn't require any mental gymnastics at all, merely an allowance for complexity. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it doesn't even run afoul of Occam. > if society is systematically biased against women, then why are they disproportionately absent from the lowest tiers? I proposed one possibility above, in terms of how their issues are dealt with. More generally though, it's not entirely clear that women are absent here - it really depends on how you draw the line "lowest tier". It's true that men are represented more highly in homeless populations (65/35 ish, if I recall correctly) and prisons (even higher). So it is of course interesting to ask why that is. Part of that might be answered by what interventions are available and taken up before that point (e.g. we know there are connections between homelessness and mental health, and we know women, for what ever reasons, are more likely to receive treatment. Are these connected to homelessness stats? Or how much of prison representation relates to prosecution and/or sentencing stats?). We also know most homeless children are with their (majority single) mothers. It's plausible that social programs work a lot harder to get children out of this status, and indirectly their mothers. Not sure what affect that would have on the overall stats. It's much less clear to me that this is a good definition of "lowest tier" though, clearly some prison populations and most/all homeless are in there, but it inclusive enough? What about other populations? Sex-trade workers are disproportionately women, and most of them are very low-status, but relatively few are counted as homeless. Etc. etc. I would have to know a hell of a lot more of the poverty literature before I would be comfortable that I understood where to draw this line. Anyway we have probably reached the depth of viable conversation in this medium, or close to it. And that on a subject that is difficult to get honest engagement with. Thank you for being reasonable the whole way through, it's rare and I appreciate it.
  - SkyBelow 8y ago