4 ms·

Then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2. Men and women make different i

by tx 18y ago

Then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2. Men and women make different incomes. 3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly. But the thing is - you can't. Our approach to statistical drug studies is more careful and mathematically sound than studies about our own identities. There isn't enough evidence in #1 and #2 to jump to #3, and normally outside of sensitive politics absurd like that simply goes ignored, kinda like child speak. Lemme offer you similarly absurd statement: Men and women are equal, yet men don't live as long as women do. Therefore, men's quality of life is lower and they are discriminated against.

mynameishere 18y ago
Err, the logic is sound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens That's not the point. In politics, if you can trick people into believe rubbish X causes trash Y which leads to bullshit Z and make money off it, then that's what you do. Generally, it's best to have a semi-reasonable argument. In the case above, the flaw is in the statement "Men and women are equal", which is obviously not the case. (Nothing is equal to anything, except in pure mathematics.) Really, saying "men and women are equal" is a moral statement, with built-in failure, like the commands in the sermon on the mount. This leads to built-in transgression. Which leads to guilt. Which leads to submission. And so on.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  There is a moral statement to be made about sexual equality, but it is not the same statement that is made about income or intelligence. Various political groups find it useful to conflate the following types of equality: 1. Equality under the law/Equal rights as humans -- the law should treat men and women equally. "It is wrong to punish men more severely for crimes than women." 2. "Societal" equality -- the attitudes and viewpoints of mainstream society should consider men and women to be equal. "It is wrong to believe that women should have children." 3. Statistical equality -- men and women must be statistically identical for a politically useful class of statistics (e.g., intelligence). "Anyone who speculates that women are not as smart as/have different variance/etc is a sexist." 4. Equality of outcome -- men and women should achieve the same outcomes, for a politically useful class of endeavors. "Professors in every field should be 50% male, 50% female." #1 and #2 are moral questions, #3 is a scientific one. #4 is a consequence of #1,#2 and #3. The moral statements are hardly rubbish, they are perfectly legitimate moral claims (I even agree with #1). The bullshit is trying to claim that 1 == 2 == 3 == 4.

by tx 18y ago

mynameishere 18y ago

Err, the logic is sound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens That's not the point. In politics, if you can trick people into believe rubbish X causes trash Y which leads to bullshit Z and make money off it, then that's what you do. Generally, it's best to have a semi-reasonable argument. In the case above, the flaw is in the statement "Men and women are equal", which is obviously not the case. (Nothing is equal to anything, except in pure mathematics.) Really, saying "men and women are equal" is a moral statement, with built-in failure, like the commands in the sermon on the mount. This leads to built-in transgression. Which leads to guilt. Which leads to submission. And so on.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
There is a moral statement to be made about sexual equality, but it is not the same statement that is made about income or intelligence. Various political groups find it useful to conflate the following types of equality: 1. Equality under the law/Equal rights as humans -- the law should treat men and women equally. "It is wrong to punish men more severely for crimes than women." 2. "Societal" equality -- the attitudes and viewpoints of mainstream society should consider men and women to be equal. "It is wrong to believe that women should have children." 3. Statistical equality -- men and women must be statistically identical for a politically useful class of statistics (e.g., intelligence). "Anyone who speculates that women are not as smart as/have different variance/etc is a sexist." 4. Equality of outcome -- men and women should achieve the same outcomes, for a politically useful class of endeavors. "Professors in every field should be 50% male, 50% female." #1 and #2 are moral questions, #3 is a scientific one. #4 is a consequence of #1,#2 and #3. The moral statements are hardly rubbish, they are perfectly legitimate moral claims (I even agree with #1). The bullshit is trying to claim that 1 == 2 == 3 == 4.