6 ms·

They went into about as much detail as one would expect, given the context: This is a composite of such things as unequal treatment of women in family law and

They went into about as much detail as one would expect, given the context: This is a composite of such things as unequal treatment of women in family law and property rights, early marriage for girls, patrilocal marriage, polygamy, bride price, son preference, violence against women and social attitudes towards it (for example, is rape seen as a property crime against men?). Since this is as much a book review as anything else, it can perhaps be forgiven for not going into complete detail. The level of detail you're asking for here is more likely to be found in the book itself. I'm not seeing any indication, though, that they're just going off of some sort of opinion survey, as you would seem to be implying in your critique. That list above includes a lot of things that can be fairly objectively measured, either directly or through proxy variables.

jimbob45 5y ago
Patrilocality and son preference have nothing to do with abuse of women. Patrilocality is largely pragmatic and son preference is a symptom of population control unless the author is brave enough to claim that abortion specifically against girls is bad (I doubt that lol)
- ajuc 5y ago
  > brave enough to claim that abortion specifically against girls is bad why would it be brave? Firing people is ok. Firing people for being of particular gender is bad.
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2012/05/problem-and-solution-mismatch-son-preference-and-sex-selective-abortion-bans https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2012/05/problem-and-solution-... Not sure what anyone getting fired has to do with anything. Son preference refers to sex selection, not employment termination based on gender.
  - bsza 5y ago
    The main argument behind pro-choice is that a fetus isn't a person. Otherwise abortion would mean killing people. If you really believe your analogy of firing people is a good one, then you have already recognized the aborted fetus as a person.
    - alasdair_ 5y ago
      The main argument behind pro-choice is that women own their own bodies, not society at large.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        It's a large enough issue that you can't really sum up “the main argument” in a pithy Hacker News comment; most anyone with a reasoned opinion has thought about it enough to fill several essays, and to get the “main argument” requires considering a lot of people's reasoning.
        nautilius 5y ago
        You really can, though. This discussion is considered “solved” in most of the so-called civilized world. Your argument could be equally applied to other topics that were once debated hotly but now are mostly considered “solved”, such as “is it good to have slaves”, or “should women be allowed to vote”.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        “Solved” ≠ “simple”. There's a consensus on the right answer, but that doesn't make the reasoning trivial. • “Is it good to have slaves”: they're people, so they shouldn't be enslaved. (Almost axiomic, with the same reasoning in consequentialist, deontological and virtue ethical systems.) • “Should women be allowed to vote?”: they're people who are affected by policy, so yes, they should be able to decide it. (See: the whole justification for democracy in the first place; it just falls out. … Should children be allowed to vote?) I don't think you can come up with something so simple for abortion, unless it's one of the axioms of your ethical system. That's more a function of our (relative) lack of understanding, rather than the problem being intrinsically complex… probably.
- lovich 5y ago
  I will be brave enough to claim that abortion specifically against girls is bad. I’d be brave enough to say that abortion specifically against boys is bad too. I am confused as to why you think this requires much bravery though. It doesn’t feel like a particularly hidden belief that I’m letting out
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    Because once you start claiming that certain subsets of abortions are bad, you start to open up inconvenient conversations that erode Roe v Wade and then it would be an actual debate instead of a foregone conclusion for the left. I’m not trying to incite anything here though. I’m quite certain that the author genuinely made a mistake including it in their list.
    - mumblemumble 5y ago
      The wording "abortion specifically against women is bad" is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean either, "aborting girls is bad, and aborting boys is not bad," or, "selectively aborting girls but not boys is bad." The discussion thus far is consistent with the possibility that each participant has taken the phrase to mean something different.
    - lovich 5y ago
      I don’t think this erodes roe v wade. I don’t think “choosing to abort your pregnancy specifically because it was a girl is bad” rises beyond social condemnation and needs to be legislated. There seems to be some sort of unspoken belief among anti abortion proponents that roe v wade and pro choice beliefs are built on the flimsiest of legal arguments and if we even squint at it wrong the whole thing will come tumbling down. > I’m not trying to incite anything here though. >… then it would be an actual debate instead of a foregone conclusion for the left. I find it hard to rectify those two statements in the same discussion much less the same comment Edit: added the word “specifically” to the second sentence
      - jimbob45 5y ago
- kadoban 5y ago
  It's _at least_ not a good sign for a society's treatment of women if parents preferentially don't even want one.
- simonh 5y ago
  > Patrilocality and son preference have nothing to do with abuse of women. Women that move to live in the husbands extended family have no existing relationships, no blood relations around them. They are outsiders and so are very vulnerable. Son preference indicates that females are not valued, which as the article points out is correlated with poor treatment of women. Of course aborting pregnancies of females is bad, it’s utterly stunning that you can think joking about it is ok. As the article points out an imbalance in the population means there won’t be enough girls to go around. This correlates with high rates of violence and crime due to all those frustrated men.
refenestrator 5y ago
Bride price can be a benign custom in otherwise normal marriages as long as you're not literally buying the woman. If it's accompanied with the bride's family helping outfit the spousal home, it's basically a wash and smarter than giving the money to DeBeers.
- true_religion 5y ago
  That’s true. It has to be judged on a case by case basis and that is what they do in the book.

jimbob45 5y ago

Patrilocality and son preference have nothing to do with abuse of women. Patrilocality is largely pragmatic and son preference is a symptom of population control unless the author is brave enough to claim that abortion specifically against girls is bad (I doubt that lol)

ajuc 5y ago
> brave enough to claim that abortion specifically against girls is bad why would it be brave? Firing people is ok. Firing people for being of particular gender is bad.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2012/05/problem-and-solution-mismatch-son-preference-and-sex-selective-abortion-bans https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2012/05/problem-and-solution-... Not sure what anyone getting fired has to do with anything. Son preference refers to sex selection, not employment termination based on gender.
- bsza 5y ago
  The main argument behind pro-choice is that a fetus isn't a person. Otherwise abortion would mean killing people. If you really believe your analogy of firing people is a good one, then you have already recognized the aborted fetus as a person.
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    The main argument behind pro-choice is that women own their own bodies, not society at large.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      It's a large enough issue that you can't really sum up “the main argument” in a pithy Hacker News comment; most anyone with a reasoned opinion has thought about it enough to fill several essays, and to get the “main argument” requires considering a lot of people's reasoning.
      - nautilius 5y ago
        You really can, though. This discussion is considered “solved” in most of the so-called civilized world. Your argument could be equally applied to other topics that were once debated hotly but now are mostly considered “solved”, such as “is it good to have slaves”, or “should women be allowed to vote”.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        “Solved” ≠ “simple”. There's a consensus on the right answer, but that doesn't make the reasoning trivial. • “Is it good to have slaves”: they're people, so they shouldn't be enslaved. (Almost axiomic, with the same reasoning in consequentialist, deontological and virtue ethical systems.) • “Should women be allowed to vote?”: they're people who are affected by policy, so yes, they should be able to decide it. (See: the whole justification for democracy in the first place; it just falls out. … Should children be allowed to vote?) I don't think you can come up with something so simple for abortion, unless it's one of the axioms of your ethical system. That's more a function of our (relative) lack of understanding, rather than the problem being intrinsically complex… probably.
lovich 5y ago
I will be brave enough to claim that abortion specifically against girls is bad. I’d be brave enough to say that abortion specifically against boys is bad too. I am confused as to why you think this requires much bravery though. It doesn’t feel like a particularly hidden belief that I’m letting out
- jimbob45 5y ago
  Because once you start claiming that certain subsets of abortions are bad, you start to open up inconvenient conversations that erode Roe v Wade and then it would be an actual debate instead of a foregone conclusion for the left. I’m not trying to incite anything here though. I’m quite certain that the author genuinely made a mistake including it in their list.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    The wording "abortion specifically against women is bad" is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean either, "aborting girls is bad, and aborting boys is not bad," or, "selectively aborting girls but not boys is bad." The discussion thus far is consistent with the possibility that each participant has taken the phrase to mean something different.
  - lovich 5y ago
    I don’t think this erodes roe v wade. I don’t think “choosing to abort your pregnancy specifically because it was a girl is bad” rises beyond social condemnation and needs to be legislated. There seems to be some sort of unspoken belief among anti abortion proponents that roe v wade and pro choice beliefs are built on the flimsiest of legal arguments and if we even squint at it wrong the whole thing will come tumbling down. > I’m not trying to incite anything here though. >… then it would be an actual debate instead of a foregone conclusion for the left. I find it hard to rectify those two statements in the same discussion much less the same comment Edit: added the word “specifically” to the second sentence
    - jimbob45 5y ago
kadoban 5y ago
It's _at least_ not a good sign for a society's treatment of women if parents preferentially don't even want one.
simonh 5y ago
> Patrilocality and son preference have nothing to do with abuse of women. Women that move to live in the husbands extended family have no existing relationships, no blood relations around them. They are outsiders and so are very vulnerable. Son preference indicates that females are not valued, which as the article points out is correlated with poor treatment of women. Of course aborting pregnancies of females is bad, it’s utterly stunning that you can think joking about it is ok. As the article points out an imbalance in the population means there won’t be enough girls to go around. This correlates with high rates of violence and crime due to all those frustrated men.

refenestrator 5y ago

Bride price can be a benign custom in otherwise normal marriages as long as you're not literally buying the woman. If it's accompanied with the bride's family helping outfit the spousal home, it's basically a wash and smarter than giving the money to DeBeers.

true_religion 5y ago
That’s true. It has to be judged on a case by case basis and that is what they do in the book.