4 ms·

"What is natural tells us nothing about what is right." I wasn't talking about what was right, just about what is driving human behavior. You are free to belie

"What is natural tells us nothing about what is right." I wasn't talking about what was right, just about what is driving human behavior. You are free to believe women are not more valuable than men. But if you don't pursue wombs enough, your genes and your attitude will not make it into the next generation. That is not a tragedy, but it results in men valuing wombs being the majority. Do you like sex? Would you rather have sex with a human or with a goat? Would you say that is merely a cultural issue, and people could be retrained to prefer sex with goats? Would you say those preferences are merely a cultural issue? "All I'm saying is that your ignorance is so obvious" Well you haven't convinced me of your authority. You didn't even provide a single example. Don't forget that men's lives were different in the past, too. Sure you can point out hardship for women, but without comparing to the hardships of men it is meaningless. For one thing, it seems to me a lot of effort was spent in the past to protect women (shield them from war and hard labor). Sure there were downsides, too, but it doesn't seem obvious that society just despised women.

wpietri 12y ago
> You are free to believe women are not more valuable than men. But if you don't pursue wombs enough, your genes and your attitude will not make it into the next generation. That is not a tragedy, but it results in men valuing wombs being the majority. Again, this is more naturalistic fallacy nonsense. The objective facts about our evolutionary history do not in any way justify behaviors for conscious individuals. Evolutionarily, I am driven to feed myself when hungry, but if I steal somebody's food, that's still a crime. Evolutionarily I have a predisposition to violence, but if I hurt or kill somebody, that's still wrong. The evolutionary history provides historical reasons for the systemic oppression of women, but it does not justify it. It is still wrong, and it should still be fought in the same way that theft, assault, and murder are wrong. > Well you haven't convinced me of your authority. So? That's entitled bullshit. I don't have to explain things to you until you're convinced. If you want to be taken seriously enough to get an explanation, you have to convince others that you're worth their time.
- facepalm 12y ago
  "The evolutionary history provides historical reasons for the systemic oppression of women, but it does not justify it." You didn't even read what I wrote. I never justified the systemic oppression of women, nor argued that it happens because of evolution. What I said is that biologically women are more valuable than men. Most of the differences between the sexes follow from that. "you have to convince others that you're worth their time" Well maybe you are not worth my time. Good bye - remain happy in your ignorance (which you probably will, it's the great upside of ignorance).
  - wpietri 12y ago
    You are using "biologically more valuable" to justify societal differences. That is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      I don't justify anything. But biology is driving our behavior, so it is important to understand it. And it changes incentives. Therefore if you assume men and women should be the same, you will arrive at the wrong conclusions. By the way differences don't imply injustice. One simple example why equality is not the correct goal: I don't think fathers and mothers should have the same right to their children. I say that as a father - of course I wish it were different and I never ever want to give up my children. But seeing what women go through to bear children, it seems ridiculous to demand that men should have the same right to them. At least in the first years, maybe over time the claims can change. But suppose a couple splits up 6 months after the birth of their child. I don't think they should have equal rights to the child. However, another consequence is that mothers should have more rights to stay at home and spend time with their children than fathers. And from that suddenly you see "inequality" appear which you will interpret as injustice if you forget about biology.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        Once again, you are using biology to morally justify societal differences. It is always a fallacy. (In particular, it's known as a fallacious appeal to nature or sometimes as the naturalistic fallacy. There's a large literature on the topic if you'd like to look.) I agree that it is important to understand the biological realities. But they tell us nothing about what is right, or what rights people should have. I get why the fallacy looks appealing to you from this particular angle, but it just isn't tenable as an approach to ethics. For example, it was used extensively to justify slavery: black people were seen as naturally inferior, so slavery was not just ok but morally necessary. (See, for example, the Cornerstone Speech [1].) Part of the way using it consistently goes wrong is that people confuse what is normal with what is natural. You're not used to seeing men behave the same way around small children as women, so you wave alternatives away as "ridiculous" and treat your particular socially constructed experience as natural. This is exactly the same way slavery was justified. Having only seen one thing work, it was self-evidently ridiculous to southern slaveholders that anything else could possibly work. Normal was taken as natural. The differences between black and white people therefore couldn't possibly be unjust. And anybody opposed to them was opposed to nature, God, and all else right and true. If you really want to make an argument for women spending more time with young babies, then you'll have to do it on the grounds of practicality, not rights. Fathers and mothers have equal rights to their children, but courts, who act in the interests of children as well, look at the whole picture. As a practical matter, breast-feeding infants generally need to spend a lot of time around their moms, so even given equal rights, courts can reasonably favor keeping moms and infants together. But in arguing from practicalities, you have to recognize how contingent that is on society and technology. For example, the notion of wet nurses has fallen by the wayside. But if that were still popular, judges might more easily let a father have custody of an infant if he could hire a wet nurse to take care of the practical issues. If tomorrow some technical genius makes a machine that produces synthetic breast milk that's just as good, then again the practicalities might shift. And even with the existing practicalities, they get weighed as part of an overall picture. Courts today weigh biological issues like nursing against other practical factors, so women don't always get custody, even of infants. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

wpietri 12y ago

> You are free to believe women are not more valuable than men. But if you don't pursue wombs enough, your genes and your attitude will not make it into the next generation. That is not a tragedy, but it results in men valuing wombs being the majority. Again, this is more naturalistic fallacy nonsense. The objective facts about our evolutionary history do not in any way justify behaviors for conscious individuals. Evolutionarily, I am driven to feed myself when hungry, but if I steal somebody's food, that's still a crime. Evolutionarily I have a predisposition to violence, but if I hurt or kill somebody, that's still wrong. The evolutionary history provides historical reasons for the systemic oppression of women, but it does not justify it. It is still wrong, and it should still be fought in the same way that theft, assault, and murder are wrong. > Well you haven't convinced me of your authority. So? That's entitled bullshit. I don't have to explain things to you until you're convinced. If you want to be taken seriously enough to get an explanation, you have to convince others that you're worth their time.

facepalm 12y ago
"The evolutionary history provides historical reasons for the systemic oppression of women, but it does not justify it." You didn't even read what I wrote. I never justified the systemic oppression of women, nor argued that it happens because of evolution. What I said is that biologically women are more valuable than men. Most of the differences between the sexes follow from that. "you have to convince others that you're worth their time" Well maybe you are not worth my time. Good bye - remain happy in your ignorance (which you probably will, it's the great upside of ignorance).
- wpietri 12y ago
  You are using "biologically more valuable" to justify societal differences. That is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    I don't justify anything. But biology is driving our behavior, so it is important to understand it. And it changes incentives. Therefore if you assume men and women should be the same, you will arrive at the wrong conclusions. By the way differences don't imply injustice. One simple example why equality is not the correct goal: I don't think fathers and mothers should have the same right to their children. I say that as a father - of course I wish it were different and I never ever want to give up my children. But seeing what women go through to bear children, it seems ridiculous to demand that men should have the same right to them. At least in the first years, maybe over time the claims can change. But suppose a couple splits up 6 months after the birth of their child. I don't think they should have equal rights to the child. However, another consequence is that mothers should have more rights to stay at home and spend time with their children than fathers. And from that suddenly you see "inequality" appear which you will interpret as injustice if you forget about biology.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      Once again, you are using biology to morally justify societal differences. It is always a fallacy. (In particular, it's known as a fallacious appeal to nature or sometimes as the naturalistic fallacy. There's a large literature on the topic if you'd like to look.) I agree that it is important to understand the biological realities. But they tell us nothing about what is right, or what rights people should have. I get why the fallacy looks appealing to you from this particular angle, but it just isn't tenable as an approach to ethics. For example, it was used extensively to justify slavery: black people were seen as naturally inferior, so slavery was not just ok but morally necessary. (See, for example, the Cornerstone Speech [1].) Part of the way using it consistently goes wrong is that people confuse what is normal with what is natural. You're not used to seeing men behave the same way around small children as women, so you wave alternatives away as "ridiculous" and treat your particular socially constructed experience as natural. This is exactly the same way slavery was justified. Having only seen one thing work, it was self-evidently ridiculous to southern slaveholders that anything else could possibly work. Normal was taken as natural. The differences between black and white people therefore couldn't possibly be unjust. And anybody opposed to them was opposed to nature, God, and all else right and true. If you really want to make an argument for women spending more time with young babies, then you'll have to do it on the grounds of practicality, not rights. Fathers and mothers have equal rights to their children, but courts, who act in the interests of children as well, look at the whole picture. As a practical matter, breast-feeding infants generally need to spend a lot of time around their moms, so even given equal rights, courts can reasonably favor keeping moms and infants together. But in arguing from practicalities, you have to recognize how contingent that is on society and technology. For example, the notion of wet nurses has fallen by the wayside. But if that were still popular, judges might more easily let a father have custody of an infant if he could hire a wet nurse to take care of the practical issues. If tomorrow some technical genius makes a machine that produces synthetic breast milk that's just as good, then again the practicalities might shift. And even with the existing practicalities, they get weighed as part of an overall picture. Courts today weigh biological issues like nursing against other practical factors, so women don't always get custody, even of infants. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech