>It's ludicrous because saying we should decide social policies based on generalizations of groups of people is a bad idea. Replace women with any group: LGBT, people of color, poor people, foreigners, etc.
We don't let foreigners vote because, generally speaking, their interests are less closely aligned with the best interests of the country compared with citizens. Should we let foreigners vote now?
Certain racial minorities tend to come from poorer backgrounds, so we mandate that they receive certain advantages in hiring and college admissions and so on. Should affirmative action be ended?
Why is it necessarily a bad idea to base social policies on generalizations of groups of people? If the generalizations are correct, why is it automatically bad to take them into account when deciding policy? In what other circumstance is it a good idea to discard correct information when making decisions?
>Society should care about the rights of the individual to freedom and happiness to live their lives: equally, without regard to gender.
We all sacrifice some of our freedoms to make society a better place. Why should society not be allowed to take gender into account when making policies, if gender is actually relevant to the policy?
>You also fail to define successful marriage:
Generally speaking I mean they produce children that become productive members of society.
>To encourage systemic behavior on poorly defined things like this leads to people getting hurt.
Ignoring facts also leads to people getting hurt.
>You keep saying "if x turns out to y" but we don't have such data.
I'm not going to bother getting into specifics because it sounds to me like you wouldn't change your mind even if I provided such data. It sounds to me like you believe it's morally wrong in and of itself to hold men and women to different standards, even if there is good reason to do so.
>I think you'll find that there are actually no hard and fast rules like the ones you say we should consider
You're saying there is no statistical relationship between, say, the amount of casual sex people have and any other statistic that society has an interest in increasing or decreasing?
We don't let foreigners vote because, generally speaking,
their interests are less closely aligned with the best
interests of the country compared with citizens. Should we
let foreigners vote now?
s/generally speaking/very specifically speaking/r. Foreigners don't live here and don't pay taxes. That is clear-cut, unlike gender. This is not an accurate analogy.
Now, treating foreigners poorly because you think they're poorer or stupider than you or that their culture is inferior is why we have a lot of hate in the world -- that's an example of society choosing behavior / shaming based on generalization. And clearly that's not a good thing.
Certain racial minorities tend to come from poorer
backgrounds, so we mandate that they receive certain
advantages in hiring and college admissions and so on.
Should affirmative action be ended?
No, but it has plenty of criticism right now in the sense that the actual purpose is to help economically disadvantaged and often what happens instead is privileged individuals in disadvantaged categories benefit the most (not actually representative of who we try to help). Clearly we should seek the most accurate classification and base policy on that. Law should be a scalpel, not a cudgel.
And so the same is with society: we should err on the side of respect and open-mindedness rather than trying to shoehorn everyone into boxes / classifications of our own imagination.
We all sacrifice some of our freedoms to make society a
better place. Why should society not be allowed to take
gender into account when making policies, if gender is
actually relevant to the policy?
Are you saying women should sacrifice being treated as people with agency to make the world a "better place" ? Better for who?
Generally speaking I mean they produce children that become
productive members of society.
Cool so what do you want to say? That subjugation of women will make it more likely that we produce children who are productive members of society? I won't agree with that and you wouldn't have data to support it.
Ignoring facts also leads to people getting hurt.
Ignoring that status quo is not the same as fact leads to people getting hurt. Furthermore, assuming that you can know all the facts leads to people getting hurt. For example, many in society used to say homosexuals can't raise children as well as straight couples, but ignored the circumstances under which homosexuals were forced to live as influencing their classification (persecution). Now that (specifically liberal American) society has become more accepting of homosexuals, you might see that statistically well-adjusted homosexuals are on the rise, and those couples that raise kids do so just as well as their straight counterparts.
In the world you propose, people can say "well statistics show they have higher divorce rates or children make less when they grow up" and use that as a reason to shame gay marriage. And in that world you'll fail to account for the myriad of reasons why that's a flawed notion.
Even if statistics show something, it doesn't mean we should act on it. We don't always know why things are and the various causes, so as soon as you try to blame it on poorly-defined blurry groups such as race and gender, you begin to encroach upon irrational territory. Basing decisions off intractable data is terrible.
I'm not going to bother getting into specifics because it
sounds to me like you wouldn't change your mind even if I
provided such data. It sounds to me like you believe it's
morally wrong in and of itself to hold men and women to
different standards, even if there is good reason to do so.
If there's something we agree on here it's that I'm dubious of any data you'd provide, mainly because I don't believe such data exists. My assumptions and ideologies are formed upon the basis that we actually cannot accurately enough assess this information and thus must operate with a wide berth of respect for one another.
I think of law and society norms as being a shitty x-dimensional linear classifier, and people y-dimensional points, where y >>> x. This is where my disdain for your "data" arises: where you assert you can say some facts for "all women vs all men" and I'm saying you just can't. As far as reason goes, burden of proof is on the hypothesis.
Statistics also can be interpreted with a high degree of variability. So even if my premise was incorrect, and you did "have the data," we'd have to have a conversation about how you're interpreting it.
^ Turns out with most things regarding people we cannot directly measure / find metrics. Instead we have to satisfy ourselves with operationalizations. So yeah, forgive my skepticism when you claim to have enough data to know the effects of gender norms on societal health when you haven't even done step 1, defining how these things are measured and accounting for confounders.
You know what you can measure? Suffering. You can talk to women and people of color and realize that there are systemic flaws that really hurt people. And you can act on that data, because it's not abstract. You can be kinder.
You're saying there is no statistical relationship between,
say, the amount of casual sex people have and any other
statistic that society has an interest in increasing or
decreasing?
I'm saying that if there is, you can't know it, and even if you do, it's so noisy it's useless to try to base policy on and inevitably hurts people.
Equality for all people regardless of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, is an ideal. If you don't believe in it, we're going to disagree, because it speaks to the core of what we feel is "good for society" or a "good society." If you think of life as an optimization problem, you can think of sum(ideals) as the objective function.
A good society to me is one in which everyone has the same civil liberties to life and happiness. Physical life is not fair (you may be born with a disease and I may not, born rich vs born poor, etc) but that doesn't stop us from saying that fairness is a virtue worth pursuing where we can. Do we at least agree on that?
>s/generally speaking/very specifically speaking/r. Foreigners don't live here and don't pay taxes. That is clear-cut, unlike gender. This is not an accurate analogy.
In the US, there are millions of permanent residents who live here and pay taxes but can't vote. Should they be allowed to?
>Clearly we should seek the most accurate classification and base policy on that.
The accuracy of the classification system is not the only concern. At the very least, the cost of classifying individuals will always be a factor.
>Are you saying women should sacrifice being treated as people with agency to make the world a "better place" ?
Do we not all sacrifice some of our freedoms to make the world a better place?
>Better for who?
Future generations.
>I won't agree with that and you wouldn't have data to support it.
It doesn't matter if the data exists or not; your ideology has told you a priori that it can't exist.
>Furthermore, assuming that you can know all the facts leads to people getting hurt.
In what other cases are we held to this high standard, that we must know all of the facts before we can take action? All we can ever do is use the facts we have to make reasonable guesses about what policies we should have. You seem to have made up your mind that it's fundamentally impossible to gather enough facts for us to know that not holding different genders to different standards will hurt people more than holding different genders to different standards.
>For example, many in society used to say homosexuals can't raise children as well as straight couples
What is the point in this anecdote, other than to suggest that because people who disagreed with you once used statistics wrong, other people who disagree with you cannot use statistics correctly?
>Even if statistics show something, it doesn't mean we should act on it.
Then what should we act on? What your feelings tell us?
>poorly-defined blurry groups such as race and gender
Gender is not blurry for the vast majority of people.
>where you assert you can say some facts for "all women vs all men" and I'm saying you just can't.
I've asserted no such thing, nor do I think any such thing. If you believe I have said such things, then you haven't been paying attention, and this discussion cannot possibly be useful to anyone. I have always spoken about women in general and men in general, understanding fully that what I'm saying does not apply to every single woman or every single man.
>Equality for all people regardless of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, is an ideal.
It's not the only ideal, by any means, and the relative importance of that ideal is a matter of personal opinion.
>worth pursuing where we can. Do we at least agree on that?
It sounds to me like, for you, "where we can" means "irrespective of any other concern". I can't agree with that.
In the US, there are millions of permanent residents who
live here and pay taxes but can't vote. Should they be
allowed to?
Isn't that what the naturalization debate is about?
The accuracy of the classification system is not the
only concern. At the very least, the cost of
classifying individuals will always be a factor.
Agreed. And the cost of classifying individuals can be perilously high.
Do we not all sacrifice some of our freedoms to make
the world a better place?
Again, better for who?
Future generations.
Nope, future generations of men but not women if you make that assumption. And no, our policies should benefit future generations of all people.
The status quo for women blows.
In what other cases are we held to this high standard,
that we must know all of the facts before we can take
action?
In all cases where the potential for harm is very high and there exist alternatives. For example, making equality a priority along with other metrics you haven't defined to measure a "good" society.
What is the point in this anecdote, other than to
suggest that because people who disagreed with you once
used statistics wrong, other people who disagree with
you cannot use statistics correctly?
It's to illustrate that statistics need to be used correctly and that metrics you purport to have (presumably regarding the subjugation of women for the public benefit) are doubtful given the vast scope of the problem we are observing. Statistics are only meaningful given well-defined hypotheses and need to account t=0 -> t=future.
Then what should we act on? What your feelings tell us?
No, again, ideals should serve as an objective function and we can operate on real feedback in well-defined scopes. E.g. the world as it is sucks for women and people of color in ways x y and z, and there are systemic issues. We can address them. The opposite of shaming women who do x doesn't have to be encouraging women to do x, it can be respecting them and allowing them to make their own choices. Path of least harm.
Gender is not blurry for the vast majority of people.
By this I mean characteristics you attribute to men do not apply to all men. And same for women. And even if a generalizing characteristic you make applies to a majority (e.g 51% of men), it can harm another 49%. Furthermore, 1% of all men or women is a large large number of people. Cost of false positive is high.
>where you assert you can say some facts for "all women vs all men" and I'm saying you just
can't.
I've asserted no such thing, nor do I think any such thing.
Don't you now?
Should they not look for chaste women as life partners,
if it turns out that marriages to chaste women end up
being the most successful?
Why is it "ludicrous" for society to discourage women
from engaging in certain behaviors, if it turns out
that it's bad for society if women engage in those
behaviors?
if it turns out that the sort of personality traits
that lead a woman to engage in casual sex tend to be
different from the sort of personality traits that lead
a man to engage in casual sex, why is it not reasonable
for men to treat women who have casual sex differently
from how women treat men that have casual sex?
By asking these you imply such data is possible to come by, such classifications are able to be made, and clearly that men and women are well-defined groups. You're posing that these facts might exist, where they don't because the groups are not well defined to begin with.
I have always spoken about women in general and men in
general, understanding fully that what I'm saying does
not apply to every single woman or every single man.
Right, so what have you learned about generalizing about race, and why is it bad? Now maybe think about why it might be bad to do the same thing with gender?
It's not the only ideal, by any means, and the relative importance of that
ideal is a matter of personal opinion.
Sure. My opinion is that being kind and actually caring how policies might cause harm is important. I believe in a kinder world. Feel free to disagree.
It sounds to me like, for you, "where we can" means "irrespective of any other concern". I can't
agree with that.
I prioritize it highly, because it is the basis for a society I want to live in. But surely you realize there's no gap between having ideals and being rational. You haven't brought any valid concerns to the issue, so you don't know that my views are "irrespective of any other concern." You've only brought theoreticals about "data" that "might suggest" things you believe. and I found those unlikely.
And it's OK to say a theoretical is unlikely. You can theorize that aliens are watching our every move, or that god exists, and I can't refute that, but it doesn't make me irrational to be skeptical. You make it sound like there's possibly a point where subjugating women might be good for the human race as a whole...but good luck finding well-scoped proof of that, that's just crazy.
I haven't proposed anything impractical now, have I? If everyone were more respectful of one another the world would be a better place, can we agree on that? In lieu of data that would say it's good for society for some people to be deprived of their rights, is it not OK to choose a sane default action (ideal, if you will)?
They are not given the right to vote as well as a few other rights/privileges. If basing policies on generalizations is a 'bad idea', should we then give them the same rights/privileges as other people that live here and pay taxes?
Nope, future generations of men but not women if you make that assumption
No, future generations of both men and women. Both men and women benefit when society's standard of living increases.
The status quo for women blows.
How is the status quo bad for the vast majority of women?
In all cases where the potential for harm is very high and there exist alternatives.
The potential harm of accepting and encouraging destructive lifestyles vastly exceeds the harm done to the tiny minority that have a strong preference for those destructive lifestyles.
The opposite of shaming women who do x doesn't have to be encouraging women to do x, it can be respecting them and allowing them to make their own choices. Path of least harm.
You have no idea what the path of least harm is. Respecting someone's choice to engage in self-destructive behaviors can easily result in greater harm even for that person than discouraging them from engaging in those behaviors. On a society-wide basis, tolerating certain lifestyles can easily result in far greater harm to society than having a cultural stigma against those lifestyles.
By this I mean characteristics you attribute to men do not apply to all men.
Of course they don't. I'm speaking generally.
Don't you now?
No.
By asking these you imply such data is possible to come by
Why would that not be possible to come by in principle?
and clearly that men and women are well-defined groups.
Are you actually suggesting that we can't measure, say, the average height of men and the average height of women in some population? The vast majority of humans fit clearly into one of those two categories. Are you suggesting such information cannot be useful? For example, would that kind of data not be useful information to a clothing manufacturer?
You're posing that these facts might exist, where they don't because the groups are not well defined to begin with.
And this is why there's no point in me even bringing up any particular facts. In your opinion, they cannot even in principle be valid or meaningful. Until we can agree that it is in principle possible to extract useful information from data gathered about men and women, there is no point in debating whether some particular data suggests it's a good idea for society to treat them differently.
that's just crazy.
Why do you believe a priori that it is crazy?
If everyone were more respectful of one another the world would be a better place, can we agree on that?
No, not necessarily. Choices matter. Society has an interest in making sure that people make choices that are good for society.
In lieu of data that would say it's good for society for some people to be deprived of their rights, is it not OK to choose a sane default action (ideal, if you will)?
The problem here is that you've already defined away the possibility for such data to exist.
We don't let foreigners vote because, generally speaking, their interests are less closely aligned with the best interests of the country compared with citizens. Should we let foreigners vote now?
Certain racial minorities tend to come from poorer backgrounds, so we mandate that they receive certain advantages in hiring and college admissions and so on. Should affirmative action be ended?
Why is it necessarily a bad idea to base social policies on generalizations of groups of people? If the generalizations are correct, why is it automatically bad to take them into account when deciding policy? In what other circumstance is it a good idea to discard correct information when making decisions?
>Society should care about the rights of the individual to freedom and happiness to live their lives: equally, without regard to gender.
We all sacrifice some of our freedoms to make society a better place. Why should society not be allowed to take gender into account when making policies, if gender is actually relevant to the policy?
>You also fail to define successful marriage:
Generally speaking I mean they produce children that become productive members of society.
>To encourage systemic behavior on poorly defined things like this leads to people getting hurt.
Ignoring facts also leads to people getting hurt.
>You keep saying "if x turns out to y" but we don't have such data.
I'm not going to bother getting into specifics because it sounds to me like you wouldn't change your mind even if I provided such data. It sounds to me like you believe it's morally wrong in and of itself to hold men and women to different standards, even if there is good reason to do so.
>I think you'll find that there are actually no hard and fast rules like the ones you say we should consider
You're saying there is no statistical relationship between, say, the amount of casual sex people have and any other statistic that society has an interest in increasing or decreasing?