pjeby comments on Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics - Less Wrong

62 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 July 2009 07:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (647)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pjeby 14 April 2010 12:34:20AM 0 points [-]

No, that clearly isn't what Silas is saying there. He is talking about hints that actually give a deceptive indication that sex is likely to be granted if favours are done.

Well, it wasn't clear to me -- especially since that would make it equivalent to men's false declarations of love or resources to get sex... and the information allowing men to do that is just as available as the information that allows women to know they could false-promise sex to get resources.

And in both cases, the behavior is looked down on by society.

So, it would've been an odd interpretation for me to read into what he said, given that I was trying to interpret his evidence in the best possible light, not the worst one. ;-)

(i.e., refute your opponent's strong points, not the weak ones)

Comment author: wedrifid 14 April 2010 12:57:26AM 2 points [-]

Well, it wasn't clear to me -- especially since that would make it equivalent to men's false declarations of love or resources to get sex...

I agree about the equivalence.

And in both cases, the behavior is looked down on by society.

I suggest that the 'false declaration of love to get sex' is frowned upon far more than 'false hint of sex to get resources'. The treatment of the 'victim' in each case tends to be different too (the sympathy vs contempt balance is different).

I'm not sure which of Silas or your positions this claims supports since I'm not particularly attached to either. I argue that the significant asymmetry is different in nature to that being primarily debated here.