Morendil comments on A Rational Education - Less Wrong

12 Post author: wedrifid 23 June 2010 05:48AM

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

Comments (149)

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

Comment author: HughRistik 25 June 2010 10:15:06AM *  7 points [-]

To me, it seems obvious that there hasn't previously been a male counterpart to the feminism movement because men haven't been institutionally lower-status the way that women have been.

What does it mean to say that women are "institutionally lower-status" than men, and what is the metric for institutional status? This notion is counter-intuitive to me, because I think there are multiple institutions and multiple dimensions of status. Although I think it's plausible that men were indeed institutionally higher-status in many cultures throughout history, specifying why is actually a nontrivial philosophical problem that I don't feel feminists have thoroughly confronted.

For example, in Colombia, institutions may grant males more prestige, yet grant women more protection. Which gender has more "status" depends on whether your metric of status is something like "who is more likely to be in charge of the household," or "who is more likely to die horrible deaths to chainsaws or machetes." I'm not sure how we we can aggregate these metrics, considering how dramatically different the units are; it's kind of like adding up feet and pounds. Do dead men have status?

Comment author: Morendil 25 June 2010 02:58:05PM *  1 point [-]

What does it mean to say that women are "institutionally lower-status" than men

GIWIST. (*)

I would buy "there hasn't previously been a male counterpart to the feminism movement because males as a social class have (almost) never been disenfranchised" as an argument. (Not necessarily a correct one, but a testable one. My possibly flawed assumption, prior to any fact-checking, is that the feminist movement has its roots in the women's suffrage movement.)

Once more, "status" here seems to only muddy the waters, and invite a definitional argument starting here which goes nowhere close to answering the original query.

(*) Explanatory link for the acronym-impaired