= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (857)
I was actually thinking of the implicit social theory based on what was considered "acceptable" and/or "respectable" in pre-feminism days.
Then why did you select it as one of your two examples showing that feminism is empirical? Also, to the extent that the statement is meaningful, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis predates feminism.
What precise time period are you talking about? In post-war America, rape jokes, like racist jokes, were relatively common. In the Victorian era, who knows the prevalence of the jokes, but I'm doubtful their social theories suggested a connection between rape-joke-frequency and actual rape-frequency.
You are right, it's not a good example of the point I was trying to make.
Perhaps, but the moralists of the day also condemned them. See the Hays code for an example of this. If you were to ask one of these moralists what was wrong with having rape jokes in movies, they'd probably answer some version of arguing that it promotes rape.
I agree that "moralists of the day" have always condemned what they saw was wrong, probably including rape jokes. But the social theory of post-war American moralists held that women's social purpose was to stay home and have babies. To that end, they asserted the empirically false theory that wearing revealing clothing was a cause of rape. In short, I don't trust that those types of theories were trying to have an empirical basis.
I'm not sure that the Hays Code is a good example, because it was aimed on more "core" moralist issues (like nudity, non-marital sex, anti-homosexuality, and depictions of crime without punishment). Also, it was limited to movies.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying this theory is empirically false; if two women were to walk through a bad neighborhood one wearing revealing clothing, the other wearing concealing clothing, the woman wearing the revealing clothing would be more likely to get raped.
Note, I'm not saying that this means we should necessarily bad women from wearing revealing clothing (since outside bad neighborhoods this effect may be small) and the restrictions on freedom may very well do more damage. But I doubt you favor a bad on rape jokes for the same reason.
I suspect they had (at least slightly) more of an empirical basis then feminism, mostly thanks to memetic evolution.
I don't understand the argument. Feminism is later in time than Hays-morality, so why isn't it the more evolved? Plus, Hays-morality is the descended from theories that said things like "showing the ankle leads to the end of civilization," which I think is falsified for reasonable definitions of civilization. That is, allowing women to wear bikinis has not caused a return to the state of nature, but that is what Hays-code moralists seem to have predicted.
This is intuitive and what one would expect. That doesn't necessarily mean it's true. For example, there are reported instances of serial rapists targeting housewives, which is pretty clearly uncorrelated (if not anti-correlated) with revealing clothing. In short, citation desperately needed.
True, but they made a point of disregarding the accumulated wisdom of their predecessors.
BTW, I suspect that the Hays-code people's main argument against revealing clothing is that it would promote adultery, which it indeed has.
That's probably an accurate summary of their intent. I'm still not sure that I believe their empirical claim. Adultery and non-marital sex have been common in pre-immodesty Western history across many social classes.
Adultery certainly existed, I don't think it was as common as it is today. Certainly people were much less likely to have kids out of wedlock, or to not even bother getting married before having kids.
That assertion about adultery might be appealing to believe. But that doesn't make it true. And citation to an essay asserting increased social stratification is not evidence that out-of-wedlock births are more common now than in the past, or that marriage is becoming uncorrelated with child-rearing.
If you mean relatively common compared to today, it doesn't sound right to me. You're far more likely to see a rape joke on TV these days than in the 1950s and 60s. Racist observations are a large part of the output of modern professional comedians.
Although kids entertainment is probably less racist these days than ever before.
I'm not sure racial humor= racist humor.