You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Jiro comments on Why people want to die - Less Wrong Discussion

49 Post author: PhilGoetz 24 August 2015 08:13PM

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

Comments (174)

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

Comment author: Jiro 29 August 2015 11:15:31PM 0 points [-]

Being low status has always meant being vulnerable to social violence, and ascribing status is one of the ways that societies create and maintain social norms.

Again, that's not technically wrong--but stating it that way loses information.

Women in general were low status. Many of their concerns and desires were ignored unless they happened to match concerns and desires that benefitted men. The fact that women didn't have alternatives to being a mother was just a special case of that.. So increasing the status of women in general automatically increases the status of women doing other things than having children.

women's desires were considered irrelevant by society.

This is too strong a statement

Almost any statement interpreted while ignoring connotation is too strong. "Women's desires were considered irrelevant by society" means "an important set of women's desires relevant to the current conversation were considered irrelevant by society", not "all women's desires were considered irrelevant by society". Don't ignore connotation.

Comment author: leplen 30 August 2015 04:31:55AM 3 points [-]

Women in general were low status. Many of their concerns and desires were ignored unless they happened to match concerns and desires that benefitted men. The fact that women didn't have alternatives to being a mother was just a special case of that..

How did men benefit? Did all men benefit? Were the men also constrained by cultural roles that served to benefit women?

women's desires were considered irrelevant by society.

This is too strong a statement

Almost any statement interpreted while ignoring connotation is too strong. "Women's desires were considered irrelevant by society" means "an important set of women's desires relevant to the current conversation were considered irrelevant by society", not "all women's desires were considered irrelevant by society". Don't ignore connotation.

Context is probably a better word to use than connotation.

My argument is precisely that women's desires were considered relevant. I think that society, which, is after all about half women, never has considered the desires of women to be irrelevant nor has it ever considered the desires of men to be irrelevant. Society has definite opinions about what sorts of desires are socially appropriate, but that's very different from considering desires irrelevant. I think that your objection is about a perceived lack of social roles, especially formal social roles, for unmarried women in some subset of human cultures. Most traditional human societies also lack important social roles for unmarried men.

The transition to an emphasis on personal merit as a source of status rather than familial success has created high status social roles for both men and women outside of the context of family and reproduction. Because men were less tied to reproduction both biologically and culturally, that transition disproportionately affected men at its beginning and for a while Western cultures had many social roles for unmarried men and virtually none for unmarried women. But that was a fairly anomalous period in human history, and for the vast majority of history women have been just about as important to human economic production as men, and as the status of child production has continued to drop, fathers and mothers both have encouraged their daughters to pursue education and careers and other paths desires that lead to positions of high social status.

Comment author: Jiro 30 August 2015 05:22:20AM *  0 points [-]

How did men benefit? Did all men benefit? Were the men also constrained by cultural roles that served to benefit women?

Men were permitted a wider range of roles, and a wider range of roles that personally benefitted them and fit with their desires, than women were.

You seem to be thinking "well, both men and women faced some restrictions, so there was no substantial difference between the restrictions placed on them". This is not true; not every "some" is the same.