Warning: this post touches on sensitive topics. In the movie “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” when Toula was a little girl, she sat alone in the school cafeteria, frizzy haired, big nosed, and unpopular. The blonde girls at the next table asked her what she was eating, and Toula quietly said “moussaka.” The popular girls laughed cruelly, saying “Ewwww, ”moose caca!”” (
If true, that would really be a shocking result of American culture and its justice system, although it still means that men who are not likely to go to prison don't realy have to fear rape.
The problem here is that you suggested that a violent physical assault is somehow comparable (preferred even!) to sex between two consenting adults. The argument was constructed correctly, it just makes you seem completely unhinged from reality.
I see your point Robin, yes, saying one thing is worse or just as bad as another thing is not the same as saying that other thing is not bad, Noah Smith does indeed seem to gloss over that for his own convenience.
Still, you can't just say things like "most men would rather be raped than cuckolded", you really don't know that for sure and it's not about what men think if we're talking about women getting raped, if women find rape 10x worse than getting cheated on then that's the only thing that matters (there is plenty of reason to think women fear rape more than men do, for example it's more of a real life possibility for women than the far hypothetical it is for most men and the physical threat of strange men is much more urgent for women).
Also, it's not like cuckoldry is not punished in our society or seen as ok: it's seen as a morally bad thing that has social consequences (it's practically seen as socially acceptable to trash the belongings of the partner who cheated) and can end up costing you dearly in divorce court. It's just that we do not award criminal sentences for it because that would have too severe negative effects on personal freedoms. It's considered too messy and personal for the state to interfere with.
Ah, I see that you only need a single statistical correlation to firmly believe a cause, and a cause for that cause. I wonder why social scientists bother writing those long reviews of many studies before deciding on the most plausible explanation?
"Feminism" is not a protected term, anyone can call themselves one or get called one by others so no one person can show "feminism's agenda", in fact there isn't even one "feminist agenda", just like there no one "capitalist agenda": many people with different, even conflicting opinions call themselves "feminist" or "capitalist" or are labeled as such by others. Someone who doesn't even understand that has no business on this site.
P.S. the same goes for the word "patriarchy" (you were right to challenge someone who thinks they can just define for the world what is patriarchy and what is not, pity you were not as critical of your own opinions).
Twitter seems like a horrible medium in general and an especially ill-suited medium when you're worried about being quoted out of context. There's no space for context.
As a woman who's experienced both, being cheated on is much worse. Physical pain is fleeting - it only lasts for the moment. Ego pain lasts forever - every time you think back. Being sexually assaulted honestly didn't affect me at all. I just laughed afterwards, because what else could I do? My only thought was, people do silly things when intoxicated.
Hi there! This is unrelated to your current conversation, but we were talking on Noah's Dismal Science article. I seem to have been banned shortly after I posted my comment that gave specific criticisms of Noah's presentation of the research as unethical and intentionally misleading, so I'm not able to respond in the way you requested. I've emailed you at the hotmail address on your blog, and I'm editing my earlier comment so that my criticisms can hopefully get past the moderation team to people other than you.
(Please keep my email address quiet, I like anonymity.)
Hanson and I both live in the US, so we tend to disproportionately focus on it. I was aware of Ireland's relatively restrictive laws, but not the other countries mentioned.
Perhaps states should change their laws, but Hanson is generally less interested in campaigning for policy changes than wondering why the status quo is the status quo.
I don't read the case as standing for the proposition that DNA tests are "no barrier." The case only held that they aren't an absolute barrier.
To put the matter in American law terms, the father waived ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... ) his right to deny paternity because he accepted responsibility despite having good reason to doubt the paternity. Most rights can be waived by one's own informed conduct when it causes someone else to change their position.
Apart from the letter of the law, I think it's true that's there's a strong trend to dissociate "paternity" from biology. Men who are concerned about whether it's really their kid are viewed as dinosaurs. [How can homosexuality be extolled as psychiatrically normal if having children that are yours biologically is a very big deal?]
Rape is in itself not a condition for abortion in countries like Ireland, New Zealand, South Korea and some Australian states. Refusing to pay child support after a negative DNA test is legal in the Netherlands, at least a dozen US states and a man in the UK once got a court ordered financial compensation from his ex-wife for cuckoldry. Really all the US needs to do is to get the other 38 states to change their laws regarding mandatory child support, don't you agree that would be a much more elegant solution than having a moral police or making comparisons with the rape of women? Instead of imprisoning people for cuckoldry perhaps it would be better to do something about a stupid law that makes the effects of cuckoldry so terrible in the first place.
I think Robin is allowed to make the comparisons, freedom of speech and debate is important after all, but this whole thing is now descending into apples and oranges territory, see the poll on heartiste that Robin decided to link to and that compares the least possible form of rape (and rape of a man) with the worst possible form of cuckoldry. You too automatically assume that a raped woman lives somewhere where abortion after rape is legal (and doesn't cause her to be disowned/shunned by her family and community) and where contesting paternity is impossible. Would you accept a radical feminist comparing cuckoldry in the Netherlands with rape in Ireland?
If true, that would really be a shocking result of American culture and its justice system, although it still means that men who are not likely to go to prison don't realy have to fear rape.
The problem here is that you suggested that a violent physical assault is somehow comparable (preferred even!) to sex between two consenting adults. The argument was constructed correctly, it just makes you seem completely unhinged from reality.
I see your point Robin, yes, saying one thing is worse or just as bad as another thing is not the same as saying that other thing is not bad, Noah Smith does indeed seem to gloss over that for his own convenience.
Still, you can't just say things like "most men would rather be raped than cuckolded", you really don't know that for sure and it's not about what men think if we're talking about women getting raped, if women find rape 10x worse than getting cheated on then that's the only thing that matters (there is plenty of reason to think women fear rape more than men do, for example it's more of a real life possibility for women than the far hypothetical it is for most men and the physical threat of strange men is much more urgent for women).
Also, it's not like cuckoldry is not punished in our society or seen as ok: it's seen as a morally bad thing that has social consequences (it's practically seen as socially acceptable to trash the belongings of the partner who cheated) and can end up costing you dearly in divorce court. It's just that we do not award criminal sentences for it because that would have too severe negative effects on personal freedoms. It's considered too messy and personal for the state to interfere with.
Ah, I see that you only need a single statistical correlation to firmly believe a cause, and a cause for that cause. I wonder why social scientists bother writing those long reviews of many studies before deciding on the most plausible explanation?
"Feminism" is not a protected term, anyone can call themselves one or get called one by others so no one person can show "feminism's agenda", in fact there isn't even one "feminist agenda", just like there no one "capitalist agenda": many people with different, even conflicting opinions call themselves "feminist" or "capitalist" or are labeled as such by others. Someone who doesn't even understand that has no business on this site.
P.S. the same goes for the word "patriarchy" (you were right to challenge someone who thinks they can just define for the world what is patriarchy and what is not, pity you were not as critical of your own opinions).
So being opposed to cuckoldry = patriarchy?
I guessed you've just shown what feminism's agenda is.
Twitter seems like a horrible medium in general and an especially ill-suited medium when you're worried about being quoted out of context. There's no space for context.
Noah Smith seems simply evil, as clean as they come. You should stop transacting with him.
As a woman who's experienced both, being cheated on is much worse. Physical pain is fleeting - it only lasts for the moment. Ego pain lasts forever - every time you think back. Being sexually assaulted honestly didn't affect me at all. I just laughed afterwards, because what else could I do? My only thought was, people do silly things when intoxicated.
Hi there! This is unrelated to your current conversation, but we were talking on Noah's Dismal Science article. I seem to have been banned shortly after I posted my comment that gave specific criticisms of Noah's presentation of the research as unethical and intentionally misleading, so I'm not able to respond in the way you requested. I've emailed you at the hotmail address on your blog, and I'm editing my earlier comment so that my criticisms can hopefully get past the moderation team to people other than you.
(Please keep my email address quiet, I like anonymity.)
I don't really buy that defense, because Heartiste's help is not going to give good data. His commenters are not inclined to honest introspection.
He isn't interested in "image management", i.e. signalling, but rather in investigating the biases underlying such phenomena.
Hanson and I both live in the US, so we tend to disproportionately focus on it. I was aware of Ireland's relatively restrictive laws, but not the other countries mentioned.
Perhaps states should change their laws, but Hanson is generally less interested in campaigning for policy changes than wondering why the status quo is the status quo.
The Canadian case is interesting ( http://www.canlii.org/en/on... )
I don't read the case as standing for the proposition that DNA tests are "no barrier." The case only held that they aren't an absolute barrier.
To put the matter in American law terms, the father waived ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... ) his right to deny paternity because he accepted responsibility despite having good reason to doubt the paternity. Most rights can be waived by one's own informed conduct when it causes someone else to change their position.
Apart from the letter of the law, I think it's true that's there's a strong trend to dissociate "paternity" from biology. Men who are concerned about whether it's really their kid are viewed as dinosaurs. [How can homosexuality be extolled as psychiatrically normal if having children that are yours biologically is a very big deal?]
we put men in jail over child support, which is a contractual breach
Which, to anyone seriously contemplating the practice, is outrageous.
Rape is in itself not a condition for abortion in countries like Ireland, New Zealand, South Korea and some Australian states. Refusing to pay child support after a negative DNA test is legal in the Netherlands, at least a dozen US states and a man in the UK once got a court ordered financial compensation from his ex-wife for cuckoldry. Really all the US needs to do is to get the other 38 states to change their laws regarding mandatory child support, don't you agree that would be a much more elegant solution than having a moral police or making comparisons with the rape of women? Instead of imprisoning people for cuckoldry perhaps it would be better to do something about a stupid law that makes the effects of cuckoldry so terrible in the first place.
I think Robin is allowed to make the comparisons, freedom of speech and debate is important after all, but this whole thing is now descending into apples and oranges territory, see the poll on heartiste that Robin decided to link to and that compares the least possible form of rape (and rape of a man) with the worst possible form of cuckoldry. You too automatically assume that a raped woman lives somewhere where abortion after rape is legal (and doesn't cause her to be disowned/shunned by her family and community) and where contesting paternity is impossible. Would you accept a radical feminist comparing cuckoldry in the Netherlands with rape in Ireland?