Is that the ghost of Will Wilkinson in the background?

Sally's point that only women should be state-compensated for reproduction makes no sense. She takes no account of the cost men pay in courtship. Surely that endeavor is at least as expensive as pregnancy! Men devote enormous resources and risks to finding a mate. In Sally's dystopia, only women will be compensated; the male contribution is not only devalued - it is completely ignored. I think Sally has read nothing from evolutionary psychology. I think she needs to introduce herself to her colleague at MIT, Steven Pinker.

Quoting dankingbooks: Sally's point that only women should be state-compensated for reproduction makes no sense. She takes no account of the cost men pay in courtship. Surely that endeavor is at least as expensive as pregnancy! Men devote enormous resources and risks to finding a mate.

Dan, that statement boggles the mind. Particularly, coming as it does, from an author of sex tourism books.

Whine, whine, whine. Here comes a woman philosopher, at MIT no less, who admits to having an above average income, who apparently believes that a major problem in the world is that female philosophers are discriminated against. Unconsciously even. I would think the problem of women being underrepresented on campus would have faded by now. After all, 60% of students are now women! In any number of fields (education, psychology, biology) men are underrepresented. Why on earth does the whining continue unabated? Can't female philosophers find something more important to talk about?

Hi Jeff, You obviously haven't read my book, in which my protagonist is quite stunningly unsuccessful at courtship. www.dankingbooks.com

Quoting dankingbooks: Sally's point that only women should be state-compensated for reproduction makes no sense. She takes no account of the cost men pay in courtship. Surely that endeavor is at least as expensive as pregnancy! Men devote enormous resources and risks to finding a mate. In Sally's dystopia, only women will be compensated; the male contribution is not only devalued - it is completely ignored.

While I agree with you that the state should not compensate for reproduction, I disagree with you that men spend far more than women in courtship. Women spend a lot of money grooming themselves that most men do not -- waxing, hair, facials, clothing, high heels, taxis, etc. The fact that it is far more dangerous for women to take the subway home at night in a dress + high heels causes many women to have to pay for a taxi instead. I'm curious as to what costs you refer to that men incur in courtship. Are you referring to drinks and dinners that some men [not all] pay for on dates? If so, I would say that women spend just as much in courtship when considering things such as birth control, grooming, transportation, etc. And many women

Hi Laurel, Thank you for the serious reply. I'll argue, from evolutionary psychology grounds, that male and female costs in reproduction must be approximately equal, for otherwise there wouldn't be an even gender ratio. I will also argue on the same grounds that most of human behavior has reproduction as at least one object. Thus I think that Sally has it wrong when she seems to suggest that male power and success in the economic sphere are somehow arbitrary cultural artifacts that can be dispensed with in some future utopia. Here are some things that men do that are very expensive, but if successful lead to enormous reproductive success: being soldiers, being very successful politicians (especially in undemocratic countries), becoming extremely wealthy, climbing Mt. Everest, driving race cars (or hot rods), riding skateboards off the courthouse steps, and yes, at least to a degree, becoming philosophy professors. All of these activities are expensive. Men do them because doing them makes them more attractive to women. Women can do them as well, but for women engaging in these behaviors yields no reproductive benefit. Thus relatively few women are willing to bear the costs necessary to accomplish these goals.

I really appreciate what Sally is trying to do here, but I just don't feel "subordinated." I've tried and tried, and I'm just not, sorry. No doubt, while not Queen Elizabeth, a monarch, I am still more self-determining than she ever was in many ways. But still I don't think the men in my life or at my job are "subordinating" me. I somehow lack this overwhelming understanding that society is oppressing me. So Sally just loses me right off the bat. I can't get down with this victim feminism, Kerry, forgive me. Further, on state subsidy for child birth - isn't the real danger here not that we would be forced to bear children, but rather that the state will decide who's unworthy to bear children and remove rights from them, perhaps even going so far as to tell them how many children to have or to sterilize them? I'm thinking a la China here. I also just can't fathom the dress issues for authority here. Just rock a dress. Because Hillary Clinton - who I supported - can barely dress herself is hardly highlighting a problem. There are many high profile women in the media, government, and business who don't appear to have this issue, after

Women in America are not subordinate. It will be interesting to see when women pass the moral test that men already passed: agreeing that institutions should grant equality when they're advantaged, as American woman are in terms of health, education, political power, and, most significantly, family planning. So far, women make themselves morally inferior by their failure to admit they are an elite that is trying not to surrender their privileges.

Quoting CinemaRing: Women in America are not subordinate. It will be interesting to see when women pass the moral test that men already passed: agreeing that institutions should grant equality when they're advantaged, as American woman are in terms of health, education, political power, and, most significantly, family planning. So far, women make themselves morally inferior by their failure to admit they are an elite that is trying not to surrender their privileges.

Men have passed a moral test that women have not? Jeesh. This is an identically distorted thought process to the one that argues that minorities are a privileged class. Arguing that the folks from whom everyone else has had to wrest whatever power and societal standing they may have tenuous grasp upon, are in fact either the victims of that struggle or occupy an elevated moral position, is a perverse and I think often deliberate misreading of reality. Now let's all whinge about how white males are disadvantaged in modern American society.

Here's an interesting Kerry quote in TPM (review of Ross Douthat's new book): "But I worry that a Sam's Club Conservatism--for all its good intentions--will play on the basest instincts of the electorate. In their quite genuine compassion for the American poor, R&R have crafted a program that would feed into the xenophobia, sexism, and hysterical fear of black crime that has characterized the GOP for so long. Theirs is a deeply nationalist vision that seeks to exclude low-skill Latino immigrants to the benefit of those lucky enough to have been born in America, that puts more cops on the street rather than addressing the laws that put nonviolent black men in prison, and that would continue to subsidize the rich by protecting them from competition with skilled foreign workers." It seems libertarians and liberals have a lot in common.

Why is it that every highly educated, well-paid feminist reminds me most of a medieval priest, flagellating his back to credential his humility?

So this is what William Buckley meant when he said he'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

Quoting rcocean: Here's an interesting Kerry quote in TPM (review of Ross Douthat's new book):

"But I worry that a Sam's Club Conservatism--for all its good intentions--will play on the basest instincts of the electorate. In their quite genuine compassion for the American poor, R&R have crafted a program that would feed into the xenophobia, sexism, and hysterical fear of black crime that has characterized the GOP for so long. Theirs is a deeply nationalist vision that seeks to exclude low-skill Latino immigrants to the benefit of those lucky enough to have been born in America, that puts more cops on the street rather than addressing the laws that put nonviolent black men in prison, and that would continue to subsidize the rich by protecting them from competition with skilled foreign workers."

It seems libertarians and liberals have a lot in common.

To be fair to liberals, that sounds more like left radicalism than mainstream liberalism.

Quoting frelkins: I really appreciate what Sally is trying to do here, but I just don't feel "subordinated." I've tried and tried, and I'm just not, sorry.

No doubt, while not Queen Elizabeth, a monarch, I am still more self-determining than she ever was in many ways. But still I don't think the men in my life or at my job are "subordinating" me. I somehow lack this overwhelming understanding that society is oppressing me. So Sally just loses me right off the bat. I can't get down with this victim feminism, Kerry, forgive me.

Uh-oh, I hope Sally is working on finding out what's wrong with you.

Quoting frelkins: Kerry, I too once held a Capitol Hill press pass, working for a trade. Breaking into that scene is about sleeping in the newsroom so that when the editor walks out the door with an assignment the first person he sees for the story is you. After that it's about living in your source pool, so that the sources think of you first when they have a hot tip.

Oh dear, you just don't understand. The goal is not for the sources to think of you first when they have a hot tip. The goal is for them to

Thanks to both participants for a great diavlog! Will Wilkinson is good too, but I hope that Kerry Howley hosts more of the Free Will segments.

Speaking as somebody who is transgendered, this conversation underscores why many feminists detest people like me. "Dream of an age when there are no men or women, simply males and females"? To me, that would be nothing short of a nightmare. There's more to gender than mere social hierarchy. This becomes much easier to see when your identity (the absolute most important aspect of the self) has a gender which differs from your reproductive structure (or "sex" as many people involved in gender studies choose to call it.) People like Haslanger, who seem to honestly believe that nearly half the world, living what they consider to be happy and fulfilling lives, are trapped under the thumb of an inferior, subordinate, undesirable role. As if every wife and mother in America would chose to live as a "man", if only they could. News flash: Most women like being women. Most men like being men. The goal of any society should be focused on social justice and equal treatment under the law, not breaking down the gender roles we live with. For example: Because of basic biology, women (on average) take longer to use the bathroom, and since bathroom

Quoting dankingbooks:
Here are some things that men do that are very expensive, but if successful lead to enormous reproductive success: being soldiers, being very successful politicians (especially in undemocratic countries), becoming extremely wealthy, climbing Mt. Everest, driving race cars (or hot rods), riding skateboards off the courthouse steps, and yes, at least to a degree, becoming philosophy professors.

Ha ha! Yes! Men have wars and climb mountains for the privilege of changing diapers and tying shoelaces! Ha ha ha! Or do they do it, because they believe it will get them laid? Either way, they're not too bright, because while soldiers and adventurers shoot each other or stand around on top of rocks, ol' Fuckmaster Ray pays his visits to their wives! Evolutionary psychology and the cuckoo... The men don't know, but the little girls, they understand!

Quoting AemJeff: Men have passed a moral test that women have not? Jeesh.

This is an identically distorted thought process to the one that argues that minorities are a privileged class. Arguing that the folks from whom everyone else has had to wrest whatever power and societal standing they may have tenuous grasp upon, are in fact either the victims of that struggle or occupy an elevated moral position, is a perverse and I think often deliberate misreading of reality.

Now let's all whinge about how white males are disadvantaged in modern American society.

No whinging here! That must be what you're doing. To be clear, I cited specifics: education, health, political power, and family planning. Women have the advantage and it's not 1974, right? It's also not arguable that men changed institutions when it was called for. Will women have the same strong moral sense? So far they're failing that test.

Indeed! For the first few minutes, which was all I could take, Sally Haslanger sounded like a self-parody. She basically defines "woman" and "femininity" as a position of decreased power. So if someone ever finds themselves at an advantage or disadvantage because of their sex, they must be being "feminized" if a man or "masculized" if a woman, thus proving her point of view. I'm all for treating people as people, and getting rid of clearly preferential treatment to either side, while taking into account reproductive differences. But starting from the point of view that everything that needs to be done to achieve this amounts to taking power away from men and moving it to women, is both stupid and probably counterproductive. Can we at least not start by admitting that being either a man or a woman has both numerous advantages as well as disadvantages right now? Does a philosopher like Haslanger really have to correct herself when starting to say that men have disadvantages, instead being careful to emphasize that right now it's the men with the advantages, and the women who suffer? I wonder for instance, if she thinks it's a

I guess the weekend has given me a little break to try and think about some of the interesting issues that have been discussed in recent diavlogs. I found Kerry and Sally very representative of their respective age groups. I enjoyed listening to Sally, although I don't agree with everything she said. I would have liked to hear more about Kerry's opinions. I could see her facial expression of puzzlement or disapproval at times, but we didn't hear much about her views. Is the real issue discussed here about gender or about dominance and ‘subordination’? Sally present some interesting observations about the problems related to gender inequality. However, if she indeed proposes that the solution is ‘gender homogeneity’, I would like to know how that is defined. Gender equality, in my opinion, isn’t about neutralizing gender attributes. It’s about ending the dominance of one gender over the other. It means mutual respect. It means valuing the differences. This can work in many arenas. Traditionally women have been forced to limit their role in public life, politics and intellectual endeavors. Men have chosen to limit their role in family matters. The difference here is between being forced and choosing. It would

We have to question the premise that women have been subordinated for generations. That is a token of an ideology that goes untested. Of course their domination does not take the same form as it does for men, but that doesn't mean it's absent. Obviously there are many ways that women get what they want, engage in objectification, game the system, behave selfishly, insist on special protection -- call it what you will. We are told not to examine that for reasons of correctness. Let's reject those reasons, starting today. Naturally no elite likes to have their privileges questioned. Females are no exception.

Quoting CinemaRing: We have to question the premise that women have been subordinated for generations. That is a token of an ideology that goes untested. Of course their domination does not take the same form as it does for men, but that doesn't mean it's absent. Obviously there are many ways that women get what they want, engage in objectification, game the system, behave selfishly, insist on special protection -- call it what you will. We are told not to examine that for reasons of correctness. Let's reject those reasons, starting today. Naturally no elite likes to have their privileges questioned. Females are no exception.

You should write a novel, one of those counterfactual histories, like The Man in the High Castle where everything that actually occurred, you know, didn't.

Quoting AemJeff: You should write a novel, one of those counterfactual histories, like The Man in the High Castle where everything that actually occurred, you know, didn't.

As I mentioned, elites do not like having their privileges questioned. Obviously women have their privileges and you don't want to allow any daylight on the fact. Education, health, voting strength, and family planning: Which of the four do you concede are privileges and which do you reject?

Quoting CinemaRing: As I mentioned, elites do not like having their privileges questioned. Obviously women have their privileges and you don't want to allow any daylight on the fact. Education, health, voting strength, and family planning: Which of the four do you concede are privileges and which do you reject?

Do you really expect anybody to engage on the premises you name? You'll need to assert something defensible, first.

Quoting WilliamP: I wonder for instance, if she thinks it's a travesty, as I do, that men now comprise only 40% of university students.

Depends what one does at university. If going to university means attending Haslanger's class, I wouldn't call it a privilege, but rather a serious, self-inflicted, opportunity cost. Who can afford to waste their time and money on this rubbish? There could be some hidden benefits, of course. A girl might expect improved marriage prospects as a side-effect of putting herself through this type of "education". Or at least, she can can look forward to enhancing her popularity in the hood.
Like Snoop Dogg says:
You's a college girl, but that don't stop you from doin'
Come and see the Dogg in a hood near you-in

Quoting CinemaRing: We have to question the premise that women have been subordinated for generations. That is a token of an ideology that goes untested. Of course their domination does not take the same form as it does for men, but that doesn't mean it's absent. Obviously there are many ways that women get what they want, engage in objectification, game the system, behave selfishly, insist on special protection -- call it what you will. We are told not to examine that for reasons of correctness. Let's reject those reasons, starting today. Naturally no elite likes to have their privileges questioned. Females are no exception.

Pal, you are wrong. You'll have work harder at understanding this. Don't expect us to feel sorry for you. Still, I'd love to know how you think men and women should relate to each other. Just curious...

Quoting Ocean: Pal, you are wrong. You'll have work harder at understanding this. Don't expect us to feel sorry for you. Still, I'd love to know how you think men and women should relate to each other. Just curious...

I understand it just fine and am asking for no sympathy. Obviously, women have their advantages (I named a few). Like any other elite, they don't want the myriad ways those advantages manifest themselves to be examined. They don't want to give up their perks. Here's hoping you work hard enough at understanding this to see how obvious it is. The shoe is on the other foot.

Quoting AemJeff: Do you really expect anybody to engage on the premises you name? You'll need to assert something defensible, first.

It's obvious that women in America are ahead in education, health, voting power, and family planning. The reason one might not engage on those premises would likely be that you can't contradict them and they don't support the ideology. However, it's easy to stand behind the conclusions based on those premises; they'll all be true.

It's interesting that in a segment entitled "Sally’s experiences as a parent of adopted black children" she discusses very little about actually being a mother.

Sally bored me to tears. The women in my family are independent and strong. And this goes back to at least my grandmothers. Having only sisters, a daughter, and being raised by single mother I am somewhat familiar with them. They would not have fit in Sally's paradigm. Then again, they are not high level academics. I was also lost on how her daughter's appearance was an issue. Don't all mothers want their daughters to look nice? John

Grrrr.

why are so many libertarians hot?

I enjoyed this diavlogue. I really hope that they do the promised future diavlogue on libertarianism and feminism. I enjoyed Kerry's earlier one with Megan McCardle, but it suffered from a lack of disagreement between the participants . A couple of the commenters look like they got hung up on Haslanger's defining "womanness" to entail "subordinateness". I think it's important to keep in mind that Haslanger is engaging in a theoretical project. Just as in math or physics, the social sciences sometimes need to take words from everyday language and replace their original definitions with technical, stipulated definitions. Recall, for example, Sean Carroll's earlier diavlogue in which he explained how the notion of "field" in particle physics has at best a metaphorical connection to the standard everyday notion of a field. Now, I'm not claiming that any of the social science can or should aspire to the technical rigor of physics. But just about any theory in any field needs to have the freedom to stipulate technical definitions for words that are often used with other, more common, definitions. When Haslanger talks about "women", she's talking about a certain class that may or may not

I enjoyed this diavlogue. I really hope that they do the promised future diavlogue on libertarianism and feminism. I enjoyed Kerry's earlier one with Megan McCardle, but it suffered from a lack of disagreement between the participants .

I also enjoyed it, and hope we have more on gender/women's issues. I thought, however, that Haslanger basically reiterated a theory that has been pretty standard academic feminism since around 1970. Sort of like explaining the principles of socialism. More interesting was the personal experience of adopting black children, but Haslanger seemed somewhat reticent to go beyond the general and the obvious there too. Anyway,

So if childbirth is a great negative to a women's health, why do women in general have a longer Life Expectancy than men?

Quoting PaulL: So if childbirth is a great negative to a women's health, why do women in general have a longer Life Expectancy than men?

Why do you think that those facts are mutually exclusive?