| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2010 04:44:36 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The most plausible explanation for these results is the food expectation hypothesis—seeing another individual receive high-quality food creates the expectation of receiving the same food oneself—and not inequity aversion. |
Seems to me that is an aversion to inequity -- to be especially expected when the one whose emotional state is being assessed is the underprivileged one.
Whether the ape with the haute cuisine would voluntarily share with the poor monkey given leftover slop is another maatter ... |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 04:46:49 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How does one determine which is proper and which isn't? |
Debate the relative merits. You seem to be looking for some universal absolute authority for morality, but it doesn't exist. |
So the genetic basis for fairness shows us that we should treat women in France equally, but the genetic basis for inequality does NOT show us that muslim men are welcome to force their wives to wear full-length veils? That's your argument? The only other thing you added was basically that you thought fairness was a good thing. So we can add a personal preference.
You see how these arguments can easily be ripped to shreds? I don't understand how you think your own arguments are not suspectiple to the same counters... |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 04:59:36 PM · #253 |
| Amazing how far off topic the thread has gotten but ironically the title is still appropriate :) |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 05:20:23 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The study was flawed and not reproducible when bether methodology was used. |
You're comparing a study of chimpanzees with a study of capuchins. Wouldn't you expect studies with different animals to produce different results? A 2009 study failed to replicate the one you linked and specifically noted that chimpanzees were the least likely to show aversion to inequity. "Perhaps the most striking difference involves chimpanzees and bonobos. Although closely related and similar in a number of ways, chimpanzees and bonobos are also different in their ecology, anatomy, temperament and social behavior. Bonobos have been characterized as less dominance driven, more tolerant and less competitive than chimpanzees. This may not only lead to co-feeding and a more successful cooperation but also to more sensitivity to what others are getting. In other words, with their more egalitarian relationships, bonobos might expect equity in general and a violation of equity is more acutely perceived by bonobos than by chimpanzees." As you're often quick to point out, there is a big difference between unproven and discounted. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 05:32:24 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So the genetic basis for fairness shows us that we should treat women in France equally, but the genetic basis for inequality does NOT show us that muslim men are welcome to force their wives to wear full-length veils? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
One group forcing another to be slaves is not that same as one group forcing another to give up slavery. The freedom of the first group to practice slavery is trumped by the right of those slaves to be free. |
The "freedom" to enslave is not the same sort of freedom as being free of enslavement. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 05:54:15 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The study was flawed and not reproducible when bether methodology was used. |
You're comparing a study of chimpanzees with a study of capuchins. Wouldn't you expect studies with different animals to produce different results? A 2009 study failed to replicate the one you linked and specifically noted that chimpanzees were the least likely to show aversion to inequity. "Perhaps the most striking difference involves chimpanzees and bonobos. Although closely related and similar in a number of ways, chimpanzees and bonobos are also different in their ecology, anatomy, temperament and social behavior. Bonobos have been characterized as less dominance driven, more tolerant and less competitive than chimpanzees. This may not only lead to co-feeding and a more successful cooperation but also to more sensitivity to what others are getting. In other words, with their more egalitarian relationships, bonobos might expect equity in general and a violation of equity is more acutely perceived by bonobos than by chimpanzees." As you're often quick to point out, there is a big difference between unproven and discounted. |
Ummm, if different animals produce different results, then what the heck are you citing monkey studies for when we are talking about human gender equality in France?
BTW, are you referring to the capuchin study by Brosnan or the one by Frans de Waal?
Message edited by author 2010-09-17 18:08:12. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 05:55:12 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The "freedom" to enslave is not the same sort of freedom as being free of enslavement. |
And what is this based on that doesn't refer to a tautology? |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 06:14:34 PM · #258 |
I remember talking about the Frans de Waal study in a previous thread. It was a witty post if I don't say so myself...
A quote from the methods of the study:
"Subjects showing an extreme side-bias during a given test (i.e., choosing either right or left >85% of the trials regardless of token), were tested a second time on a different day. The latter data were included in statistical analyses regardless of whether or not the individual persisted in her side-bias. Extremely side-biased performances were excluded from the graphs in this paper, however."
Translation: If the money was amoral, we gave him a second chance. If he was still amoral, we counted it...except in the graphs. We wanted those to look good.
Maybe those were the atheist monkeys... ;) |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 07:02:17 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Then why not, rather than ban the practice altogether, just fine a man who forces a woman to wear the hideous contraption? |
A fair question, but then why not, rather than ban slavery, just fine a person who forces another into submission? |
I think wearing a burqa does not rise to the level of slavery, just as it doesn't rise to the level of mutilating the human body through foot binding or female circumcision. You're assuming that in all cases the wearing of a burqa is not freely chosen, or as close to freely chosen as that decision can be in the context of cultural tradition and religious belief. I've never before heard of a state or country legislating the maximum amount of clothing a person can wear. I think there's an important distinction to be made between a woman who wears such a garment in a country where she can freely choose to wear it or not, and a woman who wears it in a country that gives her no choice in the matter. If this decision had been taken in the context of security and limited to certain venues, it might be acceptable. But the more I read, the more I'm convinced that it's just another example of politicians cleverly disguising their xenophobia and personal distaste for a foreign culture. I don't believe for a second that concern for women's civil rights was the motivating factor here. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 07:52:37 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The "freedom" to enslave is not the same sort of freedom as being free of enslavement. |
And what is this based on that doesn't refer to a tautology? |
It's an equivocation fallacy- the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning. You're using two different meanings of the word freedom as if they are the same. "A privilege enjoyed or right of action" is not the same as "the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint." Having the "freedom" to enslave is the former, while "freedom" from slavery is the latter. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 08:04:55 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ummm, if different animals produce different results, then what the heck are you citing monkey studies for when we are talking about human gender equality in France? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
There is strong scientific evidence that a sense of fairness is both socially beneficial and biological in nature as toddlers and monkeys have demonstrated the ability to recognize an unfair situation, so no external authority is necessary to know that I wouldn't want to be treated as inferior. |
While the results differ by species, they demonstrate varying degrees of innate recognition of inequity, with the more advanced and social animals showing greater indications of a sense of fairness. An expression of empathy in ANY animal suggests that such feelings are biological in nature and a product of evolution. You asked for the source of authority on morality, and I'm saying it's built-in.
Message edited by author 2010-09-17 20:49:01. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 11:10:17 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I think there's an important distinction to be made between a woman who wears such a garment in a country where she can freely choose to wear it or not, and a woman who wears it in a country that gives her no choice in the matter. |
I generally agree with you, however burqas represent a unique situation. Unlike a cross or yarmulke, a burqa imposes very real restrictions on the wearer- limited sight, an extra layer on hot days, and the complete elimination of personal identity. While a woman could conceivably choose to wear one, their use is more often a compulsion imposed by others under threat of abuse or death. You might reasonably argue that banning a garment is no better than mandating its wear, but it might also be the only way to allow women to opt out since that threat of violence would be removed. How would anyone determine whether a woman is making a personal choice or being forced to do something under physical threat? I can think of no better defense than "it's against the law" if she doesn't wish to comply, yet those dressing modestly out of personal religious respect still have the availability of less restrictive veils which should be sufficient if burqas are truly a personal choice.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
the more I read, the more I'm convinced that it's just another example of politicians cleverly disguising their xenophobia and personal distaste for a foreign culture. |
Again, what practical purpose would this serve? Less restrictive Islamic dress would still be allowed, so banning burqas out of xenophobia would be counterproductive since it makes the people you're afraid of or vilifying less recognizable (it'd be like Nazis banning the Star of David or skullcaps on Jews).
Message edited by author 2010-09-17 23:19:03. |
|
|
|
09/18/2010 05:23:51 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I think there's an important distinction to be made between a woman who wears such a garment in a country where she can freely choose to wear it or not, and a woman who wears it in a country that gives her no choice in the matter. |
I generally agree with you, however burqas represent a unique situation. Unlike a cross or yarmulke, a burqa imposes very real restrictions on the wearer- limited sight, an extra layer on hot days, and the complete elimination of personal identity. While a woman could conceivably choose to wear one, their use is more often a compulsion imposed by others under threat of abuse or death. You might reasonably argue that banning a garment is no better than mandating its wear, but it might also be the only way to allow women to opt out since that threat of violence would be removed. How would anyone determine whether a woman is making a personal choice or being forced to do something under physical threat? I can think of no better defense than "it's against the law" if she doesn't wish to comply, yet those dressing modestly out of personal religious respect still have the availability of less restrictive veils which should be sufficient if burqas are truly a personal choice.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
the more I read, the more I'm convinced that it's just another example of politicians cleverly disguising their xenophobia and personal distaste for a foreign culture. |
Again, what practical purpose would this serve? Less restrictive Islamic dress would still be allowed, so banning burqas out of xenophobia would be counterproductive since it makes the people you're afraid of or vilifying less recognizable (it'd be like Nazis banning the Star of David or skullcaps on Jews). |
I agree with you that for some women it's one way to escape what may be a coercive situation, but it's not the only way when you're living in a democracy.
The thing that's worrisome about this is it reminds me of the behavior of authoritarian regimes that I've so often read about, like after the military coup in Chile, the soldiers stopping women on the street and cutting the legs off their trousers, transforming their pants into short skirts; or the fundamentalists in Iran enforcing dress codes for women and requiring that men wear beards; you already know about the Taliban in Afghanistan; and I could go on with other examples. This just isn't something you expect to see in a democratic society, a ban on something like this under all circumstances. It seems heavy-handed at best, especially when it appears that most women give it up voluntarily anyway when not forced to comply. Why do authoritarian regimes do it when, as you say, it's counterproductive in terms of identifying those who aren't ideologically pure? Probably because they value conformity and obedience above all else. |
|
|
|
09/18/2010 10:16:31 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I agree with you that for some women it's one way to escape what may be a coercive situation, but it's not the only way when you're living in a democracy. |
Name one other way that wouldn't involve shaming or leaving the husband (an offense punishable by death among burqa wearers).
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It seems heavy-handed at best, especially when it appears that most women give it up voluntarily anyway when not forced to comply. |
Most women give up foot binding when not forced to comply, too. Like foot binding, burqas are neither a religious requirement nor a woman's choice. It is forced on them by others, and there is no option to give it up voluntarily.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Why do authoritarian regimes do it when, as you say, it's counterproductive in terms of identifying those who aren't ideologically pure? Probably because they value conformity and obedience above all else. |
If that were the case, they would ban hijabs, too. Less restrictive veils are still allowed, and they still stand out in a crowd. What France values is equality and enabling its citizens to live free of abuse. We normally do, too, which is why we ban torture and abuse rather than than allow people the "freedom" to abuse or be abused. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 02:09:59 AM · #265 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I agree with you that for some women it's one way to escape what may be a coercive situation, but it's not the only way when you're living in a democracy. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Name one other way that wouldn't involve shaming or leaving the husband (an offense punishable by death among burqa wearers). |
Leaving the husband is certainly a good option, so I don't understand why you've excluded it. I think it's safe to assume that if a husband is forcing his wife to wear the burqa, there is probably other abuse going on as well in the marriage, so leaving would seem to be a very good option. Leaving an abusive relationship in this country can also mean death for the woman, but women here do it every day with support from the legal system and other social-service supports.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It seems heavy-handed at best, especially when it appears that most women give it up voluntarily anyway when not forced to comply. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Most women give up foot binding when not forced to comply, too. Like foot binding, burqas are neither a religious requirement nor a woman's choice. It is forced on them by others, and there is no option to give it up voluntarily. |
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe (and you obviously do not believe it's possible) that some women have internalized some positive meaning and value in wearing it and are freely choosing to do so. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 04:52:44 AM · #266 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
...Leaving the husband is certainly a good option, so I don't understand why you've excluded it. I think it's safe to assume that if a husband is forcing his wife to wear the burqa, there is probably other abuse going on as well in the marriage, so leaving would seem to be a very good option. Leaving an abusive relationship in this country can also mean death for the woman, but women here do it every day with support from the legal system and other social-service supports. |
Even to this day, both in the USA and Canada, there exist a myriad of women who suffer abuse at the hands of their husbands and are not apt to even report the incidents, let alone consider leaving the household. The sad truth of the matter is that there are insufficient resources to deal with the issue, and there still are women who know not how to avail themselves of the services that are available.
When one takes into consideration matters such as language barriers, unfamiliarity with social resources and the mores of the new country some of these women live in, it would not surprise me in the least that they could possibly fall victims to their environment.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:10:03 AM · #267 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Leaving the husband is certainly a good option, so I don't understand why you've excluded it. |
Leaving the husband might be an option in OUR culture, but theirs is a teensy bit different. You can't think in terms of our "I'm taking the kids and going to my mother's house" escape. How likely is it a woman would opt to flee here if she's: a stranger in a strange land, forbidden to have a bank account, forbidden to drive, forbidden to have an education (and therefore illiterate), forbidden to use the internet or radio, forbidden to talk to males outside of her immediate family, being coerced BY that family (and thus everyone she knows), forbidden to be seen by others (hence the burqa itself and painting the windows), only known authorities to enforce this practice, has been taught all her life that god demands it, and risks death not out of possible anger but out of family obligation? Where would you go, how would you get there, who would you trust... and why would you even risk it?
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe (and you obviously do not believe it's possible) that some women have internalized some positive meaning and value in wearing it and are freely choosing to do so. |
Would you say the same about foot binding? |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:26:52 AM · #268 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe (and you obviously do not believe it's possible) that some women have internalized some positive meaning and value in wearing it and are freely choosing to do so. |
Would you say the same about foot binding? |
I don't know what she'd say about foot binding, but I'd point out that to this day we have women voluntarily wearing the most absurd footwear that does untold long-term damage to their feet, simply because it's stylish and they don't feel good about themselves unless they're shod that way. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be, Shannon. You are taking extremes and generalizing from them; but that, of course, is how slippery slopes come into being.
R. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:40:11 AM · #269 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't know what she'd say about foot binding, but I'd point out that to this day we have women voluntarily wearing the most absurd footwear that does untold long-term damage to their feet, simply because it's stylish and they don't feel good about themselves unless they're shod that way. |
Hey! ;-)
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You know, if they really wanted to prevent the physical and emotional subjugation of women they would ban high-heeled shoes ... :-( |
|
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:50:57 AM · #270 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'd point out that to this day we have women voluntarily wearing the most absurd footwear that does untold long-term damage to their feet, simply because it's stylish and they don't feel good about themselves unless they're shod that way. |
Foot binding is to high heels what burqas are to hijabs. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 12:00:31 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'd point out that to this day we have women voluntarily wearing the most absurd footwear that does untold long-term damage to their feet, simply because it's stylish and they don't feel good about themselves unless they're shod that way. |
Foot binding is to high heels what burqas are to hijabs. |
And yet many women voluntarily wear toe-shoes to dance in classical ballet -- they are almost as physically ruinous to the feet as binding was.
There was an interesting article or interview I came across the other day which discussed just how "traditional" practices such as foot-binding can be ended or changed -- I'll try to find it later. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 12:04:31 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And yet many women voluntarily wear toe-shoes to dance in classical ballet -- they are almost as physically ruinous to the feet as binding was. |
Indeed- my mother was one of them, however she could (and did) choose to stop wearing them at any time without the risk of far worse physical harm. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 12:35:38 PM · #273 |
| New readers struggling to follow this thread (or indeed almost any rant thread) will find both the content and the spirit of discourse neatly encapsulated here. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 05:00:49 PM · #274 |
I'm struggling to figure out the underpinning's of Shannon's argument.
I believe he is saying that gender equality or equality in general is a good to be pursued. Because wearing a burqua does not encourage this idea, it should be banned despite any religious reasoning or even purported voluntary choice to do so. I believe he has argued it is wrong to allow such behavior regardless of local custom or law (ie. it was still wrong for the Taliban where it is actually the law to wear a burqua).
This is where I'm confused. Doesn't this sound like an argument for a moral imperative that is above culture and law? Shannon has often and vehemently argued that such ideals do not exist. What gives? |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 06:26:07 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is where I'm confused. Doesn't this sound like an argument for a moral imperative that is above culture and law? Shannon has often and vehemently argued that such ideals do not exist. What gives? |
I cannot speak for Shannon in this regard, but from a personal perspective I have gotten the impression that you seemingly suggest that the issue of morality does not readily exist outside of religious environments.
Do correct me if I am wrong.
Ray |
|
