11 Jun 2016

Nobody Actually Wants “Equality” Between the Sexes

Deep Thoughts 17 Comments

Tyler Cowen links to a paper in which the authors write:

The Nordic countries are the most gender equal nations in the world, but at the same time, they also have a disproportionately high rate of intimate partner violence against women. This is perplexing because logically violence against women would be expected to drop as women gained equal status in a society. A new study explores this contradictory situation, which has been labeled the ‘Nordic paradox.’

I put the bold in. Why should this be perplexing? If you’re a boy and taught from the time you’re little that boys are stronger than girls, and therefore “a real man” doesn’t hit a woman, then you won’t take advantage of your obvious advantage.

However, if you’re taught that men and women are equal, and that such chivalrous talk is actually condescending, patriarchal, and patronizing, then why wouldn’t we expect guys to get in fights with women just like they do with other guys?

17 Responses to “Nobody Actually Wants “Equality” Between the Sexes”

  1. Dan says:

    Yeah it only makes sense to say that if guys just fought other guys that were of lower status than them. If anything, I’d suspect that guys are more likely to fight other guys who are of higher or equal status than them.

    • Dexter Morgan says:

      That doesn’t change Murphy’s conclusion. He’s not saying guys ONLY fight other guys of lower status, or are MORE LIKELY to fight guys of lower status which is what your statement says.

      And who says the guys started all these fights anyways? I don’t believe that for a second. They likely did more damage since they are stronger, but to suggest they always started the fight is an unfounded assumption.

  2. Tel says:

    All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

    When you hear someone talk about “equality” this is what they are really talking about. There is no paradox, there is only lack of honesty. The purpose of finding people with a greivance is to convince them they depend on government (or some similar power structure) for support, and thus gain power over them, and then leverage this power to rule others as well. If their greivance was ever genuinely solved, they might forget how fearful they are and might start questioning whether they need to be ruled.

    The ideal state is a condition where government is doing a lot to solve everyone’s problems, but achieving as little as possible so everyone demands they do more.

    • guest says:

      “The purpose of finding people with a greivance is to convince them they depend on government (or some similar power structure) for support, and thus gain power over them …”

      By the way, this is also how you’re supposed to deal with women.

      Don’t let them give you things, because they’ll just find some way to interpret that as you not being able to take care of your own self.

      You have to pretty much always be the giver.

      And even though the woman doesn’t owe the man anything for his gifts, the desired effect is pretty much the same as when the government hands out welfare or free cell phones.

      Something to think about, ladies, when you want government to do something for you with other people’s money.

      Or like how men are the ones enforcing so-called women’s rights. It’s men doing your dirty work, ladies. It’s still a man’s world.

      • Dan says:

        “By the way, this is also how you’re supposed to deal with women.
        Don’t let them give you things, because they’ll just find some way to interpret that as you not being able to take care of your own self.”

        Dude, when I see guys say shit like this it hurts my soul. You’ll never have a healthy relationship with a woman if you have so little respect for them. If you’ve only met girls who fit the description you gave above, then it is you who is the problem. At some point you have to decide that you no longer want to be some jaded sad sack. Work on yourself and you’ll attract women of worth. Trust me, there are literally billions of them.

        • guest says:

          I’m not sad, I’m a realist. Women play mind games, and you have to fight them for position, otherwise they will lose respect for you.

          Chicks will work together, too. And they’ll synchronize their attitudes against you, if you let them.

          It’s you against the hoarde, my man. You’ve got to break them off if you’re going to get them to have an independent thought about you.

          • W. Peden says:

            I’m with Dan. If you think that there is a simple formula for “how to deal with women”, then you’re not a realist, but a very optimistic fantasist.

            Real relationships, both romantic and non-romantic, are complex, confusing, hard work, and sometimes wonderful.

      • Tel says:

        I think there’s more opportunity to have a meaningful two way relationship with an individual (be that male or female) than with a state bureaucracy.

        I know about the theory that modern women want to “marry” the state as their breadwinner, and probably that does apply to some women.

        I would hesitate to make a statement about all women given that I’ve known some very independent women, but also some very needy women… and I guess everybody needs something… it’s mostly a matter of figuring out what that is. As in all relationships being a good judge of character is a great way to start (diffcult to do, but important to try). Since I know I’m not top notch in the ability to make character judgements (probably not the worst) I often find it a good shorthand to look for someone who can communicate their needs… which makes such a judgement a bit easier.

        In the bigger picture though, men and women are biologically co-dependent, so the choice is either sort our some sort of agreement or go extinct. That’s going to be the situation with or without the state.

  3. Dexter Morgan says:

    Nobody actually wants equality between the sexes because then one will have to question why they are falling in love with a woman instead of a man or a chimpanzee or a goat or a butterfly. Is there something inherently different in a positive way that makes a woman ‘special’ to a man or is it just an evolutionary trick that we mindlessly allow to delude us since anyone who questioned this notion died off?

    • Major.Freedom says:

      Pretty sure that “equality” is referring to rights, and the law.

      What Murphy said would fall under rights. What you said would fall under neither.

      • Dexter Morgan says:

        Pretty sure he’s not. What he’s talking about includes both legally and socially.

  4. DZ says:

    Nordic paradox? The only paradox is that an intellectual could reason so badly in trying to identify a paradox. Your observation is dead on Bob, and my exact thoughts before I even read your comment.

  5. Tyler Calder says:

    My big complaint is when scientists take observational evidence and then use the word paradox to it. To me (and i know I’m being overly narrow) but a paradox is reserved for logical dilemmas.

  6. ax123man says:

    It’s unfortunate that “smart” people can claim that something as complex as domestic violence can be strongly linked to such simple causations. The author is simply trying to justify the causation.

    • guest says:

      That reminds me:

      In the “defense of Johnny” video (Karate Kid), the narrator says this when discussing his interaction with his ex:

      “But one thing he is definitely not doing is getting violent.”

      But just like domestic violence involves implied threats, that is what’s happening between Johnny and his ex.

      There is definitely the threat of violence, there.

      The narrator says that what Johnny is doing is not OK, and he should respect his ex’s wishes, but he just doesn’t see threats as initiatory aggression that justifies defensive aggression – which Daniel attempts to provide.

  7. guest says:

    HT2 Robert Wenzel, and this is off topic (yet … not) …

    VERY COOL Rolls-Royce Unveils Its First Driverless Car

    “Here we are with the Vision Next 100. It’s a very unique vehicle made for a very unique person somewhere in the future – let’s say 20 years from now …”

    “… It was very important, right at the beginning of the creative process, that the Exterior Design Team captured the magical DNA of Rolls-Royce. For example, the long front bonnet stretching out into the night, guided by the uplit spread of extacy through Manhattan, Mayfair, Beijing – all these glamorous places that our hight net worth individuals travel.”

    When I first saw the inside of the car, I noticed how short the seat of the couch-seat seemed. And then I noticed how there was a lot of leg room left remaining. The British “properness” of the video is just icing, because …

    The manufacturer that produces the Driverless Bed WILL take market share from Rolls-Royce.



    *takes a bow*

Leave a Reply