"Women Don't Care About Contraception"

The Republican governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, does not seem to think that women care about contraception.  If that is a mainstream view among Republican leaders, I am willing to bet they are a bit out of touch with the concerns of American women.

Rick Santorum's Strange Notions of Sex and Sexuality

"One of the things I'm constantly reminding people about Rick Santorum is that he doesn't have merely an anti-gay agenda -- he has an anti-straight agenda too. He's against birth control, he's against abortion, he's against pornography, he's against all sorts of things that straight people use and enjoy frequently....You need to know, heterosexual Americans, that gay-bashing isn't his only hobby." -- Dan Savage

As long term readers of my blog know full well, I am a man of passions -- huge, towering passions -- passions that are apt to wantonly reveal themselves in my unbridled gallops through flowering fields of epistemology, in my full frontal assaults upon the castle walls of logical fallacies, in my undying lover's devotion to well-evidenced arguments.  And so forth, etc.  Still, it may come as some surprise to my readers that I am not entirely unfamiliar with sex. Especially if said readers have been listening to the bitter and scurrilous reports of my two ex-wives.

Because I have in the past been on intimate terms with sex (see, for instance, my treasure for newlyweds, Towards an Epistemology of Carnal Knowledge, by Paul Sunstone, Bust, Colorado: Charging Boar Books.) I sometimes take an understandably passionate interest in sex.  Specifically, in:

• what people are saying about sex,
• what their reasoning is,
• and how they have arrived at their conclusions about sex.

Today, two of my online friends -- Nance and the Cognitive Dissenter -- both urged me to examine the reasoning on matters sexual of the GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum.

I was at first reluctant to attempt such an examination, for I am nearly settled in the opinion that the man or woman who sets forth upon the task of extracting a reasonably logical and well-evidenced argument on sexual matters from a 21st Century American politician might as well indulge his or herself in trying to fornicate on the hop with a fleeing kangaroo.

Yet, Nance and CD finally aroused my interest by suggestively hinting that Rick Santorum might be downright promiscuous in both his fallacies and his falsehoods.  And, as you know, few things have the power to titillate one's interest as do logical and factual errors. 

So, one of the first things I discovered about Santorum is he seems to be best known for his opposition to gay marriage. But after a little digging, I discovered that he is also opposed to contraception.

For instance, as recently as last October, he stated in an interview with CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart that, if elected president, he would repeal all federal funding for contraception because contraception devalues the act of procreation:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country." And also, “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” (Source)

So, boiling that down, we might arrive at somewhat of an argument: Contraception is a license to do things that run counter to how things are supposed to be. Therefore we should repeal all federal funding for contraception.

However, as an argument, it fails to satisfy.  Perhaps it is not penetrating enough.  Or, perhaps the premiss is too vague. After all, what can you do with words like, "how things are supposed to be", besides ask for clarification?

In the same interview, Santorum also says:

[Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.

I'll wager if we squint hard, we might extract an argument from that statement!  An argument such as this one:

• Sex is supposed to be for purposes both conjugal and procreative.
• The perfect way to realize those purposes is within the context of a marriage.
• Therefore, sex should take place [only?] within the context of a marriage.

Does the conclusion follow logically from the premisses?  To my thinking, that would depend on whether Santorum believes sex should take place only within the context of a marriage.  He doesn't quite come out and say that here, so I have placed "only" in brackets.  But from everything else he's said elsewhere, I would guess he believes sex should only take place within the context of a marriage.  And if that is so, then I believe his reasoning to be invalid.

Let's grant, for the sake of demonstration, that "sex is supposed to be for purposes both conjugal and procreative."  Let's further grant that "the perfect way to realize those purposes is within the context of a marriage."  Even if we grant both premisses, the conclusion does not necessarily follow because it is conceivable that one might yet argue for sex outside of marriage as a less than perfect, but nevertheless still desirable, activity. 

TUT! TUT! MR. SANTORUM! TUT! TUT!!!


I must now beg my reader's forgiveness for my sudden, emphatic outburst.


There is much else -- much else -- that could be said about Santorum's strange sexual statements. Not just the ones presented here, but statements he's made elsewhere as well.  If I were to attempt to analyze them all fully, it might take several blog posts.  But it's getting late, and I still have work to do before I can go to bed.  However, I would like to mention one last thing.

Santorum brings up the notion that sex is for procreation.  Sometime ago, I wrote on that subject. My post began:

It’s easy to believe the natural purpose of sex is reproduction.   Offspring, after all, are the single most spectacular result of sex.  Many of us seem bedazzled by that fact.  Consequently, some of us seem to have got the notion the natural purpose of sex is reproduction and that sex without the possibility of reproduction is at best selfish indulgence and, at worse, perversion.

I then sally on to bring up a few of the many reasons sex cannot be legitimately seen as solely for reproduction -- nor even as having a purpose!  I recommend reading that post if you are interested in the topic.  It can be found here.

Sexism in the Skeptic Community

"Unfortunately, it [sexism] is [rampant within the skeptic community].  I say this from my own experiences within it, hearing stories from friends, etc."  -- Hemant Mehta, aka "The Friendly Atheist".

Hermant Mehta is in a position to know better than most people whether sexism is rampant within the skeptic community. So, I'm guessing he might be right, despite that the relative handful of skeptics I myself know are overwhelmingly non-sexists.  But, if Mehta is right, why are there so many sexists among skeptics? That seems to be a real puzzler.

Any ideas?

What Causes Us to Think Immodest Women are the Downfall of Men?

Perhaps we can discuss once more the curious notion that immodest women are the downfall of men?  But I am not so concerned today with refuting the notion.  It seems to me an irrational notion -- and, as a friend likes to remind me, you cannot reason a person out of a notion they did not reason themselves into in the first place. So, instead of discussing its reasonableness, I would like to take a guess at its possible origins or causes.

It is a serious question why such an unwholesome notion is spread over several cultures and why it can be found in countries as diverse as India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and America.  Taking its strangely ubiquitous nature into account, is there any universal root for the notion that would explain why it appears in both India and Israel, in both Saudi Arabia and America, and -- apparently -- in most other countries?

I know of very little science on this issue, but I seem to recall one hypotheses: At root, the notion that immodest women are the downfall of men is part of a male strategy -- a tactic, if you will -- to put men in control of women's reproductive choices.

Sometimes the hypothesis is reasoned this way: 

(1) Women, when they have the freedom to choose their own mates, typically go about that task by a process of attraction and selection.  Basically, they make themselves as attractive to men as needed -- especially as physically attractive as needed -- and then they select a mate from among the men who are attracted to them.

(2) Given that women most frequently exercise choice by a process of attraction and selection, men have a number of options if they want to control women's reproductive choices.  Those options include placing restrictions on a woman's freedom to make herself attractive.  Such restrictions might include requiring her to dress in a manner that hides her physical attractiveness; requiring her to walk with eyes downcast; requiring her to speak of herself "modestly" or dismissively; prohibiting her from asking a man for a date; etc.

(3) The notion that immodest women cause a man's downfall is thus seen to be a cover, mask, or rationalization for controlling women's reproductive choices by restricting their ability to attract mates.

(4) Men who succeed in controlling women's reproductive choices thus place themselves in a better position to make those choices for women.  And if they can make those choices for women, they will presumably make them most frequently for their (the men's) own benefit.

For the sake of discussion, let's now assume the hypothesis is sound.  That is, the notion immodest women cause the downfall of men is a tactic men employ to assist them in controlling women's reproductive choices.  Does that mean that every time we hear some man encourage some woman to "be more modest" we can be confident he is doing so to control her reproductive choices?

I don't think so.  I think the hypothesis, if it is sound at all, would at best explain why the notion ever caught on, why it persists, and why it became nearly ubiquitous in its distribution. That is, it might explain the majority of cases.  But as for explaining the behavior of any one person, I think it's quite likely that a significant minority of people who encourage women to be modest do so for reasons having nothing to do with the hypothesis.

For instance, I came across a comment left on a blog yesterday by a teenager that asked women to dress modestly for two reasons.  First, to help the comment's author avoid masturbation.  Second, to help its author avoid objectifying women.

Now, you might grin at that (as did I), but if we take his two reasons at face value, we have there a male who is asking women to "be more modest" for reasons other than to restrict women's reproductive choices.  So, I think it would take a lot of work to sort out all the reasons people might have for the belief that immodest women are the downfall of men. But what do you yourself think might be the reasons or causes of such a heavy, gloomy, and unhealthy notion?

Are Misogynists Wimps at Heart?

"The same broadcast featured a religious eight-year-old girl terrified to walk the short distance between her home and school, since she is subject to verbal abuse of ultra-Orthodox men who claim her attire is not sufficiently 'modest'." -- Source.

They must be very macho men to verbally abuse an eight year old girl.  I would like to meet them in person so I could personally congratulate these men on their macho.  I would also like to ask them what they think of Yocheved Horowitz.

Horowitz, you see, is an Orthodox woman who does not buy into the bullshit of these Orthodox men.  And apparently, because she is not a (understandably) frightened eight year old girl, she is sometimes able to shut them up.

Horowitz was on a public bus one day when one of these macho men told her to move to the back of the bus:

"Women to the back," he called out like a conductor. "To the back, to the back." He trembled with anger. A man sitting in the first row whose appearance revealed him to be a Gur Hasid, shushed him, with a finger to his lip. But the shouter paid no attention to him. "Men's area," he continued to shout. "Women to the back."

Now Horowitz turned around and said loudly and clearly: "What do you mean by 'men's area'? A geographical area?" she wondered. "What is mehadrin? Are you talking about an etrog, a lulav?" she queried, referring to two of the principal symbols used during the festival of Sukkot. "Nowhere in rabbinical law does it say that it is forbidden to sit behind a woman, not in the Shulchan Arukh and not in the Yoreh De'ah [two classical compilations of Jewish law]. What is written in the Torah and in rabbinical law is that it is forbidden to humiliate sons and daughters of Israel."

Like a deflated balloon, the man became quiet, and maintained his silence for the rest of the bus ride.

What do you think?  Do you think maybe these macho misogynists are not really so macho unless they outnumber their victims?

I have often wondered what relationship there might be, if any, between a man being a misogynist and a man being a wimp?

_________________
(H/T: Hoyden About Town)

Should We Legalize Polygamy?

Although I fancy myself a man of passions -- even strong passions -- loyal, experienced readers of this blog are sure to know that few issues -- no matter how controversial -- are likely to give me the vapours (except, of course, egregious mistakes in the noble field of epistemology).  Therefore, it might come as something of a shock when I confess that the issue of legalizing polygamy has all but reduced me to my smelling salts.

The problem, you see, is I can't make up my mind whether I am for or against the legalization.

On the one hand, I can think of at least two powerful arguments for the legalization:

1. As a general principle, I favor allowing informed, consenting adults to choose whatever marriage arrangements they deem best for themselves.  By the same token, I believe that the marriage arrangements of informed, consenting adults should not be restricted -- unless a weight of reason and evidence demonstrates those arrangements to be injurious to others.
2. It has been my experience that a person can have more than one great love in his or her life.  But to restrict marriage to two people would seem to force some people to cruelly reject or deny at least one of their loves.  Consequently, I believe restricting marriage to only two people should never be done for light and transient reasons -- but only for the soundest of reasons.

Either one of those reasons alone would be enough to satisfy me that we should legalize polygamy -- except for the fact there seem to be several reasons not to legalize it.  The best summary I've found of the reasons against legalization comes from a Canadian court case.

In 2010, the Supreme Court of British Columbia was asked to reconsider a ban on plural marriage. The core issue was whether polygamy was bad for society.  That is, whether anyone besides the partners to a polygamous marriage were harmed by it.

As part of its deliberations, the Supreme Court called upon the expertise of Joseph Henrich, an inter-disciplinary professor whose scientific credentials are so extensive they require 17 pages to list and are of such quality as would be lightly dismissed only by a madman or a Republican candidate for the presidency.  That's not to say Henrich is above being wrong -- for who among us is -- but only to suggest his findings might be worth some consideration by reasonable folk.

Before being called upon by the Court, Henrich had never published on polygamy nor formed any reasoned and evidenced opinion of it.  However, after reviewing a large body of evidence from several fields -- including psychology, anthropology, sociology, and economics -- he reached several provisional conclusions. His conclusions, however, dealt with only one aspect of polygamy -- polygyny, or the marriage of a man to multiple wives (.pdf pp. 25):

• A non-trivial increase in the incidence of polygyny, which is quite possible if polygyny were legalized given what we know about both male and female mating preferences, would result in increased crime and antisocial behavior by the pool of unmarried males it would create.
• Greater degrees of polygyny drive down the age of first marriage for (all) females on average, and increase the age gap between husbands and wives.  This generally leads to females marrying before age 18, or being "promised" in marriage before age 18.
• Greater degrees of polygyny are associated with increased inequality between the sexes, and the relationship may be causal as men seek more control over women when women become scarce.
• Polygynous men invest less in their offspring both because they have more offspring and because they continue to invest in seeking additional wives.  This implies that, on average, children in a more polygynous society will receive less parental investment.
• Greater degrees of polygynous marriage may reduce national wealth (GDP) per capita both because of the manner in which male efforts are shifted to obtaining more wives and because of the increase in female fertility.

Henrich then offers the Court what seems to me substantial evidence for his provisional conclusions.  But, perhaps even more striking than his conclusions, he goes further to offer the Court "a speculation".

That is, he suggests that monogamy -- which is historically much rarer among our societies than polygyny -- might be linked to democracy and gender equality (.pdf pp. 64): "Historically, we know that universal monogamous marriage preceded the emergence of democratic institutions in Europe, and the rise of notions of equality between the sexes."  The idea there might be a relationship between monogamy and social and political equality is intriguing, although I gather much more work would need to be done for the claim to be reasonably evidenced.

Now, I myself am a polyamorous individual.  I have experienced at least three great loves in my life -- women I have been inordinately passionate about -- women who, at times, I have even loved more deeply and truly than ever I loved a well-formulated operational definition.  Consequently, I'm conflicted by Henrich's findings.

Fortunately, I never had to choose between one of those loves and another since several years separated each from the other.  But I can imagine how cruel it would have been had I been forced to choose. Yet -- if Henrich is right -- the consequences of legalizing polygyny seem to me dire enough to warrant the ban of it.

What do you think?  Should we legalize polygyny?  Why or why not? And, just out of curiosity, have you ever found yourself profoundly in love with two people at once?

Women's Handwriting

Why do you suppose women, by and large, have similar handwriting?

At least, it's my impression that a woman's handwriting usually resembles other women's handwriting to a greater degree than a man's handwriting is apt to resemble other men's handwriting.  Put differently, it seems more difficult to tell women apart than it seems it is to tell men apart. If that is indeed the case, why is it the case?

Men and Women?