When Spontaneous Orders Attack

By On July 16, 2012 · 22 Comments · In Academic Philosophy, Left-libertarianism, Libertarianism, Liberty, Social Justice

Sometime BHL guest blogger Charles Johnson’s essay “Women and the Invisible Fist” is the first round in a Mutual Exchange on Spontaneous Order over at Center for a Stateless Society. Another essay by myself, followed by commentary on both essays from philosophers Nina Brewer-Davis, Reshef Agam-Segal, and David Gordon, will follow over the next couple of weeks.

One of Charles’ main themes is that the concept of spontaneous order (à la Hayek) is used ambiguously. Sometimes it means consensual rather than coercive order; sometimes it means polycentric or participatory rather than directive order; and sometimes it means emergent rather than consciously designed order.

What does that have to do with feminism, libertarianism, patriarchy, and rape culture? Find out.

 

  • Pingback: Cordial and Sanguine, Part 37: When Spontaneous Orders Attack

  • http://frankhecker.com/ Frank Hecker

    I like Johnson’s analysis, both for clarifying the various senses in which people use the term “spontaneous order” and also for reminding us once again that the effects of a spontaneous order are not necessarily positive.

    One thing it reminded me of was groups characterized by a “hazing culture” in which older and/or more well-established members engage in humiliation of (sometimes accompanied by low-level violence toward) younger and/or newer members. Although this can be amplified by collective action (i.e., in large-scale hazing rituals roughly analogous to Brownmiller’s examples of mass rape during wars) it seems rooted in actions that are relatively unorganized, spontaneous, and informally transmitted from one generation to the next, and that in toto perpetuate the dominance of one (sub)group over another. The main difference is that in this case the hazee can and typically does turn around to become the hazer.

  • darius404

    I have an issue with Johnson’s analysis right off the bat, with part 2: “Susan Brownmiller: Myrmidons and Misinterpretations”.

    Johnson quotes Brownmiller as writing:

    From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a
    critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process
    of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.

    The Johnson writes:

    Antifeminist critics have slammed Brownmiller for supposedly slandering all men as rapists6 (she does not actually say that; the verb in the sentence is not “rape,” but “keep … in a state of fear”)

    The verb Brownmiller uses certainly is “keep”, rather than “rape”. However, in focusing merely on what verb is used, he misses some key points to those sentences. I’ll quote Brownmiller again, this time with the pertinent parts highlighted:

    From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a
    critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process
    of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.

    What Brownmiller is saying is that EVERY man uses rape as a “conscious process of intimidation” on EVERY woman. So I, as well as Johnson, are indeed accused of DELIBERATELY using rape, or perhaps the THREAT of rape, as intimidation against ALL women. When she accuses men of being knowing and complicit in such a thing, and the people reading the accusation (myself, as well as most men, I suspect) know that is not the case, it is no surprise at all that most males are estranged by and unconvinced of her arguments as a whole. If Johnson was going to use Brownmiller as an example for his essay, and moreover planned to QUOTE her as an example of someone whose ideas are misunderstood, it would be nice if HE would not misunderstand what she says either.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roderick-Tracy-Long/1037941173 Roderick Tracy Long

      If you want to understand what a sentence means, you might want to look at the context it’s embedded in.

      • darius404

        I did, and that is what I found. If that is not what she meant, she should not have written an accusation against all men. The most generous reading of her statement is STILL that all men consciously use the threat of rape against all women. Unless there are alternate readings to the words “all” and “consciously”, my criticism stands. Context included, this is what she wrote:

        Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate
        fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric
        times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From
        prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical
        function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of
        intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.

        The preceding sentences don’t change the meaning of her words. I wish they did, I would dearly love to be proven wrong. Again, if that ISN’T what she means, then she shouldn’t write it.

        edit: Edited slightly for clarity.

        • Neverfox

          From a response by Charles to the original posting of this essay on his blog in 2009:

          But Brownmiller doesn’t say that the “conscious process of
          intimidation” is something that all men participate in (if you think it
          is, re-read the sentence, paying particular attention to which clause
          “all men” is the subject of). In a “conscious process of intimidation,”
          presumably the person who would be either conscious or unconscious is
          the intimidator, which in this case means the rapist. We know from
          elsewhere in the book (especially the passages on the Myrmidon theory)
          that Brownmiller isn’t claiming that all men are rapists (after all,
          part of what she’s explicitly interested in analyzing is how the actions
          of men who rape affect the status of women vis-a-vis men who do not
          rape). So we don’t yet have any reason to believe that Brownmiller is
          claiming that anyone other than the rapist alone is consciously
          intending to intimidate women (maybe all women as such; maybe some group
          of women; maybe the one particular woman he has targeted for attack;
          Brownmiller doesn’t make it explicit which, and not much turns on it in
          this discussion). Which is true enough; if he weren’t intending to
          intimidate, he wouldn’t be a rapist.

          So then what’s the function of that clause about “by which all men keep all
          women in a state of fear”, if not to say that all men are somehow
          consciously trying to intimidate women? Well, again, looking at the rest
          of the book, and especially the passages on the Myrmidon theory, one
          interpretation that suggests itself is that Brownmiller is making a
          statement in that clause about the political effects of rape — that all
          women are kept in a state of fear by all mean, as an effect of
          the conscious process of intimidation carried out by some but not all
          men—an effect which not all of the men in question, or perhaps even none
          of the men in question, may have consciously intended.

          If Brownmiller doesn’t mean to use the word “conscious” to suggest
          conscious intent by all men to keep all women in a state of fear, but
          only to say that rapists consciously intend to intimidate women, then
          why include the word at all? Can’t it just be taken for granted? Well,
          no, it can’t be. I’d argue that Brownmiller includes the word
          “conscious” because it has to do with a distinct claim made in the book,
          which is not directly discussed in my original post — that rapists are
          motivated in part by the desire to intimidate and control women, not
          just by some uncontrollable lust or the lack of consensual sexual
          “outlets.”

          Maybe you disagree with Brownmiller on that point; if so, fine, but
          that’s a different disagreement, which has to do with what a rapist’s
          conscious intent in committing rape is, rather than with Brownmiller’s
          effect of the social effects of rape.

          I will add that when “one interpretation that suggests itself” makes the entirety of a person’s work cohere without contradiction, then we are obligated to place it ahead of other interpretations that do not do so (yours). This is George Stigler’s principle of scientific exegesis, viz. “if the main conclusions of a man’s [sic] thought do not survive under one interpretation, and do under another, the latter interpretation must be preferred.”

          • darius404

            The “It” in the operative sentence refers to “rape” from the sentence before. If that is not an intended meaning by her, and I hope it is not, then that sentence is rather poorly written.

            A few passages from your quote, to help illustrate why I came to the conclusion I did:

            We know from elsewhere in the book (especially the passages on the Myrmidon theory) that Brownmiller isn’t claiming that all men are rapists

            A more charitable reading of the relevant sentence would still mean that all men use the threat of rape as a “conscious process of intimidation” against all women. That still isn’t terribly flattering to the work, though. To go any further (e.g. claiming that not all men use the threat of rape, either) you would need to assume she unintentionally wrote something she did not mean, something that would be likely to turn many men away from her works entirely.

            That was part of my main point, actually. I am open to the idea that she did not mean to accuse all men of raping (or of using the threat of rape. But if she did not mean exactly what she wrote, then many males (certainly a target audience, I would think) are likely to disregard her as a serious voice on the matter. I find that sad, since it inadvertently wastes an opportunity to convince people of her insights on the matter. And convincing people is a very serious matter, considering the gravity of the topic she writes about.

            If we want to alleviate the burdens of sexual intimidation on women, it behooves us to convince a majority of men about the issues involved. Unfortunately, I believe writings like what I quoted are a major reason why so many people (men and women both) dismiss feminist writings out of hand. They see something, and think to themselves “What? I’m not like this at all. This isn’t accurate. This is bullshit.” I have met men and women who don’t dislike women or see them as inferior, don’t condone rape in the slightest, and yet still dismiss feminism entirely as something ludicrous.

            So my point, more than “I think she’s wrong”, was

            “I think statements like this hurt the feminist cause, by turning away the people that it is trying to convince.”

            On that note, I thank you very, VERY much, Neverfox, for that choice passage from the original response to Brownmiller’s essay. It helps illuminate the point I was trying to make, as well as alleviates some of my concerns over the writing itself.

          • Neverfox

            The “It” in the operative sentence refers to “rape” from the sentence before. If that is not an intended meaning by her, and I would hope it is not, then that sentence is rather poorly written.

            Why do you hope it’s not? If ‘it’ refers to ‘rape’, then it excludes any man who hasn’t raped or threatened rape from the ‘process’. Isn’t that what you wanted to be the case?

            A more charitable reading of the relevant sentence would still mean that all men use the threat of rape as a “conscious process of intimidation” against all women.

            More charitable but still not charitable enough to meet the standard I pointed out before, especially since what counts as charitable shouldn’t be limited to a “sentence” but to the whole work, of which the relevant sentence is a part. As Charles said, “looking at the rest of the book, and especially the passages on the Myrmidon theory, one interpretation that suggests itself is that Brownmiller is making a statement in that clause about the political effects of rape — that all women are kept in a state of fear by all mean [sic], as an effect of the conscious process of intimidation carried out by some but not all men”

            But if she did not mean exactly what she wrote, then many males (certainly a target audience, I would think) are likely to disregard her as a serious voice on the matter.

            There seems to be some disagreement over “exactly” what she wrote. You seem to be claiming here that grammar allows her no room to argue the point, but I disagree. In any case, if “many males” disregard her because they aren’t principled in their exegesis, I’m not sure why that’s her or any woman’s responsibility. Is it not obvious to them that she intended the work to be read and appreciated as a whole?

            Unfortunately, I believe writings like what I quoted are a major reason why so many people (men and women both) dismiss feminist writings out of hand.

            So were you hoping to alleviate that problem by defending the wrong interpretation of the sentence as your primary line of criticism?

          • darius404

            Why do you hope it’s not? If ‘it’ refers to ‘rape’, then it excludes any
            man who hasn’t raped or threatened rape from the ‘process’. Isn’t that what you wanted to be the case?

            I hope that she did not truly intend to slander all men as rapists or intimidators. If she says “all” men, then that means EVERY man. That excludes no one, aside from women.

            There seems to be some disagreement over “exactly” what she wrote. You seem to be claiming here that grammar allows her no room to argue the point, but I disagree.

            Again, there isn’t getting around the word “all”. If she says “all” men do this, that is a blanket statement of accusation.

            In any case, if “many males” disregard her
            because they aren’t principled in their exegesis, I’m not sure why
            that’s her or any woman’s responsibility. Is it not obvious to them that
            she intended the work to be read and appreciated as a whole?

            It’s on the writer to communicate clearly. If she can’t do that because her writing contradicts itself, that isn’t the reader’s fault.
            And if her work is not meant to persuade people she’s right, why is she writing it in the first place?

            So were you hoping to alleviate that problem by defending the wrong
            interpretation of the sentence as your primary line of criticism?

            And you’re hoping to alleviate the problem by pretending it doesn’t exist? It would certainly be nice to get that cleared up, rather than claim there is no problem at all. When a work, or parts of a work, have the OPPOSITE effect of what is intended (e.g. convincing people she is wrong, rather than right), it is next to useless.

            Acknowledging the fact that it is a blanket accusation against men (“all” men consciously keep “all” women in a state of fear?), then saying that she didn’t mean what she wrote, is the best way to address the issue (that I’m aware of). Of course, all this wouldn’t even have been necessary if she hadn’t written a blanket accusation in the first place.

          • Neverfox

            If she says “all” men, then that means EVERY man. That excludes no one, aside from women.

            But this was addressed. What are you reasons for rejecting this interpretation?

            Again, there isn’t getting around the word “all”. If she says “all” men do this, that is a blanket statement of accusation.

            OK, so I guess you missed in it then. Here it is one more time:

            So then what’s the function of that clause about “by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”, if not to say that all men are somehow consciously trying to intimidate women? Well, again, looking at the rest of the book, and especially the passages on the Myrmidon theory, one interpretation that suggests itself is that Brownmiller is making a statement in that clause about the political effects of rape — that all women are kept in a state of fear by all mean, as an effect of the conscious process of intimidation carried out by some but not all men—an effect which not all of the men in question, or perhaps even none of the men in question, may have consciously intended.

            In other words, the effect of rape is to make all women fear all men. It does not require that all men do or threaten rape.

            It’s on the writer to communicate clearly. If she can’t do that because her writing contradicts itself, that isn’t the reader’s fault.

            Certainly, writers should try to communicate clearly, but surely we frown upon cutting a writer off before they’re finished or taking a writer out of context. This is exactly what one is doing by refusing to acknowledge that a coherent interpretation of the text exists that makes the entire work not contradict itself. And additionally, when you take the work as a whole, it’s not exactly unclear what she’s trying to say. It’s hardly surprising that you can find one or two sentences in any work that are ambiguous on their own. If you approach to reading feminism is that you’re going to stop and give up the minute you come across one, not only are you not very generous, but you’re probably weren’t serious about the effort to begin with.

            And you’re hoping to alleviate the problem by pretending it doesn’t exist?

            I’m not sure you can really count writing an essay that spends a great deal of time addressing the fact that “antifeminist critics have slammed” Brownmiller as pretending the problem doesn’t exist.

            Acknowledging the fact that it is a blanket accusation against men (“all” men consciously keep “all” women in a state of fear?), then saying that she didn’t mean what she wrote, is the best way to address the issue (that I’m aware of). Of course, all this wouldn’t even have been necessary if she hadn’t written a blanket accusation in the first place.

            You should be aware by now (I would hope) that she actually didn’t say “all men consciously keep all women in a state of fear,” that she did mean what she said because it’s not what you (or others) what to claim she said. It’s such an obvious fact that all men have not raped women that to assume it is exceedingly ungenerous by itself, much less when you know she explicitly says so later. It’s always possible that a human being can, in fact, be inconsistent or contradictory. My point is that knowing you are dealing with a seemingly intelligent person, barring access to the person, and in light of an interpretation that avoids the charge, we should give the person the benefit of the doubt by adopting that interpretation as the most likely one.

          • darius404

            You should be aware by now (I would hope) that she actually didn’t say “all men consciously keep all women in a state of fear,”

            Except she actually DID say that:

            “It [Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”

            If “all” men do that, then “all” men keep “all” women in a state of fear (or perhaps just try to. Of course, the arguments being addressed rely on the assumption that this is not what was meant, but that is most definitely what was written.

          • Neverfox

            Except she actually DID say that

            No, you moved the word to make your point. Moving the word “consciously” completely changes the range of ways the sentence can be parsed, and the contention is that it’s not where you’re placing it for a reason.

            Actually, the arguments presented addressed both what was written and what was meant. You’ve decided to ignore the fact that there are other ways to parse the sentence as it is exactly written by Brownmiller. The arguments are not that we know what she means to say but that she just had a momentary lapse whereby she wrote something that cannot possibly mean that. The argument is that we know what she means to say in part because what she wrote here is open to being parsed in a way that coheres with what she writes elsewhere. Or what amounts to the same thing, to parse the sentence your way requires the hypothesis that Brownmiller was inconsistent. Parsing the sentence the way Charles does doesn’t. Under the circumstances, we should accept Charles’ parsing.

          • http://twitter.com/radgeek radgeek

            @neverfox:disqus:

            Thank you for taking this up, and for pointing to the comment. I don’t know how much it helps, but I also talked about the sentence-parsing issue a bit in comments on the blog here: http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/05/16/women_and/#comment-20111207021701

            @darius404:disqus:

            I don’t know if Neverfox’s comments, or the earlier comments that have been cross-linked here, will convince you about the meaning of the infamous sentence on pp. 14-15. But I do think this thread though is a pretty good example of the reasons why I don’t have much of anything to say about the proper parsing of Brownmiller’s infamous sentence beyond what I’ve already said in the paper and in those comments. I just can’t see any further utility in trying to argue about the best grammatical parsing of the clauses in a pair of programmatic sentences in the first chapter of a book, as if this were something important to settle in isolation and without reference to the arguments and analysis offered throughout the rest of the book.

            My paper has a specific topic, which is more or less exclusively concerned with trying to understand the features and upshots of one of the central arguments of that book (as for example in the extended discussion of “police-blotter rapists” as “myrmidons to the cause of male dominance” in Chapter 6 of the book). I don’t know whether you’ve read Ch. 6 of Against Our Will or not (or even if you’ve read all of Ch. 1). But my view is that this chapter is important and that one good way of understanding the argument Brownmiller makes is by applying concepts drawn from the literature on “spontaneous order” in human societies. But that getting the radical feminist peg to fit in the spontaneous order slot will take some creative attention to the shape and orientation of both of them; and that this may teach us something important and useful, both about radical feminist theory and also about the concept of spontaneous order.

            Maybe Brownmiller’s programmatic sentences in Ch. 1 are written in such a way that they make certain common misunderstandings of her natural; or maybe she wrote them in such a way that their plain meaning really is just in tension with, or flat-out contradicts the detailed arguments and nuanced analysis that she has to offer in Chapter 6. I’m not convinced that either of these problems is a problem Brownmiller actually has. But if it is, then perhaps that is a problem for Susan Brownmiller as a writer; but I think that the detailed arguments and nuanced analysis are infinitely more interesting than picking at the writing of the programmatic statements. And that coming to an understanding of the detailed arguments and nuanced analysis, and the relationship that they may have to the various senses of the ambiguous term “spontaneous order,” and of what we might get to learn from all this, as radical feminists and/or as libertarians, is probably a more fruitful field for having a conversation. There is much more to be gleaned there.

            Do you have any thoughts about that? About the analysis of rape culture as a malign spontaneous order; or about the delineation of three different senses of “spontaneous order” that’s outlined in the paper, or any of the remarks towards the end about ways in which this might help clarify some important issues for both radical feminist and libertarian theory and practice?

  • Hume22

    Why not simply make use of the *latent* as opposed to manifest function of a social practice to save her theory from critics? Seems a pretty obvious and simple response to the conspiracy theory critique.

    • http://twitter.com/radgeek radgeek

      @Hume22:disqus: I think you’re right that a distinction between “latent” and “manifest” functions, as you put it, is important here; and thank you for suggesting it. But I think this is pretty naturally intertwined with the reading of Brownmiller that I try to offer. Here’s how, if this makes sense: Distinctions between the latent and the manifest in social practices is a pretty central part of Hayek’s discussion of spontaneous orders as *emergent* rather than *consciously designed* patterns of social order. (This comes up in the form of discussions of latent or tacit knowledge embodied in actions; but also the distinction itself turns on a distinction between, for example, latent functions and explicit motives.) In any case, this seems to me to be importantly connected with Brownmiller’s understanding of police-blotter rapists as “perform[ing] their duty … so well … that the true meaning of their act has largely gone unnoticed” (209). So this seems to me like another pretty strong prima facie reason for thinking that Brownmiller’s account might be fruitfully understood by making use of the conceptual resources of spontaneous order theories.

  • TracyW

    Would a world without rape be a world in which women moved freely without fear of men? There would still be mugging, and murder, and beatings because someone felt “dissed”. The men I know lock their doors, and their cars, too. Men are more likely to be victims of violence, see http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.html (US based), or http://www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/about/specialist/cyms/CYMS_ru1.pdf (Northern Irleand).
    Rape might be worse than a mugging or a beating, but if the point is to keep people in fear, then muggings or beatings strike me as also likely to be effective, perhaps not as effective

    It’s also noticeable that rape still occurs, but patriarchy is rather weaker than it was in past centuries. Which implies that rape isn’t that effective in supporting patriarchy.

    • Neverfox

      “Would a world without rape be a world in which women moved freely without fear of men?”

      Women qua women and men qua men, yes.

      “The men I know lock their doors, and their cars, too. Men are more likely to be victims of violence”

      But that’s not because they happen to be men, though want want to stop and ask who perpetrates more violence, but I imagine that would support Charles’ point, not yours.

      “Rape might be worse than a mugging or a beating, but if the point is to keep people in fear…”

      The point is to keep women in particular in fear of men in particular.

      “patriarchy is rather weaker than it was in past centuries. Which implies that rape isn’t that effective in supporting patriarchy.”

      I’m not particularly convinced from what I’ve seen so far of your basic understanding of patriarchy that you’re the best judge of patriarchy’s current status, but nevertheless, it doesn’t follow from A is weaker despite X being the same, that X “isn’t that effective” in strengthening A, especially since Charles never claimed that rape was the only way that patriarchy is reinforced.

      • TracyW

        Women qua women and men qua men, yes.

        Hmm, so you assert that as long as rape disappears, women and men wouldn’t fear muggers, murderers, etc. I find this surprising, what’s your basis for the assertion?

        But that’s not because they happen to be men

        I don’t follow what point you’re trying to make. From my understanding of Johnson’s article, he was saying that Brownmiller argues that the fact that some men rape women creates patriarchy even though that effect is not intended by any single rapist. Johnson says that the reading that it’s about the motives of the rapist is an incorect understanding of what Brownmiller is saying. To quote Johnson: “And it can happen quite naturally without the male rapists, or the male protectors, or the women in the society ever intending to bring about any particular macro­scale social outcome.”

        So if rape can have this effect on women, despite no single rapist intending it, why shouldn’t muggings and murder have this effect on men, despite that men don’t target other men because they happen to be men?

        I’m not particularly convinced from what I’ve seen so far of your basic understanding of patriarchy that you’re the best judge of patriarchy’s current status

        And it would be exceptionally arrogant of me to assume that I was the best judge, given that there are apparently 7 billion people on the planet. I also note that it’s highly unlikely that you are the best judge either, given that 7 billion people. But I think we can always hope to improve our understanding of the status of patriarchy, even if at the end of the conversation, we still fall short of being “the best judge”. So how about we enter into a debate on the change of patriarchy?

        In the case of patriarchy’s current status, though I certainly have no pretensions to be the best judge, I am pretty confident that patriarchy is declining. I note that women have been elected to positions of power (Margaret Thatcher, Jenny Shipley and Helen Clark in NZ, Julia Gillard in Australia for a start). I note that women have the vote in all Western countries. I note that in the countries I live a women’s citizenship is no longer determined by her husband’s. I note that when I was at engineering school and the newspaper published a letter from a guy asserting that women shouldn’t study engineering, it then published a letter from the dean of the faculty asserting that women should. (I note that I have a degree in engineering, and a househusband). I note that, despite that I work in the energy-sector, my boss’s boss is female. I note that my great-grandfather hauled his daughter, my grandmother, out of a journalism job because it wasn’t suitable for a girl, and my father’s response to my annouced intention to study engineering was “high demand for those areas”.

        Note, I’m only here talking about the direction of change over the decades, not the absolute level of patriarchy. I’m confident about the direction of change, I have no confidence in my ability to assess the level.

        it doesn’t follow from A is weaker despite X being the same, that X “isn’t that effective” in strengthening A

        Ah, yes it does. A lack of correlation does indeed imply a lack of causation. (Of course, given the difficulty in collecting rape statistics, perhaps rape has been falling away in recent centuries as well as the rise of feminism). It doesn’t definitely disprove it, there’s always the possiblity of a third factor blocking the effects, but it does push the burden of proof back on the claimant of a relationship to come up with some evidence for this third factor – otherwise the hypothesis becomes undisprovable, and thus non-scientific.

        (Note, given the quality of your other arguments here, I had better explicitly note that a correlation doesn’t imply causation. Even if two things are correlated, the correlation could be caused by a third factor. It’s only a lack of correlation that implies a lack of causation, the connection is asymmetric).

        • Neverfox

          Hmm, so you assert that as long as rape disappears, women and men wouldn’t fear muggers, murderers, etc. I find this surprising, what’s your basis for the assertion?

          That is not my assertion. I had better explicitly note that qua means “in the character or capacity of.”

          So if rape can have this effect on women, despite no single rapist intending it, why shouldn’t muggings and murder have this effect on men, despite that men don’t target other men because they happen to be men?

          Charles never said that rapist don’t target women because they happen to be women. While not addressed in the essay, he later says, “rapists are motivated in part by the desire to intimidate and control women, not just by some uncontrollable lust or the lack of consensual sexual “outlets.”” You’re confusing Charles’ qualification that rapists wouldn’t necessarily have to intended the macro effect for that macro effect to arise, which is both an entirely different claim from one that claims they don’t target women because they are women and not even a claim that they never, in fact, intend a macro effect. That the rate of violent crime may correlate with being male doesn’t mean the cause is gender-induced violence. In fact, I think there are good reasons to think that muggings, murders &c. are not done to more men because muggers and murderers are consciously trying to intimidate men qua men, and there are good reasons to think the opposite is the case with rape.

          I am pretty confident that patriarchy is declining…

          I should hope so! But I wasn’t trying to deny any (mostly legal) advances that (mostly Western, white, cissexual) women have, in fact, achieved. My feeling is that we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we no longer need feminism or that the kinds of effects that Charles describes are very much at play in our current society.

          Ah, yes it does. A lack of correlation does indeed imply a lack of causation.

          There’s the part where you say it…

          It doesn’t definitely disprove it, there’s always the possiblity of a third factor blocking the effects…

          …and there’s the part where you take it back. ‘Imply’ just means “to involve as a necessary circumstance.”

          it does push the burden of proof back on the claimant of a relationship to come up with some evidence for this third factor – otherwise the hypothesis becomes undisprovable, and thus non-scientific.

          Well, I never made the claim that the “strength” of patriarchy would correlate with rape statistics (whatever that even means), nor did Charles. What Charles claimed was that rapes “end up reinforcing a macro­scale pattern of male dominance over women, and the cultural and institutional superstructure of patriarchy” and he describes a mechanism of action by which this is plausible. It’s a claim about what ends this type of violence serves and how it’s effective in serving them.

          • TracyW

            Neverfox: So what did you mean, when you said “Women qua women and men qua men”? I assumed from context that you were disagreeing with me in some way, but now I can’t figure out how.

            “Charles never said that rapist don’t target women because they happen to be women.”

            And I never said that he did. I don’t know why you keep focusing on whether violence directed at men is intended to intimidate men overall or not, what I was responding to was Johnson’s argument about the effects of rape, and speculating it’s violence generally (not just rape) that keeps people (both men and women) in a state of fear. I referred to men because they’re less at risk of rape, but still often take precautions against violence. Quite pedantic of me, but hey, that’s the way my brain works.

            “My feeling is that we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we no longer need feminism or that the kinds of effects that Charles describes are very much at play in our current society.”

            I agree with you on the first clause, though I think we can use stronger language than “feeling”. There are still sexist men out there, there are women who are abused and beaten, there are many societies that are straight-out sexist, you yourself confined your statement about gains to “mostly Western, white cissexual women”. (Though I give you , MTF, part-Maori, mayor and then Member of Parliament, and as it happens, a cousin of mine). Feminism is needed.

            On the second clause, this depends on what sort of effects that Charles is describing that you are referring to. If it’s the general ones about spontaneous orders I agree with you, if it’s the specific claim that rape causes patriarchy, then I’m a lot more doubtful, for the reasons I have given earlier.

            ” ‘Imply’ just means “to involve as a necessary circumstance.”

            Ah, different definitions of words. I’ve been looking it up, and some definitions give “imply” as meaing “to involve by logical necessity” and others “to suggest or involve as a necessary consequence” (see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imply). I was thinking of it more in the “suggest” than the “necessity” sense. My apologies for picking a term with the wrong meaning. I will correct my earlier sentence to:
            “A lack of correlation does indeed strongly suggest a lack of causation.” Thank you for your feedback here.

            I agree that neither you nor Charles made a claim that the “strength of patriarchy would correlate with rape statistics”, and I never said you did make such a claim. What I was responding to was Charles’ claim, which you quoted, because I see patriarchy declining, without any indication that fear of rape is also declining. The mechanism of action by which this happens may be plausible, but when I look at reality, I don’t see it playing out, as I said I see patriarchy declining, even though women still generally fear rape.

  • RickDiMare

    For more than three decades I’ve been advocating that a natural person man or woman has a property right in his/her mind/body/labor/energy/actions that can be protected and enforced by the IRS and state revenue collectors under the Constitution’s two Direct Tax Clauses, and that the creation of two classes of taxation was the direct (though discreet) result of Jefferson’s attempt to make U.S. law reflect Lockean ideals.

    However, for someone hoping to claim such a property right, this means that one’s mind and body (and the labor, usually represented by wages, that proceeds from the mind and body) must avoid the legal label “income” (because taxes on income are Constitutional INdirect taxes).

    Johnson’s article helped me understand more clearly why the U.S. legal system refuses to acknowledge that a woman’s labor/energy (whether or not represented by money) may be equal to a man’s.