And, of course, violence against women is endemic. Haidt reports that he “dined with men whose wives silently served us and then retreated to the kitchen.” What does he suppose would have happened if one day one of those women refused to serve, or even, after serving, sat down at the table to join the discussion?
What would happen in a western country if someone say refused to pay their taxes? My point is that the implicit threat of violence underlies all societies so, yes, you can make any society look bad by selectively pointing this out.
Or to take an even more poignant example, what will happen if you refuse to be humble and obedient when you get pulled over by a cop? Historically, in many places and times, this example would have had similarly great emotional power as those employed by the author of the original post.
(In fact, I find it fascinating that present-day Americans would see it as a creepy totalitarian idea if you proposed that cops should be authorized to stop and detain pedestrians for random paper checks, even though the same thing is considered a normal and unremarkable fact of life for drivers. This example demonstrates especially clearly how random and incoherent human intuitions are when it comes to feelings of outrage at a perceived lack of freedom or equality.)
The number of instances that a typical American will need to be ‘humble and obedient’ - such as while getting pulled over by a cop, are possibly far fewer than the number of instances a woman in a traditional society such as the one described by Haidt is required to do so.
Isn’t randomly stopping vehicles a result of some cost-benefit analysis, e.g. if cops didn’t stop drivers, more people would drive without a driver’s license, while drunk, with a faulty vehicle, etc? Given that cars are fairly dangerous things (cause of many deaths), it makes sense to have stricter control than of pedestrians.
(In fact, I find it fascinating that present-day Americans would see it as a creepy totalitarian idea if you proposed that cops should be authorized to stop and detain pedestrians for random paper checks, even though the same thing is considered a normal and unremarkable fact of life for drivers. This example demonstrates especially clearly how random and incoherent human intuitions are when it comes to feelings of outrage at a perceived lack of freedom or equality.)
Well… driving a car is much more dangerous (especially for others) than walking, so requiring a licence to do the former but no special requisite to do the latter doesn’t seem that arbitrary to me.
I think you are seriously underestimating how negative US sentiment toward random vehicle stops is. This is quite distinct from being stopped for a traffic violation.
Well, yes, but that’s basically a rationalization for the glaring inconsistency, which in fact exists as a sheer historical accident. Americans would be bothered by explicitly random traffic stops. But in reality, cops have the de facto authority to pull over whomever they want, and you have no right to defy them even if they decide to do it purely on a whim.
Note that it’s irrelevant for my point that you can get tickets and charges suppressed later if you somehow manage to convince the judge that you were pulled over without reasonable suspicion. I’m focusing purely on the interaction between you and the cop on the spot.
The issue I have in this case is not specifically the threat of violence—it’s the unequal treatment of women. Of course, women are more vulnerable to violence as well, so the two are not entirely disconnected.
Also, of course, it’s not really possible (yet?) to have a functioning society in which people don’t pay their taxes. It is perfectly possible to have a functioning society in which women are more than mere servants.
What would happen in a western country if someone say refused to pay their taxes?
If the western country is Italy, most likely nothing. (There are regions where the majority of the population evade the television licence, for example.) :-(
What would happen in a western country if someone say refused to pay their taxes? My point is that the implicit threat of violence underlies all societies so, yes, you can make any society look bad by selectively pointing this out.
Or to take an even more poignant example, what will happen if you refuse to be humble and obedient when you get pulled over by a cop? Historically, in many places and times, this example would have had similarly great emotional power as those employed by the author of the original post.
(In fact, I find it fascinating that present-day Americans would see it as a creepy totalitarian idea if you proposed that cops should be authorized to stop and detain pedestrians for random paper checks, even though the same thing is considered a normal and unremarkable fact of life for drivers. This example demonstrates especially clearly how random and incoherent human intuitions are when it comes to feelings of outrage at a perceived lack of freedom or equality.)
The number of instances that a typical American will need to be ‘humble and obedient’ - such as while getting pulled over by a cop, are possibly far fewer than the number of instances a woman in a traditional society such as the one described by Haidt is required to do so.
Possibly by an order of magnitude.
AN order of magnitude? Several. I get pulled over every few years...
Isn’t randomly stopping vehicles a result of some cost-benefit analysis, e.g. if cops didn’t stop drivers, more people would drive without a driver’s license, while drunk, with a faulty vehicle, etc? Given that cars are fairly dangerous things (cause of many deaths), it makes sense to have stricter control than of pedestrians.
Well… driving a car is much more dangerous (especially for others) than walking, so requiring a licence to do the former but no special requisite to do the latter doesn’t seem that arbitrary to me.
In the US, traffic stops are quite often not at all about driving, but about drugs. See, for instance, Jay Z’s “99 Problems”
I think you are seriously underestimating how negative US sentiment toward random vehicle stops is. This is quite distinct from being stopped for a traffic violation.
Well, yes, but that’s basically a rationalization for the glaring inconsistency, which in fact exists as a sheer historical accident. Americans would be bothered by explicitly random traffic stops. But in reality, cops have the de facto authority to pull over whomever they want, and you have no right to defy them even if they decide to do it purely on a whim.
Note that it’s irrelevant for my point that you can get tickets and charges suppressed later if you somehow manage to convince the judge that you were pulled over without reasonable suspicion. I’m focusing purely on the interaction between you and the cop on the spot.
The issue I have in this case is not specifically the threat of violence—it’s the unequal treatment of women. Of course, women are more vulnerable to violence as well, so the two are not entirely disconnected.
Also, of course, it’s not really possible (yet?) to have a functioning society in which people don’t pay their taxes. It is perfectly possible to have a functioning society in which women are more than mere servants.
Taxes aren’t equal either for example it seems that many politically connected people pay less taxes despite having a higher income then me.
Also, we’re you claiming in another thread that an analogous complaint about Islam was the fundamental attribution error?
That certainly sounds like a problem to me!
Can you make this clearer? I have no idea what comparison you are drawing.
If the western country is Italy, most likely nothing. (There are regions where the majority of the population evade the television licence, for example.) :-(