J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 03:57:48 pm

Those "intelligent far sighted single women" of whom you speak - who don't seem to have been "intelligent" enough or "far sighted" enough to have avoided getting themselves enciente in the first place - will seek out the safest and least painful ways of dumping the contents of their uteri if abortion suits them.

I hope you don't mind be breaking into this dreary discussion with another behavioral genetics JustSo story.

I remember reading a variety of arguments about how it was that human females do not visibly go into heat but have hidden fertile periods.

The arguments were all variations on the same old theme. Women (or prehuman-ancestor women) could have sex with a variety of men for material gain, and still carefully pick the best genes to actually get pregnant by. There were lots of variations on that theme, but that was the central point of all of them.

But then a female behavioral genetics speculator got involved, after all the others had been male. She asked the question, why was it that usually women couldn't themselves tell when they were fertile. After all, it does no good toward picking just the right man for the fertile time, when she doesn't know the right time herself.

And her conclusion was that in the old days, this kept women from reliably using the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy. She could have sex thinking she wouldn't get pregnant, and then after awhile she'd get pregnant after all.

And the reason for this was that evolution designed women to maximise their number of surviving grandchildren, and not to be happy. Women, given the chance, would have the number of children they preferred and then quit. They would live lives of satisfaction and fulfillment, occasionally resting and recuperating. But in reality, women would have more children than they would want to, and would utterly wear themselves out taking care of their children, working much harder than they would prefer if they had the choice. They would go right on having children until they were so busy taking care of children that they had no time for sex and had to quit getting pregnant.

I find this argument more convincing than the others, although as you point out women have had ways to do abortion for longer than we've had history and have presumably done infanticide when it was really needed for even longer.

And of course all the stories depend for their survival on the delight they produce since they are utterly without data.

sam on May 04, 2011, 05:26:10 pm
The current departure from the time tested verities seems to be producing massive failure to reproduce and near fifty percent fatherlessness, which is pretty much what it produced when tried by previous civilizations.

It is also dysgenic, since intelligent far sighted single women get pregnant and abort, and stupid short sighted single women get pregnant, and have kids.

The voluntary termination of pregnancy - by one practice or another - has been undertaken by human beings at least since the beginning of recorded history.

In patriarchal periods, the vast majority of women could, and did, get married, and stay married.  Thus intelligent women were less apt to abort.  It was the less intelligent women, with less foresight and self control, that became “lewd women”, who could rarely get married, and so generally aborted their offspring.  (“Lewd woman” is the pre victorian term for fallen women, “Fallen woman” was in its time a politically correct euphemism, a first step towards normalizing female lack of virginity)  Thus patriarchy is eugenic, our current system dysgenic.

Whether it's "dysgenic" or not is a matter for argument.

It is question of fact.  Under our current system, intelligent women are markedly less likely to reproduce.  Just look around you!  Under the patriarchal system, stupid women were markedly less likely to reproduce.

In conditions of material abundance - courtesy of our industrial civilization - "stupid short sighted single women" can get away with baking babies without ample familial support

The pattern we see indicates that whether or not paternal investment remains critical, we are still acting as if paternal investment was critical.  Without paternal investment, fewer children.   It is a tough row to hoe, and tougher for the kids.

Those "intelligent far sighted single women" of whom you speak - who don't seem to have been "intelligent" enough or "far sighted" enough to have avoided getting themselves enciente in the first place

Every woman thinks she is not going to get pregnant and does not need to take the pill because she is going to make the guy wear condoms, but they seldom do if the guy does not want the condom.  It is like dieting.  You think you are going to diet, but you don't.  You think you are following a diet, but you are not.  And women think they make men wear condoms but they don't.

If a woman has sex with lots of different people, then when someone is considering marrying her, he faces the problem that she will probably feel dissatisfied, since the best male who is willing to bang her is apt to be considerably more attractive than the best male willing to stick around, hence he will be reluctant to expose his assets to her potential lawyers, reluctant to have children with her, and so forth.

Er, WTF? You might be susceptible to such insecurities, sam, but I'm not.  Neither are a helluva lot of other men who marry widows and divorcees.  

Projecting your neuroses on other folks, sam?

The massive increase in fatherlessness and massive decrease in marriage indicates men are refusing to get married, that males are in large part on strike.  It is rational for a man to marry a virgin, and a lot more rational when divorce laws favor women.  Thus a virgin shortage contributes to a husband and father shortage.


But how the hell do "divorce laws" necessarily or preponderantly or even to any significant extent diminish the incentive to engage in the marriage contract among modern American males?

A man gets married to have children and permanent reliable sex, not to get divorced and pay alimony.  Marriage started plunging when women were no longer obligated to sleep with their husbands, but men remained bound to support their wives - one of the ever expanding list of things that theoretically pro-sex feminists have redefined as rape.

Before the 1830s, the rules were, approximately, that a woman could not in practice divorce a man, an man could only divorce a women for infidelity or lack of virginity, and a divorced women could not, in practice, remarry.  Such a system gives men much more favorable incentives to get married.  One might object that they gave women far less favorable incentives to get married, but in practice, for a woman, the alternative to getting married was to either go without sex, or be a lewd women, both roles being similarly unpopular, since lewd women got no support, protection, or companionship once they reached a certain age.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 08:15:47 pm by sam »

Rorschach on May 04, 2011, 05:53:23 pm
I'm not very religious, but Jesus did say that we should stone women who get divorced, in order to discourage the practice.

sam on May 04, 2011, 06:37:48 pm
I'm not very religious, but Jesus did say that we should stone women who get divorced, in order to discourage the practice.

You ignorance is so staggering and total, that you must surely have gone to an elite university.

quadibloc on May 04, 2011, 06:59:25 pm
I'm not very religious, but Jesus did say that we should stone women who get divorced, in order to discourage the practice.
The New Testament has only one reference combining Jesus and stoning. A woman was about to be stoned to death for being caught in flagrante committing adultery, and Jesus confronted the crowd, causing them to abandon their attempt to stone her to death as he confronted them with their own hypocrisy.

However, it was not unequivocal that the Mosaic law commanding women to be stoned to death for adultery was overturned by Jesus' command - the law might be tempered with mercy, but it was not condemned or rejected itself.

As for divorce, Jesus' command made it no longer permissible for a man to divorce a woman, except for adultery. Since divorce can't happen unless it is authorized, there is no such thing as a penalty for an "illegal divorce" - a divorce is something the law gives you, not something you do yourself. And in this case, the law means Jewish (or Christian) religious law - the issue of civil divorces contrary to religious law is not raised.

Rorschach on May 04, 2011, 07:34:04 pm
I'm not very religious, but Jesus did say that we should stone women who get divorced, in order to discourage the practice.

You ignorance is so staggering and total, that you must surely have gone to an elite university.
Luke 18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Penalty for adultery = getting stoned. Piss off.

sam on May 04, 2011, 08:48:41 pm
I'm not very religious, but Jesus did say that we should stone women who get divorced, in order to discourage the practice.
The New Testament has only one reference combining Jesus and stoning. A woman was about to be stoned to death for being caught in flagrante committing adultery, and Jesus confronted the crowd

Rorscharch is probably mangling together Jesus' prohibition of divorce, with Jesus stopping the stoning.  As I said, sounds like an elite education.

Jesus' position on divorce was that a man could only divorce a woman for fornication, and a woman could not divorce a man for any reason whatsoever.  A divorced woman was not to be stoned, but should never be permitted to remarry.  A divorced man could, however, remarry.

This was, approximately, British law and custom, at least for the middle classes, in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century.

These contract terms balanced supply and demand at that time.  It is unclear whether those terms would balance supply and demand at the present time, but present day terms grossly and massively fail to balance supply and demand.

GlennWatson on May 04, 2011, 08:53:45 pm
I'm not very religious, but Jesus did say that we should stone women who get divorced, in order to discourage the practice.

Where did he say that?

Tucci78 on May 04, 2011, 11:41:00 pm
Luke 18 "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

Any citation drawn from the Gospel of St. Luke automatically strains my credence.  

He was, after all, the physician among the evangelists, certainly with a physician's handwriting.  

Hell, not even us doctors can be sure about what our colleagues have written, and Luke was working in Greek.  
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 11:45:37 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

J Thomas on May 05, 2011, 10:57:33 am

Might as well argue that because our ancestors who lived in the ancient Roman Empire were genetically inclined to douse their food with fermented fish sauce - garum - we ought to be doing the same.

Why not?

I've never tasted authentic garum, but after discussion with some old-rome enthusiasts I found that modern asian fish sauces are supposed to taste similar, but much thinner and runnier. I tried some and liked the 3 versions I tried. Lots of people like it, and it's available wherever there are asian food stores, or you can get it from the internet.

While your point is good -- we don't have to follow traditions just because they worked for other people -- still this particular tradition is worth a try.

J Thomas on May 05, 2011, 11:38:11 am

Before the 1830s, the rules were, approximately, that a woman could not in practice divorce a man, an man could only divorce a women for infidelity or lack of virginity, and a divorced women could not, in practice, remarry.  Such a system gives men much more favorable incentives to get married.  One might object that they gave women far less favorable incentives to get married, but in practice, for a woman, the alternative to getting married was to either go without sex, or be a lewd women, both roles being similarly unpopular, since lewd women got no support, protection, or companionship once they reached a certain age.

I can kind of sympathise with this. I feel like there's something wrong with a society that doesn't perpetuate itself. But consider the AnCap side of it. If nobody feels like having children, that's everybody's free individual choice. And if they all die out, that's just a consequence of their choices. They don't owe it to anybody to produce another generation, unless they want to. And it's wrong to create a society that limits their choices, to make them do things that you think are good for society, when they don't want to.

Anyway, your idea became utterly impractical when women got the vote. Once they were the majority of voters, it was only to be expected that they would get full civil rights. The right to own property and administer it themselves if they chose. Full legal rights in court. Right-to-work. So you can't continue to force them into marriage-with-children, prostitution, or spinsterhood. Over time they increasingly get to make their own choices, and you can't stop them -- unless enough women agree with you to tip the vote.

And if they don't want to do what you think they ought to? Then they do what they want and not what you want.

So, where do we go from there?

quadibloc on May 05, 2011, 03:31:30 pm
I've never tasted authentic garum,
Neither have I, but I have used Worcestershire sauce.

Fermented fish sauce, at least made from anchovies, is not alien to current Western culture.

sam on May 05, 2011, 04:29:31 pm
Before the 1830s, the rules were, approximately, that a woman could not in practice divorce a man, an man could only divorce a woman for infidelity or lack of virginity, and a divorced woman could not, in practice, remarry.  Such a system gives men much more favorable incentives to get married.  One might object that they gave women far less favorable incentives to get married, but in practice, for a woman, the alternative to getting married was to either go without sex, or be a lewd woman, both roles being similarly unpopular, since lewd women got no support, protection, or companionship once they reached a certain age.

I can kind of sympathise with this. I feel like there's something wrong with a society that doesn't perpetuate itself. But consider the AnCap side of it. If nobody feels like having children, that's everybody's free individual choice.

If no one feels like having children because they cannot trust the other party to follow a contract, and there is no contract enforcement, that is not everybody's free individual choice.  My expectation is that there would be contract enforcement, that this enforcement would be disproportionately done by males, in particular fathers (patriarchs) and that the contracts would seldom meet progressive approval, and the enforcement of contracts would seldom be done in a manner that meets progressive approval - that the contracts would privilege males over females because fathers (patriarchs) could not reliably ensure that their daughters have children and someone else supports their grandchildren by their daughters with a more equitable contract - that the 1830s contract better matches supply and demand for long term relationships within which to produce children.

Anyway, your idea became utterly impractical when women got the vote.

This is backwards.  The state was dismantling patriarchy, then gave women the vote - much as today's state first applied affirmative action in favor of Hispanics, then started importing huge numbers of Hispanic voters.

The benefit of anarcho capitalism, is that there are no votes.

The recent financial crisis was, in America, primarily a crisis of affirmative action.  Most of the money that was pissed away, was pissed away in million dollar loans to Mexicans with no job, no English, and no credit record.  The banks that pissed the most money away, notably Fannie, Freddy, Countrywide and Washington Mutual, were lead by political ideologues committed to political correctness in general and affirmative action in particular.  It is often pointed out that CRA loans were a small proportion of all loans, but the biggest offending banks signed agreements with the government to apply CRA to all their loans, so in fact almost all loans were CRA loans.  The CRA just grew, the banks acting like Soviet collectives voting to overfulfill their quotas with real or faked enthusiasm.

The pattern is that with more Mexican voters, affirmative action will become more extreme, not less extreme, just as we continue to see affirmative action in favor of women in university becoming ever more extreme, despite the fact that women are already over-represented in university.

Democracy is a suicide pact, because it gives government an incentive to buy votes, and an incentive to manipulate the electorate in various ways to make vote buying more effective.

This is, in fact, the traditional argument against democracy:  Democracy just does not work, leads to catastrophe when the voters try to vote themselves rich, so the only workable systems are anarchy, monarchy, or systems like feudalism that are something of a mixture of both.  That is what everyone used to believe, used to pretty much take for granted, and the mainstream debate was how much anarchy and how much republic you should have in your monarchy.  Should you have monarchy straight (divine right monarchy), or with a substantial dose of one or both of the others?

The longevity of the American Republic silenced the arguments against democracy for a time, but now that the Republic is coming to its end, the old arguments have returned.

J Thomas on May 05, 2011, 06:10:00 pm

This is, in fact, the traditional argument against democracy:  Democracy just does not work, leads to catastrophe when the voters try to vote themselves rich, so the only workable systems are anarchy, monarchy, or systems like feudalism that are something of a mixture of both.  That is what everyone used to believe, used to pretty much take for granted, and the mainstream debate was how much anarchy and how much republic you should have in your monarchy.  Should you have monarchy straight (divine right monarchy), or with a substantial dose of one or both of the others?

The longevity of the American Republic silenced the arguments against democracy for a time, but now that the Republic is coming to its end, the old arguments have returned.

Thank you, Sam. It's interesting to see you make this sort of argument. Kind of like watching a surviving dinosaur walking around doing its thing.

I often feel that I learn something from watching you. I am convinced that you are mostly wrong about most things, and I hope you will forgive me for not showing you where you make your mistakes. You have given no indication whatsoever of wanting to learn anything from anybody, certainly not from me, so I don't feel an obligation to repay the learning opportunities you have given me.

GlennWatson on May 05, 2011, 06:26:28 pm
Thank you, Sam. It's interesting to see you make this sort of argument. Kind of like watching a surviving dinosaur walking around doing its thing.  I often feel that I learn something from watching you. I am convinced that you are mostly wrong about most things, and I hope you will forgive me for not showing you where you make your mistakes. You have given no indication whatsoever of wanting to learn anything from anybody, certainly not from me, so I don't feel an obligation to repay the learning opportunities you have given me.

That either the nicest insult I have ever seen or the meanest complement.