Political Hypocrisy - Is it real?

The section on FGM is quite short. They cite a couple of anecdotal books to support that women are the ones doing the procedures (with "a dubious or wrong justifications for it"), that mothers and fathers have a say in the matter, and 1 study in which they surveyed 300 polygamous Sudanese men (tiny sample size with more confounds than I can count, this is an inherent problem with these types of studies).

"Thus, subincision and infibulation do not seem conducive to male sexual pleasure. They might of course help ensure wifely fidelity by impairing the wife’s capacity to enjoy extramarital sex. Yet, men’s preference for sexually intact women speaks against the male control theory."

I don't think this conclusion is warranted from the evidence provided. Sexual pleasure is not the only determinant of male's attitude towards FGM, this is a red herring. The fact that a man would want to have sex with a more proceptive woman does not mean he wouldn't want a loyal FGM'd wife at home while he's out gathering scarce resources. Thus the society has a high prevalence of FGM to attract a desirable mate (it would fit your own resource explanation for the practice).

The practice also correlates with prevalence of violence against women, rape, degree of inequality between sexes, women's educational attainment, etc in those societies. And if you couple that with the research on reproductive control and intersex competition in sexually dimorphic species (like us), I don't think a survey on sexual preference of 300 Sudanese men is enough to validate toleration and justification of said practice.

The fact that women are the ones in control of the practice could just as well mean that they're trying to get the best outcome out of a very shitty hand dealt. Sort of like Southerners thinking slaves were jolly and content when they would sing during their labor.

"Sure enough, most observers conclude that the practices are most zealously defended by women (e.g., Boddy, 1989, 1998). Men seem generally indifferent (consistent with Greer’s impression that the men often do not even know). Some fathers object to having their daughters subincised or infibulated, but the men’s objections are overruled by the women in the family, who insist on having the operations performed (Lightfoot-Klein, 1989). Hicks
(1996) also reported several findings indicating that men argued for less severe surgical prac- tices but were thwarted by the women’s deter- mined support for the practices."

I'm on my phone, so I can't look up the cited studies, but you're saying they're all anecdotal? Comparing women to slaves is bizarre, but I come across your sentiment often. Men can willingly go to war. Men can willing work in coal mines. Men can willing fight in a cage, lynch black people, jump out of planes without parachutes. Men can do all kinds of self destructive, risky, or immoral things because they think it is best for their life or their community and yet there is no acceptable social theory that men do all this stuff because they are shackled by the desires of women (even though that is almost certainly what's going on). Male sacrifice is viewed as noble and daring.

Yet when women decide that cutting of their clits is for the better good, we literally are willing to throw out peer-reviewed research in order to find some way to blame men. It's bizarre, no? As if women have no thoughts or ideas or wants. As if women can't just, on their own, decide to do weird shit.

I did not call any culture retarded. I'm all for scholarship and explanation of peculiar cultural phenomena. I'm not arguing whether it serves a perceived function in social and reproductive dynamics (I'd bet that human sacrifice also served a perceived societal purpose at one time or another). I'm just looking for a bit of consistency on what should a culture strive for when it comes to gender equality, human rights, body autonomy, etc. Don't you think there are better mechanisms to increase female selectivity? Seems like you and the cited feminist Germaine Greer are using a more nuanced version of "different culture, hard to judge" to rationalize why this practice should be justified and left alone for culture X, while much milder versions of female reproductive control are condemned for culture Y.

The only reason I'm such a hardcore relativist is because I believe that humans are animals and that cultures are as governed by evolution as biology.

Are there better ways to manage female selectiveness? In other contexts, yes. There are also better ways to hunt animals than to chase them down, but cheetah use what they have. I would love to see these cultures adopted our ways in the same way I would love to see polar bears in South America. Realistically, though, they would wreak havok then wither and die in a different environment that isn't hospitable to them.

It's kind of like our failed attempt to bring democracy to Iraq. Isn't there a better way to govern people than a brutal dictator? Yeah, probably. On the other hand, maybe not in every situation. Evolution is a brilliant process. A modern homo sapien, as great as we are, wouldn't survive a week in the environment of our other homo ancestors. It isn't about one thing being better than another, it's about being adapted to one's environment.

It's less "different culture, hard to judge" and more "different sport, I don't know the rules." and you're asking me to condemn goaltending. It's right in some sports and wrong in others.
 
Last edited:
The section on FGM is quite short. They cite a couple of anecdotal books to support that women are the ones doing the procedures (with "a dubious or wrong justifications for it"), that mothers and fathers have a say in the matter, and 1 study in which they surveyed 300 polygamous Sudanese men (tiny sample size with more confounds than I can count, this is an inherent problem with these types of studies).
I don't want to muddy your exchange with Leagon too much since you guys are having a decent, interesting exchange but I'd like to point out that 300 is not a tiny sample size. Using a sample size calculator I found online I calculated a rough estimate of a sample size for a very rough estimate of the entire Sudanese male population(20 million since Sudan's population is ~40 million). I did so at a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level(fairly standard MOE and CI) and the recommended sample size was 385. So not quite at the mark but not that far off.

That doesn't mean there aren't other problems with the sample to be fair but I just wanted to point out what seems to me a common misconception about sample sizes. In your case its not necessarily baseless, the actual sample seems to be a little under the ideal, but I've seen some pretty ridiculous comments on this forum like someone suggesting that a sample size of 2000 is too small. If you(royal you, not you Scorp) don't buy a study with a sample size in the thousands you just don't believe in statistics.
 
Yet when women decide that cutting of their clits is for the better good, we literally are willing to throw out peer-reviewed research in order to find some way to blame men. It's bizarre, no? As if women have no thoughts or ideas or wants. As if women can't just, on their own, decide to do weird shit.


This is my main gripe with your argument. Women aren’t deciding to cut off their own clits, they’re deciding to cut off other women’s clits in the name of society. I think the fucked up aspects of this are much the same as your earlier example of forcing American kids to take pills to cure what ails them.

I think both are problematic ways of handling a perceived problem that are normalized within their own cultures. I just don’t think either of these practices, even if they bring actual benefit to the recipients, can be considered empowering. They are both examples of someone who holds power over the recipient forcing their will on the recipient for “their own good”.
 
This is my main gripe with your argument. Women aren’t deciding to cut off their own clits, they’re deciding to cut off other women’s clits in the name of society. I think the fucked up aspects of this are much the same as your earlier example of forcing American kids to take pills to cure what ails them.

I think both are problematic ways of handling a perceived problem that are normalized within their own cultures. I just don’t think either of these practices, even if they bring actual benefit to the recipients, can be considered empowering. They are both examples of someone who holds power over the recipient forcing their will on the recipient for “their own good”.

I think "empowering" is a weird word. It is a parent's job to socialize their kids and prepare them for their environment. Sometimes that allows for empowerment, but most of the time, I think, the end goal is simply survival.

I don't disagree that feeding kids pills and cutting off their genitals are bad parenting. I wouldn't allow either for my kids. But in both cases, the parents are doing what they genuinely believe to be right and they are doing so within the laws and moral rules of their society.

My argument is simply that I feel educated enough on American society to say that there are better ways to help kids adapt to life than feeding them pills. I do not feel educated enough on any society that practices fgm to know the purpose of the practice at all, much less whether there are better ways to achieve the same end.
 
"Sure enough, most observers conclude that the practices are most zealously defended by women (e.g., Boddy, 1989, 1998). Men seem generally indifferent (consistent with Greer’s impression that the men often do not even know). Some fathers object to having their daughters subincised or infibulated, but the men’s objections are overruled by the women in the family, who insist on having the operations performed (Lightfoot-Klein, 1989). Hicks
(1996) also reported several findings indicating that men argued for less severe surgical prac- tices but were thwarted by the women’s deter- mined support for the practices."

I'm on my phone, so I can't look up the cited studies, but you're saying they're all anecdotal? Comparing women to slaves is bizarre, but I come across your sentiment often. Men can willingly go to war. Men can willing work in coal mines. Men can willing fight in a cage, lynch black people, jump out of planes without parachutes. Men can do all kinds of self destructive, risky, or immoral things because they think it is best for their life or their community and yet there is no acceptable social theory that men do all this stuff because they are shackled by the desires of women (even though that is almost certainly what's going on). Male sacrifice is viewed as noble and daring.

Yet when women decide that cutting of their clits is for the better good, we literally are willing to throw out peer-reviewed research in order to find some way to blame men. It's bizarre, no? As if women have no thoughts or ideas or wants. As if women can't just, on their own, decide to do weird shit.



The only reason I'm such a hardcore relativist is because I believe that humans are animals and that cultures are as governed by evolution as biology.

Are there better ways to manage female selectiveness? In other contexts, yes. There are also better ways to hunt animals than to chase them down, but cheetah use what they have. I would love to see these cultures adopted our ways in the same way I would love to see polar bears in South America. Realistically, though, they would wreak havok then wither and die in a different environment that isn't hospitable to them.

It's kind of like our failed attempt to bring democracy to Iraq. Isn't there a better way to govern people than a brutal dictator? Yeah, probably. On the other hand, maybe not in every situation. Evolution is a brilliant process. A modern homo sapien, as great as we are, wouldn't survive a week in the environment of our other homo ancestors. It isn't about one thing being better than another, it's about being adapted to one's environment.

It's less "different culture, hard to judge" and more "different sport, I don't know the rules." and you're asking me to condemn goaltending. It's right in some sports and wrong in others.

Lightfoot Klein, Boddy, Hicks are books and travelogues. Information people saw through their lenses, and in the Boddy case it's interpreted through a feminist one (I suspect they all are). The problem with this type of research, is that a Western woman, a Chinese man, or a Samoan genderqueer are going to come in with vastly different perspectives, ask different question and have different interpretations of inherently slippery and subjective "results". And all of them would have some grain of truth of a much larger picture.

The only reference to a peer reviewed study is Shandall with 300 Sudanese polygamous men and who they rather have sex with.

@Kafir-kun 300 men in Sudan, who have multiple wives, already a giant confound (high social status, wealth, respect, etc). How many Sudanese can afford to be polygamous? The practice is prevalent in more places than Sudan.

Comparing these women to slaves is not bizarre, I'm drawing a parallel on a justification of an atrocity based on perceived environmental necessity, and also on how social coping cues can be interpreted by different observers.

It's not about blaming men or women, it's about granting women full agency instead of "leaving be" a culture that only grants them agency under the context of when, how, and why should they mutilate their genitals. The latter being the grain of valid information that those cited books seem to have documented.

I thought we're playing the same sport - liberation of historically oppressed women, no?

I did some research and there's a neat comprehensive project: Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality. Nigeria is on the list with FGM prevalence and attitudes. p. 771:

"In the 21 states in Nigeria (out of 30 states) where FGM is carried out, it is believed that an uncircumcised woman is usually promiscuous."

"Basically, FGM can be traced to a desire of the society to control female sexuality. Behind the various superstitions that perpetuate FGM, what seems to have sustained the practice is that men will not marry uncircumcised women, because they are believed to be unclean and promiscuous."

And oddly enough, we have "polar bears in South America", p. 772:

Region: Borno
"Females are not circumcised but may participate in other traditional rituals."

Regions: Imo, Enugu, and Anambra.
Ethnic Group: Ibo
"Previously, in certain areas, like Nsukka, female circumcision was practiced, but generally no longer"

Source: https://kinseyinstitute.org/pdf/ccies-nigeria.pdf

Evolution is indeed brilliant, much more brilliant than you're implying. We are very malleable, especially during certain periods of development. Do you not think undergoing the extremely traumatic FGM affects the psychology and attitudes of the handful of people the authors interacted with? Another giant confound.

There's a certain irony in Greer criticizing Western objections to FGM as ethnocentric, yet defending and justifying the practice that is the definition of extreme ethnocentrism.

Also, just as an aside, male aggression and risky behavior don't need another "social theory shackled by women", as it is continually understood through behavioral, molecular, biochemical, hormonal, neuronal and a myriad of other valid testable theories, that are all connected with being "shackled" by women (aka mating). These, in contrast to FGM, are universal across our species and beyond, you might call them inherited.
 
Political hypocrisy is real but your premise of being not 100% in-line with your party and your military benefit situation are not examples of hypocrisy. One is you being independently minded and aligning with the party you agree most with, the other is you being repaid by society for your service.

Political hypocrisy is simple- if x does it it’s great, if y does it it’s terrible. If my team does it there’s context, if your team does it there’s no context.
 
I wanted to discuss an issue that was brought up in the Kim/Trump thread. That of Political and Ideological hypocrisy.

In it I stated that I have certain stances that would go against the political ideologies of the belief system of my Political Party. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Also after 17 years in the military I left early instead of retiring out at 20 and now have VA Benefits in the form of Disability and health care due to my Combat Tours. Yet I am a conservative and hate all things state run welfare. Am I a hypocrite?

These questions weigh heavily on me and I find there is no clear cut answer.

A political prisoner doesn't endorse his confinement simply by taking his rations.

You accepting the veterans benefits that were mutually agreed-upon at the time of your contract signing is in no way an endorsement of the overall state or government.
 
The only reference to a peer reviewed study is Shandall with 300 Sudanese polygamous men and who they rather have sex with.

@Kafir-kun 300 men in Sudan, who have multiple wives, already a giant confound (high social status, wealth, respect, etc). How many Sudanese can afford to be polygamous? The practice is prevalent in more places than Sudan.
Well of course one study is not a silver bullet but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. 300 is a good sample size as I said earlier and I don't see how the men being polygamous is a confounding variable. If they are polygamous it means they are likely high status males so ascertaining their preferences usually approximates the societal ideal, at least from the male perspective.

Of course if its a study of Sudanese men then on some level there are limitations generalizing it beyond that population but that doesn't mean the study doesn't present any insights on the phenomenon more generally. That's how science is done, on samples for which the results are extrapolated for the wider population. You can't expect one study to have a sample that includes people from all nations that practice FGM, that's a ridiculously high standard.

Of course it is just one study so its fair to take it with a grain of salt, like I said studies are rarely silver bullets on their own. But that doesn't mean it lacks value as evidence in the context of this conversation.
 
Well of course one study is not a silver bullet but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. 300 is a good sample size as I said earlier and I don't see how the men being polygamous is a confounding variable. If they are polygamous it means they are likely high status males so ascertaining their preferences usually approximates the societal ideal, at least from the male perspective.

Of course if its a study of Sudanese men then on some level there are limitations generalizing it beyond that population but that doesn't mean the study doesn't present any insights on the phenomenon more generally. That's how science is done, on samples for which the results are extrapolated for the wider population. You can't expect one study to have a sample that includes people from all nations that practice FGM, that's a ridiculously high standard.

Of course it is just one study so its fair to take it with a grain of salt, like I said studies are rarely silver bullets on their own. But that doesn't mean it lacks value as evidence in the context of this conversation.

It's a confounding variable in that the 300 men have the means (and the environment that goes along with the means that shapes their attitudes) to experience both, FGM'd and non FGM'd females. His desire is directly correlated with increased availability of experience. How many Sudanese can afford to be polygamous, and more importantly how many have wives of BOTH types?

EDIT: an analogy, this would be like asking the attitudes towards gay sex in 1000 West Hollywood men, and then extrapolating the results to the wider US population.

This narrows the sample size greatly and destroys any generalizability (as if it wasn't already destroyed by the fact that FGM is practiced across more places than Sudan with vastly different cultures and attitudes).

Even the validity (for what Leagon's paper is using it) of the study is dubious. They're asking sexual intercourse preference and extrapolating it to a greater societal cultural phenomenon. That's not how science is done. At best, this would be a very preliminary (and invalid in what they're claiming to measure) observation in order to start shaping a possible hypothesis.
 
It's a confounding variable in that the 300 men have the means (and the environment that goes along with the means that shapes their attitudes) to experience both, FGM'd and non FGM'd females. His desire is directly correlated with increased availability of experience. How many Sudanese can afford to be polygamous, and more importantly how many have wives of BOTH types?
There's truth to that but if you want to measure societal ideals its likely that they're not confined merely to those that can achieve them.If you want to cite that as a limitation that's fair to an extent but pretending it invalidates the study seems to me taking that argument too far. With that standard many, many surveys and studies based on them aren't valid but that's not how the standards of the relevant fields see them.
This narrows the sample size greatly and destroys any generalizability (as if it wasn't already destroyed by the fact that FGM is practiced across more places than Sudan with vastly different cultures and attitudes).
I don't think it destroys the value for generalization though that doesn't mean there aren't limits to it. For instance, the vast majority of psychological studies are done with Westerners but does that mean we can't extrapolate their findings to people outside the West? Not necessarily, though it does mean we should exercise caution in doing so. Same here IMO
Even the validity (for what Leagon's paper is using it) of the study is dubious. They're asking sexual intercourse preference and extrapolating it to a greater societal cultural phenomenon. That's not how science is done. At best, this would be a very preliminary (and invalid in what they're claiming to measure) observation in order to start shaping a possible hypothesis.
That is how science works though, you study samples and then generalize from the sample to the wider population keeping in mind the limitations in doing so. In this case the sample is studied in an effort to better understand the place of a specific phenomenon within a traditional culture. Sure its fair to consider the cultural specificity of Sudan but wouldn't you say Sudanese culture is more like that of other African countries which practice FGM, like Somalia, than it is like Japan or Western Europe? If so, gleaning insight to the nature of FGM and the culture around it in Sudan can lead to general insights that can be applied to other cultures that practice FGM.
 
There's truth to that but if you want to measure societal ideals its likely that they're not confined merely to those that can achieve them.If you want to cite that as a limitation that's fair to an extent but pretending it invalidates the study seems to me taking that argument too far. With that standard many, many surveys and studies based on them aren't valid but that's not how the standards of the relevant fields see them.

I don't think it destroys the value for generalization though that doesn't mean there aren't limits to it. For instance, the vast majority of psychological studies are done with Westerners but does that mean we can't extrapolate their findings to people outside the West? Not necessarily, though it does mean we should exercise caution in doing so. Same here IMO

That is how science works though, you study samples and then generalize from the sample to the wider population keeping in mind the limitations in doing so. In this case the sample is studied in an effort to better understand the place of a specific phenomenon within a traditional culture. Sure its fair to consider the cultural specificity of Sudan but wouldn't you say Sudanese culture is more like that of other African countries which practice FGM, like Somalia, than it is like Japan or Western Europe? If so, gleaning insight to the nature of FGM and the culture around it in Sudan can lead to general insights that can be applied to other cultures that practice FGM.

They purport to measure men's attitude towards FGM by asking a very select non-generalizable segment of population about their unique (300 welathy people who have the luxury of having 2 types of wives) preference for sex partner (not even marriage, just sex). I gave you 2 massive confounds off the top of my head.

I'm not claiming the study is not valid for anything, I'm claiming it's not valid for the conclusion that FGM is driven primary by women. There's a huge unscientific leap there. If science is done right, this would be a very preliminary survey to start working on a testable hypothesis.

Psychology studies are extrapolated only as far as the prevalence of the phenomenon that is being studied goes. Psychology studies that are worth anything, that is. If the study is on mother's aggression to defend an offspring, we can extrapolate it to our entire species and beyond. If you're studying a unique cultural phenomenon like female genital mutilation, extrapolation from a tiny segment of obviously biased research is not the right approach to study the causes, drivers and effects.

Read the link of science done right that I linked. Look how they approach the issue in just Nigeria. That is science. Not cherry picking little confirmation nuggets and then making grand conclusions about female empowerment.

EDIT: As someone who never fails to point out the hypocrisy of the Christian Right, why would you place value on "ideals" as opposed to behavior?
 
Last edited:
They purport to measure men's attitude towards FGM by asking a very select non-generalizable segment of population about their unique (300 welathy people who have the luxury of having 2 types of wives) preference for sex partner (not even marriage, just sex). I gave you 2 massive confounds off the top of my head.
I don't think the mere fact that they are Sudanese is a massive confound, You yourself cited a study on Nigerians, I wouldn't say the fact that the sample is only Nigerian is a massive confound that destroys its value for generalization for the reasons I articulated earlier.

Them being polygamous is more of a confound but even then if you want to measure attitudes among men selecting a subset of them isn't not necessarily wrong as long as that fact is kept in mind, especially a subset that is in a position to achieve the sexual ideals of their society. The monogamous men likely follow similar cultural preferences as the polygamous do, they're just less equipped to act them out.

For instance, in the West there is going to be some overlap between the ideals of high status males and low status males even if their experience will create some differences and that's because they are subjected to certain common factors in terms of culture and socialization.
I'm not claiming the study is not valid for anything, I'm claiming it's not valid for the conclusion that FGM is driven primary by women. There's a huge unscientific leap there. If science is done right, this would be a very preliminary survey to start working on a testable hypothesis.
Sure its limited on its own, would need more data to make more conclusive statements despite whatever value the study has on its own merits. So I'll concede that much.
Psychology studies are extrapolated only as far as the prevalence of the phenomenon that is being studied goes. Psychology studies that are worth anything, that is. If the study is on mother's aggression to defend an offspring, we can extrapolate it to our entire species and beyond. If you're studying a unique cultural phenomena like female genital mutilation, extrapolation from a tiny segment of obviously biased research is not the right approach to study the causes, drivers and effects.
But FGM is not that unique, its practiced in many African countries like ones bordering Sudan. Its going to have local variation but that doesn't mean there aren't common factors as well.

Studying specific instances does have limitations when generalizing but that doesn't mean they cant give you deeper insights on the phenomenon that can be generalized.
Read the link of science done right that I linked. Look how they approach the issue in just Nigeria. That is science. Not cherry picking little confirmation nuggets and then making grand conclusions about female empowerment.
I'm reading through it now but the survey cited in the part you quoted appears to be an unpublished paper so there's limits to its value here.
EDIT: As someone who never fails to point out the hypocrisy of the Christian Right, why would you place value on "ideals" as opposed to behavior?
Not sure what you mean by this. To be clear my main point here was to object to the complaint concerning the sample size since its a common misconception that sample sizes need to be far larger than the statistical methods actually require them to be.

EDIT: Sorry for the multi-quote wall of text, I know its a pain in the ass to respond to. My main point was about the sample size and I do think you have fair complaints here otherwise so I'll give you the last word and bow out.
 
Last edited:
Lightfoot Klein, Boddy, Hicks are books and travelogues. Information people saw through their lenses, and in the Boddy case it's interpreted through a feminist one (I suspect they all are). The problem with this type of research, is that a Western woman, a Chinese man, or a Samoan genderqueer are going to come in with vastly different perspectives, ask different question and have different interpretations of inherently slippery and subjective "results". And all of them would have some grain of truth of a much larger picture.

The only reference to a peer reviewed study is Shandall with 300 Sudanese polygamous men and who they rather have sex with.

@Kafir-kun 300 men in Sudan, who have multiple wives, already a giant confound (high social status, wealth, respect, etc). How many Sudanese can afford to be polygamous? The practice is prevalent in more places than Sudan.

Comparing these women to slaves is not bizarre, I'm drawing a parallel on a justification of an atrocity based on perceived environmental necessity, and also on how social coping cues can be interpreted by different observers.

It's not about blaming men or women, it's about granting women full agency instead of "leaving be" a culture that only grants them agency under the context of when, how, and why should they mutilate their genitals. The latter being the grain of valid information that those cited books seem to have documented.

I thought we're playing the same sport - liberation of historically oppressed women, no?

I did some research and there's a neat comprehensive project: Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality. Nigeria is on the list with FGM prevalence and attitudes. p. 771:

"In the 21 states in Nigeria (out of 30 states) where FGM is carried out, it is believed that an uncircumcised woman is usually promiscuous."

"Basically, FGM can be traced to a desire of the society to control female sexuality. Behind the various superstitions that perpetuate FGM, what seems to have sustained the practice is that men will not marry uncircumcised women, because they are believed to be unclean and promiscuous."

And oddly enough, we have "polar bears in South America", p. 772:

Region: Borno
"Females are not circumcised but may participate in other traditional rituals."

Regions: Imo, Enugu, and Anambra.
Ethnic Group: Ibo
"Previously, in certain areas, like Nsukka, female circumcision was practiced, but generally no longer"

Source: https://kinseyinstitute.org/pdf/ccies-nigeria.pdf

Evolution is indeed brilliant, much more brilliant than you're implying. We are very malleable, especially during certain periods of development. Do you not think undergoing the extremely traumatic FGM affects the psychology and attitudes of the handful of people the authors interacted with? Another giant confound.

There's a certain irony in Greer criticizing Western objections to FGM as ethnocentric, yet defending and justifying the practice that is the definition of extreme ethnocentrism.

Also, just as an aside, male aggression and risky behavior don't need another "social theory shackled by women", as it is continually understood through behavioral, molecular, biochemical, hormonal, neuronal and a myriad of other valid testable theories, that are all connected with being "shackled" by women (aka mating). These, in contrast to FGM, are universal across our species and beyond, you might call them inherited.

I don't disagree that the study has flaws, but I don't know how fruitful a conversation about its flaws would be. I imagine we'd eventually hit a wall where neither of us really know enough to continue.

"Liberation" of women is tricky. Should women be free to kill infants? Should women be free to work in any profession they want, even if they are unqualified? Should the government provide women with a monthly stipend so that they have financial freedom? In Islam, any money a woman earns does not have to be spent on her family. If a child dies from starvation and the woman is rich, it could still technically be the man's fault. Is that "liberation"?

There is no culture that grants "full" agency without condition. Any man who walks around with no pants will have his agency taken by government officials. Full agency only exists within societal norms.

Male aggression and riskiness is a broader category created to biologically justify stupid individual acts. Cross culturally, afaik, women commit more violence against children than men do. Would that justify fgm? Or one could argue that old women engage in intrasexual competition against young women, such as by enforcing dress codes that allow older women to equal the playing field. Does fgm fall under that?

The truth is, male aggression and risk taking varies greatly. There are cultures, like modern Japan, in which the men are probably less aggressive than women in other cultures. Finding a biological basis for something is just a convenient way to not deal with it. Everything has a biological basis. Fighting in a cage for money is not universal. Nor is jumping out of a plane.
 
I personally think that hipocrisy is one of these things that people keep saying without understanding some important things.
The reason being that that JC folk, from every time of sin, really denounced hipocrisy.

The thing is that , hipocrisy is not necessarily an inconsistency, ( no one is perfctly consistent) but the act of acting in ways , not by personal conviction, but to act, pretend and signalize ( the greek term being related with the act of...acting) .
Also, a change of opinion is not hipocrisy, but actually the total opposite of it in certain circumnstances.

The thing is, how can we proclaim hipocrisy in others who have a different set of values if we don't understand how their personal systems work? It would be easier in a more homogenous population but in a cosmopolitan world? It just become the easiest accusation you can make without any backlash. The easy denouncement. And , suprise, surprise, the lazy acussation that hipocrites love to make in others.

Maybe by just stopping to use that word as we do, maybe, there can be some space for people at least to understand how their worldviews work instead of shit on their behaviours all the time?
 
Also after 17 years in the military I left early instead of retiring out at 20 and now have VA Benefits in the form of Disability and health care due to my Combat Tours. Yet I am a conservative and hate all things state run welfare. Am I a hypocrite?

These questions weigh heavily on me and I find there is no clear cut answer.

hello and nice to meet you Ranzou,

you're no more of a hypocrite than Ayn Rand, who railed against big government healthcare...until she came down with lung cancer, and then decided that big government healthcare wasn't so bad afterall.

i guess you are sort of a hypocrite, but in real life, its hard to walk it like you talk it.

- IGIT
 
I wanted to discuss an issue that was brought up in the Kim/Trump thread. That of Political and Ideological hypocrisy.

In it I stated that I have certain stances that would go against the political ideologies of the belief system of my Political Party. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Also after 17 years in the military I left early instead of retiring out at 20 and now have VA Benefits in the form of Disability and health care due to my Combat Tours. Yet I am a conservative and hate all things state run welfare. Am I a hypocrite?

These questions weigh heavily on me and I find there is no clear cut answer.
I missed that other discussion you referred to, but why would that make you a hypocrite? Seems like a silly question if taken at face value. It seems to me you earned your VA benefits; how is that equivalent to welfare?

On the contrary, I'd say the more closely you adhere to your political party's ideology (as opposed to your own personal judgment), the more likely you are to have conflicting values; and as a result, the more likely those conflicting values are to manifest as hypocritical action.
 
Last edited:
hi there Phelly2,

I missed that other discussion you referred to, but why would that make you a hypocrite?

it makes him a hypocrite because he is philosophically opposed to welfare, yet he accepts VA benefits, which are state run welfare. if he was truly opposed to it, he wouldn't accept it.

It seems to me you earned your VA benefits; how is that equivalent to welfare?

a vegan is philosophically opposed to eating animal products. he doesn't decide to eat a ribeye steak, even if he happens to earn it.

if a Ranzou is philosophically opposed to having sex with other men, he isn't going to accept oral sex from another man, even if the other guy insists, "but you earned it!".

the TS may be a nice fellow, but he asked the question, so it seems alright to answer candidly.

he is a hypocrite.

alot of conservative senior citizens have this same conundrum with their own entitlements.

- IGIT
 
Last edited:
I don't think the mere fact that they are Sudanese is a massive confound, You yourself cited a study on Nigerians, I wouldn't say the fact that the sample is only Nigerian is a massive confound that destroys its value for generalization for the reasons I articulated earlier.

Them being polygamous is more of a confound but even then if you want to measure attitudes among men selecting a subset of them isn't not necessarily wrong as long as that fact is kept in mind, especially a subset that is in a position to achieve the sexual ideals of their society. The monogamous men likely follow similar cultural preferences as the polygamous do, they're just less equipped to act them out.

For instance, in the West there is going to be some overlap between the ideals of high status males and low status males even if their experience will create some differences and that's because they are subjected to certain common factors in terms of culture and socialization.

Sure its limited on its own, would need more data to make more conclusive statements despite whatever value the study has on its own merits. So I'll concede that much.

But FGM is not that unique, its practiced in many African countries like ones bordering Sudan. Its going to have local variation but that doesn't mean there aren't common factors as well.

Studying specific instances does have limitations when generalizing but that doesn't mean they cant give you deeper insights on the phenomenon that can be generalized.

I'm reading through it now but the survey cited in the part you quoted appears to be an unpublished paper so there's limits to its value here.

Not sure what you mean by this. To be clear my main point here was to object to the complaint concerning the sample size since its a common misconception that sample sizes need to be far larger than the statistical methods actually require them to be.

EDIT: Sorry for the multi-quote wall of text, I know its a pain in the ass to respond to. My main point was about the sample size and I do think you have fair complaints here otherwise so I'll give you the last word and bow out.

Sure, I was explaining why the conclusion Greer draws from a dubious line of evidence is confused at best and dishonest at worst.

Also, ideals and behavior oftentimes don't converge (the Christian Right is a good example), even if one influences the other.

I don't disagree that the study has flaws, but I don't know how fruitful a conversation about its flaws would be. I imagine we'd eventually hit a wall where neither of us really know enough to continue.

"Liberation" of women is tricky. Should women be free to kill infants? Should women be free to work in any profession they want, even if they are unqualified? Should the government provide women with a monthly stipend so that they have financial freedom? In Islam, any money a woman earns does not have to be spent on her family. If a child dies from starvation and the woman is rich, it could still technically be the man's fault. Is that "liberation"?

There is no culture that grants "full" agency without condition. Any man who walks around with no pants will have his agency taken by government officials. Full agency only exists within societal norms.

Male aggression and riskiness is a broader category created to biologically justify stupid individual acts. Cross culturally, afaik, women commit more violence against children than men do. Would that justify fgm? Or one could argue that old women engage in intrasexual competition against young women, such as by enforcing dress codes that allow older women to equal the playing field. Does fgm fall under that?

The truth is, male aggression and risk taking varies greatly. There are cultures, like modern Japan, in which the men are probably less aggressive than women in other cultures. Finding a biological basis for something is just a convenient way to not deal with it. Everything has a biological basis. Fighting in a cage for money is not universal. Nor is jumping out of a plane.

We don't have to hit a wall. This is what the data compiled shows:
1. Wealthy Sudanese men who have wives with and without FGM, like to have sex with the more proceptive wives. Yes.
2. The subculture of FGM'd women developed empowering ways to cope with culturally expected FGM. Yes.

Therefore,
3. "female control theory" is valid, criticism is ethnocentric and the practice should be "left alone". No. This is a giant leap.

It's a preliminary discussion at best, that can be used as a jumping point to form a testable hypothesis. Intrasexual competition may very well be a piece of the larger explanation.

"Liberation" of women was tongue in cheek. If you want to get technical, wouldn't the goal be the best possible outcomes for the most amount of people? The questions you asked should be debated, outcomes observed, debates refined, and another cycle started. Maybe that's an ethnocentric approach, but would you really argue that it hasn't lead to better outcomes in gender equality? As opposed to "leaving it alone"?

And yes, full agency is not granted in any case, but neither it is for men, but doesn't the degree matter? It's not an all or nothing scenario, but a range.

Aggressive and risky behavior is not a "made up category to justify stupidity". Even though you're right in saying that evolution is brilliant, you need to slightly refine your understanding of it. Biology is not after justifying, but after explaining. There is no value judgement being made, that's where culture comes in.

Aggression is an observable trait in almost every successful biological organism (and definitely in us primates). Aggression is conserved in our genome, it's inherited, it's readily studied under the vastly different approaches I mentioned, and a common pattern of physiological basis for it is observed. Physiological mechanism of aggression (if you want we could delve deeper into it, but for the sake of this argument I'm assuming you'll grant me the fact that we can study biochemically [hell, molecularly even] what goes on in an organism during a display of aggression). This is not variable (caveat being you're genetically intact aka things work as they work in 99.9% of your species).

Variability comes in the context where and how aggression is expressed (a modern Japanese man would express aggression differently than a 12th century Mongolian, as you noted). Thus, the context is not inherited, it's very malleable and in us humans it's oftentimes expressed through cultural norms. From this, we can make the conclusion that changing the norms (or changing the environment) will lead to a change or at least a modulation of behavior (or the entire cascade of gene expression in this particular environment).

So "Finding a biological basis for something is just a convenient way to not deal with it" is missing the mark. In fact "leaving it alone" is a much more convenient way of not dealing with it.

Finding a biological basis for something is a convenient way to understand how and why something happens. I'd argue expressing aggression in a well regulated mutual combat atmosphere is more conducive to better social outcomes than expressing aggression by beating on your wife or raiding a neighboring village.
 
We don't have to hit a wall. This is what the data compiled shows:
1. Wealthy Sudanese men who have wives with and without FGM, like to have sex with the more proceptive wives. Yes.
2. The subculture of FGM'd women developed empowering ways to cope with culturally expected FGM. Yes.

Therefore,
3. "female control theory" is valid, criticism is ethnocentric and the practice should be "left alone". No. This is a giant leap.

I think that's a bit reductionist and is also an example of why we'll hit a wall. We don't know if the men being wealthy or Sudanese or polygamist are confounds or if they limit generalizability. The vast majority of psychological studies on done on college students, but they don't say "we found that young, unemployed, unmarried, Coors Lite drinkers tend to remember negative news more clearly than positive."

We've hit a wall because neither of us are schooled enough to know which additional variables matter or if they constructed their study in a way that negates those variables. If "female control theory" is based on the idea that older women keep vagina rare to help younger women get better mates, then, as Kafir-Kun said, it would only make sense to interview older men.

"Liberation" of women was tongue in cheek. If you want to get technical, wouldn't the goal be the best possible outcomes for the most amount of people? The questions you asked should be debated, outcomes observed, debates refined, and another cycle started. Maybe that's an ethnocentric approach, but would you really argue that it hasn't lead to better outcomes in gender equality? As opposed to "leaving it alone"?

No, the goal wouldn't necessarily be the best possible outcome for the most amount of people. Again, this is why it takes a fuller understanding of culture and context. For example, there's a bird (I can't remember which) that, upon hatching its eggs, will occasionally eat the smaller of the two babies. Why? Resources. While it is possible that she can provide for both children for a while, she decides that it would be better to cut her expenses in half, regain some lost pregnancy protein, and take her chances raising only one child. Is this the best outcome for the most amount of people? Would it be better to have two birds survive for six months each or have one bird survive for a year (at which point, it may be mature enough to live on its own)?

Again, in a resource scarce environment, a family that lands a wealthy son-in-law may go from among the poorest families on earth to middle class by Western standards in two generations. Is it not worth making a small sacrifice of one individual's clitoral pleasure (woman can still be sexually stimulated through the vagina, to a degree) to potentially increase the quality of life of dozens of individuals?

The question of whether this practice should continue is certainly worth asking, but who is supposed to answer it and which answer will we accept? The experts who study the phenomenon say it's fine. The women who practice it say it's fine. In fact, the only people, ironically, who would say "no, please, stop fgm" are the men from these cultures, who you somehow believe to secretly be behind the practice.

And yes, full agency is not granted in any case, but neither it is for men, but doesn't the degree matter? It's not an all or nothing scenario, but a range.

Of course. That's my point. I've never argued that women in these cultures have less agency. Agency is a range and they're on it and they're fine. You're saying that because they can't make this one decision during childhood, they have no agency. Or don't have enough?

Aggressive and risky behavior is not a "made up category to justify stupidity". Even though you're right in saying that evolution is brilliant, you need to slightly refine your understanding of it. Biology is not after justifying, but after explaining. There is no value judgement being made, that's where culture comes in.

Aggression is an observable trait in almost every successful biological organism (and definitely in us primates). Aggression is conserved in our genome, it's inherited, it's readily studied under the vastly different approaches I mentioned, and a common pattern of physiological basis for it is observed. Physiological mechanism of aggression (if you want we could delve deeper into it, but for the sake of this argument I'm assuming you'll grant me the fact that we can study biochemically [hell, molecularly even] what goes on in an organism during a display of aggression). This is not variable (caveat being you're genetically intact aka things work as they work in 99.9% of your species).

Variability comes in the context where and how aggression is expressed (a modern Japanese man would express aggression differently than a 12th century Mongolian, as you noted). Thus, the context is not inherited, it's very malleable and in us humans it's oftentimes expressed through cultural norms. From this, we can make the conclusion that changing the norms (or changing the environment) will lead to a change or at least a modulation of behavior (or the entire cascade of gene expression in this particular environment).

So "Finding a biological basis for something is just a convenient way to not deal with it" is missing the mark. In fact "leaving it alone" is a much more convenient way of not dealing with it.

You were discussing aggression and risk-taking behavior in the context of males. You said that it is biological for males and, thus, cannot be addressed.

But you counter your own argument here. If the way that aggression is expressed is malleable, then there is no male aggressive or risky behavior that must be acceptable. It's culturally determined. So when men work in a coal mine, we don't have to say "well, the men must have chosen that. It's natural." We can say, "Our matriarchal culture forces men to express their risk-taking behavior in this way. Poor men would never choose this for themselves." To quote your words, the men only work in the mine "to cope with culturally expected" male servitude.
 
Back
Top