Utilitarians may differ to the extent on how serious of a problem they think discrimination against men (or Whites or any other group that is or is perceived as being traditionally 'privileged') actually is but all utilitarians have to concede, as descriptive egalitarians, that female interests matter no more or less than male interests do and, as prescriptive egalitarians, that female interests shouldn't be given any more or less consideration that male interests should. I bring this up (and I'm writing this quickly) because I don't think I've ever heard utilitarian commentary on sex based double standards as they negatively effect men while discrimination against women is widely accepted and sympathized with, for the most part. There's actually good evidence that we have an instinctive gender empathy gap that is coded into our DNA and encouraged through socialization (ie. violence against men is completely normalized, the effect of objectification on men is usually dismissed simply because male objectification is usually dependent on traits that indicate social status,confidence, aggression etc. as opposed to appearance alone), people from all cultures are overwhelmingly more comfortable with the suffering and death of men as opposed to the suffering and death of women (the women and children first mentality). There's an assumption of male privilege among most people who identify as feminists that, arguably, isn't actually supported by empirical evidence. From another site:

Green - Advantaged/privileged
Red - Disadvantaged/unprivileged
Unsheltered Homeless (2009) [1]
Women – 12,000 – 4%
Men – 240,000 – 96%
Life Expectancy (2006) [2]
Women – 80.8 Years
Men – 75.7 Years
Suicides (2008) [3]
Women – 7,585 - 19%
Men – 28,450 - 81%
Deaths by Homicide (2004) [4]
Women – 3,856 – 20%
Men – 14,717 – 80%
Deaths from Cancer (2004) [4]
Women – 269,819
Men – 290,069
Deaths from HIV/AIDS (2004) [4]
Women – 3,357
Men – 8,756
Federal Funds for Sex Specific Cancer Research [5]
Women – Breast Cancer – $631,000,000 - 40,000 Deaths
Men – Prostate Cancer – $300,000,000 - 33,000 Deaths
Deaths on the Job (2010) [6]
Women – 355 - 7%
Men – 4,192 - 93%
Injuries on the Job (2007) [10]
Women – 36%
Men – 64%
College Enrollment (2009) [7]
Women – 58% - 11,658,000
Men – 42% - 8,770,000
Affirmative Action Education Programs (Gender Specific) [8]
Women – Yes
Men – No
Unemployment Rates (2010) [9]
Women – 8.6% – 6,199,000
Men – 10.5% - 8,626,000
Average Hours Worked Per Week (2010) [11]
Women – 36.1
Men – 40.2
High School Graduation Rates (2005) [12]
Women – 72%
Men – 65%
Incarceration Rates (2009) [13]
Women – 114,979 - 7%
Men – 1,502,49 - 93%
Child Custody Rates [14]
Women – 11,268,000 custodial mothers
Men – 2,907,000 custodial fathers
US Military Deaths From 1950 – 2010 [15][16][17]
Women – 139 - 0.001%
Men – 100,063 - 99.99%
Federally Funded Battered Shelters [18]
Women – 2,000+ $300,000,000 per year
Men – None – $0
Federally Funded Health Offices and Research 1970 – Present (not including cancer research)[19]
Women Only – Office, Projects and Programs 70+ – Funds – $100,000,000,000
Men Only – None – $0
Forced Selective Service
Women – No
Men – Yes
Drug and Alcohol Addiction and Abuse Rates (2010) [20]
Women – 5.8%
Men – 12.2%

In addition to this, studies have shown that while male infants cry and fuss more than female infants do, female infants are significantly more likely to be nurtured and comforted. A double blind study involving male and female high school students showed that, even when work is identical, male students are typically graded 3 points less. Contrary to popular belief, literally hundreds of studies show that half of all domestic violence victims are male, the majority of female victims of domestic violence actually have relationships where both parties are equally violent toward each other. The study claiming that one in 4 women will be raped was debunked, an estimated 40% of rapists are actually women

'Feminism', by definition, is (properly) concerned with female interests, not gender equality, although they may or may not be for gender equality. The argument that anyone who supports gender equality is necessarily a 'feminist' is as meaningful as claiming that Oxfam is 'pro-Black'. Egalitarians are as 'masculinist' as they are 'feminist'. Feminists often dismiss the idea of female privilege or anti-male sexism (not the harmful effects of patriarchy on men, I mean anti-male discrimination, which can be carried out by both men and women) and the suffering (or preference frustration) that it causes as unwarranted because they view discrimination against women as objectively wrong beyond the suffering (or preference frustration) that it causes women as opposed to being wrong on that basis (because it is harmful to women and not for any reason besides that which would 'validate' that harm). I'm not sure that 'feminism' as most people understand it is compatible with egalitarianism and I'd be interested in hearing what utilitarians make of the Men's Rights Movement. I disagree with most of their rhetoric but I've heard some compelling points from some of them.

Interesting stats. Of course, you could put together a similar list where women have it worse than men (lower income, more sexual violence, higher rates of other diseases, etc.). I think the idea of combating male privilege doesn't necessarily apply to all males, but to males in high socioeconomic levels for whom many of these downsides don't apply.

You make some valid points about society caring more about violence against females than against males ("saving the women and children," etc.). That said, it's not clear to me what it would look like to advocate Men's Rights, apart from doing general charity to help everyone. (And obviously, it's more cost-effective to focus on animal suffering than human suffering.)

Moreover, there can be reasons to favor helping women: e.g., The Girl Effect in international development. In general, women are more likely to be vegetarian, more likely to care about animal suffering, and more averse to torturing others. The world would likely be better off if there were more women and fewer men. Maybe that's one advantage of endocrine disruptors....

Alan Dawrst wrote:Interesting stats. Of course, you could put together a similar list where women have it worse than men (lower income, more sexual violence, higher rates of other diseases, etc.). I think the idea of combating male privilege doesn't necessarily apply to all males, but to males in high socioeconomic levels for whom many of these downsides don't apply.

Many of the stats listed would contradict some of the possible disadvantages that women, as a 'group', have that you've mentioned (lower income - American women under 30 earn 8% more than their male counterparts, sexual violence - probably but the rape of men by women as well as by other men tends to be downplayed in comparison to male on female rape which is statistically overplayed, higher rates of disease- I'm pretty sure men consistently score higher on almost all, if not all, diseases other than breast cancer, possibly for some of the same reasons they tend to have lower lifespans). Utilitarianism is just a basis for decision making, it doesn't make any empirical claims so it says nothing about which group generally has it worse which has nothing directly to do with whether or not specific actions maximize 'utility' anyways (I hate saying 'utility' because you can't maximize 'usefulness'), my main point is the idea of equal consideration and rejecting the women and children, or perceived underdog, first mentality.

You make some valid points about society caring more about violence against females than against males ("saving the women and children," etc.). That said, it's not clear to me what it would look like to advocate Men's Rights, apart from doing general charity to help everyone. (And obviously, it's more cost-effective to focus on animal suffering than human suffering.)

Not Men's Rights (alone) so much as equal consideration. As far as 'Men's Rights' is concerned, possibly correcting whatever sexist biases exist in the legal system when it comes to men receiving harsher sentences for the same crimes committed by women, making sure that sex doesn't factor into parents being denied child custody or having to pay unfair alimony and just generally discouraging double standards that disadvantage either sex (or at least the disregard of either sex's interests if double standards are ever necessary) might all be good ideas.

Moreover, there can be reasons to favor helping women: e.g., The Girl Effect in international development. In general, women are more likely to be vegetarian, more likely to care about animal suffering, and more averse to torturing others. The world would likely be better off if there were more women and fewer men. Maybe that's one advantage of endocrine disruptors....

Equal consideration doesn't necessarily mean equal treatment, you're right, but do you think some of these assumptions are actually the result of a conditioned/evolutionary based chivalrous tendency to prioritize the interests of women which comes along with a need to portray them in a better or more favorable light ? For example, men are more likely to be vegans than women are, they're also less likely to to have out-group biases than women are, they're more likely to be impartial when it comes to ethical reasoning (there's actually some evidence that women are less likely to behave altruistically toward out group members since, typically, prehistoric men stayed in the villages of their parents after marrying and were thus more likely to be closely related to their neighbours than were prehistoric women who typically migrated to their husband's village after marriage and had more of a 'genetic self interest' in prioritizing the well being of their children over the community in general). You should also consider why women are less likely to be aggressive, care about animal suffering etc., if this is true, and to what extent socializing boys in a completely different way could change this. People are 'useful' to the extent that they maximize the welfare of others but their own welfare also has intrinsic value.

Utilitarians should be consistent and avoid sentiment.

Ubuntu wrote:American women under 30 earn 8% more than their male counterparts

Very interesting -- thanks for the stat. Of course, as one article notes, "this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide."

Ubuntu wrote:I'm pretty sure men consistently score higher on almost all, if not all, diseases other than breast cancer

Women have twice the rates of generalized anxiety disorder and depression (although perhaps self-reporting bias can play some role in the figures??). These are just two illnesses I found randomly by searcing, but there are undoubtedly more. Still, I grant that probably more than half of all diseases are higher in men.

Ubuntu wrote:(I hate saying 'utility' because you can't maximize 'usefulness')

Bentham had a distinct meaning of the word as "happiness" rather than "usefulness."

Ubuntu wrote:my main point is the idea of equal consideration and rejecting the women and children, or perceived underdog, first mentality.

Yes, I see what you mean. That said, there may be instrumental reasons to save women over men, e.g., the fact that women are, on average, arguably more caring and more responsible human beings.

Ubuntu wrote:Not Men's Rights (alone) so much as equal consideration. As far as 'Men's Rights' is concerned, possibly correcting whatever sexist biases exist

Got it -- I agree. That said, I think these issues are far less urgent than animal suffering.

Ubuntu wrote:For example, men are more likely to be vegans than women are, they're also less likely to to have out-group biases than women are

Do you have sources for those two? I don't think I believe the first one. At least for vegetarianism, women outnumber men by more than 2:1.

Ubuntu wrote:You should also consider why women are less likely to be aggressive, care about animal suffering etc., if this is true, and to what extent socializing boys in a completely different way could change this.

Definitely. Some is probably biological, but much could be environmental/cultural. However, until those "nurture-type" changes happen, it remains true now that women are less aggressive and care more about animals.

I don't think we fundamentally disagree; I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit.

Alan Dawrst wrote:

Ubuntu wrote:American women under 30 earn 8% more than their male counterparts

Very interesting -- thanks for the stat. Of course, as one article notes, "this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide."

Ubuntu wrote:I'm pretty sure men consistently score higher on almost all, if not all, diseases other than breast cancer

Women have twice the rates of generalized anxiety disorder and depression (although perhaps self-reporting bias can play some role in the figures??). These are just two illnesses I found randomly by searcing, but there are undoubtedly more. Still, I grant that probably more than half of all diseases are higher in men.

Ubuntu wrote:(I hate saying 'utility' because you can't maximize 'usefulness')

Bentham had a distinct meaning of the word as "happiness" rather than "usefulness."

Ubuntu wrote:my main point is the idea of equal consideration and rejecting the women and children, or perceived underdog, first mentality.

Yes, I see what you mean. That said, there may be instrumental reasons to save women over men, e.g., the fact that women are, on average, arguably more caring and more responsible human beings.

Ubuntu wrote:Not Men's Rights (alone) so much as equal consideration. As far as 'Men's Rights' is concerned, possibly correcting whatever sexist biases exist

Got it -- I agree. That said, I think these issues are far less urgent than animal suffering.

Ubuntu wrote:For example, men are more likely to be vegans than women are, they're also less likely to to have out-group biases than women are

Do you have sources for those two? I don't think I believe the first one. At least for vegetarianism, women outnumber men by more than 2:1.

Ubuntu wrote:You should also consider why women are less likely to be aggressive, care about animal suffering etc., if this is true, and to what extent socializing boys in a completely different way could change this.

Definitely. Some is probably biological, but much could be environmental/cultural. However, until those "nurture-type" changes happen, it remains true now that women are less aggressive and care more about animals.

I don't think we fundamentally disagree; I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. I also think self-reporting bias may play a role in statistics claiming that women have higher levels of depression and general anxiety disorders. In fact, I remember coming across an article claiming that men are less emotionally resilient than women are, I can't find it but I found this instead : http://owenmarcus.com/uncategorized/gue ... en-part-1/ . I can't find the articles claiming that men are more likely to be vegan, altruistic toward out-group members etc.( although I was aware that women are more likely to be vegetarians ) but I found this : http://eternalbachelor.wordpress.com/20 ... ic-in-war/ and this : http://news.menshealth.com/new-research ... 011/06/29/ which doesn't really prove anything. It's also worth noting that being less physically aggressive doesn't necessarily imply being less 'aggressive'. I've never really taken the idea that women are more compassionate or caring than men seriously, if they are, on average, I doubt it's by much. I could be wrong but it seems like something we're supposed to say to be respectful and correct misogynistic assumptions of male superiority. Whites and Asians do, on average, have higher IQs than Blacks but the assumption is still considered to be 'racist', the assumption that women are generally kinder, whether it's true or not, is not considered 'sexist' toward men even though it clearly portrays one sex in a more favorable light than the other. You would still have to favor compassionate men over less caring women, based on their instrumental value, even if women were 90% more likely to be altruistic.

Ubuntu wrote:I've never really taken the idea that women are more compassionate or caring than men seriously, if they are, on average, I doubt it's by much. I could be wrong but it seems like something we're supposed to say to be respectful and correct misogynistic assumptions of male superiority.

It has been true in my personal experience, but as you say, we are talking about averages here, and the standard deviations of the distributions are probably bigger than the gap between the means. (This is true in general whenever discussions of gender differences arise. When they exist, gender differences are usually very small relative to the standard deviation of the population.)

Ubuntu wrote:You would still have to favor compassionate men over less caring women, based on their instrumental value

Definitely. In general, breaking things down along gender lines is rarely the best way to slice things. There are other variables that correlate much better with whatever we're trying to get at.

Hi Ubuntu! I was thinking about making a post to Felicifia about the apparent contradiction between utilitarianism and feminism myself. Glad I didn't because yours is much better

As utilitarians, I think another important piece of evidence we need to consider is the self-reported happiness of men vs women. There's been some interesting research on this in recent years, and some controversy over a study which found women's happiness declining relative to men's in recent decades (which was hyped as "feminism made women miserable"). A good rundown is here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1753

The data is pretty messy, but I think the take-home is that there isn't a very meaningful gap between male and female happiness in the US (though there's room to argue here for some kind of reporting bias I guess -- women "suffering in silence"). On top of Ubuntu's other stats, it seems to support the contention that seeking to improve the lives of western women relative to men shouldn't be high on our list of priorities as utilitarians.

But that doesn't mean that many specific feminist campaigns aren't justified. Even if women are on balance roughly as happy, and living longer, combating rape clearly has utilitarian value (a problem you seem to be grossly downplaying -- are you seriously suggesting that female on male (or female on child) rape is as big a social problem as male on female rape?). It's likely not the optimal use of our attention or charitable giving, but then, what cause in a developed country is?

I think one of the crucial points missing in this issue is the status of women in non-western and developing countries. I just returned from India, where male on female domestic violence and rape are rife; women are often disempowered, undereducated and overworked relative to men, and lack many of the simple freedoms men enjoy (in most of the smaller towns you would almost never see women outside on the street). There and in many other countries, girls are routinely married, sold or trafficked into sexually abusive situations. Here, I think the assumption of male privilege is probably justified, and it could well be an effective utilitarian strategy to focus efforts on women's specific issues. (Or, of course, it might be better to focus on alleviating hunger or medical care for both sexes; that is an empirical question).

But that doesn't mean that many specific feminist campaigns aren't justified. Even if women are on balance roughly as happy, and living longer, combating rape clearly has utilitarian value (a problem you seem to be grossly downplaying -- are you seriously suggesting that female on male (or female on child) rape is as big a social problem as male on female rape?). It's likely not the optimal use of our attention or charitable giving, but then, what cause in a developed country is?

I wasn't trying to downplay the seriousness of male on female rape as a general social problem. My major issue was that, in case by case scenarios as well as larger, more common social issues men as a 'group' face, moral concern for the well-being of men who are discriminated against by gender based double standards that advantage women is viewed as unwarranted because of the social/historical context (traditional history of gender relations which, as far as the West is concerned, is at least partly revisionist history) and not taken seriously.

I think one of the crucial points missing in this issue is the status of women in non-western and developing countries. I just returned from India, where male on female domestic violence and rape are rife; women are often disempowered, undereducated and overworked relative to men, and lack many of the simple freedoms men enjoy (in most of the smaller towns you would almost never see women outside on the street). There and in many other countries, girls are routinely married, sold or trafficked into sexually abusive situations. Here, I think the assumption of male privilege is probably justified, and it could well be an effective utilitarian strategy to focus efforts on women's specific issues. (Or, of course, it might be better to focus on alleviating hunger or medical care for both
sexes; that is an empirical question).

I don't want to undermine any of this and I agree that male privilege exists, I only disagree with the idea that it's absolute and universal, female privilege also exists, whether it's as prevalent or as common or typically as harmful to men is beyond the point. I wasn't really in the mood to go into this but you make some good points.

From a Bayesian perspective, it is reasonable to treat men more harshly than women given similar evidence in a criminal case, since men are more criminal. Of course, this raises the more difficult ethical issue of whether one is also justified in applying the same reasoning to, say, blacks versus whites tried for the same crime and subject to the same evidence.

If I'm not mistaken, the issue isn't that men are more likely to be found guilty (although that wouldn't surprise me) but that they receive harsher sentences than women found guilty of the same crimes. I don't think that the statistical likeliness of someone committing crime based on their sex, economic background, ethnicity etc. should play any role in determining the likeliness, based on concrete evidence relevant to a specific case, of their having committed the crime.

If you can accept that men should be assumed more likely to have committed a crime than women because men are generally more likely to commit a crime, you should apply the same reasoning when it comes to every other variable that plays a role in the likeliness of a person committing a crime. I don't think it's a more difficult issue.

Arguably, the people who are lacking in compassion, the people who are more likely to be hardened or anti-social criminals, actually need it the most.

Of course, this raises the more difficult ethical issue of whether one is also justified in applying the same reasoning to, say, blacks versus whites tried for the same crime and subject to the same evidence.

The point of punishment is to provide incentive for people not to commit crimes. If you punish someone because they're a guy or because they're black, there's no incentive, even if it does make your guess of whether or not they did it more accurate. As such, you should only punish people based on evidence that exists because they committed the crime.

This does get more complicated if they don't use CDT. If a black guy doesn't know how much more black men commit crime, then committing a crime is evidence that black men commit more crimes, and thus he's more likely to be committed given that he actually commits a crime.

DanielLC wrote:

Of course, this raises the more difficult ethical issue of whether one is also justified in applying the same reasoning to, say, blacks versus whites tried for the same crime and subject to the same evidence.

The point of punishment is to provide incentive for people not to commit crimes. If you punish someone because they're a guy or because they're black, there's no incentive, even if it does make your guess of whether or not they did it more accurate. As such, you should only punish people based on evidence that exists because they committed the crime.

This does get more complicated if they don't use CDT. If a black guy doesn't know how much more black men commit crime, then committing a crime is evidence that black men commit more crimes, and thus he's more likely to be committed given that he actually commits a crime.

I don't understand the underlined. I agree that the point of punishment should be to deter crime but if punishment is justified because it provides an incentive for people not to commit crime (or to physically prevent them from doing so) and if women (or whatever group is statistically less likely to commit crime) are more likely to commit crime, not compared to other groups but compared to what would be the crime rate among women if women believed that they would be judged just as harshly as men, wouldn't that be an argument for giving equal sentences for the same crimes? Also, if we're talking about the likeliness of an individual committing a crime and not just punishing them more severely compared to someone else who commits the exact same crime, are they that much more likely to commit a crime or does the bulk of how much more likely they are assumed to have committed a crime stem from cultural prejudice? How much of a role do these stereotypes play in making men more likely to commit crime to begin with?

Either way, I don't think that sentencing men, or Black men specifically, more often or more harshly than women or White men, is a calculated decision carried out reluctantly by people who factor their well-being into consideration. A (hedonistic) utilitarian should still want to persuade people to care equally about everyone's happiness and suffering, regardless of sex.

What is CDT?