« The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics | Main | Subprime fact of the day »
Assorted links
1. John Goodman's health policy blog
2. "Sworn Virgins": Albanian women pledge eternal virginity for the right to live as a man. Tell me again what do Albanian men get out of this deal?
3. Frans de Waal responds on bonobos; NSFW!
4. Richard's rules for restaurant-driven revitalization
5. The economist as serial plagiarist
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 13, 2007 at 03:31 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
I'm sure that was a hilarious joke, Tyler, but really? Does every action need to be examined to find out what men can get out of it?
How about this -- Albanian women give up a normal and healthy life with fewer rights to have a different and difficult life with more rights. And the fact that they have to do this to get that is worth fighting by everyone.
Posted by: Emily at Aug 13, 2007 3:36:44 PM
And at American universities women need only to forsake having children to get tenure. Isn't wonderful that we are no longer primitive.
Posted by: joan at Aug 13, 2007 4:02:01 PM
Emily, I think the question is this -- Since men are apparently the ones restricting the rights of Albanian women to begin with, why is it that pledges of virginity get the men to loosen up?
Posted by: Josh at Aug 13, 2007 4:04:09 PM
Actually, the question is why Tyler needed to draw attention to the fact that the poor Albanian men were likely getting laid less in a situation in which it is, in fact, the women who are voluntarily giving up sex. Those women will never have sex. The men could, theoretically, if they find a woman who hasn't jumped at this chance.
I wasn't addressing the Albanian tradition at all.
Posted by: Emily at Aug 13, 2007 4:11:13 PM
If we translate "refusing women the access to certain jobs" as "creating a price ceiling on the labor market", it is natural to get a labor shortage. Perhaps that labor shortage is small enough that the marginal benefit of giving one woman a job is greater than the marginal cost (one less partner).
Posted by: Link at Aug 13, 2007 4:46:35 PM
Of course, no misogyny or gender commentary intended.
Posted by: Link at Aug 13, 2007 4:47:52 PM
When Harry Met Sally.
Posted by: 8 at Aug 13, 2007 5:02:46 PM
They swear to be virgins when there are not enough men around to get married. It's a GE thing.
Posted by: David Zetland at Aug 13, 2007 5:39:10 PM
Tyler's question, while I think it was somewhat tongue in cheek, does point out the interesting contradiction that the men, who presumably are the ones imposing the inequality on women seem to be giving up their power for no apparent reason.
I think realistically it is a way to purpetuate female inequality. If there was absolutely no route to equality, there might be a lot more social discord.
The "sworn virgin" route allows the men to say, well, if you really want to be equal, you have that choice, while making the choice so bad that most women won't take it.
There will, of course, be those whose drive to obtain equality is great enough to take the offer, but men still do not lose out completely, because if THOSE women did not have any route to equality, they are also the ones who would have been most likely to forment discord among the other women.
In other societies, these women would have been the trailblazers who knocked down social barriers both for themselves, and the other women around them. By allowing these would be "trailblazers" such an unpalatable option, the trailblazers get equality and are thus pacified, but no appreciable numbers of other women are able to follow after them.
The other possibility is that at least some of the sex discrimination is purpetuated by the women as much as the men. For instance, a man's wife might have a huge problem with him going off into the fields to work or to trade in the village if there were other women working with him. If the other women were sworn virgins who dress and act like men, the wives might not have such a problem with it.
Posted by: Doug at Aug 13, 2007 6:00:01 PM
In econo-speak, its essentially a offer of equality in exchange for an agreement not to incite a social rebellion, and the sworn virginity part is a costly signal that ensures that only women who really would incite a social rebellion get the offer.
Posted by: Doug at Aug 13, 2007 6:21:04 PM
Whatever happened to attempting a historicized understanding of concepts we might not decode so easily by virtue of what we know culturally and socially?
The sworn virgins perform gender in an idiosyncratic way and instead of seeing it via modern lenses, we need to understand it in the right setting and context. Why would a teenage female in the 1700's decide to take on a male and maled identity? What would be the dictating factor of such a gendered metamorphosis?
In many cases such decisions were made out of a fundamental wish for survival.
Again, context, historical context, might be a good thing to espouse once in a while.
Posted by: Bri at Aug 13, 2007 9:10:01 PM
Women seem to be far less prone to destabilizing violence than men. That's why people are worried about "bar branches" in China. So it makes the pacification argument less workable. It might even have the opposite effect, by creating more "bare branch" men who can't find wives.
Posted by: TGGP at Aug 14, 2007 12:13:25 AM
"Serial plagiarist" s/b "Con-man".
Posted by: unarmed at Aug 14, 2007 7:52:19 AM
More precisely than "perpetuating female inequality," it's perpetuating male hegemony. That is, only "men" can rule the family, do certain work, not be subject to women's obligations, including replenishing and socializing the young replacement population. Thus in extreme situations (shortage of male heirs), there is both a redefinition of gender and a huge signalling price for taking on the more privileged (and incidentally less protected) position. The other option would be to weaken the rule. Maintaining the rule is seen as an advantage for men.
Strict rules work best when extreme outliers can bend them, with rationale for enforcement to look the other way.
One function of the price is a test of resolution and strength. It's not just a matter of giving up female sex, it's "ruling the family," pulling your physical and economic weight in men's jobs, etc. Also, for people to mix-and-match role memes at whim is a very modern phenomenon, possibly tied to a consumer society where all those indicia are for sale and variety and fashion drive an economy. In a tribal and traditional society, to mix the role signals is a kind of contamination. I think Mary Douglas talks about this somewhere.
Posted by: who, me? at Aug 14, 2007 8:59:15 AM
Oh, that John Goodman. Much less interesting.
Posted by: Chris at Aug 14, 2007 12:00:34 PM
Hi Best wishes。Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes.xicao loves-流水线娱乐博客常年提供高、中、低压锅炉钢管、流体钢管、结构钢管、化肥专用钢管、石油裂化钢管、地质钢管、液压支柱钢管及合金钢管-无缝管-无缝钢管等论文发表资讯/刊物信息，协助客户制定论文发表方案
Posted by: 无缝管 at Nov 13, 2007 8:22:57 PM
Posted by: 鑽石 at Apr 2, 2008 9:44:56 PM
