Nussbaum's proud & greedy Citadel

Citadels of Pride- Nussbaum's response to Me Too- claims   

 to bring necessary clarity to the societal challenges of sexual abuse and harassment, illuminating the pride and greed that lead men to objectify and dominate others and the thirst for revenge that can distort the aims of justice.

The problem here is that sexual abuse and harassment, from the societal point of view, have noting to do with 'pride' or 'greed'. Being a Judge or a Professor or a Priest may be a matter of pride. Earning a lot of money and paying a lot in tax may be a matter of greed. Being a mugger, or a rapist, is more likely to involve a negative self-image, recklessness, and cognitive or behavioral deficits.

 As with other sorts or crime or nuisance, what is germane about sexual offenses is  whether it is worth curbing collectively at a given time. If my flat-mate sexually molests my electric toothbrush, Society may leave it to me to exact retribution. However, if she starts chopping off my legs to use them for a similar purpose, the police must step in. The most effective response to sexual abuse and harassment is immediate and from the victim supported by bystanders. At this point, the pure heteronomy involved in crossing a line is established. Only later should this heteronomy be linked to a deficit in autonomy by reason of pride or greed or whatever.  Otherwise, the calling of a trespass will be parried with the claim of an equal and opposite trespass. If so, there is no 'cooperative solution'. No 'externality' can be internalized. All that is left is a set of memoryless  transactions. However, where a trespass is admitted and then a metanoiac path out of heteronomy is indicated, non-judicial retribution is established as an effective deterrent.

In the case of sexual harassment and abuse, relationships may be atomized and collective ability to internalize externalities may disappear unless there are substantial rents accruing to the transgressor. This does not matter if the other party has high transfer earnings- i.e. has little rent to lose from the failure of the relationship. If we want to get rid of this type of repugnant behavior we have to reduce rents for the vulnerable group or increase them for the group likely to transgress. The former course is progressive. All rents should be reduced as everybody has a better 'next best alternative'. This means removing barriers to entry and increasing competition in all fields. However, this will have demographic consequences. 

It is because of the direct and compounding costs of challenging repugnant behavior that the cheap talk alternative of scolding naughtiness and praising niceness is so ubiquitous and so shit. 

The fact is, the emotions or intentions of a criminal are certainly relevant in determining quantum of punishment. However, as in the case of a per se tort, they are not relevant at all in determining damages. In other words, from the societal point of view, neither emotions nor intentions have any negative value in themselves. Indeed, since they are plastic, they may be said to be at the root of all social benefits as much as they are of all social costs.

 Furthermore, 'objectification' and 'domination' are aspects of the functioning of any juristic procedure or economic or other screening or signaling mechanism design. Neither are objectionable in themselves. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply to certain types of damage received. We can't say that the feeling that one is being 'objectified' or 'dominated' or 'dis-respected' or being given the stink-eye is by itself an actual justiciable wrong. 

It is true, however, that remedies to such perceived injuries may be offered in the political, but not the judicial, realm. Some people may wish to revive the socially salutary practice of witch-burning and the tarring and feathering of strangers who look like they might be up to no good. They may consider it advisable to gain delegated Legislative authority for public offices- e.g. that of a Witchfinder General or KKK Grand Wizard- who can operate independently of the Judiciary and who offer redressal for self-declared injuries arising from having been objectified or dominated or been the subject of a voodoo curse. 

Turning back to Nussbaum's notion that Pride and Greed are very naughty and that they cause Men to dominate and objectify women- often forcing them to become chairs or stools or various types of office furniture- we may condignly observe that a woman who has sex with a lot of wealthy men may be  motivated by avarice just as one who pretends to love, and for this reason has sex with, one man, may be motivated by a concern to improve her social or economic standing. Much female sexual behavior can be seen as linked to motives which have nothing to do with merely gratifying a biological drive or gaining pleasure. By contrast, dicks are less deceptive- though obviously some very sensitive men, like myself, were indeed raped by the very women who claimed we were selfish in bed. This is a good example of how inequality in power- especially the power to cook a nice breakfast- can lead to the sexual exploitation of men by women who, frankly, could have done a lot better for themselves. 

Because of gender dimorphism, there is an uncorrelated asymmetry between virile heterosexual males and females of reproductive age such that it is rational for men to disproportionately transfer assets or social prestige to women simply so as to satisfy a biological drive or to gain pleasure. One driver for the evolution of Judicial remedies and Social norms has been the need to curb the returns to proud and greedy women who don't give a fuck about how their home-wrecking will affect others of their sex as well as innocent little babies. Thus, in America, alienation of affection and criminal conversation were offenses but marital rape was not. On the other hand, Indian law does provide a remedy to wives denied sex with husbands by the husband's family. My wife consulted an Indian lawyer in this regard back in 1984. I decided I was safer in England. This was because Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning- who, strangely, looked exactly like my old friend Chetan Joshi- assured me that I was exempt from being required to roll in the hay even with celebrated actresses like Julie Andrews. This took a great weight of my mind and, in subsequent decades, I am happy to report, women have not sought to use legal writs for access to my hot bod. 

It has frequently been observed that the same gender dimorphism which creates an incentive for women to band together to assert a particular type of property right with respect to husbands, also causes men to band together to sexually exploit any unprotected woman in defiance of the law whereas there is no comparable incentive for women to do so even with respect to gorgeous hunks like me. I'm not saying young super-models haven't formed gangs dedicated to capturing and holding me a prisoner to their vile lusts. All I am pointing out is that the economic incentive to do so hasn't been very strong- which is why the thing hasn't happened yet. Obviously, once it starts happening I will join a male self-defense gang- I mean I will do so eventually- there is no great urgency in this matter. 

Like 'broken men' (i.e scattered remnants of defeated tribes) one way women could gain greater protection was to be identified as the property of a particular man or family (oikos). Using or taking away without permission a woman with a particular 'oikeiosis' could be  punished, along with other types of theft, by collective mechanisms. 

In nuce, biology has created an uncorrelated asymmetry, and thus militated for female support for a 'bourgeois strategy', re. collective action for promulgation and enforcement of 'oikeiosis' based sexual rights and entitlements, whereas collectives of unattached or property-less men have the opposite incentive- viz. to abolish or limit the Rule of Law- at least in matters relating to sex. This is resolved through service provision discrimination- i.e. some women and boys have rights in some places whereas others may not have access to effective remedies. Since the Law is costly to enforce, it follows that material advancement and collective fiscal action is required for Norms to replace Nature. But this is a very gradual process. For Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, the first break-through was the right to pass wealth and property to an unmarried daughter or spinster sister. This meant that the Price Equation gained a legal expression. The next step was marriage 'settlements' such that even greater capital could be accumulated within a blood-line. One immediate benefit for women- otherwise only afforded Price equation protection by 'caste' type endogamy- was that in-group transfers became possible and that a collective identity could gain Social and Political expression. This paved the way for First Wave Feminism which, with rising economic productivity for women, in turn gave way to Second Wave Feminism. That is where things stalled as economic interests diverged. The Third and subsequent Waves were all variations of theme that us bitches be kray kray. 

Consider the following- 

In Mill's time, it was the Christian duty of most men to dominate their wives and daughters. They tried to dominate their spinster sisters, but if the sisters had inherited money they would be told to go fuck themselves. Once spinster sisters turned out to be better custodians of family wealth, Victorian attitudes changed. Women as economic agents had shown superior fitness under the Price equation. That's what drove changes in the law. The thing was incentive compatible. Where it wasn't so, the law remained a dead letter. 

Victorian Imperialism needed to keep the son sent out to India or Africa from leaving his money to his half-caste kids out there. Thus the spinster sister was played up as the ideal custodian who would ensure the nephews and nieces were provided for. Something similar had previously happened under the auspices of Religion, now it could be done through the Common Law- i.e. a system of 'artificial reason', not 'natural rights', which carefully weighed costs and benefits at the collective level. This meant that things which were clearly rape or bastardy were deemed to be no such thing in the eyes of the law. The benefit was that an uncorrelated asymmetry was associated with an unambiguous oikeiosis. The cost was the additional burden of prudence imposed by Society. 

Mill was a deeply silly man. Florence Nightingale, not Mill, is the person who really had the ear of the Cabinet and who changed things back then. However, she herself recognized that one must work with populations and institutions as they actually are- not as they should ideally be. Castigating particular emotions as wrong or irrational was as foolish as Mill's inherited Utilitarianism. 

It is obvious that the State, if receiving enough in tax or other revenue, can protect women in exactly the same way as men through existing collective mechanisms. It may protect their right to use their sexuality to satisfy their pride and greed without having to fear what amounts to coercive theft or fraud. However, the provision of the remedy to a rights violation in this respect may itself involve the pride and greed of advocates or interest groups. This is because remedies provided under a societal norm or a bond of law have to be incentive compatible- otherwise they collapse. If people are motivated by pride and greed then the remedies against rights violations are themselves only attainable thanks to those very qualities. This requires establishing domination over those whose pride or greed, or just animal lust, may lead them to transgress. 

It is certainly possible that some saintly and self abnegating person will take on the job of dominating others despite lacking pride and greed. However, this domination will only ensure that acts of pride and greed of a legal type are protected from acts of pride and greed of an illegal type. Thus a greedy woman who marries a proud man seeking a 'trophy wife' may be safe from rape thanks to the dominance of an agent of Society who is self abnegating but who recognizes that the 'bourgeois strategy' (i.e. using uncorrelated asymmetries (e.g. who is married to whom or who owns what) is eusocial. 

Nussbaum may well believe that men are less prone to pride and greed. Men generally fuck for pleasure not profit or prestige- notoriously, they think with their dicks because the cost of doing so is low for their gender. Moreover they have created 'citadels'- the Judiciary and other mechanisms of State, the Arts and Sciences, and every competitive field of personal Excellence which gives rise to social Utility- be it Sport or Commerce or Higher Education. Again this may be because of the lower male 'parental investment' in what results from some heterosexual sex which in turn yields greater leisure to build 'citadels'

In other words, the very gender dimorphism which makes men less prone to be influenced by greed or pride in sexual matters also means that only their domination can secure the right of individual females to use sex to advance their own pride or greed in defiance of what the rest of their sex consider to be right and proper. 

Naturally, the most profitable way for a proud and greedy woman to assert this proposition is by incessantly depicting Men as all powerful and then seeking to appeal to their better nature so as to secure a personal benefit. Indeed, a proud and greedy woman is likely to try to ensnare a wealthy and prestigious protector by playing up her own helplessness and ethical heteronomy. 

But this involves telling stupid lies. That's cool, coz bimbos should be brainless- right? A mentally retarded man may still tell only the truth. The fact that the bimbo lies all the time is what makes her so eminently fuckable. Obviously, when I say 'her', I mean Amartya Sen.

In the context of a clear and bracing legal history of accountability for sexual assault and the legal recognition of sexual harassment,

this legal history features women motivated by rational economic considerations of a collective- 'pooling equilibrium'- type such that female productivity rose by much more than the cost of protecting the Hohfeldian incidents upon which that productivity was predicated. On the other hand, Justice advances by harming women motivated by pride and greed because it makes them equal before the law. Moreover, it has the effect of extending protection to all victims of sexual harassment regardless of gender. Contra Nussbaum, it acknowledges no privileged spaces- 'citadels'- where greedy and proud women may hope to unjustly enrich or ennoble themselves by using sex. 

Nussbaum confronts three “citadels of pride” ― the judiciary, the arts and sports. Exposing prideful privilege in the intellectual world,

she herself being a prime example as are those whom she had relationships with 

unpunished narcissism in the arts,

which is similar to her own narcissism in what were termed the 'Liberal Arts'. 

and toxic masculinity and corruption in sports,

trans-women with big testicles?  

she discusses egregious cases of male entitlement leading to sexual abuse and exploitation.

The problem here is that boys may be abused and exploited by men while men have been similarly targeted by proud or greedy women. 

She examines both successful and unsuccessful efforts to address these situations and proposes solutions.

No. She talks bollocks.  

Laying out a hopeful way forward, Nussbaum offers a path to accountability without malice and generosity without capitulation.

Rubbish! Lawyers and Economists- or, more generally, the Law & Econ tradition- can figure out what Hohfeldian 'incidents' should have incentive compatible mechanisms such that firstly, effective justiciability is achieved and, secondly, Aumann public signals enable rapid convergence to better correlated equilibria on the basis of public signals. 

Nussbaum's approach is mischievous. Why? Her main claim is that it is not the lack of proper public signals re. rights and immunities- 'Hohfeldian incidents'- with respect to sexual behavior which gave rise to a culture of sexual harassment but rather that Men, by their nature, have a certain proclivity. Changing Man's nature eliminates the problem. But a greedy or proud woman may claim to do so by the magic of her minge just as much as by a book she has shat out. This is a very old story indeed. It has never helped women as a class and women know this very well.

The fact is, when a proud or greedy woman objectifies the remainder of her sex and says 'I'm different. I'm special. Treat me as your Philosopher Queen.' she is doing the same thing as any harlot who breaks up a home so as to enrich or ennoble herself.. 

What is Nussbaum saying here? She is above the common ruck. Other people may be real but they have not acknowledged the reality that Nussbaum knows best. She is a Philosopher Queen. She won't acknowledge that laws have been created and enforced where it has been eusocial and incentive compatible to do so by people who have devoted their time to Law and Economics- not fairy stories written in ancient Greek. 

Why does Nussbaum speak of 'citadels'? Perhaps it is because of the dramatic picture painted by the epic poets of what happened after the citadel of Troy was been breached. The Women of Troy were bound for slavery and exile. But Helen's status was unimpaired. She goes from one ravaged Citadel to another intact Citadel. But for her beauty, who would now remember the name of Troy?

Nussbaum had elsewhere written-

The towers of Troy are burning. All that is left of the once-proud city is a group of ragged women, bound for slavery, their husbands dead in battle, their sons murdered by the conquering Greeks, their daughters raped. Hecuba their queen invokes the king of the gods, using, remarkably, the language of democratic citizenship: “Son of Kronus, Council-President [prytanis] of Troy, father who gave us birth, do you see these undeserved sufferings that your Trojan people bear?”

But it is Helen who is genuinely the daughter of Zeus. She isn't adversely affected by the outcome of the War. Indeed, had the Trojan Helen been a phantom merely, the restored consort of Menelaus's condition would have been no better or worse.  

Nussbaum may not believe in God- or may think it wiser to keep any such belief to herself. But she knows very well that Zeus's daughter suffered no harm whatsoever from her various adventures.

The Chorus answers grimly, “He sees, and yet the great city is no city. It has perished, and Troy exists no longer.” Hecuba and the Chorus conclude that the gods are not worth calling on, and that the very name of their land has been wiped out.

Had Helen not been so beautiful there may still have been a Trojan war but it would not now be remembered. Nussbaum's manic protestation in this regard reveals that she thinks of herself as Helen but- perhaps after a life-time of reproof from members of her sex- thinks it wiser to pretend to be concerned with the many too many non-Helens of this world. 

the name of Troy wasn’t wiped out after all. The imagination of its conquerors was haunted by it, transmitted it, and mourned it.

Coz of Helen. The sack of cities and the plight of slaves were things those guys were intimately familiar with. Troy was special coz Helen was gorgeous. 

Obsessively the Greek poets returned to this scene of destruction, typically inviting, as here, the audience’s compassion for the women of Troy and blame for their assailants.

Only Helen is to blame. But then her Daddy was Zeus. Like me, Helen was doomed to be the cause of a great tragedy. What is causing global warming? Is it not the fact that Gaia is hot for my bod? Interestingly, my g.f complains I come too fast. This means my sperm is ejaculated faster than the speed of light. It probably inseminated Helen which is how I came to be. Incidentally my first experiments in twerking were inspired by Helen's performance of Mehbooba in Sholay. This is not to say that Zeus himself did not arise purely out of my tachyonic spunk. 

In its very structure the play makes a claim for the moral value of compassionate imagining, as it asks its audience to partake in the terror of a burning city, of murder and rape and slavery.

But guys who watched that shit kept doing that shit. We don't. Why? Coz we pay taxes and then insist the Law changes so that Hohfeldian incidents which affect us get linked to incentive compatible juristic remedies.  

One way this happens is through exemplary punishment of egregious offenders- Weinsteins, Epsteins... oh dear... the Jew as scapegoat...maybe Nussbaum has a point in rejecting our glee at their punishment. Fuck am I saying? Nussbaum is a cretin. Weinstein, Epstein etc. have clarified the law. There is now a public signal which every Enterprise's lawyers, or their Professional Indemnity Insurance provider's lawyers, can translate into better 'incomplete contracts'. That's a good thing. Nussbaum says

Going to law is a costly business. Retributive emotions motivate bearing that cost. As with other emotions, this is helpful because such 'Darwinian algorithms of the mind' reinforce eusocial collective rules e.g. punish non 'Tit for Tat' agents till they get with the program. This is meta-retribution. It means that the payoff matrix is objective. This means you can seek retribution dispassionately. In the Bhagvad Gita, Krishna points out that if Arjuna need have no emotional investment in doing his duty. Society has ensured that the pay-off matrix will be the same in either case. In this sense, God is 'yantra arudhaani'  यन्त्रारूढानि i.e mounted upon the mechanisms of Evolutionary Game theory. 

What can be said of Hindu 'Artha' can be equally said of Greek Economia. 

Did Third or Fourth or Fifth wave Feminists muck up 'Me Too'? No. They created a countervailing sentiment that 'pussy grabbing' was okay if what we are talking about is merely the mutual molestation of the greedy and the proud. What's important is whether a guy we've hired to cut our taxes or to shut down abortion clinics gets to do so despite being a man. 

Nussbaum's book is worthless because she says she is going to discuss the law but does not have the faintest clue of Hohfeldian incidents. The Law makes progress when these are better specified. Now 'due process' activism can do somethings at some times but what 'due process' gives, the Bench can take away. Thus there is no substitute for Legislative codification on the one hand and the proactive usage of 'consent decrees' on the other hand to make life better for us all. However, this immediately means that gender goes out of the window. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Second Wave Feminism accepted this and made advances in the Sixties. Third Wave Feminism didn't and shat the bed. Nussbaum may be on the right side of this- who can tell?- she writes like shit- but, the fact remains, if what one is really writing about is a specific identity group based on an uncorrelated asymmetry (e.g. peeps born without penises, or peeps born of slave ancestry) and if one is looking to sustain a useful type of 'separating equilibrium', then you have to have in-group transfers. The problem with both Feminism and BLM is that high status members of the in-group don't want to sacrifice anything for the rest. Rather they want to draw a rent from their Identity even if this costs a lot to those lower down. Since rents only arise where there is inelasticity, people like Nussbaum deny the dynamics of any social process. They turn a masochistic fantasy into political ontology. One may think of oneself- for some lubricious or ludicrous purpose as merely an object- but when one claims power or obligatory passage point status for oneself by asserting that this 'objectification' is an essential feature of social life then one has passed the boundary between wanker and pimp. Consider the following-

Nussbaum ignores the obvious. Violence is risky. The real life Soames had forcible sex with his wife. He may not have thought this was 'violence', but his sisters did. The lady had no money of her own and was of inferior social position. She couldn't leave her Old Etonian husband- more particularly because he did quite well in the Territorial Army. It is notable that his second wife- the daughter of a General- got on very well with him. Had 'Soames' not redeemed himself for divorcing his wife- an expensive business back then- by having a good War record and, later, for volunteering during the First World War though over the age of 50- it is likely that he would have died a miserable man. The proper thing to have done was to encourage the artsy wife to move to Italy 'for her health' and make her a generous allowance so that she confined her erotic adventure to gigolos rather than pose a snare and a temptation for 'men of property'- including his cousin John, an old Harrovian and good shot who sadly got saddled with a neurotic, declasse, wife purely because of his own chivalrous Public School spirit.

This is not to say that 'men of property' were immune to the charms of black-eyed women- provided they had blackened those eyes themselves. But there were discreet places a gentleman could do that sort of thing in between getting flogged himself. The truth is, it is cheaper and safer to be violent to people who don't know where you live- i.e. people you are not associated with in any way. Sadism to one's own   slave or brutality to one's own wife may get one locked up or killed so property passes to a more prudent relative. Moreover, where coercive means are used, it may be cheaper and safer to have the dirty work done by people of the same identity class. 

To preserve the status quo, it is important to freeze up social geography. The economic dynamics of violence is such that identity classes get eroded. Empires end up ruled by 'Slave' dynasties. The obvious counter measure is to create an apartheid ideology. But economic and biological forces erode this ceaselessly. The game is not worth the candle.

The one useful thing elderly academics can do is say- 'Don't study or teach a shite subject. Start a business or join a useful profession. My discipline is adversely selective. Its practitioners have been getting stupider and more ignorant decade by decade. Defund us.'. It may be, by her stupidity and self-regard, Nussbaum achieves precisely this result.