Right. To follow on the structural problem of sexism, I have a question: Is capitalism itself inherently sexist?

I personally think capitalism isn't inherently sexist: it can exist in a world without gender.

However, it reinforces a society's underlying sexism, racism, etc. So you often have to work against capitalism to fight other oppressions. And vice-versa.

If anything capitalism provides a safety valve against irrational sexism and racism. See eg the case of gender arbitrate in Korea, http://www.economist.com/node/17311877

good question! i'd say that at the very least capitalism as implemented today is, because it doesn't take the disproportionate impact of parenthood on women into account, and acts to exacerbate rather than to reduce that impact.

I wish that more people would join you in distinguishing "Capitalism" as an economic interface (to use the programming definition) from particular instantiations of it.

Is capitalism implemented? I think of it more like a force of nature that cannot really be controlled.

The replier in question was likely talking about the implementation of capitalism in the United States, with it's associated labor laws, taxes, regulations, etc. Compared to, say, China where it's a more natural extension of global trade creating a capitalist system. Or many European countries with better maternity leave.

Some forms of trade will always exist, but there's a fine line between trade, monetary systems, free markets, mercantile capitalism and modern (AKA industrial) capitalism. Which too many people seem to confuse as one.

And to answer your original question, of course capitalism isn't sexist, it's a broad economic system. However a capitalist system can suffer from sexist tendencies when the rules (laws, regulations, culture, society, etc.) governing it push it that way, the same any economic system can.

Ahhh. See, I think of capitalism as a global phenomenon with mercantilist states being one set of players and corporations the other. Taxes, regulations etc. are merely tools states use to wage economic war against competing states on behalf of their constituent corporations.

In this sense no nation has any real power over capitalism itself. If they enact regulations to try and reduce sexism within their borders they run the risk of reducing their constituent corporations' ability to compete on the global stage.

> Taxes, regulations etc. are merely tools states use to wage economic war against competing states on behalf of their constituent corporations.

It's not that easy. States are not coherent actors. People are watching out for themselves first, for their corporations and states etc second or third.

Somewhat more optimistic, different countries have different rules. The power of arbitrate to even force the same level of taxation seems pretty low. (And forcing the same level of sexism seems even harder.)

If I understand your question, then yes. Take for example the former US embassador to Haiti who warned against "resurgent populist and anti-market economy political forces—reversing gains of the last two years." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bertrand_Aristide#Return_t...)

Capitalist economies are carefully implemented by states; refusal to implement these artificial things puts your country at risk of terrorism by militant capitalist states. You may like Graeber's _Debt: The First 5000 Years_ for a useful perspective.

It might make more sense to ask "is humanity inherently sexist?"

Is the universe inherently nihilist?

Only if nihilism is universal.

Free will is one of my foma. I don't actually believe it exists in a meaningful sense, but I live my life as though it does. Pretending that it exists makes my life simpler and happier.

I don't think we will understand free will until we have more of a handle on time and causality. I think free will exists, however I don't think we understand what it is and are maybe just looking at the whole thing in the wrong way. Also, on the face of it, it would seem slightly odd for a completely clockwork universe to contain beings that worry about if they have free will.

> Also, on the face of it, it would seem slightly odd for a completely clockwork universe to contain beings that worry about if they have free will.

Maybe, but to argue thew other side, we have a god-free universe filed with people who wonder if they've joined the one true church.

I wouldn't say that the universe is clockwork; quantum mechanics throws a wrench in that. However, unlike Penrose, I do not believe that quantum mechanics plays a crucial role in the human mind. I believe that the human mind could be (and probably is) clockwork.

I find that it is difficult to get shit done with that mindset though, so I live my life as though I did not believe it.

Quantum mechanics is actually way better than clockworks. If you ignore the infamous collapse of the wave function, quantum mechanics is fully linear and does NOT allow for chaos.

A classic world of colliding billiard balls is much harder to predict.

If you had free will, why would you worry about if you have it?

Cos you have the free will to do so might be as good a reason as any other.

First, you'd need to come up with a definition of free will that makes sense.

What I satisfy myself is: "People are responsible for their own actions".

That relies on some emotionally intuitive notion of "responsible" which I cannot bootstrap from what I know of the universe. That is why "free will" is foma to me. Rationally I do not believe it to exist because I cannot define it rationally (not only do I find myself unable to do it, I believe that it is not possible).