Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
This is a touchy subject because it has reference to sexist ideology. But I'm trying to present a problem that, perhaps, could shed light on the difference between a masculine morality and feminine morality.
* Women have a higher vaccination rate than men, even though equally both men and women are concerned/worried about covid-19. What's the reason? Men are just generally not into going to health facilities/doctors. So, this is a non-ethical issue. The men's lagging behind vaccination has nothing to do with their ideology or belief.
*Men and women grieve the same way, men may even have more intense grief than women. But, as we all know, men hide their emotions and use distractions such as work to mask their true feelings.
*Charitable giving is higher in women than in men, and this is due to findings that in women, charitable giving is a social event, but not for men.
*Women want, or file for, a divorce at a much higher rate than men, and when it happens, men are more traumatized than women. Men are afraid they would be denied their children.
*Men are as caring as women when their partners/spouses are feeling sick.
*Men have a higher rate than women of helping a stranger in need but women are more empathetic.
*Men's competitiveness in almost all aspects of life makes them less ethical than women. As a result, men feel less guilt than women. Women feel more remorse and guilt towards another person.
Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women.
* Women have a higher vaccination rate than men, even though equally both men and women are concerned/worried about covid-19. What's the reason? Men are just generally not into going to health facilities/doctors. So, this is a non-ethical issue. The men's lagging behind vaccination has nothing to do with their ideology or belief.
*Men and women grieve the same way, men may even have more intense grief than women. But, as we all know, men hide their emotions and use distractions such as work to mask their true feelings.
*Charitable giving is higher in women than in men, and this is due to findings that in women, charitable giving is a social event, but not for men.
*Women want, or file for, a divorce at a much higher rate than men, and when it happens, men are more traumatized than women. Men are afraid they would be denied their children.
*Men are as caring as women when their partners/spouses are feeling sick.
*Men have a higher rate than women of helping a stranger in need but women are more empathetic.
*Men's competitiveness in almost all aspects of life makes them less ethical than women. As a result, men feel less guilt than women. Women feel more remorse and guilt towards another person.
Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women.
Comments (137)
Morality is an attempt to make sense of behaviour in a way that enables us to predict and control future behaviour. It is ‘measured’ differently in each individual, gender, social group, society, culture, time period, historical era, etc. In some cultures or aspects of life, it is the women who are less likely to see a doctor, or more traumatised by divorce, or less ethical.
So I don’t think this is necessarily a gender divide. It’s more along the lines of how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world.
For women generally, I would suggest that most action (as well as inaction) is a social event, whether charitable giving, getting vaccinated, seeing a stranger or loved one in need, grieving, feeling sick or filing for divorce. Most women have recognised, to some extent at least, that isolating themselves from their qualitative relation to the world is an illusion.
For men generally, as you have described here, most action (as well as inaction) seems to be a transaction between themselves and the world as two separate entities. Philosophically, though, this seems to be outdated thinking. Consider - how much less violence, hatred, oppression, abuse and neglect would exist if everyone viewed each of their actions/inactions as social events?
That our culture perpetuates this divide along gender lines is simply a way of controlling and predicting behaviour that has been supported by statistical differences in physicality (eg. Muscle mass, childbirth, etc). Yet there are many men who are naturally more empathetic than the average woman, and many women who were far more traumatised by divorce than their husbands. Binary statistics described as ‘more’ or ‘less’ simply enables us to pretend the data is black and white, when even a 99-1 split consists of shades of grey.
There is no ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ - all this does is perpetuate false gender and moral binary models. The ethical question is whether or not we should view an action/inaction such as getting vaccinated or seeing a doctor as a complex social event, or as a simple transaction.
Historically. But in more modern terms 'feminine' and 'masculine' qualities (psychologically speaking) are not exclusive to either sex. Just like Red in Spanish doesn't have a penis or a vagina, yet grammatically language has morphed into a weird admixture of terms across history.
Physiologically there are quite distinct differences between men and women. In a few situations (as with most situations in nature) there are exceptions where sex as a defining feature is less than clear.
Sapolsky refers to humans as the confused ape as unlike other ape species the difference between male and female is far less pronounced. The vast number of differences scientifically/statistically documented are more or less only noticable at the extremes or when culminated across large population groups (ie. height or muscles mass, as well as personality traits too a far lesser degree).
As for morality ... I personally don't see any reason to care for it :)
Buddha was a man.
Moses was a man.
Jesus was a man.
Mohammad was a man.
.
.
.
But...
Hitler was a man.
Stalin was a man.
Mao was a man.
Pol Pot was a man.
Idi Amin was a man.
Ted Bundy was a man.
Ed Gein was a man.
.
.
.
The best of us are men, the worst of us are men.
No women have founded a religion (ethics mixed with metaphysical mumbo jumbo)
Even so, some of the fairer sex are openly racist, some are serial killers, others are accomplices to crime, etc.
On the whole, men and women differ, morally, only in degrees and not in type i.e. women are immoral, only not as much as men. Let's see what the future holds, the tables might turn if it hasn't already and we'll get to know the so-called true colors of men, women, children & old folk ( :sad: ).
There's obviously a double standard, but the question is whether the double standard is itself moral. That is, it's clear that men may be considered moral when engaging in certain behaviors where a woman wouldn't be, but are you suggesting that should be the case due to inherent differences in the constitution of males and females, or are you suggesting we need to progress past the double standard and have a universal standard for both?
The politically correct response is that what is acceptable for one is acceptable for the other, but there are religious traditions that hold otherwise and that clearly designate specific roles for each. I'm not sure from your post if you're challenging the wisdom of a universal standard given what the statistical data shows regarding the distinctions between the genders.
Why would a female perspective be better at determining which morality ought pertain to women than a man's would? That seems to imply subjectivism, like if a Frenchman refused to consider the moral judgment of an American because the American didn't understand what it's like to be French. It would seem we ought have one standard, and even if we should find reasons to offer different moralities based upon gender (or whatever distinguishing feature), we would need to objectively justify it and not just defer to what the subgroup thought ought apply to them.
Seems a slippery slope to allow each discernable group the right to dictate which moral standards ought apply to them.
You're assuming you haven't heard from any women.
Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, and, of course, the Virgin Mary.
That is a brilliant observation / deducing / claim by a simple ability to read and comprehend what I wrote.
(Sorry for the snide remark... but if you think I am an idiot, why can't I return the favour? Peace, Sister Clark.)
I haven't seen any response to @Possibility's comment about the source of your information. I am skeptical of the characterizations you have made. I'm even more skeptical about the rationales you have provided for the differences between men a women. Since you say you know this thread deals with a touch subject, it's hard to accept you making claims with no justification.
So far what I read was that different rules apply to men and to women. Imagine someone stood up and said the same rules should apply to women and to men. Regardless of their gender, or sex, or spectrum analytical behaviour, would that not mean a diversification of opinions? and as related to gender.
So I don't say one group should dominate the decision of how each of us must observe and see reality, but still, if you all decide that men are put different expectations on their shoulders from women on theirs, then if that's all men saying it, then it's a gender-biassed opinion. And bias is not good.
Unless, like you say, or like you don't say, bias is not a bad thing, or a bad thing.
Better or not, it may be different. "It" being a division of what morality should be dispersed over the millions and billions of different genders and how it should be dispersed.
Of course nobody would need to ask us, you, me, or any of the participants here, to decide for themselves what they should think.
Sarcasm?
Well, Mary was meant to be... I guess ironic, but the other two were serious.
:ok: Women, they were once, how shall I put it?, support staff. Mohammed had many wives, Moses too practiced polygamy, but Buddha, on the other hand, abandoned his wife & son (I can't do that and perhaps that's why I'm no Buddha, not by a long shot).
If I were a woman, I think your dismissive statement about women's role in religion would bother me. Hey, wait a minute... I'm not a woman and it bothers me. Your comment is, how should I put it? ignorant.
I call it as I see it. That's all.
Watch any movies lately? Most actresses have only supporting roles. Men still rule the roost on screen; hearkens back to women's position in the family and society about 50 years ago and before.
So, calling it as you see it excuses you from having to justify opinions that are ignorant and disrespectful.
Why should they bother? They create those who create religions.
Men are as vital to (pro)creation as women although this :point: [hide]"It may come as a surprise to some of our male readers, but you all actually started out as females - physically and phenotypically speaking." [/hide]
interesting fact has a point to make.
No personal opinion. All the points are taken from articles citing studies. And yes, statistics was involved.
Quoting Possibility
So, we're just gonna ignore the fact that your gender divide has a lot to do with how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world? Isn't this like a sleight of hand which makes your audience think you're saying two different things but really aren't?
Quoting Possibility
Another attempt at confusing the above point -- women recognize that it is an illusion to ignore their gender in relation to the world.
Quoting Possibility
You know it would be nice if violence, hatred, etc are reduced if everyone viewed their actions as social events -- but opinions like this are just opinions. The reality is in statistics and studies.
Quoting Possibility
What? No -- the reality of gender is the reason why our culture is like this, not the way you're describing it. I have no idea that in the year 2021 to 2022, gender has become synonymous with despicable crime! Why has gender become a dirty word?
Quoting Possibility
There is. scientific american
Quoting Possibility
I don't have a problem with that. What's your answer?
Quoting I like sushi
And again, people speak of differences in gender as if it's criminal. No! historically, and pre-historically, men protected the women and children and hunted boars and bears and fought invaders. I don't understand why replacing gender with "physiological" is a good option and somehow makes us all "educated and refined". Gender has a lot to do with physiological. Why do you sound so much like Possibility? Are you and Possibility the same posters?
Quoting T Clark
Trust me I have consulted findings and studies to back my OP. I'm just lazy right now to provide the links. It is a touchy subject because we get posters like Possibility who start mincing and dicing educational words so that gender becomes the enemy here. There are other things to fear -- zombies, for one. Ax murderers, another.
Yes, what are called ‘feminine’ characteristics are traditionally (universally even) associated with females. Society has shifted.
It is a ‘touchy subject’ and if you’re touchy about it it doesn’t help anyone.
I think it is reasonable to say that on the whole there are differences in values between me and women and that these things have changed as society changes too. How are they different? There are personality traits that show some differences between men and women. It also follows that different values will give different moral stances.
The question for me is not whether men and women have different moral maps but exactly how different they are.
Thank you - but I do think it’s important to cite your sources here, if you have the time. Studies can be made to show, for instance, that coffee is both good for you and bad for you. I’m not convinced by either binary value results or ‘more vs less’ statements in articles citing ‘studies’. But I recognise that this is a common argument for ‘natural’ gender differences.
Quoting L'éléphant
I recognise that the aim of analysis is to simplify the landscape, to conclude one way or the other. The assumption is that there must eventually be only two options. But how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world is not as simple as male or female. Just because I’m female, don’t assume that I’m going to be more charitable or empathetic than the guy next to me. And the fact that I mask my feelings more than a male co-worker does not mean I don’t feel them as deeply.
You assume the statistics can stand alone in the statements of your OP, without any context. We cannot assume that statistics drawn along gender lines is sufficient evidence for ‘natural’ rather than culturally-constructed differences.
Quoting L'éléphant
Actually, the past is in statistics, but the reality is in our relation to the context of each study.
Quoting L'éléphant
Strawman - spare me your indignation. The politics of gender division is the reason our culture is like this. The reality of gender is far more complex than a male-female binary suggests. My issue is with the divide, not with gender. Men and women are not all the same, sure - but neither are they two sides of a binary.
Quoting L'éléphant
This article illustrates a socio-cultural pattern of perception and behaviour in relation to a specific question: if we divide the data along a gender binary, is there a difference? The answer is yes, but they’re clear that it has nothing to do with the Y chromosome itself. So what you refer to as ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ are socio-cultural constructions, highlighting the fact that these binary models ‘masculine-feminine’ and ‘good-bad’ are both an oversimplification of reality.
Quoting L'éléphant
I would argue for a complex social event. I recognise that it renders everything less definitive, but that’s reality (as opposed to statistics and studies).
Quoting L'éléphant
Most differences in gender you’ve described in your OP are socio-culturally constructed based on different patterns of physiology that overlap in multi-dimensional ways. What is ‘educated and refined’ is the ability to explore gender as a complex multi-dimensional structure, instead of continually reducing it to a binary.
Incidentally, I find it interesting that your description of men’s historical/pre-historical role prioritises individual genetic survival over the collective development of humanity.
Gender has recently taken on a slightly different take distinct from sex, but I think it has been overly politicised by a small minority within a small minority. As a technical term I'm fine with using the term any way people like just as long as we're both clear we're talking about the same thing.
The OP seems to be something of a needling against perceived wishy washy types who are more interested in siding with any kind of activists simply because they can and they get a kick out of it. Generally the serious types are not screaming they are just asking questions and considering different views rather than pushing an agenda.
My position is basically against 'morality' as some kind of 'rule'.
When it comes to groups and individuals the very differences being discussed here take on a different means. Collectively women behave differently to men and are different to men in attitudes and psychological make up. On an individual to individual to individual basis the chances of distinguishing a man from a woman purely based on psychology alone is more or less guess work.
It is incredibly easy to confuse the behaviour of a rain drop with the behaviour of rain - as in the behaviour of a man/woman with the behaviour of men/women.
No less, or it could even be worse.
Something being seen as a social event doesn't automatically make it good or at least unproblematic.
This claim was made, for example:
Quoting L'éléphant
but no discussion as to the motivations for this "charitable giving". It could be an act of charitable giving motivated by a sense of a burdensome obligation, or in an effort to improve one's social image and standing, or out of a psychological compulsion to be seen as a "good person", or, specifically, a "good girl". All these motivations are social in their nature, but it's hard to claim that they are wholesome.
It's probably possible to act socially also out of wholesome motivations, but here, specifically, I'm addressing your point on the positive consequences of viewing actions/inactions as social event, as if doing so could/would have only positive consequences.
The externally observable action (in this case, charitable giving) doesn't say anything about the person's motivations for doing it. Yet it's the person's motivations for doing something that determines the quality of the action for the person doing the action, and for the one on the receiving end as well.
Doing things for the social reasons mentioned above (burdensome obligation, an effort to improve one's social image and standing, a psychological compulsion to be seen as a "good person) is more likely to lead to violence, hatred, oppression, abuse, and neglect.
A case can even be argued that women are generally more aggressive and more violent than men, because even though women may be more charitable than men, they generally do so for unwholesome motivations, and the quality of those motivations eventually has negative repercussions in one way or another.
For example, in our culture, it is considered moral that women should use hormonal contraceptives (despite the known dangers they pose to the health and life of women and despite not being completely reliable).
So to you, it seems a slippery slope to allow women the right to dictate which moral standards ought apply to them?
A portion of your response has been posted The Philosophy Forum Facebook page.
Congratulations and thank you for your contribution!
Why? Because I found it and thought others might relate to the idea. What for? To highlight a member.
If you would like I am more than willing to remove it from the Facebook page.
Would you like me to remove it?
No worries at all. I have deleted the post of Facebook. This is one of the reasons I post what I post within the thread I am highlighting.
Men provide genetic material. Women provide that, plus nine months use of their bodies as a place to grow. One man is all that's needed, but you need one woman per child.
Also, unlikely that the holy spirit is into men.
Sure, men and women are more or less distinguishable, but I would argue (rather pedantically) it is a general pattern that there are males and females, not an overall one. From my experience in education, the issues in simply instructing students to ‘make a line for boys and a line for girls’ can no longer be underestimated at any age, and the capacity of younger generations to allow for gender complexity is both staggering and humbling. Regardless of how we feel about it, we can’t keep assuming that we adhere to a binary gender model as a ‘rule’.
But my issue isn’t so much with gender as it is with the oversimplified nature of the entire OP argument. “Statistics show that Ps are more x than Qs, but that Qs are more y than Ps” - these remind me of the old women’s magazine quizzes that asked half a dozen hypothetical scenario multiple choice questions and then assigned you one of four labels based on answers that were ‘mostly As’, ‘mostly Bs’, etc. It sounds satisfyingly definitive, but there’s just no accuracy to it that can be of any philosophical use.
Quoting I like sushi
I’m with you here.
Yes, there are collective gender differences in patterns of behaviour, attitude and psychology, but they’re large scale, qualitative differences that are useless in reliably predicting behaviour in individuals, but reasonably effective in controlling them.
The same goes for scientific procedure.
Such views go both ways in regards to 'control'. Stating facts portrayed as attempts to control makes me suspicious about the underlying intent.
Children
1. Creation.
2. Nurture.
3. Release (into the wild).
It takes a team: family (parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents) + friends + ...
Just a thought!
Well, a case can be argued for almost anything within the parameters of men vs women and morality, such is the nature of the landscape. While I agree that viewing something as a social event doesn’t automatically make it ‘good’, I want to point out that I don’t necessarily agree with the concept of objective moral judgement as such.
And I don’t think you’re understanding what I mean by a social event - you’re still viewing charitable giving, for instance, as a social transaction between consolidated quantities, giving and receiving. By social event I’m referring to a qualitative relation, regardless of quantities, that is limited by awareness. More awareness leads to more connection and more collaboration, which leads to less violence, hatred, oppression, abuse or neglect. These destructive behaviours develop at the point where awareness, connection or collaboration ends - where ignorance, isolation or exclusion begins.
Charitable giving viewed as a social event has no negative consequence in itself, regardless of one’s motivation. It is only how this event is consolidated (ie. subject-intention-action-consequence-object) and quantified that enables moral judgement in the context of a transaction, social or otherwise. If in giving one assumes something in return (whether improved social image/standing or to fulfil an obligation), then what you’re referring to is the transaction rather than the social event, and any moral judgement is relative to one’s perspective in that transaction. So a charitable transaction can easily be viewed as negative by someone who may be disadvantaged by it (a son losing part of his inheritance, or a ‘friend’ with an inferior social image, for instance).
A social event refers to an open opportunity for awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion. Choosing to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, regardless of one’s initial perspective, reduces violence, hatred, oppression, etc in any act.
I’m intrigued by your use of the term ’wholesome’. I take this to mean ‘conducive to or characterised by health or moral wellbeing’. I’m interested to see you expand on your argument that ‘unwholesome motivations’ for charitable giving such as a compulsion to be seen as a ‘good’ person are more likely to lead to violence - than what? I’ve yet to see charitable giving lead to violence in itself, regardless of the motivation behind it. I’m also curious to hear a man’s supposedly more ‘wholesome’ motivations for charitable giving...?
I'm saying that morality and ethics for men and women are different contextually based on gender/physiology. So, while we can generally say that people believe in morality, the divide between genders reveal that the emphasis of moral actions between men and women are different. You don't think that the much lower rate of men wanting/filing for divorce has something to do with the primitive behavior of males as protectors in the wild?
Have we forgotten paternalism? Coming from the word "father", paternalism actually wants to limit the freedom of the individual to protect them from themselves! One can make an argument that the road to hell is paved with good intention. Historically, men would not hesitate to commit unethical actions to preserve society and show what the greater good is.
I have no objection to you forming your own opinion. This thread is as much pointing out the facts that most wouldn't want to talk about as it is expressing one's dissatisfaction about anything.
Quoting I like sushi
This is neither technical nor colloquial. So, no need to make a notation.
Your point is similar to Agent Smith above. Again, I'm not denying that males have feminine traits too. But are you not noticing the pattern here? You guys are arguing against me about traits that have no bearing on what I'm saying about morality and ethics. Shouldn't you continue that train of thought like this -- males have feminine traits too, just like women have feminine traits, so therefore, they don't have differences in morality. Why is the default trait only feminine?
Quoting baker
In fact, it is the women's dislike of being seen as bad or uncaring that drives them to do charitable giving. So, you are correct to question the motivation.
Quoting I like sushi
Incorrect. Vaccination is an example of paternalism -- we restrict the freedom of individuals because we believe that there is a greater good that's more important. Coercion for vaccination is done in the name of health and science, truthful as it is, it is still coercion and restriction.
The primitive humans living in caves had no concept or awareness of socio-cultural constructs. Heck, they're primitives, with no language. You should be looking at this time in human civilization where males just took it upon themselves to fight wild animals and invaders because women would have zero chance of surviving those attacks. If this behavior of primitive males does not strike you as moral behavior, then what was it they were doing? Extra-curricular activities? Physical education?
Because I'm trying to make a point. Vaccination is something concrete they could grasp.
Oh you're trying to make a valid point? I thought you were just complaining that I was using vaccination as a means to win an argument. Well, in that case, enlighten me as to what exactly your point is? Maybe I can hazard a correct response?
No, because I agree there is a difference. I don’t care for ‘morals’ as I’ve stated. I have made quite clear (so I thought?) that men and women in general will have different ethical maps because they are different.
I mentioned the way feminine and masculine are used because I wasn’t convinced you were aware of how they can be used in psychology. If I was wrong I was wrong, it doesn’t hurt to state how the terms are used though.
Quoting L'éléphant
But there is also a ‘motherly protection’ aspect too this. Shielding people from harm. We can argue for both maternal and paternal instincts here. Restricting freedom is seen by you as masculine/paternal but not feminine/maternal … probably because feminine and maternal are not exactly synonymous. The virtuous character traits if women (historically) have been more or less ‘passive’ traits, but for archetypes like the all consuming mother figure there is a large amount of tyranny involved as well as great danger.
Overall I would probably expect this to be so. On an individual to individual basis I’m not sure it would hold up just as we cannot say definitively that one random woman is less aggressive than one random man (although I would bet on it being the man knowing the odds are slightly in my favour).
A blind man in a dark room describing the sun would do a better job in many cases than you do in describing religion and religious figures. Also, maybe you should read some feminist theory on religion and history generally. The contributions of women may have been historically marginalized/ignored, but it would be nice if we modern folk tried a bit harder at learning about what actually happened before writing off more than 50% of the population.
As for founding religions - outside of Muhammad, I don’t think you’ve named a single person (male or female) that founded one.
Putting aside religion, the comments here, including yours, suffer from a profound lack of awareness of culture/socialization versus essential categorical features (whether the category is biological or otherwise). Western civilization and patriarchy’s need to categorize people in ways to justify oppression was boring 50 years ago. The attribution of characteristics based upon biology needs to stop. Ethics, as a social construct, is not a feature of a particular individual’s biological composition, even if a particular ethic includes distinctions based upon such composition. One cannot strip ethics from culture and one cannot really discuss ethics in the absence of social behavior.
Even @L'éléphant’s passing reference to scientific America in support of the non-sense being spewed is painfully wrong. From the article:
[quote=“SA”]
… Shall we blame it on testosterone, the Y chromosome, or other genetic differences? The current evidence doesn't point in that direction. Instead, a recent series of studies by Laura Kray and Michael Haselhuhn suggests that the root of this pattern may be more socio-cultural in nature, as men - at least in American culture - seem motivated to protect and defend their masculinity. These scientists suggest that losing a "battle," particularly in contexts that are highly competitive and historically male oriented, presents a threat to masculine competency. Apparently manhood is relatively fragile and precarious, and when it is challenged, men tend to become more aggressive and defensive. …
[/quote]
This conversation is a bit like the historic study of psychology - a bunch of Westerners studying Westerners or groups they brought to heel making universal claims about humanity. Stop acting as if bad empericism saves flagrantly sexist claims from being sexist. We are, I hope, sophisticated enough on this forums to understand that universal claims about morality are dumb, that discussing a particular morality as if it is a stand in for all possible moralities is dumb, and that the the descriptivism of ethnographers does not set the boundaries for meta-ethics or the normative claims that particular ethical theories make.
Even if there is a general agreement that whether man or woman we should behave within certain boundaries it still comes to the point that there are general differences between men and women and that perhaps the general agreement about human bahaviours we wish to aspire towards (as men or women) necessarily means that there is a general difference in paths towards such an aspired place of civil communication, laws and such.
The underlying question I have is whether or not the differences in how men and women value certain aspects of human life differs enough to warrant justification for any discussion into how society can be better directed towards equality for all (as in equality of choice).
I defer to your superior intellect o wise one!
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
:up: Excellent point. You echo the late Christopher Hitchens!
The rest of your post, :up:
Women, if you'vr read Agatha Christie, are as evil as men! Agatha Christie was a woman. A woman's view of women.
Biologically speaking, males and females have important differences but morally speaking, I think they are the same beast, by and large.
I suspect that the moral differences people perceive between sexes are 1) possibly due to their own sexism, and 2) possibly due to a power difference between men and women in society. Power corrupts, and it is easier to remain a good person when you are powerless.
I'm not really seeing clear cases of morality here. When I think about morality, I think about 10 commandment stuff. Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. Do you believe that women on average view these things as any less or more moral than men on average?
A person without any power is merely useless as they cannot do anything. A person with power can do something.
Good people exist because they possess the power to do something not because they are inept. I could just as easily argue that refusing claims to power would make you a bad person because it could be framed as cowardice and refusal to take responsibility.
I'm not committing to the greater validity of an ethical theory based upon paternalism, I'm just saying that there is just one answer to the question of "Is act X moral?," without regard to whether a male (or female) believes it to be so.
If a male's interpretation of protection is to limit the autonomy of a woman and treat her as a less capable class, then his act is immoral. I'm not suggesting we've gotten it right in terms of figuring out the moral from the immoral. I'm only suggesting that there is just one answer to the question of what is right.
Quoting L'éléphant
I think there are a myriad of reasons couples divorce. The divorce could be the result of the woman no longer needing the man in the traditional sense, as in, if the marriage were formed on the basis of providing financial stability for the woman while she was raising children, but now the children are grown and the woman is otherwise financially secure.
But there are other possibilities besides that. It might be that men are unfaithful at higher rates and that destroys marriages.
It might also be that women are able to seek emotional connections with their female friends and don't require that in a marriage as a man might, who may be unable to emotively connect with other men.
It may also be that women are less willing to endure a bad marriage than men, especially if the man deprioritizes the significance of the marriage and prioritizes work or recreation.
Again, in the traditional context, men might also see divorce as financially more devastating than the woman in terms of child support, alimony, division of retirement benefits, the loss of the house, or the debt falling onto him and so they maintain the marriage in name only, but go about their lives in a less than married way.
I'm hesitant to invoke tales of what early human society must have been like and how that embedded itself in our DNA and that can then be used to explain our current behavior. Such tales are highly speculative and really not based on scientific evidence. I take them as "just so stories." If you're interested in how the elephant got its trunk, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories
Good post.
Sure. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that power corrupts and that men have more power than women in many societies. Therefore men tend to be more exposed to the corruptive effects of power than women, on average.
In case this is of interest:
Setting aside tribal societies the world over, both ancient and modern - a fair enough portion of which are best inferred to either be matriarchal or, more commonly, of equivalent social power between male and female roles and abilities - there’s the longest standing society known to humankind: ancient Egypt. Its dynastic period lasted roughly three millennia; and one can deem that ancient Egypt society at large lasted six millennia if one includes ancient Egypt’s predynastic era. This early human society is certainly not an insignificant blimp on the screen of human history, nor is it a mere anomaly in terms of what our innate, genetically inherited human nature is capable of.
Though the number is disputed, it’s factually known that the ancient Egypt empire had several female pharaohs. This fact should be considered in concurrence with the following:
Quoting Love, Sex, and Marriage in Ancient Egypt - Joshua J. Mark
It wasn’t an idealized total equality between men and women in an advanced society, true. But meanwhile Anglo-Saxon cultures still have sometimes grave issues with electing female presidents. Then again, our primary religion(s) tends to place the value of maleness way above that of femaleness via the religion’s creation mythologies. God being a “he”; Eve being just a rib from Adam’s body and not (at least directly) endowed with the “breath of the Lord”; so forth. Then again, the acceptability of incest in ancient Egypt can also be traced back to its creation myths: Osiris and Isis where after all both lovers and siblings.
BTW, if the quality of references is wanting, couldn't find better ones for this post on a whim. But may I be fact-checked if needed.
Here is what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Egypt#Female_genital_mutilation
It seems ancient Egyptian women fared better than current day ones, with a report of 87% of women there undergoing female genital mutilation currently.
There was a drastic change in religion between ancient and modern Egypt, wasn't there.
No it doesn't. I think we've been over this before though.
Yes it does and no, we haven't.
I would basically equate power to ability. The 'ability' may be used as a detriment or not. If I have the ability to kill people (which I do and so does practically everyone else) I can apply this in ways that can be deemed as 'corrupt' or 'just' depending on differing circumstances.
Using power for personal gain and interest above all ease is 'corruption'. That is nothing like saying power causes corruption anymore than it is to say evaporation causes thunder storms or water causes animals to swim. Power can undoubtedly be talked about in terms of how corruption manifests but it is not a root cause in and of itself.
Power is just as likely to make changes for good and it is for bad (whatever the perception of good or bad may be).
I see far too much people trying to drag down others because they are competent and/or possess abilities they don't possess.
Basically I'm saying the term 'power' has been 'corrupted' top suit the means of those who generally lack competence. Is someone 'coercing' or 'suggesting' or 'guiding'? The term used to describe someone generally tells us more about the person saying it than the person they are referring to if they view power as some root of corruption (not that I am saying you said that).
First, most of the site members are male, and rather few of them have made any study of feminist philosophies or women philosophers in general.
Second, most societies for most of history have been male dominated. I think it is safe to say, that if power does not necessarily corrupt, it at least tends to distort. It is very easy to come up with a list like 's showing that the extremes of virtue and vice, or talent and creativity, or any other vague metric are almost exclusively male. One might consider where Joan of Arc, Bloody Mary, Elizabeth1, fit in, but the list of females in power is so short, that the statistics are always going to be suspect when generalised. The argument for the mediocrity of a group that has always been excluded on the basis of their mediocrity is - weak. {And therefore unworthy of a male :wink: }
For another example of the circularity, it is often maintained that there have been no great female artists. Once we know this, we need not waste our time looking at women's art. Therefore it is not bought, does not hang in prestigious galleries, and no one really sees it. and the absence from the prestigious galleries proves that women's art is universally mediocre. But now spend some time looking at this gallery: https://www.facebook.com/female.artists.in.history/ - just look at how much of it there is throughout history, and the almost inescapable conclusion is that the trope of female mediocrity is itself part of the social system that keeps women in a state of subservience.
It might be an idea, if one is looking for a possible difference in the morality and ethics of men and women, to look at a couple of women philosophers' writings. For example, compare and contrast the moral philosophies of Jean Paul Sartre, and Iris Murdoch - a pair of C20th novelists and philosophers.
{I'm not sure, but I think that is the first mention in the thread of an actual woman philosopher; and that rather exemplifies the whole difficulty - that folks are content with their prejudices and do not want to challenge themselves, especially on a topic that impinges so directly on their own identity.}
The phrase "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is attributed to Lord Acton who I suppose had his fair share of incompetence, but the phrase remained and IMO refers to something true. One could refer to Plato's Republic and its story about the ring of Gyges which grants its owner the power to become invisible. Through the story of the ring, Plato shows that an intelligent person would not behave justly if one did not have to fear any bad reputation for committing injustices.
If you have a lot of political power, you can hide your tracks to a degree, control the narrative. And then your bad deeds become invisible. So in the Republic -- and the Lord of the Rings -- the ring works as a metaphor for political power.
I can see it both ways. But then power/ability can be subcategorized into power/ability-over-other and power/ability-with-other: power-over and power-with for short.
Societal power-with tends to remain so over time when all factions that constitute the power-with are in roughly equal balance of power-over ability relative to each other, each checking the other factions so that no one faction gains the upper hand in their power-over all other factions. The US government was once upon a time founded upon this principle. (Today its dynamics have changed in significant part due to the unchecked power-over of financial institutions – including the one-percent-ers - in relation to government; a different story though.)
My point being, in our society men typically - on average - hold power-over relations with women, this rather than power-with relations. On a different front, same can be said of society’s typical (average) relation with nature: it’s one where we want power-over nature rather than power-with the natural world - so instead of wanting to live in balance with nature we tend to plunder it at will … leading to things like global warming.
At any rate, if one qualifies power as power-over (and neglects power-with) then I find the infamous phrase you reference tends to make sense: “Power-over-others tends to corrupt, and absolute power-over-others corrupts absolutely.” Caveat: this where corruption is deemed to be the valuing of one’s own ego’s interests as superlative at the expense of all other’s interests. This would be of weak or degenerate morals, i.e. corrupt. It would also make etymological sense in a way: it would be the rupture, or the breaking apart, of all power-with structures when absolute (as in "togetherness breaking").
But then, the only way to combat a corrupt faction with increased power-over will itself be via some form of power. So power in and of itself cannot be the culprit, i.e. cannot be viewed as a perpetual bad regardless of context.
Sexist ideology? Is women being different from man an idea only? Or is it the stupid idea that women have less value? Women are different.
Not a terminology I am familiar with. To be clear, I am not saying that power is bad per se. I am not an anarchist, I recognise the need for leadership and discipline in the ranks. I am just saying that power tends to corrupt those holding it, almost mechanically, by way of constantly availing opportunities to do bad things and profit from them. Like Sauron's ring, it's a heavy burden. Hence the need for regular change at the top.
In context, I was trying to say that any difference potentially observed between men and women in terms of morality could be due in part at least to a lesser exposure historically to the corruptive effects of power. The corollary is that as women get more power, they will be exposed to more temptation to misuse such power.
If you want to test a woman's character, give her power.
There are other experiments/studies that could at least suggest that there are fundamentals differences in moral traits that have nothing to do with having power.
Consider this:
--Men's Morals Are Malleable, Tom Jacobs, Pacific Standard
I don't see from the above that it's the doing of power that makes a difference between male and female view of ethical behavior. Although, once in power, a person could be in spotlight for everyone to see the unethical behavior.
Universal claims about morality are dumb? Really? You don't hold any values yourself, about your family? Friends? Your livelihood? I find it controlling whenever one says talking about a particular subject is dumb. It is intellectually annoying, let alone unoriginal.
Let's start with this premise: men and women are different in physiology and traits.
Then: are the differences due to culture/upbringing/nurture? Or was there a compelling reason besides culture/nurture? I already explained that, before modern civilization, men and women behaved differently. Let's start there.
Quoting Raymond and
No one here is saying, at least I'm not, that differences in morals means differences in value of an individual. I hope this clears things up.
I’m a nihilist and an emotivist. Any other questions?
I deny your premise and find appeals to pre-history coupled with categorical statements boring. Or as you say, “annoying and unoriginal.” Your continued use of language in a totally unreflected manner will not sway me to join hands with you in your essentialist non-sense. I’m not even convinced yet that you understand the difference between descriptivism and prescriptivism and what value, if any, your appeals to how things were has in a discussion of ethics.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11886/choice-the-problem-with-power
It was about the way people use the term 'power' and questioning the validity of doing so when talking about 'power' in terms of 'corruption'.
Sorry to bother you with it.
You expressed an opinion and called it a fact. It should bother you far more than it should bother me I hope.
I’m not arguing against a general difference in behaviour, intentions or psychology between men and women, but against the need to define a ‘masculine morality’ versus a ‘feminine morality’ as a binary model. And whatever primitive humans’ awareness of socio-cultural constructs, you are making a lot of assumptions here about their understanding of ‘males’ and ‘females’ - most of which I would argue are aspects of your own socio-cultural construction rather than theirs. Still, they don’t need to be aware of socio-cultural constructs to be constrained by them.
Men and women likely both fought (or fled) wild animals and invaders to protect themselves, their children, their mate, or anyone whose presence served their narrow interests, whatever they perceived them to be. An awareness of their variable capacity to do so effectively in different situations would have quickly become a social issue in family and tribal groups, as interests were shared. This would have led to gradually defining roles expected by tribal groups and/or leaders, and consolidated distinctions would have been made between moral behaviour for ‘men’, ‘women’, ‘children’, ‘elders’, etc, although based on a naive and limited understanding of differences and shaped by political, spiritual and ideological landscapes. None of this supports a necessarily binary model of male versus female.
Quoting I like sushi
Not sure what you’re trying to say here, sorry.
Do you actually know (of) any people with whom this was the case?
Have you known people before they've attained a position of power, so that you can now compare what they were like before and how they are now, when they have power?
Why not?
Hitler is as valuable as Gandhi?
Who performs those FGM procedures? Who arranges for everything pertaining to it? Mostly men, or mostly women?
No, you're reading that into my words.
Yes.
No, awareness alone is too general.
Awareness of what?
It's not clear what exactly you mean by "awareness".
For example, the Christian mob was perfectly aware of some people whom they considered "witches", and still burned them at the stakes.
Awareness alone is neutral.
When charitable giving is in the form of financial donations to a bank account or via similar impersonal venues, sure.
Have you ever seen the way Hindu women of a good caste "charitably give" to women of a lesser caste, esp. to the untouchables? They throw the gifts on the ground before the other person.
Less egregious examples abound. Like when someone gives you a gift and does so in a manner that you regret accepting it and then you never use the gift or only reluctantly.
The actual mode of interaction during the gift giving makes a world of difference, at least for the one on the receiving end. It's in this mode of interaction that the giver's motivation for the gift giving can become apparent.
I'm thinking of the modus operandi of right wing politicians ... they'd agree with what you're saying ... and for any failure in the process blame the other person.
For your model to work, the prospective gift giver and the prospective gift receiver need to be morally synchronized. Either as equals, or as in a hierarchical relationship where the one with less power internalizes the image that the one with more power has of them and wants them to have.
When someone gives to you something charitably, but also with contempt, how does that make you feel?
If you're charitable out of self-hatred, feeling inferior to others, then that's not wholesome, is it?
It has been my experience of women in general that they tend to be charitable for all the wrong reasons. It seems that a man, when he gives, does so from a position of strength, whereas a woman does it from a position of weakness or "self-sacrifice".
It's this latter motivation that makes their gifts so bitter.
I have more to say on this but I'll wait how the conversation unfolds.
Who asks questions they know the answers to?
This is a highly controversial point, hence it requires some introduction.
It's not sudden, it takes some time to take effect. Take Erdogan: he started as a democrat and ends as a tyran. Same with Bonaparte, or the French socialists in the 90s, or the Lula administration in Brasil.
Let me ask you and other doubters here: why do you think there are such things as term limits or division of power in modern democracies, if not to control for such a risk?
To give the impression that we're in a democracy; or "so that others may get a chance as well".
Quoting Olivier5
None of those were goody two-shoes prior to their ascension to power.
If anything, it seems more likely that one needs to be "corrupt" in order to seek and obtain a position of power to begin with.
And why does looking like a democracy imply term limits and separation of powers?
Quoting baker
Okay. Name any politician who is in your opinion a 'goody two-shoes'.
My vote is for Bernie Sanders. I see them as rare but not nonexistent.
Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science, the Christian Science Monitor, and wrote Science and Health with Keys to the Scripture.
Mother Ann Lee founded the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing, AKA the Shakers.
I like him too, mainly because he has managed to remain honest and resist the lobbyists and other temptations in Washington. But he never was 'in power' much so he is not a valid counter example to the corruptive effects of political power.
Touchy and tricky. Tricky because we tend to make generalizations about the differences and similarities of men and women without having a whole lot of proof. I'm not sure, for instance, whether men and women grieve differently or not. Aside from surveys, I'm not sure how one would find out. Experienced therapists might have some idea.
Then there is the question of whether it matters if they do grieve differently, if both find relief in the process.
Some people say that women are better conversationalists than men. I think that's true, but... so what? I think gay men are better conversationalists than straight men, but again, so what?
Women are clearly socialized one way; men are clearly socialized another way. Does one have to be better than the other? Is one better than the other?
That's not my experience. It takes some strength to give life for instance, and that's no small gift.
What is the irony in mentioning Mary?
In a way, I'm not sure one can say Jesus was the founder of Christianity, let alone his mother.
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph certainly had something to do with Christianity. He was the central character in the story, but... he died early--way before "Christianity" came into existence. Risen from the dead? Sitteth at the right hand of God? So they say.
If we are looking for a founder, Paul comes much closer. The real "founders" were people long removed from Jerusalem in time and space. The founders saw that the testimony they had received from a previous time required an institution in which to house it. That institution was the "church".
If this is in some way accurate, then I think it is also the likely route by which the church came into existence--not by divine fiat, but by necessity, later on. The gap between Jesus and the church is the location of a great deal of Christianity's complexities or contradictions. What Jesus had to say was, as far as we can tell, pretty straight-forward. Paul, less so. The later the writer, the less straight forward and the more peripheral the issues were that got mixed in.
When an act consists of you both giving and receiving, it’s a transaction. When it’s just giving, then you don’t count the cost, and whether someone gives from a position of strength or self-loathing is irrelevant. If you assume someone is motivated to give by what they get out of it, then you’re viewing charitable giving as a transaction. Most people do - both men and women.
Quoting baker
This is demonstrating a position of strength - is this the way that a man gives charitably? Or is his ‘position of strength’ implicit, assumed?
If you saw a man throw coins on the ground for a beggar, would you think he had an inferiority complex? And if a woman gave without explicitly demonstrating a position of strength, would you even notice it as ‘charitable giving’?
Quoting baker
You mean mode of transaction. If you give without drawing attention to a power imbalance or to the strength of your capacity to give, then the giver’s motivation is irrelevant to the interaction. To give from a position of strength is to give only in those situations where a power imbalance exists, or where the strength of one’s capacity to give is on display.
Quoting baker
What you’re referring to is a violent act of exclusion by those who struggled with their awareness of people who didn’t fit their understanding of the world. If you can’t maintain ignorance, then fight to isolate; and if you can’t maintain isolation, then fight to exclude. Awareness presents opportunities to connect and collaborate. Once you’re aware, then awareness is neutral, and the question becomes whether to connect or isolate.
Quoting baker
It isn’t about blame. Failure to connect only occurs when you stop trying to connect, when you reach a personal limit of attention or effort. That can’t be blamed on the other person. To the extent that you’re only open to connecting on your terms, you’re choosing isolation.
Quoting baker
For the model to work, the prospective gift giver just needs a chance to connect. If someone needs something and you have it to give, it shouldn’t matter in charitable giving whether they deserve it or whether they’re sufficiently disadvantaged that giving to them won’t threaten your position. But so often it does matter, because we consider charitable giving to be a social transaction: I give you money, you give me power within a social interaction. If you’re not willing or able to surrender that power, then I won’t give.
A man points a gun at a rich man and says “Give me your wallet!” The rich man replies “How much do you need?”
:100:
As you say:
Quoting Bitter Crank
My answer was ironic because Mary didn't found the Christian church in the same way Paul, Mohammad, or Mary Baker Eddy did theirs. All she did was give birth to God.
Dunno... Looking at some internet sites for boys only this can be called into question.
Maria
Madame Wu
Lise Meitner
Jeane d'Arc
Barbarella
Grandma Moses
Mata Hari
vs.
Magda Goebbels
Cleopatra
Bloody Mary
Maria
Xantippe
Pandora
Society has suppressed them. It wants them to fulfill stereotypical roles. Why they comply?
Quoting baker
Well, if you put it that way, of course, one is inferior than the other. I'm talking in terms of necessarily. The difference I'm talking about is gender differences.
Quoting Olivier5
And this is what I've been trying to explain. Are we confusing causation here? Is it culture or gender?
Quoting Possibility
So, after criticizing my use of primitive humans as "making a lot of assumptions", you went ahead and made your own -- Men and women likely both fought (or fled) wild animals and invaders to protect themselves, their children, their mate, or anyone whose presence served their narrow interests, whatever they perceived them to be.
I think a double-standard is happening here. Did you know that primitive women gathered berries, while men created tools? Or are you saying I'm just assuming this also? That's written in archaeology. I did not come up with that out of thin air.
Quoting Bitter Crank
What proof are you looking for? Please explain this.
Here's an abstract.
(Thanks, verywell mind).
(Thanks, Tutorials Point)
If some one says, "Men are usually taller than women", numerous citations can be provided. If someone says, "More women than men are attending college now", numerous citations can be provided.
If some one says, "Women are more ethical than men" I would want to now how that had been determined. Just off hand, I am not sure anyone has determined that one sex is more ethical than the other. Men and women often occupy quite different roles in life, and the ethical decisions they make may not be comparable.
A group of men working in a business have one field of ethical decisions making, a group of women working in an elementary school have a different field of ethical decision making. A business might disappoint a customer. A school may discourage a child from thinking he can succeed. Disappointing a customer is less significant than discouraging a child's success. The school teacher may have exhibited a serious ethical lapse.
Gender is a cultural concept anyway. The corresponding biological concept is called "sex".
1. Women crime
2. Married crime (men/women)
3. Single crime (men/women)
I’m not assuming this occurred, I’m casting doubt on your assumption of a binary model of segregated male and female roles prior to the forming of socio-cultural groups. A female confronted with wild animals or invaders was never going to just stand there and be attacked, no matter how primitive. A female accustomed to this happening is going to have some skills in this area, and be aware of her capacity and the resources available to her. To say that men fought the wild animals out of moral obligation to the weaker sex is debatable - I would argue that humans sometimes fought wild animals and invaders because they were a threat, and anyone with enough strength and skill to defeat them would benefit from doing so. By the same token, anyone who lacked sufficient strength and skill would benefit from trying to hide or flee. Those with enough strength and skill to fight (or enough sense to hide well) survived the encounter, and the fact that the distinction in behaviour generally favoured different sexes was not because of a difference in morality, but rather contributed to later expectations.
Statistically speaking, a group would have a better survival rate if the men fought and the women hid. I’m not going to dispute that. But I don’t think this translates to a ‘naturally’ black and white masculine vs feminine morality. I maintain that any distinction along gender lines is a socio-cultural model based on assumptions.
There is also no evidence to suggest that men were the only ones who created tools. Primitive women also created tools and equipment for various activities, including items for their mate and/or family members to use/wear in the field, just as men probably also ‘gathered’ food and other items on their hunting trips to contribute to the group’s resources. Prior to socially-determined expectations, some women might have preferred to hunt rather than gather, and some men might have preferred a non-violent approach to acquiring food, and they would have developed skills to match. People also contributed where their skills lay, and there were a number of cultures where a primitive acknowledgement of non-binary gender roles did develop into a socially viable model.
There is no double standard, but there is a difference between your binary model - which is black and white and doesn’t allow for variability - and the uncertainty of archaeological evidence. Not all males behaved like ‘men’, and not all females behaved like ‘women’. This is true across the history of humanity, and across most (if not all) animal species. To structure a contemporary model of morality as if they do, would be ignorant at best.
https://theconversation.com/our-ancient-ancestors-may-have-known-more-about-gender-than-we-do-30131
Okay, I agree. I should use sex.
Quoting Possibility
You can't use an assumption to argue against what you call an "assumption". I was speaking in terms of achaeological evidence anyway, not assumptions. So, if you're going to disagree, please produce a counter-factual evidence.
But my point really is not to discuss the primitive humans. This thread is about the difference in moral and ethical emphasis. Why not go back to the topic.
The only thing that matters is sex. I am a sex essentialist and think the abstract concept of gender is essentially arbitrary nonsense and does not exist, that includes the masculine/feminine.
Males and females have more similarities than differences. People stuck on Christian women are wonderful and men are the be all end all viewpoints being the beginning of human existence will make arguments one sex is more ethical than the other.
Why is this always the beginning of an argument for some people?"Males and females have more similarities than differences" -- so therefore, sex assignment and gender roles are nonsense? The similarities do not invalidate the differences. Animals of different species have similarities. But they differ in fundamental ways. Culture tries to artificially invalidate or blur the differences in gender, but if you look at the primitive and prehistoric records, humans just naturally acted based on sexes.
:up: Amazing insight!
If you want to know whether a person/group is good/bad, all you have to do is give them power and see what happens post that.
Come to think of it, is it possible that matriarchy was a failed experiment like communism is? Women + power = hell for the tribe, in no small part due to the fairer sex being more prone to abuse of power than men. The males, obviously, rebelled and established a relatively more benign patriarchy that's delivered the promised goods of peace and stability until now.
So much of history is missing from the record books.
[quote=George Santayana]Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.[/quote]
Quoting Agent Smith
If I had that much power to bestow on others to see whether they would turn into tyrants or not, I wouldn't do it.
History is shrouded in mystery. Nothing to do but speculate. I recall reading about matriarchies in prehistory that survived until very "recently" (thousands of years). Trust momma nature, she speaks the truth: if it's bad for the tribe, the fewer of it will survive (to tell the tale and break up the party in a manner of speaking). How many matriarchical societies again? In the present that is?
So this evidence of matriarchies being few and far between, doesn't that tell something about the gender differences? Maybe we could argue that if men and women are more similar than different, then aspirations would be more aligned -- such as having higher instances of matriarchy tribes and kingdoms.
I'm a slow learner!
My view is that people are more alike than they are different, so men and women are more alike than different too.
We could argue that there should be both matriarchies and patriarchies, but that does not seem to have happened. That said, there are matriarchal systems. Jewishness, for instance, is inherited through the mother (this is a religious convention, not genetics). There are small, agriculturalist groups that I have heard were matriarchal. Mostly, though, the idea of great matriarchies ruling over splendid societies (avoiding the problems of patriarchies) is just wishful thinking on the part of some feminists,
Maybe the National Organization of Women? Catholic orders for women (nuns)? Women's colleges (a few of those are still in business)?
It doesn't matter. Matriarchal potentates are likely to be bitches.
As a white gay man, I have found that some of my most annoying dysfunctional bosses have been white gay men. Female supervisors are as likely as male supervisors to be pains in the ass; my two best all time supervisors were a man and a woman. A large proportion of the population, male and female, white, black, asian, native, are natural-born assholes. Matriarchy schmatriarchy. Fuck 'em all!
Women's organizations, yep, that's a start! Strength in numbers, ja? Old wine, new bottle.
[quote=Daniel Bonevac]Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.[/quote]
It's quite possible that it's a cycle and we're just going through one point in this sexual carousel: Women[math]\rightarrow[/math] Men [math]\rightarrow[/math] Women [math]\rightarrow[/math]...round and round we go, sometimes fast, sometimes slow.
Likewise, posts like this make no sense. You are the same as the gender fetishiests that think males and females can "transition" unironically, while shunning the these very people. You argue males and females are so vastly different from each other; then feel nervous when a woman does anything other than birthing babies and knitting because you feel she is deviating or will deviate from her natural sex just because she's standing next to you as a man. Everything she does no matter what she does is always as female human woman. She is never not female or a woman. A woman that is the CEO of a major company does so as a woman. A woman that is the Queen of England and inflicts war on multiple countries does so as a woman. This viewpoint you have is a laughable viewpoint overall.
Are the sexes "so different" in terms of prison sentences and thus should be held to different criteria in regards to offending for the same crimes, then? How far does this argument go? I suspect you cherry-pick everything.
The sexes are fixed. A woman being a fireman isn't going to end the world because the sexes are fixed. She will not turn into a male nor a man, so what are you worried about if she is adequate for the role? Are you insane? Your ideological viewpoint is no different from what transsexuals argue, so why in the world would you be against this notion in practice?
For me, what a woman or man does is completely redundant if you are a sex essentialist, because as a sexual essentalist who gives a flying fuck. There are only dicks and vaginas and competent people.
Anyone looking for evidence of matriarchies ‘ruling over’ societies is not going to find much, because it won’t be structured as an overt power. Matriarchal systems are systems of qualitative potential, not quantitative power. You will find instead a thriving culture that transcends and subverts any overt political structures. Jewishness is an excellent example of this, as is African-American and even Australian Indigenous culture. They have withstood oppression and outright destruction by overt political structures through the qualitative strengths of their matriarchal systems.
Having said that, there is no legitimate reason for qualitative potential to be the domain of women, nor quantitative power the domain of men. The association is historical, not essential.
They're not put in the same prison for one thing. They're separated by gender/sex. Why is that?
Quoting Cobra
I don't think this way. Men and women can choose, and they do, what they want in life. It's when society lies about the masculine and feminine qualities that I object to. There are masculine and feminine qualities, and these qualities manifest in ways that sometimes we don't pay attention to.
Quoting Cobra
I am not insane. And you are caricaturing my position about gender differences. I didn't say that women shouldn't hold jobs traditionally held by men like firefighter, police, or trench digger. I'm saying that a woman could be a trench digger, a drunk, a race car driver while still being feminine. I think that it's you who seem to confuse that delineation in gender means that women are prevented from pursuing what men traditionally pursue.
Quoting Cobra
I give a flying fuck. Because with masculine and feminine differences, there must be differences in certain decisions between men and women, and one of those decisions is moral and ethical problems. How they act on a particular ethical issue differs. So, do dicks and vaginas exist for no good reason other than mutation? This is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard. Until men can pass a whole baby through the penile corpus spongiosum, do not talk about dicks and vaginas like they're just decorations on the front end of your body.
Good name, btw -- Cobra.
Duh. Wtf do you think is a "reason" or "purpose" for dicks to exist are for aside from sticking them in vaginas. What are livers for? Ethical decision-making? Dicks and vaginas aren't brains, tits and ass aren't people, sperm and ovum aren't babies.
What is your dick to you other than decoration? God's gift to women? Do you worship female uteruses? Find something else to do. Females give birth and do so daily without complications or issues, it's not some novel thing.
Functionally yes. But while the dick does what it does, don't you think there's a greater more noble thing happening here? Who gets fucked in the vaginas says something about other qualities about that human being. For example, women are still the ones carrying the baby in the womb. Why can't men do that that in 2022?
No.
Quoting L'éléphant
Wtf! You act like women spend even a significant part of their lives pregnant with a baby in the womb. A majority of a woman's life is not spent pregnant. There are far more unpregnant women than there are pregnant ones, and when she is pregnant it's only for 9 months of her life, 12 if you count recovery time, otherwise she goes back to normal.
As a woman I don't give two fucks about pregnancy, having a vagina or having a womb. I barely notice it is there until some man points it out 99% of the time because his dick wants to jump in it.
What "qualities" do I lack that you have because of your dick? What is it that a man can do other than shoot sperm that woman isn't doing in 2022?
That's why I asked earlier that your view only stems from viewing women as nothing but reduced birthing machines that knit sweaters. If this is not the case, I don't see what the point of your post even is. These posts are ALWAYS made by men, and we all know why. Men are socialized to hate women that do anything outside of what they say is correct for a woman and justify it through pop evopsych.
Quoting L'éléphant
In a hostile world patriarchies have been essential, hence the difference in male and female physiques. We look for examples of matriarchies and find none for the simple reason they don't exist. All attempts failing too much at odds with a harsh reality. It follows that with a rapidly changing environment, the coming matriarchy will happen at the expense of men, all males in fact. At 67% the strength of the male, the female is easily compensated by mechanization. Machinery allowing even the heaviest work to be carried out by the most fragile of females. With artificial wombs on the distant horizon, artificial insemination available now, male obsolescence nears, the processes of gendercide already underway. There will be no males left in one hundred years this is inevitable.
Ridiculous fear-mongering. From someone who has lived and worked with mostly females a lot, the world is not better off without males. That they may soon no longer be physically essential doesn’t change that, and most women understand this (deep down) - although they’re not going to give men that reassurance at this point, for obvious reasons.
Most women understand this? Feminism itself doesn't have as much as an inkling of how close to power it is. Needless to say women including feminists don't want something they have no idea is going to happen.
The conspiracy to eliminate males is taking place at the chromosomal level. It is not a conscious thing.
'
I'm already practicing for the coming of GW.
You really do have no clue about women at all, do you? You’re just projecting your patriarchal perspective of ‘power’ onto a narrow oppositional perspective of feminism. Power is not about conquering, but about variable potential. If anything, this apparent ‘conspiracy to eliminate males’ is patriarchy’s own doing - a narrow view that ‘only one can survive’ at the top.
Women along with most of society go with the flow, misguided by the myths of male domination & income disparity feminism perpetuates. A new generation appearing every 25 years, born primitive (naked) now near devoid of carry over conservative values, conservatives themselves in decline
due to natural attrition, all combining to exacerbate a situation. And you blame me?
Feminist intentionality is to draw attention to the conservative patriarchal myth that all power is quantitatively determined. It is predictable that those who would identify with this myth feel threatened by a growing awareness that what is quantifiable or consolidated into a localised ignorance is not as essentially powerful or significant in itself as we once assumed. As these myths of ‘essential patriarchy’, ‘might makes right’, etc dissolve into an amorphous system consisting of non-commutative variables of potentiality, the opportunity arises for a more conscious, connected and collaborative system of value to be developed.
This ‘situation’ only appears dire to those who would define themselves by such localised quantities of measurable and observable ‘power’ as income, physical strength or dominance. Males, as a loosely defined category, are not facing ‘elimination’ - except perhaps by this stretch of imagination that isolates the ‘Y chromosome’ as some symbolic male ‘force’ in opposition to the very system on which it depends...
But this not about blame - the only fault here is ignorance.
Quoting Gregory A
Not so mysterious - just difficult to quantify - and with an entirely different intentionality to this supposed ‘elimination of the male’. It is not possible for qualitative potential to entirely eliminate quantitative power - given there is no actualising anything without it (including elimination), and vice versa. By the same token, it has never been possible for males to entirely dominate females.
Any kind of balance to be achieved between XX and XY - even in this simplest of configurations - cannot be determined merely quantitatively. This should be obvious, but you might need to think about it for a bit...
Quoting Gregory A
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You gotta be trolling.....