Some of these statements seem to be based on statistics, others seem to be arguing a personal opinion. A couple of comments from my perspective:

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 Philosophically, though, this seems to be outdated thinking.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.

Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women. — L'éléphant

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 :)

Krishna was a man.

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: ).

Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women. — L'éléphant

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.

We heard the guys' story. Now we should ask some women. "Are you morally different from guys?"

We heard the guys' story. Now we should ask some women. "Are you morally different from guys?" — god must be atheist

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.

We heard the guys' story. Now we should ask some women. — god must be atheist

You're assuming you haven't heard from any women.

No women have founded a religion — Agent Smith

Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, and, of course, the Virgin Mary.

You're assuming you haven't heard from any women. — T Clark

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.)

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. — L'éléphant

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.

Seems a slippery slope to allow each discernable group the right to dictate which moral standards ought apply to them. — Hanover

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.

Why would a female perspective be better at determining which morality ought pertain to women than a man's would? — Hanover

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.

Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, and, of course, the Virgin Mary. — T Clark

Sarcasm?

Sarcasm? — Agent Smith

Well, Mary was meant to be... I guess ironic, but the other two were serious.

Well, Mary was meant to be... I guess ironic, but the other two were serious — T Clark

: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).

Women, they were once, how shall I put it?, support staff. — Agent Smith

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.

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. — T Clark

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.

I call it as I see it. — Agent Smith

So, calling it as you see it excuses you from having to justify opinions that are ignorant and disrespectful.

No women have founded a religion — Agent Smith

Why should they bother? They create those who create religions.

Why should they bother? They create those who create religions. — Ciceronianus

Men are as vital to (pro)creation as women although this :point:
interesting fact has a point to make.

Some of these statements seem to be based on statistics, others seem to be arguing a personal opinion. — Possibility

No personal opinion. All the points are taken from articles citing studies. And yes, statistics was involved.

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. — 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?

Most women have recognised, to some extent at least, that isolating themselves from their qualitative relation to the world is an illusion. — Possibility

Another attempt at confusing the above point -- women recognize that it is an illusion to ignore their gender in relation to the world.

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? — 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.

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). — 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?

There is no ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ - all this does is perpetuate false gender and moral binary models. — Possibility

There is. scientific american

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. — Possibility

I don't have a problem with that. What's your answer?

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. — 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?

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. — 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.

@L'éléphant Reread and stop overreacting. It is utter gibberish to replace ‘gender’ with ‘physiological’ in that sentence. I used the term ‘sex’ not gender. I have no issue with people using ‘gender’ in the same way as ‘sex’ but you clearly have a chip on your shoulder about something and don’t appear to want to talk about why you deem ‘feminine’ as ‘female’ and ‘masculine’ as ‘male’ when these are absolutely NOT equivocal in psychology. All men have feminine traits and this is not the same as saying they have female traits (I’m talking in terms of technical jargon NOT colloquial talk).

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.

Some of these statements seem to be based on statistics, others seem to be arguing a personal opinion.
— Possibility
No personal opinion. All the points are taken from articles citing studies. And yes, statistics was involved. — L'éléphant

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.

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.
— 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? — 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.

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. — L'éléphant

Actually, the past is in statistics, but the reality is in our relation to the context of each study.

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).
— 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? — 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.

There is no ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ - all this does is perpetuate false gender and moral binary models.
— Possibility
There is. scientific american — 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.

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.
— Possibility
I don't have a problem with that. What's your answer? — 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).

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. — 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.

I think the one thing it is hard to argue against is that overall human development is what is it is and that men and women are distinguishable. That is not to say they are completely different but it is to say that they are most certainly not the same and that the overall pattern is that there are males and females.

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.

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? — Possibility

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:

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. — 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.

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. — Hanover

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?

@I like sushi

A portion of your response has been posted The Philosophy Forum Facebook page.
Congratulations and thank you for your contribution!

Why? What for? If I wanted to post on facebook I would use facebook.

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. — I like sushi

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?

If I wanted to post on facebook I would use facebook. — I like sushi

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.