Men are as vital to (pro)creation as women — Agent Smith

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.

↪Possibility 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. — I like sushi

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.

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. — 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.

I wouldn't call it a 'general pattern' anymore than I would call being born with ten fingers as a 'general pattern'. The reason we make distinctions is because they hold true 99% of the time.

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.

Men are as vital to (pro)creation as women
— Agent Smith

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. — T Clark

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!

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. — baker

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 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. — Hanover

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.

Sorry for butting in, but you seem to have raised an important issue here. Morality/ethics is rather feminine (soft, yielding, passive, and so on), yinnish. To be good people, we need to get in touch with the woman inside us. What say you?

To be good people, we need to get in touch with the woman inside us. What say you? — Agent Smith

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.

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). — 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?

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — Possibility

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?

Why do you have to bring vaccination into this like every other freaking topic on the face of the planet right now? Seriously try not to sound like a sheep despite looking like one I swear to God I'm so sick of every single conversation talking about vaccination

Because I'm trying to make a point. Vaccination is something concrete they could grasp.

yet that does not refute my statement nor change its validity and it's still valid

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?

my point is that everyone is being a sheep and using the freaking vax or finding a reason to mention covid when there was no real reason other then being a mindless Ecco of the programing they have been brainwashed with 24/7

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. — L'éléphant

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.

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. — 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.

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

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).

I call it as I see it. That's all. — Agent Smith

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:

… 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. …
— “SA”

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.

To talk about differences in sex isn’t inherently ‘sexist’. I think it is a cheap shot and antithetical to any kind of level-headed discussion to try and tar and smear what someone is asking/saying/looking at.

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).

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. — Ennui Elucidator

I defer to your superior intellect o wise one!

before writing off more than 50% of the population. — 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?

Power corrupts, and it is easier to remain a good person when you are powerless. — Olivier5

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.

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. — L'éléphant

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.

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? — 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.

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 like sushi

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.

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." — Hanover

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:

Women in ancient Egypt were accorded almost equal status with men in keeping with an ancient tale that, after the dawn of creation when Osiris and Isis reigned over the world, Isis made the sexes equal in power. — 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.

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. — javra

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.

It seems ancient Egyptian women fared better than current day ones, with a report of 87% of women there undergoing female genital mutilation currently. — Hanover

There was a drastic change in religion between ancient and modern Egypt, wasn't there.

it remains a fact that power corrupts — Olivier5

No it doesn't. I think we've been over this before though.

It remains a fact that power corrupts
— Olivier5

No it doesn't. I think we've been over this before though. — I like sushi

Yes it does and no, we haven't.