Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the most part, I still believe women have a edge of moral superiority over men. I hope to god that continues too. I believe in the saying, "One man equals an individual, one woman equals a nation."
There are a number of problems with this comment, in that it ignores issues such as moral intentional states, and seems to confuse subservience in women with 'moral superiority'.
Women are more likely, by innate tendency (or sociocultural prohibition, depending on your political view), to commit to subservient roles that deny them the executive capacity exercised by men. This situationally bars them from a multitude of roles and tasks that carry moral consequences. This does not necessarily translate to moral superiority. It means that only one gender is engaged in executive tasks that have the potential to be immoral; the other is confined to a submissive role that carries little in the way of moral sequelae.
In a functional culture, someone has to make executive decisions that could deem him/her to be moral or immoral. Everyone cannot be subservient at the same time, otherwise your culture implodes. Historically, and biologically, it has been men who exercised this role.
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 10-09-2013 at 03:29 PM..
Really some feminists are radicals that really just hate men. These women should just convert to lesbianism, I'm being serious, I have met many feminist women who honestly believed that men are inferior and have no place in society.
But to be fair, there is a bit of a double standard. If I slept with a different woman every night my guy fellow guy friends would be giving me high fives and calling me a student. If a girl does the same thing she's called a **** and is looked down on.
I can catch a fish, kill a bug, grow a garden, take out the trash and earn my own money, all in mascara, lipstick and heels. I consider myself feminine. I raised a son by myself, and he's the least aggressive person you'll ever meet. Never got into a fight in his life.
I also take a lover from time to time. I'm sorry if you think that makes me a bad woman. Frankly, I couldn't care less.
i making no personal judgement regarding your lifestyle, although you seem quite defensive.
all of my opinions have been on a macro and/or aggregate level...
however, you say your son is "the least aggressive" person anyone will ever meet; hopefully this lack of raw aggression (which is a good thing) is not to the level of being outright passive. i sincerely hope you are not raising him with any level of subconscious resentment towards men, which can happen with single moms and their sons...
There are a number of problems with this comment, in that it ignores issues such as moral intentional states, and ostensibly confuses subservience in women with 'moral superiority'.
If women, by innate tendency (or sociocultural prohibition, depending on your political view), commit to roles that deny them the same executive capacity as men in committing morally-sensitive tasks, this does not necessarily translate to moral superiority. It just means that only one gender is engaged in executive tasks that have the potential to be immoral; the other is committed to a submissive role that carries little in the way of moral ramifications.
In a functional culture, someone has to make executive decisions that could deem him/her to be moral or immoral. Everyone cannot be subservient at the same time, otherwise your culture implodes. Historically, and biologically, it has been men who committed to this task.
why are you confusing empathy and caring, traditional feminine characteristics, with subserviency
they are not necessarily the same!
women have historically been morally superior to men from a behavioral standpoint on an aggregate level; whether its due to biology or social boundaries (or whichever balance of the two), this has been the case. however, that differential is certainly decreasing...
i making no personal judgement regarding your lifestyle, although you seem quite defensive.
all of my opinions have been on a macro and/or aggregate level...
yes you are making moral judgments of women in general, not just in the women in this thread.
macro/aggregate it matters not, you add personal bias to it when you bring "subjective morality" into it. If you want to keep moralizing about the "modern woman." then to be fair, you need to judge men with the same standard. a question you still evade. gee, could you have a double standard
why are you confusing empathy and caring, traditional feminine characteristics, with subserviency [sic]
they are not necessarily the same!
women have historically been morally superior to men from a behavioral standpoint on an aggregate level; whether its due to biology or social boundaries (or whichever balance of the two), this has been the case. however, that differential is certainly decreasing...
Your point on semantics at the beginning is non sequitur, and the rest of your argument basically reduces to the ontological assumption that traditionally feminine moral traits (subservience, empathy, caring in a classically feminine context) are somehow superior to all other modes of moral behaviour.
I'm afraid moral philosophy is much broader than your current understanding of it. In a culture where men and women are committed to differential/traditional roles, it is simply naive to claim that women who show virtuous behaviour in a subserviently feminine role are somehow morally superior to men who show virtuous behaviour in a more executive capacity.
Men who risk their lives to protect a land of unwalled villages from marauding intruders, who work in dangerous conditions to provide for family, or expose themselves to near-lethal doses of radiation to shut down a failing nuclear reactor all show substantive moral behaviour in an executive capacity. Are these individuals immoral for not being in a feminine caring role? Of course not.
You are probably being confounded by the fact that moral negligence, when committed in an executive (traditionally male) role, is far more visible or consequential than moral negligence committed in a subservient capacity. From this, the epistemically naive would claim that traditionally male roles are somehow intrinsically less moral than feminine behaviour. Obviously, this is a fallacious argument.
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 10-09-2013 at 05:10 PM..
Really some feminists are radicals that really just hate men. These women should just convert to lesbianism, I'm being serious, I have met many feminist women who honestly believed that men are inferior and have no place in society.
It's scary.
Most feminists eventually become mothers and any mother will love a son as much as she would love a daughter.
i making no personal judgement regarding your lifestyle, although you seem quite defensive.
all of my opinions have been on a macro and/or aggregate level...
however, you say your son is "the least aggressive" person anyone will ever meet; hopefully this lack of raw aggression (which is a good thing) is not to the level of being outright passive. i sincerely hope you are not raising him with any level of subconscious resentment towards men, which can happen with single moms and their sons...
Yes, you are. Read back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
