Who are more moral? Men or women?

[billvon]

They're not helpless.

Then I take it you have never seen someone in labor. They are quite helpless. Were they to be attacked by something they'd be able to neither defend themselves nor run away.

Fortunately we (like all mammals) have instincts to protect females when they are helpless, and then protect the offspring. Also fortunately, our society has institutions (like marriage and healthcare) that provides societal protection for pregnant, birthing and postpartum women.

If they were, we wouldn't be here now.

The reason most of us are here is that our mothers were cared for by someone else while they were helpless.

And think about how ridiculous that idea is, bilvon. You're essentially saying that fat people are helpless.

Uh, no. I mean, some might be; there are media accounts of people so fat they can't get up; those would count as helpless.

But fat people typically don't have to lie on the ground immobile while an eight pound baby makes its way out. Nor do they have to protect their abdomens to the same extent that gravid women do.

Anyway, you're talking about physical protection.

And other less tangible forms of protection, like financial and emotional.

Like that buffoon quoted above, you've somehow confused this with protection from all consequences

No. Indeed, providing support during pregnancy and childbirth is _dealing_ with the consequences of having sex, not protecting someone _from_ the consequences of having sex.

 

[Balerion]

Then I take it you have never seen someone in labor. They are quite helpless. Were they to be attacked by something they'd be able to neither defend themselves nor run away.

Okay, you're pushing the goalposts back. First you said when they were pregnant and recovering from labor, now you've narrowed that to when they're in labor.

Your view on this is quite reductionist. You assume that stereotypical gender roles which exist today have always been as they are now, which is false; and you assume that the early human birth consisted of one woman in labor while one man watched over her, but that isn't true either. The idea that men were the protectors is a very narrow, very biblical view on gender roles, and not necessarily true.

And without the advent of midwifery, the population would be a fraction of what it is today, and society would look a whole hell of a lot different. You place the greatest emphasis on the man's supposed ability to defend his wife while in labor, which I think is erroneous, in the idea that men were always the guardians, that protection of the women was an active measure rather than a passive one implied by societal structure, and that it was exclusively men doing the protecting.

Fortunately we (like all mammals) have instincts to protect females when they are helpless, and then protect the offspring. Also fortunately, our society has institutions (like marriage and healthcare) that provides societal protection for pregnant, birthing and postpartum women.

Again, you're talking completely out of your ass. We are not predisposed to protect helpless females. We are hopefully predisposed (though not everyone is) to protect anyone who is helpless. That is called altruism, and it is not dependent on either the gender of the helper nor the party in distress.

The reason most of us are here is that our mothers were cared for by someone else while they were helpless.

Uh, no. I mean, some might be; there are media accounts of people so fat they can't get up; those would count as helpless.

But fat people typically don't have to lie on the ground immobile while an eight pound baby makes its way out. Nor do they have to protect their abdomens to the same extent that gravid women do.

Again, you only prove how little you know of the subject. I'll never understand why people who don't know what they're talking about insist on acting as if they do. Early women did not lie down to give birth. It only became fashionable in the last few hundred years, and only become necessary once anesthesia entered the equation.

And other less tangible forms of protection, like financial and emotional.

This is one of those tangible forms of chauvinism.

No. Indeed, providing support during pregnancy and childbirth is _dealing_ with the consequences of having sex, not protecting someone _from_ the consequences of having sex.

This piffle aside, none of this has anything to do with the notion that women have ever been protected from the consequences of their actions.

 

[billvon]

Okay, you're pushing the goalposts back. First you said when they were pregnant and recovering from labor, now you've narrowed that to when they're in labor.

I'm thinking the time from around 8 months to the time 1 week after delivery. They need more and more help up until delivery, when they are just about completely helpless; then they recover.

You assume that stereotypical gender roles which exist today have always been as they are now, which is false

No, I assume our biology hasn't changed much (which it hasn't.)

and you assume that the early human birth consisted of one woman in labor while one man watched over her, but that isn't true either.

Nor did I claim that. It's not just one man. It is PRIMARILY one man because, due to our biology, one man fathers the child that the pregnant woman is carrying - and our instincts reflect that. There are far more people than that in society, and many of them (family, doctors, midwives) play a role. But in both modern times and in ancient times, the father was the one tasked with the primary responsibility of protecting and supporting his pregnant wife.

The idea that men were the protectors is a very narrow, very biblical view on gender roles, and not necessarily true.

Not always - but in most cases.

And without the advent of midwifery, the population would be a fraction of what it is today, and society would look a whole hell of a lot different. You place the greatest emphasis on the man's supposed ability to defend his wife while in labor, which I think is erroneous, in the idea that men were always the guardians, that protection of the women was an active measure rather than a passive one implied by societal structure, and that it was exclusively men doing the protecting.

Now you're making up strawmen that you can attack. I didn't claim there were no midwives, or that men were always the exclusive guardians, or that protection was always active, or that men exclusively did the protecting. You can argue those points if you like but you should find someone who actually holds them if you want to do that.

Again, you're talking completely out of your ass. We are not predisposed to protect helpless females.

We are indeed, and we see the same in animals that we share common ancestors with. Male gorillas protect female gorillas from attack by other males, and protect children they perceive as their own.

We are hopefully predisposed (though not everyone is) to protect anyone who is helpless. That is called altruism, and it is not dependent on either the gender of the helper nor the party in distress.

Yes, we also have drives towards altruism (along with drives towards violence.) Fortunately, in the case of a "mated pair" (husband/wife in traditional terms) we have a built in slew towards the altruistic side of things.

Early women did not lie down to give birth. It only became fashionable in the last few hundred years, and only become necessary once anesthesia entered the equation.

Actually the lying-on-the-back things was to make it easier for doctors; it brought things more to their level. There was a fairly long period in obstetrics practice where a lot of the details of delivery were centered around keeping doctors happy - finding a position where the doctor (as opposed to the woman) was more comfortable, sedating the woman so she was easier to manage etc.

But yes, women did generally lie down. Often on their sides. Some squatted, some went to all fours. By about 1000BC some people were using birthing chairs as an alternative. And I guarantee you none of those positions involved the ability to run away from danger.

This piffle aside, none of this has anything to do with the notion that women have ever been protected from the consequences of their actions.

Agreed.

 

[Syne]

And therein lies the genesis of this crackpot theory.

To begin, oppression does not equate to protection. In societies where women are and have been viewed as lesser beings, they are always subject to greater restrictions and punishments than men, not fewer. Women in Afghanistan under Taliban rule were forbade from going to school or getting a job, even from leaving the house without a male companion. And what do you suppose the penalties were for breaking these rules, or attempting to break these rules, or talking about breaking these rules? I can smell your brain burning, so I'll answer it for you: Beatings. Rape. Death.

And you say oppressed women are held less accountable for their actions?

Secondly, not all societies have mistreated their women, or given them less importance than men in society. There have been queens and empresses for thousands of years, and plenty of matriarchal societies throughout history in which women are the ones who dictate ethics and morality.

Women are now and always have been held responsible for their actions. Some societies have imposed greater limitations on their roles, but women have never been immune to punishment or retribution, so this idea that women are somehow less moral because they've never been held accountable is complete bunk. As is the misogynistic notion that we are predisposed to give women a pass for their behavior.

Now, to your last "point" about pregnant women requiring protection, you're talking about physical protection from outside threats, not immunity for their actions.

Nice straw man. No one ever said oppression equates to protection. You cannot reasonably deny that historically/evolutionarily the females of any species have always had to rely on the males in a fairly direct ratio to the length of gestation and maturation. Beyond that, even today there are an inordinate percentage of men as police and soldiers. It is this ubiquitous threat of consequences that allows women to feel safe in a civilized society. Without this protection from men (or as you point out, in a society where it is condoned) women would be under a constant threat of beatings, rape, and death. You cannot rationally deny that your average woman cannot defend herself from your average man.

I did not say "oppressed women are held less accountable for their actions". That is your fabrication, based solely on your own agenda.

If you knew your history, then you'd know that even in societies led by a queen or empress, woman have still been seen as the "weaker sex", both physically and emotionally. Just research the treatment of women in the Victorian era, under Queen Victoria.
http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/tempmotherhood/fall2003/3/HisPage.html

A female ruler does not make a society matriarchal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
"Some anthropologists and authors hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal
...
Even in patriarchical systems of male-preference primogeniture, there may occasionally be queens regnant, as in the case of Elizabeth I of England."

But let's take some modern, civilized society examples.
- A woman can do any amount of teasing, leading on, and even initially agree to sex, but if they say no once they are not held in the least bit accountable for their previous actions. The slate is just wiped completely clean and all accountability falls to the man at the utterance of a single word.
- A woman can intentionally get pregnant to "trap" a man, without his knowledge or consent, and the accountability of the overall financial burden falls to the man, even if he doesn't have full parental rights.

Care to refute either of these? Can you make your point without blatant straw man arguments I have not made?

 

[Balerion]

I'm thinking the time from around 8 months to the time 1 week after delivery. They need more and more help up until delivery, when they are just about completely helpless; then they recover.

That's flat-out fiction.

No, I assume our biology hasn't changed much (which it hasn't.)

Nobody's talking about biology. We're talking about social roles.

Nor did I claim that. It's not just one man. It is PRIMARILY one man because, due to our biology, one man fathers the child that the pregnant woman is carrying - and our instincts reflect that. There are far more people than that in society, and many of them (family, doctors, midwives) play a role. But in both modern times and in ancient times, the father was the one tasked with the primary responsibility of protecting and supporting his pregnant wife.

That's simply not true. You need to educate yourself on this subject. The ideal of a man protecting his woman is a modern one.

Not always - but in most cases.

Again, not true. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just guessing.

Now you're making up strawmen that you can attack. I didn't claim there were no midwives, or that men were always the exclusive guardians, or that protection was always active, or that men exclusively did the protecting. You can argue those points if you like but you should find someone who actually holds them if you want to do that.

Of course that's what you said. I'm not like you; I have integrity.

We are indeed, and we see the same in animals that we share common ancestors with. Male gorillas protect female gorillas from attack by other males, and protect children they perceive as their own.

You think I can't tell you don't know what you're talking about? For one, male gorillas are protecting their children, not their women. When a silverback attacks a troupe, he's going after the troop leader and his babies; he doesn't want to kill the women, he wants to take them for himself. It's details like this that make it plainly obvious that you haven't the first clue as to what you're talking about. You're just throwing stuff out there and hoping it sticks.

Yes, we also have drives towards altruism (along with drives towards violence.) Fortunately, in the case of a "mated pair" (husband/wife in traditional terms) we have a built in slew towards the altruistic side of things.

More nonsense.

And it's remarkable how pompous and arrogant you've gotten so quickly.

Well, I had no idea you were a forum troll. Excuse me for being surprised.

Actually the lying-on-the-back things was to make it easier for doctors; it brought things more to their level. There was a fairly long period in obstetrics practice where a lot of the details of delivery were centered around keeping doctors happy - finding a position where the doctor (as opposed to the woman) was more comfortable, sedating the woman so she was easier to manage etc.

You're just making it up as you go, aren't you? In your last post you were contending that early woman needed early man to protect her because she was laying on her back giving birth, but now that I pointed out to you that prostration during childbirth is a relatively recent development, you're acting like you knew it all along.

Of course you make a big mistake by including sedation in the equation. Sedation during childbirth has only become commonplace over the last century.

Just stop it. Stop pretending. You're only embarrassing yourself with this charade. You make yourself sound stupid by getting all of your facts wrong. It's like Miss South Carolina trying to explain why people can't find South America on a map.

But yes, women did generally lie down. Often on their sides. Some squatted, some went to all fours. By about 1000BC some people were using birthing chairs as an alternative. And I guarantee you none of those positions involved the ability to run away from danger.

No they did not. Squatting was (and is, in places without modern amenities) the predominant childbirth position. The birthing chair, or stool, allows the woman to assume a squatting position while also allowing her to rest.

 

[billvon]

That's flat-out fiction.

Have you ever been with anyone giving birth, or given birth yourself? If you had you'd realize the truth of it.

Nobody's talking about biology. We're talking about social roles.

Ultimately our biology lays the basis for our social roles. We then change them well beyond that, of course.

That's simply not true. You need to educate yourself on this subject. The ideal of a man protecting his woman is a modern one.

Since the beginning of recorded history a husband was tasked with protecting his wife in all parts of her life. Some quotes from the Bible:

Ephesians: "In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife. No one hates his own body but lovingly cares for it, just as Christ cares for his body, which is the church."

Peter: "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. "

Just stop it. Stop pretending. You're only embarrassing yourself with this charade. You make yourself sound stupid by getting all of your facts wrong. It's like Miss South Carolina trying to explain why people can't find South America on a map.

I'm sorry you are so angry. I must have touched a nerve. I hope you find a way to deal with your issues, whatever they are. (And I hope you someday get to experience what birth is like; it's really a pretty amazing experience.)

 

[leopold]

Who are more moral? Men or women?

what's that saying again?
ah yes, men are womens playthings, women are the devils.
women can certainly be treacherous.

 

[Balerion]

(And I hope you someday get to experience what birth is like; it's really a pretty amazing experience.)

And one that apparently left you none the wiser to the human condition, sadly.

I have a regrettable habit of carrying on debates beyond their usefulness, simply from the desire to make the other person see the error in their position. I have learned that some people are more interested in being right than sharing ideas, and no amount of appeal will make them admit they are wrong. I've made a promise to myself to stop doing this, and let the peanut gallery decide for themselves who made the better points.

However, I still haven't gotten over my desire to battle pseudointellectual buffoons until they have sufficiently twisted themselves into pretzels to maintain their pretensions. Yet again, I've indulged myself. But that will be the end of it.

 

[Greatest I am]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/women-cheating-men-study/story?id=13885519
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1211104/Think-men-unfaithful-sex-A-study-shows-WOMEN-biggest-cheats--theyre-just-better-lying-it.html

What were you saying?

Seriously.

The issue has nothing to do with sex.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Bottom line as to which sex is more moral over-all?
I don't think we can really agree on a definition of morality, but in my own system, men are less moral, since they're historically responsible for crimes on the very largest scale: genocide, slavery, war, political ideology and religion.

A realistic evaluation. Thanks.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Morality isn't in a lawbook, and it isn't in a holy text; it is an innate sense of rightness that is not predominant in or exclusive to one sex. You can't name one moral act done by a man that can not be done by a woman.

I can name one immoral act being done right now by men as a group that women cannot do.

Discriminate against the opposite sex to the degree that man does because he can us the threat of physical violence. Might makes right, when really, we are using our might for injustice and inequality.

We are coming up with anti-bullying laws for our schools but we ignore that we need them more for adult males.

We suck gentlemen. Let's admit it.

Regards
DL

 

[Balerion]

I can name one immoral act being done right now by men as a group that women cannot do.

Discriminate against the opposite sex to the degree that man does because he can us the threat of physical violence. Might makes right, when really, we are using our might for injustice and inequality.

We are coming up with anti-bullying laws for our schools but we ignore that we need them more for adult males.

We suck gentlemen. Let's admit it.

Regards
DL

Physical strength is not the determining factor as it pertains to discrimination. Instead, power is the key, and in Western society men are the ones who hold most of the elected offices and therefore have the most say.

If women were the predominant force in our government, then we would likely be talking about how men need to break glass ceilings and how women make twice what the average woman does for the same job, etc..

 

[Greatest I am]

And one that apparently left you none the wiser to the human condition, sadly.

I have a regrettable habit of carrying on debates beyond their usefulness, simply from the desire to make the other person see the error in their position. I have learned that some people are more interested in being right than sharing ideas, and no amount of appeal will make them admit they are wrong. I've made a promise to myself to stop doing this, and let the peanut gallery decide for themselves who made the better points.

However, I still haven't gotten over my desire to battle pseudointellectual buffoons until they have sufficiently twisted themselves into pretzels to maintain their pretensions. Yet again, I've indulged myself. But that will be the end of it.

I too have noticed that all are quite fundamentally locked into whatever they believe. Right or wrong and regardless of how many posters tell them they are wrong. Changing the mind of any of us is like pulling teeth and posters seem not to know when they have lost an argument.

Women do not seem to be so locked in gear. Perhaps that helps in their being more moral or perhaps it is the fact that they are more moral that makes them better at communication.

Patience my friend. Intelligent men must remain patient.
We cannot let silly ones drive us away.

That was the royal we. I am always at work on the attributes named.

Regards
DL

 

[Balerion]

I too have noticed that all are quite fundamentally locked into whatever they believe. Right or wrong and regardless of how many posters tell them they are wrong. Changing the mind of any of us is like pulling teeth and posters seem not to know when they have lost an argument.

Women do not seem to be so locked in gear. Perhaps that helps in their being more moral or perhaps it is the fact that they are more moral that makes them better at communication.

Patience my friend. Intelligent men must remain patient.
We cannot let silly ones drive us away.

That was the royal we. I am always at work on the attributes named.

Regards
DL

I'm sorry, I can't subscribe to that (rather insulting) generalization.

 

[Greatest I am]

what's that saying again?
ah yes, men are womens playthings, women are the devils.
women can certainly be treacherous.

So you are basically saying that women can outthink men.

I agree.

Thank God they are more moral than men or they would take more advantage of us than we have let our brute strength take of them.

Women should thank men in the sense that if we would have been smarter and not used our strength, we may not have helped them evolve their, now superior, thinking ability, by forcing them to defend themselves by brain power.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Seriously.

The issue has nothing to do with sex.

No, it has to do with morality, which includes fidelity and honesty.

 

[Balerion]

No, it has to do with morality, which includes fidelity and honesty.

Says who?

 

[Syne]

Says who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

And that's just the first four search hits. Care to provide any references which explicitly exclude these (fidelity and honesty) from morality?

 

[Balerion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

And that's just the first four search hits. Care to provide any references which explicitly exclude these (fidelity and honesty) from morality?

None of those links makes a reference to honesty or fidelity.

Care to try again?

 

[Syne]

None of those links makes a reference to honesty or fidelity.

Care to try again?

Really? Do you really need it spelled out for you? Here's the one literal enough that even you should be able to get it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality

morality: 3. virtue in sexual matters

And in case you don't understand what virtue is, from the same source:

virtue: 2. conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude.
uprightness: 3. adhering to rectitude; righteous, honest, or just: an upright person.

Thus morality is inclusive of honesty in sexual matters. Can't get any more clear than that.

But they all say something similar to this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

morality: 3. conformity to ideals of right human conduct

So as I already asked you, care to provide any references which explicitly exclude these (fidelity and honesty) from morality? Or in light of ANY definition you can find, how can infidelity and dishonesty be a standard of right human conduct? Or do you consider these to be completely appropriate when done against you?