This is a touchy subject because it has reference to sexist ideology. — L'éléphant

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?

. 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. — baker

That's not my experience. It takes some strength to give life for instance, and that's no small gift.

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

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.

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.
— Possibility

No, you're reading that into my words. — baker

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.

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. — 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’?

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

”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 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. — 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.

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. — 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?”

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? — Bitter Crank

:100:

What is the irony in mentioning Mary? — Bitter Crank

As you say:

In a way, I'm not sure one can say Jesus was the founder of Christianity, let alone his mother....If we are looking for a founder, Paul comes much closer. — 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.

Also, unlikely that the holy spirit is into men. — T Clark

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?

Why not? Hitler is as valuable as Gandhi? — 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.

Studies about men in a certain cultural context may say more about the culture than about men — Olivier5

And this is what I've been trying to explain. Are we confusing causation here? Is it culture or gender?

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. — 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.

Tricky because we tend to make generalizations about the differences and similarities of men and women without having a whole lot of proof. — Bitter Crank

What proof are you looking for? Please explain this.

Carol Gilligan's theory of sex differences in the development of moral reasoning during adolescence :

Here's an abstract.

Gilligan's work, which focuses on sex differences in moral reasoning, the perception of violence, the resolution of sexual dilemmas and abortion decisions, poses a major challenge to Kohlberg's theory by introducing a feminist perspective of moral development. Kohlberg had shown that the average female attained a moral judgment rating of stage three (good boy-nice girl), while adolescent males score at level four (law and order) and are more likely to move on to postconventional levels. Gilligan suggests that these findings reveal a gender bias, not that females are less mature than boys. Men and women follow different voices. Men tend to organize social relationships in a hierarchical order and subscribe to a morality of rights. Females value interpersonal connectedness, care, sensitivity, and responsibility to people. Kohlberg's scoring criteria give the interpersonal care orientations of females lower ratings than the principled justice orientation. Hence, Gilligan identifies different developmental stages for females. However, she does not claim that one system is better; both are equally valid. Only by integrating these complementary male (justice) and female (care) orientations will we be able to realize our full human potential in moral development.

If anyone is wondering who Lawrence Kohlberg is, he is the one who created the "Heinz Steals the Drug" moral conundrum:

In this scenario, a woman has cancer and her doctors believe only one drug might save her. This drug had been discovered by a local pharmacist and he was able to make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose. The woman's husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to buy the drug.

He tried to negotiate with the pharmacist for a lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over time. But the pharmacist refused to sell it for any less or to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz instead broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife. Kohlberg asked, "Should the husband have done that?"

(Thanks, verywell mind).

Here's one of the choices, among the choices included in the moral dilemma:

Heinz can steal the drug and no law should punish him.

This decision lets Heinz save his wife and both of them can live happily. This thinking is based on the thought that the rigidity in law should be rejected and justice should be done on moral grounds.

This is a Post-conventional level of Moral thinking.

(Thanks, Tutorials Point)

Note that the above scenario was presented by Kohlberg to adolescent children, not adults.

What proof are you looking for? Please explain this. — L'éléphant

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.

:up:

Is it culture or gender? — L'éléphant

Gender is a cultural concept anyway. The corresponding biological concept is called "sex".

Recommended search parameters in Google:

1. Women crime
2. Married crime (men/women)
3. Single crime (men/women)

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. — L'éléphant

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

Gender is a cultural concept anyway. The corresponding biological concept is called "sex". — Olivier5

Okay, I agree. I should use sex.

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 — 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.

Femininity and masculinity are abstract made-up constructs indoctrinated into the sexes through social paradigms.

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.

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. — Cobra

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.

Males and females have more similarities than differences. — Cobra

:up: Amazing insight!

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. — Bitter Crank

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.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. — George Santayana

I don't have sufficient knowledge to say, but academics who presumably do (men and women both) have asserted that matriarchies were few and far between, if they existed at all.

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. — 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.

I don't have sufficient knowledge to say, but academics who presumably do (men and women) have both asserted that matriarchies are few and far between, if they existed at all. — Bitter Crank

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?

↪Agent Smith
I don't have sufficient knowledge to say, but academics who presumably do (men and women both) have asserted that matriarchies were few and far between, if they existed at all. — Bitter Crank

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.

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. — Bitter Crank

I'm a slow learner!

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. — L'éléphant

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,

In the present that is? — Agent Smith

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!

Maybe the National Organization of Women? Catholic orders for women (nuns)? Women's colleges (a few of those are still in business)? — Bitter Crank

Women's organizations, yep, that's a start! Strength in numbers, ja? Old wine, new bottle.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. — Daniel Bonevac

It's quite possible that it's a cycle and we're just going through one point in this sexual carousel: Women$\rightarrow$ Men $\rightarrow$ Women $\rightarrow$...round and round we go, sometimes fast, sometimes slow.

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. — L'éléphant

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.