Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Londoner]

Equality, whatever that might be, is not what people strive for. They strive for advantage. Fair treatment, whatever that might be, is not what people strive for. They strive for preferential favor.

But not only that, surely? We also like to be respected and loved by others. We have empathy for fellow humans who seem to be having a hard time. We sometimes get tired of striving for advantage and think it would be nice if we could all relax and enjoy ourselves.

After all, what advantage do you get by wasting valuable striving time by posting on this Philosophy Forum?

[Logic_ill]

My reaction to the documentary was that it was quite interesting, the diversity of opinions and research done on gender. My wild guess about gender differences is basically that because women and men have physical and hormonal differences that make them different in size, maybe sex drive, strength,endurance, appearance in general, these differences influence our interactions. These interactions have been so much more influenced by the male or the male has taken center stage for so long for the only reason that they are stronger. I don't think women would have been able to take over even if they wanted to, unless they would have had the ability to organize first, and create technologies to keep the men down. However, that wasn't the case. The men are stronger, they learned to organize first,and they created the technologies in order to compete with men from other groups. I think this happened because women simply had to rear the children, they are more vulnerable, and physically weaker.

This doesn't mean that women didn't or don't have organizational capacity, intelligence, capacity for innovation, and others. What it means is that men may have overlooked female capacity/abilities because of their natural constitutions and they were too busy competing with one another. Yes, some men may have recognized some female ability, but that wasn't or perhaps isnt' the norm. It happens because of socialization patterns that we unconsciously follow. I do not think they are truly innate.

I mean that if we perhaps retrain ourselves to nurture female capacity without the usual social recrimination, we might get more females inclined to different areas that are considered traditionally male. But in real life or day to day interactions we don't do that. What we do is criticize female behavior because they are the easiest target (the physically weaker). If a female does something out of "the norm", she is the most susceptible to condemnation, and will not find support. Usually, even the females recriminate her. However, males seem to have more of a tendency to form groups to counteract other groups, although there are many male loners too.

What I'm trying to point out is that women are the most susceptible because they are the physically weakest, and they unconsciously know they are, so they are the least likely to break social patterns. I also think that society places much more pressures on them. Women find it more difficult to find female support, than men to find male support within a society. I suppose it's due to the experience the male has had in confronting other groups.

Anyhow, I personally do not think men are truly more capable than women in general. I have a tendency to believe they are the cause of many of our modern problems. Why? because they have led us into the world we live in today. It's not the worst world to live in, but it can improve greatly. This is perhaps, simply due to the human condition and their narrow views, but they were primarily male oriented becuase the male has structured the world we live in. Yes, women may have contributed here and there, but still men have been in the lead for so long.

[Stormcloud]

That women are 'physically weakest' may well be what motivates many women to attempt to disprove the fact by: Body building, joining armed forces, combat "sports," wearing suits and taking on power careers such as politics, law (barristers, judges, etc) police, corporate positions, sports commentating in the rough male domain and, of course, sexual deviation, etc. This has nothing to do with sexual equality per se. After centuries of patriachal dominance small wonder why they wish to balance the ledger. There will always be division while we have "gender" and not simply people. Spiral, maybe they only strive for advantage in order to 'bring about' a desired result?

-- Updated January 7th, 2014, 11:14 pm to add the following --

......Logic ill, problems are an ongoing thing, you cant narrow them down to being brought about by a gender at a particular time. I am a man and I do not feel responsible for the modern problems that you mention. Can I help what I have inherited? This is not to say that I cant help initiate change - I think by your very being you are contributing one way or another but I will not carry guilt from the thoughts and actions of others even though I am influenced by such. If the male has structured the world we live in, as you say, then I must ask: What part has woman played by their passive role?

[Sy Borg]

Spiral, over the years I have questioned my own views ad nauseum. Don't think for a second that my views have arrived from prima facie examinations.

And for all that, I don't think people are necessarily out for advantage. Were women or Aboriginals out for advantage when they sought the vote? Are gays out for advantage when they want to be allowed to marry? If you have been through enough disadvantage, gaining an advantage isn't even on the radar. All you're trying to do is stop being unfairly suppressed.

More broadly, I agree that people, other animals, plants and microbial life jostle for power. However, there's an awful lot of us who just want to mind our own business and hope others will stop trying to mind our business for us.

[Logic_ill]

(Nested quote removed.)

I think that because we are not equal. I mean equal in strength, appearance, hormones, etc. is why men took the lead in the first place. We have the capacity now to attempt some equaliy, despite or narrow minded natures, but that will probably take more awareness and practice, depending on the culture we live in. Some cultures are more equal than others, and even some people or social classes are more egalitarian. -- Updated January 7th, 2014, 11:14 pm to add the following --

......Logic ill, problems are an ongoing thing, you cant narrow them down to being brought about by a gender at a particular time. I am a man and I do not feel responsible for the modern problems that you mention. Can I help what I have inherited? This is not to say that I cant help initiate change - I think by your very being you are contributing one way or another but I will not carry guilt from the thoughts and actions of others even though I am influenced by such. If the male has structured the world we live in, as you say, then I must ask: What part has woman played by their passive role?

I have not narrowed down our problems to gender. I'm just saying that males initiated most of what we consider our major activities or daily activities. From language to religions, to warfare, arts, etc...It appears that men were pioneers in almost everthing that we can mention. Now, I don't know if that's entirely true, people do have a tendency to make up false accounts. Perhaps many ideas actually originated from females, and males stole them or said they came up with them. But the mere fact that many of our texts attribute most of our endeavors to males, shows what kind of ideologies/vision were dominant. The male ideology was dominant, until gradually more space has been open to the female.

I am not making you responsible for any of it. I was referring to the dawns of civilizations and their developments. I also do not blame the male for having the bodies they have or their appearance. It's simply a fact of our species that men on average are stronger. Due to their physical strength, men had to take center stage, leaving the female with less opportunity or space to contribute her vision, unless she was in a position in which she could influence the "major" players.

-- Updated January 8th, 2014, 8:06 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

I think that because we are not equal. I mean equal in strength, appearance, hormones, etc. is why men took the lead in the first place. We have the capacity now to attempt some equaliy, despite or narrow minded natures, but that will probably take more awareness and practice, depending on the culture we live in. Some cultures are more equal than others, and even some people or social classes are more egalitarian. -- Updated January 7th, 2014, 11:14 pm to add the following --

......Logic ill, problems are an ongoing thing, you cant narrow them down to being brought about by a gender at a particular time. I am a man and I do not feel responsible for the modern problems that you mention. Can I help what I have inherited? This is not to say that I cant help initiate change - I think by your very being you are contributing one way or another but I will not carry guilt from the thoughts and actions of others even though I am influenced by such. If the male has structured the world we live in, as you say, then I must ask: What part has woman played by their passive role?

I have not narrowed down our problems to gender. I'm just saying that males initiated most of what we consider our major activities or daily activities. From language to religions, to warfare, arts, etc...It appears that men were pioneers in almost everthing that we can mention. Now, I don't know if that's entirely true, people do have a tendency to make up false accounts. Perhaps many ideas actually originated from females, and males stole them or said they came up with them. But the mere fact that many of our texts attribute most of our endeavors to males, shows what kind of ideologies/vision were dominant. The male ideology was dominant, until gradually more space has been open to the female.

I am not making you responsible for any of it. I was referring to the dawns of civilizations and their developments. I also do not blame the male for having the bodies they have or their appearance. It's simply a fact of our species that men on average are stronger. Due to their physical strength, men had to take center stage, leaving the female with less opportunity or space to contribute her vision, unless she was in a position in which she could influence the "major" players.

-- Updated January 8th, 2014, 8:27 am to add the following --

But, of course, women have had their influence. However, there seems to be a tendecy of human beings in general, but especially the female, to uphold the system, and to follow set social patterns. It is because she or even they (women as a group alone) will be crushed if they initiated any sort of change or challenged that system. Whenever any such movements took place, they were accompanied by males. The same goes for males who challenge or try to exert changes, but women in general would have a less agressive role in accompanying their male counterparts.

Women alone would be crushed because men are stronger. We should not divide the genders into competing groups. However, somehow men did so (In the past),when they decided to make all these rules on how to set up societies. It was women who got the shorter end of the stick. (less priveleges,less pay, less sex, less liberties, etc). I'm not sure women would have done so, had they been in charge. But it was never going to happen, due to sheer differences in appearance, especially strength.

Now, are women's brains different to that of men's? I'm not sure, but I would think there may be differences, due to our natural chemistry. Men have more testosterone, women estrogen. That must have some influence, if not in brain function, in behavior. This shouldn't be a cause to dismiss women as inferior. I suppose it simply adds to our variety as a species, and to discover the different abilities each being (because we each have our unique chemistry) posesses. Our differences, may be our strength. At least, we can learn from these examples. I would emulate what I consider to be their virtues, or try to. But as a woman, I am constantly trying to discover myself or explore myself because I'm very much aware of that male vision. Somehow, I would have liked to have known,what and how I would have turned out to be in the absence of the other gender. I don't think I'll ever find out, but it still makes me wonder.

[Spiral Out]

If you have been through enough disadvantage, gaining an advantage isn't even on the radar. All you're trying to do is stop being unfairly suppressed.

That strikes me as being a rather naive perspective. Conversely, my own perspective may seem rather cynical, but that's what our respective environments have shown us.

If you're interested, we can discuss the causes (at least as we have perceived them) for our perspectives in more detail.

[Sy Borg]

If you have been through enough disadvantage, gaining an advantage isn't even on the radar. All you're trying to do is stop being unfairly suppressed.

That strikes me as being a rather naive perspective. Conversely, my own perspective may seem rather cynical, but that's what our respective environments have shown us.

Spiral, I expect some kind of objective truth lies between my naiveté and your cynicism. I like Douglas Adams's observations about perspectives from different points of power:

So what of this horse, then, that actually held opinions, and was sceptical about things? Unusual behaviour for a horse, wasn't it? An unusual horse perhaps?

No. Although it was certainly a handsome and well-built example of its species, it was none the less a perfectly ordinary horse, such as convergent evolution has produced in many of the places that life is to be found. They have always understood a great deal more than they let on. It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other creature, without forming an opinion on them.

On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to sit all day, every day, on top of another creature and not have the slightest thought about them whatsoever.

[Anthony Edgar]

I've always felt that Marxists and their religion of equality have only one enemy - REALITY. Their religion won't last. Nothing that devoid of sanity can.