Feminine Morality vs. Masculine Morality

In studying the decline of morality over the past century, I have begun to see a certain pattern. Here is a chart I drew up while thinking this out. Sorry the chart isn’t perfectly aligned; life is too short.

Morals Of The Past Morals Of The Present
Abortion is murder

Euthanasia is murder

Capital punishment is just

War is a necessity

Property is sacred

Hostile foreign nations should be dealt with sternly, with force if need be

Jobs should be given to those with ability and a work ethic

Violent criminals should be locked up or possibly executed

School is of limited use in comparison to practical experience

Fathers are important

Everyone has the right to defend themselves

Judeo-Christian religion is good

Full-time motherhood is a valuable and honorable profession

Career success requires sacrifices most women are not willing to make

The police and the military are not good jobs for women

Anyone with ability who is willing to work hard can succeed

Free speech is sacred, even if it means hearing things we don’t like

Premarital sex is not a good idea

Divorce is to be avoided

Paintings should look like something

Marriage is important and beneficial

Therapy is less beneficial than hard work or religion

Abortion is great

Euthanasia is great

Capital punishment is murder

War is evil

Property should be redistributed

Hostile foreign nations must be placated and apologized to

Jobs should be given to those who need them

Violent criminals need to be understood and should be freed soon

School is wonderful and should be prolonged as long as possible

Fathers are unnecessary

People should meekly submit when they are assaulted

Judeo-Christian religion is evil

Full-time motherhood is for parasites who should have fulfilment instead

Career success should be guaranteed by laws giving women privileges

The police and the military should adjust their standards so women can do the jobs

People need special protection and help from the government

Free speech is sacred, but laws prohibiting speech we don’t like are necessary and in no way confine freedom of speech

Premarital sex is wonderful

Divorce is wonderful

Appreciating modern art proves that you are a superior person

Commitment is terrible

Therapy can solve all the world’s ills

If you compare the charts, you will notice a common thread in the moral premises of the past: most of them cannot be practiced by women. The moral premises of the present, however, are completely accessible to the weaker sex.

Few women can pick up a sword or an M-16 and fight against enemy soldiers, therefore war is immoral. Women are, however, entirely capable of murdering a baby in the womb, or removing the life support systems or feeding tubes of helpless disabled people, so abortion and euthanasia are moral. Few women can put on a blue uniform and handcuff a dangerous criminal, so putting miscreants in jail is immoral. Women can, however, be sympathetic and understanding to criminals, so sentencing criminals to therapy is moral. Few women can defend themselves against attackers, so self-defense is immoral; people have been jailed for defending themselves against intruders, and children are routinely punished for defending themselves when other children beat up on them, while the children who initiate the violence are never punished. Women are not designed to work hard, they are designed to induce others to work for them, so advancement by merit is immoral; advancement by laws granting special privileges to women and other protected groups is moral. Few women can make equal achievements in the workplace, so advancement by merit is, again, immoral; women thrive in classrooms, where results depend on the subjective feelings of the professors or teachers rather than on real-world results, so advancement by credentials is moral.

We have come to define morality by whether or not the average woman is capable of doing whatever the deed in question is.

Advertisements

19 Responses to “Feminine Morality vs. Masculine Morality”

  1. Mr Zopo Says:

    I heard women are naturaly amoral.

  2. Mr Zopo Says:

    I heard women are naturaly amoral.

  3. Mr Zopo Says:

    I heard women are naturaly amoral.

  4. teacher.paris Says:

    A Saudi court has upheld a ruling to behead and crucify a man convicted of raping five children and leaving one of them to die in the desert The convict was arrested earlier in 2009 after a seven-year old boy helped police in their investigation. The child left in the desert after the rape was three years old. International rights groups have accused the kingdom, the birthplace of Islam, of applying draconian justice, beheading murderers, rapists and drug traffickers in public. So far this year about 40 people have been executed in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, crucifixion means tying the body of the convict to wooden beams to be displayed to the public after beheading. http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-43639120091103

  5. huxxx Says:

    I know this post is old, and I can't tell if you're totally serious, but I'll treat it like you are totally serious. This will be tl;dr, so I apologise in advance. This is also scattered with links; I don't mean to overwhelm you, it's just in case you're interested in delving deeper in to any of these topics.***I don't know anyone who thinks divorce is wonderful. Yes, men get the raw deal, but that's different to thinking divorce is wonderful. In regard to the point about art: art is often heavily dependent on context. (This is btw compatible with the claim that art is an evolved behaviour.) Exhibit A: The Fall of Icarus. Look at the picture before reading on……OK. "Icarus" is the two little legs poking out of the water in the bottom right corner. The story behind it goes something like he tried to fly but the wax holding his wings together was melted by the sun. Different picture now that you know the story, isn't it? And so is the case with the classic examples of conceptual art; the context was the art institutions, and they were satirical pieces, e.g. Duchamp and whoever else. (Conceptual art these days has mostly lost its direction, but that's a separate issue.) The 18th century aestheticist account of art is widely considered obsolete, for good reason. Feminist defense of abortion is also completely sustainable. The average feminist couldn't go in to a lot of detail, admittedly, but it can be defended. Here I am relying on the link as the issue is far to great to discuss here. (The bibliography is worth checking out.)As for euthanasia, here is a start. For more references on this you can feel free to contact me, as I am a student of bioethics; my email address is on my blog's About page. Actually I'm just going to stop here. This is enough to demonstrate that the changing world is not necessarily the depraved result of feminism. Feminists might adopt the same conclusions in intellectual dishonesty, but at the bottom a lot of these positions can be defended. Your post can plausibly deny involving normative judgment, but it does seem to me the post implicitly condemns the modern world on the grounds you cite.

  6. Female Misogynist Says:

    Huxxx,I don't know why you would think I wasn't serious. Of course I was.Of course feminism is not the only cause of the modern world's moral degeneration, but it is one of the chief forces behind that degeneration, and it is the one this blog is focused upon. Other blogs can and do examine other forces, such as egalitarianism or atheism.Just because people who have sufficient disregard for human life are able to justify the murder of babies, old people and the disabled does not mean that their arguments have any validity, nor does it absolve feminism of the millions of murders it has helped to commit and excuse. It might be "sustainable", but it is also evil.I don't know why I would want to deny that my post had normative judgment. I'm all about normative judgment. And I hope that my condemnation of the modern world is not implicit. I do my best to condemn the modern world as explicitly as possible.Thank you for your comment, which was certainly interesting though it clearly showed that we are working from some very different premises. Also, thank you for linking me on your blog.

  7. huxxx Says:

    No prob, your blog is good reading. My point wasn't that there are other forces behind moral degeneration. My point was that these affairs do not constitute moral degeneration. I am an atheist, perhaps an anti-theist, and pretty left wing compared to the average MRA/Game blogger. (Or did you recognise this, and that's what you meant when you said we are "working from different premises"?)On that, and on your comment, I'm not sure how I could argue my points if you contend that a moral syllogism which is justified and sustainable can still be invalid. That is logically impossible.

  8. Female Misogynist Says:

    Of course these affairs constitute moral degeneration. The things in the "present" column are the very definition of moral degeneration. The modern world is completely degenerate, and the only solace is that it will definitely collapse completely, though the process will be exceedingly unpleasant for everyone.a moral syllogism which is justified and sustainable can still be invalid. That is logically impossible.…I think you have spent too much time listening to professors who considered philosophy to be some sort of mental chess game. I could build an argument for a lot of things that aren't true. I am aware that evil people have come up with theories justifying their desires to murder the unborn and the elderly. Good people have come up with theories explaining why doing so is wrong. Both have their chains of logic, but both can't be right.Put it this way, at the risk of going Godwin: If the Nazi theory that Jews were the cause of everything evil had been true, then the Nazis' actions would have been justified and sustainable. Given that premise, their actions were completely rational. But while I occasionally get commenters here who think that the Holocaust didn't happen but it should have, I hope you are not one of these.The difference between a good theoretical position and a bad one isn't whether or not a chain of logic can be built in its support. The difference is whether their premises are right. The premise of the pro-euthanasia types, for example, is that the sadistic enjoyment they get out of murdering the helpless can be excused if they can come up with reasons for doing it. They are still pathetic murderers who can't even take on someone with the hope of self-defense.

  9. huxxx Says:

    Your point, to put it formally, is that the premises ought to be sound. That's a different issue to validity. But we can talk soundness if you'd like. I contend that the premises are sound. Let's use abortion as an example since Peter Singer has already set this out for us:1. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.2. A human foetus is an innocent human being.3. Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.This argument is valid because the conclusion follows from the premises. Singer's point, and mine, is that the premises are wrong; it is unsound. Where this goes wrong is (2). Now you present something like this premise; you refer to abortion and euthanasia as "murder." (…murder of babies, old people and the disabled…)In calling it murder you are begging the question. Everyone is against murder. The claim of defenders, myself included, is that we have to examine the premise that these acts constitute murder and ascertain whether it is sound. See Singer's article for why it does not constitute murder. ***The premise of the pro-euthanasia types, for example, is that the sadistic enjoyment they get out of murdering the helpless can be excused if they can come up with reasons for doing it.OK we could turn around and accuse you of getting sadistic enjoyment out of prolonging people's suffering. Please do not reduce yourself to this; so far I've been impressed at your defending rational argument in favour of cheap appeals to emotion such as this.

  10. Female Misogynist Says:

    It is necessary to refer to murder as murder so as not to give its advocates the luxury of pretending that that is not what they are advocating.So far as I can tell, your contention is that the only reason to object to killing babies and disabled people who have committed no crime is that overly emotional people refer to this as "murder", and if only we'll stop using the word "murder" the way the dictionary defines it, then we can murder – er, kill – all the babies and cripples we want.Every totalitarianism in history has based itself on defining some people as less than human and therefore murderable. Right now it's the unborn and the disabled; it's been Jews, blacks, foreigners, the bourgeoisie, aristocrats, Catholics, Protestants, American Indians, and so on throughout history. But, of course, today we are so enlightened that all the previous concepts of subhumans who it is permissible to kill have been discarded, and *now* we have the *real* idea of which humans aren't really human and therefore can't be murdered!Of course, the only way to have a real conversation on such topics is by sharing certain premises. My premise is, human beings are all human beings and deserve not to be murdered. Your premise is, some humans are not actually humans and therefore killing them cannot be murder. I can't very well talk you out of a premise which flies in the face of medical facts and common sense. Pro-abortion people insist that a person with lungs, a heartbeat, and brain waves doesn't qualify as a human being. But you're not going to convince me that murdering the helpless is all right by saying that it's not really murder because the lives of the victims lack utility and a syllogism can be devised providing logic excusing it. Basically, you and the sinister people you cite have decided that you don't see the value in certain lives and therefore others ought to be able to end them. It should be clear that syllogism could be devised by someone justifying the murder, er, elimination of both you and me.

  11. Female Misogynist Says:

    Since this was long, and this is bringing the discussion into other areas, I had to put this in a separate comment.There isn't really any way to argue people into or out of premises. We can offer results, however. Example: I am glad that I live in a prosperous society – even with the financial crisis, we are still prosperous compared to Third World countries and to most of the past. Very few Americans are going to starve, except for anorexic women, who are certainly not victims of poverty. But for most of human history, starvation has been an ever-present threat.Having accepted that this prosperity is good, I can then backwards engineer what values made it possible (property, capitalism, technology, hard work) and use those as my standards of moral behavior. Similarly, I am glad that when my parents found out that raising children isn't actually very much fun, they weren't allowed to kill me, due to the legal technicality that I had already passed through the birth canal. There were many societies – primitive tribes, ancient barbarian cultures – where they could have. Given my selfish desire not to have my head split open one night when my parents decided that they just didn't feel like enduring my toddling presence any longer, I have to value the principles that caused this unprecedented Judeo-Christian value. (The ancient Greeks and Romans could kill their children at whim and denounced the Jews for allowing deformed children to live. Peter Singer, you probably know, wishes for the right to murder one's child to be extended until well after birth.) And those principles are that human life is sacred, even if it does commit the horrible crime of inconveniencing other people.In order to concede your point that some murder isn't really murder, I would have to say that there would have been nothing wrong with my parents killing me back when I was too small to be a productive member of society, which they no doubt would have had they been able to. And I am certain I am far from alone. It is rather a lot to ask people to subscribe to philosophical premises which are not only unconvincing on their face and in conflict with scientific knowledge, but which also would excuse our own murder.One more point about euthanasia: the word has two mutually exclusive meanings. The meaning which is used to promote it is that of an ill person who is suffering and wants their pain to stop taking his own life. I could never tell someone that they did not have that right.But when euthanasia is practiced and supported by law, it usually isn't that version, but instead the version where other people decide that someone isn't entitled to live and they kill them against the victim's will. This now happens in Europe routinely. Just a few years ago, an elderly Englishwoman went to court seeking protection against her feeding tubes being removed if she lost the ability to eat without them. The court ruled that she was not competent to determine whether or not she wanted to live. I am sorry that dry, abstract syllogisms which demand that I accept the premise that some people are less than human and thus can't be murdered do not convince me that what was done to this woman was not immoral.

  12. Female Misogynist Says:

    Oh, also. My accusing people who kill the disabled of sadism was deliberate. I am convinced, based on phrasing and facial expressions though I admit I can't definitively prove it, that many people who advocate things I oppose do so out of base emotional motives, rather than the abstract motives they themselves list. For instance, I think corporal punishment of children should be minimized. I have heard adults list all sorts of well-thought-out reasons that children should be beaten often. But their tones of voice and the way they grin and even laugh when bragging about their adventures in beating up five-year-olds has me rather doubting the high-sounding motives they attribute to themselves.Hopefully I'll become a bit less cynical in time, but these days I'm inclined to think that people's intentions are even worse than their actual results.

  13. huxxx Says:

    I was trying to avoid getting in a full-blown bioethical debate. Oh well. Your premise is, some humans are not actually humans and therefore killing them cannot be murder.Nope. All humans are humans. My point is that it isn't the quality of being human which makes life important, it's the quality of self-consciousness. A self-conscious non-human has the full right to life that a fully self-conscious human has, and a non self-conscious biological human (braindead, fetus, embryo, whatever) has no more claim to life than a non self-conscious anything else. They might have a claim to gentle treatment since they might be sentient (as Bentham said in regard to animal rights, the pertinent question is, "can they suffer?") but that's it. It should be clear that syllogism could be devised by someone justifying the murder, er, elimination of both you and me.A valid one, yes. A sound one, I highly doubt it. Peter Singer, you probably know, wishes for the right to murder one's child to be extended until well after birth.That's his trip, although I do agree with him that birth is an arbitrary place to draw the line. …I would have to say that there would have been nothing wrong with my parents killing me back when I was too small to be a productive member of society… Nobody, not even Singer, justifies killing on the grounds that one is not a productive member of society. Again, it's about self-consciousness. One more point about euthanasia: the word has two mutually exclusive meanings. For completeness there are three meanings. There is voluntary euthanasia, which you're OK with, there is involuntary, which I am not OK with, and there is non-voluntary, which I am maybe/sometimes OK with. It is these latter two which you're not OK with, so actually we are nearly in agreement here, as you will find are most bioethicists. And to your whole third comment: I know what you mean there. People who defend torture, and a lot of authoritarian right wing politicians, just seem to like the idea of punishment in itself. As Nietzsche said, Christianity (well I'd say all deriving from the old testament) was formulated to find people guilty. And before you start, I agree with the Christian values like don't murder, steal, whatever, but those aren't really Christian values; they're pretty well universal.

  14. Phoenix Says:

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Female Misogynist is the sanest woman around!

  15. Phoenix Says:

    Female Misogynist I appreciate that you're a lesbian but is it possible for you to post a pic so I can know whether or not you're pretty enough to internet stalk and otherwise give unwanted romantic attention to? I'm not normally interested in things like pesonality in a woman but your sane, clear level headed thinking, is well quite frankly very attractive. I feel like I want to get to know you better.

  16. Female Misogynist Says:

    Phoenix,No, it isn't, and no, I'm not. I was pretty when I was young, but I've put on pounds and I am well past Roissy's fuck-by date.

  17. Phoenix Says:

    Well I guess you weren't going to fuck me any way, being a lesbain and all, so it doesn't matter. Shame about getting old but it happens to every single last one of us, you're not anywhere that Megan Fox or Elisha Cuthbert (beauties I like) aren't going to follow. Female beauty has such a narrow window, one of those things you don't like about the world but can't change. That being said I still adore your mind (which is another way of saying you think so much like me, at least on the Anti-Feminism thing).

  18. Richard Ford Says:

    Basicaly this new morality is a colective morality. Everybody is guilty so nobody is guilty.'Male' morality is individual. It is up to the individual to make good choices.'Female' morality is collective. It is basicaly about obeying the state and doing what one is told. Do not rock to boat by telling unpleasant truths or dealing with criminals yourself. Know nothing, be nothing. do nothing. Give acceptable opinions but do not think.

  19. Cassandra Says:

    You wanted comments? Here's my reaction:Reading this post consumed 3 minutes of my life I will never get back.I have rarely seen such a virtuoso demonstration of the logical non sequitur.The main thrust, as it were, of the so-called argument seems to be that if women are capable of an act, they must support it and if they are incapable of an act they logically must oppose it.Oh, and if some women oppose traditional morality (never mind that some men do, too) women/feminism are responsible for the erosion of traditional standards. We'll just ignore the male contribution entirely :pDumb, dumb, dumb. And so easy to refute.Women are all capable of having abortions and yet many vehemently oppose the practice on moral grounds.Men are capable of going to war, and yet many men oppose war on moral grounds.The author has succeeded mainly in making women look foolish and illogical – if this is what passes for anti-feminism, we're all screwed :p

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: