Women have Co-opted morality

[KontrollerX]

Women seem to naturally have more common sense than us men.

They do not follow or concern themselves with morality codes like men do.

Rather they tend to follow the law of the jungle and take what they can get and feel they deserve if its there for the taking for them.

They do what they can get away with basically.

They are not wracked with guilt over doing something that benefits them if it breaks the rules like say a man with a strong sense of morals would be if he broke his own moral code in order to get something that he wanted.

Like for example I'm sure TheHumanist is in tears after every time he gets done posting on the Mature Man forum as he is breaking the rules and his own morality code to do so since he is not old enough to post here but would a young woman feel the same guilt for posting here that I'm sure TheHumanist is wracked with?

No, of course not. To her the age restriction would be a ridiculous rule to follow. She would care less about the morality or rules behind it, rather she'd look at it realistically for what it is and make a non moralistic pragmatic judgement about it and post here anyway until some mod gave her the boot or deleted her posts.

If called out she might even say sorry but she's not sorry for posting here because she views it in its reality to her as a ridiculous rule unlike TheHumanist who believes in rules and moral codes who is probably internally conflicted each time he posts here without being old enough to do so.

 

[TheHumanist]

Women seem to naturally have more common sense than us men.

They do not follow or concern themselves with morality codes like men do.

Rather they tend to follow the law of the jungle and take what they can get and feel they deserve if its there for the taking for them.

They do what they can get away with basically.

They are not wracked with guilt over doing something that benefits them if it breaks the rules like say a man with a strong sense of morals would be if he broke his own moral code in order to get something that he wanted.

Like for example I'm sure TheHumanist is in tears after every time he gets done posting on the Mature Man forum as he is breaking the rules and his own morality code to do so since he is not old enough to post here but would a young woman feel the same guilt for posting here that I'm sure TheHumanist is wracked with?

No, of course not. To her the age restriction would be a ridiculous rule to follow. She would care less about the morality or rules behind it, rather she'd look at it realistically for what it is and make a non moralistic pragmatic judgement about it and post here anyway until some mod gave her the boot or deleted her posts.

If called out she might even say sorry but she's not sorry for posting here because she views it in its reality to her as a ridiculous rule unlike TheHumanist who believes in rules and moral codes who is probably internally conflicted each time he posts here without being old enough to do so.

KontrollerX, I know you are trying to make a point, but I'm not in tears for every post. I recognize the logic and reasoning for the existence of the rule and aware if one of my post get deleted, it is fair game.

I will disagree more strongly in the point from using me as an example. The point and statement that nature of women is so much without morality that she will feel no remorse except in front of direct consequences from getting caught. In a way, by saying that they "do not follow or concern themselves", you are saying they do not have any empathy which is for the reason why morality and ethics exist. Bearing in mind that ethical and moral breach is more serious than breaking age restrictions in an internet forum.

The biggest thing I have to disagree is you seem to be saying that moral codes is going against common sense. Some moral rules are irrational and a rational person should recognize and not follow it. However, moral codes by itself are not. Many exist for practical reasons and should be followed. However, it does sound like you are saying that more common sense means less following or concern with morality.

 

[Mr. Me]

It's another way of saying women tend to do what they feel is right for them at any given moment, rationalization then kicks afterwards to justify it.

We see this also at work in their shopping behavior. First, they feel: "That little red coat is sooooo cute!". Then, they justify the purchase: "And it's on sale! Look at all the money I saved!"

 

[bigjohnson]

The biggest thing I have to disagree is you seem to be saying that moral codes is going against common sense. Some moral rules are irrational and a rational person should recognize and not follow it. However, moral codes by itself are not. Many exist for practical reasons and should be followed.

I can agree here. I lack a lot of the fair play impulses that make society what it is but I'm aware this makes me selfish and less a team player. Character flaw.

 

[KontrollerX]

"However, it does sound like you are saying that more common sense means less following or concern with morality."

Basically the point I was trying to get across is that men in general concern themselves with every last arbitrary morality rule that is set up for them to follow while most women almost completely follow their animal instincts instead.

Certainly women will follow a vague societal "for the good of all" type of morality but only to a point.

If the rule can be broken and they can get away with it and if the breaking of the rule won't land them in jail or in prison they will break it while a strong morality believing man such as yourself probably won't and because you won't break the rule it slows down your progress in aquiring resources and other things of benefit for yourself.

You then pat yourself on the back for "standing up for what is right" which of course means what is right from your individual point of view and not necessarily anyone else's and are then happy with yourself reasoning that hey I will sleep well tonight and a woman that breaks the rules will have a guilty conscience when no she won't have a guilty conscience or be wracked with guilt over breaking a rule you hold dear because she as a woman is not concerned with the vast amount of moral code that you live by as a man.

She is again only concerned with following a vague societal guideline of what it means to be a good person and only to the point that it doesn't interfere with her getting what she wants.

So in short another point I am trying to make is the vast amount of morality codes most men follow simply serves to slow them down while women being more practical in life run circles around these types of males at getting what they want.

Morality crew members then make post after post after post on Sosuave b!tching about women not following arbitrary morality rules that they as men hold dear and I say of course they don't hold those over abundance of morality rules dear.

They are women!

They have absolutely no use for an over abundance of arbitrary morality code like men love to think and obsess about.

Its not useful to them nor does it interest them.

All they will follow for the third time is a vague societal "for the common good" type of morality and only to the point that this way of being doesn't get in the way of what they want.

"Bearing in mind that ethical and moral breach is more serious than breaking age restrictions in an internet forum."

The lesser of two evils is still an evil from a moralistic point of view.

To put it yet another way two wrongs don't make a right or the lesser of two wrongs is still a wrong.

 

[TheHumanist]

So in short another point I am trying to make is the vast amount of morality codes most men follow simply serves to slow them down while women being more practical in life run circles around these types of males at getting what they want.

Morality crew members then make post after post after post on Sosuave b!tching about women not following arbitrary morality rules that they as men hold dear and I say of course they don't hold those over abundance of morality rules dear.

They are women!

They have absolutely no use for an over abundance of arbitrary morality code like men love to think and obsess about.

Its not useful to them nor does it interest them.

All they will follow for the third time is a vague societal "for the common good" type of morality and only to the point that this way of being doesn't get in the way of what they want.

So instead of women following common sense more, you are saying that women almost completely follow their animal instincts more. With the almost and not completely is from the societal "good for all" thinking.

Again, that is little different than my argument before. I disagree on ground that it is an extreme statement saying that women are without attachment or consideration of other. To agree with you is to say that women do not care about anyone, if I'm not mistaken.

The morality crew (that you name with a tone that seem to be disdain) b!tching about the mentality of women is based on anecdotal evidence. Many of the stories is from one poster who wishes to examine the motivations and thought of process of the actions. Of course, your point is women is their nature is without substantial morality, which I disagree on the grounds that this would mean they are all or a great majority (which generalization is the great majority) does not give any thought about how they could hurt others. Acting like a spoiled brat that many complain here is not nature, is it from being spoiled.

The second point is you are saying the moral codes only serve to hinder men while women go gather resources.

Again, that is only a slight difference from common sense. That a man who follow a few morals is hurting himself and does little true benefit. Again, my argument is what I said earlier. That moral codes by itself is not irrational. From a practical viewpoint, may I point to the game theory of "Prisoner's Dilemma."

As the OP original point was, what's important is the discern morality that only hurt from morality that is practical and good. Which I may add, there are many. For example, the code of bro's before ho's is based on the practical knowledge friends have a greater permanence than to a girl he is only with for a short time and how many can go irrational and overvalue the presence of the "ho."

The lesser of two evils is still an evil from a moralistic point of view.

To put it yet another way two wrongs don't make a right or the lesser of two wrongs is still a wrong.

That would depend on the moral code and philosophy of ethics. For example, Aristotle's ethics is based on the aim to happiness, this means that he takes factor in the type of situation and transgression. Our laws take account into that too. As a pre-mediated, planned out murder of someone is a much great crime than a man in rage who kills another in an emotional state.

From morality, the degree and the reasoning of the rules and the violation do matter. It could be arguable relativistic, but to factor in the situation is different than to entirely drop the rule.

 

[KontrollerX]

"So instead of women following common sense more, you are saying that women almost completely follow their animal instincts more. With the almost and not completely is from the societal "good for all" thinking."

I am saying animal instincts and common sense both are what women follow much more than we men in general and since we are animals anyway common sense is pretty much the same as saying animal instincts isn't it?

"Again, that is little different than my argument before. I disagree on ground that it is an extreme statement saying that women are without attachment or consideration of other. To agree with you is to say that women do not care about anyone, if I'm not mistaken."

I never said they don't care about anyone or don't have attachments.

It is simply my belief that the modern woman as raised by the modern parents of our time due to this upbringing and culture is most concerned with her own well being first and everyone else's is a distant second.

I believe that morality plays virtually no part at all in the modern woman's life other than given a cursory glance as to find out what is legal and illegal.

I do believe the modern women form attachments and have consideration for others but the type of consideration most often seen to give an example takes the form of say moving one's cart out of the way of another at a grocery store isle meaning that I think the modern woman engages in common civilized methods of consideration and its basically the kind of consideration that isn't something particularly strenuous or that requires much effort whatsoever and the attachments are short lived and fleeting and can be easily forgotten once a new shiny object comes into view.

I believe the modern woman lives in the moment and does not put huge amounts of care into effort expended upon her in the past. The modern woman lives by the selfish what have you done for me lately type of mantra.

Since the game has changed in this way in my observations and that of many other men I would think it is in men's best interest to play the game better than the modern women of today and avoid trying to get an attachment or genuine connection going with any of them ala Leykis 101.

Also I think the men of today would do well to use Ayn Rand's virtuous selfishness to counter the destructive selfishness of the modern woman.

In other words to be selfish in Rand's way which is the virtuous kind of selfishness you focus on your own self preservation and do not sacrifice yourself to another or another to yourself.

Just hit it and quit it basically is a good policy to live by or keep a few fvck buddies around as with the knowledge you and your partner are both equal and willing participants in the sex act you are neither sacrificing yourself to your woman nor is she sacrificing herself to you.

It is a harmonious arrangement of mutual beneficiality and is a perfectly suited strategy to use on the women of today's world.

"The morality crew (that you name with a tone that seem to be disdain) b!tching about the mentality of women is based on anecdotal evidence. Many of the stories is from one poster who wishes to examine the motivations and thought of process of the actions. Of course, your point is women is their nature is without substantial morality, which I disagree on the grounds that this would mean they are all or a great majority (which generalization is the great majority) does not give any thought about how they could hurt others. Acting like a spoiled brat that many complain here is not nature, is it from being spoiled."

Humanist you are forgetting that when you sit inside your house or talk to a friend you, me, all of us and the things we do are all a part of nature. So the spoiling of a girl is done by her parents or someone else. That is nature my friend as we are all a part of the animal kingdom.

Anyway though women being spoiled brats that reject morality for that reason is not my position.

My position is that their minds naturally gravitate away from things such as morality and logic whilst ours as men naturally gravitate to them.

So its not a question of women going rotten when I talk about a woman not caring about morals its more or less my pointing out that I don't believe women have the capacity to give much of a damn about morals much like certain people prefer say mustard over ketchup on their hamburger or grannies over trannies if their porn fetish is particularly kinky.

"The second point is you are saying the moral codes only serve to hinder men while women go gather resources."

Well I think I was trying to put across that Humanist I think your morals slow you down but I don't necessarily think you having them will keep you from being a success or successful.

I don't teach or subscribe to morality because there is no objective morality and besides all that I don't see the point in focusing on teaching young guys that come here to learn how to get good with women a bunch of stuff women are not at all concerned with anyway.

"Again, that is only a slight difference from common sense. That a man who follow a few morals is hurting himself and does little true benefit. Again, my argument is what I said earlier. That moral codes by itself is not irrational. From a practical viewpoint, may I point to the game theory of "Prisoner's Dilemma."

You may point to the Prisoner's Dilemma but then I'll have to point you to this...

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1267-The_Prisoners_Dilemma.aspx

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

The concept of morality has a latent function, to control and/or modify behavior. I could type away here for the better part of a day about the philosophical aspects of morality, but the function of morality is manifested in behavior. This is the operative of the discussion - the uses of morality. The problem most threads like this encounter is a disconnect between the validity of morality as a concept in and of itself, and the function or uses of morality whether manipulative or genuine.

It's not a question about which is the most moral gender, it's about how each gender uses morality to serve it's ends. In orthodox Islamic countries a woman is expected to be covered head to toe in a burka and walk seven paces behind her husband. This is a manifestation of a particular culture's interpretation of moral behavior. So too are family 'honor killings' and genital mutilation in other countries. Pre-arranged marriages in India are still considered moral and honorable. However, in all of these instances, what's being communicated about each culture and the gender's in that culture who practice them? What is the latent function of that moral code? Orthodox Jews still wont eat Pork or Shellfish as a moral obligation. The latent function is obvious; in the past eating pigs and shrimp made people sick (or dead), now, not so much.

A sense of morality has classically been a very useful tool for both sexes, but lets take a few things into account in western culture today. All notions of a Feminine Matrix aside, I think it's a safe observation that our culture has become increasingly feminized for the past 50 years. And as AENIGMA pointed out, a large part of that feminization is enacted, internalized and standardized by way of feminine Operative Social Conventions. In other word, sociological understandings that serve a feminine function filter into a collective social understanding to the point that the practice, the ideology, the philosophy, become internalized by society over the course of generations. The concept of morality is a natural social convention - only in the instance of a feminized western culture this morality is used to move men into positions that accommodate a female imperative.

The practice of morality is almost universally one of convenience for the issuing party. Thus women can use a moral foundation to effect their ambitions, their needs, their whims, etc. in concert with many other social conventions. Try not to think of morality as a one size fits all absolute in this respect. I know that stirs the sh!t pot for the moral absolutists on this forum, but I ask you suspend that in order to better understand the USE of morality here. Morality, as AENIGMA is describing it, becomes an implied, covert obligation for a man in this use. Several guys in this very thread immediately post how women don't live up to a code of ethics and it is Men who are the supreme moral gender in the universe. To which I'll say Horsesh!t; in fact just such a moral self-examination / estimation is EXACTLY what that feminine function seeks to achieve.

Wow, that's radical Rollo, isn't that at odds with conventional morality today? Yes, it is. It is with regard to the philosophical concept of morality, not the manifest function of morality. Men have classically loved to claim a moral high ground. In fact today it becomes yet another "not-like-other-guys" uniqueness selling point for AFCs thinking an asexual professed morality will make them an outstanding catch for a woman. Claiming this moral high ground is exactly what's led to keeping women in burkas or otherwise on possessive leashes. However, to a feminized purpose, that presumption of moral superiority is a VERY useful obligation required of men for women. Now add to this the convenience afforded to women by that same morality in excusing specific behaviors. A moral ethic can be associated with any of these feminine Social Conventions, but don't make the mistake of purposing morality with religiosity. All of these conventions have the option of a moral consideration by means of an ethical, moral obligation on a man's part. This is because the common understanding of morality has evolved over the past 50 years WITH the feminization of western culture. So for instance, the Carl Jung concept of anima-animus that broadcasts a need for "men to get in touch with their feminine side" into society, now becomes not just a 'good idea' in order to qualify for women, but it becomes a moral imperative to do so. It becomes the 'right' thing to do.

 

[ketostix]

Morality used to favor men. Now it favors women. The mistake women made in the past was to accept the morality that kept them down. Men should not make that same mistake now.

Bingo. Contrary to the OP's conclusion, I think the problem is men have allowed women to usurp men's moral authority and men have substituted women's "morality" in place of their own. I think men were naturally intended to be the moral authority, not women. And so I would say the traditional morality originated by men (as it should be) about equally or fairly favored men and women both. Now morality favors women, and in the bigger picture that isn't necessarily what's best for women when you go back to the premise that women are not supposed to be ascribing morality in the first place. Actually what I just stated, that women should not be imposing their morality, is one of the tenets of traditional morality. It's kind of a proof that those beliefs were valid.

 

[TheHumanist]

I am saying animal instincts and common sense both are what women follow much more than we men in general and since we are animals anyway common sense is pretty much the same as saying animal instincts isn't it?

I believe common sense is the most logical and rational conclusion by looking at the most obvious viewpoint. That doesn't necessarily means our animal instincts is in line with common sense. Animal instincts includes more than just what the gut is saying.

Humanist you are forgetting that when you sit inside your house or talk to a friend you, me, all of us and the things we do are all a part of nature. So the spoiling of a girl is done by her parents or someone else. That is nature my friend as we are all a part of the animal kingdom.

Anyway though women being spoiled brats that reject morality for that reason is not my position.

My position is that their minds naturally gravitate away from things such as morality and logic whilst ours as men naturally gravitate to them.

So its not a question of women going rotten when I talk about a woman not caring about morals its more or less my pointing out that I don't believe women have the capacity to give much of a damn about morals much like certain people prefer say mustard over ketchup on their hamburger or grannies over trannies if their porn fetish is particularly kinky.

This we where our biggest disagreement is. Also this is the main basis to the rest of your post about of how and what you teach and you other points, so I will focus here.

Let's me use a story to illustrate. One of my closest friends have a cousin who after from a few meetings and stories from him and others had the misfortune to deal with her. She makes promises to people, but commonly come late or just stand them up. She dumps her previous boyfriend after string him along for a long period and pick up a new one that is no more than a tool to her and hook ups with others. Then she have to audacity to ask the ex for favors. She treats her parents very poorly and disrespect them. Her only known redeeming quality is she very much cares for her grandmother and treats her well.

So this girl is inconsiderate, disrespectful, unconcerned about her actions does to others, and uncaring to almost anyone around her. My guess, she sounds like she is the picture model of the modern women using the beliefs your named as the definition.

Now, first, we may have difference in the definition of "nature." My understanding of nature means the mind and body natural gravitation to something; the core subconscious preferences and inclinations. How she is raised by her parents or by the influence of others that leads to the development of the kind of person she develops into is nurture. Now, let's not get into an argument about nature vs nurture. In reality, both plays a part.

Now the girl I know, who she lacks the morality of considerations and respect to her friends and family. Of which is treats her relationships as tools rather than people. All of this without guilt. Is this a product of a women of what you said that you "don't believe women have the capacity to give much of a damn about morals?" Of which she is naturally inclined to be like this?

Or is this the product of a father who used his wealth to buy everything she ever wanted? And a mother who treats her father without respect right in front of her? Also the family recognizes that the wife only gave him attention only after a long chase and after he became wealthy.

You may point to the Prisoner's Dilemma but then I'll have to point you to this...

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1267-The_Prisoners_Dilemma.aspx

So, the Prisoner's Dilemma is too simplistic. However, game theory is the application of mathematics. It look at the base dynamic, though the dilemma is the product of adding a story to the original math. The Prisoner's Dilemma is the core dynamic. Of course adding more factors will change the dynamic and the best course of action, but it doesn't discredit the thought experiment. Other game theory games give similar results of betray vs cooperation. Now in real life application, it is more difficult, but mathematically, having morality and willingness to cooperate (currently, computer simulations found tit-for-tat with limited forgiveness and pavlov are the best actually).

 

[bigjohnson]

Humanist you are forgetting that when you sit inside your house or talk to a friend you, me, all of us and the things we do are all a part of nature. So the spoiling of a girl is done by her parents or someone else. That is nature my friend as we are all a part of the animal kingdom.

This is a pretty BS argument my friend. If we carry this to an extreme we simply render the term in question useless which just leaves us using a different term with the same meaning instead.

At an extreme we can say "everything is natural". Great, that's really useful.

 

[darkstarrr]

Its really amazing how much we can all go around and around about why people, specifically women, are the way they are. I've said it before and I will say it again that with the way American culture and society has shifted over the years, the end be all to any of these conversations seems to always point in the same direction for me.

AVOID TROUBLED WOMEN ie women with a bad past, bad upbringing, history of drug/alcohol abuse, women who have a history of promiscuity, unfaithful, uncommited, and/or dishonest women like the fvcking plague because if you do not then you will fvcking pay dearly and yes that does include cold hard cash my friends.

I love these philosophical debates. As I read through this thread someting jumped out at me. A long time ago my older brother told me never to try to figure women out because inevitably what I am going to do is get into some kind of circular debate with myself or with others, and it will only serve to confuse myself more.

I will be the first to admit that maybe I am not so qualified to engage in this conversation about moral codes and common sense related to women. But I have learned that women basically do what they want when they want depending on a variety of variables, including how their decisions will ultimately affect themselves. Don't most people base their decisions that way?

I suppose another underlying topic that may stem off of this debate is altruism. If I give to a charity do I really give 2 sh1ts or am I just feeding my own mind and making myself feel good for doing something "good"?

In conclusion: if we use the tools and information we learn from each other we can be better equipped to more quickly weed out the bad eggs and find real stable women out there who will be mroe likely to treat us normally. With the same respect and appreciation that we do them. Women that are commited and who will try, who will fvcking communicate if they are not happy about something instead of weaving sick tangled webs in an effort to make conscious excuses for sh1t that they do which is really based on their fvcked up subconsciouses.

Have any of you asked yourselves what kind of realities people in the world are living in that an ASTRONAUT geared up in diapers and armed with a b-b gun and duct tape would drive 1/2 way across the country to confront a former lover? What is really going on here is that YES we are living in a modern day jungle but the extent to which our society has developed over thousands of thousands of years has set boundaries, limits, and laws, and a general ideology of they way we are supposed to operate as human beings.

Remember, we are all just ants living in a complex colony. We are all going to pass away someday. All these intricacis are facets of our own imaginations based on the world we live in, the genes we are born with, and what we experience starting from when we are first born.

All of this is what shapes our identities and sense of belonging in the world we live in. That's why some people can crack like a fvcking peaNUT when their relationships end in some weird way. All of a sudden their reality is tweaked. They invision the world and life as being in such a way, and perhaps they find themselves in a situation where their hopes and dreams are warped. They have identity crisises, they get depressed and don't know how to see the world anymore. And THAT is when some people start to lose touch with reality.

Back to the subject: identity, reality, perception of the world - these are very important things to keep in mind when thinking philosophically because in some ways they can trump any argument we may have for why or how things are one way as opposed to another.

I was in the car earlier and I heard some broadcast commercial of the Celtics where some player had just made a shot and the announcer was getting all hyped up and then said 'he got it'! And I'm like who fvcking cares its just some guy who threw a round ball in a hole, and I swithced the station.

I know I'm right but why is it that people can go berserk over stuff like that? What difference does it really make? We play sh1t like that up in our heads, and I perhaps consider myself lucky that I have been going through a tough time because it has taught me things that I never knew I would learn about life. It doesn't mean sh1t that some guy threw a ball in a hole as a digital clock counted down, but it can make us feel a certain way to get all hyped up about 'our team' winning or whatever. I could care less right now, but I know in a few more months as I begin to feel better and better I will be able to appreciate sh1t like that, and also smile genuinely.

How does this relate to my argument? It does because for me it is just an example of how most of our realities are figments of our own brainwaves that we have naturally grown to automatically assimilate with our surroundings and with the people in our worlds - which inevitably feed into the different needs that we have.

Those needs include but are not limited to the need to feel loved and wanted, the need to be productive in some way, perhaps to be recognized and appreciated and to fit in. When people have broken upbringings or bad pasts they can have a tendency to go about satisfying their needs in ways that don't fall in line with how most of us generally view as being moral or as having common sense.

I'm going to stop now before I start to feel like I am rambling and change my mind about posting these thoughts. I hope some of what I said relates in some way to what you all are talking about.

 

[Trader]

The original poster seems to be indicating that a man's sense of morality opens the door for him to be manipulated and shamed by women. The answer is: 'It depends.'

First off, a man cannot be called a 'man' unless he has some set of morals.

If you do not have a set of morals - well, to put it bluntly, that makes you a girl. Most guys realize the dark truth that girls really have no sense of morality - a girl may act moral (i.e. stay a virgin until marriage) but this is not because of her 'reverence' for chastity but rather a practical calculated move to increase her market value.

But here is where the AFC and a Man differ:

The AFC lets the girl define his set of morals for him - and thus he is ripe fodder for shaming and manipulation tactics by the girl.

The girl says: 'Well, a man OUGHT to shower me with gifts on Valentines Day, to show his love.'

And so off the AFC goes to buy expensive gifts for the girl.

A man decides on his own unique set of morals on his own accord. Girls have NO say in it - therefore he cannot be manipulated.

And the man would think to himself: 'Wait, she says if a man loves a girl he OUGHT to buy expensive gifts for her? Is this even one of my moral codes that I live by? No. Therefore I am under no obligation to do this for her."

The recurring theme is the same: you are a man, you create your own world thus you have your own tastes, your own ambitions, and of course, your own set of moral codes that YOU decide on and live by

 

[Aenigma]

The original poster seems to be indicating that a man's sense of morality opens the door for him to be manipulated and shamed by women. The answer is: 'It depends.'

First off, a man cannot be called a 'man' unless he has some set of morals.

If you do not have a set of morals - well, to put it bluntly, that makes you a girl. Most guys realize the dark truth that girls really have no sense of morality - a girl may act moral (i.e. stay a virgin until marriage) but this is not because of her 'reverence' for chastity but rather a practical calculated move to increase her market value.

But here is where the AFC and a Man differ:

The AFC lets the girl define his set of morals for him - and thus he is ripe fodder for shaming and manipulation tactics by the girl.

The girl says: 'Well, a man OUGHT to shower me with gifts on Valentines Day, to show his love.'

And so off the AFC goes to buy expensive gifts for the girl.

A man decides on his own unique set of morals on his own accord. Girls have NO say in it - therefore he cannot be manipulated.

And the man would think to himself: 'Wait, she says if a man loves a girl he OUGHT to buy expensive gifts for her? Is this even one of my moral codes that I live by? No. Therefore I am under no obligation to do this for her."

The recurring theme is the same: you are a man, you create your own world thus you have your own tastes, your own ambitions, and of course, your own set of moral codes that YOU decide on and live by

You're misintrepting on a chicken/egg level.

You're saying that men can avoid the manipulations if they have a moral code and adhear to it.

I'm saying that the moral code that men are taught by "soceity" is the one that is approved by, and benefits, women. Thus they are vulnerable to the manipulations of women on a moral level because they were taught, accepted, and adhere to the very moral code that makes them vulnerable to such manipulations. In other words- standing by their beliefs is the very achilles heel that women implant, culture in soceity, and exploit.

 

[ElChoclo]

May I be so bold as to suggest that the concepts of fairness and justice itself are male constructs. I suspect that they evolved out of the co-operative requirements of group hunting, in the evolutionary past.

Where group consensus was necessary to achieve a co-ordinated hunt, they were selected in by natural selection. The same could probably be said for moral rules. Such rules were needed to achieve social cohesion.

Gathering berries and tubers however is a solo activity, finders keepers. Which is why women didn't need these traits to be successful.

 

[STR8UP]

Gathering berries and tubers however is a solo activity, finders keepers. Which is why women didn't need these traits to be successful.

I would go so far as to say that women, being the weaker sex, would be best suited to be able to circumvent societal constraints when it suits them. Not that men don't do the same thing, but in relationships in particular it seems that more often it is women who lack a true and accurate moral compass.

 

[speed dawg]

The PC (politically correct) brigade use the same shaming tactics. Immigration into Europe is a good example of this. If a country tries to slow down immigration (including illegal immigration) they are called Nazi's etc. There is no debate allowed. For every other non-White country in the world it's acceptable to limit immigration, which they do.


Sexism is also ok if it's against men. then it's seen as having a bit of a joke etc (which it usually is to both men and women)


Women are just copying what they see all around them which is being promoted on the media etc. The rules are what they see on TV and how they were brought up. You need to make your own rules and let women know what you expect from her because they don't know how to behave usually. If they don't like your rules then find somebody who does.

Best. Post. Ever.

 

[Aenigma]

I would go so far as to say that women, being the weaker sex, would be best suited to be able to circumvent societal constraints when it suits them. Not that men don't do the same thing, but in relationships in particular it seems that more often it is women who lack a true and accurate moral compass.

I would actually go a step further and argue that "justice" and "fairness" are actually impediments to a woman's mating perogatives; if she acts with "justice" towards her beta provider, and stays loyal, she misses out on the alpha/quality genes that she could have provided her children with had she been amoral and self centered..... in other words amorality had positive sexual selection in women while "justice" was selected against.

 

[Trader]

You're misintrepting on a chicken/egg level.

You're saying that men can avoid the manipulations if they have a moral code and adhear to it.

I'm saying that the moral code that men are taught by "soceity" is the one that is approved by, and benefits, women. Thus they are vulnerable to the manipulations of women on a moral level because they were taught, accepted, and adhere to the very moral code that makes them vulnerable to such manipulations. In other words- standing by their beliefs is the very achilles heel that women implant, culture in soceity, and exploit.

Yes I agree that society's sense of morality is one that favors women - i.e. 'How can a man be so cold-hearted and not date single mothers just beacuse the child is not his?'

But again that is a MOOT point because a man does not even care about the moral code approved by 'society.' A man comes up with his OWN set of morality which he stands by - since the standards are his own, he therefore cannot be manipulated.

Now of course, what you say is very relevant to the the average AFC who just follows society.

 

[Aenigma]

Yes I agree that society's sense of morality is one that favors women - i.e. 'How can a man be so cold-hearted and not date single mothers just beacuse the child is not his?'

But again that is a MOOT point because a man does not even care about the moral code approved by 'society.' A man comes up with his OWN set of morality which he stands by - since the standards are his own, he therefore cannot be manipulated.

Now of course, what you say is very relevant to the the average AFC who just follows society.

100% correct.

Alpha uses his own brain to make his own decisions and stands by them.

Beta is is told what to do- and obeys.