A
male
age
41-50,
anonymous
writes:I had a Japanese friend who once joked that 'women have no morals!'I can't remember what we were talking about but, having read a lot of forums, here and elsewhere, this is what seems apparent:-Men, when considering cheating on their partners, consider this option against general principles, their position in the relationship. They consider 'morally' what the impact will be on their partner; or rather, the morality of the situation is an issue for them (even if they break or oppose this morality). Women - at least in many of the forum threads - seem to notice that there's an opportunity, make an assertion about their current feeling, ie. "well my partner hasn't been paying me much attention the last couple of days" or "he keeps paying me a lot of attention, it makes him seem too sweet and nice" and act solely on that hunch.I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts or experience, male or female. (And I hope I'm not coming across as trolling or judgmental: part of my graduate degree was a course in ethics, in which it was notable how the women's argumentation was absolutely different in kind from the men's.) Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
female
reader, eyeswideopen  +, writes (10 October 2008):
 I'm not wasting my time on this thread, I'm just sitting here drinking Fade's coffee and thinking moral thoughts.
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): Uncles and Aunts
Please, stop wasting your time here with this never ending debate. There are lots of questions desperately needing your answers.
Keep up the good work on the site.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionFade878:
Sorry, that was your cake? I gave it to your high horse, he was ravenous. :P
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionFade878:
:P
You are riding your horse. You've been responded to as kindly as you'd expect on a discussion forum, yet you still sulk. I think we're aware that women have vaginas, and that we can know this without disrespecting them somehow.
Unbelievable though that you think the post argued that women don't have free-will given my reply to DiovanLestat a while back.
Don't eat all the cookies ...:)
...............................
A
female
reader, eyeswideopen +, writes (10 October 2008):
Come with me Fade, I'll buy you a cup of coffee. I know a great coffee shop that caters to women with no morals, I go there all the time.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): Did you direct your comments at me Fade?!
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): I think you'd be better off at the Oxford Union with this one!
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionFade878:
Great, you've got it - "you just want to debate".
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): As we are currently posting on the forum, this is a place to voice peoples opinions and this is a friendly debate. I don't think the question poster meant for any offense but merely asked for opinion.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the question
Fade878:
You're desperate to find a dispute where there isn't one.
I obviously wasn't misrepresenting myself as if you read the thread you'll see I'm asking for people's views about an opinion. Troubledtoomuch can see how obvious that is, why can't you? Could it be that you have an agenda to find a woman-hater?
You say "like to quote how educated you are..." - no, I said that women in ethics class had a different character of argumentation to the men: can you really not see that other than as a boast about education!? You are disrespectful in not responding to the answer I gave you already - reread my answer. I think I made clear that in the UK it is no boast to mention being at one university or another as the whole educational system has been commodified by the market, so even if you wanted to make it, there would be no content to the boast.
You clearly have a resentment about your own education, but it's of no interest to me nor I'd guess, anyone else here.
3) "If you believe and hold women in higher esteem, then have some balls and show it." I'm absolutely not interested in provong to you or anyone else the esteem I have for one gender over another to you. That would be a pointless assertion, not a discussion.
You seem to believe that being a strong woman means getting aggressive when a man questions aspects of gender relations - it reflects badly on you. It shows that you're the one who needs to 'have some balls', little madame.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questioneyeswideopen:
Hello, I'm the OP, and it's my fault we don't know what we're chatting about :(
I've just written a bit of text back to DiovanLestat which helped to focus the area of interest - the conflict between
the excuse "I'm a man/woman so of course I did this" versus the Sartrean demand for authenticity, in which no excuses can be made.
troubledtoomuch:
That was a very courteous summary of what I was trying to do at the beginning. thanks.
And I liked your points about arguments - basically there's no violence possible here, so we don't need to be worried about 'starting an argument'. Fruitful accidents are more interesting.
In real life, this happens far too much - someone tentatively suggests the opposite to someone else, and everyone is immediately worried that there's bad feeling in the air. As the OP I wasn't looking or hoping for consensus anyway - in fact my experience is that in a furious row I tend to agree with the other side's facts, but not the slant they've put on them, or else that the point is too banal, or doesn't connect well with the previous etc. The other side feels the facts are being ignored, but really the only opposition is banality.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionDiovanLestat:"Evolutionary biology... OK I can take that on board, but I think it's a pile of codswallop, and I am sorry if I offend.. :^) I'll check those links out , but in reality I much prefer Sartre's idea of our free will to choose and the lies we tell ourselves because we are scared to take responsibility for our own actions..."No, you don't offend. (Isn't there a line in King Lear where the king says "I say none offends; I say none."?) But I want to remain reluctant to agree, purely as a way of saying that a Sartrean has to get to grips with the argumentation that begins from the standpoint of us as reproducing animals, who exist only through the 'slime' of sex (slime in the Sartre sense being very interesting), that our parents weren't 'made for each other' but found an opportunity and exploited it (whether love developed or not). And that we grew up experiencing the varying strategies that each parent had toward us and toward what they thought we whould become (which brings the 'moral' element back in).You're familiar with Sartre, so as you know for him the 'authentic' life is one which doesn't pass the buck, which assumes absolute responsibility at every moment - which (sorry if I'm summing this far too loosely) is his notion of freedom. Hence freedom is present at moments of greatest fear and struggle.I have not meant to insist in this thread that there is some fundamental difference between men and women, but rather that there is what might be called masculine and feminine thinking, in the developmental sense - patterns we're drawn into as a way of conforming to our social gender identities.A further question would be whether this thinking is identical with Satrean 'bad faith'.
...............................
A
female
reader, eyeswideopen +, writes (10 October 2008):
What an interesting thread. I see it has attracted the most interesting people. So...what hell are we chatting about?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): So will I troubletoomuch, you know I can't stay away from a good discussion...
Annalisa, I agree totally with one of the things you pointed out when you spoke about the troubles your single father had with women. I think that this has already been covered, the question of "Do women have morals" is limiting and wrong and doesn't do justice to the fact that we are all unique individuals and men and women both behave badly and sometimes behave quite nice. But that's the question which has been under discussion, that's what we started with. My earlier example of "wife-beating, cheating, men" was only given to counter-balance what I felt was an unfair attack on women. But thank you for reminding us that women can be hurtful and immoral too.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): Questions like this that seem to attack one of the sexes do get a bit feisty. I don't believe that the OP was trying to attack the female sex here at all, but just starting a discussion on what his friend said. Of course, I have not read all of the latest replies yet, as I don't have the time at the moment. Perhaps arguments that ensue from questions like this are somewhat destructive, but they also make us think about our ideas and the views of others. I have had both discussions and arguments with some on this board, both in a question and by PM. There are some that got nowhere and were basically a waste of time. However, other discussions have been very productive to both my thinking and to the person who I was talking with. Some friendships and civil discussions even resulted from what started out as arguments. I see nothing wrong with arguments, as long as they result in some understanding of the disagreement between the 2 people. I have argued with some people in the past and we still don’t agree, but we now understand where the other is coming from and respect the others opinion, even though we don’t agree with it. Arguments can be productive if we remain open minded.
Annalisa, DiovanLestat doesn't need any bodyguards. She can take care of herself very well. Perhaps the reason that she has friends is that she bases her opinions on a multitude of sources and not just one book. As I have discovered, she is very well read, much more so than me and many others, and is actually willing at times to look at her opinions and think if they might be wrong. Yes, she does get wound up at times, as do I and pepper and many others, but I have also seen her apologize publicly on the board when she feels that she has been too nasty or incorrect.
As a famous actor and now governor once said, “I’ll be back.”
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): Annalisa, (see I managed to spell your name right) please if your gonna get angry and try to offend me, please read carefully what I have said, before you go on the attack because you sound rather silly in my opinion.
"Indeed it excepts rape and slavery" actually that's my bad grammar it should have been "Indeed it accepts rape and slavery", probably that would have made more sense to you, so I'll admit that me and my words may have confused you.
There is a big difference between "accepting" something and as you say "promoting" something.... But as I am probably much older than you, you won't remember the big political arguments that centred around this in the 1980's regarding education and homosexuality in UK schools...
The bible accepts rape and slavery, but it doesn't promote it. If you can find a sentence in the bible that clearly speaks out against these two things, then of course I will apologise to you. Morality is historically contingent, it changes all the time. The movement to outlaw slavery didn't get going until the 19th century, so it would be strange for the bible to pre-date this.
Back to the question... Evolutionary biology... OK I can take that on board, but I think it's a pile of codswallop, and I am sorry if I offend.. :^) I'll check those links out , but in reality I much prefer Sartre's idea of our free will to choose and the lies we tell ourselves because we are scared to take responsibility for our own actions...
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): REQUEST
Please Dear Uncles and Aunts
Stay professional. Do not start insulting or attacking each other on the site. Do it by PM or in the FORUM if you really need to.
Thanks
...............................
A
female
reader, pepper27 +, writes (10 October 2008):
 Annalisa darling as you do not really no diovan then im sure as the bible says you should not judge anyone in life hugs mandy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionTisha#1:sweeping generalisations - yes I didn't miss that you prefaced the 'its a man's world' line - I was questioning if it was a good sweeping generalisation. What I was saying is that the argumentation that springs from studies of sexual choice strategies can also, and perhaps more fittingly, be applied to argue the other way. As for your sweeping generalisation abut children's games... I think that's a good one. (Though at that age I was usually recreating film sets in my living room with the characters of Star Wars; complete with the cryogenic suspension of Harrison Ford with the aid of the fridge freezer and a Ferrero Rocher box...)"I couldn't really understand why they would put their marriages at risk for a little sex on the side. Maybe you could explain that to me?" I'm not familiar with the situation either, but there'll be people on this site who are. But from the approach of sexual strategies, given the fact that men compete for the attentions of women - who ultimately have the power of denying or giving sex - men adopt the strategy of opportunism. I'm not that well-read in the area, but what's familiar is that men often have affairs when there's nothing wrong at home - so this argument would tend to say that this is due to the comparative rarity of sexual opportunity.I'm trying to think of a relevant example... ok, say there's a relationship which has become unhappy for both partners. The man will spend more time with his friends,perhaps eventually they'd encourage him to break-up, come out with them to bars looking for single women, perhaps not. The woman though will more likely have a male friend who's always been close, reliable, willing to listen to how the relationship has broken down etc. It's a cliched scenario. In any case, even if a man had such a close female friend, he would be reluctant to express his unhappy feelings for fear of repelling her due to the 'unmasculine' character of 'the unhappy man'. The result in this case is that the woman has a greater opportunity to have a new sexual relationship.In the background of all these conjectures is the fact of hidden paternity. Because ovulation is hidden in humans (peak fertility is detectable only by close temperature analysis, even to the woman) - a man cannot guarantee that he's the father of his child, yet the woman can be assured that she's the mother! The argument goes that this has a knock-on effect on all aspects of sexual relations.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionDivoanLestat - r.e. "female sexual choice"
[Perhaps I should preface everything with the disclaimer, "All these sentences should not be taken as the opinions of the author, but the author's understanding of lines of argumentation, not (necessarily) at all his own. Complaints should be written in fine script on a postcard and then thrown out the window :) ]
The term is widely used in evolutionary biology to express... hold on a moment...:-
here we are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
"Sexual selection takes two major forms: intrasexual selection (also known as 'male–male competition') in which members of the less limited sex (typically males) compete aggressively among themselves for access to the limiting sex, and intersexual selection (also known as 'mate choice' or 'female choice') in which males compete with each other to be chosen by females."
and also you might have a look at this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_conflict
Basically, each sex is involved in sneaky games as part of an evolved reproductive strategy. As the first page says, the field has recently exploded into new areas and obviously the notion of a form of sexual competition with regard to strategically-influenced morality is one of the debates.
r.e. How elements of Sartre relate to this, well - completely against it. But to give a better answer I'll have to respond later.
Happy that you say this is a great post, as I much prefer that someone else gets to write something great, than for me to reiterate one cliched opinion or other.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionBugs:
You're an example of how thin-skinned people have become - constantly taking offence, even in an anonymous internet forum, where no offence can actually be aimed at you as no-one knows who you are - all they know are the arguments you give. You are clearly filled with resentment, unable to express yourself yet desperate for riskless revenge.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionFade878:
"Poster, you did bring it up with the 'subtle' graduate degree bit."
Tbh, that really took me by surprise. Now I see what you were doing in your answer - trying to put down an egohead. I've got to say that I'd never raise educational qualifications as a way to attempt to assert the right of an argument; I find that ugly. At the same time, though, given that most people on this site write pretty fluently (compared to Yahoo Answers), it's an easy assumption to make that people have been through college. The other point is that I'm not sure if you're aware that in the UK university admissions have changed in the last ten years with the introduction of student loans and the commodification of education. The result is a massive lowering of the social 'value', as everyone takes out loans to finance their degrees in the desperate hope of a benefit in the workplace afterwards. In short, an essay submitted to a UK course would most likely be rejected by a Canadian university as unacceptably bad (you'll see much talk about this on teaching forums).
Btw, philosophical ethics courses are very dull - the texts are nitpickingly pedantic and guaranteed to make you agree with Nietzsche's assessment of the English moralists as 'old frogs'.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): I hate the generalization thing as well Tish, and it is hard to avoid, so my answers have to be longer cause I've got to always pre-face with "some men, most women, very few people.. blah, blah, blah"...
"perhaps moral rules are the attempt by men to get a counterbalance to female sexual choice?" Mr anonymous...
Now this statement is interesting, I really don't know what that means... I hope it's not an attempt to go back to the old views that women have dangerous sexual desires and need to be controlled? Who says that females have more sexual choice than men. Last time I looked, population studies usually (for many reasons) show that there are more women than men. We are short changed when it comes to choosing a sexual partners, men have more choice.
...............................
A
female
reader, Tisha-1 +, writes (10 October 2008):
 Oh fine, stay anonymous, let the rest of us hang ourselves! Chicken! *bawk bawk bawk* Just kidding, I understand your logic behind remaining anon, it's just confusing to have more than one male anon posting. Say, I wouldn't know you if I saw you in the hallway, would I? Never mind.
So this discussion is all because you had a friend who was essentially a chick repellent? (Sorry, I'm going for laughs here.) How old was he when he realized that women and men think and process the world differently? If people were paying attention, they could work that out by second grade (age 7 or so). Just watch children play, the boys out doing physical stuff and challenging each other, the girls in little circles working out the rules and playing social games. "I'll be the mommy this time." Of course there are exceptions, as there always will be, so yet another sweeping generalization has been made. It's catching, isn't it?
Of course my comment about it being a man's world was a sweeping generalization, that was the point. I think I even prefaced it by saying I was about to make such a sweeping generalization.
You could break it down to another sweeping generalization, that men offer love in exchange for sex and that women offer sex in exchange for love. I shudder at the idea that you can commodify either one, by the way. So if men value sex more than love (I really don't believe that, I'm just making a point) then pursuing sex outside the love relationship isn't seen as damaging to their partner. What she doesn't know won't hurt her kind of thinking. And because women want love, when they're not getting it at home, they pop out and offer sex to a man in order to feel valued and loved, even for a short time. I'm just playing out the ideas you've brought up here.
Not ever having cheated on a boyfriend and certainly not on my husband, I admit that I can't fully grasp the whole motivation. But I have worked with men who did cheat, and rather regularly, on their wives. It was really kind of fascinating to watch them do this, pick up women, then fly back home to their wives. I couldn't really understand why they would put their marriages at risk for a little sex on the side. Maybe you could explain that to me?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (10 October 2008): Stuff and bother honeypie, of course I'm not talking to you, I was just commenting on the guy who thinks that it's immoral to promote the reading and watching of perfectly legal stuff... (well in the UK anyway) I should be more clear in who I'm referring to. Great post by the way, now we people have outlined their position in regards to morality and gender issues. :^)
I agree with the "ideal type" thing with porn, but if we get into that this will lead into another topic..
Again, I point out the difference tolerance levels to alcohol in men and women. Not an excuse, but surely it should be a factor. Of course it still leaves the point about why some women choose to get so drunk that they lack responsibility for their actions... Please note that men do it too... But for many men the immoral actions become "violence" instead of consensual sex.... As we know, the UK has a big problem with male violence after the pubs close on on a Friday/Saturday night.
An interesting book to read is "My Secret Garden" by Nancy Friday, which describes sexual fantasies of women. It examines why some women have "rape" fantasies, even though ALL women fear being raped. She suggests again it's due to the imbalance in power between the sexes. Some men have no problem cheating and lying about sex, and they are seen as being "studs", but women need an excuse, a reason to be unfaithful, otherwise they are a slut. Some men use "my wife doesn't understand me", whilst unfaithful women say "the drink made me do it".. wrong actions in both cases, but just using different excuses... Unfaithful women and unfaithful men are the same, they refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Exactly as Tish has said, the starting point is wrong..
"Do men have morals? - They can't even bother to find a proper excuse, and put the blame for their own immorality on women".. that's how I could reword your question. This would be make men extra immoral because they cheat and blame the women, whereas women cheat and blame the alcohol.
PS: Next time post this as an article, I think it would be better there.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionoh hang on, DiovanLestat's anonymous comment was directed toward the male anonymous anti-porn troll... good grief :(
Well, thankyou mranonymous for inadvertently illustrating what I'm attmepting to get at - the 'masculinist' appeal to a moral standard (not one I agree with). In fact, I feel that the free expression of sexuality - which includes 'pornographic' ideas - is the highest form of 'morality', seen as an aesthetic ideal judged by life.
...............................
A
male
reader, seculardude +, writes (9 October 2008):
This question strangely reminds me of a stand up comic who said that men think in linear logical patterns and women think in pulsing emotional waves. And of course you're going to offend people posting this kind of question...
Honestly I believe it varies. You'd have to study so many different females with different variables it would be ridiculous. And I say females because I truly believe males and females think differently.
As a touching example: last Thursday my girlfriend got drunk and gave someone she'd never met before a BJ while at a bonfire with her student peers. She cried, telling me that she was so drunk that people in class told her and that she didn't know it had happened and yadayada... I forgave her but I truly doubt she was so drunk that she inadvertently gave someone a BJ. When I'm drunk I know what's happening, what's right and what's wrong. I've had plenty of opportunities to cheat on her and blame alcohol but I haven't (and for you bibleheads I'm an atheist if you haven't guessed by my name yet- so I don't behave for religious reasons). I'm forgiving her this once (and forbidding her from alcohol) on the grounds that she loses her "morals" when she gets very drunk. On top of that every female i've ever been with has cheated, and they've always seemed to do it solely for themselves. All I can do is shrug.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionDiovanLestat:
Was the comment about Mr.anonymous referring to me?
I have a profile on here, and on Yahoo Answers - "Precocious Pickles" if you want to look me up. But I want to use my profile here for helping people with problems I've had experience with, and when I do that I don't want to have the threads distracted by people who want to judge me on experimental questions such as this one. Does that make sense?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionFirst Diovan Lestat and Tisha1:
Thanks for your replies which are both interesting. Sorry too that I was clearly too rushed and casual about the way I expressed the question. The memory of him popped into my mind and I wanted to quickly jot down something to see what others would make of it.
I should say that he was a very gentle, good-natured, kind and overly-academic man, who simply couldn't get any women interested in him. The cultural aspect played into it, as his English was pretty terrible. Typically, on talking with him he would always be working out the 'ethical imperative' of a situation, sometimes to an annoying extent.
What I took him to mean by what he said, and what I should have been more cautious about expressing, was the notion of the way in which something becomes an 'issue' in the judgement of an action. The difference between knowing that something is wrong and doing it anyway, or contesting the validity of the notion of wrong - either in that instance or in the general category.
For example, I meant by bringing up the drunk-women thing, not to join in the chorus that women ought to have more control over their actions, but to evoke the whole debate over the hypocrisy of women being called 'sluts' and the double standard imposed by men. My friend was not a misogynist, but he didn't understand women at all well - what he was in effect saying was the revelation (to him) that this realm of moral action is something skewed toward men and about men, which women have the capacity to disregard as simply not about them.
So, Tisha1, I'm not trying to get at which cheating spouse has moral superiority over the other. As you say, in both cases they choose to cheat - but the factors in that play in that choice are not the same. (ie, there would be the difference between asking "would it hurt him/her if I did this?" and "would it be wrong for me to do this?").
Your notion that it is a man's world could also be called the sweeping generalisation - perhaps moral rules are the attempt by men to get a counterbalance to female sexual choice?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): "I consider morals to be the offshoot of genetic imperative, and organised religion to be primarily a way of men using 'morality' to control women."
There is probably some truth in that. After all, a lot of religions have suppressed women, either in all aspects of life or in the church. Why are there no women priests (or whatever a particular religion calls them) in many religions. They are not allowed in many religions. This is the suppression of women’s thoughts in a particular way.
“Type into the search box here 'drunk' and 'cheated'. You'll find that women very often appeal to their drunkenness to say 'well, I know abstractly what I did was wrong', while at the same time strongly implying 'but I had no control over what happened, as I was drunk'.”
I do agree to an extent that women use that excuse many times. That was the excuse that my wife used when I asked her why she slept with a guy who she had no interest in. That was many years ago when she was telling me about her past. It was an easy way to not seem cheap, as she already felt cheap when she wanted to tell me about her past. That excuse made her feel like it was not really her fault for having sex with someone who she had no intention to have sex with. She didn’t want to feel like she was so easy and had to come up with an excuse, probably more for herself than for me. However, guys use excuses for their bad behavior too. They use the excuse of their wife not wanting sex to defend their decision to have an affair. It is a defense mechanism, the same as women use. Perhaps women write more about their excuses for bad behavior than men do because they have more guilt feelings than men do for bad behavior. Perhaps men can put their bad behavior to the back of their minds and forget it more easily than women do. Perhaps men are just more private than women are. Probably a combination of all of these.
We all make excuses at times to make ourselves feel better than we are. We all sometimes have trouble facing our faults and bad decisions. I did something similar to what my wife did many years ago, when I had a one night stand with a woman. I never intended it to be anything but one night with her. I used her and didn’t feel very good about that after a few days, but I had to make excuses why I did it to make myself sound better than what I was – to myself and so one else. When we use people in some way or allow ourselves to be used and feel bad about it then we make excuses to justify it. It’s human nature. Not right, but that is the way we are. We all make mistakes at times.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): This question is not even worth retaliating to.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): Dear Poster
I appreciate that you are making reference to a comment made by your Japanese friend; however you also mentioned in your update:
"I consider morals to be the offshoot of genetic imperative, and organised religion to be primarily a way of men using 'morality' to control women."
The above statement is of more interest to me as that is your feelings; Do you believe men need to control women?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): "Existentialist Ethics", now that is interesting, and a much more useful starting point for looking at differences between the sexes.
"morals to be the offshoot of genetic imperative", so you think men and women are hardwired to act in certain ways. Still leaves out the men who do use excuses for their hurtful actions. It is also a sweeping generalization, there are immoral women and they are immoral men, and on the other side there are people of both genders who are very, very moral. How do you explain them.
"She led me on, she forced herself on me, my wife dosen't understand me, you made me so angry that I couldn't control myself, she clearly wanted sex with me because she was wearing a short dress, I verbally abuse my wife because I think she is a slut..." it may not be drink, but these are all outside forces and agencies that are acting upon someone and providing a poor excuse for badly behaved people. To only point out the example of some women's lack of control around drink is very unfair, especially as their alcohol tolerance due to the size of their bodies is smaller than men. A case of criticizing apples but ignoring pears I think...
Morality is a very tricky thing and mostly a socially based historical construct, which changes as society changes and new information, or new problems occur. You reference to your Japanese friend, his cultural morality and interest in Sartre and Marx is a very good example. How has his experience and background had a big influence on his own morality.
Maybe the answer to your question lies in Machiavelli's the Prince.. Those with strength and power act like brave lions and those with little may prefer the sneaky cunning of the fox. Sex and gender has nothing to do with it, but maybe power has. (sorry for the misquotations, but I hope you get the idea)
...............................
A
female
reader, Tisha-1 +, writes (9 October 2008):
Sorry, your follow up hadn't posted when I wrote my answer. Which still stands, incidentally.
You wrote "Type into the search box here 'drunk' and 'cheated'. You'll find that women very often appeal to their drunkenness to say 'well, I know abstractly what I did was wrong', while at the same time strongly implying 'but I had no control over what happened, as I was drunk'.
"Men get drunk more than women do, yet how often do men appeal for moral validation on public forums, saying 'I couldn't help myself, could someone tell me I didn't do anything wrong?' "
So if I apply a women's lens to this juxtaposition, what I could interpret from doing what you just wrote is that women do indeed feel guilty for having cheated, and come onto sites like these to assuage their guilt, while men feel no guilt, thus have no need to show up here asking for validation of their actions. So couldn't you then make the argument that it is men that have no morals, for if they did, they'd be here in the same numbers as the women asking for opinions on their cheating.
I can't even believe we're discussing which set of standards for deciding to cheat on a spouse has moral superiority over the other. The presumed male model you proposed or the presumed female model you proposed, either way you slice it, they are choosing to cheat. I'm not sure there's really any point in validating those choices based on which decision making tools you used.
So, carry on, I expect you'll get more answers. But I suggest again that you look first at the framework on which you hang these assertions, just to make sure you're not subtly biased before you even start out.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): Thank you Mr anonymous, frightened to give yourself a name. I'll keep my morality and you keep yours, and together we'll make the world a happier place...
...............................
A
female
reader, Tisha-1 +, writes (9 October 2008):
Sweeping generalizations like this are usually provocative because they assume so much. Which set of moral rules are chosen to apply to judging men or women in their behaviors? Who does the choosing? Men or women?
I think I can make a sweeping generalization that it is a man's world in many respects and the issue that I have with statements like the one you posted is that the yardstick, the lens, whatever you call the measuring tool is calibrated on the male model. So then women being measured are being judged with a model that has an inherent bias toward the male. The male model is assumed to be the default setting; the female one is then scraped together and rigged up based on the male one.
I recommend that you read as part of your own further education a book by a developmental psychologist, Carol Gilligan, called "In A Different Voice." It was published in 1982, I think and has been reprinted many times and in many languages. She does a much nicer job than I just did in challenging the very basis for measuring the moral development of females against a male model. Eye-opening for me at the time, and I think I should have another read of it, to refresh my memory.
And forgive me for any cultural bias in this next statement of mine, but I believe the Japanese culture is heavily male-dominated, so that might explain why your friend thought that this statement was a joke when in fact it's a judgement based on a flawed premise. Start from the basics, and examine your own bias before waltzing off into into the thrill of analysis.
Take care.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): Whoa this is ridiculous.
However I kinda agree with the majority of the comments posted, the guys keeping an open mind and answering a question. Stop berating people that ask questions. They need help and they want an answer confidentially - hense why they ask us. For gods sake be a grown up and answer the question instead of mouthing off your own opinion which is totally irrelavant to what is actually needed.
People with questions and problems don't need abuse like it. And I don't think this guy is depressed over it but someone who is upset about it might feel even worse after abuse given.
So cut it out.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionSmiles:
(and everyone else...)
I'm quoting a friend who spent months on his own immersed in existentialist ethics - perhaps it's not possible for another to see why it was so funny for him to say it.
Ok, I'll try and give a defensive example:
Type into the search box here 'drunk' and 'cheated'. You'll find that women very often appeal to their drunkenness to say 'well, I know abstractly what I did was wrong', while at the same time strongly implying 'but I had no control over what happened, as I was drunk'.
Men get drunk more than women do, yet how often do men appeal for moral validation on public forums, saying 'I couldn't help myself, could someone tell me I didn't do anything wrong?'
Btw, you'd be mistaken if you thought 'no morals' to be an accusation - I consider morals to be the offshoot of genetic imperative, and organised religion to be primarily a way of men using 'morality' to control women.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): LOL Thanks Diovan Lestat just the kind of response i would expect from someone who openly premotes pornography. I can see the mention of morals gets you all fired up cos you know you ain't got any.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionFade878:
Ignorant and offensive of you to presume I have a low view of women. I don't know if you are familiar with domestic violence, but I grew up with a violent stepfather who kicked my mother's ribs in. I know what misogynistic men are like and what they think.
If you cannot see the joking tone in which a question was put, please do not spout out your assumptions about the poster.
*rolls eyes*
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): Dear Poster
I think to assume that women have no morals or are less moral then men is very wrong and it is a very dangerous and misleading assumption. I deal with different people from different walks of life with different ethnical backgrounds and cultures; I have seen the pain and hurt that can be caused to the opposite gender, both male and female who have low morals.
I suggest you to some voluntary work at a Helpline for abused women and children or speak to a few counselors dealing with cheating husbands and wives; it might help you to form a better perspective if you have more insight into the problem.
Life is a learning school; we never stop learning.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionDiovanLestat:
First, I can't apologise to you for being offended as the question was explicit that it wasn't a judgmental accusation. I'm aware of what starting assumptions are involved, but I'm asking whether people feel that there's a mismatch between men and women's use of 'ethics'.
I know lesbians and we often talk about ethical issues, so don't misunderstand me that I'm coming from a male-superior angle. If anything, the reverse.
If you read the question again you'll see that my education or otherwise is not relevant - it was my friend's point of view.
Fade878:
Your intuition about me is mistaken on every point. My best friends since early childhood have been women, and my affinity has always been with them.
But again, this is not necessarily my point of view, and I'm not interested in your guesses about my education, since I didn't bring that up. The point was made, part in jest, by a 30yo Japanese male friend, who at the time was a Phd student writing a thesis on Marx and Sartre.
Being Japanese, he had a strong sense of having to do the right thing by the rules of etiquette and principles of the situation. An 'external' ethics, in one way, but not in another.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): Sorry Dear Mr anonymous, but you need to study more history. Your claim that the bible originated morality is totally wrong. The Hindu's, the Buddhist, the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians and a whole ton of other civilizations had morality systems thousands, and thousand of years before the bible, Christianity or even Judaisms was ever thought off. You may love the bible, but to claim it as the only source of morality is historically wrong.
There is also a problem with claiming the bible teaches morality. You really need to study your bible more carefully. Indeed it excepts rape and slavery, things that are now forbidden in modern times, and the Ten commandments are mentioned twice in the bible but are very different. Indeed the different Christian sects have different commandments they follow. The ten commandments of the Protestant christian sects forbids "graven images and idols", there are no reference to this in the ten commandments of the Catholics who do except the use of images, idols and sacred objects in their churches...
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): WOMEN HAVE A LOT OF MORALS.. SORRY, BUSTER, BUT YOU HAVE OFFENDED ME.... I know more cheating, abusive, raping, wife-beaters men, than women who hurt. Sometimes when I talk to women, I don't wonder why the whole lot of us don't just become lesbians. If you done ethics, you should realise that your starting assumptions are without basis and you are just being controversial for the sake of it. Your degree is bloody worthless, because you seem to have learnt nothing at school.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (9 October 2008): Yes morals originate from the bible, this is a book which contains rules and guidance to live by. It was written and revolves mainly around men. Marriage was invented one man one woman, that way everyone got a share.Now there are no rules.
...............................
A
male
reader, LazyGuy  +, writes (9 October 2008):
 It is just different justification for their actions.
Since you admit both consider cheating and both of course cheat they are the same.
Of course women reason different then men but since the result is the same they really can't be that different. No matter how you say potatoe, you are talking about the same vegetable.
...............................
|
