The equality of man and woman and the inferiority of woman to man.—These are two irreconcilable values. Let’s first suppose that they’re both cultural values. For example, the former is a Western cultural value, the latter an Islamic cultural value. In a truly multicultural society, then, neither of these values can be considered more important than the other.
Now let’s suppose that only the latter is a cultural value, whereas the former is a supercultural value. Let’s suppose that all healthy people naturally, instinctively, consider man and woman to be equal. To consider woman inferior to man is then anti-natural, counterinstinctive.
Here’s the decisive question. Why should one consider natural, instinctive values superior to anti-natural, counterinstinctive values? Methinks there are two, and only two, possible answers to this question.
One should do so because it’s natural, instinctive, to do so.
One should do so for (a) certain reasons(s), to wit: […]
The first answer is a deference of the question. The second undermines itself, as there could also be (a) reason(s) to consider woman inferior to man, even if doing so is anti-natural, counterinstinctive.
How is determining superiority or inferiority instinctive? I don’t follow that line at all. Why is the importance of culture stressed in this, what about in the feminist culture? Who’s inferior? What does the culture matter to the nature of the question?
I said “suppose”, didn’t I? The thing is there are people who think there are natural, instinctive values.
Because the question is whether the equality of man and woman, for example, is a cultural or a natural value.
I don’t understand these questions. Sure, there could be a culture that regards men as inferior to women. Is that what you mean by “the feminist culture”?
The specific values and cultures I mentioned are just examples. Does that answer your questions?
It’s natural for men to think they’re superior to women. Little boys always have to be smarter, faster, and better than little girls at everything. Are they? Well…sometimes, but not always. And let me tell you, they are very sore losers. A man is not necessarily superior to a woman.
Men want to be dominant to show their sexual fitness, I believe. The only problem with this is, it doesn’t always match up to the woman’s level. Not every man is physically or mentally stronger than all other females. This can be devastating, so often women are forced culturally to abide by customs so that they remain unequal. Keeping women subjugated is only natural by law. Many women can achieve great things equal to many men, it’s simply not allowed in most cases. And women can be fine with this, because they want men to be stronger, and they want to be cared for, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t do it themselves lol.
That’s not the question. At all. You may switch the words “man” and “woman” in my OP. It doesn’t make a difference, though perhaps you should replace “Islamic” by “feminist”, then (using “feminist” in the sense in which WW_III_ANGRY seems to have meant it).
Ok I got ya, I would have to say its a cultural creation. Of course, what is considered natural falls by the wayside though when “Man” is involved. It is either “man” made or it is natural. If natural covers everything man made then everything is natural and there is no need for the distinction of what is natural. “Man” ultimately comes up with a judgment on what is valued higher or lower (men or women), so it could not be natural. Unless then of course, everything is natural.
Multiculturalism strikes me as at most a political problem. Is it really a philosophical problem at all? It’s about generosity with respect to differences between people of different backgrounds. This generosity has its limits, as it should. The only problem I can think of is how to, as a relatively democratic culture, precisely determine these limits through law.
To use your example - the equality or non-equality of men and women, philosophically speaking, is a nonsense subject. Equal relative to what standard? Who determines this standard? There is no such thing as either the equality or the non-equality of men and women.
Equality is not a Western or a cultural “value”. On the contrary, it is rooted always in political struggle. Witness the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the movement by gays for equal rights. Those in power [white anglo-saxon protestant men by and large] rarely share it with others without a fight.
And even within cultures where men are men [in positions of power] and women are women [in no positions of power] gender relationships are complex far beyond a simple either/or analysis. Intention and motivation come into play here. For example, in Amish culture, the men are “the elders”—they are in power. And the women are not. But do men here see themselves as superior to women, as subjugating them? Do women see themselves as inferior to men, as being subjugated by them? I doubt it.
I think you have to take into consideration two factors above all else: intention and the uses [abuses] of power.
For example, in Islamic cultures, is it the intention of men to subjugate women? And do women in Islamic culture feel subjugated by men? Some do, some do not.
It is clearly the reality that, from a 'Western" perspective [the post feminist perspective], women are subugated. In many communities women are forbidden an education, are not allowed to drive, must dress fron head to toe in public, are fully under a man’s control. We reject this. I reject it. But how is this to be communicated? Do we just march in there and shove our “superior” values down their throats?
Or do we share our values, explain why we embrace them and encourage others to embrace them too?
Let’s suppose not everything is natural. What’s man-made is unnatural and what’s not is natural. Man himself, however, is not man-made. Therefore, he is natural. This includes his instincts. If man instinctively values something, then, that value’s a natural value. If he values something for (a) certain reason(s), however, it’s unnatural. (Instinct’s irrational, by the way.) It doesn’t matter if those reasons are bad—e.g., if he values something because he believes a god commands him to.
The question is then whether generosity’s a cultural or a supercultural value…
Why “should” it? Is that your cultural background speaking or your natural instincts?
To the standard that says man, for instance, has an intrinsic, positive value. This idea derives from Christianity, where all men were supposed to be equal before God, equally—and positively—valuable to God.
Isn’t that just another way of saying that, intrinsically, man and woman both have an equal value of zero, though?
Your answer, then, is that our values are not natural-instinctive, but rational; in other words, that they’re cultural, not supercultural. But apparently you don’t claim to be a multiculturalist, so that’s okay.
Saying yes is natural. So is saying no. When to say yes and when to say no will vary between people and cultures. Multiculturalism is the idea that we can say yes more often than might seem natural. But who is to determine what’s natural and what’s not? You seem to be looking for a firm foundation for bias or non-bias. I don’t think you’ll find one.
You didn’t answer that question. What you’ve said is that you believe there are natural-instinctive values; not why those are superior to anti-natural, counterinstinctive values. If you think you have done the latter, please quote the appropriate passage.
-Sauwelios
Since the human knowingly judges another as superior or inferior, how could there be any possibility to connect this to instinctual traits? All values have reasons, whether we are consciously aware of them or not. Why would our ignorance of it matter to it being instinctive?
You see, the answer is in that the natural, i.e. ‘original’ instinct is superior to its counterreaction. What we do to try to advance past our instincts always conflicts with our instincts. It’s not as confusing as it seems, but we make it that way. People act like it’s this big mystery why we behave this way or why our cultural values exist- it all stems from one biological spot, does it not? This sex stuff is ultimately about the promise of reproduction. Men and women will go out of their way to secure their genetic future. Whatever we do in regards to sex and sexual selection, no matter what, will interfere with the biology pushing against it.
We have the Islamic culture going overboard with taking away women’s rights so that they counteract women’s sexual selection choices, and their ability to support themselves outside of men. Naturally, or outside of man’s control, they would be able to select their own mates according to their tastes, and also not have to bow down, and hide their talents and abilities to please their culture/religion & the men who created it for that purpose. I mean natural as in biological potential, and not the potential that’s been taken away by something stronger. This is not referring to men but the brainwashing culture/religion they belong to that tells them it’s their place. Men so naturally impose unnatural control over women because they are such a threat to their authority, and mating privileges. Men seek control, not because they have it, but because they don’t. Enslaving other men is also used to signify their fitness and control over reproduction (often by raping their women).
In Western culture, we have a progression from a more classic male as head of the house and wife as the homemaker to women in the workforce and males having little to no control over female reproduction. This has lead to beneficial and not so beneficial changes. Yes, women are treated more fairly, and we don’t have arranged marriages, or stoning for adultery/divorce, but we do have very unhappy men who still ‘naturally’ have a need to control women. And very happy women who naturally just want to be free, and make their own decisions.
So essentially, we’re certainly closer to what a woman would believe is the ‘natural’ or correct current state of affairs, and for men we are far from it. See the increased rate of western men who look for mail-order brides.
Males do not want competition with females. That is the bottom line. Women don’t care, they will test your authority until they drive you insane. Men are not automatically granted the superiority they desire, they must earn it, and some males are more fit than others. And since we don’t live in tribes anymore, and there is no official ranking of who gets the females and who doesn’t, we have laws to make it so that there can only be one mate for each person. It really fucks nature up when it comes to males earning the title of being leader and/or mate worthy. They all dream of a bajillion wives, yet less than a third are deserving of even one.
No culture is more right or more natural than the other. The differences are the reactions to the reactions to the…ad infinitum and who will come out on top is determined by whichever side the last reaction favored.
I believe that women are inferior to men when it comes to strength and aggression. Men are just the more dominant sex physically. If it were not for laws that have evolved in Western society men would still have their women at their mercy, or should I say, brute men. Why? Because he can easily beat her to his will. Men do it to men too. I think of the image of the caveman dragging his female partner by the hair. But we are not cavemen and I would hope we do not aspire to be brute men. We should not pick on people not our size because it is cowardly to do so, or beat on women, children, or old people. If a woman is driving you crazy you leave her, plain and simple. If you do otherwise you might end up in prison. So back to your question: Women are inferior to men when it comes to strength and aggression, and since no matter how intelligent a woman is a man can bend her to his will be brute force, a woman can be treated inferior if society permits. However, some societies do not permit it. You hit or beat a woman and you go to jail. Given these laws men lose their dominance over women and women become equal. Culture stamps out natural laws, just as reason conquers instinct. Case closed.
It’s not about others, but about values. It doesn’t matter if our judgment of others as superior, equal, or inferior is always rational. What matters is whether our values—e.g., our valuing equality—are always rational, or whether some are instinctual.
Causes ≠ reasons.
Well, even if it doesn’t, instinctive values are not rational. For instance, if a female bird, due to some random genetic mutation, values a red breast in a male of its species, that’s an instinctive, not a rational, value.