Re: What is the character of a woman?
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:01 pm
The question presupposes that all women have the same character. They do not.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
That which is receptive, hence the confusion over the nature of women, they are strictly an extension of a culture. If one wants to under stand a people or culture, just look at the women. They are the foundation of civilization as they are its womb, literally and metaphorically.Systematic wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:54 am Women are meek and mild, subservient creatures. Or so we've been led to believe. Apparently no one had asked the Russians before they became communist... What are your women like? Are they domicile like our women? Do they blindly believe or do they think? Nietzsche's fault lies in his sexism. Did the Jews trick the Romans and Greeks out of their paganism? Obviously. Were they wiser people before that happened? Definitely. But the Greeks had also had a rebellion against feminism before their religion solidified. That was the rebellion against female deity. Don't look into Medusa's eyes or else she will turn you into stone. In order to be a powerful man, you must be corrupt. In order to be corrupted, you need to let your woman call the shots. Marx was not a rebel against power or capitalism, He was a rebel against women. He tricked the Russians into overpowering their women in the name of communism. What would a world run by women be like? Depends on the time of the month. Not the time of the year.
Well, okay, then, what about the character W.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:01 pm The question presupposes that all women have the same character. They do not.
Most people have some bias, hence the question. I don't mean that the character is fixed, but that, most people act as if it were.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:01 pm The question presupposes that all women have the same character. They do not.
Per evolutionary psychology, there tend to be natural and inborn and unique tendencies in men and women, not as per many stereotypes (such as the idea that "men enjoy sex more than women"), but differences in how men and women's sex drive functions.Systematic wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:54 am Women are meek and mild, subservient creatures. Or so we've been led to believe. Apparently no one had asked the Russians before they became communist... What are your women like? Are they domicile like our women? Do they blindly believe or do they think? Nietzsche's fault lies in his sexism. Did the Jews trick the Romans and Greeks out of their paganism? Obviously. Were they wiser people before that happened? Definitely. But the Greeks had also had a rebellion against feminism before their religion solidified. That was the rebellion against female deity. Don't look into Medusa's eyes or else she will turn you into stone. In order to be a powerful man, you must be corrupt. In order to be corrupted, you need to let your woman call the shots. Marx was not a rebel against power or capitalism, He was a rebel against women. He tricked the Russians into overpowering their women in the name of communism. What would a world run by women be like? Depends on the time of the month. Not the time of the year.
Well, IBB, are you:IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:04 pm I find that, in isolation, or abstracted from any meaningful context, most of the sexual generalizations are not particularly helpful or accurate.
It's irrelevant to the question; there are similarities between men and women, biologically or otherwise, as well as differences, so any stance which treats these in some kind of mutual exclusivity is nonsense, and only exists that way in pure abstraction.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:13 amWell, IBB, are you:IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:04 pm I find that, in isolation, or abstracted from any meaningful context, most of the sexual generalizations are not particularly helpful or accurate.
a) male
b) female
c) I don't know, because "most of the sexual generalizations are not particularly helpful or accurate."
Well?
So you don't know? It's c), you think? You don't know whether or not you're a man or a woman?IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:46 pmIt's irrelevant to the question; there are similarities between men and women, biologically or otherwise, as well as differences, so any stance which treats these in some kind of mutual exclusivity is nonsense, and only exists that way in pure abstraction.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:13 amWell, IBB, are you:IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:04 pm I find that, in isolation, or abstracted from any meaningful context, most of the sexual generalizations are not particularly helpful or accurate.
a) male
b) female
c) I don't know, because "most of the sexual generalizations are not particularly helpful or accurate."
Well?
The question you asked is irrelevant to the issue; whether or not one is a man or a woman, both sexes will have similar traits and different traits, so claiming that there are "no difference" or "no similarities" would both be absurd and extremist assertions.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:35 pmSo you don't know? It's c), you think? You don't know whether or not you're a man or a woman?IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:46 pmIt's irrelevant to the question; there are similarities between men and women, biologically or otherwise, as well as differences, so any stance which treats these in some kind of mutual exclusivity is nonsense, and only exists that way in pure abstraction.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:13 am
Well, IBB, are you:
a) male
b) female
c) I don't know, because "most of the sexual generalizations are not particularly helpful or accurate."
Well?
If you do know, it's a perfectly easy question to answer, and very relevant to which position you actually practice.
But I think you know that, and know it very well. I also understand why you wouldn't want to answer. But consider whether or not that's actually a good motive for not telling yourself the truth. And answer to yourself, if not to me.
It is not.IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:25 pmThe question you asked is irrelevant to the issue;Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:35 pmSo you don't know? It's c), you think? You don't know whether or not you're a man or a woman?IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:46 pm
It's irrelevant to the question; there are similarities between men and women, biologically or otherwise, as well as differences, so any stance which treats these in some kind of mutual exclusivity is nonsense, and only exists that way in pure abstraction.
If you do know, it's a perfectly easy question to answer, and very relevant to which position you actually practice.
But I think you know that, and know it very well. I also understand why you wouldn't want to answer. But consider whether or not that's actually a good motive for not telling yourself the truth. And answer to yourself, if not to me.
whether or not one is a man or a woman, both sexes will have similar traits and different traits,
I think you misunderstand me; claiming that the difference and similarities within men and women don't "co-exist" is false.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:36 pmIt is not.IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:25 pmThe question you asked is irrelevant to the issue;Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:35 pm
So you don't know? It's c), you think? You don't know whether or not you're a man or a woman?
If you do know, it's a perfectly easy question to answer, and very relevant to which position you actually practice.
But I think you know that, and know it very well. I also understand why you wouldn't want to answer. But consider whether or not that's actually a good motive for not telling yourself the truth. And answer to yourself, if not to me.
whether or not one is a man or a woman, both sexes will have similar traits and different traits,
What do you mean by "will have different and similar traits"?
Do you mean that there are no specific traits at all that make us able to tell when a man is a man, or a woman is a woman? That's not true, obviously, since men and women do, in fact, all the time figure out how to do that. But I'll hear you out, if you actually think there's no way to differentiate the sexes.
Or are you merely that all people are all different in some way? But if it's the latter, it's so trivial as to be utterly unimpressive as an observation. You need not have bothered saying it. Any two objects in the whole universe are "different," and yet we tell them apart all the time, and form categories into which we are able to put them, and so on.
So maybe you mean something like, "Some men act effeminate, and some women act more masculine." And again, that's true but trivial. You're still aware of the two categories, in that case, and must be using some criteria to ascertain them.
So it can only be the first. If it's that, then the right answer is c) -- you don't know whether or not you personally are a man or a woman, because you have no way of telling.
Really?
It's hard to understand you when your wording is ambiguous. What do you mean "co-exists"? What do you mean "differences and similarities," or "within"?IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 6:47 amI think you misunderstand me; claiming that the difference and similarities within men and women don't "co-exist" is false.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:36 pmIt is not.IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:25 pm
The question you asked is irrelevant to the issue;
whether or not one is a man or a woman, both sexes will have similar traits and different traits,
What do you mean by "will have different and similar traits"?
Do you mean that there are no specific traits at all that make us able to tell when a man is a man, or a woman is a woman? That's not true, obviously, since men and women do, in fact, all the time figure out how to do that. But I'll hear you out, if you actually think there's no way to differentiate the sexes.
Or are you merely that all people are all different in some way? But if it's the latter, it's so trivial as to be utterly unimpressive as an observation. You need not have bothered saying it. Any two objects in the whole universe are "different," and yet we tell them apart all the time, and form categories into which we are able to put them, and so on.
So maybe you mean something like, "Some men act effeminate, and some women act more masculine." And again, that's true but trivial. You're still aware of the two categories, in that case, and must be using some criteria to ascertain them.
So it can only be the first. If it's that, then the right answer is c) -- you don't know whether or not you personally are a man or a woman, because you have no way of telling.
Really?
Then what you mean is that there IS a way to tell a man from a woman, and that way is chromosomes. You are a gender essentialist.A man has XY chromosomes, a woman XX chromosomes; both men and women have opposable thumbs, etc.