It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by chishuppu
men and women are not equal nor are they the same, women can't beat a man on his scale and a man can't beat a woman on her scale. The way society is structured this issue will never end.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by Greatest I am
Since this is the metaphysics forum, I'll answer from that perspective. God made man in His image. The entire race of man. Therefore .. men and women are completely equal in God's eyes and therefore they should be in our eyes as well.
]
Originally posted by spy66
We humans don't know true morality. Because we have never had it. We can never know true morality if we never had true morals.
We can argue among us the difference between good and bad morals. But the Irony is that bad morals can be good for some. And good moral can be bad for others. We have problems knowing what morals that are good for everyone at the same time.
Within the system we live under today. We are brought up to be competitors. Competing for wealth and social standards. We are brought up to accept that some have right to have more than others. We are brought up to accept a moral difference between us.
Originally posted by jheherrin
Originally posted by Unity_99
Inequality is the root of all evil in the universe and it leads to greed, rape, murder, wars, starvation, and infanticide, it is the most evil thing there is.
Couldn't disagree with this more. I don't believe in 'evil', don't believe anyone knows what the 'root of all evil in the universe' is. And I especially don't believe we are 'equal'. We aren't, we never have been, and we never will be. We are animals, and the strong survive and the weak perish. It's just that simple. Animals in the wild have no concept of your New Age philosophies... the weak are left to their own devices in a herd, even killed. Animals aren't 'evil' either. We do what we do, and one of the things we do naturally is to 'size up' situations, especially people. In the instant that we look at a stranger our subconscious mind will make accessments about that person without any help from our conscious mind. That process isn't 'evil' either.
Life is about survival... it has nothing to do with arbitrary moralism.
Frankly, I wonder when we will start looking at ourselves with some honesty, about our species and our genetic impulses and behaviors as a collective, instead of still mistakenly trying to view things thru the spiritual/religious blinders.
Inequality is evil? It disgusts me that anyone would represent that as some universal truth. It's no wonder we are screwed up as a species. We'd rather believe in some fantastically, grandiose illusion about ourselves than see the truth, even when it's right in front of our noses.edit on 26-11-2012 by jheherrin because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Originally posted by halfoldman
Interesting post, although the second clip is a bit long for now.
In the OP however I'm a bit confused, because it seems to suggest that women should be respected because they "incubate life".
So when they're not pregnant, or beyond getting pregnant (or infertile), they are disposable, because that justification then no longer exists?
Pregnancy is the only reason given in the OP to respect women, so when they are not "human incubators", or unable to be so, then what justification remains to respect them by this reasoning?
And why should this make men, particularly "alpha males" more expendable via "sacrifice'?
What is meant here by sacrifice?
Sending them to war in the name of "tribalism" and the "conservative tribal chiefs"?
Why should men be happy with this?
Without their healthy seed there would be no female incubation.
So they are crucial to the process, and therefore just as worthy of preservation.
In fact men have no real biological clock, so by that reasoning one should rather send infertile and post-menopausal women to war, because their procreative function is over in any case.
Men could still procreate at that age.
So why sacrifice alpha males?
This seems more like an argument by weaker heterosexual males to get rid of alpha male competition (send them to war, or another dangerous job), and thus to have access to more women for themselves.
Not that I blame the weaker heterosexual specimens for trying to do this, since they sometimes do have quite a horrible time.
edit on 13-11-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)
Yes. As the incubators of life for 9 months, they deserve more care than the 3 second it takes men to get them pregnant. You might have noted that care/harm is the first principle of morality. Unless you do not agree with it and the author. If not, please give your first principle of morality. To think that men should only protect their mate while she is pregnant and shift that protection to themselves when she is not would be men just using women and certainly shows that they have their benefits at heart and not those of women.
But that is not the only reason. Women bond with their children while carrying them to birth and are generally better than men at child rearing. Just check the numbers of deadbeat dads and compare them to unwed mothers. Women are the backbones of family. Not men.
Women are also weaker physically than men. You speak of war times and I would ask you, who are better suited to fight for a nation?
Men or women?
Sure, some jobs are not strength related and women might do better at these than men but when the boots hit the ground, men are better fighting companions than women because they might use that extra strength to kill the opponent or carry you to safety.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?
Regards
DL
Originally posted by halfoldman
Re-reading the OP, it appears the argument is much more complicated than it first appeared to me.
It seems to start off with an argument for a matriarchy, but then seems to eventually reverse this by arguing for a matriarchy (based on an ideal of biological femininity) within a benign patriarchy.
Great thread.
Originally posted by halfoldman
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Originally posted by halfoldman
Interesting post, although the second clip is a bit long for now.
In the OP however I'm a bit confused, because it seems to suggest that women should be respected because they "incubate life".
So when they're not pregnant, or beyond getting pregnant (or infertile), they are disposable, because that justification then no longer exists?
Pregnancy is the only reason given in the OP to respect women, so when they are not "human incubators", or unable to be so, then what justification remains to respect them by this reasoning?
And why should this make men, particularly "alpha males" more expendable via "sacrifice'?
What is meant here by sacrifice?
Sending them to war in the name of "tribalism" and the "conservative tribal chiefs"?
Why should men be happy with this?
Without their healthy seed there would be no female incubation.
So they are crucial to the process, and therefore just as worthy of preservation.
In fact men have no real biological clock, so by that reasoning one should rather send infertile and post-menopausal women to war, because their procreative function is over in any case.
Men could still procreate at that age.
So why sacrifice alpha males?
This seems more like an argument by weaker heterosexual males to get rid of alpha male competition (send them to war, or another dangerous job), and thus to have access to more women for themselves.
Not that I blame the weaker heterosexual specimens for trying to do this, since they sometimes do have quite a horrible time.
edit on 13-11-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)
Yes. As the incubators of life for 9 months, they deserve more care than the 3 second it takes men to get them pregnant. You might have noted that care/harm is the first principle of morality. Unless you do not agree with it and the author. If not, please give your first principle of morality. To think that men should only protect their mate while she is pregnant and shift that protection to themselves when she is not would be men just using women and certainly shows that they have their benefits at heart and not those of women.
But that is not the only reason. Women bond with their children while carrying them to birth and are generally better than men at child rearing. Just check the numbers of deadbeat dads and compare them to unwed mothers. Women are the backbones of family. Not men.
Women are also weaker physically than men. You speak of war times and I would ask you, who are better suited to fight for a nation?
Men or women?
Sure, some jobs are not strength related and women might do better at these than men but when the boots hit the ground, men are better fighting companions than women because they might use that extra strength to kill the opponent or carry you to safety.
Regards
DL
Yeah, I agree, women do need respect and a rationale for their humanity that is not tied to their fertility!
I see no other rationale in the OP to honor women apart from the potential fertility of young women.
That's what worries me, because there's no sense that women could also sometimes be equal and superior to men as people - their "superiority" seems to come from seeing them as an oven for a bun!
I wonder if such attitudes were not around when "deadbeat dads" had "3 second" fun?
Otherwise I agree that men should be around for their kids, and that men are best suited for direct combat roles.
Maybe a time will come where all armies are gender-mixed, or perhaps we'll have robot armies.
Nevertheless, until that day it's just too unfair to send women into direct combat situations.
I'm not sure what it all means in practice, since some men are always necessary for sperm to fertilize the wondrous womb.
Perhaps it means that men should bow to their women at the front door, and then they will sweep them off their feet, and carry them to the kitchen.
Originally posted by arpgme
Screw this "man" vs "woman" crap. They are all humans and should be treated with equality (unless they are handicap or something)...
Originally posted by 0mage
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?
Regards
DL
AAHHAHAHA
I'm sorry this one had me screaming. ur saying men should trust their authority to women? allow women to lead us??
makes me melt with laughter.. u go ahead.. NOT ME!!