Man and Woman

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

"Will is the manner of men, willingness the manner of women".

Do you agree or disagree with this quote, and of course, why? My personal opinion is that it degrades women, but is this fair? Is the chemical makeup justified in itself?

Also, to what degree is this quote relevant?

I disagree with it, as I do all-embracing definitions.

1 Reply

@patchouli phil,

Ok, so why do you disagree with it?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

A willingness of what to what?for me its too vague a statement.

1 Reply

@xris,

It's too vague, too oversimplified, and too general. Also it implies that men are superior to women, since when one says willingness in that context, willingness to follow along (and not take the lead oneself) is usually implied.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

"Will is the manner of men, willingness the manner of women".

Do you agree or disagree with this quote, and of course, why? My personal opinion is that it degrades women, but is this fair? Is the chemical makeup justified in itself?

Also, to what degree is this quote relevant?

Do you consider will to be a positive thing? Do you consider willingness to be a negative thing? I think it is all a matter of perception. A little vague perhaps, but maybe not . Personally, I am more receptive to passivity than I am to aggressiveness.

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

It's too vague, too oversimplified, and too general. Also it implies that men are superior to women, since when one says willingness in that context, willingness to follow along (and not take the lead oneself) is usually implied.

Why should that affect your interpretation of it's accuracy to society? I think you all know exactly what this quote means.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Why should that affect your interpretation of it's accuracy to society? I think you all know exactly what this quote means.

Because it's not an accurate way to talk about the kinds of women I know, I like, and I'm interested in...I mean, I wouldn't want to have a bossy, domineering, overbearing girlfriend, but I would want a girlfriend I feel an equal with. Inductive generalizations like this one always fall apart with just one counterexample, and I just provided that counterexample.

1 Reply

@hammersklavier,

So you're letting what you want, an ideal, get in the way of how you are willing to interpret what you perceive?

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Medically, the drive to control and the willingness to submit has nothing to do with gender. More to do with a million host of factors that require careful testing and analysis. To simplify the two drives to something simple like gender is idiotic.

And then there's the fact that he gives no explanation for how gender determines these two drives.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

It is quite derogatory, especially if you look at it in terms of sexual or mental capacity. It implies that women are subservient to men. The wording is rather offensive.

The reason we are up at arms against this quote is the duplicity of the two - well, I suppose it can be seen as only one word, and the subsequent conjugation thereof - key words. "Will" can be interpreted as "determination" as well as "success"/"capability" equally. The change in form from "will" to "willingness" pushes toward an impression of "determination," whereas success/capability seems to have become secondary. This implies that women are "determined to," but "unable."

There is no right or wrong answer as to whether this is correct. It is, of course, a simple opinion and a generalization. Therefore the accuracy or even the implications are indeterminate.

1 Reply

@grimm psykos,

Surely in the relation between men and women there must be both will and willingness on both sides? The man and woman must both have the will do so somthing to or for one another, but also the willingness for things to be done to or for them by the other.

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

I have the willingnes to believe im the master and my wife has willingness to let me believe that.

1 Reply

@xris,

When we allow these beliefs to become facts then it is only for the sake of having a disparity. My point here is that it is not always the case in disparities that when one side is inferior they do not wish to be. Some sides to disparities may well be adapted to want to be the willingness, as if that makes them superior to being a will. Or perhaps disparity itself is 'believed' to make the system more efficient.

I am not assuming there is a nature to the extremes (sides) of disparities. There just isn't. There just seems to be this behaviour in a system that one would rather give in to another's will than stop and think about their own. There'd rather be (in some systems of disparities) stability through having one will than to have peace with conflicting wills.

The point is, where does morality come in? Should there be only one will, one which acts perceivably righteous; or should there be independence, where 'wills' will conflict; and when they conflict why is there an inevitability in some cases that the system wishes to create a will and a willingness.

If there is only one will in the system, and it treats the willingnesses like slaves, then is this cause for the will to learn and treat its slaves better (virtue=humility=reciprocal altruism sorta thing=enlightened self interest), or the slaves to revolt?

Is there the possibility perhaps that the slaves might actually adapt to the will and wish to be the willingness; that humanity is more easily conditioned to be the willingness rather than the will.

People are hypocrites to say slavery is immoral. The only reason slavery is considered immoral is because those that are slaves are malcontent in being a slave.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;55618 wrote:

"Will is the manner of men, willingness the manner of women".

Do you agree or disagree with this quote, and of course, why? My personal opinion is that it degrades women, but is this fair? Is the chemical makeup justified in itself?

Also, to what degree is this quote relevant?

Disagree, will and willingness can not be determined by the gender of a person but rather the construct of their personality.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;59761 wrote:

People are hypocrites to say slavery is immoral. The only reason slavery is considered immoral is because those that are slaves are malcontent in being a slave.

I don't think you really believe this. If you do, you're espousing a degree of relativism that justifies any brutality or subjugation, however demeaning / violent / cruel, simply because it's those in power who get to uphold their values.

Furthermore, you're completely wrong that this is "the only reason slavery is considered immoral". Don't forget that serfdom and slavery as major historic movements were ended not because the serfs and slaves rebelled, but because the rest of society saw it as cruel.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Furthermore, you're completely wrong that this is "the only reason slavery is considered immoral". Don't forget that serfdom and slavery as major historic movements were ended not because the serfs and slaves rebelled, but because the rest of society saw it as cruel.

I shouldn't have said 'only' reason, but honestly, you don't seriously believe that the realization of it's cruelty was the primary reason. There is too much apathy to say the least, to suggest that whether we are slaves or not is of any relevance. When we think of cruelty, we think of pain. If a person is not in pain, then apathy trumps the relevance of 'slavery'. And pain itself is very narrowly considered.

I am not saying that we do not empathize as a people...well actually, the more massive the 'people', the less empathy there shall be don't you think?... but empathy is more of a tool than a motive. And that's the problem isn't it? Charisma comes from the feeling of isolation, in which when one truly feels to take a stand there is humility without empathy and empathy is an attempt to connect with the masses, those evoking humility until the ones evoking such no longer feel the need to do so in feel 'at one' with the masses, as it grows continually larger.

And there is charisma in woman just as there is in man. I am not trying to disproportionate the two. But which ones empathize and which ones are of humility?

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

you don't seriously believe that the realization of it's cruelty was the primary reason.

Aedes is quite right. Take, for example, slavery in the United States. The Abolitionist voice became so prominent and gathered so much political support in parts of the north that southern states (dependent on slavery) feared Federal law banning slavery and the slave trade. When the states could not compromise on adding new states to the Union (because, if the balance between free and slave states tilted in favor of free states, southern states could not maintain a stalemate on the matter of slavery in the Senate) the southern states began to leave the Union. War was the direct result of the growing popularity of Abolitionism in the United States, and the war directly resulted in the end of slavery in the US.

Holiday20310401 wrote:

There is too much apathy to say the least, to suggest that whether we are slaves or not is of any relevance.

I think in the case of American slavery very few people were apathetic - even many of the pro-slavery opinion were clearly not apathetic. I've read a number of defenses of slavery from the period leading up to the American Civil War and the arguments are insane: the work of people who struggle to justify what they know in theit hearts to be cruel and vicious. I sympathize with these poor souls; of course, I have a great deal more sympathy for those who were slaves, but even the oppressors suffer for their own awful acts. Not all of these slave owners slavery-supporters strained under this sort of moral cognitive dissonance, some were simply black hearted. But I think we can say that many of these people did have some imborn response of horror at the sight of human beings being treated as slaves.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;61508 wrote:

honestly, you don't seriously believe that the realization of it's cruelty was the primary reason

I only believe it because it's an indisputable historical fact that has repeated itself among numerous independent abolition movements.

Holiday20310401;61508 wrote:

but empathy is more of a tool than a motive

Empathy is a recognition of ourself in other people. It is a visceral motivator.

Holiday20310401;61508 wrote:

Charisma comes from the feeling of isolation, in which when one truly feels to take a stand there is humility without empathy and empathy is an attempt to connect with the masses, those evoking humility until the ones evoking such no longer feel the need to do so in feel 'at one' with the masses, as it grows continually larger.

Not sure where you're getting this idea. Charisma is not an experience or a feeling -- it's an appeal that other people exude.

Holiday20310401;61508 wrote:

And there is charisma in woman just as there is in man... But which ones empathize and which ones are of humility?

Both in both cases. And both can be leaders.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Are you guys serious?! So you suppose that all of a sudden everyone 'realized' the cruelty in being the better end of slavery? Today, there is definitely slavery, and we get the better end. We 'realize' this ofcourse, but what difference is that making?

Rationalists 'realize', empiricists empathize. There has to be a reconciliation of the two in order for people to act.

Sure the war may have been the direct result of the growing popularity of Abolitionism(abolitionist perspective becomes the mass and individuals want to realize and become a part of the mass, yet empathize in their own little ways), but if we could talk to these soldiers who did the fighting, I doubt many would tell you they did it because ending slavery was the primary motive.

In fact, based on novels, I got the idea most people didn't want anything to do with slavery. They, for a long time, realized the cruelty in slavery, but there was no desire to empathize other than for impertinent tangents in one's own self interest.

People must've understood that slavery was inevitably going to end, war just made it happen sooner. In an average citizen's mind, it makes more sense not to have a war at all. Without the empathy, there lacks passion, because heart is something spoon-fed nowadays.

1 Reply

Man and Woman

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know