Man and Woman

“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?

Are you guys serious?! So you suppose that all of a sudden everyone 'realized' the cruelty...

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.

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

to me this is not about men and women but about masculine and feminine aspects of human nature. the male manner (which i take to mean attitude, behavior, strategy) is that of will-action, while the female manner is that of willing-response. a proper response can be every bit as effective as any act.

Well said, If females had the psychological profile of men there would be no living with them, and there would be no sex. Our mate must be compliant for the sake of the species. It is a role they fulfill, it is a social imperative that we males have fostered for our sanity.

An analogy to our patriarchal society's designation of females is Hitlers Germany. He indoctrinated the population by de humanising the scapegoat as inferior, but the motive was the fear of the capabilities of the jewish inteligencia and the economic control jews exerted internationally.

We designate females as the weaker sex, this culturally imbibes the female from cognition to see two distinct roles, differentiated by gender. We need the female to be subserviant, but understand that without us she will survive, she has the capability of being as autonomous as us. We know she is an equal but we need her to be subserviant, so we designate a role and limitations on capacity. As you succinctly put "an act of will".

"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?

the relationship between men and women is just a yin/yang dang thing but no one wants to accept their portion of the pot.

Their portion of the pot? :confused:
Are you saying that men and women do have specific roles that they should accept or am I misreading/misunderstanding that?

i am saying they can assume whatever roles they are best suited for in any particular man/woman relationship. but each has to have certain roles-they cant both assume all the roles all the time. there has to be a give and take according to the participants. there has to be an overall balance, it cant be slanted towards one or the other.

you cant divide all the roles equally in half is what i mean. it would be like two people trying to drive one car at the same time.

But not all men are suited for masculine roles and not all women are suited for feminine roles.
And why can't two people fulfill the same 'roles', anyway?
What even counts as roles?

I know I'm pretty feminine and yet my partner is female, does that mean we're like two people trying to drive a car at the same time? It's certainly never felt like that.

every human being has both a masculine and a feminine side, that is a fact. each person is more dominantly male or female in nature i would say, and the gay couples i have known are always composed of one of each as a representative from masculine and a feminine regardless of their biological sexes. they work it out as they wish.

what counts as roles, what i am considering for the purpose of discussion, would be like dividing daily life tasks. who is going to do the cooking, cleaning, shopping, who will manage the finances, who will take over maintenance of the property and goods.

what else counts as a role is the emotional balance of the couple-one most likely will be the stronger of the two and the other may be more dependent on their support. however in a healthy person even the weakest partner can muster up the strength when needed to support the stronger who for whatever reason is not operating at full capacity at any given time.

there are of course many more things involved, but i assume you can follow me from here. the roles are not necessarily accepted according to masculine and feminine according to biology but according to nature.

Ok I understand that, then.
But I don't agree with it at all.
Two people cleaning, or doing any other task, is nothing like two people trying to drive the same car. A car is specifically made for one person to control it, while a house is made so that one person can clean each room if they wanted to. Sometimes multiple people per room can work, depending on the house.
And shopping is much more fun when you do it together, if you both like shopping.
Such things need not be divided if both people in the relationship are good at them.
And I don't see why relationships need to have someone filling the role of support and someone filling the role of being dependent on support.

my analogy must be weak, it wont apply to all situations or aspects of a relationship, but i was thinking that there are not two chief financial officers in a company, for example, how can two people take care of the bookkeeping and financial matters? a do-everything-together arrangement would be great, i like sharing everything. but i still see roles. even if we dont create them intentionally, they happen within relationships, it is unavoidable. but what i am saying is that they are not pre-defined and no one should have to fit their relationship to match the definition of someone else.

you dont see any roles in relationship then? any thoughts about it?