![Why are women? [1080x826 - 83KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/usCYCS.jpg){kind=link}
Women don't need as sophisticated a moral compass as men, they don't need to settle tribal disputes, wage war or make life or death decisions in a hunt/trek. Men need a logical, extendable moral framework to operate day to day. Women display clear and consistent morals/values when dealing with young children where they do experience/exert selection pressure.
It's not that they are immoral, it's that they are trying to occupy roles that should be held by elder males (ie: governance).
Women score lower on the Kohlberg stages of moral development. It's a point of controversy in psychology (just like race and IQ). Most women are around a stage 3 or 4; their ideas of morality are based on avoiding disapproval and accepting whatever rules they think will maintain the group's happiness. This is slightly more developed than infants but a far cry from fully developed morality of universal ethical principles. Make no mistake there are some bright women capable of universal ethical principles (Ayn Rand for example) but most women score lower than men.
You're right this is likely because there has never been any evolutionary pressure on women to develop their morality, it has never been their role in society to make important decisions. Fast-tracking women into important political and economic roles is just as disastrous as giving such powers to teenagers.
Women don't need as sophisticated a moral compass as men,
Men’s moral compass is to get laid and maybe —MAYBE —to ensure the survival of that offspring if it isn’t too expensive for them. Its really not that sophisticated.
If men were so morally sophisiticated, then the worlds prisons would be full of women not men. Women’s “moral compass” is different than men because their survival strategy is different than men. It is critical for them to ensure the survival of each child because each child is a larger investment for a female.
Men’s moral framework isn’t logical. That’s because moral frameworks aren’t logical. They don’t need to be to confer survival.
Men need to settle tribal disputes so they can maintain a cooperative alliance to offer females security and blandishments while keeping un-related males out of their territory. Its completely selfish and not any more sophisticated than female considerations.
Evolution but also female morality is less sophisticated. Fucking ridiculous argument. All motivations are simple and selfish when you peel away the bullshit.
You guys live in candyland.
You are conflating physical violence with ethics. Women are simply not capable of physical violence on the same level as men (especially black men) so of course almost all physical violence is by men. If women were capable, make no mistake they would be just as violent, demonstrated by women's higher domestic abuse rate against children.
I am discussing moral development, the ways in which individuals derive their values and beliefs. I can prove this moral deficiency very easily, someone who lacks full moral development (stage 6 on the Kohlberg scale) will invariably have contradictions in their belief systems since they aren't based on any universal principles (they are morally relativistic). Pretty much every single left wing woman I have ever come across has these contradictory beliefs. For example, being pro-abortion due to self-ownership, but being pro-mandatory vaccines. Being anti-discrimination, while agitating for discrimination against political dissidents (christians, men, conservatives etc). There are of course soyboy type men like this, but it's far more prevalent among women much like how far-left politics is more prevalent among women, and mental illness too.
Men looking at this view these women as literally insane, but these contradictions seem normal to many women on the left because they can't grasp the concept of universal ethical principles. They simply are not aware of their moral deficiencies any more than a child would be.
Actually, the domestic abuse among lesbian couples is the highest. I think in a lot of cases women with men are or would be more violent. The violent attempts don't amount to much and are forgotten and unreported, or they just don't even try against someone longer and stronger than them.
Stealing, molesting kids, selling drugs. Virtually every non-violent crime category is disproportionately dominated by males. Males have a fundamentally more risk taking strategy than females. They are more opportunistic sexually, violently, and a dozen other ways.
Males are far more r strategy on the r/K continuum than females, among humans and in practically every other species. Poal/ voat guys are happy to brag about their morally superior K strategy relative to blacks but when comparing male and female strategies within white society, THEN! K strategy is ”simplistic” morals of females who over-value agreeableness. Lol.
Got it.
I think you’ve got a simplistic grasp of evolution. How do you like them apples?
(((Kohlberg scale)))
‘Kay.
You're including too many niggers and spics in your understanding of "men."
What's bad about "keeping un-related males out"?
And I'm sure they always had friends, bros or professionals to call over.
Selfishness to some degree is productive and keeps people satisfied does it not? Too many cooks ruin the dish, men don't need more insecurity around (the factor of unrelated males in a close space rightfully living their own lives out) when making decisions, do they?
From an evolutionary pov, nothing. Whats wrong with female hypergamy?
Cause Im endlessless hearing about the hypergamy around here.
Seems like males here have a habit of justifying male behavior with evolution while condemning female behavior as “bad morals”— you can’t have it both ways.
Men’s moral compass is to get laid and maybe —MAYBE —to ensure the survival of that offspring if it isn’t too expensive for them. Its really not that sophisticated.
We are a tiny bit more sophisticated than that. Not by much, but it is there. Eventually we all learn that chasing money is meaningless and the only joy in life (after getting laid) is watching your children grow up.
I don't know what it's like for women, but looking at a bunch of kids and being able to say 'those are mine' is a hell of a thing for a dad. We kill for our kids and our women.
It feels like the big challenge is relationship training for men and women. We all figure out a subset of the relationship dance in our own way, but, it really feels like this should be a set of weekend courses that our people could complete and then use to improve their lives. For example, being critical of each other is important, but I don't think we are trained to really appreciate all the good bits as well, that really needs to be part of the coursework.
I have been thinking about seeing if we can re-claim our churches for various services including relationship training classes. It could be a terrific avenue for starting to re-claim our cultures back from the deviants.
Well look, I think the colony has been infected with social parasites that have programmed both males and females to behave counter to our own long term survival by inserting mind viruses in to the culture. Misinformation that sews chaos. The point is to shut out their fucking virus.
Anyone who tries to claim that males are inherently morally superior within a fucking evolutionary framework is gonna get that shit knocked down by me. For every coal burner there is a coomer. For every white antifa dyke there is a white soy simp or white “ladydick” tranny.
Like a small dog who is never disciplined, women can bark and bite and harry and nobody gets hurt because their aggression is impotent. They can be downright wicked and as long as they care for their children they will survive and pass down genes. A German Shepherd on the other hand has to practice control, has to understand escalation and experiences harsh discipline from it's master because it is dangerous, because it has the potential to harm. The chihuahua is not morally superior to the shepherd, it simply lacks the tools to exert it's will. Weakness is not morality.
All morality in nature is basically just 'tit for tat,' non-reciprocal violence/deviant behavior can never really exceed ~10% of the populace or else the whole thing falls to pieces but there will always be those outliers because because there are benefits to be had exploiting others (so long as you aren't caught).
Well apparently a lot of german shepherds never learned discipline because the prisons are full of them. Males score significantly higher on psychopathy tests and even men in prison score higher on psychopathy tests than women in prison.
All morality in nature is based on whether or not a behavior confers survival. But if you look strictly at the most frequent rule breakers in society, the population of outliers are almost entirely men because theft, violence, rape are all risky behaviors and male strategy is a risk taking strategy compared to females.
You are never going to win this argument. Because in everyway that we measure “good morals” women score better then men.
(post is archived)