![Why are women? [1080x826 - 83KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/usCYCS.jpg){kind=link}
Women virtue signal intensely as a substitute for independent ethical thought. Most women are simply put morally stunted, left wing women tending to score lowest on moral development.
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.
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?
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.
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).
And why are males virtue signalling this bullshit then? To get laid. Even this obsequious soycuck simping is another get laid strategy. White males have given away the keys to the kingdom to appease a bunch of jew programmed feminists. To get laid. White males tossed the monogamy pact which kept european civilization running for thousands of years. To coom.
Tell me about how lofty male morals are though.
Unfortunately a lot of "beta males" or undesirable males with little social value exhibit feminine psychological traits such as high agreeableness, neuroticism, and a lack of moral development. Agreeableness being highly correlated with a tendency to groupthink. And it seems that the number of these failed men is increasing for whatever reason evidenced by the trans epidemic among gen z.
If agreeableness and neuroticism were associated with a lack of moral development than we would expect criticality, non-cooperativeness and a low tendency to self-chastize as high moral development. Whatever is diametrically opposed to female traits is high moral development.
The truth is, basically all white males are highly agreeable and neurotic relative to black males. So are we to assume black males have a higher moral development? Hmmm maybe rethink this.
I agree that males are behaving to feminine within white society and this is due to falling T levels.
Oh that was what it's about. Yeah it's a sick market without monogamy/arranged marriages (or well, order).
We never had arranged marriages except among elites. Never. Certainly not in 2000 years.
Someone here suggested dealing with women like you're dealing with a child. I suppose this is more so the case for left wing women. Conservative women are often responsible and have faith anchoring their morality to something reasonable. Left wing women have no anchor, and their morality is based on whatever their emotions take them to.
independent ethical thought
Or collective ethical thought, religion.
Religion on its own doesn't really tell you about a person's morality. One can literally just believe the bible as a set of external laws to please god, in which case that demonstrates little moral development, or one can use the parables of the bible to develop universal ethics (like say J Peterson).
While I don't disagree with anything you've said, a religion provides a set of limiting principles for someone to develop universal ethics. It can be assumed that someone who identifies as Christian would believe in the Ten Commandments, for example. So when you engage in this person there is a starting point for values to build a society. Without a moral framework, every action or belief becomes an endless opportunity for virtue signaling and the creation of a hierarchy.
The Bible is vast, has terse or "poetic" language that is prone to misinterpretation, has many variants that rely on different translations or canonical versions, and has some big internal contradictions. Calling that a moral framework is lunacy, because anyone can cherry pick whatever they want because it's impossible to get a simple unified message out of it. Hence you have Catholics and Anabaptists, Mormons and Adventists, Christian Identity and zionist evangelicals, Westboro Baptist and faggot Unitarians, all calling themselves Christians.
virtue signaling is a substitute for ethical thought
I'm stealing this
(post is archived)