Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 706
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Differences yes, but not necessarily "stronger than" or "more rational than." For the genders it would be "the x gender" versus "the y gender", not "the more x gender" and the "less x gender."

I am looking for something a little more abstract. So , not nouns. Dark and light, fat and thin, stupid and smart....that sort of thing. How could you define these concepts without refering to the other item in the catagory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I thought of this example in the car just now. Take the colors blue and red. They are different, and if there were only one color, there would be no need for the concepts color, red, or blue. But the essence of blue is not "cooler than red." Nor is red "warmer than blue." One reason this is not so is because "warmer than blue" includes certain shades of green, yellow, and orange, all of which are not "red."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I thought of this example in the car just now. Take the colors blue and red. They are different, and if there were only one color, there would be no need for the concepts color, red, or blue. But the essence of blue is not "cooler than red." Nor is red "warmer than blue." One reason this is not so is because "warmer than blue" includes certain shades of green, yellow, and orange, all of which are not "red."

First, you really shouldn't type while driving...it's not safe :P

Second, I am not certain if that is a good camparative example, since yellow(the culprit responsible for green and orange is properly part of(and really integral to) the concpet primary colors.) But if we consider your example, how would you then define red and blue?

edit:accidentally double posted

Edited by aequalsa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red and blue are perceptually self-evident.

Your approach of defining something only referent to itself, only works on things which are perceptually self-evident. Simple nouns, axioms, etc. I can't point to masculinity. It is a more complex subject that I beleive must be understood inductively by reference to a number of relevent existents. You can't point to it and you can't wind down decuctively from "existence exists, therefore..." to define it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does not mean that you can define those things by pointing out what it is not.

If I say bob is skinny I say "as compared to the average person" or "as compared to jim, who is fat". An ectomorph has smaller then average bone structure, a mesomorph has an average bonestructure, and a endo morph has a larger then average bone structure. Because this description refers to an imprecise average, it does not change the fact that people with these ranges of body types exist and must act differently with regard to weight control or excercise and should have different expectations. It is an inductively arrived at concept by being familiar with what people look like physiologically.

A feminine person would have more feminine traits then average and vice versa. These traits, masculine and feminine, which are associated, largely with biology but also with environment, have different meanings and requirements, depending on the particular trait and to what extent it exists in them. They are properly viewed together. I couldn't say that there are ectomorphs and mesomorphs, but no endomorphs. The existent of the first two concepts automatically connects you to the other end of the spectrum. And for the same reason, I can't explain one end of the masculine feminine chart without explaining the masculine range also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I have to point out the circularity here? How does one arrive at the concept "feminine traits?"

There is no circularity unless you look at it from a rationalistic point of view. It is an inductively arrived at concept. You see it by looking at the world an integrating those facts you observe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way to arrive at an understanding of concepts at a higher level than the perceptually self evident is by connecting those higher level concepts back down to the perceptual, not by contrasting it with other high level concepts, hence the circularity. You claim to be inducting, but you're really the one being rationalistic, because you're taking "feminine traits" as a given and accepting their meaning as a self evidency without connecting it to reality, without connecting it to the things which those things ARE. So the question is "WHICH FACTS??????" and by facts I mean which existents, not which non-existents, or opposite of other existents. She me the blue, not the non-red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way to arrive at an understanding of concepts at a higher level than the perceptually self evident is by connecting those higher level concepts back down to the perceptual, not by contrasting it with other high level concepts, hence the circularity. You claim to be inducting, but you're really the one being rationalistic, because you're taking "feminine traits" as a given and accepting their meaning as a self evidency without connecting it to reality, without connecting it to the things which those things ARE. So the question is "WHICH FACTS??????" and by facts I mean which existents, not which non-existents, or opposite of other existents. She me the blue, not the non-red.

I laid out half a dozen of then then several pages of posts ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, well, another imbroglio!

aequalsa, what you're saying comes across to me like this:

  1. Most women are (for the sake of argument) more graceful than the average man.

  2. Women that are naturally graceful ought to "act according to their nature" and remain more graceful than the average man

  3. Women who are
    not
    naturally more graceful than the average man ought to "act according to their nature"... by acting
    against
    their nature and becoming more graceful than the average man

Is this correct??

Edited by hunterrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, well, another imbroglio!

aequalsa, what you're saying comes across to me like this:

  1. Most women are (for the sake of argument) more graceful than the average man.

  2. Women that are naturally graceful ought to "act according to their nature" and remain more graceful than the average man

  3. Women who are
    not
    naturally more graceful than the average man ought to "act according to their nature"... by acting
    against
    their nature and becoming more graceful than the average man

Is this correct??

Yes, mostly. Although, action and effort can certainly alter many of these abilities to different extents. The acceptence of the reality of it, is more in the context of capacities. A woman interested in weightlifting ought not be frustrated when she is unable to compete with male body builders. When a woman asks, "Don't you smell? What's wrong with your nose." The man can say, "Nothing, it's a male nose." Understanding of these differences, especially with regard to gender related communication styles, is certainly very helpful in relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when defining the genders, you must say for instance that masculinity is the "gender symbolizing strength" not "the non-weak gender", because the latter could include various instances of androgeny. This is problem with defining femininity by way of it not being masculine or by not being strong. Its too vague. Of course femininity does not symbolize strength, but we don't go around defining things by means of what they don't symbolize, or by what they aren't.

For the ninth time, that is a straw man. Nobody has proposed defining a gender exclusively by what the other one is "not."

Let's try this once more.

You seem to acknowledge that males are, generally speaking, stronger than females. If you want to get really precise about it, you can say that men have more testosterone, and so for two people of an identical size and body type, the male will have more ability to put on muscle than the female, assuming that he does not have a genetic abnormality. (and, of course, abnormalities don't enter into our discussion, since we are talking about what is normal)

So what I am saying is that, since we have already put "strength" into the masculine category, it is then impossible for it to be included in the feminine category.

Your idea, that because we can do this, we are somehow attempting to define something by what it "is not," is silly. The above method does no such thing. When you decide that males have more of a given trait, then you are simultaneously declaring that females have less of it. And vice versa. Each differentiation that you make will define what one gender is, and therefore logically what the other is not.

Differentiations of this kind must be relational to the other gender, because that is the entire purpose of the exercise.

This is why your objection is so confusing to me. You seem to think that somehow I am trying to define femininity by what masculinity "is not." That's silly and I've never said that. I've said that every "is" you find, necessarily implies an "is not" in the other. That each identification of difference implies both, simultaneously.

To find any differentiation between the two, you MUST be looking at both male and female. You can't do a damn thing to distinguish the two by looking only at the male, which is what you ask for. You can't be like Plato and find his intrinsic "maleness," with no reference to the female. The only proper method is to take each attribute, look at both the male and female, and decide whether the male has more of it than the female, vice versa, or if they are about the same.

Now, as JMegan points out, there is still some confusion over what this generalized differentiation means to individuals. And I can answer that question. But this discussion gets off track so easily, that I am loathe to get ahead of myself.

Before we can even go there, we have to agree on the above.

The genders ARE different, but its not the RELATIONAL differences which are essential.
What on earth, then, is essential?

So its not the fact, yes the FACT, that men are more often than not stronger than females that makes them masculine, as a male who is relatively weak is still masculine.

He could be masculine, but only because masculinity is more than just physical strength. It is also possible that he does not have enough other masculine traits to make up for his lack of strength, and so he might not be masculine.

That is, unless it is your position that the ONLY thing required to be masculine is a Y chromosone. But if so, then what the hell is the difference between the word "masculine" and the word "male?"

I think your main problem is that you have attempted to find a definition of masculine/feminine and have hit a few roadblocks (such as how to explain a physically weak man that is masculine). For each roadblock you have decided that since it is possible for a man lacking an abundance of X can still be masculine, that this means therefore that X can't be a part of masculinity whatsoever. This is faulty logic. Masculinity can include X without being exclusively defined by X.

Now, that said, an invalid with chicken-boned arms would have a damn tough time being masculine. He'd have to be one manly sonofabitch in other ways. Don't you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..."Women should be dainty." "Men should be strong." Well I'm not dainty by sheer genetics (I'm BIG, bigger than most men) but I'm damn well a woman and anyone that wants to tell me otherwise had better be prepared to observe said lack of daintiness in action.

Jennifer, I will get to your question as soon as we have some peace on our methods. But, honestly, that's not a very feminine answer. Your ability to beat the crap out of someone does not serve as a good proof of your femininity. The point that is essential is that, while you lack the feminine trait of daintyness, you have plenty of other nice, feminine, traits with which to rock a man's world. (ever hear AC/DC's "whole lotta rosie?")

The question isn't, "are you dainty?" The question is, "are you as dainty as you can be?" (yes, I know, you're working on it) Or, alternatively, what other feminine traits do you have, and are you doing your best to emphasize them? And, of course, there is also the possibility of a man out there who is so huge that you will be dainty compared to him. There are a lot of ways to answer your dilemma.

The fact that I have skinny bones and am entirely comfortable with both my definition of manhood, and my manhood, should serve as sufficient proof that my position doesn't necessitate unnecessary condemnations of anyone.

Okay, I sort of answered your question there. Of course, the above does rely on my definition methods, so if everyone could please do not address it unless you agree with my methods. If you disagree with my methods, let's argue that first.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question isn't, "are you dainty?" The question is, "are you as dainty as you can be?"

...and, of course, the more primary question is: "What place does femininity have in your life? Would it be sacrificing a greater value to try for it?"

The genders ARE different, but its not the RELATIONAL differences which are essential.

Also, what the smurf is a non-relational difference? There is no such thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I propose some sort of moratorium on gender topics for some specific amount of time, kinda like what happened on HBL a while back but with politics.

I don't feel it was a waste of my time, nor am I angry with any of my opponents. In this last thread, I think we certainly got closer to understanding the base of our differences of oppinion even if agreement was not reached. It was a bit painful, no doubt about it, but not without value for me.

In general, I think of this message board as a sort of "tumbler" for ideas. Things I take for granted, other people don't. Things I don't know other people do. It allows me to see ideas from angles that had not occured to me before. It grinds down the rough edges of my thoughts and forces me to become more familiar with the idea at hand, at the least, and on occasion, even changes my stubborn little mind. I very much appreciate that aspect of it despite the discomfort. After all, tumblers must be a little abbrasive to be effective and I try to keep that in mind when participating in a thread.

If I wanted to get along pleasantly with most everyone here, I would bring up such interesting topics as "existence exists, who disagrees?" or "Ought one to act in his own best intersts?" The thread might not be very long and would in all probability be an actual waste of time for me.

You've probably noticed how when a non-objectivist posts something of that sort in the negative, it's dismantled in less then a page, then continues on for a page or two of laughing about it. A minor ssource of entertainment, maybe, but not something we haven't seen a 1000 times before.

Mod's can do whatever they want, of course, but mfor my part, until I start receiving arguments that are letter drawings of a middle finger, I am fine with the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my experience on this forum that when Objectivists vehemently disagree, the issue is Epistemology. This thread is no different. The fact that one side of the argument insists on claiming to be correct about masculinity and femininity when they cannot supply a simple objective definition of the terms is enough to establish that the problem is epistemological. In the previous heated debate on "indecency", though the root cause was the same, there was not so glaring a symptom as this:

Well, yes they could integrate it by knowing it subconsciously.

My emphasis.

As IAmMetaphysical noticed, it is pointless to discuss application when the method itself is not agreed uppon. Until some rational definition of "masculine" and "feminine" is submitted, arguing here is a waste of time. I'll bow out of the discussion for now, leaving a small parable:

THE HUNTERS

Nescius and Sapius are big game hunters, knowlegeable about elephants among other species. They are having a heated debate, while spotting game deep in Arfica.

NESCIUS: Are african elephants not larger than asian elephants Sapius?

SAPIUS: Certainly the typical adult african elephant is quite larger than most asian elephants.

NESCIUS: Are their tusks not longer?

SAPIUS: Yes, most asian elephants are short tusked and the females barely have tusks at all!

NESCIUS: Then you must stop arguing with me!!

Sapius looks at the herd of oddly small elephants watering at the pool nearby. Not as large as the usual african elephant, not as small as the asian.

NESCIUS: Size and tusk length are the essence of africanness, asianness is african-worship since those poor asian elephants cannot hope to symbolize the noble nature of the elephant as their majestic african counterparts do.

SAPIUS: My dear Nescius, african elephants are from africa, asian elephants are from asia that is what sets them appart. Their secondary traits are not essential nor necessarily correlated to their primary distinction.

NESCIUS: Are all elephants the same to you then? Are you saying that there is no difference whatsoever between them? That is crazy!

SAPIUS: Oh they are certainly different and certain traits are strongly correlated to their origin.

NESCIUS: So you agree with my definition of africanness and asiannes!

SAPIUS: By no means. I find your definitions absurd. By your logic one could say male elephants in India are more african than the females!!

NESCIUS: They certainly exhibit more africanness...

Exasperated, Sapius checks his weapon and moves into a better position.

SAPIUS: Lets just hunt these elephants and be done with it.

NESCIUS: Yes, these elephants are most interesting! Not as large as the usual african elephant, not as small as the asian! I bet they are Middle Eastern!!

SAPIUS: This is a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

until I start receiving arguments that are letter drawings of a middle finger, I am fine with the discussion.

I think you spoke too soon. Check out the post below yours.

Also, note that once again it insists that no definition was given. Can't that qualify as a lie at this point, since I've stated one several times now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you spoke too soon. Check out the post below yours.

Also, note that once again it insists that no definition was given. Can't that qualify as a lie at this point, since I've stated one several times now?

Well...I meant that I am fine with the discussion being continued. Not necessarily that I would respond to everything again. I am at a stopping point myself until I have some new insight, or get a better idea of what kind of definition it is they want. I would be very interested in having someone besides us take a crack at defining the terms. That, for example, would rekindle interst in a continued dialogue for me. So I do not advocate shutting down the thread. Wouldn't want to silence anyone else with something to contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...