Burning Giraffe

Ethics, for much of the history of the civilized world, has been derived from morality. Morality has been primarily derived from Rationalist metaphysics; in other words, from reason to absolute, universal principles that categorize and define "the good". In almost every instance I am acquainted with, morality has evolved in opposition to Honor, which promotes qualities and virtues that strengthen and promote the individual and community, instead of promoting an ideology.

It is in this context that I have come to consider the dying images of manliness and femininity. Historically, both men and women have honored men who honored themselves (meaning, lived an honorable life) with virtues such as courage, assertiveness, self-discipline, industriousness, self-reliance, honesty, and perseverance. Men honored women for qualities of chastity, temperance, charity, kindness, gentleness, patience, and modesty. These virtues, which historically have pertained to honor codes, that defined manliness and femininity no longer seem to apply. Men are more valued now for their ability to cooperate with each other, for acquiring popularity (likability in context of fitting in with current fads), for their social status (irregardless of their means of acquiring it), and for their financial success (which, insofar as it provides security is indeed something to be honored).

Women today seem to have no virtue expected of them at all socially, but are expected to demonstrate certain qualities in the business world. They are valued for their appearance and for their gaiety, and in many ways are honored for demonstrating historically male qualities which often times put them in direct competition with men (to see an adequate representation of the problems this can cause, watch Adam's Rib with Spencer Tracey and Katherine Hepburn). Men and women competing with one another for the same place of honor has no doubt stressed many a marriage.

Now, I have no problem with the Dagny Taggerts of the world, for even the Randian ideal of the Feminine still advocated the honoring of men who honor themselves. But, in general, it seems like honor and virtue have both disappeared from our civilized society. Morality, while sounding profound when coming down from the pulpits, has failed to build and strengthen society. Manliness and Femininity are disappearing as quickly as honor and virtue are disappearing and I am wondering if I will ever see this pendulum swing back.

Political & Religious Forums Review
National Polemic

Advertising

savannah

i fear it wont swing back, not on a large scale anyway,.....
i see the same things you are seeing, i dont like them,......

children mimic their parents, they fall into those same roles,.....had my mother not been so 'traditional' i doubt i would be as traditional as i am

-former beauty queen,......



my votes for the hero and the hottie,.....

william the wierd

Women are reproducing according to how well they adhere to the old system. Evolution in action is not instantaneous but if you have ever accidentally clicked while scrolling you've seen those barely legal teenagers with absurd upper age limits on their desired husband. If you watch the news you get to see fundamentalists producing litters thus seeing another brake on the loss of femininity. As to the loss of masculinity, not my problem: Mongo straight. Bringing back open carry might be useful if I understand your point but 48 oz. framing hatchets are open carry now.

Socio-biology and selection is a fact of life and death not a political option

Politics is a continuation of war by other means

Calling congress a parliament of whores insults the morals and principle of crack whores

Burning Giraffe

I think women generally get screwed when it comes to the current redefinition of gender roles. They have been led to believe that their political equality to men means that they now have to act like men. Women also have to deal with insecure men who fear women entering the business world, as if losing a job to a woman is more of a blow to their ego than losing a job to another man. But no "real man" would feel this way.

Employment should go to the individual who is most capable and if a more capable woman gets a job over a less capable man, and that man should simply work harder, get better at his job, and compete as directly and purposefully against that woman as he would another man.

Then, when men and women get home, they still associate household responsibilities with gender roles. As if there is something particularly feminine about doing dishes and something specifically masculine about lazily sitting on the couch watching the game. When a married couple decide that they are both going to work full time, then they need to share responsibility around the house. And if that doesn't suit them, then they need make some economic sacrifices to live the way they want.

Men and women should all have the same virtues, but by prioritizing our virtues to suit our specific responsibilities in our relationships, we become more than just two individuals. We become a family.

Political & Religious Forums Review
National Polemic

Desidude666

Honour has *nothing* to do with morality. Because, for instance, honour killing isn't considered moral. Satism isn't moral for Indians, Seppuku isn't moral, though it has been once considered 'honorable' but these were individual eventualities, not massive social endeavours. Morality is not co-related to honor, it never was. Rather, morality reflected social trends and acceptance of concepts dominant in the masses. The moral zeitgeist is always decided on the basis of the 'good' of the many. That said, it evolves based on what is considered 'good' by the majority.

Virtues are desired *personal* qualities *not* morality requirements. Honesty is a virtue, we all know that everyone today has lied one way or the other. But still, despite knowing this fact, we converse, relate and mingle with each other. Even conduct business ventures. To lie, isn't a problem, but to lie that may affect another adversely or a majority of people is a moral issue. Hence, what you're doing is merging individual models with societal norms, which I think is pretty wrong.

They still exist. Although, personally, I find the feminine side very hypocritical on the basis of equality since the toils of labour seems to be very unevenly divided, but the rewards seem to be equal. Not undermining ladies, but until all aspects of the male dominion is equally matched, equality will never exist. On the basis of equality, one needs to match a considerable number of avenues, so if you are unable to match any of them, demanding equality seems a little off the mark. Not that there is anything wrong with equality, I, after analysing legality and other forms of conduct of affairs can easily prove how women are given an upper hand in today's society. It's better off being a woman than a man in a modern society due to massive empowerment.

Like the animal kingdom, there are biological functions that women have and a good number of them prefer to retain their function. While the era of distinct roles is gone, one can easily point out to the fact that trends of women's roles in society are chosen by women themselves. A barbie can be displayed on the store, but whoever forces the girls to buy one? My point is that it's a trend that's chosen by the race and not imposed. Even if they do break their systems of stereotype practices, women will ultimately be facing the various prejudices by their very own.

Any revolution to true equality needs to be internal, and I am not surprised if stereotypes may still exist.

Expectations are first formed by desired projection of image and understanding. If women want to look 'good' with fake makeovers, they would be expected to retain that image. If women do not use cosmetics, the expectations will not be there. Virtue is also an expectation, but it is at a personal level. The problem here is that you tend to converge moral principles with personal choices and qualities. I think anything 'moral' is more external than what you've portrayed. The law is my evidence for that.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

caffeine

B_G's vision of a 'real man' always makes me think of this.

res

I'd say that we're not seeing anything new other than way too much sex on tv. The amount of sex you see on tv is what makes you believe you're seeing moral values and one's honor being thrown out of the window.

There are people who believe what they see on tv to represent their moral standards and that our taste for trivial has been pushed beyond all limits of acceptance, yet what most people forget is that humans have always behaved in such ways.

In prehistoric period it was the rule of matriachat (women were in charge, and I don't know the english term). At those times human way of reproducing was group sex. Two tribes would exchange their young males and females and everybody would fuck everybody. Needless to say Those tribes never repeated this again but went on (when the time is right) looking for other tribes in order to avoid incest.

Then came the ancient times where women were high priestesses for a brief period. The one I remember the best is the high priestess of the Jews. She lived in the holy temple and was there so that young men could have sex with her. The old Jews believed that sex with a woman, and the orgasm that is to follow, brings unity and brings one closer to God. They believed sex was an experience of God.

Romans, Greeks, Gauls, Persians, and many others held similar beliefs.

It is believed that middle ages brought this christian dogma that stigmatized such behavior but that isn't true. People went on behaving the same.

At the end of 15th century there was a pope Alexander VI. I think his name before becoming the pope was Roderigo Borgia. His son was the infamous Cezare Borgia and his daughter Lucretia.
What that guy did before and after he became pope would make Britney Spears look like faithful woman. And that is the way most popes before and after him behaved. If the popes behaved in such a manner how do you think the greater population was behaving.

Then came the reaction. Martin Luther and Jean Kalvin who believed that humans should behave like saints. That was the reformed catholicism that went to America with the pilgrims. They were expelled from Europe, maybe that is why you feel there is not a connection between America now and America then.

To me the only difference is that humans responded more violently back then while today they tend to respond with something they like to call "reason". Their reason of course is questionable. Most believe they'll live to fight another day, like Bond, James fucking 007 Bond, which is not how life goes. You fight here and now, not pretend that you shall overcome, becoming a spectator in your own existence.

Fear is not the natural state of civilized people.

- Aung San Suu Kyii

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.

- Thomas Jefferson

william the wierd

Me I could give a rat's ass but herpes, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS and other little gifts are selecting out the hounds and bitches on this side of the Atlantic and less than replacement reproduction rates is doing the same on the other side. Evolution in action.

Socio-biology and selection is a fact of life and death not a political option

Politics is a continuation of war by other means

Calling congress a parliament of whores insults the morals and principle of crack whores

caffeine

This seems unlikely - and I don't see how you could have any serious evidence of it. This is how bonobos behave, but chimpanzees are very male-dominant. Prehistoric statues with big hips hardly establishes a matriarchal society; and anthropological indexes would suggest that they are actually very rare.

william the wierd

Extremely violent populations did become matrilineal and matrilocal but not matriarchal such as the Apache/Navajo, Iroquois, Indo-Europeans (according to linguistic evidence) and many African tribes passed through this phase. But female governance, actual matriarchy, is as you say quite rare. Violent matrilocal, matrilineal societies as in many ghettos are common but street gangs are very rarely led by women, it does happen sometimes but so do straight flushes, holes in one and one ace grand slams.

Socio-biology and selection is a fact of life and death not a political option

Politics is a continuation of war by other means

Calling congress a parliament of whores insults the morals and principle of crack whores