|
Post by millis on Mar 3, 2009 0:06:26 GMT -7
Just as a query, mind you. Im doing my coursework on it and finding the results, compared to researchers before me, intriguing at least.
|
|
|
Post by Pem on Mar 3, 2009 8:45:39 GMT -7
As an evolutionist I know that at the very least men and women have different values due to different selection pressures each sex has had to endure. Men as society has stereotyped them are they providers of protein and thus meat. They had to be strong and be willing to work as a team, any man who didn't act as part of the team was punished but was likely allowed to stay as they were needed. Women being the primary care-givers also acted as a group and passed on traditions and lessons from generation to generation. Women are more likely to follow traditions for the sake of the social status quo, women have a lot more to lose than a man if she is ostracized.
The reason for both of these statements is the cost of reproduction, in a Man it is low and nearly unlimited, as long as he is alive and mature he can go around and get women pregnant. Where as the cost of reproduction for a women is very high. Fertile times of the month, 9 month gestations period, and than an unset amount of time nursing. A women had to spend a great amount of time, during those initial times, caring for the developing child and not herself. Thus a greater reliance on friends and family would have been selected for. A man can much more easily pull the lone wolf personality than can a woman.
To me this can affect the concept of morals, women's morals are more tied to their sense of relations with friends and families whereas Men's are more tied to their sense of reproducing and thus are less reliant on the family/friend social ties.
This may seem a little warped in logic but as mammals we are an exception of living together in such large populations. Most mammals have groups of females and males usually end up leaving the group they started in to another group to breed.
So I would say they are similar as cross gender relations obviously occur, but they aren't exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by millis on Mar 3, 2009 12:52:10 GMT -7
what you described there would be a very good biological reason for moral differences, but there are many other explanations as well, though most come from developmental psychology and there were major issues with a couple or the researchers...that's one of the reasons i chose this over other options for coursework inconclusiveness is fun to play with... Lets bring the focus for a second on just society, as it is, ignoring the old biological habits rooted in our heads. Kind of a cognitive (thinkiness) , social learning (learn from those around you) theory and psychodynamic (everything depends on your state of mind) ideas as a mesh, as they combine well in this setting. All require cognitive aspects, and social learning incorporates the environment. So, with this as our focus, do you think you could describe the differences you might observe in morals of modern people? =3 and give a reason for them? I would be intrigued to hear your views
|
|
Light
Inquisitor
Posts: 59
|
Post by Light on Mar 3, 2009 15:52:46 GMT -7
Hmm...the overall instincts that Pem's talking about were sorta pressed in by society back when women didn't have equal rights. If people tell you you're not as good as the others, but you still have obligations to fulfill, you'll be more likely to tread lightly. If people tell you you're better than others, you'll probably take more risks. With the women's rights movement, women started taking up many duties that had once been men's, and with that I think they might've developed a sort of pride that wasn't there before that may replace some morals. I also think having lost their monopoly on many things, the men might've lost some of that pride and regained some morals. I'm kinda sleep deprived at the moment, so I know I didn't word all that right to say what I was thinking, but that seems close enough for the moment. All in all, I think the current morals average out to be the same.
|
|
|
Post by electroshock on Mar 3, 2009 16:49:45 GMT -7
Direct response to the question:
There is a small difference. As Pem said, it has been embedded into our natural brain patterns. This has carried through to today. But, in modern times, where the line between the roles of men and women are being further blurred, it has lessened. Men are no longer needed to be the supporters of families. Women are no longer needed to stay behind and care for children (you can get outside help to do that now).
|
|
|
Post by millis on Mar 4, 2009 0:24:04 GMT -7
Cool, all very valid opinions, thanks for posting them. Gunna throw a few actual results into the mix now The once was a guy called Kohlberg, and he seemed pretty interested in how all this stuff worked, looked at how developing them ties in with child development in general, as well as thoughts and morals in later life. He was one flaw. He was very sexist. Though it was normal for his time He found that, by posing a dilemma (like the one I posed to you ages ago, Pemmep, if you remember) in which the morals of the person in question were challenged, men and women had a general pattern. Men were more concerned about the 'proper' way to conduct themselves, to be seen correctly in society and not break laws. Females were more worried about the emotional side of the problem, willing to break the rules in order to remove the suffering of another. Men were justice orientated, females were care orientated. Now, this could have been swayed by his andocentric views. He considered females impossible of reaching abstract thought for a start, and his research was generally self reported and could have been biased. Bit whats interesting here is going back to Pem's biological sense. Females conform because they have more to lose, men are more likely to strike out. Seems kind of like a reversal here, doesnt it? Here the men are falling into line with the justice system and women are risking their place to make sure another is ok. This could be linked with the idea they are the child carers in old society, and have yet to lose these traits, but thrers more from there. Gilligan, a slightly later and feminist psychologist, found that although most men follow the justice system and females fall into the emotional category, there is overlap, some men inevitably end up in the other category, and women do the same. Although this sounds more feasible than every woman is care sided, its still got flaws, and she is well known for with holding some of her evidence, making her results very unreliable. Modern studies, though I cant site any, have found no real difference in the justice or care orientations of women and men. Do ou think this is a change in society roles, or an error because the main pioneers in the ideas seemed bent of getting results that reflected their times or their attitudes?
|
|
|
Post by Pem on Mar 4, 2009 11:23:56 GMT -7
Millis when I said that women conform I ment within their own society, the unwritten rules. Men create rules to assume order, thus the written rules, if you follow.
|
|
|
Post by millis on Mar 4, 2009 12:08:14 GMT -7
Ah, getcha now =3 sorry, replied this morning, apparently the coffee hadn't kicked in yet...
|
|
Light
Inquisitor
Posts: 59
|
Post by Light on Mar 4, 2009 15:31:10 GMT -7
Well...more than just justice versus care, studies, which I cannot cite, have shown that male minds tend to be more logic-oriented and female minds tend to be more emotion-oriented. As you say, men might fall in line, because it's the logical thing to do if they want others to cooperate, or go wild as Pem says, because, logically, what do they have to lose? A woman is, by this logic, more likely to break rules to help a friend, because they have that emotionally caring mind, and because, like Pemmy said, they're more rooted to friends and family. I think the views you mentioned may be slightly influenced by the sexist blah blah blah of the time, but I still think it's mainly the change in society and how the two sexes were treated. As they became seen more as equal, they started to act more equal.
|
|
|
Post by millis on Mar 4, 2009 15:37:48 GMT -7
Ah, what you're describing there is not morality, but classed as a form of intelligence often due to the difference in 'wiring' in the brains of the different sexes. That could be linked to how they see moral issues, and I admit i would be intrigued to study if there was a significant link between how the sexes score on the different kinds of intelligences and then to see if it effects their moral outlook. As for the society thing, I'm intrigued by the results I'm finding from my study for my coursework. I expected either similar results to Gilligan, more females in care and more males in justice, or a reasonably even spread. Instead, I've found the opposite of Gilligan. More males fall into the care said, and more females into the justice side. Very few are in Gilligan's 'correct' boxes.
|
|
Light
Inquisitor
Posts: 59
|
Post by Light on Mar 4, 2009 15:52:51 GMT -7
Well, the very concept of morality is basically a thought process, so the form of intelligence the subject has probably has something to do with it. ;P How are we defining morality, anyway? Is it better, morally, to go with justice or to break the rules in favor of helping someone?
|
|
|
Post by millis on Mar 4, 2009 15:53:48 GMT -7
Thats the dilemma these people had to decide for themselves, Light, I cant define it its an inbuilt thing, a way of thinking
|
|
Light
Inquisitor
Posts: 59
|
Post by Light on Mar 4, 2009 16:04:32 GMT -7
Well, maybe we should take a poll on that... XD
|
|
|
Post by millis on Mar 4, 2009 16:06:27 GMT -7
Its basically my psychology dilemma in a more direct way could cause some bias in the way its constructed too... *shot*
|
|
Light
Inquisitor
Posts: 59
|
Post by Light on Mar 4, 2009 16:14:57 GMT -7
Nothing wrong with being direct. And yours contemplates what might effect the view of morality, I just want to know the people's views. Might even add to your dilemma if people elaborate. ;P
|
|