Condition of women is a measure of morality

[Flora]

The way women is, her physical weakness in comparison to men; her psychology or the way she thinks and behave; her beauty because of which men want to control her, seems to me like as if God/nature created her this way among humans with intention to see how moral and intelligent a men in any particular society or community is. Even if we remove God/nature and "intention" from this, condition of women as a measure of morality seems perfect to me.

There are many qualities in women which seems to demand control of emotions and thoughts from men. Better the morality and intelligence in men, better will be conditions of women in a society, and vice versa.

So, is it right to say if the condition of women is bad in society, then the men in society are generally immoral and lack intelligence?

Morality-proper is not gender specific.
Morality is specific to all humans within the human species.

Yes, but women requires high degree of morality, as women is physically weak, but also beautiful, to provoke men in various ways.

Thus the better the moral competence and wisdom [not intelligence] in the average humans, the better will be the conditions for humans [men, obviously women, babies, children, etc].

No, I think you are taking things upside down.

I think, first women has to be treated equally, morally, respectfully, then you will bestowed with intelligence of different kinds. Intelligence will not come before women are treated properly or perfectly.

Misogynism - comprising a wide set of negative acts to women, albeit overlaps with morality, is not specifically, solely and directly a moral issue.

It may not be a moral issue, but I think it produce the same effects.

Morality in general is the management of Good over Evil [to be defined precisely].
With Hitler - an example of the worst evil and immorality - he was not negatively bias to women in the gas chambers.

I'm not talking about individual. I am sure my idea doesn't fit perfectly with an individual. A group, society, is a different thing than an individual. Individual may have different set of influence which may make him little different, or an exception. What I talking about is society, group.

I think Hitler have hate for Jews regardless of gender.

[Impenitent]

There are many qualities in women which seems to demand control of emotions and thoughts from men. Better the morality and intelligence in men, better will be conditions of women in a society, and vice versa.

So, is it right to say if the condition of women is bad in society, then the men in society are generally immoral and lack intelligence?

no, if the condition of women is bad in a society, the women's lack of power to "demand control of emotions and thoughts from men." is apparent...

-Imp

Morality is about doing things right voluntarily, deliberately, not by use force. Of course, women can demand control of emotions and thoughts from men peacefully, not by use of physical force. That is why condition of women is measure of morality, I think.

making a deliberate choice forces oneself to act accordingly: without said force, no action is taken

demanding control is never peaceful

-Imp

[Sculptor]

Well, I don't think personality of pets and animals force human to control them, beat them, subjugate them, sexually and emotionally torture, like that of women. Women have greater ability to test men's and society's morality and intelligence.

I am sorry, but are you comparing women with animals and pets?

But it is as true of them as anything else. All the things you list have been perpetrated on them. Actually those thing have also been perpetrated on men too. Also let us not forget the awful condition of children as little as 150 years ago in the UK as still in many places all over the world.
A culture that treats its dogs well most often has good regard for humans too.

Crimes or immorality is perpetrated against women socially, like an organized crime. Men are not subjected to any such thing, as far as I can think.

Then you are living in a dream world!!
Check your privilege!

So, cruelty against animals might influence an individual's mind and can tell us about his own set of morality and his mental setup, but it doesn't tell us about society.

I agree, that a culture that treats it's dogs might have good regards for human too.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The way women is, her physical weakness in comparison to men; her psychology or the way she thinks and behave; her beauty because of which men want to control her, seems to me like as if God/nature created her this way among humans with intention to see how moral and intelligent a men in any particular society or community is. Even if we remove God/nature and "intention" from this, condition of women as a measure of morality seems perfect to me.

There are many qualities in women which seems to demand control of emotions and thoughts from men. Better the morality and intelligence in men, better will be conditions of women in a society, and vice versa.

So, is it right to say if the condition of women is bad in society, then the men in society are generally immoral and lack intelligence?

Morality-proper is not gender specific.
Morality is specific to all humans within the human species.

Yes, but women requires high degree of morality, as women is physically weak, but also beautiful, to provoke men in various ways.

Thus the better the moral competence and wisdom [not intelligence] in the average humans, the better will be the conditions for humans [men, obviously women, babies, children, etc].

No, I think you are taking things upside down.

I think, first women has to be treated equally, morally, respectfully, then you will bestowed with intelligence of different kinds. Intelligence will not come before women are treated properly or perfectly.

I believe you meant wisdom, not intelligent [IQ].
IQ is not something that will change easily, thus treating women nicely will not increase the IQ, but more likely wisdom can increase.

Genetically and DNA wise, it is true women are evolved to be attractive to men so that men can pursue them for reproduction and in the pursuit could act foolishly and despicably.
I agree that is some elements of morality involved, but what is more critical is impulse control by the men.
When men has developed their impulse-control highly [especially sexual lust] then they are able to act wisely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse-control_disorder

Improvement to impulse control will increase efficiency in

Executive functions (collectively referred to as executive function and cognitive control) are a set of cognitive processes that are necessary for the cognitive control of behavior: selecting and successfully monitoring behaviors that facilitate the attainment of chosen goals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_functions

The sexual lust is activated at the lower brain while wisdom is activated in the later evolved higher brain [prefrontal cortex, etc.].
When the men' sexual lust is dominating it shut-off or mute the wisdom function.
Thus it is essential that men develop their impulse-control [especially sexual lust] so that they can act more wisely towards women which on the side will only free their intelligence as well.

[Flora]

I believe you meant wisdom, not intelligent [IQ].
IQ is not something that will change easily, thus treating women nicely will not increase the IQ, but more likely wisdom can increase.

Maybe I meant wisdom by intelligence. It is possible as I am not native English speaker.

Genetically and DNA wise, it is true women are evolved to be attractive to men so that men can pursue them for reproduction and in the pursuit could act foolishly and despicably.

Well, I don't think that women is evolved to be beautiful just for men to pursue them, because biologically male will always pursue female or vice versa. Little beauty can do that job. I hope you notice the stark difference human female have to human male.

I think women is evolved to be respected, protected, loved and treated equally by men. Human naturally have this type of attitude towards anything beautiful or attractive, whether living or non-living. Any discrepancies in providing this behavior (in general) results in loss of mindfulness or wisdom, which in turn create more immorality towards women. So, a society immoral towards women cannot progress. But society immoral towards animals but not women, can progress.

Immorality towards women has serious repercussions through nature.

I agree that is some elements of morality involved, but what is more critical is impulse control by the men.
When men has developed their impulse-control highly [especially sexual lust] then they are able to act wisely.

Yes, but impulse control should not be done through controlling women, or by denying rights. It should be done through teaching right morality, socially. If your morality is wrong and you cannot control your impulses in front of women, then the personality of women cannot be held responsible. Changing moral ideas to control the impulses should be the way.

The sexual lust is activated at the lower brain while wisdom is activated in the later evolved higher brain [prefrontal cortex, etc.].
When the men' sexual lust is dominating it shut-off or mute the wisdom function.
Thus it is essential that men develop their impulse-control [especially sexual lust] so that they can act more wisely towards women which on the side will only free their intelligence as well.

Yes. I am also interested in the relation between beauty or attractiveness with wisdom. I think it is because of ability to perceive beauty human is evolved to be consider the humane qualities like mercy, care, orderliness, honesty, reasonability, logic etc. As such, women is very important to develop these qualities, otherwise human is actually an animal and innate nature of human is cruel, messy, selfish, forceful, I think. I would like to know what you or science think of it.

The idea is very extensive, and probably I can't speak it here in philosophy forum. It is based on observations.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Genetically and DNA wise, it is true women are evolved to be attractive to men so that men can pursue them for reproduction and in the pursuit could act foolishly and despicably.

Well, I don't think that women is evolved to be beautiful just for men to pursue them, because biologically male will always pursue female or vice versa. Little beauty can do that job. I hope you notice the stark difference human female have to human male.

By 'attractive' I do not meant solely 'beautiful', note,

• https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/attractive
  -(of a person) appealing to look at; sexually alluring.
  -having qualities or features which arouse interest.

I think women is evolved to be respected, protected, loved and treated equally by men. Human naturally have this type of attitude towards anything beautiful or attractive, whether living or non-living. Any discrepancies in providing this behavior (in general) results in loss of mindfulness or wisdom, which in turn create more immorality towards women. So, a society immoral towards women cannot progress. But society immoral towards animals but not women, can progress.
Immorality towards women has serious repercussions through nature.

As I had stated, morality is never gender specific but applies to ALL humans.

"Respected, protected, loved" and the likes are not moral issues.
Equality is a moral issue, but it is applicable to ALL humans. As such women are not expected to be more equal than others.

Moral issue are those involving evil and in contrast to that good acts related to the human species and others where necessary. Examples are killings, enslave, basic human rights, rapes, violence, crimes, and the likes.

I agree that is some elements of morality involved, but what is more critical is impulse control by the men.
When men has developed their impulse-control highly [especially sexual lust] then they are able to act wisely.

Yes, but impulse control should not be done through controlling women, or by denying rights. It should be done through teaching right morality, socially. If your morality is wrong and you cannot control your impulses in front of women, then the personality of women cannot be held responsible. Changing moral ideas to control the impulses should be the way.

Impulse control is not about controlling women or others.
Impulse control is how well the person can control his own impulses, e.g. emotions, instincts and others.
It is how well a person can control his impulses that determine how 'moral' or 'immoral' the person is, i.e. his character.

The sexual lust is activated at the lower brain while wisdom is activated in the later evolved higher brain [prefrontal cortex, etc.].
When the men' sexual lust is dominating it shut-off or mute the wisdom function.
Thus it is essential that men develop their impulse-control [especially sexual lust] so that they can act more wisely towards women which on the side will only free their intelligence as well.

Yes. I am also interested in the relation between beauty or attractiveness with wisdom. I think it is because of ability to perceive beauty human is evolved to be consider the humane qualities like mercy, care, orderliness, honesty, reasonability, logic etc. As such, women is very important to develop these qualities, otherwise human is actually an animal and innate nature of human is cruel, messy, selfish, forceful, I think. I would like to know what you or science think of it.

The idea is very extensive, and probably I can't speak it here in philosophy forum. It is based on observations.

It is not only women but ALL people, male and female and mixed, who must develop their moral competence so that they can optimize their well-being and others.

[Flora]

As I had stated, morality is never gender specific but applies to ALL humans.

Of course, morality is not gender specific, but as you agreed before, overall morality comes with wisdom, otherwise human is an animal. Wisdom comes when women is respected and treated equally. That means overall morality in human grows through women. I think it might be clear now. It is a observable thing, if applied on society as whole.

Equality is a moral issue, but it is applicable to ALL humans. As such women are not expected to be more equal than others.

Yes, but sense of value for equality comes only after we value equality of women. Otherwise we will have no sense of equality as a society. That means, women first. That's what I am saying.

I am saying that without women human can't be moral. Human will always be like animals i.e. without Morality, orderliness, intelligence, wisdom. Better the morality with women, better will be everything else.

Moral issue are those involving evil and in contrast to that good acts related to the human species and others where necessary. Examples are killings, enslave, basic human rights, rapes, violence, crimes, and the likes.

Yes. And, respect for others, protection of others, love for others is required to overcome these evils. That means good is required to overcome evils. Isn't it correct?

Impulse control is not about controlling women or others.
Impulse control is how well the person can control his own impulses, e.g. emotions, instincts and others.
It is how well a person can control his impulses that determine how 'moral' or 'immoral' the person is, i.e. his character.

But some people do it or think that women have behave in certain way so that they should not be provoked.

Like what to wear, how to wear, when to speak, what to do etc. (I also agree with such type of argument beyond certain limits). Some people try controlling their impulses by dictating all such things to women, in backward societies.

I think I am probably having difficulty explaining my idea philosophically, because I am actually talking psychology which needs observations, research and the likes. I have seen many different cultures, society and progress and development of society seem like directly proportional Morality and equality of women. I am sorry if it doesn't look like a philosophical discussion to you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think I am probably having difficulty explaining my idea philosophically, because I am actually talking psychology which needs observations, research and the likes. I have seen many different cultures, society and progress and development of society seem like directly proportional Morality and equality of women. I am sorry if it doesn't look like a philosophical discussion to you.

You need to understand "correlation is not causation".
Just because you observed some relationship between the better treatment of women and some indication of morality [your own definition] in men, it does not mean that it is 'women' that is the cause of 'better morality' in men.

This point is critical for psychology as it is for any subject. You will fail in 'psychology' if you don't get it.

Here the point from a psychology article;

• "Correlation is not causation" means that just because two variables are related it does not necessarily mean that one causes the other.
  https://www.simplypsychology.org/correlation.html#

[Belinda]

I think I am probably having difficulty explaining my idea philosophically, because I am actually talking psychology which needs observations, research and the likes. I have seen many different cultures, society and progress and development of society seem like directly proportional Morality and equality of women. I am sorry if it doesn't look like a philosophical discussion to you.

You need to understand "correlation is not causation".
Just because you observed some relationship between the better treatment of women and some indication of morality [your own definition] in men, it does not mean that it is 'women' that is the cause of 'better morality' in men.

This point is critical for psychology as it is for any subject. You will fail in 'psychology' if you don't get it.

Here the point from a psychology article;

• "Correlation is not causation" means that just because two variables are related it does not necessarily mean that one causes the other.
  https://www.simplypsychology.org/correlation.html#

The academic discipline of psychology does affect how philosophers think. However "just because two variables are related it does not necessarily mean that one causes the other."(Veritas Aequitas) applies to all sciences and to philosophy and all inductive reasoning.

Exclusively 'or' ; 1. Random coincidence 2. Direct link in a causal chain or 3.variable linked by another cause such as we call a 'law of nature' or 'a law of science', or common circumstance such as Jean and John each wore their warm parka, not because one person influenced the other, but because it was cold weather.

As academic disciplines go psychological research depends a lot upon proper selection and interpretation of statistics.

I understand there is now a trend for psychological researchers to pay attention to subjects' impressions, however I'd be surprised if Flora's tutor did not consider objective information collecting to be the proper focus of the first year student.

[Sculptor]

Also pets and other animals

Well, I don't think personality of pets and animals force human to control them, beat them, subjugate them, sexually and emotionally torture, like that of women. Women have greater ability to test men's and society's morality and intelligence.

I am sorry, but are you comparing women with animals and pets?

Are you comparing women to idiots?
And men to monsters?

[Gary Childress]

So, is it right to say if the condition of women is bad in society, then the men in society are generally immoral and lack intelligence?

I don't know. I suppose that could be the case. Although, right now there are more homeless men than women. Does that mean that women are generally immoral and lack intelligence? I don't think I should think so.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily link morality with intelligence. If advancement in society were based on some kind of merit, then if men are doing better than women, it could maybe mean that more men possess more of the kind of intelligence that offers advancement. Of course, it would probably be an immoral society overall if the unintelligent were left with no means to sustain themselves at all.

Or it could be that most men are moral but that the nature of our institutions singles out a relatively few men who are immoral for advancement and thus it is only a small group of men at the top who are running the show who are immoral. In that case, it might be our institutions that are immoral and not people in general.

[Luxin]

deleted 430

[Belinda]

There are many qualities in women which seems to demand control of emotions and thoughts from men. Better the morality and intelligence in men, better will be conditions of women in a society, and vice versa.

So, is it right to say if the condition of women is bad in society, then the men in society are generally immoral and lack intelligence?

no, if the condition of women is bad in a society, the women's lack of power to "demand control of emotions and thoughts from men." is apparent...

-Imp

Morality is about doing things right voluntarily, deliberately, not by use force. Of course, women can demand control of emotions and thoughts from men peacefully, not by use of physical force. That is why condition of women is measure of morality, I think.

If by "control" you mean withhold sexual favours, then no. Men rape women.

It's a good topic. I guess the social inferiority of women happened historically and has been perpetuated by religions the myths of which show women as men's social inferiors.

There was a time and places where people did not own anything but found and hunted for their food and shelter, so there was no need to defend a family or a tribe against colonists or other raiders. As soon as grain was deliberately planted and tended that property was a valuable commodity and had to be protected against human predators. Since women were nearly always either pregnant or lactating the work of defending the property fell to the strongest men. Women were regarded as property to be guarded against predators, as family or tribal fertility was paramount to survival. Naturally, religious myths perpetuated the superior strength of males as custom and moral system.

Dynasties of fighting men became the ancestral aristocrats of the present time. This was because a fighting man needed the best food and equipment the tribe or family could provide and so that class of man came to be looked up to as better than other men and especially better than women.

When women can control their own sexual activity especially conception and child bearing they are potentially free from the male yoke of servitude. Typically , religions seek to perpetuate the superiority of the male sex, and as religions are historically the chief bearers of moral codes, and religious myths are still adhered to, the inferiority of women has lagged behind the science that has helped to equalise women.