The Rational Stance On Gender

I have heard it said that, when someone changes his mind on an issue, he would correct an extreme stance with an extreme opposite stance and a moderate stance with a moderate opposite stance. That is not always the case.

Based on my experiences in the country of my birth – Russia – I once had an extreme view. I believed that women were better than men. My experiences in America cured me of that error. I did not correct my stance to that of Eminem. Instead I corrected it to a more rational stance – that anything capable of choice, male or female, is capable of both right choices and wrong choices. Neither gender is better or worse than the other. Both are capable of both.

There have been any number of people who called me a misogynist. I am nothing of the sort. Eminem is a misogynist, as was Osama Bin Laden. Yet I have been attacked more than was Eminem. That is because we have been dealing with different women. An ideology that favors one gender over the other will encourage all sorts of wrongful behavior on one side while oppressing the other side even in its capacity to produce good results. We see that both with men who think that women are evil and with women who think that men are evil.

When you have impossible standards, nobody will be able to meet them. This is why ancient Greeks became misogynistic. They were expecting from women impossible things. No human woman could live up to the standard that they were setting. As a result of this, the Greeks started to hate women as such and passed on that attitude to posterity.

In liberal cultures, men are held to an impossible standard, while women are not held to any standard at all. In Middle East, in the ghetto, and in many right-wing communities, it is the opposite. What we see in both cases is two complementary injustices. In one case, the world's worse women viciously abuse the world's better men. In the other case, the world's worse men viciously abuse the world's better women. Both of these justify their behavior by claiming the other gender to be evil. In fact it is they that are the wrongdoers in both cases.

If you really believe that women are evil, I see no reason why you should be with a woman at all. And if you believe that men are evil, I see no reason why you should either be with a man or have men in your life period. Instead what we see in both cases is a game. The person gets all sorts of good things from their partner or the people of the other gender with whom they interact. And instead of rewarding them accordingly to the benefit that they are getting from them, they instead act like jerks and justify their behavior by claiming the people that they are exploiting to be evil.

Neither side is anywhere close to being right. The rational stance is that anything human – male or female – is capable of choice. And anything capable of choice is capable of both right choice and wrong choice.

This is why it is wrong to take sides in the gender war. The gender war encourages everyone involved to be bastards. This creates a wrong set of incentives within society and makes the world ugly for everyone, both women and men. The gender war is not the solution. The gender war is the problem.

In both cases, the people who get the worst of it are the ones least responsible for either feminism or misogyny. The feminists take it out on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture, who are the least misogynistic among men. And the misogynists take it out on women in Middle East, the ghetto or the right-wing communities who have done the least to cause feminism and are, for the most part, much better people than they are themselves.

If I get called a misogynist – and Eminem is not called such a thing – something is very wrong with the world. What exactly is wrong with the world, in this case, is two complementary injustices. On one side, women who think that men are by nature destructive exploit and abuse men who have goodwill toward women. On the other side, men who think that women are evil exploit and abuse women who have goodwill toward men. In both cases bastardry gets encouraged and rewarded, and goodwill gets one abused. And that, once again, makes the world worse for everyone.

One possible solution to this situation is to encourage a greater cross-cultural flux for relationships. Allow men of goodwill to get together with women of goodwill and create good relationships and wholesome family life. And create a real-world incentive upon the offending gender in each situatio to change their ways, or else see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who are willing to treat them right.

The gender war is not the solution. The gender war is the problem. The solution is incentivizing goodwill. The solution is for men who are willing to be good to women to get together with women who are willing to be good to men. Solve two injustices at the same time. Create better relationships. Disempower two complementary sets of scoundrels.

Well don't you want a challenge? Don't you want someone who'll keep you on your toes? That is something that they tell girls in wife-beater cultures. Don't you want a challenge? Don't you want a real man? As they say in Australia, be mean keep them keen. I do not believe that that is the right way to treat someone you say you love. Home should be a place of peace, not a place of challenges. I want someone who will be good to me. I am willing to be good to her in return.

Neither men nor women are good or evil, and neither is better or worse than the other. Anything capable of choice is capable of both right choice and wrong choice. Gender war, on both sides, encourages everyone to make the worst choices that they can possibly make. The leaders on both sides do not see the results of this. All sorts of innocent people do.


The gender war being the problem, the solution is this: To encourage and incentivize goodwill. It is for men who are willing to treat women right to get together with women who are willing to treat men right. And this will do far more to solve gender-related problems than anything that either side seeks to do.

 

If you have the plumbing of a boy then you're a boy. Same as a girl.

 

What if you have both male and
female organs, what then ?
Men have nipples, why ?
Men produce Estrogen and Women produce Testosterone, why ?
There are many nuances that affect Gender and feelings and other stuff we may not quite understand.
Each person needs to do what is best for themselves and quit worrying about anyone else that you can't control anyway.

 

We then go by chromosomes.

 

So not plumbing?
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/swyer-syndrome

Your plumbing is that of a woman but your chromosomes are those of a male, you'd say that was male despite clearly being female?

 

First of all we're not going to define gender based on the rare cases like that. Secondly I still stand by my claim that if they have the chromosomes of a male or female then that's what they are.

 

If it needs to be defined it needs to be universal.

I personally don't see anything wing with going by what we have for thousands of years. We've always defined it by anatomy. I see no reason to change that.

- - - Updated - - -

I never mentioned transgender people.