Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

[Greatest I am]

Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

Seeking and demanding sanctity is one of the main five best rules of morality. Those rules shown below closely resemble most religious rules. For humankind to give an idea sanctity they must give sacrifice to it. The sacrifice that we must all do is deny women equality and give men a lower position in rulership. Men must bend the knee to women and elevate them to our ultimate sovereign. Those women and men who do not demand this are not in the best moral state of mind and should try to move to it.

We are all natural animals and follow the hierarchical rules of those species which have Alpha males. The main survival strategy of such a species is that the Alpha males will fight to the death to insure that the Beta females live.

Females, as the incubators of life and the most important within that species, must have the highest protection to insure that they will survive to continue the life of that species. Men, being the most physically powerful and having a more natural tendency to rule, must take a leadership role to insure this continuity. The Alpha of any species fights to insure that the Beta always has the highest position. The Kings and all other men IOW, must rule as the power behind the throne but the Queen is the one who must always sit on that throne and rule over the King.

The research done by Mr. Haigt shows that the right wings of religions and politics show more concern with tribalism than do the left wings. It appears then that if we are to move to the most advantageous moral position then it is to the right wings to promote it. As an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian, I am the left of center and not in the best camp to sell the view that women should rule even as I recognize that they should. The right has been given a wakeup call thanks to president Obama being re-elected. FMPOV then, the right needs a new platform if they are to survive, as they should to balance the political spectrum.

Generally speaking only; women are the weaker of the sexes and are better places to know what the requirements of survival are and should thus rule. Women should then demand the full protection and sacrifice of the Alphas males as that is the natural order of hierarchical species and must be to insure survival. This sacrifice gives sanctity to our species and insures it’s longevity. The religious and political right seem better suited to lead towards this end.

In my opinion, men and women who do not agree with this premise are not taking the best moral position for families or for society at large. This issue is more in the hands of men than women and in that sense men would be more immoral than women if they do not deny women equality and place women above themselves.

Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?

Please see the research and logic behind this premise.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHc-yMcfAY4

Regards
DL

[TaraJo]

Seriously?

Dude, I can tell you this much: any guy who thinks my being a woman makes me inferior will quickly wind up with a bloody stump where he used to have genitals.

I can understand the logic of what you're saying if we were living in some stone age culture where women had to be basically used as breeding stock. Things have changed, society has changed, our environment has changed. Most importantly, the traits that make someone a good leader or an effective worker have changed.

I strongly suspect you're either a troll or....... no, that's pretty much it. You're a troll, right?

[The Grand Nudger]

Women can take their rightful and natural position above me anytime they like.

[Ben Davis]

Primitive, outdated nonsense and a misunderstanding of social roles.
Gender is (and always has been) demonstrably irrelevant; only individual capability and role-acceptance have any bearing on the level of success anyone might attain in any given role. All selection bias (including gender) must be removed in order for the individuals with the right capabilities to have the opportunities to accept any given role.

[festive1]

I think the premise that one gender should be placed above another is inherently flawed. Though my female gender creates a bias within me that would love to be top of the pecking order. But ultimately, we are the human race. The genders are designed to work together to ensure the survival of the race. Therefore, the individual roles held by each respective gender is moot as long as propagation of the species occurs. Women and men are equally special in the biological and sociological roles they play. It should be a balance, a harmony, not a hierarchy. When you get into more complex gender roles, such as those of the LGBT community, a hierarchy simply doesn't work. One can't say that the LGBT community doesn't contribute to society simply because they often don't reproduce. Though I suppose from a strictly biological, propagation of the species point of view, they don't contribute. However, the LGBT community is beneficial to the greater society in other ways.

[Edwardo Piet]

Greatest I Am, if such bigotry is moral then immorality is moral.

[Greatest I am]

Seriously?

Dude, I can tell you this much: any guy who thinks my being a woman makes me inferior will quickly wind up with a bloody stump where he used to have genitals.

I can understand the logic of what you're saying if we were living in some stone age culture where women had to be basically used as breeding stock. Things have changed, society has changed, our environment has changed. Most importantly, the traits that make someone a good leader or an effective worker have changed.

I strongly suspect you're either a troll or....... no, that's pretty much it. You're a troll, right?

If you were on a sinking ship and telling other women that they were equal to men and should flip a coin with them to see who gets to have a seat in the lifeboats, --- then you are not a moral woman.

Regards
DL

---

Primitive, outdated nonsense and a misunderstanding of social roles.
Gender is (and always has been) demonstrably irrelevant; only individual capability and role-acceptance have any bearing on the level of success anyone might attain in any given role. All selection bias (including gender) must be removed in order for the individuals with the right capabilities to have the opportunities to accept any given role.

So if the ship was sinking, you would float away in the life boat and leave women on the ship would you?

That is equality and if you do not put women first then you are not much of a moral man.

Regards
DL

[Edwardo Piet]

According to what definition of "moral"?

[Greatest I am]

I think the premise that one gender should be placed above another is inherently flawed. Though my female gender creates a bias within me that would love to be top of the pecking order. But ultimately, we are the human race. The genders are designed to work together to ensure the survival of the race. Therefore, the individual roles held by each respective gender is moot as long as propagation of the species occurs. Women and men are equally special in the biological and sociological roles they play. It should be a balance, a harmony, not a hierarchy. When you get into more complex gender roles, such as those of the LGBT community, a hierarchy simply doesn't work. One can't say that the LGBT community doesn't contribute to society simply because they often don't reproduce. Though I suppose from a strictly biological, propagation of the species point of view, they don't contribute. However, the LGBT community is beneficial to the greater society in other ways.

No argument but in developing policy, especially if you understand the role of sanctity that Haigt speaks of, then morality dictates that women be placed above men.

That lifeboat scenario shows the culmination of the logic trail.
Your is not bad but take it to the extreme and you will recognize the truth of the premise. That would also place women ahead of gays exactly for the reproductive reasons you site. If for some unknown reason man had to begin over again and only one human could be saved, it would have to be a woman and hopefully a pregnant one.

Nature and logic should and does dictate morals and women first is the way to go.

Regards
DL

---

Greatest I Am, if such bigotry is moral then immorality is moral.

It is not bigotry.
It is discrimination. Positive discrimination or affirmative action.

Regards
DL

---

According to what definition of "moral"?

I kind of thought that you had replied without viewing those links.
Have a look and they answer your question.

Regards
DL

[Edwardo Piet]

Irrationally unfair treatment of another group of people is bigoted. Explain how it isn't.

And explain how your discrimination is 'positive'. Like I said, what definition of "moral" are you using?

What's moral about treating women as if they're not equal to men?

Men and women's well-being are both equally important.

---

If for some unknown reason man had to begin over again and only one human could be saved, it would have to be a woman and hopefully a pregnant one.

Nature and logic should and does dictate morals and women first is the way to go.

I'm sorry but that 'logic' is fallacious. That's the naturalistic fallacy.