1. Propose a list of human traits that you believe are "feminine" and traits that are "masculine." Support your claims with reasons.
In western society, masculinity is viewed as aggressive, born leaders, and powerful. Women are viewed as being weaker than men, more caring, more nurturing. A great number of societies attend to a patriarch social system-men in control. According to the text, both Plato and Aristotle believe emotion is linked to women, while reasoning is linked to men. This is not what I've seen in my life. I suppose I contain many qualities that are masculine. I'm usually the group leader, I used to have terrible aggression issues, I'm very logical, I sometimes suppress my emotions greatly, and I'm hardly ever afraid. And, take my ex-boyfriend for another example. He contained many traits viewed as feminine. He always wanted to discuss small problems because he was ultra sensitive, he never lets you forget your problems, he's very emotional and often let's that control is actions, he's nurturing, he's meek and timid, and even carried himself in a feminine manner. (Perfect match, huh?) I believe there really is no list you can make which wouldn't come off as stereotypes. The lines these days are blurred. The things I did list are viewed as feminine and masculine, but not always applicable to men and women. Feminism gave rise to women who no longer wanted to suppress what was viewed as "masculine". I think it's true what they say, we are all created equal, we just aren't treated or viewed as equal. In the end, we're all human, hence "human nature," not "male nature" or "female nature." Simply, human.
2. Propose a list of human traits that you believe are "female" and traits that are "male." Support your claims with reasons.
Things that are "male" and "female" are not subjective like things that are "masculine" and "feminine." There are all the obvious biological differences like different sex organs, males tend to generally be taller, females have wider hips, males are often stronger, females ovulate, etc. We also differ psychologically, though. The Psychology Today article 'Ten Politically Incorrect Traits About Human Nature" scientifically proves certain male and female stereotypes. From that article, and from my own personal observations, what I most agreed to be true about men is:
-Males tend to like younger women. Even if they aren't younger, but appear to be younger, men have a tendency to go for that. The reasons being is the male's desire for more fertile women. Also youth means healthier women so they have a better chance at reproducing.
-Males are naturally more competitive. Women are also competitive, but in a different way. Competitiveness with men often has to do with some sort of power struggle, or to obtain women. Two examples being 1) making lots of money, and 2) having great physical strength.
-Male's generally want sex much more than women. Both males and females have a desire to reproduce, but males more often than women want casual sex. Male friends of mine talk about how easy it is for a female to get casual sex, all she really has to do is ask a male for it. Though that statement isn't always true, it just shows how males have a natural desire for sex. It's male's natural desire to "spread their seed."
As for females, these are some of the traits I believe to be true:
-Females have a greater amount of psychological needs. Although male's have the ability to be profound and insightful thinkers, and desire certain things from friends and women psychologically and emotionally, females have a much longer and more thought out "list" of needs. It's not that us females are complicated, but relationships to us are much more mental. Despite if a female is willing to express her feelings or not, she does yearn for deeper and more meaningful relationships.
-Females do not desire sex as much as males. This is because males are easily able to impregnate a women without worry, but a women is stuck with the child, and it must grow inside her for 9 months.
-Females talk more. Male's excel in mathematics, while women excel in verbal skills. Males are often basic when it comes to conversation, while women wish to relate. Females have a greater desire for a social life, while men have a greater desire for social status. Females need to know people, while males need people to know them.
Although this is more objective, it's still debatable at times. For example, many homosexual male's may not agree that they have a desire to reproduce, and many females may be math wizzes. Studies like this are based off of anthropology, and as I said, psychology. Besides the apparent biological differences, everything can be argued by someone. Today's society is much more mentally androgynous, though there are still "social norms" males and females adhere to.
3. The existentialists, such as Sartre, claim that if there is a human nature, it is formed by a Homo sapien as it lives its life and is done so by the choices it makes. Relate the concepts of free will and responsibility to this claim.
The argument of free will fascinates me. It's something I've been studying alot this year... probably too much. I'm a physics nut, so I naturally look at the scientific view.
With science, we've learned there are physical laws everything in the universe abides by. We're physical SYSTEMS, made up of molecules which makes living creatures no exception to those said physical laws. You can even relate philosophical concepts to the laws of physics. Take for instance Newton's "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." This is exactly the same idea of karma, you get what you give. Also look at the philosophy of the Tao. The Tao suggests that everything is in perfect harmony and balance, that there is a cosmic order. Or, just look at the saying "everything happens for a reason." These two things imply there is an order to everything. Physics has attempted to figure out all there is to the universe. Through that, everything is seen as having a system. From something as big as how the planets align, to how atoms work, they're all natural systems that work to maintain the universe. So, wouldn't we also have to help maintain the universe through every single choice and action resulting from those choices we make? Think about chaos theory. If we didn't get on the train at 5pm, if we didn't wake up early that morning, if we decided against jogging that day... would everything be different? Did we have no other choice but to do those actions in order to maintain the harmony of the universe?
Maybe, but maybe not. Physics has managed to discover quantum mechanics, a study of physical reality at the atomic, subatomic, and even smaller particle level. On the subatomic and smaller particle level, it has been discovered that everything is quite random. So maybe we aren't controlled by systems, but perhaps everything is random (chaos).
A metaphysical (and psychological) argument, that supports the claims of randomness (us making our own decisions), is the study of the consciousness. Consciousness has not been able to be explained by physical science. They do however, attempt to argue that our brain is controlled by chemical shifts, and chemicals must abide to chemical laws. However, some philosophers debate that the I (ourselves, who we are) is different from our minds. Our minds are only a tool for survival, and underneath the mind (which creates our ego-our identity) is a soul. Ever hear the little voice in the back of your head saying "do it" or "don't do it"? That's what is said the soul is, the truest self not controlled by the mind. Therefore, we make our own choices.
Sartre claims that human nature exists because of the choices we make. So, does the act of war happen because of our human nature and the choices we've made? Or does the act of war happen because of the system and balance of the universe? Honestly, I'm no where near sure. In fact, no one can ever be sure of these claims or this whole debate. This is why fate versus free will has been a never ending explored concept. It's been around since about 350 B.C. and hasn't ended since. Science hasn't been able to prove it, and nor has philosophy. I make no judgements and have no real beliefs when it comes to all the big questions. There isn't really a way to prove any of it, even through deductive reasoning or logic.
4. There are those who claim there is a genetic basis for behavior. All human activity is determined by one's genes. On the other hand, persons such as Plato, Marx, and Skinner believe that, in varying degrees, society determines human nature. Can you reconcile these two views?
This is another free will debate, as well as a nature versus nurture debate. Those who claim we are products of our genetic makeup fail to take into account our upbringing, our history. But both have a very strong basis for their arguments. Think about a homosexual. Many get offended when people refer to their homosexuality as a "choice", because they say it's who they are and who they've always been. This means that their genetic makeup has determined whether they like men or women, and has nothing to do with their history. Another example, supporting the claim that society determines human nature, is racists. I believe strongly in the saying "no one is born a racist." Someone doesn't form a hatred of a different race because they're genetically predisposed to it. Racists become racists because of those they look up to, be it family, friends, or a mentor.
To reconcile these two views, I think it can be settled like this: beliefs are products of society, and the self is determined by genetics. You tend to believe in god because of your upbringing, and other such circumstances, and this belief can be shed by society. But, according to psychologists, your personality is developed in the very early stages of life. For instance, take homosexuals again. There has been countless cases of special rehabilitation programs to turn them into heterosexuals. For a while, they are brainwashed to think it worked. But, after a time, suppressing their natural urges for the same sex and attempting to lead life as a heterosexual for societies eyes can often lead to mental breakdowns. This is because it is who they are, not who they believe they are. So to reiterate my conclusion, society can determine the belief and value system you adhere to. This is the ego, your perception of reality. But genetically, you are who you are underneath the ego. Genetically, you are your truest self (which is also a spiritual view, but this parley pertains to science). This isn't to say societal influence is all bad, but it doesn't determine the deepest level of the self.
No comments:
Post a Comment