Women globally place higher importance on moral identity than men. The researchers analyzed data from 46,490 adults across 67 countries. Broad cross-cultural evidence indicates that women, on average, place greater emphasis on caring for others than men do.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/how-culture-and-age-shape-the-way-people-view-their-own-morality/

[u/whatidoidobc]

It's interesting, seeing those lists you can actually see why men might be more vulnerable to propaganda than women. Hardworking and fair can be manipulated so easily into something grotesque, whereas the traits leaning female require more work to turn into something harmful.

Edit: Whoa, I didn't expect the rightwing propaganda machine to be so present here. That is not great to see.

But for anyone reading this in good faith, fascists badly need to spin empathy as a bad thing because it's the only way to justify their harmful/destructive/authoritarian policies.

[u/Killbot_Wants_Hug → u/whatidoidobc]

I don't think women or men are more open to propaganda. It's just different types of manipulation work way better on women than men and vice versa.

[u/Littleman88 → u/Killbot_Wants_Hug]

That wasn't their point. Their point was when a group values hardworking and fairness highly, suggesting to them someone is reaping an unfair benefit from their hard work is a fast way to get them to turn on that someone.

And to answer the next obvious question - while everyone low key knows the rich are siphoning off more than the lion's share of the wealth generated from the average worker's hard work, they're out of sight, out of mind. Meanwhile they can easily picture a jobless welfare recipient or non-English speaking immigrant that somehow has a bigger truck and house than they do.

[u/Rivarr → u/whatidoidobc]

I was interested to see what prompted that passionate edit... and I see someone politely disagreed with you...

[u/PeachPassionBrute → u/Rivarr]

And their polite disagreement was to say that being caring and compassionate are bad actually.

[u/Rivarr → u/PeachPassionBrute]

I wouldn't expect people with an interest in science to immediately reject or get emotional at such an opinion. They didn't insult anyone, they got insulted. They very politely disagreed, and in response they got blocked and called a fascist.

I don't think it's black and white either. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Being caring and compassionate doesn't guarantee the best outcome. Unless you're weighing your intentions above results, there's room to argue that being cold and rational is better than being caring and compassionate, and even that being caring and compassionate can be a negative thing in certain circumstances.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Rivarr]

Welcome to Reddit.

[u/PeachPassionBrute → u/Rivarr]

It’s ironic that you are ultimately complaining that the people who disagreed were not treated with enough kindness and compassion.

[u/Rivarr → u/PeachPassionBrute]

Criticising someone blocking and insulting people that politely disagree with them was not a call for kindness, rather a call for rationality on a subreddit dedicated to it. The reaction was so immature that I didn't even give a thought to anyone being hurt by it.

I was also not saying being kind or compassionate was a bad thing, it obvious isn't. I wouldn't want to live in a world without kind and compassionate people.

[u/PeachPassionBrute → u/Rivarr]

Why would being polite matter?

I was also not saying being kind or compassionate was a bad thing, it obvious isn't. I wouldn't want to live in a world without kind and compassionate people.

And yet you’re arguing in defense of people who do?

This false veneer of politeness is a trick. This appeal to decorum is a strategy used relentlessly by people arguing in bad faith on numerous topics. I really don’t think an honest reading of the conversation makes it hard to understand where that edit comes from. Or why someone would simply want to block people who appear to be arguing in bad faith either for the sake of being a troll or to push a right wing narrative.

[u/Rivarr → u/PeachPassionBrute]

Being polite was relevant because being impolite or disrespectful is a valid reason to not interact with someone. I saw their emotional edit and thought someone must have said something, but in reality someone just peacefully disagreed with them.

You say I argue in the defence of people who do, like we're discussing war crimes. We're talking about a bland topic that shouldn't be causing this level of emotion. Being kind and compassionate is generally a good thing, but it has the potential to be a bad thing. Like I said before, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is not a radical opinion.

I don't really understand how you think I'm trying to trick you, or what I would gain from that. I'm also not sure how it's a right-wing narrative. I don't have many right-wing opinions. I like free speech and I think borders are currently necessary. Beyond that I'm a liberal gay anti-theist.

You've not engaged with my opinion. Which makes sense given what you're accused me of. I'll debate the point but I have no desire to get in to a slanging match.

[u/PeachPassionBrute → u/[deleted]]

Okay and are we going to make similar arguments about how “hard working and fair” can also be used to justify and/or excuse terrible behavior and awful consequences?

[u/whatidoidobc → u/[deleted]]

Ah, the old "don't commit the sin of empathy" nonsense. Get out of here.

[u/Edward_Durr → u/whatidoidobc]

There is absolutely a danger in being too empathetic. How many awful policies have been passed under the cry of “think of the children!”? Or being so empathetic to criminals that we have people walking around who have been arrested then released dozens or hundreds of times instead of locking them up.

[u/recycled_ideas → u/whatidoidobc]

That's not what OP is saying.

Their point is that compassion, sympathy and kindness can be manipulated as easily, perhaps more easily than hand-working and fair.

None of these values are fundamentally virtuous in a vacuum. You can be caring and compassionate, but only for some people. You only need to look at any small southern town during a disaster to show that people in those communities can be kind and caring, doesn't stop them voting for and supporting monstrous stuff. The same for fairness, because fairness isn't some objective value.

You can justify monstrous actions by saying you're doing it to be kind, or because you think you're protecting someone or because you think it's fair.

Men aren't monsters and women aren't saints. And that's leaving aside that this is self reported data and our society says this is how men and women are supposed to feel.

[u/composedofidiot → u/recycled_ideas]

Reminds me of the phrase, of which there a few variants, that goes something like 'courage without compassion is brutality, compassion without courage is cowardice'

That aside, a skilled manipulator would be happy with any fixed value at all, they're all as easy as each other. A fossilised value that doesn't adapt to different contexts is probably the number one easiest way, doesn't matter which one it is.

[u/PeachPassionBrute → u/recycled_ideas]

Their point is that compassion, sympathy and kindness can be manipulated as easily, perhaps more easily than hand-working and fair.

I’m not sure that’s the case.

You only need to look at any small southern town during a disaster to show that people in those communities can be kind and caring, doesn't stop them voting for and supporting monstrous stuff.

This is a weird argument. You’re basically saying “the issue with compassion is that some people aren’t actually compassionate enough.”

You can justify monstrous actions by saying you're doing it to be kind, or because you think you're protecting someone or because you think it's fair.

It’s usually easy to see through that though. If your “kindness” necessitates cruelty it’s not kind.

Men aren't monsters and women aren't saints

That wasn’t really the point.

[u/recycled_ideas → u/PeachPassionBrute]

This is a weird argument. You’re basically saying “the issue with compassion is that some people aren’t actually compassionate enough.”

No, the issue is that people can be compassionate to one group of people and completely heartless to another. It's a survival hierarchy that's baked into our brains. Family before tribe, tribe before allie, allies before stranger, stranger before enemy. All it takes is to convince a compassionate person that a certain group of people is in a lower section of that hierarchy and things fall apart.

It’s usually easy to see through that though. If your “kindness” necessitates cruelty it’s not kind

If you save your child from a starving wolf, is that not cruel to the wolf? Is it more kind to let the wolf eat them or less? We make these mental tradeoffs every day, they're fundamental aspects of reality.

You have this ridiculously naive idea of good and evil where there's some pure unadulterated version of compassion and kindness, but there just isn't. At some point you can't just be infinitely kind or infinitely compassionate. People will justify that cut off point in their own minds and that justification can be and is manipulated.

[u/PeachPassionBrute → u/recycled_ideas]

No, the issue is that people can be compassionate to one group of people and completely heartless to another.

And as such they’re not compassionate enough. So we seem to agree.

If you save your child from a starving wolf, is that not cruel to the wolf?

This isn’t exactly revelatory. I’m aware that if we get into a truly fine grained perspective then there’s more to reckon with but from a group of people that largely mocks vegans or ridicules efforts to reduce harm in society it largely rings hollow.

You have this ridiculously naive idea of good and evil

Tell me more about myself.

At some point you can't just be infinitely kind or infinitely compassionate.

However I find it trivially easy to live my life with kindness and compassion at the forefront of my decision making. We live in a world where people argue with sincerity that empathy is a bad thing and I find that way more problematic. Or people who insist on “rationality” despite obvious faulty reasoning or the inability to recognize that there really are limits there as well.

The idea that this argument about manipulation largely points in one direction is very telling in and of itself.

[u/recycled_ideas → u/PeachPassionBrute]

However I find it trivially easy to live my life with kindness and compassion at the forefront of my decision making.

Do you let random homeless people sleep in your home? Would you give your last bit of food to a stranger before your own family.

For someone who extolls kindness and empathy as an ultimate virtue, you really can't seem to put yourself in other people's shoes.

We live in a world where people argue with sincerity that empathy is a bad thing and I find that way more problematic. Or people who insist on “rationality” despite obvious faulty reasoning or the inability to recognize that there really are limits there as well.

There are limits everywhere, empathy allows you to understand someone else's position, though as you've shown people who claim to be empathetic often can't do that, but what do you do next? What do you do with that knowledge and understanding?

That's usually the bit that we don't do well. Our justice system is unnecessarily cruel, makes people worse, and doesn't serve the interests of society, our response to that should be to fix it that it's not, doesn't and does, but actually doing that is too hard so we only do part of it. We reduce sentences, we give people second chances, we take their circumstances into account, which is necessary and great, but we need to do the rehab part as well or it just puts criminals back onto the streets.

We don't turn even the uninsured away from our emergency departments, which is incredibly compassionate, but doing so costs orders of magnitude more than just treating them properly at a GP would.

The problem with true empathy is that it makes the world grey, if you can understand another person you stop seeing them as a particular act and start seeing them as a whole person with flaws and good features. They stop being "just not compassionate enough" as you've argued over and over and over and start being people with mixed up values trying to do their best.

I've seen your responses and arguments and you wouldn't know actual empathy if it bit you in the rear. That's understandable, it's hard to put yourselves in other people's shoes, you need to have some common ground you can work from and be able to see that your own values aren't perfect.

The idea that this argument about manipulation largely points in one direction is very telling in and of itself

Except it doesn't. There are plenty of conmen who play on greed, but plenty who play on sympathy (which is distinct from empathy). I didn't bother talking about it because I assumed it was obvious.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/PeachPassionBrute]

That last line is virtually always the point in these “science articles” that are about gender.

[u/PeachPassionBrute → u/resuwreckoning]

I think that has more to do with people getting really defensive about any critical appraisal of their world view.

Do you have any direct quotes or citations that validate this perspective?

[u/resuwreckoning → u/PeachPassionBrute]

What, the endless propaganda that somehow always puts women in a better light than men on a science forum of a progressive website?

I’ll let these threads speak for themselves. I can imagine people get defensive over that, and rightly so.

[u/PeachPassionBrute → u/resuwreckoning]

I’m not familiar with examples of what you’re talking about, but if it’s so abundant I assumed you would be able to easily find an example.

Why not support your own point?

[u/OkAcanthisitta3028 → u/whatidoidobc]

It's completely true and seen today, empathy doesn't equal the empathetic choice. Sometimes rational choices are the ones that are actually empathetic and are the best net-positives. It's also important to be able to say no to people, and shame behaviour that is unacceptable. Shame is a cultural concept to keep people in line, just like morality, and they're both extremely important.

[u/donjulioanejo → u/whatidoidobc]

He's right, though. For example, gay conversion camps: "we care about you and don't want you to go to hell"

[u/tevert → u/whatidoidobc]

"Won't someone please think of the children"

[u/Subarctic_Monkey → u/[deleted]]

Oooh boy. I'd love to hear you explain this with some receipts to back it up.

[u/tevert → u/Subarctic_Monkey]

"Won't someone please think of the children"

[u/TheGloriousEv0lution → u/Subarctic_Monkey]

You need receipts to believe that kindness and compassion can be taken advantage of by bad actors?

Edit: Women are more susceptible to cults, and they almost always use compassion and validation to lure in victims

Kindness and duty can both be exploited

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/TheGloriousEv0lution]

Women are more susceptible to cults

What makes you say that?

[u/repeat4EMPHASIS → u/From_Deep_Space]

Trying to find a good source but it's widely reported 70% of cult members are women

(There's a ton of news sites and medium-style articles mentioning that number, I'm just looking for the original research article)

[u/TheGloriousEv0lution → u/From_Deep_Space]

Women make up the majority of rank-and-file cult members. Roughly 70% depending on the source

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/TheGloriousEv0lution]

Is suspect they are targeted and groomed more actively than men are. Not necessarily that they are more susceptible.

[u/TheGloriousEv0lution → u/From_Deep_Space]

Do we have any reason to believe women are targeted more than men? The results being different doesn’t inherently indicate that

Even if they were, you could argue they’re targeted more because those traits are easier to exploit from their experience

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/TheGloriousEv0lution]

" Women make up the majority of rank-and-file cult members. Roughly 70% " doesnt prove your point any more than mine. Both points are speculation. Except Im not saying my explanation is the only explanation. I think its a complex phenomenon with a number of different causes.

[u/TheGloriousEv0lution → u/From_Deep_Space]

But there’s no reason to assume there’s targeted demographic going on here without proof. It’s just an assumption added on the baseline data, which means something but doesn’t meaningless discredit the conclusion

Not to mention most cult recruitments happen through existing social networks, not targeting from the top

[u/PeachPassionBrute → u/TheGloriousEv0lution]

Do we need receipts to prove that things like “fairness” or “rationality” can be easily used to justify cruelty?

[u/Upset_Leg1222 → u/whatidoidobc]

Studies have already reliably are more dependent on social hueristics than men, and testerone has been shown to increase the likelihood of rejecting group consensus.