Why are women less likely to follow abstract ideas/virtues/ethics than men are?

Why are women less likely to follow abstract ideas/virtues/ethics than men are?

It seems to be that women are "egoists" in social interaction because they always value what gives them more personal gain in any given situation than what is "right".

Example: Truth is an abstract idea that people follow because they themselves would not like to be lied to. A man will tell you that your shoes are ugly because he himself would not like to be lied to about his own shoes. He would prefer the truth so that he can change if need be. But a woman would lie and say that the shoes look good because she values the social connection of affirming another's sense of style than actually telling the truth.

Obviously this is an extreme generalization, but this general trend seems fairly prevalent in my own social world.

Other urls found in this thread:

psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201111/how-often-do-people-lie-in-their-daily-lives
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

Biology

Might as well ask why women give birth.

>in my own social world

If you associate with virtueless bitches, it's only natural that you'd expect all women to be virtueless bitches. The problem is not women but the women you associate with.

I feel as though biology is only one component to this. What have we done to socialize women to act this in this manner? Or are you implying it's entirely innate?

In this generation, being virtueless seems to be the norm amongst both gender. So I would say it's just cultural shit.

What I meant by that is women I've been exposed to, or are exposed to on a regular basis. I can't speak for the women in Tunisia for example, they could be paragons of virtue for all I know. But the women in mid-west American seem to follow this social trend.

I believe it has to do mainly with how women are raised, and whatever models they are encouraged to emulate.
I think that it is very difficult to argue that the expectations for women are different then those set for men.
I don't mean this in a positive or negative way, but the fact is different methods of cultivation produce different results.

To say this is a sort of biological mechanism is unconvincing to myself, as it asserts a closed off model that asserts that all life is the exact sum of its parts.

Also, when a man tells you your shoes are ugly, he isn't likely doing so out of a sense of virtue, or some form of platonic truth.

Most idealized males are straight-talking.
Most idealized females are meant to be 'caring', which often translates into flattery and white-lies.

Because that's their survival strategy. All a man has to do to pass on his genes - essentially - is to spend a few minutes knocking up a fertile woman. After that he's in a support role and if he dies or leaves or whatever (perhaps in service to an abstract idea, such as "muh land" or "muh rights") the woman is still stuck with the kid and to ensure her success in this (and even when the male sticks around) she is utterly ruthless. Abstractions are a male indulgence; women can't afford to be distracted from their biology but men can and these distractions are often extremely profitable in the long run but women have a hard time seeing the value in them because they have little value in what is to them a meaningful timeframe, namely their fertile period. A woman might see the abstract value in men fighting a war for better pasture or spending their lives doing aerospace research but at the same time it is a waste for her to indulge in such pursuits when she has maybe 15 good years to bear children and then has to spend another 15 raising them. Her time is much better spent finding the best mate possible and procuring his genes and support through whatever means necessary.

>It seems to be that women are "egoists" in social interaction because they always value what gives them more personal gain in any given situation than what is "right".
Lovely sources.