I would like to propose a thought experiment...
Do keep in mind, all sorts of decisions that I want you to make during this, will be of intrapersonal thought and morality, and not of practical application.
A villager, with no access to modern globalisation, keeps his woman fully covered, and gives her no say in the family....for he has been taught that women don't have proper cognitive function, and they only exist to love and support the males. Also, the religion his village and his parents follow has strict laws requiring the suppression of a woman's will.
On the contrary, a person in modern society understands that treating any woman-...no....any person like this is nothing short of emotional neglect...
On one hand, the impoverished man is correct, for women are biologically weaker, and have less aptitude for logical analysis and the sorts...
But on the other, a woman should have freedom to live her life! She is equal to men in her thoughts, and deserves to be treated as a human. A woman also surpasses the male populus by a long shot in their emotional intelligence and consolidatory nature.
In both the above cases, we are only looking at this as an entity with no identity. A being made up of us...but not us.
You'll understand what I mean shortly.
Lets graduate from a dissassociated entity into something a bit grounded.
What does the woman feel about both these scenarios?
Considering the case of the impoverished family, the woman may truly feel imprisoned, or, she may feel blessed to have a man in her life to handle all her work. I've seen this with my very own eyes.
Now, considering the case set in modern society, a woman may feel a sense of confidence and a sense of identity having freedom, or, she may also feel suffocated because she actually has to work and earn money now. Menstruation isn't a joke, and no company will ever grant a 7 day leave every month.
Now, lets consider the man.
In the case of poverty, the man's only source of food and water would be fields and water bodies, as there isn't any globalization.
He would be toiling for many hours and would only have his woman and his family to take care of him.
Only the males would be able to toil this much as a woman has to put way more effort in doing the same physical labour a man would do. If all the males of the family have to work, then the only demographic that can truly support them would be women.
Inversely, lets consider the average Man in Modern society.
Almost all work in a modern world is merely mentally taxing, as society has conveniently delegated all the physical labour to the unskilled imporverished people.
In such a society, a man has a bit more freedom in choice.
Considering the monthly rent and groceries, his 9 to 5, a 19$ per hour job would leave him homeless. In such a case, he may want a woman to work and earn as well so that they both can support eachother and survive together.
But in this society of unequal class, if we consider a businessman earning six figures a day, but no free time to take care of his own home, he needs a house wife.
As for the topic of keeping the woman covered, he has free will on that matter, and so does the woman, for she too is free.
Giving both parties freedom has immensely complicated decision making, but on the plus side, both sides are treated "fairly".
You may be asking, "what the fuck am I trying to say?".
My point is that who is right? Seeing this "normally", that is, in the form of the dissassociated entity, modern society is correct. People should have freedom.
Inversely, if we consider the point of view of the Woman and the Man in both the scenarios, it becomes very trivial.
To those complaining and saying, "The situations you've laid out and the words you've said are purely conjecture!"
This monologue is aimed at you specifically, for you don't understand the difference between intrapersonal morality, and it's practical counterpart.
The former is far....far more important, for it is the standard by which humans will behave.
The point of this elaborate thought experiment is to ask this...."How does one determine what is correct?"
This question isn't being asked economically or politically or any other type of garbage ideas our minds are plagued with.
What is correct?
You may be now saying, "Whatever's correct is up to interpretation". In that case, we may deem terrorism as heroism! For we will have the means to twist any idea into being correct, as I did in my example.
If I choose my words carefully and say things which sound good and feel true, I can become a guru and some people may even worship me.
"Always keep your mind calm"
"Never harm anyone"
"Love all as yourself"
And so on can be said and the general population of the world will be supportive of it!
People will say, "Yes, I will keep my mind calm!", while shouting at a guy that cut their car off.
People will say, "Yes, I will never harm anyone!", while they humiliate their own child by making him sing for their uncle.
People will say, "Yes, I should Love all as my self", while they express hate towards their verbally abusive boss.
And the most entertaining thing about it all is that they all will remain ignorant to their own hypocrisy!
Yes...it is hypocrisy which decides right or wrong past surface level only.
A devil worshipper who remains consistent is better than some monk who occasionally indulges in sensual pleasures.
But then again, we all can agree that devil worshipping is still evil and being a monk is good, which I too, agree with.
But that's weird isn't it? What truly decides the Good things and Evil, or Sin?.
Many turn to God, which I agree is a very logical and scientific option. But some, like me, still don't have an answer.
I believe you've figured out that this thought experiment isn't about gender
...I simply wanted to attack your very nature of thinking about right and wrong...because more often than not...
YOU'RE JUST NAIVE. . . . .