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 not of practical application.... But about individual morality.
An improvershed individual, with no access to modern globalisation, keeps his woman fully covered, and gives her no works nor 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.
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!
In both the above cases, we are only looking at this as the man, and not the woman. 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.
You may be asking, "what the fuck am I trying to say?".
My point is that who is right? Seeing this "normally", modern society is correct. People should have freedom.
Inversely, if we consider the point of view of women in both these situations, the actual victims...it gets into a grey area...
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.
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 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. And some, like me, still don't have an answer.
I believe you've figured out that this thought experiment isn't about gender...I want to attack your very nature of thinking about right and wrong...because more often than not...
YOU'RE JUST NAIVE. . . . .