Everyone adjusts their moral code to justify their actions. It's called moral disengagement. The process by which you convince yourself that ethical standards do not apply to you in a given circumstance. Which, depending on the context, women and men are equally likely to engage in.

If someone has violated what the woman has seen as a group, she is likely to morally disengage. For example ignoring the nerd, so she doesn't lose standing within the group. If someone is seen as violating the individual, a man is more likely to disengage. For example, screwing over a business partner to ensure that the deal goes well for himself.

Watch out for it in BOTH genders. Because you interact with both genders on a daily basis. Women are not "especially" likely to do this. It is a thing you need to watch out for. But it's definitely a human trait, not a gender trait.

Women have morals only when it favors them

 

Women have two great abilities, one is the Light Switch effect where they will rewrite their history of the relationship with their man.

 

Men do this too.

However we go the other direction. (or should anyway)

When new evidence is looked at that changes a previous understanding you must rewrite history to be more accurate.

Women do the opposite.

Women rewrite history to be less accurate and make her happy feelz return.

 

• Masculine : History becomes closer to objective Truth over time.

• Feminine : History is rewritten to alter subjective memory favorably.

 

• Masculine : Reals before Feelz

• Feminine : Feelz before Reals

 

• Masculine : Eternal Truth

• Feminine : Belief in Progress

 

Women have morals.

But feelings aren't moral.

Feelings win.

On point, nothing we haven't seen before but guys need the reminder sometimes that women are "feelz before realz." For the same reason, the ex-BF is always an "asshole," but the next guy she gets tingles for is "perfect." Just be the man who can get the tingles and not care when she inevitably decides what she thought was Prince Charming is now Lord Farquaad.

If you're arguing that women tend more toward moral relativism then I'm not sure I can get on board. People do what benefits them. Some find benefit in morality. Others cherry pick their morality. Most, I'd say.

Personally I don't care about losers--or much of anyone for that matter. Doesn't mean I'm going to steal anyone's lunch money. Despite how most people behave and live their lives, personally I believe in a few fixed moral axioms. So while what type of meat you eat is probably relative, morally speaking, I don't think the way you gain power, status and money in this world is. Would most women agree? Probably not in their heart of hearts. But neither would most men. Case in point, the "dark triad" advocates all over TRP.

I think its a case of perspective. Men and women often draw the conclusions they want to suit their view. In the case of a woman, they can draw opposite conclusions from the same exact action. if some dude is given her eyes at the bar he is either "alluring" or "creepy" based on whether she feels she wants the attention and not based on the actual action itself. Men also do similar, that's what an asshole is, right? Men who are completely unwilling to listen to other perspectives or admit they may be wrong - both are actually signs of weakness, but they think they're being confident and strong.

Any subjective moral code one can think of is not logically consistent if it isn't based on the Golden and Silver Rules. If that's true, then we can say that the Golden and Silver Rules are the only objective moralities that exist.

Most people only abide by the Golden and Silver rules when its convenient for them. I don't think there is any correlation between someone who is moral and their biological sex. Humans in general tend to be immoral, that's why our country is so fucked up...because immoral people are outvoting the moral people.

I would say these happen with both genders

Concept: The Dog Breeder

Women are dog breeders, and you my manly chum are the mutt. This simple but highly complex system of reproduction allows and gives women the power of choice in a system, this choice allows them the maximum of power/strength/survival of the species despite not culling the weakness of the Breeder itself. Therefore all the pressures of human evolution lie solely on the man, for now. The NWO plan for transhumanism and artificial wombs means women may be replaced one day, but we must contend with what is here in the now.

The Dog breeder analogy is also good because it strips away the concept of morality or ethics in a concept many accept. Also the breeder is retarded, low IQ and similar in intelligence to the primitive races of men, yes those races still failing to even industrialize(you all know what races I'm talking about). This breeder is easy to control and worse, the breeder commands enormous social economic power because of the lust of the weak mutts. The establishment using feminism has suspended ethnocentric nationalism allowing women access to a global supply side of men.

Some of you have become aware of this through the rise of Asian/Western couples. That reproductive rebalance because of the massive sea change in cost/partner access. It is a brave new world, rise above the mutt or accept the blue pill pound, an eventuality where the man is but a neutered mutt(beta).

Edit: 1, the sea change with Asian/Western couples is best seen in Sweden where men import quite a large number of women from East Asia because they're accessible via cost.