The differences between humanity and the rest of the natural kingdom have been illustrated countless times for the sake of justifying human actions in relation to Nature. The same can be said for the traditional male domination of women. As culture and society grows, so do the assumptions that Man makes to explain their behaviors and rationalize their deeds.

One thing that must be made clear here is that the author of this paper does not believe there is a distinct and universal human nature. While there are decidedly interesting aspects that can be observed in humanity, there is not sound argument that humans have a nature that is separate from the rest of the world and has qualities that cannot be found anywhere else in the animal kingdom. In order to make this claim though, the author must first rebut the claims that have been made affirming human nature.
First, there is Thomas Hobbes who asserts that man is aggressive and warlike by nature. Hobbes first postulates that all men are equal by design, that “the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim himself any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well as he.” (Quest, 217) Which, in itself, is simple enough to swallow without supporting the claim. He then goes on to state that from Man’s “equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which they nevertheless cannot both enjoy, the become enemies… endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another.”
(Quest, 218) This statement is also reasonable in form, but the underlying flaw to the argument lies in the fact that he fails to acknowledge these same attributes that occur in nature such as in the rutting of elk and other mating competitions or food and territory disputes between males and females of countless species.

What is extremely confusing about Hobbes’ argument is that he later goes to proclaim that there are general Laws of Nature to which man is in tune with, but that Man is superior to said laws through their continual competition, selfishness, use of reason, concepts of good and evil, and concepts of injury vs. damage (Quest, 220-221). Hobbes acknowledges the similarities of the Animal kingdom and Man, but marginalizes them because he cannot understand that which makes them different does not make them lesser to Man. In fact, all five of Hobbes’ justifications for the superiority of Man over Animal have been easily observed in the low impact studies of Jane Goodall and the teaching studies of Francine Patterson with chimpanzees and apes respectively. Hobbes’ arguments of the inherent aggressiveness and warlike nature of Man fall far short of distinguishing a universal and unique human nature.

Conversely, Petr Kropotkin wholeheartedly stands by the aggressive and selfish qualities of the Animal kingdom and even gives the argument to animals that they are also the products of mutual aid, which denotes that mutual aid is not exclusive to man. In fact, in his closing paragraph Kropotkin makes this author’s argument for him by saying, “the first human societies simply were a further development of those societies which constitute the very essence of life of the higher animals.” (Quest, 226)

Jean-Paul Sartre, a favorite of this author, takes the argument in the opposite direction of Hobbes and slightly confirms Kropotkin’s mutual aid theories by postulating that there is no universal Human nature and that Man is solely the product of their individuality and how they perceive and react to their surrounds (and societies). In doing this, Sartre was going after the idea that Man alone is responsible for their actions and they cannot put the blame for their deeds or misdeeds on some abstract idea of Human Nature (Quest 235-241). That the argument kills the idea of God is just an added benefit.

To sum up, the idea of a unique and universal Human Nature is flawed. It is based on the assumption that there is nothing comparable in the universe to the primary tenants of Man and that the uniqueness of Man is a justification of their superiority. Hopefully the last few paragraphs have shown that to be an arrogant and unsupported argument.

To argue the differences between gender, it must first be determined what gender is as opposed to the straight-laced definitions of sex. Sex is the direct biological distinction between component members of a species (IE – man and woman). Gender is the social and psychological traits that have been ascribed to the separate sexes (Quest, 250). Gender acts as a distinguishing gap between the sexes and usually manifests in the form of male superiority over the female. Gender Nature is the assumptions and generalizations that have been attributed to members of the sexes in order to justify said gap and usually to justify said subordination.

That subordination is manifest in Abu Hamid Muhammad Al-Ghazali’s “The Proper Role for Women” in which he states through aphorisms and anecdotes that “A woman is an evil thing”(Quest 25 and so on in order to justify the subornation of women. There are, however, no justifications as to why women are to be subjugated other than that it is God’s will and that women tempt men. Al-Ghazali explains his culture’s subjugation of woman through the use of situations based on social constructs; a woman learning to read being wicked, women’s virtues being the faults of men, a woman who obeys without question is best and the opposite tantamount to evil (Quest 25. All Al-Ghazali has to say has nothing to do with Gender Nature and everything to do with social constructions of authoritarian knowledge. The Prophet says women are evil and must be controlled so they must be because he is the Prophet and what he says is God’s Word.

To say that gender is a social construction is to acknowledge that the differences that have been ascribed to the sexes have nothing to do with strict biological differences, but have everything to do with how people choose to see those differences and widen the gap that is already there. Elizabeth Spelman paraphrases Adrienne Rich on this subject by relating that Rich “explicitly distinguishes between motherhood as an experience and motherhood as an institution, so she asks us to distinguish between embodiment as an experience and embodiment as an institution.” (Quest, 27 Explaining that the experience is directly related to the aspects of sex and the institution is directly related to socialization and social constructs.

To sum up, gender is a social construction of assumed and specifically exaggerated differences between the sexes born of personal and societal experiences and observations of the sexes. These differences are ascribed via ignorance and a priori acceptance of socialization and roles ingrained at birth and are the primary cause of subjugation among the sexes and the justification of it as well. It is the opinion of this author that while there are biological differences between the sexes, gender differences are derived from flawed justifications and have no merit in distinguishing the sexes insofar as to rate one superior to the other.

I hope you got an A my dear...if not I'll have to go show your proffessor his folly

Bet if you thought really hard you could sum that up in a handful of sentances.

I'm sure he could to...but what kind of grade would he have gotten then...do you think proffessors give assignments for only two sentences?:p

True enough but no ones grading here.

I asked him to...you have to admit it is well thought out and put together...

yes, i suppose u could sum it up in two or three sentences...

there is no universal and unique human nature

gender is a social construction

man bears ultimate responsibility




but then those would all be unsupported statements... once needs to argue in order to justify

Well fuck me sideways with a louiseville slugger.....
Interesting preponderance...... I would have graded you a B+ for that paper...... couple of spell errors.... and you used the word Priori....... ahhhhhhhghghhghghghg........

I find the absence of a distinct human nature from the rest of nature hard to believe. Your point is valid from the points you made, but you do not consider everything. Even Jane Goodall, the famous biologist, whose work with primates has been extrordinary, would not agree with you on this one. There are distinctions between a human and another animal, such as an ape. Man has the ability to reason in a far more complex manner than any animal, and has developed language. The latter is especially important as it allows for the former to occur. Jane Goodall is enammered most definately with the monkeys she studies, but does concur that there is a difference from humans emotionally, physically, and mentally. As to the nature that you describe (which is more emotional/mental), it is true that animals (such as apes) exhibit anger and do fight, even to a point of a primitive war-like style. However, their ability to comprehend what they are doing is very limited, more instinct than comprehension. Man does comprehend his actions, and so the idea of motivations comes into play in a more real manner. Man's nature is distinct in its greater complexity, as well as in the integration of the spiritual; no ape has or ever will contemplate (or even has the ability to) its origin and end.

So than is there a distinction because we have larger more developed brains or that we are so detached from nature that we have become a separate entity...not of nature?
Evolutionwhoever helped us out), first there were monkeys, they have a social structure and then primitive man...simple, a social structure and sticks as they walk upright, and then they figure out that if you tie a rock to the end of the stick it is better...they then meet other early peoples and develop trade, and trade leads to more socializing...and then grouping and....well up to modern society! At what point did we stop being animals and become something more? When did we start thinking and cease just being?

Its foolish to think that anyone can sum up, or appropriately configure OUR OWN behavior,and how it arose. You do state the obvious however, that it depends on the surrounding's,and how a person was raised, etc. Anyone with some sense can tell you that. I can tell you that if anyone had the correct answer, It would'ent be one of us. but i think if it were a report to be graded, you'd get an outstanding grade, based on the fact, that we humans are so stubborn as to think we can try to explain the unexplained. Sorry, if i have offended anyone, these are my belief's.go me.

ok first of all... DarkMystic, on your language arguement, how do u explain Koko... and i said Unique... not Distinct... sure it is easy to distinguish between Man and Ape... but that does not make man unique. i thought i showed that fairly well in arguing Kropotkin.

Spaceghost... its philosophy... my major... we love to argue over everything... we love to make assumptions... we love to fight...

Dyshade... whats wrong with using A Priori?

I think "In mans opinion" could be inserted at the start of most of the quoted sentences in this paragraph.
The same could be inserted to all the references about animals also.
"The Victor writes the history" can also mean "the Stronger writes the history"
So man places himself above both women and animals, placing them in the same class.
And we know that Women and Men are equal in most things so therefore man is judging himself as an animal.

Just thought I'd add some convoluted logic to the discussion

Why does this kind of talk turn me on? Is that a human or animal thing...Oh wait! I'm a girl, so I guess it's an animal thing

Just thought I'd add a little harlotry to the mix

Abu Hamid Muhammad Al-Ghazali was right, women do tempt men

I guess it's the nature of my gender:p however would it be an animalistic nature or a nature inspired by my humanity...the...acts to attract a mate or because it's what as a "woman" I am expected to do?

umm... yes?

and what do you mean by inserting "in Man's opinion" to the quotes of the cleric Fer? and what do u have to support the arguement that men and women are equal in most things... not that i dont agree with you, but whats ur reasoning?