More women looking at porn.

Anyway, it's a bit of a meaningless argument because hardly anyone in the world has had no socialisation at all. You'd literally have to be locked in the dark for years with no contact from other human beings.

I would assume (and I admit I'm assuming) that if someone has had no socialisation AT ALL, then they won't have any empathy. Empathy comes from socialisation. It's learnt. You can't empathise without a concept of another person.

I dare say, but if we stopped valorising and rewarding them to the extent we do now (because patriarchy says men must be dominant by any means necessary) then they probably wouldn't be expressed as much

I completely agree.

I mean, in some ways I do agree with you. Honestly. A more feminised society would be more civilised. No two ways about that.

What you've got to be wary of is this idea that if you give women power then they'll just carry on being all caring and good just as they were when they were at home looking after kids and doing embroidery. Part of the reason why women are so much nicer is that they DON'T have the same power and agency as men.

Why men are more violent and overall brutal with sex has got a lot to do with socialisation, but what is the interesting question is why some them aren't. Surely they'd all be so? And why do there exist women who are, for example, paedophiles. A woman down my road got done for downloading thousands of child porn images a while back. What on earth went wrong there? In either case, for better and worse, the socialisation hadn't worked. Those exceptions tell us that there are other things going on apart from this very simple process of gender socialisation. Even in a patriarchal society, it's not universal.

But if people have 'natural proclivities' then those proclivities will include proclivities for evil. Not sure they though. I very much believe people are created through socialisation.

You don't think that any members of the human race are capable of kindness without socialisation?

Very little. As far as I'm aware from reading a couple of books on unfortunate children who have passed through the critical stage of development without any socialisation (confined in basements and so forth), they have no capacity for language, let alone imaginative empathy.

Without socialisation, there isn't much of a person at all, as awful as that sounds. There was one tragic case of a girl who had been locked up with dogs since infancy. After she was rescued her adoptive parents couldn't cope because she would bark, run around on all fours, and urinate and defecate on the floor.

Of course I think it's good to encourage all children to be kind. But then we're just back at my original point that we're all equal blank canvases and should be raised according to the same standards. That is equality.

Beyond our most basic functions and drives, we have no innate self. The self is created through socialisation.

But while we should raise everyone to be kind and caring, some people have to be in positions of authority; and no matter how well we raise people, human beings being human beings, some of those people will do terrible things with that power. It would be the same in a matriarchy. Imagining otherwise is absurdly Panglossian.

So, I think you're saying women don't have to be de-programmed of their patriarchal identity as kind, caring, nurturing people. The fact they are like this is a good thing. That bit of patriarchy can stay. What is bad is the socialisation of the male as violent, predatory etc. He does need to be de-programmed. The women can stay as they are, and the men can become like the women.

I don't understand your point at all. There's no problem with people being kind, the problem arises when one class of people is told they have to be kind because this makes them easier to exploit.

So the idea is that the women remain what they have been socialised to be, and men are socialised into joining them?

OP attributes aren't going to go away just because we stop gendering them.

Of course - but you're not just accepting they won't immediately go away: you're embracing them.