Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Would the world have been better off if women had a more dominant role over the past 2000 years?

367 replies

Trebe · 31/03/2019 18:32

Hi, this is my first time posting on here but this question has sparked my curiosity. Would like to find out the views from the feminist stand point. Now I get the feeling this question coukd get a little uncivil, that is not my intention but a little bit of tenacity and passion would be nice to see.

The reason I see this question getting messy is simple, at some point stereotypes and generalisations are almost certainly going to come into this. In some ways I welcome that because it means we are having an honest discussion. Some stereotyping about men and women is going to be impossible to avoid as we are guessing and generalising the history of the past 2000 years. So yes men are more violent and yes women are more emotional, these in general terms, are facts. I think to even remotely answer the question generalisations, are necessary. So no offence intended when I generalise both men and women.

Obviously over the past 2 millennia men have ruled the roost, so we could attribute every good thing or every bad thing that has happened to men. The question I'm trying to ask is would we have had more atrocities if women had a more dominant role in decision making? Would we be as technologically and scientifically advanced? Would we be a more empathetic and understanding society and civilisation?

As a man I like to and would like to think men did the best they could in certain areas such as war (over 2000 years wars will happen no matter who is in charge), the advancement of science and maths, architecture, art etc. There are things men are good at (in general, I'm only saying in general once as almost everything about this is generalised), organisation, logic, maths and massive over-generalisations! Anyway these things have given us great advancements but it has also caused a lot of suffering in the process.

The logical, organisational, scientific mind is what caused atrocities such as the holocaust. The organisation and systematic nature of the concentration camps came from such thinking. It begs the question would women have done similar things if they were in charge, or at least had equal influence. The simple statement I have on it is, the extermination of certain peoples may have still happened I'm just not so sure it would have been done in such a cold blooded and efficient manner. I firmly believe that only a male would conceive of concentration camps. So on the death, destruction and famine part I'm gonna side on women doing a 'better' job than men.

To the question of technological and scientific advancements, I claim indifference to an opinion on whether we would be more advanced or not. It is a very difficult question to have a solid opinion on to be honest. It's very difficult to know as women to a certain extent (Madame Curie being the obvious exception but there are others), have been for lack of a better word, excluded from the sciences especially in the first 50 years of the 20th century when a lot of important science we use today was being discovered. Some feminists, well usually misandrists to be fair, don't like to admit that we live in a world that was created by men and that includes the good things such as the massive and rapid advancements in technology, health and science. That I do believe is helped by the way the male brain works.

When it comes to things like art, poetry, architecture, religion, psychology (especially psychology), sociology and many more of the humanities could have done with the influence of women. We would have a massive wealth of extra art, literature, architecture, poetry, music and more just by women having a stronger input over the past 2000 years. When it comes to more recent times I think womens input into psychology would have been massive, I don't think we would have gone down such extreme routes to control people like we did with the holocaust if women had their input on things like behavioural psychology.

I think war would have been (as much as possible) more humane and over much quicker. Do I think women can wage war just like any other human? Of course I do, I also believe there would have been wars, I don't believe that war would disappear if men did. I just believe women wouldn't want the carnage, the salt the ground or scorched earth policies men have adopted in the past.

Anyway I'm sort of rambling so I'll conclude. I am basically trying to engage in a discussion about women over the past 2000 years but also the past couple of hundred of years. Yes I'm sure there is absolutely loads I could add to this but I would like to hear your views on the question at hand. Feel free to generalise as much as is necessary just don't try to do it to be a dick, do it because you have a point.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

OP posts:
BadPennyNoBiscuit · 31/03/2019 21:38

''Would the world have been better off if women had a more dominant role over the past 2000 years?''

Dominance is the problem, not the solution.
Hierarchical thinkers are more concerned with getting up the ladder than they are about the consequences. Hierarchical thinkers find it almost impossible to think of any other kind of structure.

Violence is an emotional reaction to perceived disrespect or loss of control. It is not logical. It is a fallacy to think of men as thinkers and doers, and women as emotional.
All humans are emotional. The difference between men and women is that women receive more training in self effacing behaviours and self control from an early age.

ThePurportedDoctoress · 31/03/2019 21:35

It's a bit like going to a BAME forum and starting a thread titled 'Slavery was bad, but...'

"lets say men weren't the dicks were to women in the past and they had more say. A vote, the right to say no to sex, an opinion that wasn't muted because it came from a woman"

So what you're really asking is, would the world be a better place if women weren't oppressed, raped and disenfranchised?
I think you need to define 'better'!

Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:33

How is the title patriarchal?

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:33

So when someone wants to discuss something on a subject we have a lot of common ground on isn't a good way of learning? Socrates might disagree.

On the autism article, it's possible I misread as its late and I'm tired. But isn't that article saying that women with asd shouldn't be categorised as having a male brain, not that there aren't differences.

Also yes I am being defensive, if someone like me asking for opinion in the way I did gets this kinda treatment. What do you do with people who aren't trying to discuss?

OP posts:
MIdgebabe · 31/03/2019 21:27

Dh sends a message as one Male to another... the trouble starts with the patriarchy expressed in the thread title

FissionChips · 31/03/2019 21:26

The question is which ones and more importantly why

Absolutely loads of literature about the subject, loads of threads have explored it too.

Would make logical sense for you to read up throughly first.

MrsTerryPratchett · 31/03/2019 21:25

For someone who is empathetic and interested in learning, you do an excellent impression of someone who is defensive, angry and misogynist.

When I want to learn about racism I READ. I don't write a wall of text asking for comments. Because it's not about me.

SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 31/03/2019 21:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:24

Also I didn't notice the bit saying everyone is taking this personally. That's one of the reasons I want opinions from people on here. If it wasn't personal your opinion wouldn't mean very much.

OP posts:
SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 31/03/2019 21:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:22

Also I cant park for shit and I'm very empathetic. So yeh stereotypes can be bullshit, but some of them hold some truth. The question is which ones and more importantly why.

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:20

Also how did I patronise YOU? I was definitely over generalizing with women and said so straight away. There was no personal attack.

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:18

Tell me one way I haven't thought, empathised or listened when there has been a genuine comment. Maybe you are sexist and you find it easier to just say I am and that I'm oppressing you somehow. It's sort of pathetic if you are as well educated as you say. I'm here to discuss and learn and you're here to be ignorant and abusive. Well done on the clever and logical part.

OP posts:
MsJeminaPuddleduck · 31/03/2019 21:15

Gassyass

I've only just started on the thread but 🤣 - thanks!

Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:14

I think if you're asking is it nature or nurture I'd say its probably both to be fair. But are you saying women are discouraged from going into maths and science? I'd understand the male stereotype stopping men being therapists. But you'll see it in things like poker too. 90% (made up statistic) of poker players are men. I don't see how women are discouraged from that.

OP posts:
MrsTerryPratchett · 31/03/2019 21:14

Everyone is taking this very personally.

I have a very high IQ, I can park exceptionally well, I'm good at maths and statistics and I'm well read. I also used to be gorgeous, blonde and stereotypically feminine looking. Until time did it's work.

I've spent my entire life being patronized so I do take it a little personally and I don't want to spend another futile few hours of my life trying to convince a man who thinks he knows better why he doesn't. I used to enjoy it, having men say things like, "how do you know so much more than me about this?" But after thirty years of it I just think 'why bother?'. Another wave of sexist, patronizing, know it alls have been created and nothing changes.

If you want to learn, use your time, not ours. Read, don't jump in with a wall of text. Think, empathize and listen. I mean you won't, but I can hope.

WinterBluez · 31/03/2019 21:08

Why do women find it easier to be empathetic? Why do these stereotypes hold some truth? Do you think it's down to biology or something else?

Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:08

I'm ok with maths, not brilliant.

OP posts:
MIdgebabe · 31/03/2019 21:08

BUt you must have a reason to be skeptical? Beyond Male priveldge that is.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:07

I don't understand what the autism article conveys?

OP posts:
MenuPlant · 31/03/2019 21:07

How good are you with maths :D

Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:02

I dont doubt she used correct statistical methods. How would I know without access to the data?

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:01

Oh you meant it like that sakrifice, how incredibly stupid. I was conveying the ideas I believe in. I'm not being told what to believe by you. So, no. I wasnt telling you what to do.

The numbers, how good are you with stats? Not the statistical method but more how numbers very easily manipulate peoples thinking if presented in a certain way. I think 20 credits were on a topic called sex, drugs and lies lies lies.

OP posts:
SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 31/03/2019 20:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sackrifice · 31/03/2019 20:55

When did I once say you need my permission to do anything.

Well, i've already quoted your words, but as you seem to have forgotten already:

feminism in its true sense makes perfect sense as long as it's equality and not equity that is trying to be attained.

Interesting article and I like her idea that women shouldn't be striving for what men have, I don't want what men have and the article is right, most men are to stupid to realise it. Some of the statistics bother me in there presentation and I'm skeptical of how some are used

I'd love you to try and explicate this, as Jessica's research and stats are usually spot on. What do you disagree with exactly?

Swipe left for the next trending thread