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:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 03:55

I didnt judge, its a fact, she says bigoted things I just stated it.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 03:54

On the first paragraph of yours the reason it is terribly organised in my thought pattern is two fold. 1 it was just a thought pondering round my mind so I posted it, I didnt think if wouuld be that controversial. Second I have adult adhd, my organisational skills aren't the best.

Number 2 I totally agree with Mary queen of scots was ruthless, cleopatra, queen victoria the list goes on. There's no woman who should be denied power if she deserves it.

Third one is relatively easy to answer if I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong), you're stating the arguement of nature vs nurture. Well then what your saying its not all nurture, some of it is nature. I agree.

And on the 4th I agree, society would be fucked and set back thousands of years, not to mention men would have blown themselves up.

I'm still not getting why you think I hate women. I dislike what feminism has become but once the social justice warriors grow up, hopefully it will return to the liberal values it once held.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 03:41

Trebe your words are a mirror

What we say about others reflects on our own character.
By name calling you have damaged your own credibility and any reputation you had in this discussion.

”When we judge or criticize another person, it says nothing about that person; it merely says something about our own need to be critical.” - Richard Carlson

GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 03:39

Oceanbliss clear, concise, to the point - brava.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 03:37

Thats a fuckin excellent answer please give time TRY to answer what I am capable of.

OP posts:
Oceanbliss · 28/04/2019 03:30

Trebe I have not read the full thread. My comment will be in regards to your Op (original post)and first page comments.

First I will paste one of your comments and respond.
'I have 2 degrees, one in maths and statistics and one in person centred psychotherapy.'

If this is so, why is your Op and other comments not concise and to the point? Your Op is all over the place, disorganized and includes a variety of thoughts and generlizations requiring responses. You have packed it all together haphazardly in one large monologue rather than allowing the conversation to develop as it unfolds.

As for an answer to the question would the world be better off if in the last 2000 years women held leadership, dominated science, technology, the arts, agriculture, industry etc. Might I add dominated men and disallowed men to earn income, have financial independence, participate in many activities, vote, freedom of speech, to have an education and basically oppressed men in the same way women have been? Then the answer is no, we would not be better off. However, if we remained egalitarian as our hunter gatherer descendants were, as anthropology is now discovering, before humans started specialising in agriculture and trade. Then I believe it would be a better world. People are people regardless of biological sex, race, age.

Did you know that all people have the same developmental milestones throughout our entire lifetime? We achieve these milestones in the same order but at varying rates (within a range considered the norm) depending on our innate temperament, personality (nature) and our environmental influence, including opportunities (nurture). Every single human being progresses typically through these developmental milestones regardless of gender or race. Every single human being could experience delays in their development or become stunted by any number of ways. Every single human being is shaped by their environment, is shaped by operant conditioning. For me a better question is how can we undo centuries of being conditioned by inequality, oppression, the trauma of war, violence born of anger and hate (which are emotions by the way, so I don't buy into this men are less emotional crap), segregation by sex, race, skin colour, religion, socio-economic status etc. How do we evolve past our failings as a human race?

This world has been created by both sexes. If you don't believe me then think about the influence your mother had on you (if she took part in raising you that is). The world is more than the inanimate objects we've made, the advances of technology. The world is all about life, it is made up of living organisms. We are equal whether we acknowledge it or not. We are equal regardless of whether or not we treat each other as equal. We did not create the universe or this planet but we have shaped this world. We, as in women and men.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 03:22

Maybe you're not capable of discussion which is fine. Not everyone can state the truth, be calm and not be a bigot.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 03:20

Its name caling but I have no problem telling the truth. Your words define you.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 03:19

No it isn't its a form of segregating people into different forms groups, races, colours, creeds, religions etc. It divides people in the name of equality. Really its just the liberal progressives getting votes. As a leftist it makes me want to puke.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 03:14

Girldownunder .... you're a hypocrite and a bigot.

Baaahahahahaha reduced to name calling - thanks for loosing the (not an) argument. Mwah.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 03:09

Girldown under is intersectionality a form of equality?

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 03:05

Girldownunder Why is it ok for you to say that men dominate but it's not ok to say women are better emmpathisers but I say is at least a good thing and what you say is a nasty thing you're a hypocrite and a bigot.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:58

I think its weird you think I hate feminism.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:57

It used to be.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 02:55

I'm an egalitarian before I think I'm a feminist

Equality feminism is a subset of the overall feminism movement that focuses on the basic similarities between men and women. So counter to your argument I believe?

Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:55

I think I need to reiterate, all I want is discussion. Even it gets slightly heated. These are both slightly offensive ideas to both of us.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:52

My apologies for thinking you have a cock.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:51

Also I think I have been relevantly pleasant with you.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:50

If I say arguement I mean in a philosophical sense. Premise, conclusion, validity etc.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 02:49

think of this as a discussion rather than an argument

Ahhh maybe that's the whole problem with men and women.

Women want to participate, men want to dominate, and win.

PS Trebe just to put your mind at rest, I am female.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:48

I like that post dervel. Your right but in this entire post I think and only think I pointed out experiential evidence, both personal and things like I don't believe there could be bias like chess, poker and go. I pointed out iq, I pointed out how statistically men do better in the stem subjects. There will be more but its 2.30, I ain't researching.

Yes there is a LOT left to research, but the problem with the social sciences and extremely so in the political sciences is they try to prove the hypothesis that suits them. I'm always wary of stats from the humanities. For example 7% of uk people are feminists.

I'm an egalitarian before I think I'm a feminist. I dont like the way feminism is going for a multitude of reasons.

OP posts:
Dervel · 28/04/2019 02:44

Well first of all without wanting to burst your bubble you haven’t presented me with any ideas that are “new” to me thus far.

Also as much as I have massive props for old Socrates the form of intellectual enquiry that the Socrates method enables ie natural philosophy was supplanted by the formalisation of scientific method by Francis Bacon back in Elizabethan England.

Also none of us are governments nobody is infringing on your free speech. Also free speech doesn’t mean freedom from responsibility, and if you make a bad argument you are responsible for it. I’m flattered you think I was laying some sort of complex mind trap to lead your unsuspecting innocent self into committing logical fallacies. If you find you are making them it’s time to go back to the drawing board and refine your arguments.

It might also help to think of this as a discussion rather than an argument. I’m here to participate in the discussion and refinement of ideas not to dominate.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:33

So the socratic method means notging to you? Hearing offensive and new ideas is the whole point of free speech.

OP posts:
Dervel · 28/04/2019 02:33

Look I wasn’t saying you were wrong per se, this is a complex area that involves the nature/nurture debate which has actually been raging for thousands of years in philosophy.

The human brain is also the most complex system in the known universe so quantitative statements about relative intelligence across groups has to occur with whopping caveats.

So asserting those IQ distributions only proves correlation it does not prove causation. The causes could be many and varied. There is also epigenetics also so maybe we’ve raised boys and girls so differently that how the last several generations have been raised have affected our genetic triggers now.

This is a complex complex area, and a fascinating one, I’m always extremely skeptical when someone asserts a magic bullet answer without providing proof. And that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

What we need to do is identify the difference then work out all the potential causes and rigorously examine all of them. Just saying “men and women are different that’s why” is a cop out answer at this point there are way way more variables to consider than merely that.

GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 02:31

Trebe only you can hear the voices. Mate, if you're not drunk, you should be, and if you are, you should go home.

Brew