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:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 01:31

Men, demanding of women, plus ça change 🤷‍♀️

Trebe · 28/04/2019 01:24

I'd demand an apology but I don't think you have the guts to admit what you said was wrong.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 01:21

Thats the biggest misrepresentation of my mother, sister, grandma and aunt. These are some of the strongest matriarchs I have ever known. It says a lot about you and your stereotypes to make that comment. If it wasn't for the women in my family, guiding me, disciplining me, educating me, showing me how to be a good man, I'd be screwed. So that might be your view and their roles but it certainly isn't mine.

OP posts:
OccasionalKite · 28/04/2019 01:11

I'm thinking, now, of people who have been the actual mums of toddlers!

("There, there, darling! But if you do insist on lying face-down in the carpet, turning blue, then good luck to you!
"I need to clean the bog, at the moment! Let me know when you're ready for your mashed banana and milk!")

Trebe · 28/04/2019 01:03

I could see why could see that but it's more to do with the the visceral misandrist reaction I got from a question that was honest and looking for the true. The boards reaction stunned me being a leftist. Free speech comes before else and it wasn't misogynist, sexist or hateful. It was an idea you disagree with. Grow up.

OP posts:
OccasionalKite · 28/04/2019 00:56

Dunno if it's just me, but this seems to be descending into OP's particular brand(s) of supremacism.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 00:55

Also did I miss something I'm supposed to have said about the holocaust?

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 00:53

Attack the arguement not me. State where I'm wrong and I'll do my best to defend myself.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 00:51

I'm trying to and I'm enjoying this discussion but when you keep belittling me as person with arguements you won't back up, its difficult to be pleasant. I'm pleasant whomever is pleasant with me.

On the iq thing, I've seen it in action. 20 of us took an iq test for a laugh, 6 girls 14 boys. 1 girl obliterated us, the best a boy got was 143 she got 159. I'm not saying women cant be mathematicians, brilliant ones at that in my experience.

Also I find people either get confused with maths or misinterpret it because of the way it is displayed.

Dervel your right when you most statistical models but the normalitive distribution curve is harder to falsify unless you put incorrect or misleading data in then its hard to falsify the results.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 00:42

Dervel
"Lol Oh my! I would have thought someone with a maths and statistics background would have something more robust than a blatant ad hominem to offer in rebuttal."

Trebe
"half the time I know what I'm talking about."

Grin

From a very chilled out GDU - thanks for caring x

Dervel · 28/04/2019 00:39

Yes designed to find exceptional men! It doesn’t account for the differing ways we raise girls relative to boys!!! Thus it fails to establish an innate difference.

Goosefoot · 28/04/2019 00:37

Fuck me that's anti-semitic. I'm pretty sure the holocaust happened because an extremely unpleasant group of men decided that they were superior to Jews and quite a lot of other groups of people.

I think that what your saying can be true at the same time as someone can make a true comment about the particular form that the Holocaust took. Racial hatred can show itself in all kinds of different scenarios, and it manifested in that case in a very distinctive way. It's not anti-semitic to make suggestions about why.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 00:35

Since the military iq test, which was 83 to pass, I think. The iq test changes every year it goes up by 3 per cent very generation. Yes it was designed to find the exceptional and the less than able. Its basically logic and puzzle design. If it were true and designed to benefit men, then it certainly wouldn't have helped world war two. The same sort of test were designed originally for men but when they realised some women were truly exceptional, they didn't change the test they wanted the outliers, the exceptional.

OP posts:
Dervel · 28/04/2019 00:33

Ok data shows a thing, many things could cause that thing. Merely stating one of those potential causes adjacent to said data does not prove that’s why. Please work with me here I promise it really not that complicated!

Dervel · 28/04/2019 00:31

Lol Oh my! I would have thought someone with a maths and statistics background would have something more robust than a blatant ad hominem to offer in rebuttal.

Also for the avoidance of doubt do you what an ad hominem isn't? It’s not an argument!

ps not trying to “win” anything nor engage in intellectual willy waving either. There is a potentially interesting conversation to be had which I would for preference have enjoyed contributing to, but it seems it’s been strangled at birth by a primitive male dominance display!

Trebe · 28/04/2019 00:28

And know it doesn't verbally explain why but it does statistically and seeming women have every opportunity men have, in fact they are pushed and encouraged into the stem subjects, so I don't know what your talking about.

OP posts:
Dervel · 28/04/2019 00:25

Also quick history lesson in case you were unaware: The IQ test was developed by the US military to sort between men who may be useful for the officer track, and to disqualify men who would do more harm than good in a military regiment. I would be highly surprised if the whole thing isn’t designed from the ground up to identify exceptional males as that’s kinda what it was designed for....

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 28/04/2019 00:25

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

Fuck me that's anti-semitic. I'm pretty sure the holocaust happened because an extremely unpleasant group of men decided that they were superior to Jews and quite a lot of other groups of people. They then unfortunately managed to manipulate the population in order to gain power, where their emotional illogical hatred of such groups and completely unfounded emotional feelings of superiority lead to them committing genocide.

I realise I'm not addressing the main point, and I'm not going to, don't have the time for that. But I couldn't let that anti-semitic comment slide.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 00:24

Girldownunder, calm down and think what I said.

Dervel

A snuck arguement? Those are facts. I did say outliers, that includes men on the below 100 iq but you chose to ignore that because you're more bothered about winning the arguement than finding out what's true.

I have a maths and statistics background thanks, so half the time I know what I'm talking about. I'm not sure you do and where projecting your ineptness in the subject rather well.

OP posts:
Dervel · 28/04/2019 00:14

Umm the data doesn’t attempt to explain why, it merely states what exists you are trying to use a snuck premise to make you argument. Which is a logical fallacy. Yes some data shows variances at the tails of IQ between men and women and I find it curious you haven’t mentioned there are more men than women at the bottom scale of IQ, merely only presenting the side that appears to show more men at the top.

You would need a a multivariate analysis of the data and control for a huge number of things which to my knowledge has yet to be done to prove that men appear at the top tail in greater numbers because of an innate quality.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are ignorant of such things and merely read an abstract or a report of an abstract, and are arguing in good faith but I really would go away and study statistics and their use.

GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 00:11

Why dont they? Because most of them reach a level and cant compete

Who is the they and them in this sentence? I'm assuming you mean women?

vanessa selbst would kill me in a poker match.

I'm assuming this sentence makes you a man?

See what I said about assumption being the mother of all.....

Plus what Dervel said, which is much more coherent.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 00:10

What way is it dishonest. I'm not being a prick I want to know as stats are a deceitful subject.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 00:08

Dervel, so you dont believe the pure data is what you're saying. Its hard to manipulate mathematical data but the stats whilst usually bias would be hard to falsify as its pure numbers.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 00:05

Girl down under how about things like chess, poker, go all games that anyone can play. Why dont they? Because most of them reach a level and cant compete, as always there are outliers, vanessa selbst would kill me in a poker match.

OP posts:
Dervel · 28/04/2019 00:04

Well actually there is an interesting case to be made on what toys you give children influencing brain development, so more boys being given engineering and technical based toys could account for the effect you are observing.

Also that IQ distribution data you have alluded to is by no means settled science there is still a debate to be had surrounding it. Presenting it as if it was is intellectually dishonest. I am watching this area of IQ study unfold with great interest.

As to answering my own question, what would the landscape look like? No idea that’s why I am standing from a position of skepticism as that’s the rational position to take at this point.