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 · 01/04/2019 00:46

Ok.I hope you understand them, genuinely do. That wasn't a joke aimed at women before someone takes offense.

OP posts:
FissionChips · 01/04/2019 00:45

Keep trying to goad me into making the effort for you, it won’t work.

FissionChips · 01/04/2019 00:44

I do. Smile

Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:42

Do you even have the data you're talking about? The oldest maths joke in the world is that 64% of stats are made up on the spot.

OP posts:
FissionChips · 01/04/2019 00:39

I don’t care if you’re open to being wrong, I’m still not going to do your work for you.

Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:39

Book I'd recommend to everyone is innumeracy.

OP posts:
Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:36

I'm open to being wrong.

OP posts:
FissionChips · 01/04/2019 00:36

Well at least you're clever enough to understand discussion

Yup I is.

If you’d use your own smarts to do some research yourself, that would be great..

Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:35

Yes. Stats aren't facts. Thats why I want YOUR stats to review and the data obviously.

OP posts:
Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:34

You're not really ba king up your assertions either though. You're just saying its nurture because it doesn't fit with your experience. I'm a human who has had experiences as well.

Also not my experience that women suppress emotions and I'd say doing anything other than violence, is dealing with emotions better.

OP posts:
FissionChips · 01/04/2019 00:30

Why can’t you look up the stats yourself? They are not mine. Confused .
You’ve been to university, you should know how to look up such simple stats.

BadPennyNoBiscuit · 01/04/2019 00:30

You keep making these assertions with no evidence to back up what you claim, and what you claim goes against the facts and our lived experience.

Women do not handle emotions better; women are trained to suppress how we feel and not be angry or violent.
There is nothing stopping men learning to handle their emotions. Its not an innate skill.

Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:29

Well at least you're clever enough to understand discussion.

OP posts:
Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:28

If you read the thread you'd understand why.

OP posts:
Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:27

No I'd need to see YOUR stats.

OP posts:
FissionChips · 01/04/2019 00:26

For your last point I'd want to see the statistics beforr I debate that

Which is exactly why you should do some reading around the subject, you’d know if you could be bothered.

Oh, and my dumbassness is exactly why I’ve decided to take part in this thread, so the clever ones don’t have to waste their time. Grin

Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:26

Humber I don't understand.

OP posts:
Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:25

I won't argue on numbers without the data, thats difficult. Both fission and badpenny I agree with you, even though that is sort of contradictive. I'm sure there are some women who are berated or belittled in certain professions and lauded in others. The main ones where they seem to do badly are the ones like firefighting. I promise to read that article later.

OP posts:
HumberElla · 01/04/2019 00:24

Enough? Only smarties have the answer OP.

Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:20

For your last point I'd want to see the statistics beforr I debate that. The main barrier is we are taught to fight and not talk. Big boys don't cry. One of the reasons men don't take up therapy for themselves as much. Women handle emotions better, in general.

OP posts:
FissionChips · 01/04/2019 00:19

A woman taking up a 'masculine' tole is celebrated. It's slightly different when men go into nursing or therapy jobs

Women taking up ‘masculine’ roles may be celebrated on the surface but it is not reflected in pay and progression.
Men leapfrog over women in female domintated roles.

Endofthedays · 01/04/2019 00:18

If women had more power the population would have been smaller, which would have resolved many of the world’s problems.

BadPennyNoBiscuit · 01/04/2019 00:17

Women going into masculine roles are not celebrated, they are told they trying to be/displace men. Women were derided for wanting the vote in exactly the same way, and that was 100 years ago.

Read up on Lucy Masoud, a female firefighter.
womansplaceuk.org/a-womans-place/

FissionChips · 01/04/2019 00:16

What barriers to therapy courses? Probably the same stereotyping and feminine/masculine roles that were around 30 years ago. I know I faced some difficulties with whether or not it was 'feminine

Explain the barriers, certainly isn’t lack of role models considering that the most lauded therapists tend to be male. Certainly isn’t a glass ceiling as we know men tend to get promoted faster and earn more than women when in female dominated careers.

Trebe · 01/04/2019 00:13

Humber out of curiosity, how many years is enough?

OP posts: