Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

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 · 27/04/2019 23:37

I agree with you many women have done increincredible things in the subjects you mentioned, women have a hell of a lot to offer.

What I mean by dominant I'm going to presume you already know as you seem quite intelligent. In fact you said it yourself men are dominant in general. A female kickboxer would kick the crap out of me. It doesnt mean women are more dominant in general. The same goes for maths, physics, poker, chess, finance.

This is not me belittling women this is me saying we have different areas of dominance. Women dominant the health professionals by incredible amount, nursery education, vets, education, social services.

I'd personally argue what women offer society is far more valuable than an accountant.

I dont understand why wI agree with you many women have done increincredible things in the subjects you mentioned, women have a hell of a lot to offer.

What I mean by dominant I'm going to presume you already know as you seem quite intelligent. In fact you said it yourself men are dominant in general. A female kickboxer would kick the crap out of me. It doesnt mean women are more dominant in general. The same goes for maths, physics, poker, chess, finance.

This is not me belittling women this is me saying we have different areas of dominance. Women dominant the health professionals by incredible amount, nursery education, women want to be men.

OP posts:
Trebe · 27/04/2019 23:38

Dervel, bad penny made me rethink. Also it was badly worded.

OP posts:
Dervel · 27/04/2019 23:39

And you have likewise said yourself there are stereotypes so you must be intelligent enough to at least wonder what the landscape would look like were we all free from such stereotypes?

Trebe · 27/04/2019 23:45

Idiotic and impossible to navigate the world in a true and honest way.

OP posts:
Trebe · 27/04/2019 23:46

And I said generalisations not stereotypes there is a difference.

OP posts:
Dervel · 27/04/2019 23:51

Well if you can’t account for that bias the premise of your initial post becomes equally impossible.

Trebe · 27/04/2019 23:53

Sorry jesus I was replying to the wrong thing. I'll answer your question if you answer mine. Can you HONESTLY answer your own ?

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 27/04/2019 23:56

I have read your answers and they have provoked thought.

You've put in 26 days of thought, yet I'm still not really following yours.

littlbrowndog · 27/04/2019 23:57

Haha

Trebe · 27/04/2019 23:58

Ok. Why do I IQs average round the mean for women and for the most part they lie at the higher end of the standard deviations. IQ is directly involved in logic, maths, finane, philosophy etc. I'm not trying to prove men are better than women, just that we have different attributes. I dont see why this is a controvery.

OP posts:
littlbrowndog · 27/04/2019 23:58

School kids and students on exam leave. Explains a lot

Trebe · 27/04/2019 23:59

Your not following mine because you care about feminism, not about women and not about equality.

OP posts:
littlbrowndog · 28/04/2019 00:00

🥂🥂🍺🍻🍻

Trebe · 28/04/2019 00:01

Little brown, your calling uneducated and stupid based on that post. Ok...

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 00:01

You what now?

Assumption is the mother of all.....

Trebe · 28/04/2019 00:02

Please little brown contribute something if your capable.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 00:02

littl cheers 😂🤦‍♀️🤪

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.

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:
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 00:10

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

OP posts:
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.

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.

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:
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.