Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 01:59

The Vagina Pass - (isn't that) a mountain gorge in Snowdonia

Be an interesting holiday destination Grin

Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:01

Dervel you're wrong. I'm giving counter arguements you aren't used to. I believe in the socratic method to finding truth. I understand you dont like what I'm saying, I'm trying to find out two things here. Am I wrong and do feminists of today believe in the values they a spouse. So far all I have seen is ideological dogma apart from 2 people.

Originally I just wanted to ask a question that isn't particularly controversial and asked in a polite way. The visceral reaction came from your forum.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:02

I was saying I wont treat her differently from anyone else when it comes to discussion.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 02:03

Am I wrong and do feminists of today believe in the values they [sic] a spouse.

Yes, and yes - yay we agree Smile

Dervel · 28/04/2019 02:04

It’s not “my” forum it’s a collection of separate and individual minds. You seem determined to coalesce into some kid of gestalt. I outlined my position and I’m afraid I can only explain it to you I cannot understand it for you.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:05

Girldown are you saying you shoukd be treated softly because you are a woman?

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 02:08

treat her differently

Girldown are you saying you shoukd be treated softly because you are a woman

Did you just assume my sex - twice?

I've already told you about assumption - see up thread.

And I've asked for no consideration from you in how you treat me.

I can only explain it to you I cannot understand it for you.
Perfect - I'm stealing!

Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:10

I'm treating you as group because not one person isn't working together to argue with me, when its ten against 1 I reserve the right to say all of you.

Girl down under you may aspouse the feminist and left values today, I dont know. However I very much doubt you're an actual true feminist based on your posts.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 02:12

Trebe are you answering questions only you can hear?

Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:17

I'm on a tablet and I'm trying to answer questions that aren't designed to lead me into logical fallacies.

OP posts:
Dervel · 28/04/2019 02:17

This isn’t a hive mind, I engaged with you mostly independently of anyone else although I confess I am finding GirlDownUnder delightful as time goes on.

If you are feeling so triggered maybe it’s you that needs to be treated delicately. So I will do my level best going forward if you are getting so upset by all this free speech that you love so much!

I’ll even say something nice! I don’t think you are the stupidest man on the planet! Although if I were you I’d really hope and pray he doesn’t die!

Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:18

Yes I assumed your sex on the 5 different things that would make me do that.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:22

Dervel I'm not sure where you are coming from, yours are the most intelligent and though provoking questions and ideas on here. Problem is I'm working on a tablet and your questions have depth and a lot of them. I'd be typing forever. If you wish to ask one question at a time then I'll be happy to answer them and also be glad if I find iut I'm wrong.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 02:25

Yes I assumed your sex on the 5 different things that would make me do that.

What 5 things made you do that !? Hmm

GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 02:27

finding GirlDownUnder delightful Blush

I can fix that Grin

Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:28

Come on. Please use common sense. I'll bet anything she's a woman. You know she is too.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:30

No you cant transgender women are born men.

OP posts:
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
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.

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 02:44

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 02:48

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:
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 02:50

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

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:51

Also I think I have been relevantly pleasant with you.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread