Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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 · 28/04/2019 02:52

My apologies for thinking you have a cock.

OP posts:
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:
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 02:57

It used to be.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 02:58

I think its weird you think I hate feminism.

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 03:09

Girldown under is intersectionality a form of equality?

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 03:19

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:
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 03:22

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:
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 03:37

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

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 03:39

Oceanbliss clear, concise, to the point - brava.

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

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:
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 03:57

You have been name calling me all thread, now your throwing a wobbly because you got called out on it. Dont be a bigot and I wont call you one.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 04:01

Also oceanbliss I did answer a lot of your questions as best I could in the thread.

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 04:08

Clearbliss I could have showed you a lot of mens rights statistics or anti-feminist ones, but how would that go down on this forum. I couldn't even defend them because I'd find it dishonest to win an arguement using facts I find distasteful.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 28/04/2019 04:11

Trebe call me what you want mate, Im just laughing, so no dramas Brew

Have a blessed day. I’m off out to get sandy toes and coffee.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 04:15

Oceanbliss you are clearly informed and educated would you mind if I asked you a question?

OP posts:
Trebe · 28/04/2019 04:18

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Oceanbliss · 28/04/2019 05:16

Trebe and GirlDownUnder thank-you for your compliments on my post. I truly hope it's unifying.

Trebe in regards to nature and nurture I agree with the interventionists approach to view nature and nurture as working together to create the person rather then one or the other being the more dominant influence. My point was that men and women, girls and boys have the same developmental milestones. There are no male and female developmental checklists. Because regardless of our biological sex we all (except where there are developmental delays) fall into the same norms for achieving each step in our development. We are not as different as gender stereotypes would have us believe. We have far more similarities than differences. While differences exist they certainly do not outnumber our similarities. I do believe that gender is learned behavior. (I do realize that may offend people who very much identify with their own gender role or characteristics. It's not intended to offend or trivialize how important gender identity is to some people).

As for answering questions, I will to the best of my ability. However, I have a very busy day and might not get back on till tomorrow. As soon as I hit post I'm going to make myself put down the phone and get back to it.

Trebe · 28/04/2019 06:13

Ocean I'd be very careful on here saying its nature and nurture. It causes confusion on how homosexuals and transgenders can come to contradictory conclusions.

Do we go through the same developmental norms? Men and women go through sexual differences including how we view sex when we're young, we are for the most part controlling in our urges but at 13 you'd fuck a pillow filled with vaseline, 13 year old girls have urges to but they are able to control them better.

Then there are aggressive differences for men because as teenagers we have to prove ourselves (that has a lot to do with women, not directly but for our desires)' mainly because we're imbeciles.

There are definitely social norms we go through one way or another and thats probably why we end up with 'tom boys' or masculine females. I'd like to say I didnt point out lesbians as I dont think lesbians are influenced about being gay although there are a number of cases of people realising they are gay. Personally don't think it matters if its a choice or not, if ya wanna be gay then fuck evangelicals who think its immoral because they believe its a sin. Get lost.

This is one thats gonna offend if your a terf, you've been warned. When it comes down to it I'd quite happily have a relationship with a trans, they look, talk and act like a woman. I'm attracted to the look, intellect and humour of a woman and if she ticks those boxes then I don't see why anyone would care.

However, if you're telling me I'm a bigot because I dont like dick, thats ludicrous. I do not now, have never and will like dick. Is a gay person a bigot for not liking vagina.

The question is, when has the left gone to far? I love the left and it pains me to see the way its going, so many people are certain there absolutely right. My history teacher used to say something that stuck with me 'I'm absolutely certain, that absolute certainty is absolutely dangerous.'

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread