Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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 08:48

Ocean on the question I wanted to ask you I did it through pm. I'd lie to do it privately as I would like an open and free discussion without people finding reason for offense.

OP posts:
Trebe · 08/06/2019 16:06

I think I need to apologise for the crash landing when this thread started. Perhaps I could have phrased things better and I probably have been convinced on some points. I suppose the only one no one brought up was religion which I found a bit odd seeming how glaringly obvious damage religion has inflicted on women specifically, especially when it comes to having autonomy over the reproductive cycle.

Anyway one question stuck with me that I asked that got brushed away that I think would have been great to explore. She said she wanted to be liberated and I asked liberated from what? I'm not saying women have nothing to be liberated from. I was asking what she thought she specifically wanted to be liberated from and what she felt western women needed liberating from. I thought that would be a productive route to go down.

OP posts:
GassyAss · 08/06/2019 16:23
Glitterball
birdsdestiny · 08/06/2019 16:28

Can we ask mnhq for a grey rock emoji or a box of tissues one maybe.

Trebe · 08/06/2019 16:32

Tissues for what?

OP posts:
GassyAss · 08/06/2019 17:01

Grin Where have you been, Trebe? Prison? Outer space?

Trebe · 08/06/2019 18:18

Been laying low lol, wanna be able to dedicate a bit of time to it when I do it. Also there were a couple things that bothered me that I thought I'd give it me best at. See where this goes!

OP posts:
StopThePlanet · 08/06/2019 21:57

Trebe

...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 [sic] talking about.

Did you bother to read my post at all? I spent a good amount of time answering a question you posed RE: female deterrence from STEM and yet you ignored my post. Or did you ignore it because it addressed the reality of (at least some) females in STEM?

Power does not equal forced subservience through violence or ruthlessness or coercion. But power is primarily defined and seen as masculine because coercion, violence, and ruthlessness are what men as a group have used since time beginning to achieve power (mostly over women and 'less valid' men). However, power isn't masculine or feminine (your examples of powerful women as well as their deserving power was tied to violent ruthless female figures - well played my misogynistic friend)... power is genderless and doesn't require coercion, violence, or ruthlessness to exist. True power is gained from earned respect not fear.

As far as women being emotional, that is a misogynistic dog whistle and you know it as you attempted to back away and reframe your comment. Women and men are equally emotional, the emotions exhibited vary by person. Women are not innately empathetic and men are not innately lacking empathy.

Also... adult ADHD is not an excuse for incoherent musings or poor comprehension. I have ADHD - ongoing since childhood, confirmed by neurological imaging. BTW, can you please use there, their, and they're as well as your and you're correctly? Your writing is difficult to translate to coherent thoughts between the misuse and omission of necessary words. And since your written thought patterns are vituperative (intentional or not) it is imperative that you use words properly and do not omit necessary words to avoid confusing your audience. Therefore, if you want discussion you must communicate clearly and effectively.

Trebe · 08/06/2019 22:25

I'm trying to have dialogue with 20 people so of course its disjointed. Its very possible that I didn't even see your post. Its also possible I partially agreed with you. I also gave some reasons as, to why I believe women may suffer in stem subjects. I'm trying to find where peoples reasonings lie and why.

However lets gets to the misogynist bit. That I'd like some kind of evidence of.

OP posts:
Trebe · 08/06/2019 22:28

Also the middle bit was a complete ramble. What are you talking about?

OP posts:
Trebe · 08/06/2019 22:31

Also I said it should say empathetic because I thought that may have been a given. I didn't think people would take it as meaning all women are emotional.

OP posts:
Trebe · 08/06/2019 22:37

Stop the planet if ya wanna have a discussion I'm happy to do that. If ya want a slinging match where we goto I'mright.com every time, I can't be bothered.

I would like to hear ya defend the misogynist comment however. I have no idea how you have arrived at that conclusion.

OP posts:
Trebe · 08/06/2019 22:42

If I'm a misogynist for saying in general men deal with their emotions in a much more aggressive and destructive manner in general, and from that women are better with dealing with emotions in a level way, in general. Then that must make me a misogynist. I actually believe in equality but believe even more that women are the better sex. What a pig I am.

OP posts:
Trebe · 08/06/2019 22:47

Also know one said innately, in fact I went far out of my way to say that women and men are both capable of being great and of being dicks. What I said was in general men make worse choices with their emotions, and are also more prone to aggression. I think I lead with that so that if you agree in general that the first is true, to some extent the other side of the coin must also be true.

OP posts:
OhamIreally · 10/06/2019 19:06

Wow. I'd be interested to know what university awarded those two degrees.

Trebe · 10/06/2019 20:46

One was a good one the other not so good. However, I said right at the beginning I'm ill educated on this matter. But you've nit answered the question. Defend the accusation I'm a misogynist. Also whether or not my degrees are from good a university is irrelevant. Telling you I had degrees in these subjects was more to offer anecdotal evidence, I'm not using the argument from authority to prove that I'm an expert. I'm an expert in neither field

Maybe where you're from or how you were brought up screaming misogynist without any proof to point at gets people to shut up. Sorry I ain't that guy. Perhaps you're hate filled rant has a lot more to do with you than it does with me. I feel sorry for you for the sort of world you seem to live in.

Back to the matter at hand defend the accusation I'm a misogynist, if you are right I'll concede my and apologise.

OP posts:
Trebe · 10/06/2019 22:38

You know what, I'm bowing out t of this discussion as it has caused enough unintentional offense. About three people had a proper discussion with me which was extremely useful to me reconsidering stances on certain points. Quite a few people just screamed horrific statistics on rape as if I somehow I agreed with rape being a good thing. It's been a strange experience but I'm going try and vacate this thread with a more gracefully than I apparently came in.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread