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 · 31/03/2019 19:53

I also wasn't looking for a conclusion as such. Discussion with intelligent and well educated people.

OP posts:
JesusInTheCabbageVan · 31/03/2019 19:54

We don't hate you because you are a man OP.

ISaySteadyOn · 31/03/2019 19:56

Look, you have gotten the response you got because you are treating women's lives and histories as some sort of intellectual pontification as though they have no relevance outside your head. Our lives are not your philosophy class.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 19:56

Well then don't use terms that would at thevery least make you sound sexist. I also don't care whether you like me or not. I'm just a little shocked by the reaction is all.

OP posts:
SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 31/03/2019 19:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 19:58

The question pertains to today though, it's hypothetical and philosophical yes but it has a certain relevance as equality is fought for.

OP posts:
SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 31/03/2019 20:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 31/03/2019 20:08

You're probably not aware that your approach is far from novel. In fact it's tedious. This board suffers too frequent intrusions from men who present us with long, sexist OPs and then expect us to pay proper attention to their manly preoccupations.

Perhaps you might ask yourself what the women here have to gain from discussing your essay. Were you planning to give us marks perhaps? Because unless you're handing out prizes I can't see what it has to offer me.

sackrifice · 31/03/2019 20:10

I don't want women or men to kill each other.
But you said we could only be feminist is it was equality we wanted. That is your downfall, you don't even understand the problem.

And we don't need your permission to be whatever the fuck we want.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 20:14

Interesting article and I like her idea that women shouldn't be striving for what men have, I don't want what men have and the article is right, most men are to stupid to realise it. Some of the statistics bother me in there presentation and I'm skeptical of how some are used. However yes equality, when it comes to gender is gonna be difficult road ahead. For instance there are more female nurses than male, does that mean we should have exactly 50/50 in numbers? Of course not.

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 20:17

I don't care if its novel, but why do you keep bringing up that I am a man?

When did I once say you need my permission to do anything. Also there is a great article on equality about 4 posts above.

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 20:19

Also it was more of a point on equity than equality but it was badly put.

OP posts:
WinterBluez · 31/03/2019 20:27

OP, I think the problem is that you are generalizing a bit too much. Nothing wrong with a little generalisation, that's how we talk about society, but when you talk about women's jobs and men's jobs in such a way that becomes problematic.Like your thing about men studying maths more. Boys and girls are socialised in certain ways that makes them more likely to grow up to follow certain career paths. Boys are taught to be strong and clever and girls are taught to care. Feminists are trying to fight against these regressive stereotypes that are harmful to everyone. Not just women. Everyone. So when you come on here talking in stereotypes, yes, people are likely to get offended.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 20:53

Some stereotypes are real though,at least to some extent. I'm not saying all women are better therapists, if I thought that I would not have done the degree. I am saying in general women find it easier to be empathetic and from my experience find it easier to learn to be empathetic. When it comes to maths the smartest person I ever met in maths was a woman, absolute genius. I agree that these sort of stereotypes are idiotic usually but it does not mean that some of them do not hold truth. From a statistical sense certain stereotypes hold some truth. Also if I had the choice of being empathetic or being mathematically gifted I would take empathy.

Also over the last 30 years I've been in education I haven't seen a great push for a male or female dominated anything in education. Or am I misunderstanding that part?

OP posts:
droningtraffic · 31/03/2019 20:53

Ok, it's a bollox hypothetical question then.

Still bollox.

Women lacked influence because they were women. Which means, that they would have to have been something else in order to have influence. See my point?

Are you one of those blokes who tells women they're superior to men? Like in the song?

SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 31/03/2019 20:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 31/03/2019 20:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sackrifice · 31/03/2019 20:55

When did I once say you need my permission to do anything.

Well, i've already quoted your words, but as you seem to have forgotten already:

feminism in its true sense makes perfect sense as long as it's equality and not equity that is trying to be attained.

Interesting article and I like her idea that women shouldn't be striving for what men have, I don't want what men have and the article is right, most men are to stupid to realise it. Some of the statistics bother me in there presentation and I'm skeptical of how some are used

I'd love you to try and explicate this, as Jessica's research and stats are usually spot on. What do you disagree with exactly?

SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 31/03/2019 20:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:01

Oh you meant it like that sakrifice, how incredibly stupid. I was conveying the ideas I believe in. I'm not being told what to believe by you. So, no. I wasnt telling you what to do.

The numbers, how good are you with stats? Not the statistical method but more how numbers very easily manipulate peoples thinking if presented in a certain way. I think 20 credits were on a topic called sex, drugs and lies lies lies.

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:02

I dont doubt she used correct statistical methods. How would I know without access to the data?

OP posts:
MenuPlant · 31/03/2019 21:07

How good are you with maths :D

Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:07

I don't understand what the autism article conveys?

OP posts:
MIdgebabe · 31/03/2019 21:08

BUt you must have a reason to be skeptical? Beyond Male priveldge that is.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 21:08

I'm ok with maths, not brilliant.

OP posts: