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 22:57

Do you think its acceptable or helpful to your cause?

OP posts:
HumberElla · 31/03/2019 22:58

What is the point of your question OP?

How do you think women might feel being asked this question?

Do you think we ever wonder in our idle moments whether the world could have been better if the last 2000 yrs women’s history had been different? Or even if it had been the same, but just recorded?

Or did you think this kind of philosophical question hasn’t been put to women before, and it might be an interesting intellectual exercise for you to present women with the idea, for your entertainment.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:01

Humber the point was to learn the way I think is best. Discussion.

Also maybe you should ponder on that question. At least in the western world that is where we are heading. A world with more female influence.

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:03

Knowing your past is the best way to know the future. So pondering what may have been if you had been more 'powerful'is important.

OP posts:
FissionChips · 31/03/2019 23:04

‘In general women are crap at STEM’ isn’t true though, so therefore it’s offensive.

FissionChips · 31/03/2019 23:04

It’s actually basically lies about how capable females are. Pure and simple lies.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:04

And yes, I find discussion entertaining, in fact riveting. But the entertainment is not from setting off your triggers.

OP posts:
FissionChips · 31/03/2019 23:06

Knowing your past is the best way to know the future. So pondering what may have been if you had been more 'powerful'is important

Are you trying to educate us about our oppression?Confused

Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:07

It says nothing about there capabailities really, it says about generalities. I'm also saying women are better therapists in my humblest opinion, whether that is nature or nurture is up for debate.

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:08

Nope. Trying to get educated. Some people are engaging with that fact others arent.

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:09

Also if it were capabilities I wouldn't have said that by far the smartest mathematician I've met was a woman. She did not lack the capability.

OP posts:
FissionChips · 31/03/2019 23:10

It says nothing about there capabailities really, it says about generalities. I'm also saying women are better therapists in my humblest opinion

The generalities are nonsense though, how can you not understand that?

Lol, saying women are better at something doesn’t mean it’s not harmful or offensive.

FissionChips · 31/03/2019 23:12

But overall, you believe females are less capable at maths etc, don’t you?

Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:14

The question of being offensive is irrelevant. That doesn't really mean anything. The question is, is it at least somewhat factual. I'm sure I could find a million stats to prove my point, but so could you as most stats are bullshit. General numbers don't really lie though, I don't believe women in this country are discouraged from going into the stem subjects, on the contrary there are some bursaries available for women in the stem subjects.

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:16

Not less capable, just not as interested in certain sciences. Women in physics and maths are a rarity.

OP posts:
FissionChips · 31/03/2019 23:20

The question of being offensive is irrelevant

Then why all the crap about people descriping you as a mansplainer?

The question is, is it at least somewhat factual

No, your offensive remarks are not based in fact (as you would know if you bothered to actually read up).

I don't believe women in this country are discouraged from going into the stem subjects

Why do you think less females take up the subjects and enter those professions then? Spell it out.

How do you explain that girls from single sex schools have a much higher uptake of STEM subjects at Alevel?

FissionChips · 31/03/2019 23:21

Not less capable, just not as interested in certain sciences. Women in physics and maths are a rarity

Explain why that might be, please .

Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:24

Oh back in the day they were very much discouraged from doing so. Are you saying that is still true over the past 25 years?

Mansplaining is sexist, offensive to but to true discussion that's irrelevant.

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:25

Which stem subjects are they taking up at a higher rate and what percentage?

OP posts:
FissionChips · 31/03/2019 23:25

Oh back in the day they were very much discouraged from doing so. Are you saying that is still true over the past 25 years?

Yup, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

FissionChips · 31/03/2019 23:26

Which stem subjects are they taking up at a higher rate and what percentage?

I ain’t going to breastfeed you, go look it up.

FissionChips · 31/03/2019 23:32

Why do you believe female are less interested in certain subjects? Why might that be, ladybrain?

powershowerforanhour · 31/03/2019 23:33

*Women are more emotional' lmao!

One of the greatest tricks the patriarchy has ever paid off is to convince us all that anger, lust and ruthless vengeance aren't emotions.*

True. You often hear "Oh Hitler was such a great orator". Just sounds like angry screaming to me.

Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:33

It was your 'fact' I thought you might know.

Fission... you're saying women have been discouraged from the stem subjects in the western world? I'm just over 30 and there was never any discouraging women from stem subjects in my experience. Also seeming as we are allowed to state facts and not back them up, the university I went to 12 years ago had a quota percentage that had to be women in admissions for maths. At least 20% meaning men who could have better grades wouldn't get the place if the quota wasn't full.

OP posts:
Trebe · 31/03/2019 23:36

I'm not sure I said women are more emotional I said and believe they are more adept at handling and understanding them. Psychology would be much more advanced if instead of Freud we had a godmother of psychology. I also agreed with badpenny, men are definitely just as emotional we just deal with it like fucking morons, in general.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread