It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Better World Without Men?

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by 2manyquestions

hijo de la chingadaaaaa!


great point! im sure it wouldnt solve all problems, but how much damage has been caused due to high testosterone and assholes?

i know ive done my share. i know others who do things just to do them. no doubt the world would be a more peaceful place...

holy god though i couldnt imagine the passive aggressive insanity that would be the new order... not sure which is worse...

also something worth considering...3 billion chicks that havnt ever gotten laid... well that makes for some interesting thought

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:43 PM
reply to post by 2manyquestions

Dear 2manyquestions,

I do understand where you are coming from; but, it is not males, it is selfishness that drives evil. There have been Queens and they have been quite good at waging war. Cleopatra was certainly no saint. All men are not rapists, murderers or thieves. I personally resent being grouped in with rapists, I have been with one woman in my whole life and that was my ex-wife. I am 51. She cheated on me and left me for a life of leisure, didnt work out that way. Even after that I don't want a world without women, I have daughters and love them. A woman hurt me, not all women. Some men hurt women, not all men. That is my point.

We now have special programs being developed to tell girls not to abandon their babies in trash bins, no, plenty of selfishness from all genders. We should worry about selfishness not genders. Be well.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:47 PM
This is best illustrated with alot of these shows that have alot of women of different types living together. They will start out living great together untill the first women trys to overstep bounds. It will always eventually result to a caste system where the weak is looked down upon shuned and weeded out and the upper class are dominant. This then leads to dissent and forming of factions which will war against each other, Infact I would go as far to say women would do it quicker, and more efficiently then men.
edit on 3-6-2011 by EnigmaticDill because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by 2manyquestions

Build a robot or beat it out of him basically. Aggression only ends through two means. It's obsoleteness, or it's counter with something more aggressive. It all depends though. If its a whiny kid, love usually wins. If it's an egotistical bastard, a good punch to the fact solves it fast.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:59 PM
Bottom line folks . . . ask yourself this question

If the world were more masculine would it be better or worse?

Or if the world were more feminine would it be better or worse?

Be honest

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:12 PM
My two cents

women are only so subtle around men, only supressed around men.

if left to themselves emotions would lead to war not logic.

maybe that world suits your needs but not mine.

civility comes from men not women. women if left to their emotion driven ways are naturally hostile and agressive. in the animal kingdom which is lacking the male human logical brain with a few exceptions is ruled by the female species because of their hostile nature and agrro tendencies the males are naturally less agressive due to their lack thereof.

of course there are many exceptions to this generalization however

i sincerely believe that for as many exceptions there are to the rule the male gender of the human species has garnered control over the female species given their ability for patience and logic when emotions are involved.

women need a heavy hand to let them know what is right from wrong when the shtf. men serve that purpose, as well as being the breadwinners in the primitive world of the past.

women have all of the potential, and care, and even logic, of that of a man however i believe that the nature of the species suggests a more intense love hate , scorn driven nature.

as they say hell hath no fury.

this may be the very reason men evolved to be stronger than females. to achieve a balance.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:19 PM
reply to post by 2manyquestions

the thought is pointless in entertaining. This universe seems to tend towards homeostatic equilibrium, therefore the only way this would happen if some most likely unnatural event or set of events occurred. I will tell you this, there are guardians that watch over this. Why do you think there's almost exactly a 50/50 male-female planetary ratio, hmmmmmmm?

Then again you could also cook your thought meat with ideas like:

Why does a women's gestation period correspond to the orbital period of Venus?
Why do women seem to have a 'gravity' to the timing of their menstruation (meaning just being around one another affects their cycles) as well as their cycles generally lasting as long as orbital period of the Moon?

I could go into the details about Men too, but there's countless oddities to find that will blow your mind.

PS: Did you know that light is a double-helix?

Also, for some reason the idea of separation of power is coming to mind. Separate the uh, omiscience from the omnipotence.

edit on 3-6-2011 by xacto because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:25 PM
only a woman can take the life of a human she herself gave birth too. Those crimes are the ones that get to me the most. And I'm not talking about abortion.

edit on 3/6/11 by B.Morrison because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by 2manyquestions

OP. I have not read this thread yet, because I wanted to answer based on my first impressions without any influence. Then I will go back and read through it.

My impression is that you are coming at this from the wrong angle. Yes, the male is the more aggressive of our species. But rather than look at gender, look at societal norms, standards, practices, and most important of all, look at leadership in the world.

The wars everyone likes to point at as validation for their beliefs about any given topic, whether it be religion, race, greed, or gender, are not now, and have never really been started by the common man. With the exception of legitimate wars fought for independence from tyrants, it is those who sit in the seats of power the world over who deceive us into war. And those seats of power may be held mostly by men, but they consider themselves to be superior to the common man. It is they who invented the modern idea of us and them.

The agression you see amongst the male population today is a learned and programmed agression pushed by Hollyweird and the mass media. That would include sports by the way, which is a poor replacement for masculinity.

Todays men aren't taught what it really means to be masculine. Real men are protectors of their families, real men are protectors of society. Real men focus their agression where it's needed, not where it's unfeasible. Real men will do everything they can to walk away from a fight because they have no desire to harm another soul. They would rather live in peace.

My point being, it isn't a matter of diminishing agression. It is a matter of refocusing it on the proper target. Which is those who perpetuate violence the world over. And that would be those who have always done a poor job leading our cultures. Those who perpetuate division among cultures, races, genders, and age. Those who lust for power at any cost. Those who lust for control of the masses. Those who perpetuate oppression and seperation of gender and race for their own benefit. This is the enemy, not a gender, not a race, not a belief system.

A world without men or women, with no change in TPTB, male or female, will be no different than the world we live in today.

edit on 6/3/2011 by Klassified because: spelling police

edit on 6/3/2011 by Klassified because: grammar police

edit on 6/3/2011 by Klassified because: ETA

edit on 6/3/2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by 2manyquestions

Hahahahahahaha is this some sort of response to the girls being navy seals thread... because all the ladies have been getting bashed???

Prolly not, but just thought this timing was funny
edit on 3-6-2011 by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:28 PM
My personal belief is most of the crime is brought on by women. Wether it be suggestive behavior or other things. Example: a family losses everything in the recession and have no food to eat. Who will be looked at to provde first? The male, which in return has to do whatever's needed to provide for his family. He's a robber or burglar now.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:48 PM
Whereas I agree the aggression is linked to testosterone. I don't see the world as being a better place without males, minus talking about reproduction. Take Pride of Lions for example. The male guards the Pride, from other either it be other lions going after his cubs, or guarding his territory, etc., the testosterone in place to help that the male with his behavior.
Females are not fully innocent. We have testosterone too, but in lower levels. Take the account of female gangs as an example, females can be just as extreme or more so in some cases than males with violence.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:16 PM

Originally posted by inforeal
Bottom line folks . . . ask yourself this question

If the world were more masculine would it be better or worse?

Or if the world were more feminine would it be better or worse?

Be honest

According to social stereotypes, media stereotypes, or non-complacent reality?

Who says the being male or female determines whether you are masculine or feminine, anyways?

edit on 3-6-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:20 PM
If women ran things, the world would be watered down, teary eyed over-emotional bull$h!t pouring from every orifice of society.

Violent women are 10x worse than violent men, As they usually have no remorse whatsoever and when they are caught, The usually have no regret other than not being able to inflict more harm/damage. From what I've seen they also blame everyone but themselves when they are caught.

Bottom line, Killing is not a trait of testosterone filled, thrill seeking men, It is a trait of humankind. PERIOD.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by Teeky

You would have Hillary Clinton as president which is just as bad as a Bush. If you follow her and everything she stands for is war. She helped promote the war in Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Or you would have someone like Condoleeza Rice.

Or is there inconclusive proof that women could be just as bad or even worse than males:

Countess Elizabeth Bathory:

After 29 years of marriage in 1604 Count Ferencz Nadasdy died and shortly after rumors began to surface about Bathory's cruel treatment of her female servants. As she only tortured and murdered servants no one cared.

In 1609 Elizabeth's luck began to change. She was accused of murdering girls of lower noble classes sent to her for schooling. She was tried in 1611 and sentenced to house arrest.

Darya Saltykova

Darya Saltykova b. 1730 d. 1801 was a Russian noblewoman accused of torturing and murdering at least 100 of her serfs. Most of the serfs she murdered were children and young girls Complaints about Saltykova were ignored by officials for a very long time until relatives of her victims were able to bring an official petiton before Catherine the Great who sentenced her to be chained to a public platform for one hour wearing a sign stating 'This Woman tortured and Murdered', Saltykova was later imprisoned in the basement of a convent for the remainder of her life.

Delphine Lalaurie

One of the most infamous figures in New Orleans history Madame Lalaurie was a socialite who lived in the French Quarter of New Orleans. Delphine allegedly killed, tortured and mutilated 100 of her slaves.

One of the most infamous stories of Lalaurie's cruelty involves an 8 year old slave girl who was brushing her hair. Lalaurie brutally beat the child who tried in vain to escape but fell to her death from a balcony.

Catalina de los Ríos y Lisperguer

Catalina de los Ríos y Lisperguer was a Chilean aristocrat often called "La Quintrala", she was extremely cruel to her tenants and slaves, torturing them and murdering them. She avoided punishment for years due to her extreme wealth, she was eventually tried for the murder of 40 peasants but she was not convicted due to her familial ties. She died in 1655 and her house was abandoned for many years due to fear that her malevolent spirit may live on.

Enriqueta Marti

Enriqueta Marti was born in Barcelona, Spain. She is an extremely disturbing figure in history, she was a child murderer and also a procuress of children for the purpose of prostitution.

Another way Enriqueta Marti made her living was by selling charms and potions to the wealthy of Barcelona. What they did not know is that in those potions were the ground up remains of her child victims.

To conclude, because you haven't done nearly enough digging around into the subject you should have found women can be just as ruthless as men can be. The reason you don't hear of the atrocities is because there weren't very many women in charge.

Whether a man in charge or a woman you will have the same outcome in a different way, meaning death and etc. The world would be a utopia under women only if there was no race, borders, or a limited amount of resources. If there is a limited amount of resources it becomes my people have to eat before yours.

So please quit trying to act like womens crap don't stink.

Why are you being so defensive? If you really read what I said I said that men and women should work together. I believe women would start wars also, I just don't believe it would be as frequent. Women give birth and we would be reluctant to have on going violent war due to the possibility of hurting innocent children.
edit on 3-6-2011 by Teeky because: word

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:23 PM
A world without men.....just women....I think there would still be a lot of evil going on....all of the criminals would just be female...oh I know there would be a lot of good too....but there are many, many females that are evil....but many have managed to stay under the radar.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by EpicLulz2012

A world of ONLY women, ... hmmm, ...instead of just alot of fighting, there would be alot of CRYING,... then FIGHTING,...(only much more sadistic and brutal)...LOL

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:32 PM

Originally posted by coastlinekid
reply to post by EpicLulz2012

A world of ONLY women, ... hmmm, ...instead of just alot of fighting, there would be alot of CRYING,... then FIGHTING,...(only much more sadistic and brutal)...LOL

Lol, Amen to that. Imagine what kind of debt the world governments would be in if women ran things.

"The US is currently 1 billion-trillion dollars in debt due to congress voting to go to war with Italy and France over prada, Gucci, and stiletto heels. Congress spared no expense seeing as how they do not understand the value of a dollar. Oh, This just in, Jesse James has been castrated for cheating on Sandra Bullock"
edit on 3-6-2011 by EpicLulz2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:45 PM
look at all these men getting butt hurt because someone suggested the world would be better without men
as if years and years of oppression to keep women away from the real world did not happen
so pathetic, and I do believe if men stepped aside and allowed women to rule for a few decades the world will be in fact a better place.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by 2manyquestions

I can tell you what I WOULDN'T do. I wouldn't kill or torture somebody to obtain food. I would look for all other ways before reducing myself to a violent, sadistic criminal. Despite that, your argument is flawed for the following reasons: I'm not arguing against stealing food when you're starving. I'm arguing against sadistic, violent and deadly crimes, something the male gender dominates by a very large margin. I never said I want to rid the planet of all men. I said I want to rid men (who are afflicted) of their sadistically violent streak.

I get what you are saying 2manyquestions ...and yes..the world would be a better place without those men with the very sadistic violent streaks. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your first post....and you seem to be getting way too much flack, for making an obvious point about sadistic violent behavior.

But this means we get to keep all the ones who aren''t sadistic ,and violent correct ?

Oh..can we toss out all the sadistic violent women too..maybe the same place as the men go ..just so they have some company

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in