It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 17
21
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bslade
 


I really appreciate your reply and tend to agree with many of your statements. I think that through discussion we understand each other better, and I'm grateful for that. Thanks for keeping your cool despite the heated topic.




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
We might consider castrating every 3rd male child. . . . Boy oh boy . . . now that would really increase the female population! The only problem with that is we would have a bunch of eunuchs around who might become a problem.


Seriously though, in some cultures they actually have more than 2 genders, we might consider social engineering another couple of genders to add to the mix.

marcelvotlucka.wordpress.com...

edit on 4-6-2011 by inforeal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
Any man who has worked in a work environment with primarily women know...

...If there were no men around, nothing would get done nearly as productively as it currently does.

Keep in mind that you can't ask men to reach for the high shelf, do the heavy lifting, collect shopping carts from parking lots (ICKY! AND OMG, COOOLD!).

Feminists, always about the want want want -- never about the give. Maybe you should just do the developed world a favor and execute yourselves instead of men.


I've met men in the work environment who weren't getting the job done, as I'm sure there are some women who don't get the job done. I think Cal Trans in California is one example of a job not getting done, at least not efficiently. I can't say whether that job would get done faster if women were running it, but things are in pretty bad shape even though men are in charge. I think laziness is common in both genders.

I'll lift anything as long as it's in my power, and I'll suffer the cold if I have to. Some women refuse to lift heavy objects, and some men refuse to go grocery shopping or pushing the baby stroller. There are things that both genders refuse to do if they can get away with it, but in the end... if it has to get done, they'll get it done.

Men seem to feel really threatened by feminists. Why should they execute themselves, and why should that be a favor to the world? Men,... always thinking about eliminating, pulverizing or blowing up this or that.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by MaxNormal
 


My original premise is that boys need mature, responsible role models.

Calling the thread sexist and demanding it be shut down does not address the growing problem of violent crime in our society, which was the OP's point.

Crimes perpetrated by, young, rudderless boys...



Just wanted to thank you for looking past the title of this thread and addressing the real issue. I agree. Young males need good, older role models to show them the way. Leaving them to raise themselves certainly isn't working.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   


As funny as your comment might be, it's not exactly what I had in mind when I created the discussion.
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


Let's be honest about what you had in mind. Your thread is like "now, I'm not a racist, but those black people certainly are violent and dangerous" type of arguments. Just because you claim not to be intending to "bash" men, doesn't mean you're not bashing men.

I mean really, what exactly DID you intend when you created the discussion? What possible other intent can be surmised? And before you accuse me of not reading your OP, I did. This thread, regardless of the carefully chosen preemptive disclaimers, is nothing more than misandry, and that's fine, but you could at least be honest about it.
Feminism? I think not. The feminists I know (and I know a few) would never postulate a world without men. This is a straight-up hate thread, and not a very cleverly disguised one, either.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by alien
 


I am SHOCKED and surprised that your post didn't receive any stars. That was a great reply, and exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for the intelligent, clear and well-written post.
You have provided a lot of good things to think about, and I tend to agree with you on many of the points you made. I'm beginning to lean toward nurture being the main factor here, although nature also plays into it. Due to naturally possessing more physical strength, it is most important to teach young boys to use it responsibly. The upbringing, social expectations and gender roles in certain cultures seem to have a lot to do with the way both men and women behave. When totting a gun and killing in order to achieve power is looked up to, I can see how some men might fall into that trap. I suppose we need to be extra careful when raising boys. Teaching them compassion, restraint, discipline, responsibility and showing them the right way to use their power is one way of fighting violent crime. Thanks for participating and giving me some food for thought.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Well, a world without men would mean we'd not exist. Procreation would be a problem?

But if we imagine a world with less men, or a world in which women were dominant, running society and suppressing men........

I think women would be obligated to develop more their masculine sides and develop their aggressive instincts more.
For protection of the young, the elderly, the weak, they'd have to learn to get very skilled at attack and killing of natural predators. So some would become much more violence-prone.

They would also have to do the job of culling the male population in order to have the genetics of the group evolve and progress positively. Males which fight with and kill each other insure that the most physically skilled, strong, intelligent and coordinated males survive and reproduce.

Group hunting develops intellectual skills (in planning and organization), as well as skills of cooperation and hierarchial collective effort. This actually develops parts of the brain further through generations that are useful in other constructive parts of civilisation.

So if the only women took part in the necessity of getting together to hunt and kill prey (animal or human- for food or protection of clan) then eventually, they too would develop more these aggressive parts of the brain, have a more hierarchial mentality (less equality based) and would become more as men are today!

Woman would be the new man.

And the men would discuss together amongst themselves (in their passive aggressive and more introspective, less active way they'd have, being suppressed for generations) about how the world might be if there weren't these violent and conflict-prone females.
edit on 4-6-2011 by coquine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Ever hear about the one where the guy was granted a wish and asked for "world peace"?

He goes outside to check out the new world and everyone and everything is gone. That's what I get from the thread title... however upon reading the OP the subject is changed.

Why would one title a thread in a certain fashion, then posit an entirely different scenario in the original post? Seems like baiting. Or entrapment...

Now, on to the actual topic:

I do not see the point. Is this really a man's world? Not from my perspective. Tell the judges that preside over Family Courts and make daily practice out of legally emasculating every male that has the misfortune to stand before them, regardless of circumstance... that it's a man's world.

Family Court always favors the female. Women get preferential treatment in regards toward children, finance, and property. That is not equality. That is special recompense.The courts will let a child stay with a crack smoking prostitute before letting them go home with dad. Happens all the time. Good men are manipulated and punished right along with the "deadbeat dads" without discernment between the two. Does that not pretty much wrap it up for the fairer gender actually running the show?

In a marriage it doesn't really matter which partner initiates the divorce, the male is pretty much screwed and we all know that. If the woman doesn't get half of the man's money in alimony she'll get a third of it in child support... never mind he's a good guy and wants to see the kids 3-4 days a week and still pays extra because the CS checks are purchasing her new curtains and plane tickets to Jamaica instead of new shoes and school supplies...

I've seen women in the workplace making 10% more than men that have three times the experience and surpass their skill level by light years. Okay, that's fair...

So who is really in control here?

Why is there an assumption that men rule the world? Because more of them go to work? Because there hasn't been a female POTUS? Wouldn't that, in a sense, make men the slaves?

It's not a 50/50, black & white dichotomy anymore, if ever it were to begin with. The stereotype has dissolved unless you are keeping it alive by living down to it. Each relationship has it's own dynamic.

Man's world my eye.

Besides... everybody knows... "TPTB" rule the world!



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I was just talking to a buddy about this the other day.

I think ALL law enforcement personnel should be women, less aggression and BS we would have to put up with on the streets



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by joechip



As funny as your comment might be, it's not exactly what I had in mind when I created the discussion.
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


Let's be honest about what you had in mind. Your thread is like "now, I'm not a racist, but those black people certainly are violent and dangerous" type of arguments. Just because you claim not to be intending to "bash" men, doesn't mean you're not bashing men.

I mean really, what exactly DID you intend when you created the discussion? What possible other intent can be surmised? And before you accuse me of not reading your OP, I did. This thread, regardless of the carefully chosen preemptive disclaimers, is nothing more than misandry, and that's fine, but you could at least be honest about it.
Feminism? I think not. The feminists I know (and I know a few) would never postulate a world without men. This is a straight-up hate thread, and not a very cleverly disguised one, either.


I think some of you are taking this thread a bit too personally. I don't hate men, never have, and hopefully never will come into a situation where I might start to do so. I intended for people to explore the hypothetical possibility or a world dominated by women instead of men. I wondered whether we would have less crime and violence if that were to become reality. I wondered why so many more men are in jail as opposed to women. Seeing as the majority of people who participate in wars and violent crimes are men, it makes me wonder whether women would wage the same wars if men weren't around. Boys play with guns, girls play with dolls. Boys play war, girls play tea parties. Not all boys play with guns and not all girls like dolls, but the majority follow these stereotypes. Do you have to be a sexist or hate men to wonder what the world would be like if roles were reversed?

Why is it that some men become terribly offended by this hypothetical question? I also wonder what the world would be like without women. I did not create that thread, but would it make me a woman hater if I had? I provided statistics which show and support my argument, but I also clearly stated that women are also capable of horrific crimes. It seems to me some of you just enjoy being offended without thinking about what I actually wrote. You may have read or glanced over the original post, but it's clear to me you're more determined to think of me as a man hater.

I feel it's important that people are capable of rational, calm and intelligent discussion on any subject without reverting to calling a person a racist, sexist or religionist (if that's even a word) as soon as we explore a sensitive subject. I guess some of you feel some subjects should be forbidden, never to be discussed in fear that it might offend.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   


I provided statistics which show and support my argument, but I also clearly stated that women are also capable of horrific crimes. It seems to me some of you just enjoy being offended without thinking about what I actually wrote. You may have read or glanced over the original post, but it's clear to me you're more determined to think of me as a man hater.
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


Like I said, you can say "now I don't intend this discussion of what the world would be like (directly stating "better") without black people, jews, or homosexuals, to be reflective of any hatred or bigotry towards these groups, it's just an intellectual exercise" all day. Do you really expect the blacks, jews, and homosexuals to see it that way? And really should they?

And really do you think the majority of thinking people are fooled by this? I certainly am not. Nor am I particularly offended, by the way. I just call it like I see it.
edit on 4-6-2011 by joechip because: clarification



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


The world would smell better.
Lots of shoe shops, I would imagine.

But women are just as violent as men. In my humble opinion.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by subtopia
 


this is a very intriguing concept, and I totally agree. The fact that you make someone/something face up to the fact of this is how it is...what you gonna do ?? In animal world they either fight or back down and take their place, in humans they either fight or come to your conclusion of realization of self. Kudos!



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   


in humans they either fight or come to your conclusion of realization of self. Kudos!
reply to post by blujasper
 


Realization of self? Really? It is my contention that the natural state of mankind is egalitarian and peaceful. The statistics she sites are certainly not found among hunter-gatherer groups (as few as are left). Rather than attempting to wrongly ascribe violent, aggressive antisocial behaviors to half of the human race, perhaps it would serve the attempt at "realization of self" to consider the unnatural state of modern civilization, with an understanding of just how short in terms of human existence this civilization has been around.

We are slaves. We find ourselves in the unnatural position of being slaves (or slave-owners), of having no extended tribal group identity, (beyond our local football team) having lived as large family groups for 99% of our time on the planet. I could go on and on about this, but it may be deemed un-topical. There are plenty of antisocial female traits that we could go into, but they also are caused by living in an unnatural state.

But really to the point of why this topic is so inherently wrong: Imagine an ats thread entitled "A Better World Without Blacks?" Complete with statistics. Really now. Would we accept that as a suitable discussion? I think not.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Putting aside the silly man bashing, I thought of something (related to feminism).

A feminist once said that it was pregnancy that always kept women from being equal. Motherhood, the same thing that some here have used to show female superiority, is what kept women from assuming the same roles and being relegated to a lesser status (and accepting it). I agree with that assessment. As women feel less and less like their natural duty is reproduction, that their natural role is that of housewife, they are becoming more "free" of these roles and free to pursue their education or career. That is why I think abortion is so important to feminists, beside from the right one has over one's body, it's the right one has over one's life. I am a feminist, although I don't like that word, but I am a feminist in that I support gender equality.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Sure the world would be better... for women, but that's not very fair for us males to be either be wiped out over time or genetically modified
.

Interesting idea though, but it has a lot of moral issues. Hope this thread keeps going strong.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Oh it would be total chaos a world without men.

What a lot of females see themselves as is totally not the thing that they actually are, and its obvious to everybody usually but the one in question. Why you ask? Because the last person you would be able to go against is yourself, so a lot of females don't see themselves as they are, only as they want to see themselves. Because they would never go against themselves truly.

Females are less physically violent not because they are not capable of it it's because they usually can get a man to do it, or they have the option of waiting to see who comes out on top then going for that one. Females are more controlling and tyrannical by nature then men, and would put up with more then a man would to get there way and there number one tool is sex, or to be more precisely the millions and millions of years of biology that gets men to be attracted to females, its nature not really having anything all that much to do with females in general, other then what they represent in terms of primal things and the conditioning of eons and eons its just survival mechanisms and biology and nature.

So a man looks for sex, a females tool is sex, or her sex, basically they just have to wait around and eventually some dude would come to her, while the man would have to be the ones looking and trying to attract females. Its kind of like you always hear females whining about, that in the clubs or dating sites they get a lot of hits, from males and if there really hot there biggest problem they would have to worry about is which one to pick from.

A lot of it is biology like 90% of it and it can be turned on and off if you all had a way or knew how. But that would lead to chaos as well, mostly if it were to happen over night the males wouldn't even like being around the females, without the biology and nature and conditioning of millions of years they would not be able to stand them. And it will lead to war to get rid of them which would lead to chaos, and so its a good thing we can really on nature and biology.

And the fact is most women the last thing they would want or be capable of is dominating the world or ruling the world, I mean they have no clue what its all about or were to start. What they really want is for men to dominate and rule but for them to reap the benefits, so its kind of like that whole equality among the genders thing anybody who has talked to a female about equality, would know they have no clue what equality really means, I mean there totally clueless on its grasp or its meaning.

So to the question of why do males kill, cheat, steel, abuse, more then females. The answer is simple! Because they don't have to when they can get a man to do it, and second there more subversive so while a man will shoot you down to steal your wallet, a woman would probably befriend that person and poison them or use mind games to reach the same goal, the wallet.

Males are more direct because they cant use there sex/gender to be less direct, and females are not direct because they can use there sex/gender to achieve the same goal by indirect means, due to there sexuality and off course nature. But it only works when there are two sexes of different modus operandi, If a subversive organism were to try to subvert another subversive organism it would not work as well, hence why most women don't get along and are catty when it comes down to it. It's a yin yang thing.

So to the op, your living in a bubble and have no clue about a great many things, your really ignorant to even ask the questions you did and actually not know the answers, it just shows your ignorance, I really don't know what to say but you need to make your points more clear and more defined, so at least the answers you would get would be more defined and clear.


edit on 4-6-2011 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
End woman's suffrage!!!!!



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 




Both men and women experience societal pressures, yet male crime is far more common. Women also have to find ways to take care of themselves, and sometimes their children (if they have any). Some people crack under pressure, whether they're male or female. The difference is that males seem to succumb to it a lot more frequently. I'm not talking about stealing food or clothes, I'm talking about murder, rape and brutal beatings.


Both men and women experience societal pressures, but women experience a lot less pressure overall, so hence they crack under the pressure less because they don't have as much societal pressure. And there pressure is in a different way, trying to compare societal pressures of men and women is like comparing apples and oranges, one does not equal or measure to the other its two totally different things entirely. It's simple, walk a mile in the shoes of these male criminals that you are talking about and you would crack in less then half the pressure that they would.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 





That is why I think abortion is so important to feminists, beside from the right one has over one's body, it's the right one has over one's life. I am a feminist, although I don't like that word, but I am a feminist in that I support gender equality.


This may be flirting with non-topicality, but I have to ask, do you, as a feminist, accept full responsibility for your reproductive choices? As the "right one has over one's life" do you recognize the disconnect of using coercive child support enforcement, in controlling a man's life while maintaining control over your own?

In other words, do you recognize biological paternity as a holdover from a time when women weren't free, and would you support unmarried women taking full (financial and otherwise) responsibility for their reproductive choices?

If not, you are a hypocrite and a moral gymnast.

If so, I commend you. You are a true feminist.
edit on 4-6-2011 by joechip because: grammar

edit on 4-6-2011 by joechip because: grammar




top topics



 
21
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join