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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:27 AM
Sorry op, but I couldn't see a world with just women , and quite frankly , in what I have seen, women can be much more aggresive than men ,but they do it in much more subtle ways.

I have had women push me on the dance floor, for no apparent reason , lie about me to discredit me, etc.

Men aren't perfect,and they vary in character as much as women do , but I like them here.

Don't get me wrong , I love my women friends as well, and women in general..but to be honest ,any time I've had to deal with aggresive behavior for no warranted reason out in public, its been women who were the problem.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:32 AM

Originally posted by sixswornsermon
Interesting idea (I am male), but I think there is a common denominator in play more so than gender:


I'm pretty sure anybody, whether female or male, who wants something bad enough, is willing to do whatever it takes to get it. Especially a species who is capable of reason, and not purely acting out of instinct.

That being said, it seems to me that as a male, it is in our genetic programming to be aggressive. We must fertilize as many females as possible to continue the species.

I will leave my statement at that.

Greed, as you say, is definitely a factor. The question is who is more likely to commit a violent crime in order to attain the object of one's desire? A man or a woman? The statistics I cited should speak for themselves. There are many more men in prison than women, yet women must find ways to survive inside the same society as men. They must look for work, for food and for ways to take care of their children, yet they do so without taking the violent path. Yes, there are a few of those who will do horrific things, but men are far more likely to succumb to violence, whether that is to rob a Liquor store, a bank, or someone on the street.

As you say, males are genetically programmed to be aggressive. I guess my question is, should we work on reducing that aggression, and once we achieve it (either through natural selection or genetic manipulation) will the world become a better place to live in?

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:33 AM
unless you can asexually reproduce, this is not a logical premise, you know, we're not all that bad.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:36 AM
It is not agression, that is the effect and not the CAUSE. Your question is a very good one, I have been working on it for the last three years and I can tell you that once you find your answer you will look at human behaviour very differently. There is a single cause to all human behaviour, a single cause to all mental and social problems.
It is not control, control like aggression is an effect. Look for the connective cause within the effects you have evolved to instinctually do this.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

the vast majority of men can control violent urges and channel those urges into something productive..if man was calm meek and submissive the drive to succeede would be gone..and out tecnolegy would grind to a halt

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:39 AM
reply to post by 2manyquestions

Tough questions.

Maybe it is one of those things in life where you just have to say "it is what it is".

Since men have, as you have said, been the gender predisposed towards violence as far as statistics are concerned, and undoubtedly we are the stronger gender, maybe the world would be a different place without our aggressions. Would it be better though? I'm not too sure.

Perhaps it is because of our nature to do the things that must be done, that the world has progressed the way it has.

Fun to think about, but I'm pretty sure both genders have their merits.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:40 AM
From a social contructivist point of view the problem is not "men" but current constructions of masculinity.
These constructions are socialized onto males from a young age by both men and women.
They are reiterated and given power by everything from education, religion and movies to politics, music and the workplace.
I've heard it said by activists in the men's movement: "The greatest weakness of men is their pretense of strength, and the greatest strength of women is their pretense of weakness."

Men were conscripted into wars by both kings and queens, often for causes that promised to serve both genders.
In WW I pacifist men were given feathers by women to mark them as cowards.
I read on ATS that young men in the US must still sign up for potential conscription today if they want college funding.
Why do young women get to dream of "a room of one's own", while young men have to consider a body bag of their own?

Men still largely have to perform the most dangerous jobs, and their higher pay is danger pay.
They often bear the social and legal pressures of being the providers for women and children.

Strange, when racial minorities have higher prison populations then it is a sign of their marginalized position in society, and their lack of opportunities.
If men have a higher prison population it is a sign of their "natural aggression"!

The problem is that neither men nor women really want to change the system.
Men will call timid men who don't take risks a "pussy".
Women will say they want "real men".
Religious groups with violent male deities actively encourage stereotypical gender roles.

The very idea that men are more aggressive is part of the problem. That is easily internalized by males from a young age. Are violent sports letting off male steam, or are they re-inscribing a violent role?
Incidentally, women also have testosterone.
Some parents start buying the toy guns and soldiers as soon as the baby is gender classified: "It's a boy".

I think a world without men would result in a lot of lesbian relationships. The male role would be assumed by a class of women. That class of women will have to be the breadwinners and soldiers, and they will quickly fill the prisons when they crack under the pressure of bringing home the bacon, being a gentle partner and a violent protector.
Oh yes, and one must be stoic about all this, and not show emotions, or other women will walk all over you.
So without men, women will assume the masculine roles.
Not having men will only make a difference if the roles are done away with.

If society really wanted this, the problem of violent masculinity could be solved without getting rid of one gender.
Currently the discourse around male aggression just repeats the gender dichotomy.
Lots of things happen in nature that humans want to explain by their society.
Some mother animals also eat their own young.
What does that prove on human females?

I wouldn't mind having all the men, and you can have the women.
There are monasteries in Ethiopia where men have existed peacefully for centuries without any women ever setting foot there.
No women means no competition, no material demands or need for violence, even in a patriarchal religion.

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

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by subtopia

I would really be interested in finding out more about the results of your studies.

Please ...tell us what you concluded was the reason for the effect of aggression?

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:42 AM

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by 2manyquestions

there would still be violence in my opinion, women are just as bad as men. why don't we see it ? well because even now most of the worlds leaders are male. so we have never lived in a world where most of the leaders were female to know they would not be the same or the world would be better off. all i can judge it on is how woman act in day to day life. they are not all angels, some hunger for power, some only care about themselves, these are the ones who will end up in power and effect things, so just the same as some men then.

Have you ever asked yourself why most of our world leaders are men? Is it because they are more aggressive, and therefore use that strength to push their way forward in life? Men have a strong desire to lead, make decisions, and impose their will on others. While women also possess this characteristic, in most cases it simply is not as powerful within them as it is within men. I have no issue with men running the world as long as they do so justly. That means trying to resolve problems without going to war, without trying to overpower each other with threats of nuclear war, and without trying to unfairly subdue certain races, religions or cultures.

Am I saying that women are not capable of unfair treatment of others? Not at all. I've met plenty of them to suggest otherwise, but I can tell you that most women try to solve their problems without pulling out a gun to force their will upon you. Prison statistics for violent crimes are enough proof of that, as men incarcerated for violent crimes hugely outnumber women in prisons for the same type of violent crimes.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:43 AM

Originally posted by granpabobby
channel those urges into something productive

EXACTLY. That is why us males are amazing. We have all this energy, and if we put it to good use, we can accomplish so much. The reason why men get aggressive is because of sexual frustration, which can easily be solved if women could help them out.

So in a way, women are the problem.
edit on 3-6-2011 by SolarE-Souljah because: because women made me make a typo.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:43 AM
maybe men trying to impress woman leads to alot of what goes of in the world, wether it be crime or whatever else.
it's common knowledge the more expensive the car...... the more you can provide the better the chances.

i am not saying it accounts for all mens actions, i am just wondering how much it adds to how men act to get the woman or 'women'. maybe if all woman were happy with a £10.99 argos ring there would be less crime, because men would not feel a need to earn untold amounts of money to fulfill his dreams

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by lifeform11

That's exactly what I mean. We are programmed to provide the best front to get our genetic material into the best possible candidate.

It's not our fault.

Statistics may say one thing, but let's not forget to take into account the numerous males that exist on this planet that do not give in to our baser instincts.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:51 AM

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by 2manyquestions

Well, let me ask it backwards. What would a world without women look like? We would all kick back, stop trying to impress each other, party more, not wash our clothes as much, watch way too much television and never grow up. A world without men would have the same result, women would never grow up either, they would just spend more time doing each others nails.

You'd shoot each other just for fun.
Joking aside.....

While I don't mind any questions, I kind of worry about where you are coming from. It is like you would argue comfort over diversity. I find it also offensive in that I am a pacifist and a man, I am not a sex, I am a person and in fact quite capable of using my fists, I choose not too. Now, if we look at your question in another manner, you would want a world exclusively of homosexuals. I have no problem with them; but, would you really want a world without any heterosexuals. I know some gay people call us breeders; but, I actually have lesbian and gay friends and they seem quite happy to be around me and I around them. I don't think they would argue for a world of just one sex. Be well.

If you consider violence diversity, then we certainly have a lot of it in this world. Do you really need violence to live your life? I have no problem with playing sports or knocking each other out in the ring, but is rape, senseless murder and human suffering necessary in your world? Would your life be so boring without it? It's nice that you're a pacifist, and I'm happy to hear it. I don't want a world without heterosexuals, I want a world without people who cause others unnecessary pain. You'd have a place in my world, whereas the guy who raped and killed that 10 year old girl would not. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:52 AM
We all have our faults, male and female.
its not a matter of sex that dictates how a situation is handled, but rather the individual themselves.
While i agree alot of men take the aggressive/aggressive approach, many woman take the passive/aggressive path, which is just as nasty in a subversive way..
The best way is respect for each other, to learn why someone thinks like they do, and give creative and constructive outlets for our human emotions.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:53 AM
This thread reminded me of an article I read a few years ago.

Let us examine our history and see how men - the master race for all of our recorded history in almost every corner of every human civilisation - have fared so far. Applying all the fairness and equilibrium of my sex, naturally. And then I must ask myself: could women do better?

Would a world without men really be so bad?

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:53 AM
Love to give you the answer but my literary agent wouldn't be too happy. Sadly we live in a world where answers have a monetary value and I now cannot find a human behaviour that the cause I have derived cannot explain. From obesity to aggression to manic depression and anorexia the cause is the same...

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:55 AM

Originally posted by lifeform11
maybe men trying to impress woman leads to alot of what goes of in the world, wether it be crime or whatever else.
it's common knowledge the more expensive the car...... the more you can provide the better the chances.

i am not saying it accounts for all mens actions, i am just wondering how much it adds to how men act to get the woman or 'women'. maybe if all woman were happy with a £10.99 argos ring there would be less crime, because men would not feel a need to earn untold amounts of money to fulfill his dreams

Well, I can tell you now that I'd much rather have you WORK for your money than you going out and robbing a bank. You get what I'm saying? There's nothing impressive about a man behind bars, but there's a lot of attraction to a man who uses his brain to obtain what he needs without taking the violent path. In a situation where physical strength is needed to ward off an aggressor, violence (in the defensive sense) can be impressive, but for someone to bully and beat his way to success isn't impressive.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:58 AM
reply to post by subtopia

Dear subtopia,

Read up on Father Damien and please let me know how much cash he was paid in exchange for getting leprosy to help others. I met a woman, she was about 65. She went into the deepest part of Papua New Guinea in order to learn a remote people's language, convert it to a written word and then prepare a bible in their language, she just finished. She didn't get much money, in fact, she gave up everything and was the first white person they had ever met and they did in fact kill people, they loved war. She taught them the word for forgiveness because they did not have one and then they sought out there enemy to teach them the same, even though they had fought for hundreds of years.

Everybody wants perfection; but, nobody wants to work towards it, we want the other guy to be perfect first. Be well.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:00 AM
CONTROL is not the answer. Has the control America attained resulted in less want or need for control. Money is a form of control, the more you have the more you want. Agression is a form of control.

Women are instinctually submissive to control and the majority of problems young women are experiencing is due to them being told they should be like a man and be in contol.

The reality is control has never worked for men either, EVERY civilization they have created has collapsed and failed.

Control is the not the answer and it is also not the cause of the problem as it is still an effect of it.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:03 AM
A guy punches another guy i the face because he tried hitting on his girlfriend . What the guy didn't know was that while he was buying his girlfriend her drink she was makin eyes at the guy now laying on the floor. Just because one doesn't actually do the violence does not mean one is not violent in nature. People are violent in general. Men and women. The world would be different but not better off. Women have been groomed to have their punches thrown with the bat of an eye or a revealing cut of a dress.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in