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: 22
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:18 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:38 AM

Originally posted by testtubebaby

Look, this will sound a bit bad but I don't care. Men's role in life originally was to be the hunter gatherer. Women's were the rearer of children and making the food.

However, amongst all your moaning, you women have been surpassed in the role of cooking by men. The best chefs in the world are now men. So you let that slip through your fingers. Even in the fashion world women are being out done by the Gay man. Part man part woman - all fashion. You lose there too. I just think its a lack of effort on the collective woman's part and too many off you forming groups to combat your "harsh" treatment and pushing for your rights. All the while Men do not form these groups. We just find new and creative ways to stay one step ahead.

That too me is called SMART. Eye on the prize, love!!

I can't help but retort this. I observed carefully for many years, being a hairstylist, the differences in male and female behaviors in that area and noticed something that piqued my interest and I found it to be true in other areas, including cooking-

Women ar emore likely to avoid public recognition for their creations than men. That does not mean they are less capable- it means what I observed is that they prefer someone else stand up and get all the attention. Women were working for male stylists at shows, in which the man did NOTHING, but take credit for the work of his mostly female team. This was not against the will of the females, they were more into the creative process- experiencing doing the creation- and not at all invested in having others acknowledge they did it.

I have noticed that many women (myself included) have an instinctual "prey" type of instinct, in which attention is often NOT desireable, especially the type that might stir competative feelings. They feel best when they can make others feel good about themself and in contexts where everyone feels on equal ground.

These, of course, are very useful when it comes to procreation and childrearing.

They also do not seem to share the male drive to make impact and be acknowledged, to have immortality, through their name and creations going down in history and in the minds of the people.

My tentative suggestion there, (from my own self analysis) is that in giving birth, I achieve immortality. I identify with my body, and my genes, my DNA, shall live on and continue when I die.

Men can not be sure of paternity, and they also identify more with their ideas than their body, so their way of continuing on is to have their ideas spread and continue after their physical death.

In sum, it is not because men seek glory that they necessarily deserve it, and not because women pass it up that they don't. Beware of superificial appearences!

Back on the topic, I think women do not always appreciate the positive side of aggressivity,
and men do not always appreciate the positive side of passivity.

Life would suck if we lost either.

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by halfoldman
Lots of good points.
Especially the issue of the father as the violent punisher of boys is highlighted ("Just wait till your father comes home").
Now what kind of message does that send about masculinity?

That the man is suppose to be physical and it gets passed down generation to generation.

Originally posted by halfoldman
I see today they have all kinds of programs on reality TV from training your dog, to training your kids.
Now those methods work, and they are no longer violent.
But they take a lot of effort.

I have seen some programs and most of them I laugh at because when you look at them they are really common since. anyone that loves the child I would think would already raise them properly maybe they just need some body to tell them they are doing it right.

Originally posted by halfoldman
I cannot say much about gender and family otherwise, because here I'm also thinking of the dominant black culture in SA.
Traditionally they are very conservative.

Different cultures have different problems.

If you want to explain I wouldn't mind I like learning about things outside the US.

Originally posted by halfoldman
The fact is women will face better employment opportunities than the man in a heterosexual relationship nowadays.
So there may be role reversals in many households at some point.

Why, do women have better employment though are they more qualified, is it just because they are women, or is the company making sure it doesn't look sexist?

Originally posted by halfoldman
As women climb the career ladder (and assume the masculine role) their health is also suffering.

Well, isn't that what they wanted, or maybe they wanted it both ways?

I do believe they wanted it both ways atleast the majority of women did not want to be equal to men or they didn't understand what be equal was really going to be like. I understand they had to rise up and be so aggressive because if they hadn't been men would not have let them rise to begin with, but when does equallity actually set in. I believe it sets in when you give them the opportunity what they do with it is up to them. If they want to be in a place of power they have the opption to be there, but what they don't see is that men have to struggle to reach a place of power themselves most people aren't granted power.

Originally posted by halfoldman
As for gender - I'd go the accepted route (unless a child signals that it is not happy in its role), but I'd also inform my kids on gender history and alternatives.
Just so if my child is mixed-race, or it is bi-cultural.
I'd inform that child of both histories.
It will be accepted to grow either way, when it's time for that.
The point would be to interrogate violent sports - I wouldn't say turn it off.
For example, I could ask what that type of violence achieves in real life.

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

Thats the only way out of this cycle is to inform the younger people and hope they make the right dessions.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying about violent sports. In the US people say we have violent sports because they are physical take foot ball were the object is to tackle the guy with the ball to me thats not really violent whats more violent in my opion is how fast those guys can react their reflexs. say they are about to tackle the quaterback but he throws it to the running back five yards away next thing you know they are chasing him down and then he is on the ground. same thing with race car drivers before they had computers switch gears they had to be spot on and react exactlly at the right time. in my opion that is more violent then being phisical, but being quick to react doesn't mean you are violent you still have the option to choose what you are going to do.

People that are just straight up physically violent for no reason in my opion that is a side effect of being stupid.

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:03 PM



The title of this thread, thats what is to be discussed here.

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:38 PM
reply to post by joechip

Yes, really. Egalitarian, REALLY ??? Where in history did you find this concept ?? It is a beautiful thought, but you must be very young and nieve to believe that men are fair in this way. It is and always has been a battle of strength and will. The strong in animals get "the girl". Luckily for us the women have gotten stronger and smarter and don't have to succumb to the "big,stong male". At least in the U.S. we have that option.
BTW, I certainly didn't ascribe violent,aggressive antisocial behavior to half of the human reace. WTF??? Are you kidding me !? Not sure where you came up with half the stuff you wrote to my simple post , BUT, See ya, and have a nice day.....

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 12:03 AM
I can't really say that the world would be a better place without men, but I can say that when these creeps become hurtful, enraged or out of control perhaps us women should ban together and use whatever tactics are needed to subdue these "little boys" because that is exactly what they are acting like so would it not behoove us to treat them accordingly.

This tactic alone might help cut down worldwide violence via the male sex quite significantly.

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:20 AM
reply to post by 2manyquestions
simply put ying and yang we must accieve Balance,among us all ,to simply point a finger is not the solution you seek because evil creeps into all,we must unify ,

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:28 AM
What is better and what is worse is completely subjective. For example, is technological progress a good or bad thing, is competition good or bad, challenges and personal success and so on.

Aggression is not necessarily a negative trait, either, evolution certainly favours it, so, ignoring the procreation problem, the human race may not have even evolved to be if enough of them weren't aggressive/greedy/selfish etc.

I don't think your question can be answered in an objective way, but subjectively, the world you describe, to me, sounds awful and dull.

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:36 AM
I havent read anything on this thread however my first thought was... You really should have reworded this thread as ' A BETTER WORLD WITHOUT EVIL MEN' and im assuming im not the only one to have mentioned that. Hillary Clinton as manlike as she seems, could be included in this category of evil entities. and Its going to escalate because the ultra rich, powerful and Narcissistic in this world really dont like Us in fact they want us dead. So stay tuned, the worst is yet to come, however, if you disconnect and detatch from this illusion it will not hurt you. Energy drives them, that's why they create chaos scenarios to feed off the energy of fear. anyways thats my opinion, take it or leave it. The whole ship is going down anyways, better to be be aware of it before it hits thus creating less fear and tension, wouldnt you agree.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
I want to make clear from the very beginning that my intention is not to bash men or women during this discussion. Both sexes poses positive and negative traits. I only wish to explore a hypothetical world not operated or dominated by testosterone/men.

I recently came up on an article titled Californian Dolphin Gang Caught Killing Porpoises

SEEMINGLY random acts of violence by bottlenose dolphins on porpoises could be down to sexual frustration among young males. Cases of the cetaceans killing other creatures for no apparent reason have been reported in UK waters. Now bottlenose dolphins have been seen attacking harbour porpoises in the Pacific Ocean. Crucially, these observations show for the first time that the attackers are young males (Marine Mammal Science, DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00474.x).

Since I've heard of young male elephants also wreaking havoc on their environment, attacking and killing other animals for no apparent reason, this article led me to a train of thought - "How would a world without men look and operate?"

If you examine the news of any day or year, you will find plenty of articles on men who have committed some violent crime or another. From rape, abuse, brutal murder, violent attacks, bar fights, to fraud, drug and human trafficking, most of these are committed by the males. Admittedly there are many women who also commit horrific acts. They are not to be left out of this discussion completely, but the ratio of male crimes vs. female crimes seems much higher than it should be. For example, according to this website: Bureau of Justice Statistics and Correctional Populations in the United States

In 2009, the majority (82%) of the total correctional population was male, and 18% was female. Men comprised a smaller portion of the total correctional population in 2009 than in 1990 (86%), while the percentage of women increased within the total correctional population since 1990 (14%).

I can tell you that if I decide to travel to a seedy neighborhood, I'm not afraid of what some woman might do to me, I'm more afraid of what a man, or group of men might do to me for my car, my money, or any number of things they may not like about me. It's rare (definitely not impossible) to be held up or beat up by a woman or a group of women. It's always an aggressive-looking group of men I find myself watching out for.

So then what is it about the male sex which makes it so prone to committing crimes? Is it the upbringing? Testosterone? Social conditioning? Social pressures on the male that lead them to a powerful desire to overachieve in any way possible? Since not all men are violent or commit crimes, what is it about the male sex that lands so many in a jail cell?

Some would argue that male aggression is nature's way of keeping a territorial balance. Men are hunters and protectors by nature. While this may be true to some extent, is the use of that aggression necessary in today's day and age, and is it something that can be overcome? Though imperfect, I consider most human beings quite intelligent, and smart enough to figure out that killing somebody for money or selling somebody into sexual slavery is not the best solution to a problem. I don't feel that raping, repeat-killing (serial killers), abusing, or torturing is necessary to a person's survival in most (if not all) cases. Why do so many men (as opposed to women) choose to commit violent acts?

That leads me to imagine a world without men (or at least without men prone to violent aggression). Would we have less wars? More compromise? More compassion? Less crime? Or would women take over where men left off? Would we spend so much money on weapons and defense? Would we have to be afraid to walk into a poor neighborhood? Would gang violence still be as big of a problem as it is now? Is violence necessary for the human race to evolve, or is it holding us back?

Truth is that struggle/survival forces us to invent and reinvent. Many of the technological perks we have today came about, because the technology was highly beneficial to fighting wars. Eventually society found good (non-violent) use for those items, but would they have come to exist without pending wars? Would we have invented many of the things we have today if males weren't aggressive? Maybe in due time. Is there any benefit worth the human pain, suffering and death which we receive from being violent?

I myself would love to figure out what we can do to scale down on male aggression. I suppose I have more questions than answers, and I'd love to hear your feedback. Do you sometimes find yourself out of control? Do you feel like there's no other alternative to causing physical damage? I know that sports can sometimes relieve that pressure, but clearly it may not be enough. What helps you stay in control, and do you believe everyone has the ability to fight off the "natural" urge to become violent?

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:28 AM
I think your info is a bit off. Isnt there an over abundance of seals and sealions that eat salmon? the over abundance is due to being protected by the government. the male dolphines are just doing the job that females cant or wont do to preserve their food source wich the over abundance of seals etc eat. The females are probably too busy sitting on their dophine couches in front of the boobtube watching days of are lives and choking down bon bons.

One study found that as much of 50 percent of salmon returns on the nehalem river in oregon where being eaten by seals and cormorants I dont know the sex of the seals or birds but i do know a lot of time in nature FEMALE animals do the hunting
Studies as listed below say that men are more likely to be assaulted with a weapon then a female is by a man. therefore statistically i should be very afraid of walking in a bad naborhood with women around lest i get knifed.

Every year, 1,510,455 women and 834,732 men are victims of physical violence by an intimate. This is according to a Nov. 1998 Department of Justice report on the National Violence Against Women Survey. What does that mean? Every 37.8 seconds, somewhere in America a man is battered. Every 20.9 seconds, somewhere in America a woman is battered. Every 20.6 minutes another man in Washington is battered.

In Washington, that's 42,824 women and 25,473 men. That includes 2,754 men on whom a knife was used, 5,508 men threatened with a knife and 11,016 men hit with an object.

There may be a trend toward less violence against women, more violence against men, or both. While 76.5% of the people reporting physical violence by an intimate in their lifetime were women, only 62.5% of the people reporting physical violence by an intimate in the last year were women, and 37.5% were men.

The data show that men are more likely to have a knife used on them or to be threatened with a knife, hit with an object, kicked, bitten or have something thrown at them. Women are more likely to beaten up, threatened with a gun, choked, victims of drowning attempts, have their hair pulled or be pushed, grabbed or shoved.

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:32 PM
Again another heavly Deleted forum thread from mods that only want one point of view. Trash forum is trash. Ats is not a forum of free talk and thought its only what they want you to see.

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:48 PM

Originally posted by MaxNormal
Again another heavly Deleted forum thread from mods that only want one point of view. Trash forum is trash. Ats is not a forum of free talk and thought its only what they want you to see.

I think the mods did the right thing..the posts were getting way off topic,and had become a series of personal attacks. I know..because I was one of the posters

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:00 PM

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

This isn't meant to offend you, but I don't think you read everything I wrote. If you had, you would have noticed that I did not leave women out of the crime rate, and I am not discussing a world without being able to procreate. Although it's not part of my intended discussion, I'm sure the need for survival would push women to find ways to keep the human race going through scientific paths.

It does not offend me at all. But for what it is worth, I did read your entire post and my response was simply what I made of it.... It seems 54 people agreed with me enough to star my post.

So, make of that what you will.

I did enjoy reading your thread.

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:34 PM
LOL I cant believe someone made this thread! How is this not a Troll Thread? LOL

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Punisher75
LOL I cant believe someone made this thread! How is this not a Troll Thread? LOL

This comes from someone named Punisher75?

Let me guess. You are a man.

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Punisher75
LOL I cant believe someone made this thread! How is this not a Troll Thread? LOL

This comes from someone named Punisher75?

Let me guess. You are a man.

Let me guess, you make generalizations.

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by Annee

LOL Should I assume that you are a narcissist by advertising Annee as your name, or maybe your name is Todd? LOL

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:15 AM
reply to post by MaxNormal

good to see an experienced long standing member make valid and worthwhile contributions

really enjoyed your educated input into the thread

keep up you super duper hard work

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by joeym35a2

and they call us evolved. sounds like it was 300,000 years ago. back then though , they did not have the internet, so it went unreported.

apartment = cave

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:03 AM
My original response:

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

Your response:

Yes, really. Egalitarian, REALLY ??? Where in history did you find this concept ?? It is a beautiful thought, but you must be very young and nieve to believe that men are fair in this way.
reply to post by blujasper

I learned this in Anthropology classes at University. I am neither young nor naive. A simple google search would bear me out.

But here, I'll do it for you:

The egalitarianism of modern hunter-gatherers is an apparent anomaly in evolutionary terms. The puzzle is that although dominance hierarchies are likely to have characterized the ancestor shared by chimpanzees and humans, and institutional hierarchies are characteristic of modern humans, the hunter-gatherers representing the intervening phase are almost entirely egalitarian in social structure and behaviour. This anomaly was characterized by Knauft (1991) as a 'U' shaped curve in evolution: moving down the left arm from ape hierarchies to hunter-gatherer egalitarianism, and then up the right arm with agricultural and then modern hierarchical societies. This curve is a useful way to conceptualize the evolution of social behaviour, but it must have been a heavily skewed 'U'. We do not know when the bottom of the left hand arm was reached�when egalitarian behaviour first appeared in evolution�but we do know that the left arm and the bottom together covered a period of several million years. We also know that the process at work involved biological evolution, with an enormous increase in brain-size being a key result. If there are specific inherited predispositions for social behaviour, it must have been during this period that they were shaped by evolutionary processes. On the other hand, the right hand arm turned upwards,into hierarchical social organizations, only about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agricultural societies. There were possible precursors in the complex hunter-gatherer societies of the northwestcoast of North America, perhaps five thousand years earlier (Kroeber 1939, 29; Suttles 1968,105) and possibly earlier still in Europe (Mellars this volume).
(bold mine)

There you go. Perhaps next time, do a modicum of research before impugning another's knowledge and ascribing their beliefs to naivete'.

Deny Ignorance.
edit on 7-6-2011 by joechip because: bold another snippet

edit on 7-6-2011 by joechip because: quote for clarity, for folks that haven't followed the entire exchange.

edit on 7-6-2011 by joechip because: clarification and addition

top topics

<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in