A Better World Without Men?

reply to post by 2manyquestions


Hi again...and thanks for your response.

To add a little more:
My perspectives come from a whole lot of life experience...yeah, I'm getting on in years...hehehe...
Also from a whole lot of experience being involved in many other peoples lives.

For instance, the last 16years I've been working in Mental Health.
Over that time I've worked in Mental Health settings from Residential Rehab, Community Mental Health Teams, Crisis Teams, Inpatient (both Secure/Acute and Open/Moderate) Units, Forensic Mental Health Units, Child and Adolescent, Adult, Drug and Alcohol/Dual Diagnosis, Intellectual Disability, Geriatric, Maternal MH etc etc. Pretty much the full spectrum of the MH sector.

Additionally I've worked numerous security orientated roles ranging from simple Door/Bar Security to Private and Personal Security assignments.

Add to that a fair amount of working life spent within various community outreach projects and organisations...assisting the Homeless/Street People, At Risk Youth, Family Support Services, Probation/Justice, Womens Refuge Services and numerous other socially focussed organisations.


I've had the privilege - and challenge - of working with probably quite literally thousands of people. Often those people are considered 'the dregs of society'...the ones who are so often shunned, and often understandably so, those who have often committed crimes and some quite serious crimes as well.

From all those people, all those lives, one clear thing appears to me: That of all those thousands almost ALL of them who have had issues or offended can trace those *faults* back to some precursory event - to things that happened to them or around them in their upbringing or other events that have occurred in their lives.
So too from all those thousands I could maybe count on one hand the number where it didn't appear to have a 'rhyme or reason' to what they may have done.
Which leads me to believe - albeit anecdotally - that for by far the most part, people are not born bad.
They become bad.


...just my own opinion from life experience anyway...



Peace.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
This thread to me suggests that women are not capable of violence or acts of aggression which is simply not true. Women are capable of being just as violent as men.


Besides, a world with out men would be a world with no humans after about 120 years.

Get rid of one sex and you wipe out the whole species.

So, no it would not be a better place.

OMG you have no IDEA how true this is..!!

I am speaking directly from experience here.

Women are just as capable of doing really horrible things as men. In fact I'd go so far as to say that women can even outdo men in many ways.. They can be much more cruel, manipulative and calculating than men.

More often than not, there are many more female Sociopaths in our sociaty than males.

Again, this comes from experience, having worn the brunt of a female Sociopath now for over four years, through three different jobs in three different parts of the state I live in.

reply to post by 2manyquestions

I wouldn't want to eliminate the male species off the planet. I have no issues with good men. My issue is with the tendency to be brutally violent. Seeing as most brutal crimes are committed by men, my point would be to find a way of reducing that chance. There are plenty of great guys who would never hurt a fly even if they possess the physical strength to do so. I'd like to figure out what helps them control the urge to do harm, so that more men might stay out of trouble and stop harassing the weaker and more vulnerable members of society.

Actually as has been said females are a indirect way and reason why those things happen, but it has more to do with society and pressures of which females would be part of those pressures that males would have to deal with. So to get them to be less aggressive is easy, first get them to fit into society better and prosper withing it, and second they need to learn to not be influenced by the female gender. So in a way they need to learn not to care what females think or do and focus on themselves. So in a way they need to care less about trivial things within society and its pressures and females.

Look at society and you would find your answer to every crime you see as it would in one way or another have to do with your surroundings and particulate lot in life, and societal pressure in general. And yes women would fall under the societal pressures label if your are male. And as to those great guys and girls who would never hurt a fly, well put them in the right circumstances and they would not differ from the rest, and do the same. So you point is moot on that.

A greater part of learning is learning to avoid certain circumstances. All of human society and history is learning to avoid certain circumstances that human society in the past has been in before which lead to "bad things" happening, because if it were to come again well...not much would change and the same "bad thing" would happen again.

reply to post by 2manyquestions


I do still have concerns about things said on both sides of this discussion. I think there is a reason why several people have gotten the impression that you have somewhat of a distaste for men and I think that's the main reason people continue making lists of violent and aggressive women. I know you've emphasized that you would not advocate a world without men but like it or not, the title of your post is going to set the tone & expectations of all who view it. Those lists are meant to demonstrate that the problem is not because of males, it's because of human nature. In a world without men, the dominant women would take charge of society because they would be able to make their will be done with force if necessary. The examples show what an aggressive female is capable of and what they are capable of is every bit on par with male aggression.

Add to that the fact that you've identified several 'main things you were getting at' in your responses to various posters and it's easy to get confused as to what you're after with this thread. These range from finding a way to curtail aggression in men to exploring gender differences for a thought experiment on a world without men to validating the crime statistics that back up your hypothesis (that a larger presence of men in prison indicates a wildly disproportionate propensity towards violence). I'll echo a previous concern: have you considered that perhaps the justice system tends to put more men in prison when given the chance? Do we give women more benefit of the doubt in situations where there's a discrepancy about a bad event or encounter? Also, your stats are from the United States and it is pretty widely known that the US imprisons more citizens than the average country. What do the stats look like globally?

So to address some of the 'main points' I've seen listed so far: How can we curb aggression in males? First, are you SURE that aggression doesn't serve a purpose that you haven't considered but would long for if lost? I asked about an alien invasion before and I'll bring it up again: What if our male aggression has already prevented an alien or other invading force from attempting to wipe us out (or god forbid, steal earth's women!) because it's not worth the trouble to stir up the hornet's nest. Perhaps a more passive, feminine society would have invited invasion and suddenly earth is overrun.

I'd guess your logical counter-argument would be that females could take up the defensive, protective roles in the absence of men. Some women could become more aggressive to make up for the lack (I feel comfortable assuming you'd make this argument since you have already in this thread). Is that a legitimate counter-argument, though? Does that not acknowledge the importance and purpose that male aggression serves in society? You're basically saying yes, aggression/power/physical strength are things our society needs, we'd just rather females provide it instead of males.

Does that not imply a belief that women are/would be more responsible with those sorts of characteristics than men? I don't think that belief is valid. In that scenario you'd just be saying that the groups of masculine women make you nervous instead of groups of males. My take on this is that you can see that men have an advantage over you (physical strength) that you cannot overcome on your own (without a weapon). As a result, you've decided that men tend to abuse this power. I'd counter that people tend to abuse this power (as have the list-makers of violent females). Get a group of girls together and the toughest of them will use that to their advantage (if necessary). Like I said before, there are solutions to your fears and concerns for your safety and the safety of your children. Equalizers...

I've also got problems with how you present the issue of defensive aggression vs aggression for monetary gain or in anger. No reasonable person will tell you that the latter is good. No reasonable person will advocate violence in the name of violence and it's not a productive question. Rather, it's a loaded question intended to further your point.

In my life I have known exactly zero men who used violence for monetary gain. I am acutely aware that there are men out there who do (and women too!) but no men I have known have been that way. I think the reality is that a few bad apples are spoiling the bunch in this case. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for women. I have known women in the past (my buddy's ex included) who use physical 'violence' to get their way. Some women know that men won't fight them back and aren't afraid to get physical to express their anger or disgust. Case in point, which would be considered appropriate by a crowded movie-theater watching a film: a woman slapping a man who was too forward in propositioning her or a man slapping a woman who did the same? (I'll give you a hint, it's not both). Our society is willing to overlook small acts of violence committed by women that aren't overlooked for men. I think it is largely due to the fact that the average man hitting a woman will do some damage whereas the average woman hitting a man will be an annoyance but not a legitimate physical threat to their safety.

I won't bother actually re-answering this question outright (beyond my objections to it) because I did before: practice forgiveness and that will beget forgiveness. Practice distrust and that will beget distrust.

I feel like this is turning into a bit of an overkill of a response so I'll finish with this:

I believe that men and women compliment each other perfectly. Your femininity is in some way defined by our masculinity and vice-versa. That dynamic isn't going anywhere (as indicated by your solution of women taking over the dominant role). A man perceived as aggressive among a group of women could be perceived as dainty among a group of more dominant men. You are only vulnerable to the extent that something else is dangerous. In the absence of danger you're not vulnerable. But as I said before, there is no way to make that dynamic disappear. It will always be there, defined by the relationships among members of a society with more or less of each of those traits.

Female body-builders demonstrate that if you REALLY wanted to you could make yourself stronger than the average man. I would venture to guess that very few female body-builders get chosen by robbers as their victims. Of course, that solution probably doesn't work for you because I'd guess you have a role you're comfortable with in our modern society that doesn't require you to have big rippling muscles. The good news is, there's nothing wrong with that; we men are more than happy taking on the burden to allow women to not have to. We like you the way you are (give or take a complaint or two [or thread exploring how violent we are ]) and some of our brothers (and sisters, without a doubt) can, have, and will fight and die so that others don't have to. There is a place in the world for the vulnerable, those that would not be able to adequately defend themselves and there is a place for those of us that can.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

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.

This is a perfect post illustrating why I have the concerns I have. Why is it ok for you to make sweeping generalizations (even in jest) about men.. 'always thinking about eliminating..blah' in what is supposed to be a rational discussion about the subject of reducing aggression in men? Your phrasing, comments, and resulting projected attitude towards men are saying more than your words on the actual subject.

Also, men should feel threatened by feminists because they are threatened by them. The feminist movement is far from cohesive and as such us men interact with a lot of different types of 'feminists'. Some 'feminists' reject chivalry as an implication that the receiver is weak, others demand it in addition to respect for their independence. The feminist movement has been really confusing to our society because it asks for everything and nothing all at once depending on which of it's voices is shouting the loudest. We as a society should probably find a series of different terms to replace 'feminist' because as it stands the term is, in my opinion, overly ambiguous.

Originally posted by die_another_day
What is the fundamental difference between men and women?

Is it primary sex characteristics?

Is it societal expectations?

Is it psychological dispositions?


We need to figure these out before considering something that is impossible: "a world without men".

Ditto that, and that would just be the tip of the iceberg, if you cant understand all those differences then how would you even know what to ask, but if you do understand all those differences then you don't need to ask anything because you would have a better grasp of why things are the way they are, and you would have no questions or at least less questions.

To the op if you want to understand all those questions you asked concerning male types, you would first need to understand all the questions you didn't ask, and especially the things you don't want to look at or consider, especially concerning males but more so concerning females and yourself. The things that you don't want to look at or consider usually have the answers.

Originally posted by joechip
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

I'm not a woman, so those questions don't really apply to me.

In some situations, child support WOULD contradict the stated goals of feminism. Because it could reinforce that men are superior to women in some ways (men, the provider, women, the caretaker). For a feminist to say they want child support from a man who no longer has any interest in the children or her, I would find that very ironic. If however, the man still has an interest in his children then it's his responsibility to help care for them. My father left me when I was 2. Do I think he should have been hunted down and forced to pay child support? No. I don't even resent him for leaving. To me, he is someone I don't know and probably may never know.

I think it's ironic how people are using "motherly love" to show how women are better rulers. Surely, a strong, confident female leader is not someone who would be proud of her gender because she has great mothering ability. That would be silly.

reply to post by 2manyquestions


The way I see it is, the lower orders of society who are less intelligent tend towards more animal behaviours. I've spent years having to live around their kind, and to me they are as monkeys. Males are overly agressive, asserting their dominance as an animal would with animalistic displays of agression. Women seem to have as many babies as possible, thinking that the herd will take care of them. Both are closer to animals, and act as such, seeming to lack the layer of good judgment that comes from abstract thought.

Anyone English, I challenge you to look at a typical pack of chavs and not agree with this post. Anyone not English, I bet there's some equivalent where you come from.

Before it is interpreted as such, this is not supposed to be aimed racially. All evidence I've seen points to this being true for all races, and all the people I've seen it manifest in are white, being that I'm english.

Agressiveness is equal between both sexes. The agressiveness a man puts towards violence, a woman puts towards other devious actions.

Men by their nature are more agressive and violent, but we all can be violent when we need to be and that's a good thing. Our species survived because of violent agressive men. We need men to have that agressiveness, that violent capacity in them to protect our way of life against the evil in this world. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was women instead of men who stormed the beaches of Normandy to kill and die for what they believed in..

The problem is, there's a lot of men who use that agression for evil, like rape murder ect. They do this because there's no role models today to show them what a real man is. A lot of them grow up with an abusive father or maybe no father at all. So with no father figure, or a father figure who is distant or weak, and no real male initiation rituals aside from the military and gang ititiations alot of these guys grow up with a skewed view of masculinity. They think like a boy, trying to dominate and intimidate others because they feel weak. They act out agressively and violently because there's not a man around to show them that you shouldn't abuse and hurt others, especially women. There's no discipline, no moral compass, no one to lead and guide them.

And thanks to the femminist movement, there's a lot of women who view ALL men as violent disgusting lust driven pigs and want men to feel ashamed of their masulinity which, ironically, frustrates them because there's no more "real men" anymore. Basically men have lost touch with true authentic masculinity(and feminity, but that's a whole different discussion) which leaves alot of men thinking and behaving like boys-which often leads to violence, murder rape ect.

Bias much?

reply to post by CAELENIUM

The question that your thread is asking is a question that is very fundamental to religion and which is in fact the origin of religion it self. Religion was originally created by the feminine to counter the obvious criminality of the masculine. It is a matter of scientific accuracy if I state that "life is first and foremost feminine". Life is not in need of the masculine, but the masculine are in need of the feminine. In the absence of the masculine nature is such that the feminine are immediately able to reproduce by PARTHENOGENESIS.

Ah caelenium if all males were to disappear of the face of the earth. Then parthenogenesis would most likely happen but eventually it would split back to being male and female, and it wouldn't surprise me that if all the men were gone that some females would start growing male sexual parts somehow, or that the parthenogenesis self impregnation would produce a male clone of the female subject.

Humans are way more complex and have a way more complex system and pressures from the outside world for them to go one gender, under all the pressures as they are today and most likely be for a while a single gender clone race would just not work and in fact it would most likely be a determent to survival of the whole. Maybe in the future but as they stand today, I don't think so.

PRAECEPTAE CAELENIUM. Here they are. (1) From eternity to eternity, infinity to infinity, there be the one absolute. The One God there be no other God. Her names are many but she be the one true God. The one judge there be no other judge. (2) La deus nostra, notre dame, our lady, The holy spirit, the cause the maker Cosmica. (3) Angelic powers of truth and beauty and righteousness be sure to be loving her above with all your mind and with all your heart and with all your strength. (4) So as to be pleasing to her above therefore do not be serving the masculine. (5) Do not be and do not allow masculinity into positions of government. (6) Honour and respect the virgin pureness of the christae. (7) Honour and respect the Immaculate Conception [parthenogenesis] reproductive process of the christae. (8) Do not fornicate or adulterate or sodomize. (9) Do not bully or torture or murder. (10) Do not lie. (11) Do not steal. (12) Do not be covetous. (13) Do not be jealous. Copyright NGL 2000.

You still pushing your religion, it's a little short sighted is it not, its basically the same as Christianity only focused on a female goddess/feminine above all others, were Christianity is focused on a male god/masculinity thing above all others. I think you really need to spend some time among this magical femininity and females, as you seem to worship it. And in time you will see that there is nothing all that special or magical or holly about the feminine side, sure there great, but not that great, or all that its cracked up to be.

This happens because its basically Man's World. You need to understand that!

Men, by their nature, are more aggressive, but this is not always a bad trait. There are times in this world where aggression can be truly called valor, courage, and defense.

This is not a question of gender, but of virtue. Some people cultivate virtue while others lack it nearly entirely. Radical feminism needs to end any flirtation with a feminine utopia and accept that both sexes/genders are priceless in their uniqueness. They are equal, but obviously quite different and it is this dual-nature of humanity which allows it to thrive.

good luck breeding without males!

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

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

Greed.

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?

What do you mean by genetic manipulation and natural selection?

As for natural selection men have the right to have children as much as a woman and threrefore should never be denied to have children just because their genetic make-up is 'not desirable' - can you imagine the outcry if a man were to say this to a woman?

As for genetic manipulation, i near fainted when i read that. Who do you think you are for suggesting that? Where did you get you arrogance from? Do you think men should alter their genetic to satisfy society or just women? Women believe that a man has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body so why do you believe it's ok to you tell men to do with their bodies.

Utterly arrogant and self serving on you're part.

reply to post by CAELENIUM

The question that your thread is asking is a question that is very fundamental to religion and which is in fact the origin of religion it self. Religion was originally created by the feminine to counter the obvious criminality of the masculine. It is a matter of scientific accuracy if I state that "life is first and foremost feminine". Life is not in need of the masculine, but the masculine are in need of the feminine. In the absence of the masculine nature is such that the feminine are immediately able to reproduce by PARTHENOGENESIS.

No offense but religion will bring the downfall of humanity. Life is not first and foremost feminine, life is a balance of everything in it, male, female, objects, trees, water, stars, and etc. You can't say trees are feminine, water is feminine, air is feminine, and and so on.

A balance of everything is what comprises life. If there were no women life would go on not for men of course. If men were to parish women would not be able to go on due to the lack of fertility of the egg. You can say science, well science can also make the male pregnant it has been done before.

Quit trying to make it seem like life is about women because it isn't, life is about a balance of everything, harmony and chaos.

To partygirl....do you seriously believe what you say about a mother's love for a child being the ultimate love...and this being a fact??? Can i see your proof???

It is such nonsense that makes me have poor regard for women. My ex radical feminist wife promoted all that tosh, her brain happily believing this nonsense whilst she abused my son. The only 'fact' is generalisations such as what you come out with show the level of ignorance on display.

I will not have my capacity of love for my son being diminished because i am a father and not a mother. I fought for 6 years through the family courts to see my son safe. I don't make a proclamation that men love more than women, it is pathetic.

And another comment i haveseen on here is along the lines of humanity is terrible and the world would be better off without us...!! We are born of the earth and have as much right as any other species to exist. Yes we have the capacity to do much harm, but thats up to the good amongst us to not let that happen.

The social breakdown that has caused so much damage to men was not of their asking. Some women have caused for easier divorce etc, wanting it all and applying the victimhood agenda. I'm all for equality, the armed forces should now compromise women only until such time as they have paid in blood what male soldiers have had to do in the past.

Like the publican said previously, women cause as much trouble. Sometimes they do it themselves, often they get their 'white knight' to fight for their honour over some slight. We are an animal species, we are what we are. Female T-Rex's were the dominant ones i understand. Wonder if they considered dinosaurs would be better off without women dino's ???? !!!

Originally posted by mustfarhan
This happens because its basically Man's World. You need to understand that!

In the developed areas of the world, it is quite the opposite. Women literally get away with murder.



Weird, female judge. So. Weird.

I wonder how she would have ruled if it were a 300+ lb man sitting on a 120lb woman during a domestic dispute?

Sisterhood is so cute.