In modern warfare, where soldiers are paid by the government and not allowed to rape and pillage the inducement is much the same for both sexes.
But back in the old days, women were highly valued spoils of war. Not much inducement there for a woman soldier.
And back in the old pillaging days as long as her side was winning, a woman could just stay home and let her man bring home the swag with no risk to her.
Reminds me of those kind of atheists who claim that religion is sooooo indispensable because unfortunately most other people are much dumber and weaker as themselves.
What makes you people think that women don’t rule the world? They do, and they are usually smart enough to delegate all the heavy lifting duties to those cute men in suits that they have fronting for them.
I’m reminded of that new Outer Limits episode where David Keith is a military officer who wakes up from suspended animation into a post-apocalyptic world where germ warfare has wiped out anyone with a Y chromosome, and his presence has all kinds of destabilizing effects on the women-only tribe he first meets. For some bizarre reason, he actually lets himself get drawn into their petty internal conflicts instead of saying, as I would, “Y’know, I have education and training and physical strength and a penis and if you ladies are all kerfuffled by my existence, I’m just gonna go find another tribe that appreciates me. It’s not like I owe you bunch any particular loyalty just because you were the first group I met, so if you’re gonna get all bitchy on me, I’m outta here. Bye.”
So, anyway, I don’t see how a woman-run society would be better.
Wow, I got so many replies I don’t even know where to start.
As far as women being less violent, I don’t have what you would call a “cite” to back it up, but to me it’s obvious. Men are more violent, by and large, and this is a problem. You can point out examples of women who can be just as violent, but on the grand scheme of things, there is no comparison.
Now, I also think it’s safe to say that society has been mostly male dominated and we have always fought. Huge problem. How can we get anywhere if we keep fucking each other up?
Now, women never really have had a majority of the power in this world, and that might stay that way because the men ain’t giving it up. So my question is do you think that the fighting would stop if women ran the world? If not, what’s the solution?
P.s. In my utopia, women would run things and men can play sports to entertain them.
Men doing the fighting because they take the jobs that require it isn’t the same as men being inherently more violent. As has been pointed out again and again, there’s no evidence that when put into a position of making the decision whether to fight or not that women are less violently inclined.
And for that matter, violence isn’t inherently wrong. Sometimes it’s necessary.
No it wouldn’t, and I doubt there’s a solution as long as humans stay human.
And how is this more of a utopia than men running things and having dancing girls entertain them?
You have any shred of evidence that one causes the other?
A lot of what you said there makes sense to me except for the violence being not necessarily wrong. I believe there’s a difference between violence and defense. Defense is only necessary if violence is present. With an absence of violence, you get cooperation and that’s what’s necessary.
Also, there is room for girls who just wanna dance in my utopia.
That’s just playing word games. Violence is still violence when it’s justified by self defense and so on.
Jeez I already said I don’t have a “cite” and I’m not looking one up either. What is this debate class?
However, I’ll try to answer the question. Since both of the above mentioned are indisputable facts I would say there is a correlation there. What do you think causes all the violence.
Well then why is there a need for different terms ?
No, but is the Great Debates forum and we have standards here.
Correlation does not equal causation.
So our language can distinguish between justified and unjustified violence of course.
Then, where in the world are you getting your information? I am more likely to believe someone that has literature to back up arguments/points. We need you to cite so there is some substance to what you are saying. Without any substance, you do not have an argument.
So your saying they’re one in the same. Then what’s the difference between one guy sucker punching another for no reason than he’s having a bad day and the other guy taking recourse so as not to be harmed?
Err … is it possible that your desire for a female-led world is based on a sexual fetish? :dubious: Your utopia, your female-led world in which men are only good enough to entertain superior women, sounds exactly like the utopia of those submissive “female-led relationship” guys. And … well, at least you wouldn’t be the first who made the mistake to make an ideology or a lifestyle out of their sexual preferences.
Well I don’t really have the time for that, sorry. Why can’t you just take my word for it?
If you don’t have time to debate according to this forum’s standards, I would suggest you refrain from starting threads in GD.
No I’m not, I’m saying that one is right and one is wrong. We distinguish between murder and killing in self defense.
:dubious: Um, one is an idiot and the other has managed to avoid a fight? Not much similarity between the two. And no, sometime you can’t avoid fights, and sometimes avoiding a fight is unethical.