Why the world hates us?

[mlkg1g2]

Isn't this you like 21 hours ago?
View attachment 4919387
I don't think you have room to judge others on what is good or bad, as well as what people like and dislike.

the cycle of post nut clarity
>nut
>feels bad
>swear to quit
>come back the next day
>repeat

 

[MWPA78]

the cycle of post nut clarity
>nut
>feels bad
>swear to quit
>come back the next day
>repeat

idk about the misandry thing, but that song was trash. i can’t believe there’s still people with such garbage tier music taste

Step 1: Finding something meaningful. (Usually religion as most other things are cope or very difficult to attain in modern world.)
Step 2: Letting it grow.
Step 3: ?
Step 4: Profit. (Will take up more space in your life and gives satisfaction - so porn gets less compelling. And nutting doesn't feel bad anymore as you otherwise follow something truly meaningful - so the feeling of emptiness and wasting your life is gone when post nut clarity sets in.)

The tried and true remedy. Good wishes.

 

[lamba]

Step 4: Profit. (Will take up more space in your life and gives satisfaction - so porn gets less compelling. And nutting doesn't feel bad anymore as you otherwise follow something truly meaningful - so the feeling of emptiness and wasting your life is gone when post nut clarity sets in.)

The downfall of most people trying to quit a habit- any habit- is that they fail to anticipate that their existing habit fulfilled a function, even if it was just to occupy time and space. You cannot just excise that habit and have nothing explicitly planned to fill it's absence or else, on a long enough timeline, you're falling right back into your old habits.

 

[morphnet]

No, I’m not ignoring it. But the idea that men’s issues are suddenly invalid because different cultures have different expressions of gender norms is a cop-out.

Firstly, it's NOT men's issues, it's some men WITH issues, many men are fine adjusting to the change and some go further and actively support the change. Don't try lump everyone in with you and yours.

Secondly, you clearly lack knowledge of regions other than your own so you attempting to imply that they all suffer is ridiculous.

Thirdly, expressions of gender norms? communal, cultural and social structures across the globe vary widely and place different importance on roles, classes and genders, ignoring that is the cop-out.

The pain exists regardless of region. Men suffer from lack of emotional outlets in both Western and non-Western societies.

The pain is caused because many men refuse to educate themselves, to break out of the circle they are in telling them they are special and deserve special treatment. As for no emotional outlets, there has been enough of a change in western culture that men can now choose to find the numerous outlets that DO exist, the problem is that would mean they would first have to change how they think and no see it as weak and second choose not to care about a handful of strangers who would ridicule them for doing it, strangers who think much like they do.

There are outlets, many of them and there is NOTHING physical stopping men from using them.

Then by your logic, men should suffer in silence because their gender produced the abusers? That’s collective guilt, not justice. Men and women have BOTH harmed each other and have both suffered in systems created before they were born.

Why mention logic if you are not going to use it? How you managed to twist and delude yourself into reading that from what I wrote I'll never know. You keep understating and playing off the very real situations that women have found and are still finding themselves in all while asking "why should we change"

Men need to change because they are the root and cause of those problems, not just for women but for themselves as well and their refusal to acknowledge the problem means they can't solve the problem.

I'm not saying suffer in silence, I'm saying admit there is a problem, acknowledge the cause of the problem and work TOGETHER to fix the problem so NO ONE has to suffer in silence.

Yes, history is a miss and heavily contextual. But it doesn't change the fact that men disproportionately paid the cost.

and men disproportionately reaped the rewards.

Over 90% of workplace deaths are male (

You must be registered to see the links

).

A prime example of you ignoring important distinctions, that doc covers work related fatal injuries as well as Nonfatal injuries and illnesses, private industry in 2023

fatal injuries - 5,283

You must be registered to see the links

Women accounted for 8.5 percent (447) of all fatalities

nonfatal injuries - 2,569,000

You must be registered to see the links

You'll note they aren't mentioned in the nonfatal report, you'll also note that it clearly says :
"Women had the highest number of fatalities in the private health care and social assistance industry sector (63)
followed by the retail trade sector (59). "

Now you are going to find these kinds of numbers when women are kept out of many work places / sectors for so long and even now are struggling to break into many of them. You data is also off because the workplaces / sectors do NOT have a balanced representation of both male and female workers. Of course more men die in male dominated / male only jobs.

You can mock "jumped on grenades" all you want, but it happened. Thousands of times. And that kind of sacrifice used to be honored. Now it's just sneered at, just like how you did here.

First, I wasn't mocking, I was stating facts, the fact you are trying to divert attention from them and on to me shows you know your point is weak.

Second, you completely ignore the facts pointed out.

Third, no one is sneering at anything although it is in VERY POOR TASTE that you bring up something like that. Those soldiers are NOT jumping on a grenade so some men can imagine themselves to be better than women, they are doing it to save their brothers on the battlefield and you should be ashamed at using something like that in your argument.

Suicide among men is 3-4x higher than women worldwide, and that’s public health data.

• WHO:
  You must be registered to see the links
• CDC:
  You must be registered to see the links

and if you had bothered to read ANY of the links I posted you would have seen it has been that way for a VERY long time, so using it as a crutch to try support your argument is ridiculous.

It doesn’t matter whether a war caused it or not. The crisis is real. You keep framing everything as “well men did it to themselves,” as if that makes it okay or less tragic.

The "crisis' as you put it has actually been going on for a very long time and you can NOT and should NOT try to attribute it to the changes and your argument. Not only are you doing those people a very real disservice but you also muddy the waters and spread misinformation.

Yes. Purpose and meaning are cultural products. Remove rites of passage, stable family structures, and expectations beyond materialism, and you’ll get disillusioned men.

If a man finds purpose in treating women as property, as objects, as lower than himself then his purpose should be lost and replaced. Trying to paint extremes as the norm or the standard only makes it worse. Men can easily find love, work, enjoyment in life while treating women as actual people.

You can read thinkers like Viktor Frankl ("Man’s Search for Meaning") or even recent studies on male loneliness to see how dire it's become:

You must be registered to see the links

Fatherlessness has doubled since the 1960s in many Western countries and correlates with worse outcomes for boys: mental health, incarceration, education. This is well-documented:

You must be registered to see the links

and women wanting to be equal and treated as humans has caused this HOW?

Even progressive sources acknowledge systemic bias:

I open your link and get

You must be registered to see the links

Men at the bottom of the dating hierarchy are increasingly locked out of relationships. That's not incel whining. It's a real trend driven by tech and changing norms:

Seriously what is up with your links?????

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

This projection says more about your worldview than mine. I never said women want to dominate. I said men are punished for showing weakness.

Really? because from the start that was your exact view... that women are taking over and getting more value....

I’ll go as far as to say we are in a matriarchal society. Sure, women are getting r4ped and abused but that doesn’t change the fact- an average woman carries more social value than even an above-average man.

so....

In a world allegedly more empathetic, one half is still told to shut up and "man up" anytime they express their emotions.

Well if this is an example of "expressing emotions" then can you blame them? You've exaggerated to absurd degrees, you blamed everything short of leaking sinks on them and you have not provided a single shred of data or facts to back up any of your accusations. You'll note also that no one here has told you to shut up or man up so even here it disproves your points.

Yes, things are changing, yes, you and SOME like you don't like it but there are others that are ok with it and others that support it. This isn't a "men" problem, this is a problem for some men.

 

[anne O'nymous]

You should wonder dude, are you really saying men fought in wars without motives?

Well, strictly speaking for most of them yeah.
It's not Hittite citizen who wanted to conquer more lands, nor was it Egyptian ones or Roman legionnaire. Yet it was them who fought for them.
The funny part being that you'll say it yourself before the end of your post, they have no other motives that their obligation to do so... And having no choice is not a motive...

Back in early human history, wars were about survival.

It's not because the first trace of violent none natural death date back to 430,000 years (skull 17 found in

You must be registered to see the links

), that wars are this ancient. At those times it was more punctual conflicts than anything else.
For ~40 years, it was assumed that the oldest proof of "war" was

You must be registered to see the links

and its 64 corpses, dated from ~13,000 BC. Yet it have been demonstrated that, since there were both healed and unhealed lesions, it was in fact a series of punctual conflicts taking place over at least three generations. With the difficulty to accurately date remains, leading to an estimated time range of 5,000 years, plus the fact that not all of them have been dated, while soil evolution have partly denatured the place, it isn't even guarantee that they've all been buried at the same time; it could perfectly be the place where the tribe used to bury those who were killed.

And, of course, talking about survival motive isn't necessarily accurate for each known occurrence of none historically documented conflicts. In the case of Jebel Sahaba, there's no real doubts, Egypt, especially at those times, wasn't really the most suitable place when it come to surviving. But for Sima de Los Huesos, there's no effective reason implying survival. Without being the most fertile lands at those time, Spain wasn't really a place were you would struggle.
This especially since it is now fully known that Neanderthal tribes used to exchange between them, and even gather time to time (haven't found an English reference; haven't searched for hours neither). It even have been demonstrated that

You must be registered to see the links

, to the point that

You must be registered to see the links

. By itself the presence of those DNA fragments, in all human beings that have ancestry outside of Africa, disprove any possible claim that those mixing are purely due to rapes.
It also imply a more than pacific coexistence between the two radically different species, and therefore disprove the possibility of actual conflicts for pure survival reasons; you do not survive by killing your neighbours in time of (relative) abundance of resources and lack of manpower, especially when you're nomad. Here too I haven't found references in English, but there's some evidence that seem to prove that tribes sometimes cooperated in massive hunts.
Plus, the fact that this DNA is really present in all human beings that have ancestry outside of Africa, from Eastern Asia to America, passing by Europe, imply that migration was also an option. And obviously, migrating is by definition safer than starting a conflicts, since it present higher chances of survival for the tribe.

This doesn't mean that there weren't punctual conflicts due to survival motive, but they were punctual, at the image of what can happen with animals that defend their territories; showing your strength is enough 95% of the time to solve the conflict for a long enough amount of time.
But most of the time the reason was more surely a conflict between two individuals (that can possibly extend to the tribe), or greed (cursed be the weak who own the best land). And the same apply for most conflicts outside of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula until the first actual war, therefore the first conflict that take place over more than one day in a row and resolving around a reason that stayed constant from starts to stop.
An it happen that the first historically documented war date back to 2,600-2,350 BC, it's the

You must be registered to see the links

war. While the center of the conflict was irrigated lands, all the texts that survived talk about a question of property; those lands were attributed to Lagash by a Sumerian King, something that Umma always disagreed with. Therefore, here again it was more a question of greed than a question of survival.
And, starting there, it was the case for almost all wars. It happened, time to time, that it was a question of survival for one of the opponents, like by example Native South Americans face to Spain Conquistadors, or Native Americans face to European invaders. But they were never the ones who started the war, that was always started for greed reasons.
Punctually you'll actually find a war started for survival reason. Some Mongol wars were due to this. From memory one tartarian war (would be able to tell you which one) was started for this reason. And few others here and there. But the vast majority were started because someone in power wanted more of something, or decided that, by inheritence, by his god, or by whim, "those lands" should be his, or "those peoples" should submit to his will.
And, yes, this is nothing more than a dick-measurement contest.

The Roman Empire’s expansion was about controlling grain in Egypt, silver in Spain, or trade routes in Asia Minor was not some personal reason.

Yeah, because everyone know that wanting to pay the lesser possible price when you're the Roman Empire is a question of survival, not a question of greed and superiority complex. Like everyone know that silver was a delicacy at those times. And, of course, none of this was the act of a Tribun, or Senator, who needed some military succes to increase his wealth in order to increase his political power.
It was, at most and not always, for the survival of the Empire. But as History obviously shown, the death of the Empire doesn't mean the death of its citizens. It doesn't even actually affect their survival, it just reduce the abundance of food.

In WWI, soldiers on all sides were forced into trenches by conscription laws.

Remind me why the war started...
To summarize, Wilhelm II (Germany emperor) wanted to kick his cousin (Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia) ass, while France wanted to avenge 1870. The only one who could have argued that survival (of his empire) was his motive, François-Joseph the First (Austro-Hungary emperor), was against the war.

The French called mutineers cowards and even executed many to set an example.

You must be registered to see the links

... All this for an estimated number of mutiners between 100,000 and 200,000, and against the will of the President.
During the same war, the UK

You must be registered to see the links

, some for mutiny or desertion, 306 were pardoned later. Germans

You must be registered to see the links

.

Men didn’t go to war for fun or glory.

You still missed the point. It wasn't about going to war, but about starting it.

Through history, men were treated as expendable the ones sent to kill or die so others could live.

Weren't you the one who tried to prove the opposite in your previous post?
Wasn't I the one who talked about the ~250,000 soviet women who were on the front during the WWII?

I dont see the point of you giving me links or articles where women fought alongside men i already know that.

It was an attempt to make you think a bit regarding what I was actually saying. I could have done it without links, but I'm me, I don't throw random claims out of the blue; unless it's obvious common knowledge, I try to provide an entry point for anyone who want to either confirm that it's actually not some made up claim, or to learn more about it. In the present case, you could also have learned a bit about their motive, that weren't "we don't have choice", nor, "we want to survive".
But like you contradicted yourself between the start and end of your post, while partly arguing against what you previously said, it clearly failed.

 

[MWPA78]

The downfall of most people trying to quit a habit- any habit- is that they fail to anticipate that their existing habit fulfilled a function, even if it was just to occupy time and space. You cannot just excise that habit and have nothing explicitly planned to fill it's absence or else, on a long enough timeline, you're falling right back into your old habits.

Indeed.

Imo the source of many unwholesome habits is the meaninglessness of modern life - if one can change that many things lose their fangs.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Yes, I understand that there are groups and countries out there that have taken that step- and that's totally fine.

I wasn't actually disagreeing with your own thoughts. I was more presenting another perspective, since there's now two (edit) four "women belong in the kitchen" in the thread.

Yes. I have been a good baby factory.

Im not implying that there aren't issues on both sides and lots of social norms people have to break through to do what they want to do. It exists and it can be a wall.

It exist, yes, alas. But for this part I was more showing you that there's hope for your daughter(s) and future grand-daughter(s).
After all, while they had to struggle, both my wife and mother succeeded, and they did it because slowly the times changed. It probably change slower in the USA, but despite everything I don't see it being the only country that actually walk backward, at least not on long term.

 

[Count Morado]

If you're in the top ~10% of men, life is great. If you're in the top 5%, you're basically living life with cheat codes.

This is bullshit.

Spoiler: Wall - Also, I am not looking for a conversation on what is below I am typing my response to the take of the whole post I am replying to.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Jigglypuff Dragonslayer]

Because of the topic, I'll read it as OnlyPants....

Is that kilt erasure?

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

It probably change slower in the USA, but despite everything I don't see it being the only country that actually walk backward, at least not on long term.

From my knowledge of the US, obtained from both my mother and grandparents experience, the US tends to change in bursts rather than slowly over time, when it comes to larger issues. Comes with the territory of being a relatively young nation, imo.

 

[Count Morado]

From my knowledge of the US, obtained from both my mother and grandparents experience, the US tends to change in bursts rather than slowly over time, when it comes to larger issues. Comes with the territory of being a relatively young nation, imo.

Yup. Nothing is a slow, steady growth in the US. And there have been small steps backwards. Even for the backwards steps we've seen in the last 9 years, I'd rather live in the US today than in the 1950s. I'd even take today over - gulp - reliving the early 2000s. But it's damn close.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Comes with the territory of being a relatively young nation, imo.

More than a young nation, it's a young culture. Germany and Italy, among others, are younger nations nearly 150 years old only (not counting the split years for Germany). But they come from the union of territories that were already linked and shared globally the same culture.
This while the USA is the sum of many cultures that became a single new one. Canada too is a relatively young nation, but less multi-cultural and it never really cut the links with the UK and France. What mean that they are less in search of their identity. And it's probably what hold the USA back, that desire to have a cultural identity common all citizens. Until the moment everyone finally "agree" (with a lax meaning) on a given point and burst happen.

 

[MissCougar]

I wasn't actually disagreeing with your own thoughts. I was more presenting another perspective, since there's now two (edit) four "women belong in the kitchen" in the thread.



It exist, yes, alas. But for this part I was more showing you that there's hope for your daughter(s) and future grand-daughter(s).
After all, while they had to struggle, both my wife and mother succeeded, and they did it because slowly the times changed. It probably change slower in the USA, but despite everything I don't see it being the only country that actually walk backward, at least not on long term.

I understand. There are so many individual perspectives on this stuff it's a tough topic to be gentle with. A lot of pain on all sides from all angles and everyone is vying for the top spot sometimes.

Im just not vying for that position, and I want my kids and grandkids to all have a fair shake at life. I don't want to go into my story on this thread, but I've been around the block more than I want my family to be around the block or even know about. A lots happened in 30 years!

It's easy to say "I failed like this, why should I believe other people can succeed where I haven't?" and that goes to things like how I view a lot of important subjects. Just like im sure everyone does. The only way you can understand other people is to somehow associate their actions with some experience you had before. but you can't ever really walk in anyone else's shoes, even if you are the same gender, race, etc.

 

[Shiko200]

Well, strictly speaking for most of them yeah.
It's not Hittite citizen who wanted to conquer more lands, nor was it Egyptian ones or Roman legionnaire. Yet it was them who fought for them.
The funny part being that you'll say it yourself before the end of your post, they have no other motives that their obligation to do so... And having no choice is not a motive...




It's not because the first trace of violent none natural death date back to 430,000 years (skull 17 found in

You must be registered to see the links

), that wars are this ancient. At those times it was more punctual conflicts than anything else.
For ~40 years, it was assumed that the oldest proof of "war" was

You must be registered to see the links

and its 64 corpses, dated from ~13,000 BC. Yet it have been demonstrated that, since there were both healed and unhealed lesions, it was in fact a series of punctual conflicts taking place over at least three generations. With the difficulty to accurately date remains, leading to an estimated time range of 5,000 years, plus the fact that not all of them have been dated, while soil evolution have partly denatured the place, it isn't even guarantee that they've all been buried at the same time; it could perfectly be the place where the tribe used to bury those who were killed.

And, of course, talking about survival motive isn't necessarily accurate for each known occurrence of none historically documented conflicts. In the case of Jebel Sahaba, there's no real doubts, Egypt, especially at those times, wasn't really the most suitable place when it come to surviving. But for Sima de Los Huesos, there's no effective reason implying survival. Without being the most fertile lands at those time, Spain wasn't really a place were you would struggle.
This especially since it is now fully known that Neanderthal tribes used to exchange between them, and even gather time to time (haven't found an English reference; haven't searched for hours neither). It even have been demonstrated that

You must be registered to see the links

, to the point that

You must be registered to see the links

. By itself the presence of those DNA fragments, in all human beings that have ancestry outside of Africa, disprove any possible claim that those mixing are purely due to rapes.
It also imply a more than pacific coexistence between the two radically different species, and therefore disprove the possibility of actual conflicts for pure survival reasons; you do not survive by killing your neighbours in time of (relative) abundance of resources and lack of manpower, especially when you're nomad. Here too I haven't found references in English, but there's some evidence that seem to prove that tribes sometimes cooperated in massive hunts.
Plus, the fact that this DNA is really present in all human beings that have ancestry outside of Africa, from Eastern Asia to America, passing by Europe, imply that migration was also an option. And obviously, migrating is by definition safer than starting a conflicts, since it present higher chances of survival for the tribe.

This doesn't mean that there weren't punctual conflicts due to survival motive, but they were punctual, at the image of what can happen with animals that defend their territories; showing your strength is enough 95% of the time to solve the conflict for a long enough amount of time.
But most of the time the reason was more surely a conflict between two individuals (that can possibly extend to the tribe), or greed (cursed be the weak who own the best land). And the same apply for most conflicts outside of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula until the first actual war, therefore the first conflict that take place over more than one day in a row and resolving around a reason that stayed constant from starts to stop.
An it happen that the first historically documented war date back to 2,600-2,350 BC, it's the

You must be registered to see the links

war. While the center of the conflict was irrigated lands, all the texts that survived talk about a question of property; those lands were attributed to Lagash by a Sumerian King, something that Umma always disagreed with. Therefore, here again it was more a question of greed than a question of survival.
And, starting there, it was the case for almost all wars. It happened, time to time, that it was a question of survival for one of the opponents, like by example Native South Americans face to Spain Conquistadors, or Native Americans face to European invaders. But they were never the ones who started the war, that was always started for greed reasons.
Punctually you'll actually find a war started for survival reason. Some Mongol wars were due to this. From memory one tartarian war (would be able to tell you which one) was started for this reason. And few others here and there. But the vast majority were started because someone in power wanted more of something, or decided that, by inheritence, by his god, or by whim, "those lands" should be his, or "those peoples" should submit to his will.
And, yes, this is nothing more than a dick-measurement contest.




Yeah, because everyone know that wanting to pay the lesser possible price when you're the Roman Empire is a question of survival, not a question of greed and superiority complex. Like everyone know that silver was a delicacy at those times. And, of course, none of this was the act of a Tribun, or Senator, who needed some military succes to increase his wealth in order to increase his political power.
It was, at most and not always, for the survival of the Empire. But as History obviously shown, the death of the Empire doesn't mean the death of its citizens. It doesn't even actually affect their survival, it just reduce the abundance of food.




Remind me why the war started...
To summarize, Wilhelm II (Germany emperor) wanted to kick his cousin (Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia) ass, while France wanted to avenge 1870. The only one who could have argued that survival (of his empire) was his motive, François-Joseph the First (Austro-Hungary emperor), was against the war.

You must be registered to see the links

... All this for an estimated number of mutiners between 100,000 and 200,000, and against the will of the President.
During the same war, the UK

You must be registered to see the links

, some for mutiny or desertion, 306 were pardoned later. Germans

You must be registered to see the links

.




You still missed the point. It wasn't about going to war, but about starting it.




Weren't you the one who tried to prove the opposite in your previous post?
Wasn't I the one who talked about the ~250,000 soviet women who were on the front during the WWII?




It was an attempt to make you think a bit regarding what I was actually saying. I could have done it without links, but I'm me, I don't throw random claims out of the blue; unless it's obvious common knowledge, I try to provide an entry point for anyone who want to either confirm that it's actually not some made up claim, or to learn more about it. In the present case, you could also have learned a bit about their motive, that weren't "we don't have choice", nor, "we want to survive".
But like you contradicted yourself between the start and end of your post, while partly arguing against what you previously said, it clearly failed.

Ah This is a fucking history lesson now. Also 800000 soviet women served in military of which 250000 on the front lines. 34 million men served in the soviet military 20-25 million on the front lines. 50k to 100k of those women died. In comparison 11 million men died. Lets not even compare the wounded. you could argue that atleast half of the deaths should have been women i mean it was the battle for their survival after all. They were fighting for their motherland. Also, to address your other point, I might add-

War didn’t begin with kings.
War didn’t begin with agriculture.
War began when the first human realized another human could take what he had and chose not to run.
If humanity had always been ruled by women, history suggests the outcomes would have been much the same. Power dynamics, territorial disputes, competition for resources, and the biological and social drivers behind conflict don’t inherently change because of gender, that was the point i was trying to make. Women rulers in history, like Queen Victoria, Catherine the Great, or Elizabeth I, demonstrated just as much strategic ruthlessness, imperial ambition, and readiness for war as their male counterparts. Kings didn’t create war instead they just made it more organized. War was already part of human nature. Kings added things like flags, armor, and taxes, but the reasons for fighting stayed the same: pride and greed. I kinda skipped over a lot of what you wrote but I picked up whatever I thought was important to this debate we have been having. Also i dont think women belong in kitchen i know you didnt say that here but i saw you mention that. I think women are the same as men for the most part.

 

[Rafster]

What a weird thread

 

[Count Morado]

What a weird thread

I read that as "what a weird beard." And then I laughed that a gay man said "what a weird beard" because, well, you know... and then I laughed harder when I realized you typed "thread."

Maybe I need sleep.

 

[tanstaafl]

Me regarding this thread:

 

[morphnet]

War began when the first human realized another human could take what he had and chose not to run.

This is incorrect, the first humans joined their families with other families to form tribes. So no, war did not start because some ancient ancestor decided not to run because another ancient ancestor wanted his fish....

If humanity had always been ruled by women, history suggests the outcomes would have been much the same.

This is also incorrect, history suggests nothing of the kind. Any woman that ever made it into any position of power had to work within a system created and dominated by men, had to follow the rules, customs and etiquette created by men and had to follow the political, social and religious laws created by men.

In order to know how women would have faired you would need a reference where women were dominate from the start, had created all the systems, created all the rules, customs and etiquette, had created all the political, social and religious laws AND had lasted as long as their male counterparts.

There is none so your statement is incorrect.

Power dynamics, territorial disputes, competition for resources, and the biological and social drivers behind conflict don’t inherently change because of gender, that was the point i was trying to make.

The approach to confronting, dealing with and solving them does change though. So your point is moot.

War was already part of human nature.

War is NOT a part of human nature, fear, greed, hate etc. etc. are, war is a tool just like diplomacy is a tool and men use these tools they created to "fix" or "solve" problems they created.

 

[Shiko200]

This is incorrect, the first humans joined their families with other families to form tribes. So no, war did not start because some ancient ancestor decided not to run because another ancient ancestor wanted his fish....



This is also incorrect, history suggests nothing of the kind. Any woman that ever made it into any position of power had to work within a system created and dominated by men, had to follow the rules, customs and etiquette created by men and had to follow the political, social and religious laws created by men.

In order to know how women would have faired you would need a reference where women were dominate from the start, had created all the systems, created all the rules, customs and etiquette, had created all the political, social and religious laws AND had lasted as long as their male counterparts.

There is none so your statement is incorrect.


The approach to confronting, dealing with and solving them does change though. So your point is moot.



War is NOT a part of human nature, fear, greed, hate etc. etc. are, war is a tool just like diplomacy is a tool and men use these tools they created to "fix" or "solve" problems they created.

Bro woke up with a PhD in Man Hating Logic lmao. Just walks in and discredits all historical evidences out of the door with that third paragraph like nah didn't happen. You know your claim that “we don’t know what would happen if women had built the system from the beginning” is kinda valid but arguing from absence of evidence is not a reliable method of prediction. While it’s true that most historical systems were built and dominated by men, there are examples of female-led societies and rulers, and they did not abandon conflict as a tool of governance.

Queen Elizabeth I of England: someone I mentioned before iirc navigated a male-dominated court, yes, but she also launched the war against Spain, supported piracy, and crushed rebellions I mean she was hardly innocent.

Catherine the Great of Russia: Expanded the empire through war and crushed internal dissent with military force.

The Dahomey Kingdom of West Africa: Included a powerful all-female military regiment, the Agojie ("Dahomey Amazons"). The society was hierarchical, militant, and expansionist—hardly pacifist.

Indira Gandhi of India: Declared emergency rule and ordered military operations like Operation Blue Star. She was voted in by people in a democracy and she betrayed both people and her nation for power. No man needed at all.

I don't know this obsession you guys have with projecting women with perfection but I know it's tempting to imagine that a matriarchal past would have led to a more peaceful world, such a belief lacks empirical grounding. Women in power have used war when necessary, just as men have. The reality is that war and peace are human phenomena, shaped by circumstances more than chromosomes. Also war is part of nature so is greed and hate. Chimpanzee troops—led by both dominant males and females engage in violent raids against neighboring groups for territory. This supports the theory that war-like behavior has evolutionary roots that predate societal constructs, including patriarchy. War does exists in nature. Also In post-war periods, women gained economic or political leverage when men died or were absent (ex :- after WWI and WWII, women gained more roles in industry and suffrage movements) I am not claiming they didn't suffer from war but did work out in their favour in some cases. Wars aren't just tools to fix or solve problems by men. If the military of your nation suddenly disappears what do you think is gonna happen? Or if let's say all nations in the world are ruled by women do you think it would end all wars? Easy enough to say men die in wars men made but when those men show up at your doors who will be the first to be sent to fight them?

 

[That other person]

most of the women I watch or read online are programmers, physicists, political commentators and sociologists.

you may have a problem but it's not their doing. which is good news, because fixing your depression is all in your own hands.

It's not actual depression though, it's just saddening, and it's not all women of course, I get that. Usually social media or internet in general is not quite into showing you the engineer lady or the lawyer, the doctor or anything, just the ones that pop, and the ones that do usually do because of what I said or because they did something stupid, which is the bad part.

It's not like I don't think there aren't proper, normal women out there, but it does kind of annoy me that the ones being pushed into the spotlight are the ones I mentioned and not the ones you mentioned, that's what's saddening.

I think we are in a weird microcosm where men are getting called out a lot because it's the fashionable thing to do, but the seesaw will rock back to the other side at some point!

Sadly this might be true. It's not even an opinion many have is just the thing people do because others are doing it. There's a lot of hate online for the stupidest reasons and the ones that actually have a point get buried under a pile of idiocy or get called one thing or another just for not agreeing or for simply having an opinion.

Which is kind of the reason I'll just speak my mind and try to explain myself in a reasonable way. I'll get hate anyway from someone somewhere for whatever reason so I might as well just give my opinion anyway.