Turn on thread page Beta

If men were wiped out post-1800s, where would women be now? watch

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misogynist)
    That's not true, as if that were the case - They'd be showing equivalent competence in each field today. If we extrapolate women's achievements backwards, it seems like they wouldn't accomplish anything at all.

    Name ten modern scientific advancements that have been made by women (Even this would fail to impress - as almost every modern discovery is made by a man.)

    Name ten world leaders or entrepeneurs who are revolutionising the world today, and so on.
    Lol I know men have made vastly more achievements. I'm not saying women would definitely have made some great achievements of their own, but it's a possibility.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nuodai)
    Well it is, because it would be entirely speculative. There are very few real situations where large amounts of women live without men, so any responses are likely to be biased towards the respondants' own gender, views, biases and suchlike. Furthermore, even if the arguments were developed based on large groups of women living in the absence of men, there are still no documented cases of female reproduction without males (I don't accept the Bible as evidence of this), so saying whether it would be the same or different, and how it would be different, would be nothing but a guess.
    No - it wouldn't. You can assume how the world would turn out based on assumptions of how much women contribute to the world today and extrapolating it backwards. If women had the capacity to be as efficient and creative as men, they'd excel at an equal rate to men in all fields.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golly-Gosh)
    ask yourself this, If Women didn't exist, where would Men be now?
    probably in several gay clubs dotted around soho
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    Well, seen as women realistically wouldn't exist, I'm going to suggest we all photosynthesise. Therefore, we'd be a lot greener and healthier. Therefore I think that it is the penis owning male folk who are destroying the world.

    Also we'd be a hell of a lot happier without over grown babies needing to be taken care of. We wouldn't have to make dinner and not get thanked, we wouldn't have to be compared to models/beautiful women and therefore would not strive to make ourselves SUPER thin and attractive to chubby gaming, drinking losers. We would not have to give blowjobs or have our head pushed further and further into our neck if we didn't really want to, until we relent and give you one anyway - without getting anything in return, might I add. Oh I think the world would be a much happier place without man folk
    You're not bitter at all....:cool:

    and i came here to say "extinct" but OP changed it saying they reproduce anyway
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Hey, do you know it takes less than 27 men 24 hours to produce enough sperm (constantly) to reproduce the entire population?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    Maybe because they don't want/need to? Besides, it will take a long time to actually reverse all the female oppression that dominated the last millenium - even when women were officially "allowed" to do science, it didn't exactly seem like the most tempting thing to get into what with sexism still embedded everywhere, and then because it was so male-dominated (which it still remains).

    Clearly you just want the thread to conclude, "women are thick, men win at everything," so why not just make a thread with that title.
    I don't want to make a thread with that title.

    The argument you presented is one of the worst arguments in relation to this topic ever. Oppression hasn't existed for decades now in most developed countries and it is not inherited by children today.

    So if oppression was an actual reason for female incompetence, they should be overtaking men or at least being as competent in every field, but that still isn't the case.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Become Amazonian and fantastise about snoo snoo
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Misogynist)
    No - it wouldn't. You can assume how the world would turn out based on assumptions of how much women contribute to the world today and extrapolating it backwards. If women had the capacity to be as efficient and creative as men, they'd excel at an equal rate to men in all fields.
    What does this have to do with the question in hand? As it stands, women and men do not have similar levels of equality (with one or the other sex being favoured in different areas), and they do not live independently (each sex influences the other sex and their own sex). From such a situation, "extrapolating backwards" (what does that even mean?) would do nothing to answer the question, because the question refers to a situation whereby women are living completely independently of men. The current or historic status of women (and men) therefore does not reflect their capabilities in such a situation, unless you can say for certain that the abilities of women living among men are absolute and not reduced (or augmented) by men.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Probably in a better society in one we're in now
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Well it would hardly continue "as normal". You think everything would just be identical if men were wiped out?
    Assuming as the OP has stated, that women could reproduce independently of men, I don't see why the world would not continue as normal. While the world would not be identical, it would probably come to closely resemble the world we live in today.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If men were wiped out, and only women were left, spiders would be ruling the world, there would be little creativity in inventions, *****ing would become a sport, and every world leader would be like Margaret Thatcher *shudder*
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Assuming as the OP has stated, that women could reproduce independently of men, I don't see why the world would not continue as normal. While the world would not be identical, it would probably come to closely resemble the world we live in today.
    Because men and women have different skills. Without men, I'd imagine there'd be significant differences.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Because men and women have different skills. Without men, I'd imagine there'd be significant differences.
    Excuse me? Men and women have 'different skills'? What different skills would these be? This sounds suspiciously like you are going to spew some misogynistic babble that justifies keeping women in the home and looking after children etc ... *narrows eyes*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nuodai)
    What does this have to do with the question in hand? As it stands, women and men do not have similar levels of equality (with one or the other sex being favoured in different areas)
    It has quite a bit to do with it as female competence on terms of scientific and technological advancement relies solely on their competence in these fields as a whole. If they contribute to them marginally now - we can assume that they wouldn't contribute to it a hundred or more years ago.

    Do you have any proof for this favouritism in certain areas? Didn't think so.

    From such a situation, "extrapolating backwards" (what does that even mean?)
    I think this definition may assist you:

    In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of constructing new data points outside a discrete set of known data points.

    Add 'backwards' to that, as a value of time, and you'll know what it means. You will do well at Further Maths.


    Would do nothing to answer the question, because the question refers to a situation whereby women are living completely independently of men.
    That means that male contribution to science and technology does not exist, so one can assume how things will turn out, and that is what this thread is asking. An assumption or view on how things would turn out.

    The current or historic status of women (and men) therefore does not reflect their capabilities in such a situation, unless you can say for certain that the abilities of women living among men are absolute and not reduced (or augmented) by men.
    Since your previous arguments were weak at best, I'll consider that 'therefore' non existent.

    (By the way, oppression is not inherited.)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misogynist)
    I don't want to make a thread with that title.

    The argument you presented is one of the worst arguments in relation to this topic ever. Oppression hasn't existed for decades now in most developed countries and it is not inherited by children today.

    So if oppression was an actual reason for female incompetence, they should be overtaking men or at least being as competent in every field, but that still isn't the case.
    Officially women have had the same opportunities as men for a while, yes, but attitudes in society are taking a long time to change and this is extremely off-putting for women entering male-dominated work-forces, particularly in previous generations with embedded sexism in many areas.

    Indeed, I did explain this in my previous post but you probably considered it not worth a man's time to read.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misogynist)
    I don't want to make a thread with that title.

    The argument you presented is one of the worst arguments in relation to this topic ever. Oppression hasn't existed for decades now in most developed countries and it is not inherited by children today.

    So if oppression was an actual reason for female incompetence, they should be overtaking men or at least being as competent in every field, but that still isn't the case.
    You're boring
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Assuming as the OP has stated, that women could reproduce independently of men, I don't see why the world would not continue as normal. While the world would not be identical, it would probably come to closely resemble the world we live in today.
    So you're saying you'd still be on your laptop, posting on this forum if men did not exist? How dumb.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Misogynist)
    It has quite a bit to do with it as female competence on terms of scientific and technological advancement relies solely on their competence in these fields as a whole. If they contribute to them marginally now - we can assume that they wouldn't contribute to it a hundred or more years ago.

    Do you have any proof for this favouritism in certain areas? Didn't think so.



    I think this definition may assist you:

    In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of constructing new data points outside a discrete set of known data points.

    Add 'backwards' to that, as a value of time, and you'll know what it means. You will do well at Further Maths.




    That means that male contribution to science and technology does not exist, so one can assume how things will turn out, and that is what this thread is asking. An assumption or view on how things would turn out.



    Since your previous arguments were weak at best, I'll consider that 'therefore' non existent.

    (By the way, oppression is not inherited.)
    Sorry, if you're going to be unnecessarily patronising and dogmatic, I'm not going to carry on debating with you.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Excuse me? Men and women have 'different skills'? What different skills would these be? This sounds suspiciously like you are going to spew some misogynistic babble that justifies keeping women in the home and looking after children etc ... *narrows eyes*
    You think men and women are identical in every way? That's blatantly untrue, so yes, they do have different skills. It's been documented that males and females are both better at different things.

    If that's misogynistic babble to you, then OK. It seems to me like it's fact.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nuodai)
    Sorry, if you're going to be unnecessarily patronising and dogmatic, I'm not gonna carry on debating with you.
    I don't think I am personally. I was only as patronising and dogmatic as you were.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 23, 2018
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.