First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
If women are equal to men then why have women not overthrown men?
Posted 5/2/16 , edited 5/2/16

Tinamarie101 wrote:

Women are in the military I dont think the branch really matter on any part as each branch is challenging regardless! I even have future plans to go into the military!

https://www.facebook.com/insiderpeople/videos/521328604741443/?permPage=1

^ idk if you can view vid or not depending if you have fb but its a women whos 9 months pregnant lifting 100lbs. lots of people debate rather its safe or not which actually she is cuz her body was previously accustomed to be able to take it and fact she continued it throughout the pregnancy it accustomed with it only danger in it if weight falling on her stomach. but its still amazing. women are just as capable to do anything males can im sure.


Then why weren't they used in combat before? Remember, if this is about capacity, then why have we discussed lowering standards for women in some branches?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Marines+lowering+standards+for+females&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

If women were always this capable as you say. That means that they would have been able to overthrow males in combat, yes?

3143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Online
Posted 5/2/16
Muscle is not everything man, we got tigers and elephants but how come they never dominate earth? Because we got intelligence. Girls are natural tactician, if you ever piss one off you will see
11783 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 5/2/16

j1787 wrote:

Personally I think it's because we probably think it's stupid and we have better things to do.


This.

Why should we be interested in overthrowing or oppressing our fathers, sons and friends? What would be the benefit for us when we would start a real, violent gender-war? Most women (and men) don't want to enslave the other gender. It has nothing to do with physical strenght or women being less violent. If the big goal for both genders would be to overthrow the other gender why are we equal by law? I know, it was not like there was a lot of male support for women's rights at the beginning (but a lot of women didn't support their ideas either) but why are we allowed to vote now or choose our work by our own for example if every single man wants to oppress women? Why was there no men-army killing all the femenists and suffragettes?
9303 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 5/2/16 , edited 5/2/16

srlan23 wrote:


j1787 wrote:

Personally I think it's because we probably think it's stupid and we have better things to do.


This.

Why should we be interested in overthrowing or oppressing our fathers, sons and friends? What would be the benefit for us when we would start a real, violent gender-war? Most women (and men) don't want to enslave the other gender. It has nothing to do with physical strenght or women being less violent. If the big goal for both genders would be to overthrow the other gender why are we equal by law? I know, it was not like there was a lot of male support for women's rights at the beginning (but a lot of women didn't support their ideas either) but why are we allowed to vote now or choose our work by our own for example if every single man wants to oppress women? Why was there no men-army killing all the femenists and suffragettes?


I agree with all of this.
It must have been cool though, back in the day to be the man, the provider, come home from work and dinner is ready, the house is clean and you get looked after.
But us men of today will never know what that is like i guess.
At least women have their own money now though and contribute in that way. Kind of seems like everybody had their role back in the old days but i guess it must have sucked for women being stuck home all day with no money.
I guess none of us, both genders really know what it must have been like.
3143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Online
Posted 5/2/16
Because guys have better conscience, and a heart
Posted 5/2/16 , edited 5/2/16

UnLukieTac wrote:

I always just assumed that most women didn't care about our barbaric, primitive ways. Unless they've been secretly trying to uprise. Which would eventually demonstrate the entirety of their actual goals. Not to overthrow men, but to enslave the world entirely. Even fellow homosapiens with that more pronounced chest flesh, known as the boob.





Illuminati.


Are women not capable of being barbaric and violent as men? Are you saying that women aren't equal in that capacity?


srlan23 wrote:

This.

Why should we be interested in overthrowing or oppressing our fathers, sons and friends? What would be the benefit for us when we would start a real, violent gender-war? Most women (and men) don't want to enslave the other gender. It has nothing to do with physical strenght or women being less violent. If the big goal for both genders would be to overthrow the other gender why are we equal by law? I know, it was not like there was a lot of male support for women's rights at the beginning (but a lot of women didn't support their ideas either) but why are we allowed to vote now or choose our work by our own for example if every single man wants to oppress women? Why was there no men-army killing all the femenists and suffragettes?


Remember, this wasn't a question about the motive of overthrowing men, but why as a historical pattern women never rose up against men. Second, to answer your question on why there was no men killing women or suffragettes is simple. Gender Identity politics wasn't actually as polarized as it is today. Most women during the Suffragettes moment, didn't even want the right to vote.

Remember, try to answer the question about the historical pattern, that's what I'm truly asking about. I'm sure you have a great answer for it.

11780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / McDonough
Offline
Posted 5/2/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


Tinamarie101 wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:

Well they are physically weaker, they raise children, they dont need to oppress men to get all the mans money plus now a days they have their own money anyways.
I guess if every single girl in the world(or in any single nation) all decided to never put out ever again then they could conquer men. Like if they made a stand and joined together and made a pact.
But tehn i guess rape would happen so...



idk about physically weaker ive seen females lift heavier weights in the gym than an average male can.


But if this is true, that their capacities are the same...then why were women never used in warfare? I know my anatomy pretty well and my physics is semi-ok.

Why would I not want to use females on the front lines in let's say, the war of the roses? or 100 years war?


Women are more valuable than men. If 70% of the males in a species died off the species could still survive. The same can't be said for woman.
Posted 5/2/16 , edited 5/2/16

Southern55 wrote:

Women are more valuable than men. If 70% of the males in a species died off the species could still survive. The same can't be said for woman.


Can you prove that?
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/2/16 , edited 5/2/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:
Are women not capable of being barbaric and violent as men? Are you saying that women aren't equal in that capacity?

I would agree with you, but my wife would kill me

4506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Offline
Posted 5/2/16 , edited 5/2/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:

The meaning of Equality? Well I know from a mathematical standpoint what it means. Perhaps you have your own method of defining equality? If I had to guess, it would be self capacity. That is, the same ability.

Can you elaborate more on ancient times when it was a female dominated world? Was it militaristic dominated by women?


They didn't have military then. Life consists of small tribes or villages.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/2/16

tkayt wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Can you elaborate more on ancient times when it was a female dominated world? Was it militaristic dominated by women?


They didn't have military then. Life consists of small tribes or villages.


FYI

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule

15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 5/2/16 , edited 5/2/16

Dariamus wrote:
I would agree with you, but my wife would kill me
I am sorry to say.. what wife?

Southern55 wrote:
The same can't be said for woman.
how? (or in what way?)


4506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Offline
Posted 5/2/16 , edited 5/2/16

MrAnimeSK


I agree with all of this.
It must have been cool though, back in the day to be the man, the provider, come home from work and dinner is ready, the house is clean and you get looked after.
But us men of today will never know what that is like i guess.
At least women have their own money now though and contribute in that way. Kind of seems like everybody had their role back in the old days but i guess it must have sucked for women being stuck home all day with no money.
I guess none of us, both genders really know what it must have been like.


There are still men who come home from work and meet dinner ready in a clean house. The only difference is that their wife had rushed home from work, managed the children then done the cooking. That's how it was in our family.





Thanks for the information. I'm second generation of a matriarchal family myself. The men are there but the wife makes the most important decisions. She also earns more than her husband. When grandfather died it was only then we found out that it was grandmother who had bought their house. She just kept quiet about it. Grandfather saw to all the house repairs. Mother followed in her footsteps.



First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.