should women rule the world?

[Alceste]

I knew it already.
I meant that question taking into consideration your conditional that all the notable statesmen, writers and scholars in history happened to be men.



The problem is that to understand the context in which these advancements happened, one has to learn about the major events happening at the time. Plus, there is likely far more data available on notable people than on commoners.

But, indeed, too much of what i learned in history classes was simply booooring.

Exactly. History does not have to be boring. I'm actually really interested in it now. I'm just not, and never have been, interested in the activities and accomplishments of nobles and politicians.

So, bringing back my conditional, "even if all the notable people were men", history could still be interesting. The history I've been reading about is not about "notable people".

 

[Aquitaine]

Good question, but to be honest it seems to me that in order for an individual to reach a top position of power (be it Political or Corporate etc) they need to have traits similar to ruthlessness, cunning and aggression. There is some convincing insight into how a significant number or our "leaders" could actually show signs of being Sociopaths (e.g. Wall Street Bankers and senior Traders, Corporate CEOs, Politicians etc).

So really it does just look like it's a case of "power corrupts" - regardless of Sex.

With that being said though, if I sit here and ponder a world where Women were in-charge, I feel - almost subconsciously - a rather more pleasant feeling about the topic, as opposed to the current way the world is run - hinting that the world would indeed be better.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Actually, my history classes(I went to school in OH) did deal with peasant live. I remember on class in particular, where we were divided into groups and given different eras to do a project on how the average person lived in that time period, and another where we talked about American history.
Ohio history sucked, though. All she talked about was some earthquake that left a "big, hairy crack" in her bedroom wall.
Wars didn't factor in until World History, but at least he made it interesting.

The only thing that wasn't discussed was the civil rights movement.

I don't understand why school systems still teach state history, especially in a day and age when people move so often.

 

[Mathematician]

No. This is one of the biggest myths of the men's rights movement. Boys are not, I repeat, NOT being singled out in schools. Their poor behavior is almost entirely a product of poor parenting and poverty. I know that conservatives love to blame schools and especially their teachers for anything and everything, but as with 99% of those cases, such charges are stupid and undeserved.

Uhm, I work in education and have worked in elementary, junior high, and high school settings. I also volunteered when starting out to work with the special ed department. Education definitely favors girls over boys - whether purposely or accidentally I won't argue. This is especially evident at a young age when boys are louder on average and receive harsh criticism and "interventions."

Additionally, if you don't think boys are negatively affected by 90% of their teachers being female until sixth grade, you must think girls aren't affected by 80% of engineers being men.

 

[Mathematician]

Eh, I think significant historical women who contributed in a substantial way to our technology and culture are also notable.

I also think history in general would be more interesting if the lives of "peasants" or ordinary people (like us) were discussed and researched more than the lives of nobility, rulers and generals. That crap is all one war after another, who won what, bla bla bla. It makes it seem like nothing interesting has ever happened. History is basically sports for knobheads.

Where did writing come from? Where did agriculture come from? Where did modern medicine come from?

I expect if we asked more interesting questions about history, we'd get more interesting answers.

Sure, but psychologically, we associate emotionally with a single person more than we do groups. Charity ads that focus on one or two examples typically receive better return than charities that focus on entire populations.

 

[WyattDerp]

I can imagine the pain and the strength of my great great grandmothers who were slaves and my great great grandmothers who were Cherokee Indians trapped on reservations. I remembered my great grandmother who walked everywhere rather than sit in the back of the bus. I think about North Carolina and my home town and i remember the women of my grandmother’s generation: strong, fierce women who could stop you with a look out the corners of their eyes. Women who walked with majesty; who could wring a chicken’s neck and scale a fish. Who could pick cotton, plant a garden and sew without a pattern. Women who boiled clothes white in big black cauldrons and who hummed work songs and lullabys. Women who visited the elderly, made soup for the sick and shortnin bread for the babies.

Women who delivered babies, searched for healing roots and brewed medicines. Women who darned sox and chopped wood and layed bricks. Women who could swim rivers and shoot the head off a snake. Women who took passionate responsibility for their children and for their neighbors’ children too.

The women in my grandmother’s generation made giving an art form. “Here, gal, take this pot of collards to Sister Sue”; “Take this bag of pecans to school for the teacher”; “Stay here while I go tend Mister Johnson’s leg.” Every child in the neighborhood ate in their kitchens. They called each other sister because of feeling rather than as the result of a movement. They supported each other through the lean times, sharing the little they had.

The women of my grandmother’s generation in my home town trained their daughters for womanhood. They taught them to give respect and to demand respect. They taught their daughters how to churn butter; how to use elbow grease. They taught their daughters to respect the strength of their bodies, to lift boulders and how to kill a hog; what to do for colic, how to break a fever and how to make a poultice, patchwork quilts, plait hair and how to hum and sing. They taught their daughters to take care, to take charge and to take responsibility. They would not tolerate a “lazy heifer” or a “gal with her head in the clouds.” Their daughters had to learn how to get their lessons, how to survive, how to be strong. The women of my grandmother’s generation were the glue that held family and the community together. They were the backbone of the church. And of the school. They regarded outside institutions with dislike and distrust. They were determined that their children should survive and they were committed to a better future.

-- Assata Shakur, "Women in Prison: How It Is With Us"

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Well good! I'm glad to hear it. I learned about Eli Whitney, Einstein, Bell, etc. but not Curie or any other female of note, except the suffragettes. I did go to school 20 years ago though. Glad to hear there may have been some progress.

I went to a girls school and didn't learn about Marie Curie. I remember learning a bit about Anne Frank and Rosa Parks that's about it. Very very brief feminists arguments in sociology but never about specific feminists.

 

[outis]

Sure, but psychologically, we associate emotionally with a single person more than we do groups.

Right, always reach for the lowest common denominator when there's no maths in sight. Let's teach kids about "lives of nobility, rulers and generals" so they'll be able to associate emotionally with the creeps. No bias there. That means basically teaching their family life, their love life and other stuff we know little about (besides propaganda). The rest of their lives is so boring and has to do with groups.
Let's teach Eva trying to help Adolph with his sexual issues and childhood trauma. Oh, and his dog! Such a powerful relationship. Everyone can relate to that tragedy. Let's teach his dog!
While we're at it, let's have kids watch Game of Thrones instead. It's got more characters girls can identify with like the one who is raped and falls in love. And if the government wants jingoistic brainwashing, they only have to produce compelling material to watch in class. Zombies attack Ft. Alamo. Washington's secret daughter and her dragons to the rescue! Cut to Lincoln doing his sister.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Uhm, I work in education and have worked in elementary, junior high, and high school settings. I also volunteered when starting out to work with the special ed department. Education definitely favors girls over boys - whether purposely or accidentally I won't argue. This is especially evident at a young age when boys are louder on average and receive harsh criticism and "interventions."

Additionally, if you don't think boys are negatively affected by 90% of their teachers being female until sixth grade, you must think girls aren't affected by 80% of engineers being men.

And I used to teach school, Mathmetician. Every boy, every single boy that acted out, misbehaved, or had poor test scores, had problems that could be directly traced to his home.

You wanna know why boys misbehave? First of all, quite a few of them come to school from an abusive environment or a place where they receive nutritionally-poor food, or too little food. Let me tell you something, hungry children are the hardest children you will ever have to manage. All a teacher's cute bag of tricks spills on the floor when you have to deal with one of them. All you can do is hope to god you and he somehow make it through the day. And remember, if he acts up and you can't control him, "it's your fault."

For those children that do not suffer these ills, many of the rest are not allowed the opportunity of free play outdoors. Free play is essential to the development of the minds and bodies of children of both sexes. But free play has largely been replaced with organized sports and other structured activities, which, while they have merit in their own right, cannot replace free play. Also, so many parents have been seduced by the fear from the media that a child snatcher is lurking nearby to come take them away. So by preventing this ultra-rare scenario, parents cause an ultra-common scenario of boys' spending their evenings vegging out to video games and TV. And so they won't complain about yucky food, they get fed a steady diet of sugar, carbs, and fat.

And all of this is somehow the schools' fault?? BS! Boys, grow up! Parents, get over it!

 

[Alceste]

I went to a girls school and didn't learn about Marie Curie. I remember learning a bit about Anne Frank and Rosa Parks that's about it. Very very brief feminists arguments in sociology but never about specific feminists.

I actually did learn about the likes of Nellie McClung and Agnes McPhail (women who led groups that fought and won the right for women to vote in this country) for about two days in grade 11. They are the only historical women I recall learning anything at all about in public school. I remember that it niggled at me, but at the time I didn't really realize why.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I actually did learn about the likes of Nellie McClung and Agnes McPhail (women who led groups that fought and won the right for women to vote in this country) for about two days in grade 11. They are the only historical women I recall learning anything at all about in public school. I remember that it niggled at me, but at the time I didn't really realize why.

History is almost always taught from a patriarchal point-of-view. Women's suffrage and sexual liberation are rarely given more than a couple paragraphs, and students are lucky if Roe v. Wade or Margaret Sanger is even mentioned. Part of why is because of the loud minority of angry parents that would bitterly criticize teachers and school systems that would DARE to level the playing field.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Have there been tyrannical female leaders? Like a female Kim Jung Un or Pol Pot?

I'm asking seriously. I don't even know.

Jezabel.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

According to a highly political 'history' almost certainly written by men.

Well that's that. The account must be full of ****** then.

Never mind.

 

[Mathematician]

History is almost always taught from a patriarchal point-of-view. Women's suffrage and sexual liberation are rarely given more than a couple paragraphs, and students are lucky if Roe v. Wade or Margaret Sanger is even mentioned. Part of why is because of the loud minority of angry parents that would bitterly criticize teachers and school systems that would DARE to level the playing field.

What are you talking about? Female suffrage is given about as much attention and devotion as the civil rights movement. Most of 20th century politics is still controversial so it's barely even mentioned for legalistic reasons.

 

[Mathematician]

And I used to teach school, Mathmetician. Every boy, every single boy that acted out, misbehaved, or had poor test scores, had problems that could be directly traced to his home.

You wanna know why boys misbehave? First of all, quite a few of them come to school from an abusive environment or a place where they receive nutritionally-poor food, or too little food. Let me tell you something, hungry children are the hardest children you will ever have to manage. All a teacher's cute bag of tricks spills on the floor when you have to deal with one of them. All you can do is hope to god you and he somehow make it through the day. And remember, if he acts up and you can't control him, "it's your fault."

For those children that do not suffer these ills, many of the rest are not allowed the opportunity of free play outdoors. Free play is essential to the development of the minds and bodies of children of both sexes. But free play has largely been replaced with organized sports and other structured activities, which, while they have merit in their own right, cannot replace free play. Also, so many parents have been seduced by the fear from the media that a child snatcher is lurking nearby to come take them away. So by preventing this ultra-rare scenario, parents cause an ultra-common scenario of boys' spending their evenings vegging out to video games and TV. And so they won't complain about yucky food, they get fed a steady diet of sugar, carbs, and fat.

And all of this is somehow the schools' fault?? BS! Boys, grow up! Parents, get over it!

Lol, you're such a misandrist that it's almost adorable. Boys veg out on computers and sugars; grow up, you lazy bums! Girls are awesome! Be more like them or you're a failure!

Somewhere in your paranoia you forgot that parents are usually more protective of girls than boys. In terms of outdoor play, it's usually seen as perfectly acceptable to let a first grade boy play outside by himself, but the girl is in danger and must be sheltered - even though pedophiles don't often discriminate based on gender.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

What are you talking about? Female suffrage is given about as much attention and devotion as the civil rights movement. Most of 20th century politics is still controversial so it's barely even mentioned for legalistic reasons.

If you believe that women's rights are limited solely to suffrage, then you have much to learn.

Lol, you're such a misandrist that it's almost adorable. Boys veg out on computers and sugars; grow up, you lazy bums! Girls are awesome! Be more like them or you're a failure!

Somewhere in your paranoia you forgot that parents are usually more protective of girls than boys. In terms of outdoor play, it's usually seen as perfectly acceptable to let a first grade boy play outside by himself, but the girl is in danger and must be sheltered - even though pedophiles don't often discriminate based on gender.

Please explain to me why you believe that boys should not have to take responsibility for their behavior. Please explain why schools should be blamed for enforcing rules that have been clearly explained. Please explain how this will benefit them in the long run.

This sense of entitlement that you enabling is a significant portion of what is killing our schools. And remember, I'm not speaking from hearsay. I can specifically recall several instances of boys' parents who complained bitterly about me because I DARED to enforce such horrible rules as don't run inside, don't hit other people, and please ask kindly for something. I am not making this up. Why do some boys choose to be well-mannered and others choose to be poorly mannered? Two words: THE PARENTS. The parents set the tempo for a child's life. The parents determine to a massive extent what kind of framework a child will live in. The parents determine whether a child will live in an authoritarian regime, a fantasyland free of rules, or a balanced environment with clear but sensible rules. Bad parents choose to govern in one of the two extremes, and they choose to blame the teacher when the inevitable trouble results in the classroom. Bad parents believe that either they have the right to do anything to their children, or that their children have the right to do anything to others. Bad parents are what cause the misbehavior in boys, NOT the schools.

 

[Obsrvr]

Should women rule the world?

No, not exclusively. I think there would be serious problems with this paradigm.

 

[YmirGF]

Should women rule the world?

No, not exclusively. I think there would be serious problems with this paradigm.

Sort of like the men ruling the world paradigm?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think women already rule the world. They have half the money and all the nookie.

 

[Obsrvr]

Sort of like the men ruling the world paradigm?

Sort of. I was thinking along the lines of some leader catching an ICBM because another leader didn't call, or because one looked at the other's husband at a state dinner.