3 ms·

Whereas men have simply been killed in droves. Are you sure women had the worse part throughout history, or do you just not care about the fate of men?

GenericPoster 5y ago
What is the point of this comment? The topic that was being discussed was >I’m betting on monogamy since that has worked for thousands of years. The reply asked worked for who? Then out of nowhere you're talking about men being killed in droves. Are you saying that monogamy didn't work for either gender (one that lost their freedom and and the other that lost their lives)?
- Miner49er 5y ago
  I think he's saying that the world used to be more violent, and the violence women faced maybe wasn't due to monogamy, it was just how the world was.
  - GenericPoster 5y ago
    See, your comment makes sense and is a valid point. I do agree that the world was a more violent place and I don't think monogamy is the reason that women had it bad (most likely has to do with a patriarchal culture and an uneducated population). Theirs is a borderline flame bait comment that added nothing to the discussion.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      What does you calling somebody a troll just because you can not grasp their argument add to the discussion?
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  I was responding to the claim that monogamy was simply a net negative for women. If you don't understand it, perhaps try harder?
standardUser 5y ago
"Whereas men have simply been killed in droves" Not by women. Obviously it's not that simple, but that is a true statement.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  If the overriding concern is placing blame, it is probably better for it to be mostly self-directed so as to adjust standards of behaviour. Rationalizing why an out-group is responsible for all the sufferings of the in-group becomes easier the more one engages with it.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  How is it relevant? Tbh I think the way of thinking in which that would seem relevant is completely fucked up. Also, do you believe women would not be competing for resources if there were no men, and are not competing for resources in general?

GenericPoster 5y ago

What is the point of this comment? The topic that was being discussed was >I’m betting on monogamy since that has worked for thousands of years. The reply asked worked for who? Then out of nowhere you're talking about men being killed in droves. Are you saying that monogamy didn't work for either gender (one that lost their freedom and and the other that lost their lives)?

Miner49er 5y ago
I think he's saying that the world used to be more violent, and the violence women faced maybe wasn't due to monogamy, it was just how the world was.
- GenericPoster 5y ago
  See, your comment makes sense and is a valid point. I do agree that the world was a more violent place and I don't think monogamy is the reason that women had it bad (most likely has to do with a patriarchal culture and an uneducated population). Theirs is a borderline flame bait comment that added nothing to the discussion.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    What does you calling somebody a troll just because you can not grasp their argument add to the discussion?
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
I was responding to the claim that monogamy was simply a net negative for women. If you don't understand it, perhaps try harder?

standardUser 5y ago

"Whereas men have simply been killed in droves" Not by women. Obviously it's not that simple, but that is a true statement.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
If the overriding concern is placing blame, it is probably better for it to be mostly self-directed so as to adjust standards of behaviour. Rationalizing why an out-group is responsible for all the sufferings of the in-group becomes easier the more one engages with it.
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
How is it relevant? Tbh I think the way of thinking in which that would seem relevant is completely fucked up. Also, do you believe women would not be competing for resources if there were no men, and are not competing for resources in general?