What gender is most dangerous, male or female?
Make your assumption based upon history and present day. Don't pick a gender only based on your own to boost your own feeling of power, be logical.
Make your assumption based upon history and present day. Don't pick a gender only based on your own to boost your own feeling of power, be logical.
I think it is pretty f*cked up how so much is based on gender on this site.
I'm sorry OP I don't mean to rant on your post but I'm sick of this s*it!
It's not even your post, it the nonsense that is on it that annoys me.
It is true that Sir Adolf Hitler, was evil. But he is not alive anymore.
Looking to the past is good sometimes, but you don't have much of a case using men from history. Of course the answer would be men, I guess, based on history. But I think that both genders are capable of doing things today that they couldn't do back then.
They are both capable of committing unspeakable acts of terror.
But I think that men commit these 'acts' more frequently. So if that is what you are saying, then I agree.
Seriously, Chairman Mao's wife wouldn't top Hitler, but she was certainly a nasty one.
Women have been in complete power by being rulers such as queens, and although there have been great ones, there have been greater male kings than greater female queens.
Also, the average male coundln't vote once upon a time, only males that owned land.
"Dangerous"? To me or everyone? In what way? Financially or a danger to my physical or mental health?
Well, most likely people are going to say males, because there have been wars bla bla bla. But a war in some other country doesn't make it dangerous to me. However, one bad driver in my area can be way more dangerous to me than any war.
Generalizations like that never make a good discussion.
The gender that has/had the most dangerous people is the male gender. Am I saying women can't be dangerous? Am I saying that more males than females are dangerous? No, I'm saying that males are "more" dangerous, as in they do the more dangerous things.
If you walk down a dangerous area, you fear a man will attack, not a woman, why is that?
Since manipulation counts, then I would say females are far more dangerous. Men have started wars because of manipulative women.
This topic is way too vague to have any meaningful discussion... Oh, and your fear of men attacking you doesn't make a valid point. That's too abstract.
Once again, my question isn't what one does the most dangerous actions, it's what one does the most dangerous of actions, as in the quality, not the quantity. Yes, males have started wars for women, but far more have started wars out of their own desire and hatred. Men starting wars for females are definetly the minority of war starters. But, to say one woman is more manipulative because she can manipulate one man, where as the man can manipulate thousands while the female can only manipulate one, then I don't see your logic there.
This topic seems to have the most comments on it than any other topic in a long while. If you're saying this is too vague for a meaningful discussion, why are you trying to debate?
So, you're saying that when you think of a mugger, you are imagining a female mugger? Don't insult my intelligence, and don't see me as that gulible to believe you would think differently.
I think I'm calm now...
Men are dangerous purely because they love competition and seek superiority. However, in today's society women are more dangerous.
A women could easily put a man in prison on the charges of rape, even if he didn't do anything. A women could easily persuade a man to do what she wants. Due to the way that America has treated women in the past, we are now trying to make up for our behavior by giving them advantages, just like how we do with minorities.
Men aren't like women. Men can't easily persuade people as well. Plus, they aren't seen a submissive. Men are perceived as having a sex drive, where as women are not, which is why it is difficult for a man to be taken seriously when he presses charges on a girl for rape. Women have the sympathy factor going for them. Men aren't pitied in society like women are.
In conclusion, women have more advantages in today's society than men, thus they are much more dangerous to be around.
If anything, this comment doesn't claim women are dangerous on their own, just that they're dangerous with the help of the law that was made and still run by man, and without their help, they aren't dangerous.
On their own, I would honestly say that both can be pretty dangerous.
On their own, I very much dissagree. Women are nowhere near as dangerous as men. If you can find someone that caused as much danger as Hitler, someone that is a female, then maybe you have some sort of point.
I'm not saying women can't be dangerous, I'm saying women's dangerous side pales in comparrison to the male dangerous side.
What do you mean by not the women themselves? How would a man get away by himself?
I think that a man can be more physical than a women. Obviously men have a stronger build. If we were in a jungle then yes men would would be more dangerous than women. However, as we've both agreed we have a society that's ran by men. You keep saying that a woman's ability to be dangerous is nothing compared to men. That alone tells me that a girl could easily pull the wool over you, assuming she's a good actress, which a lot can be. You see women inferior to men (when it comes to danger), which in thus proves my point that women are seen as inferior. You argue with me about how men are superior yet I'm arguing that women can be cunning and be pitied. From the way you talk you sound like you pity their stature. Which probably makes you an easy target for a good actress. I'm not saying this to insult you, please don't assume that, I'm merely stating that your mentality can be taken advantage of by a women. Both genders can be dangerous in different ways.
Also, man are more often in positions of power, but prefer "direct" action. Both in suicide and homicide, men are more likely to use things like guns/ropes or knifes.
Females(also in history) tend more towards indirect methods, such as poisoning.
Men often do these crimes in the spur of the moment, while females tend to be more "calculating" on average.
(Don't read this wrong...but even reading daily newspapers will give you an idea: the one more likely to pick up a knife while drunk and stab his partner is the man...the woman will give him a single sleeping pill and smother him with the pillow, then cry a lot to the police and take the life insurance money.)
Most female serial killers or murderers stay "out of the radar" for a lot longer than their male counterparts.
It isn't that they're good at hiding their crimes, it's that the law is far more light handed to women committing crime than they are towards men. It isn't how the woman reacts that gets her off, it's how the goverment react. Women have even been given awards for killing their abusive partners, litrally. That is just a fine example of how light handed the law is to women, not that they are criminal masterminds.
as for calculated crimes, if history shows them, it means they weren't very good, since they have been uncovered, now doesn't it?
The fact remains that men, on the whole, are more likely to succumb to spontaneous feelings like anger, hatred or fear in a way that can be linked to them.
It's not just the crime system, females are acting "trickier" in those situations, simply out of a need, that is, that they cannot use "physical superiority" against their targets.
I am merely defending my point here, not trying to disprove your opinion. But it seems kind of weird if you ask a poll while you already have a pre-set view of things.
I have one example I can think of at the top of my head, but I could probably find far more if I had the time. The Zodiac killer. He phoned the law up every time he killed, telling them where it was, telling them how he done it, etc. He directed them to all of his crime scenes, yet has never been identified. I'm yet to hear of a female be able to do that.
I dissagree about the spontaneous thing. If you take a look at our society, a woman is far more likely to assault a man out of anger than the other way around. The only reason why this wouldn't be shown in records of "assault" is because females are babied by the law, and they are allowed to get away with slapping a man in the face or hitting his private areas, doing that doesn't even count as an assault nowadays. Women can do this on national TV and not get brought up on it.
If you take an actual look in to actual prisoners doing hard time, the minority are in there for assault, a lot of them are in there for crimes that aren't spontanious (I spelled that wrong, I know. I'm trying to hurry this).
Like I said before, males are far more successful in murders, maybe not getting away with them, though. Even then, that isn't due to how well manipulative the woman is, it's because the law in our society is babying the female gender.
I'm not saying you have to believe me without actually beliveing me, I am making points that you may understand my point of view. If you don'tg, then that's your choice, you may believe you're right, and I the same.
I didn't make this with the intensions to get it answered, more so to get a debate on the subject going.
But find someone else.
You have preset views on how law looks upon women, you have preset views on WHAT is the correct answer to your poll, preset views on WHAT is relevant to your question.
And you seem unlikely to even be swayed slightly in even one of the points mentioned, because you just attempt to reason it away("woman are pampered by the law").
In that case, any attempt at even beginning to discuss are bound to be fruitless, as i am not in the habit of fighting windmills.
My reasoning stands as written, if you want to get into specific scenarios(like political mass murderers like Hitler, Truman or Stalin) thats not what was asked in the poll.
Also, even with your views on how woman are preferred by law in some perverse way, that would only act to support them being more dangerous. Because if you are right, they could easily get away with things that man could not, hence making it easier for them to actually decide to act.
But you'll reason that away someway too. As said, i'm done here. I like some back-and-forth and am more than willing to compromise or even change my opinion during the course of a discussion, but you show neither willingness nor ability to do so. Good luck with others to discuss with.
What gender is the most dangerous...That would come under what each of the genders have done as dangerous counts...How would Hitler not be involved? Is it because there isn't a woman as dangerous? How was that not asked in the poll? He was dangerous, so he can be an example.
I have already mentioned that. That would suggest that without the aid of the law, something that was made by men, and mainly run by men, they aren't nearly as dangerous.
People like Queen Elizabeth or Maria Theresia were cunning and dangerous woman. In the ptolemean dynasty, there were many females that literally got away with murder, as in the early chinese dynasties.
The fact that "might makes right" led to more male psychopathic leaders throughout history does not exactly suggest to me that those men are more dangerous, only more powerful, and holds no meaning in a society in which this dogma no longer works without limitations.
I will MUCH rather make an enemy out of any man(smart, powerful, etc...) than of a cunning woman. My opinion, which you can try to dillude all you want, but you're not the only one that can be stubborn.
Have a nice week.
Not to mention, as a person and not a person in a leadership position, he was dangerous. He was a corporal messenger/runner for the 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment, a very, if not most dangerous position a soldier could hold, let alone survive.
Leaders have tried to gain control, but Hitler was far more effective at it. To say a person isn't dangerous as a person due to them being a person in leadership positions is absurd. That would be like saying a man isn't dangerous as a person if he's a soldier, he's only dangerous as a soldier...It makes no sense, because it is that person's being a soldier that makes that "person" dangerous, and the same is of leaders.
I never said women aren't dangerous, and I have no doubts that those women were, my point is that people like Hitler were far more dangerous.
If you're saying the tools in which people have that can make them dangerous shouldn't be considered as "them" being dangerous, then the same should be applied to average tools. If someone uses a tool to kill, or poison, etc, then that doesn't count as them being a dangerous person, it counts as them being someone with killing tools, which means they aren't dangerous. So strip down everything so that it is only a male and a female, no items, no positions of power...Who is more dangerous? Males. Simply due to males being natural hunters, while women aren't.
So, with the advancements of today's societies, etc, males hold the crown for being most dangerous, without them, it's the same.
I never said that someone is only dangerous if they are morally right...I said what gender is dangerous. No, might doesn't equal right, might equals more dangerous. How what's "right" came in to this is beyond me.
Yes, because not agreeing that a woman isn't as dangerous as a man, even though men prove to be the most cunning, powerful, sadistic, of the genders, when history and present day will prove I'm right, is "stubborn".
If you would rather make an enemy of a male than a female, then you have very little survival skills. Maybe the male has more of a chance to get caught (not because the woman is more cunning, but because the light hand the law gives women would help her greatly), there is more of a chance of you being put in danger by a man, not a woman. Great survival instinct. This is what I love about thhe female gender. WHen ever it is convinient for them to be seen as the weaker gender, they'll cry out to be seen as such, then when it comes to being seen as dangerous and powerful, they scream out to try prove they are, regardless of the fact that most victims of crimes are women, regardless that the most dangerous people of history are males, etc. What is funny is a lot of males will just agree with such females to get them to be quiet, but I'm not one of those guys.
Have a nice week. Hopefully you don't take that opinion too seriously that you would make an enemy of a man rather than a woman.
I think it's pretty unfair how gender can decide a lot in the legal department.
I don't believe women to be the most dangerous without the help of the goverment made by men. Without the goverment, they would be powerless.
It isn't because they are seen as inferior. I can give many examples, one of them being a boy getting stripped by three girls, with video proof of it happening. The girls didn't need to hide in "sheep clothing", the law just decided and put it on the report as "Just some girls playing a prank". It becomes obvious the law side of society is babying females, not getting fooled by them.
But we're not talking about rape. I'll stick to what I said, babying people is a treatment that expresses inferiority. When we take care of children we do it knowing that they cannot take care of themselves. Thus, we see them as inferior in some regard.
If I was to say "Americans need to make it up for the British for the revelation" simply because British people died in the past, and as I'm British, should they treat me special? No, so why should women today be treated better for things I never done, and things they never went through?
If we're going by that logic, we should just force all those women to sign up to the military, since males were forced in to it when the wars were happening, while women didn't need to, not to mention when they would humiliate males for not going in to war, which actually happened.
I'm not saying what America should do, I'm merely stating what it is doing.
I'm against that happening, nobody is responsible for it today, and nobody suffers from it today, so why shou;d white heterosexual males be less taken care of than people that had no wrong done on them? Just irritates me.
Again, I apologize. I thought you agreed with it happening, that was my bad for assuming.
Oh and really it's alright. Honestly, I'm glad that I actually got to argue with ItDuz. So thanks.
Hey, you didn't only argue with me, you corrected me a few times aswell.
It's not creepy at all. I actually enjoy debating with you, you seem like a calm, see both sides type of person, which is rare on here.
By the way, you never responded when you asked me if I could name a female with as much power as Hitler. I'll quote what I said cause I want your opinion on her.
"Cleopatra controlled men with her looks. She ruled an entire society because of her ability to control the masses with her beauty. Hitler was brilliant at persuasion as well. The only difference between the two is how they used their power."
Also, Catherine the Great would be another example of a female who ascended to king status. Though her actions were a bit different.
Sorry, I never seen that bit, I'll respond to it now.
I would say most of her actions were possible due to her beauty. Yes, she was impressive, far more than many males in history, but it was her looks that mainly allowed her to get that far, which was something that didn't require skill, it was something that by coinsidence (her looks). Where as Hitler wasn't attractive, and he got that far without the benefit of being beautiful/attractive. I don't think that she can be compared to Hitler in the sense of why they got so far by their own control, where as Cleopatra got that far alot of it due to her beauty, not the other traits she had. Very impressive woman, and I wish I had more time to read up on her and give more points, but I'm having to write this out on the sneaky side; I've sneaked on my brother's computer, which he doesn't like.
To sum it up:
I think she doesn't compare to Hitler, Hitler done what he did by his skills that weren't given to him at birth, where as Cleopatra's main trait for her getting far was given at birth, something that required no skill etc.
I'll have to get back at you on the Catherine part. When my computer is fixed, and you see me comment on something in about a weeks time from now, it'll be when I'm on my own computer, so remind me of her so I can get back to you on this subject.
Thanks for reminding me of that point, I didn't see it on your previous one.
Oh and that's kind of odd to hear that you have a brother. I've always pictured you as an only child.
I have quite a few simblings, half of them I don't even know. I live with an older and younger brother.
What's your home life like? If you don't feel comfortable answering you don't have to.
I was probably most active when I lived in Wales.
It seems cool, but it can get tiring and boring. I agree, civilization is definetly being missed. Although, I've moved here and haven't really met people my age to engage in social activity, so being around city areas would be pointless if I have nothing to do.
I am always bored, most areas bore me, only one place has been interesting, and that was due to someone I knew being there, not the actual place itself.
What's even worse is that the connection here is terrible.
I can't drive, sadly. I have no real need to drive at this moment in life, but I hope to get my license when I hit around 23-25.
Friends are good to have, I know that I probably wouldn't have made it this far if it wasn't for them.
The females are definetly lacking in attractiveness nowadays here. The majority of them are using make up so much that it looks like their makeup is actually chocolate spread. Like Snooki, she is the person they seem to be taking inspiration for style from...If you can say she has style...
I agree, I think we both find where we live boring but because we've never experienced each others societies we're curious. Yes, where I live its pretty boring, very safe, but boring none the less.
You know I still think that going to England would be fun. I heard that I could just take a bus every cause it's so small over there. On top of all that I could go and explore Europe. I've always wanted to see Auschwitz and the Eiffel Tower. You're lucky that at least you can leave and go to different countries cheaply.
Yeah, I suppose I am. I want to travel more when I'm older.
The US is pretty boring if you're not interested in certain things and/or people. The state you live in has the biggest factors. Alabama- horrid. Uneducated, unattractive, boring. Florida- If you have money it's great, however, if you live Florida you probably don't. Also, the people suck.
Just my opinion, though. Don't mind me.