MovieChat Forums > No Men Beyond This Point (2015) Discussion > Wait? If there are no....

Wait? If there are no....

posted 8 years ago by Rainbowboys22
6 replies | jump to latest

If there are no men who would (some) women blame? No more men keeping them safe in wars, no men to change the oil in the car.... of course I am talking about the "stereotypical" princess types (for example Paris Hilton), the ones that do not know how to open a door, much less defend herself. no men to pamper them.... Society would break down, the strong women that can defend themselves, change the oil in the car etc, would get very tired of the "princesses" (assuming no lesbians in this movie)

Let the misogynist, woman hater, etc. flow, just while raging about this comment/question, please at least answer the question along with the rant.

[–] TVShowsOverMovies 8 years ago

Eh. I think they'd do just fine. You do have a point by questioning who they'd "blame" lol. Aside from that, I'm sure that women would learn quickly enough, empower each other, and live a bit more peacefully than how we currently live. They'd especially live more peacefully than men would alone.

[–] purpleblows 8 years ago

What war? There are no men.

[–] terrencepatrix 8 years ago

Pretty stupid comment considering women have lead several wars and revolutions throughout history. There are matriarchal societies that exist and have existed...war still occurred because regardless of your sex our species will always fight over resources. Women would always need men to fight their battles for them, that's how virtually all of human history has gone down. Not to mention from a domestic standpoint women are just as likely, and in some cases MORE likely, to be the abusive one in a relationship...they're just less likely to kill their mate.

[–] richbordoni 8 years ago

Holy ****. Thank you for this reply. It is so goddamn stupid when people say "Without men there would be no war". UHHHHH, WTF?????? What about Hillary Goddamn Clinton who was basically the main cheerleader for American intervention in Libya? Women don't start wars???? What are all these feminists smoking??????

[–] zeta1983-1 8 years ago

I think war has mainly been a male institution and even the women who started wars were still coming from the standpoint of male-dominated societies where they had to pretty much act like men in order to succeed. I don't think there would necessarily be no wars if women ruled the world, but I imagine it would decrease significantly as well as violence in general.
However a lot of these films do not take into consideration the fact that if all the men just suddenly died women would probably not be in a good position. This is not because women are less capable or anything like that, it simply if you lost half the population, who held most of the power and who had most of the skills, it would definitely have a devastating effect on society that in most cases I would think would bring about a total collapse. Again this is because women aren't as capable, but men have most of the power and have most of the important jobs in society still.
I think if men gradually phased out over the course of decades as portrayed in the movie it wouldn't be the same as a sudden collapse and the men would probably be able to teach the women everything they need to know to survive without them as women gradually took over traditionally male roles as the male population diminished.

[–] Mad Dog McLagan 7 years ago

Also Messalina, Elizabeth Bathory, Bloody Mary, Ranavalona, etc. I'm having trouble thinking of a woman who ruled as a queen without starting a war, even looking at the nice ones... Queen Elizabeth the First did, Queen Victoria did, Catherine the Great did. And of course Margaret Thatcher had no reticence of sending troops to the Falklands.

I suspect the problem is that you have too many paperclips up your nose