I do not know if they would act worse, but I definitely am not in the camp that believes that if women ruled the world there would be no more wars... or any similar thinking mindset.
I agree. My comment was more about like, if I was forced to choose between encountering a male or female grizzly bear in the woods, I'd choose to encounter the male.
It's a psychological neotenic inspired urge to view women as innocent as we do with children (not like children are actually so innocent either.. but I have further commentary about that if the discussion picks up) But no.. they're just human like us men.. and that includes all the negative stuff that comes along with it.
Agree.
Women just historically had the luxury of not having to get their hands dirty.
How dare you say that! They always wanted to get their hands dirty but The Patriarchy wouldn't let them! I'm so glad things have changed because now every time I call a plumber an attractive lady always shows up at my house.
I do believe there are things warranted as toxic masculinity/femininity... but bullying... is just generic toxicity.
I think I disagree with that. I think toxicity is just toxicity,
unless one is using their masculinity or femininity to effect the toxicity. For example, I dated this Leftist girl who, when she was in law school received a bad grade she didn't feel she deserved, so she threatened the professor that she was going to report him (wrongfully) for sexually harassing her if he didn't change the grade. He changed the grade. And she told me this with pride! She actually thought it was a moral victory! Well it was a victory, but an immoral one, it was bullying, and she used her femininity to do it.
It's not something that society has to condition people to do.. perhaps men might always be more personally physically aggressive than women simply because we're built differently on average... but I don't view that as something that has to be conditioned. I've heard of studies that people with beefier cars tend to be more aggressive on the road.
Yeah it's not conditioning, it's common sense since ancient times I suppose. If an intruder is entering a cave family's cave, the one to fight him off would be the physically strongest which would in most cases be the cavehusband, not the cavewife. And when you need to fight a war you band together the humans who can throw the spear the farthest and swing the club the hardest.
But along with that, there's always been the idea that cowardice is a bad thing, a vice. It's viewed as wrong to not fight
when you actually need to for a good reason. Men may want to be more physically aggressive to avoid seeming cowardly. When people say "conditioning" as best I can tell they just mean "teaching". Yes, we teach our children values, but the teachings are based on common sense. And when you hear people talk about social conditioning, what they're actually saying is "We don't like your values and we want to change them or just destroy them and replace them with nothing."