Fallacies

 Person 1: women should be in charge because men have had it too good for too long.
Person 2: If you knew anything about human history you’d know that’s not true, sure while perhaps there may have been relatively more privileges for men than women, relatively is the operative word, and it depends on what you consider privileges. Throughout human history men have also been enslaved, massacred, slaughtered, castrated, and expected to engage in work that ultimately ends up killing them which they were either forced to do because either they were forced by some despot or simply because their families would starve and die otherwise. I wouldn’t exactly say that they’ve had it “good.”

 Person 1: Ok so maybe they haven’t had it good always, but women have had it worse!

What are the fallacies in this conversation? so far I’ve noticed what seem like an over generalization, and an appeal to emotion. What else might there be? 

I think it is non sequitur the argument "Previous men who was in charge had it too good for too long, so present men should not be in charge." Present men aren't accountable for what previous men did or the amount of power they had or the decisions those previous men took, and the underlying premise that power should be handled in turns to both genders is non-sequitur if the end goal of the community is the prosperity of the community. Having that as an implied end-goal, the people who should be in charge shouldn't be decided by their sex but rather their competence.

Person-2's response I believe is a sound counter-argument and adequately refutes the overgeneralized claim that "men had it too good". 

The last part of the conversation where Person 1 offers the revised claim that "men hadn't had it always good, but women have had it worse" with the implied conclusion that women should therefore be in charge, is as non-sequitur as the initial argument.

This conversation indeed contains several logical fallacies and reasoning issues:

1. **Hasty Generalization:** Person 1's claim that "women should be in charge because men have had it too good for too long" is a sweeping generalization. It does not consider the complexity and diversity of individual experiences across different cultures and historical periods.

2. **Appeal to Emotion:** Both participants rely on emotional elements in their arguments. Person 1 initially uses an emotional appeal that stems from perceived longstanding gender injustice without providing substantive evidence or practical reasoning. Person 2 similarly uses vivid descriptions of male suffering throughout history to push back against Person 1's argument.

3. **False Dilemma:** Person 1's statement implies a binary scenario where only one gender can have it "good," without acknowledging the possibility of nuanced experiences and shared societal challenges.

4. **Cherry Picking:** Person 2 focuses on extreme examples of male suffering, such as enslavement and massacre, which, while true and significant, do not account for the overall patterns of systemic privilege and disadvantage based on gender.

5. **Red Herring:** Person 2's response brings up various hardships men have faced throughout history, which strays from the topic at hand — whether women should be in charge. This distracts from discussing the merits or efficacy of either gender being in leadership roles.

6. **Relativist Fallacy:** When Person 2 uses the word "relatively" to compare privileges, it dismisses the broader context of systemic issues and uses relativism to undermine Person 1's argument without providing a counter-solution or perspective.

Both participants could benefit from focusing on specific examples and problems, articulating their criteria for evaluation, and considering how gender roles have evolved rather than relying on emotional rhetoric or extreme cases to make their points.