"A question" thread.

July 4th, 2008 at 8:03 PM

What would the world have been like if women were dominant/ruled, in general?

Would there have been any difference at all?

Discuss.

July 4th, 2008 at 9:18 PM

they allready do...

July 4th, 2008 at 9:31 PM

I don't really think so.

No Info

July 4th, 2008 at 9:32 PM

I'm the king of my castle.

July 4th, 2008 at 9:36 PM

I'm talking about the world of sex

July 4th, 2008 at 9:39 PM

I see..

No Info

July 4th, 2008 at 9:48 PM

Its a Dog Eat Dog world.

July 5th, 2008 at 12:08 AM

I think there would be a lot of differences.

Female characteristics and roles would have more worth - ie. Sentimentality would become a strength, raising kids would have prestige and status. Physical strength (male characteristic) would be more the mark of a laborer than a leader.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:42 AM

Lol, you know how much drama would be in the world? Probably a bad idea, sorry ladies.

No Info

July 5th, 2008 at 1:58 AM

Originally posted by Erinana

Lol, you know how much drama would be in the world? Probably a bad idea, sorry ladies.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:11 AM

Haha @ going to play 360

I don't think it's a horrible thing to think about--but I wouldn't count on it happening anytime soon

July 5th, 2008 at 5:00 AM

"fuck dem hos"

No Info

July 5th, 2008 at 5:18 AM

"bitches be trippin"

July 5th, 2008 at 7:31 AM

You're just angry cos I made you change your font.

July 5th, 2008 at 7:35 AM

I say wait a few years and then tell us what you think of it. At the moment there is a definite shift in power going towards the female spectrum.
I don't think it'd be too different, sure there'd be teething problems but that's expected with everything. Add into that the factor of men becoming more feminine every day, would it really matter too much? I think the agendas would be different until the females realised that men aren't just about war mongering but there is a reason to our madness.

July 5th, 2008 at 7:38 AM

Fucking geezer.=;

July 5th, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Oof. I go away a couple days and good questions come popping out. I can't think of any true matriarchies to cite, just a couple societies that had some heavier influence by females.

I'm kinda conflicted by our views on the psychology of women vs. past experience so this question really wracked my brain.

See, on the one hand, I tend to think of dominance and aggression having a stronger influence on males biologically due to hormonal influence. One might take suggestion from that and presume a female run society might negotiate and talk things out more rather than rush into conflict, and that laws and regulation might be even more intricate- meaning more laws etc.

On the other hand in the business world? I've observed the absolute opposite. I've witnessed women being even more aggressive than men, sometimes downright brutal. At that point I have to wonder- is that really a true or pure example of female dominance, or is that a function of a female fighting to compete in a male dominated world? In order to be competitive, adopting male behavior patterns and sort of amplifying them to achieve more and establish worth and capability?

The deeper I go, the more I realize I don't even begin to have a clue what such a society would be like.

Only thing I am pretty confident in? Leaving the toilet seat up would carry a mandatory sentencing. On the 3rd strike, minimum 2 years of running to the store to buy tampons for them.

So help me God I still hate that. I just can't feel comfortable. Once had a female cashier that was starting to smirk because of my obvious discomfort, so I just turned it around and told her I buy them because the instructions inside turn me on.

July 5th, 2008 at 10:45 AM

The men vs women will go on forever.
It's like a never ending debate.

July 5th, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Ok, let's look at this from a different perspective, in terms of nations and their interaction, where we've substituted male leaders with females, as per the thread requirement.

Rummage the history. Do you not think that there would've been lesser wars?

July 5th, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Margeret Thatcher was a pretty feisty woman.
Your type. ;p

July 5th, 2008 at 12:16 PM

o_o

July 5th, 2008 at 12:42 PM

I dunno... there have been a lot of women led wars and a few acts of brutality throughout history, including the Asian territories. But again that could well be heavily influenced by being a minority female rule in an overal male dominated world.

If the whole world were female dominated on the other hand? That might produce totally different results, as yet unknown to me. I have no basis or historical reference on which to draw any conclusions.

We tend to often stereotype women as more negotiable and peaceable, but is that truly a fair assessment? Resources have been cause for war in the past... Women have been known to fight over a parking space or the last item at a sale or a guy etc. Women can get pretty bloody aggressive when they want to.

Going by statistics and violent crime, males tend to take the pie, but how applicable is that to the responsibility of governing masses and their defense and well being?

Too much unknown, I'd only guess and would have pretty much even odds of being right or wrong.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Originally posted by Erinana

Lol, you know how much drama would be in the world? Probably a bad idea, sorry ladies.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Of course, there could be fair chances of women leaders having conflicts amongst themselves, fighting and leading their armies to battle but it wouldn't be as often as it would be in the presence of men's potency.

The aggression-packed androgens make the males eccentric, at times, and do zany things. Don't you think that would influence at all?