What if women had ruled the world all along...

[Spec]

http://www.elisesutton.homestead.com/articles8.html

Originally posted by Media mogul Ted Turner

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Media mogul Ted Turner has taken a small step to demonstrate his belief that women should run the world because men have "mucked it up" with too much warfare and military spending.


The United Nations Foundation he established six years ago to distribute the $1 billion he pledged to U.N. causes has a new female-dominated board of directors - and Turner said it's about time.


"I've said for years and I'm really serious about it, I think men should be barred from holding public office for a hundred years," Turner said in a recent interview. "The men have been running the world for the last thousands of years and they've mucked it up

What if the world had been ruled by women all along? Would there have been as many wars, torture rooms, racism, neglect towards neighbors and country to country bullying?

Discuss.

Spec.

[General Ludd]

A better question would be, what if it had not been ruled by patriarchy? And the answer is that it'd be a much better place.

[Spec]

I think women can be as vicious as men can be but in different ways. It's also my opinion that, generaly, women are more likely to hold grudges than men.
So I dont think there would have been as many wars but maybe more economical or trade sanctions and such.

Spec.

[Mr. Harley]

Have you ever heard of Magaret Thatcher? Or Condessa Rice? The defense rests.

[Dis]

Ted Turner is a moron, I can't figure out why he's rich.

Maybe he turned into a pansy after he made all his money.

Perhaps he has forgotten all the bloodthirsty women leaders the world has had. Or the English queens who really didn't rule much differently than men.

[Spec]

Originally posted by General Ludd
A better question would be, what if it had not been ruled by patriarchy? And the answer is that it'd be a much better place.

Well then, start your thread with your "better" question.
The question now is: What if women had ruled the world all along...

Thank you.


Spec.

[St Leo]

From my blog:

Males Considered Harmful (aka Where's My Medication, Nurse?)

I am increasingly of the opinion that human males ought to become literally extinct. Sex seems to be more divisive than race or culture. As far as I am concerned, one of the two (major?) sexes ought to take one for the team and males are it.

Why males? Well, have you ever met an interesting male? One who can carry on a conversation? One who's not myopically interested in a single field of inquiry? I haven't, and yet Janes-of-all-Trades abound.

By no means do I suggest that we be rounded and gassed. Not only is that barbaric and socially unhealthy, but it would also result in a massive collapse of world economy. Capitalism, as a rule, cannot handle non-growth situation. Genocide of males would halve the world's supply of labour. Capitalism can't handle that.

What I am proposing is that humanity ought to no longer replenish the pool of males. Instead of having 2.x kids, people ought to just have 2.x daughters. Us males can have a graceful dying off.

Current technology is imperfect for this rather noble goal. We could abort anything that looks like it is developing into a male child, but that is rather wasteful and perhaps slightly unethical.

One could postulate drugs that would favour the production of X sperm and suppress the production of Y sperm, but that is still rather inelegant. Also, this also requires the maintenance of large sperm banks for those women who desire to procreate.

No, what my plan requires is parthenogenesis. We need to be able to fertilize ova with ova. Technology ought to have that feat under its belt within a century. Certainly, parthenogenesis has many bland mainstream uses, but those are very much irrelevant.

As you all well know, a typical human cell has two pairs of 23 chromosomes. Every gene of one parent is paired with a companion gene from another parent and various dominance, codominance, and recession effects play out.

That isn't actually true for X and Y chromosomes. A mammalian female always has two X chromosomes and can only supply an X chromosome to their offspring. Otoh, a mammalian male always has both an X and a Y chromosome and can provide their offspring with either an X or a Y chromosome.

Therefore, a product of a sperm and an ovum has a 50% chance of belonging to either sex while a product of two ova has a 100% chance of being female and a 0% chance of being male.

Y chromosomes suck a lot. They are shrimpy and shrivelly compared to X chromosomes and lack a partner for many of the genes on their companion X chromosome. A deadly gene that would be recessive and ignored in a daugther could kill a son by being a dominant by default.

As I was saying, humanity would be better off without being hobbled by the parasitic worse half.

"But, Leo!" I hear you cry. "Surely males are good for more than making new males?"

I disagree. You could try making a very touch-and-go case for males being the biological warrior-caste of humanity. Even if I were to buy it, I don't see its relevance.

Are gibbons going to get uppity, develop a technological civilization, and kill ten million humans for every gibbon we murdered without there being human males to overcome? G'uh, no.

Are alien insectoids going to invade and enslave us? In that case, they are just as likely to physically outclass human males as they are human females. The differences in actual strength are miniscule and are only relevant within the species.

That's right. The differences are only relevant within the species. The only thing the human male warrior caste is good for is protecting human non-males from the aggression of other human males. They create their own demand and supply loop.

If we chuck out human males, we chuck out the whole problem -- alpha and omega included.

Division into sexes is an anachronism of evolution. It is time for humans to stop producing new members of the irrelevant sexes. The future is bright.

I used to be so coherent once. What has happenned to me, I ask you. What?

[Az]

It would be just as bad/good, but in other ways.

[alva]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Have you ever heard of Magaret Thatcher? Or Condessa Rice? The defense rests.

Those aren't women, those are men without a ****

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Spec



Well then, start your thread with your "better" question.
The question now is: What if women had ruled the world all along...

The answer your question is; Depends on the women.


If it is the same system only with women in place of men, there is little difference.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Spec



Well then, start your thread with your "better" question.
The question now is: What if women had ruled the world all along...

The answer your question is; Depends on the women.


If it is the same system only with women in place of men, there is little difference.

[Az]

Those aren't women, those are men without a ****

[Spec]

GENERALY SPEAKING


Women like clothes - Men like tools
Women Like Sounds of Music - Men like Terminator
Women like tea parties - Men like Boxing
Women like the beach - Men like waves
and so on...

So in that state of mind, I think that women, GENERALY SPEAKING, are not as obsessed with power as men can be, but I do think that women like money more than men.

Some men want a big position for the power and women for the money.

Thus my second post.

Spec.

[St Leo]

I don't think women are any more peaceful or diplomatic than men. Inequality is the cause of strife. The idea that misery stems from the wrong gender being on top is misguided. Those who fight for matriarchy may one day meet their new boss and find that the new boss doesn't differ much from the old boss.

We need to strive towards equality, not matriarchy and certainly not damned patriarchy. We can achieve a wary peace by abolishing formal hierarchies. Reversing polarity solves nothing.

[Dis]

*reality check*

What you guys don't realize, males needed to be violent and aggressive for the human race to succeed. I was thinking about this the other day. I fully admit I'm a *****. And I would have died had I lived in any other time in history. It took a strong male to surived the harsh landscape. And simply put, women could not do it. Males are responsible for most inventions.

Simply put, we'd be living in caves (albeit well decorated caves) if women were in charge all along. Although there is the possibility that women would evolve to be more aggressive and competitive (in a different way than they are already competitive) and be able to innovate and hunt in differnt ways.

Oh wait. I forgot men and women are exactly alike. It's chauvanistic for me to believe women could not have led mankind to the advanced society we have today.