What If Women Ruled The World?

[ArmoBarbi]

Hahahaha MadHandle, I like that world better!

Magdalinka, it's ok. They would be nowhere without us and they know it, and I'm not talking about reproduction.

[Sev21]

I see we got a bit of a feminist movement goin on here...I agree that women should be in control of things, but lets face it...its never gonna happen. Women don't symbolize power...bottom line.

And if they did rule the world...

-Production in choclate would increase by 120 %,
-Malls would double...hell even triple
-Jelousy would replace aids
-Sale in Shoes would be up by 80%
-Telephones will require a minimum of 90 minute conversations
-Listning will replace TV or any other visual for that fact
-Sex will be up by 30 %....on the lesbian end

haahahahahahahahhahah
That's some funny facts man!!!

[nunechka]

oh, yes, and they will most defenetely not think with whom to fight to get some more gas (see our president).yes and they will not try to create nuclear weapons and spend billions on improving it .

AMEN SISTA!

you go girl, thats what i'm talking about!

[winoman]

Welllll...for one I don't believe that anyone actually - "rules the world" - but lets assume that it is possible to attain this position...and that it is a woman who has achieved such power....fundementally I don't think that there would be much difference at all. Anyone - to rise to such a position will likely embrace and employ the same power grabbing and administering methods (and this just happened to be a large focus of my [Political Anthropological] studies at University [waaaaaay back when....]) - and of course we could hope for some rationality - but no cause for there to be any difference in such between a woman and a man in such a position. (though I suppose I would take Imelda Marcos over Stalin on any given day)....

[ArmoBarbi]

Welllll...for one I don't believe that anyone actually - "rules the world" - but lets assume that it is possible to attain this position...and that it is a woman who has achieved such power....fundementally I don't think that there would be much difference at all. Anyone - to rise to such a position will likely embrace and employ the same power grabbing and administering methods (and this just happened to be a large focus of my [Political Anthropological] studies at University [waaaaaay back when....]) - and of course we could hope for some rationality - but no cause for there to be any difference in such between a woman and a man in such a position. (though I suppose I would take Imelda Marcos over Stalin on any given day)....

Haha are you kidding? Stalin was the best!



I agree though, a woman could very well be a dictator. It takes a certain kind of personality that's all.

[loseyourname]

Welllll...for one I don't believe that anyone actually - "rules the world" - but lets assume that it is possible to attain this position...and that it is a woman who has achieved such power....fundementally I don't think that there would be much difference at all. Anyone - to rise to such a position will likely embrace and employ the same power grabbing and administering methods (and this just happened to be a large focus of my [Political Anthropological] studies at University [waaaaaay back when....]) - and of course we could hope for some rationality - but no cause for there to be any difference in such between a woman and a man in such a position. (though I suppose I would take Imelda Marcos over Stalin on any given day)....

It's interesting that you say that, but there is reason to think you might be wrong. People have a tendency to believe that power corrupts, but it is quite likely that the reverse is true - that the corrupt tend to gain power. When we look at heirarchical social species in the animal kingdom, all exhibit the same conniving and often violent political behavior that humans do (chimps, in particular, will even form coalitions to assassinate the alpha male). This holds true whether the dominant sex is male or female. The curious fact, however, is that in species with dominant females, these females show a heightened level of male hormones. Hyenas are a great example; the female genitals even look exactly like male genitals. In male-dominant species - all of the great apes and humans - the females are generally gentle. In fact, for the most part, social groups are always male-bonded. The only real exception to this rule are the gorillas. In every other great-ape species, including humans, the female leaves her family to join the family of her mate as soon as she chooses one (this has changed to some extent in modern human societies, but historically has been the case).

Where am I going? Well, it just seems typical in mammals, and primates in particular, that males are the violent and politically conniving sex. The exceptions are females that have an abnormally high level of male hormones. This suggests that there is something about the male sex, biologically and particularly hormonally, that just makes them more violent and power-hungry. In every heirarchical social species that has existed thus far on the planet, it is the violent, power-hungry sex that has been dominant. In humans that is the male sex. It is easily conceivable that, were the roles reversed, and females the dominant sex, the human race would be far less violent. The problem, of course, is that his has never happened and probably never will because generally speaking, it is he who is the most violent that will amass the greatest power. Don't knock the fairer sex, though. I'd be willing to bet that females who have amassed great power in the history of our race were aberrations.

[winoman]

It's interesting that you say that, but there is reason to think you might be wrong. People have a tendency to believe that power corrupts, but it is quite likely that the reverse is true - that the corrupt tend to gain power.

If you reread my post you'll see that this was the point I was making.To achieve a position of power people emply certain methods and follow similar paths.

I would tend to agree that males exhibit a (much) higher degree of violent, dominant and power hingry behaviors. While one can see the physical (hormonal) reasons for this it is clearly also conditioned behavior. In this regard I see (many) women becomming more like men - not necissarily because of hormons (but who knows...it could be generations before we see the full effects of all the stuff we pump inot our meats etc) - but because they are increasingly entering (work) situations where this type of behavior is rewarded (by advancement/sucess etc - and maybe - who knows - personal satisfaction - where such an outlet may not have been available before to tradional women...at least outside of their own...) - and then of course - it becomes conditioned and learned...and thus is not necessarily due to a physical/hormanal abberation.

I also understand why folks postulate that women in power would lead to less violence etc - and certainly women have developed other means to achieve their ends (much as Armenian in the Ottoman Empire or Jews in Europe were prohibited from holding certain positions etc - women have largely been exempted from power positions in societies - but have learned ways (available to them) to exert influence. Oh and in no way would I agree to not consider women conniving...no - not at all...

[ArmoBarbi]

I would tend to agree that males exhibit a (much) higher degree of violent, dominant and power hingry behaviors. While one can see the physical (hormonal) reasons for this it is clearly also conditioned behavior. In this regard I see (many) women becomming more like men - not necissarily because of hormons (but who knows...it could be generations before we see the full effects of all the stuff we pump inot our meats etc) - but because they are increasingly entering (work) situations where this type of behavior is rewarded (by advancement/sucess etc - and maybe - who knows - personal satisfaction - where such an outlet may not have been available before to tradional women...at least outside of their own...) - and then of course - it becomes conditioned and learned...and thus is not necessarily due to a physical/hormanal abberation.

*I think we all know and agree on this.

I also understand why folks postulate that women in power would lead to less violence etc - and certainly women have developed other means to achieve their ends (much as Armenian in the Ottoman Empire or Jews in Europe were prohibited from holding certain positions etc - women have largely been exempted from power positions in societies - but have learned ways (available to them) to exert influence. Oh and in no way would I agree to not consider women conniving...no - not at all...

*I am really skeptical here. There have been many powerful women in history who had no problem with violence or cruelty as means of getting their way, not to mention conniving. I really don't see any convincing evidence showing that a world "ruled" by women would be considerably less violent or power hungry.

I think that there could be very many factors effecting this, and we cannot draw such a conclusion from what we have looked at as of now (hormonal diff/social conditioning) How much do we REALLY know about hormonal differences influencing behavior? Are there not societies where women are in the traditionally male roles? If the hormones were the dictators of behavior then clearly no such society would be possible.

Drawing on that, social conditioning varies with time and place. If women are socially conditioned to be aggressive and violent and expect positions of leadership then they will very well assume such positions. (I tend to believe)

If we are talking about a world where women are conditioned to be "feminine" and warm and sweet, etc WHILE being conditioned to be leaders and given positions of leadership (if that is even possible in practice) THEN YES. It would logically follow that the world would be less violent and aggressive. It may very well be a "better" world to live in. (Maybe this is the situation the thread maker had in mind)

Guess we will never really know on a global level. We can, however, see on smaller levels and compare how women and men differ in styles or how different the effects are. (I have a feeling this has been done) Maybe we can look at such studies and see if we can make a prediction.

[winoman]

ArmoBarbi - I'm pretty much in agreement with your post.

There was a thread on another Armenian forum last month concerning women and intelligence that spurred the following email to a friend of mine participating in the debate (as she didn't use it I will post in here for your interest) - check out the national geographic link I provide at the bottom.


I've been following the discussion on ___ of men vs women intelligence
etc and have been bothered by Rats statement (of course/whats new) that
men have always/in all instances etc dominated over women. In fact there
are a number of instances where women have clearly held (dominant)
political power and influence as well as other instances where no
differentiation between male and female roles and proviliges can be
found whatsoever. Also this is a surface analysis which neglects less
visible (but perhaps supremely influential) roles and influence of women
- Iroquis come to mind here - and other societies as well - and of
course - ultimatly - male & famale roles are complementary - who says
one must be considered superior to the other etc...I was familiar with
this site in Turkey that meets the egalitarian criteria (and it is also
associated (rightly or wrongly) with the goddess cult worship etc -
though it is clear to me that nearly all ancient agricultural based
societies had venaration for the role of women and understood the
paralells to the growth cycle of plants etc...etc - and the "rise of
male dominance" as it were tended to occur with nomadic/pastoral
societies that were more dependent on the physical skills of men and of
course in the areas of warfare (in general) - which affected even
pre-agricultural (hierchical) societies. Another (unrelated) point is
that I do not believe it is so easy to measure intelect on any type of a
linear scale - certainly one can grade on specific problem solving tasks
and such - but this says nothing about the totality of what we call
intelligence and how we might rate one person (or group) over another -
anyway - just my opinion. Enjoy...

http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/catal.html

http://www.dhushara.com/book/socio/fpmd/fpmd.htm

Above - yeah its long - but quite interesting - at least check out: The
ascribed bases for female economic and political authority, and the next
paragraph on the Abipon (these were who I was originally thinking of...)
- plus - buried down in away are these claims: 1) women hold political
and economic power or authority in 53% of the advanced agricultural
societies and 2) Women enjoy economic and political power or authority
in 67% of the foraging societies of this study as compared with 52% of
the non-foraging societies and 3) where males do not display aggression
against women and women exercise political and economic authority or
power, the relationship between the sexes will be defined as equal.
Employing these criteria as guidelines, the relationship between the
sexes is classified as equal in 32% of the societies of this study and
unequal in 28% (see Table 8.2). The remaining 40% of the societies
either fit the criteria expressive of "mythical" male dominance or
represent cases in which women exercise economic but no political power

More on this/related below:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/matriarchy.html

In describing and analyzing non-Western societies, several frameworks
like structuralism and functionalism have been in use until recently.
Many anthropologists have come to see that these are rather problematic
and fail to portray the societies adequately (Wikan, Schneider, etc), as
they are based on Western thinking in dichotomies, dualism, separable
categories in the organization of society, and unpronounced assumptions
about the human nature, and male nature, in particular. Not every
society separates biological women and men in opposing social categories

and

In addition to these "matriarchal" examples there is a large number of
societies where women enjoy full sexual, and economical control over
themselves. To the group of matriarchies, or egalitarian societies,
depending on how to define it, several Pacific and Native American
cultures could be added, for example Pueblo Indians (the Zuni, Laguna
and Hopi), the pre-19th century Iroquois and Innu (Montaignais-Naskapi),
the Vanatinai, and Hawaii under Queen Liliuokani. Take a look at the
list of matrifocal societies around the world.

There are some widely cited theories which promote the universality of
patriarchy. They generally tend to be based on a Eurocentric / Western
view of societies "developing" from "primitive" towards "highly
developed" industrial societies, following certain stages or paths. (A
view which received a last stroke with the collapse of communism which
according to Marx and Engels was the highest level of society.) If we
admit that the history of societies has no predestined internal logic,
and societies can adopt a wide range of organizations within their
economic and environmental constraints, we are free to see for example
gender as one variable or factor within the framework of numerous
possibilities. A closer look at the argumentations against matriarchy by
Harris and Lerner is attached.

This attitude to stress male dominance in all possible circumstances
seems to be an expression of over-cautiousness, an effort to interpret
the data in the least exceptional way. My argument is that this is a
misconception based on the false premise of universality of patriarchy
and on the European world view! It is well known that males are dominant
in many, and in all most populous present day societies, but that is a
historical result of last 500 years of European military expansion and
extermination of native cultures. Native cultures, of which most were
not sexually dichotomized nor oppressive to either sex. Even in many
stratified societies, the highest positions in any field could be
available to either gender - or at least to two genders, in case a third
gender (or more) was acknowledged. This usually made it possible for a
person of either sex to adopt an intermediate gender and thus gain
access to otherwise inaccessible roles.

And last - but certainly not least: (definatly check this one out - and
worthy of posting on ___ I think...)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_primateevolution.html

Anyway - use it as you may (if you care)....

[magdalinka]

haahahahahahahahhahah
That's some funny facts man!!!

do i smell some sexual descrimination here? because i personally think that women can do as much as men and even more...haahaaahaaahaaaaaaaa