It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What if Women Ruled the World?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 10:48 PM
I agree with the academic stuff. Yup, whilst in Uni, I pretty much lived off notes and such taken down by the female species. But consider the PMTs, consider the mood swings during and after pregnancy, consider that womenh are generally more sensitive to someone else's pain and anguish. Problem is in the real world, government is all about a game of trade-offs and checks and balances. Can't see most women (there might be individuals Maggie T. for example or very very few) who could send a country into war or drop the atom bomb. Being a biological carrier of life and nursing that life into a individual, it would seem to me, a hard task to send another life into danger or cause pain to another human for the greater good. Got to go. Wife's yelling for me to get stuff done.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 10:50 PM
Are you kidding me? More Peaceful? If women ruled the world for one week a month the whole world would be at war. I dont want to live in that world.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 11:19 PM
if we had a President of color...
If actors went to the bathroom in sitcoms...
If Americans began taking siestas every afternoon...
If the government encouraged carpooling with tax credits...
If healthcare was available to everyone, irregardless of income...
If all wars ended...
If politicians stopped lying to the people....
If the sparrow became the national bird....
If billboards were all outlawed...
If Americans got 7-8 weeks of vacation every year like in Norway...'ll never happen...

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:20 AM
I think women tend to work towards consensus. Men tend to be independent and can be somewhat wild hair.

I think women would be much less inclined to go to war and would probably be more careful of the environment.

What about overpopulation though? Would women ever be able to say no to unlimited births?

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:48 AM
That mouse is a good idea, but howabout a keyboard with a slot on the side to stick lipstick.

On a more serious note, I believe we should have equality in everything especialy the gov. that way we can get things done, and not kill 1/4 of the populace doing it.

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:32 AM
...the budget for defense and education would be reversed.
...foreplay would be mandatory.
...birth control would be covered by all insurance plans.
...we would finally have peace on earth.


posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:58 AM
Its simple, there would be a war every 30 days!

[edit on 12/23/2004 by TKainZero]

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 06:10 AM
Sadly, I think the growing number of women beaters will be around if Women were more suprior than men. I think men would get more violent and hurt women because women have stolen the man's role in everything.

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 06:19 AM
ok i think the 13 out of every 2 man thing only is for the us cause in nz it's 4 out of 2 women over here are graduating from university or polytech but if you notice msot teenager girls are worried about there populartey stats or how they look

i would'nt worry im not we men are the ones who are fighting the wars!! they might say it's barberic but were protecting them !,men are the ones creating nano tech robots and alos creating fighter jets space shuttle not women whos running microsoft thats right bill gates a man whos the president of the usa yeah thats right georage bush who thought of electricty thats right a man oh yeah ... who builds the houses men hmmm and has there been a women in office i don't think, so men are all more powerful than women no offense

there are plentey more things that men have accomplished than women so if that debate pops up again just take all that to mind..

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:00 AM
If women ruled the world there would be more wars than ever.
Women are like unsatisfied beast that just need to cause pain and suffering, basically you all are just EVIL. The only thing that would be good if women ruled the world is that you guys might come to the conclusion that ALL men should have multiple sexual partners and sharing is a good thing.

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:44 AM
This is one of those "go on and post, men, we dare you" type threads. Still, the subject is intriguing, and I'd like to add my own two cents.

But first: Makeitso, that was some hilarious stuff, where'd you get that?

Anyway... my thoughts on women ruling the world (both figuratively and literally).

Presently, I don't fall for the whole idea of "women actually do rule the world" anymore than I fall for the idea that "all men are pigs". I think it's unbalanced towards one side or the other in places, and in other places it's equal. The following is my personal observations, as well as questions directed towards various women in the past. The battle of the sexes has always been a fascinating subject to me, and so please do not take the following paragraphs as insult. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, and the case may be different in other countries besides America...


If women secretly ruled the world, they wouldn't feel the need to make themselves look like some magazine pinup with anorexia and cosmetic surgery. They wouldn't cave in to the social pressures of having to have a certain brand of clothes, or keep up with the latest style. They wouldn't let themselves be abused by their boyfriends/husbands, and nine out of ten would-be rapists would have the snot beaten out of them. They would be able to break wind, at the very least, in the restroom without feeling utterly humiliated in front of their peers. They wouldn't be chained to the beck and call of their mothers, and they wouldn't force the same upon their daughters...

If women want to rule the world, they must first conquer fear. Not eliminate it, for fear is what gives us caution to avoid a bad situation, foresight to prepare for the worst, and strength to deal with a crisis. But they do need to learn to control it. From what I can tell, a Woman's World, for the most part, is governed by fear. Fear of not meeting the approval of the fashion police. Fear of appearing to have human bodily functions. Fear of violence. Fear of not pleasing their mother. Fear of not looking like a supermodel. Fear of problems in a relationship. Fear of most of the animal kingdom...

I believe this may be the reason that women have not taken a larger role in governing society yet. It's not that they aren't as capable, or intelligent, or wise, or anything of the sort. It's that so much of their lives are governed by fear that it leaves little room for leadership. After all, who could take seriously a leader who screams at the sight of a roach, or flinched when someone spoke at them harshly. Who could trust their lives to someone who appeared more concerned with their appearance than current events? Who could trust their nation to someone prone to violent outbursts and later blames it on PMS?

I realize that some of these remarks hit below the belt, and I apologize that they had to be said. This is not the way it should be. I don't know enough of the history to know if men made women this way, or if women made themselves this way, or if the advertising agencies did it, or what. But I do know this: A leader must be strong, confident, and not easily phased. Leaders must be able to assume all responsibility for the actions of themselves and those beneath them. Leaders must, despite their own fears, have the courage to stand up for themselves. They must appear have the Wisdom of Solomon in peacetime, and the Might of Alexander in wartime.

It doesn't stop there. As the leader of a country, the nation will constantly expect the impossible of you, and half of them at any given time will hate you, and those that don't hate you will constantly doubt you. Your constituency will never feel like you lived up to your promises, and your opposition will use every dirty trick in the book to make you look like the next antichrist. Your every word will be twisted into something horrible, your every decision will be second-guessed by supposed experts, your commitment will always be in question, and the entire world will assume your family is on the verge of collapse, and that you must be a terrible parent indeed. Your decisions, every day will send men and women to their deaths, either directly or indirectly. For every country that you manage to make happy, two others will swear vengeance upon you. Every supposed friend you have could be a potential spy, assassin, or perhaps just along for the ride on the power coaster. And God-forbid you ever committed one single questionable act in your past, because it will be dragged out for the entire world to see.

And that's just on the first day of office.

It is not that I feel women aren't capable of leading a country. In point of fact, I believe women are just as capable as men, if they can conquer the fear that rules the majority of women. Many women have already done this, and gone on to be powerful authors, artists, CEOs, members of congress, Supreme Court justices, members of the Presidential Cabinet! I admire and respect these women with all my heart, for they have proven to the world that women do not need to be weak nor fearful. They can manage to balance a home life and a powerful career at the same time. They command respect, wield authority wisely, and I'd trust my country to any of them (assuming their political views met mine).

My future daughter will be one of those women. I intend to make her strong, confident, and to never cave in to the idea that she must live a life of fear. So, in conclusion, what do I think the world would be like if women ran it? I think it'd be a fine place. But first, we must raise our women to believe in themselves, stand tall on their own, and never give in to fear. I know my future daughter could be the first female President of the United States, and she will be raised with the firm knowledge and belief that she can be!

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:48 AM
Well what have we learned in the last 20 years of womans right to be equal with man?(Im not saying its compleated yet by a long shot but theres enough around the world to alest get a view of woman running things.
Good things strong sence of family .Bad thing strong sence of family .
ever play around with a she bears cub you will understand a woman can be just a violant as a man . So will wars stop? think a female presedent would have said ooo lets be friends with osdom?
Now on to our bad points Man rob rape pillage and murder .Will a woman do these things ? Im aftraid the answer is yes . Right up there with ted bunday was 2 or 3 woman who were killing man randumanly on the interstate and banks have been robed by woman (Ever notice it was BONNIE and clide not CLIDE and bonnie lol.
no im afraid the world would be very much the same as it is now because in the end we (man and you woman arnt that much different .Theres good in all of us but theres also much bad.
the world would have been a much better place if we had evolved from Ducks instead of apes.

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:54 AM
If women ruled the world, armageddon would happen once a month. Weapons Systems produced by the various superpowers for third world nations would be purchased based primarily on their color (The Teal Abrams or the Sea Breeze T-72). And last, but not least, the UN would have to expand its daycare facilities.
Heh..all in good fun dear..ouch! I gotta go now.

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 08:30 AM
Men create wars, wars create new technology.

No offence to women but without men I don't think we'd have anywhere near the level of technology we have today.

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 08:55 AM
Thor is right, we'd probably live in a mostly agricultural matriachy, less room for progress, lower tech ceiling. The use of metal can, in almost every case, be attributed to war. I read somewhere a theory that argued women have evolved primarily under the stresses of childbirth and mate selection, whereas men evolved moreso as a result of combat/hunting, endurance walking, and high parental investment. This backs up observable phenomenon of "choice" like: Women with ample hips being more attractive to men, women having a more refined pheremone translation software, women having a sixth sense about their offspring. Also, Men with tight buttocks are more attractive to women, a sign that they can walk greater distances? Physique and Sensitivity are competing qualities, women who possess a desire for both would theoretically be more highly evolved than women who possess only a desire for men with good muscle tone. The reasoning is that women who choose a man only on his physique may lose out on the parental investment end, if he up and leaves and the children's environment suffers. Men with a good stink are also evolutionarily viable. In the end, if the world was run by women, several thousand years ago up until the present day, men would probably be smelly, tight assed, sensitive listeners, and women would be wider at the hips than they are at the shoulders, have huge noses combined with mammoth olfactory glands, and might not even have legs. I could go into explaining that last bit of conjecture, but I'll save it for another post.

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:30 AM
I can't really think anything what Women have inventend or added into technology.. so without us being the suprior one's, we'd still be living in the dark ages.

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:32 AM
I work in the healthcare industry, and I have to take exception to the idea not enough money is spent on womens health care. Any underwriter or actuarial will tell you women utilize the preventative care system much more than men do already, and have may more options for testing and usually at a 0$ copay.

Back to the original idea, I'd say women are more than capable of taking over, but I'd have to assume they (sweeping generalization) haven't because on some level they just aren't as attracted to power as men are, and are (another generalization) not as aggressive in seeking power.

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:48 AM
LOL, i very much doubt it. Look at Britain 20 years ago under the reign of Thatcher. What a disaster that was for our country, Jesus people thought there would be civil war.

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Killak420
If women ruled the world there would be more wars than ever.
Women are like unsatisfied beast that just need to cause pain and suffering, basically you all are just EVIL. The only thing that would be good if women ruled the world is that you guys might come to the conclusion that ALL men should have multiple sexual partners and sharing is a good thing.

i like this one best so far

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:21 AM
Apparently, education and intelligence are not prime requisites to being a world leader...

Take our (the US) current leader for example....he can't even string together a coherent sentence, even though an Ivy League grad....

I'm all for more women in leadership roles...they can hardly do any worse than the current ones....
Let's just pray that one leader doesn't call another one fat, or nukes will be a flyin'
(kidding, c'mon....)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in