It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I think that women as a group would need to (and would change their self-image) and conceptual framework. Here are some things that would have to change, for women to STAY in power:

1. Address the fact that women in office settings have more absenteeism than men. Some of this is undoubtedly because they have family duties that the men don't. It is true (in my experience as a mgr.) that women call in sick without prior notice more than men. This affects work-place politics. No one talks about this cause it's not PC., but HR people (including the women!) know this and factor it into decisions.

2. Until now, I think men gained an edge at work from experiences and expectations of them based on team sports. You have to play on the team of some people you don't like. Many women find this a serious challenge in the workplace. Men call it professionalism, but they mean being a team player. more women in school team sports will fix this.

3. The commodities exchanges, NYSE and other markets with open outcry trading. Yes, there are women on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. But they are a minority for several reasons. First, exchange trading is still about size and intimidation. Although some women can equal men at it, they are rare at present.

4. In the financial world, a lot of the important decisions are about managing risk. In my experience of women today, most of them are risk averse, particularly when it comes to capital. It may be that finance is so male dominated that there is not a good sample size. At any rate that perception will be a major hurdle for women.

And now for the chauvinist minute, with Dr. Strangecraft.

I really enjoy chess, and play it incessantly. The fact is, I have never found a female who could beat me consistently in competitive play. For some reason (not necesarrily genetic, mind you) women don't seem to be able to acquire the analytical skill needed to think in the subjunctive tense. Is that sexist? Perhaps. It is also true, though.

This has been the chauvinist minute, w/ Dr. S.; we now return you to your regularly scheduled program.






posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I really enjoy chess, and play it incessantly. The fact is, I have never found a female who could beat me consistently in competitive play. For some reason (not necesarrily genetic, mind you) women don't seem to be able to acquire the analytical skill needed to think in the subjunctive tense. Is that sexist? Perhaps. It is also true, though.


It's cultural.

I was a professionally ranked chess player in the 1970's (was working on improving rankings when we had a handicapped child born. Stress from taking care of him and his death and the staggering financial burden led me to drop out) and just about the only woman who was.

I faced a lot of unkindness because of my gender.

I was thought to be a freak. Men who were beaten by me were ridiculed (because they were beaten by a woman... not because they were beaten by a better chess player.) I have had men throw chess pieces at me when I won.

It's the same reason why there aren't a lot of Black chess players of either gender -- or Hispanic ones for that matter.

You could easily beat me now; it's been 30+ years since I last played. I don't know that I will get back into it ever again (too much to do.) But once, yes, I was very good and that old me could have given you quite a run for your money across the boards. If life had turned out differently, I might have continued -- I'm not sure.

The social pressure was pretty heavy, and after awhile you get very tired of your skill being perceived as something that made you a "freak" or a "lesbian" (which I am not.)



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
sorry about your loss byrd... I too was on a chess team back in elementary school, also had chess pieces thrown at me from my male playmates...


Assuming that male children are indoctrinated at an early age leads me to believe that our society 'tells" us not "proves" to us that woman are the weaker gender then the male...


In the big picture you will see weak men, weak woman, and flaws... Mentally it's the same deal, you get it in both sexes... It's much easier to target women though perhaps because thats who we've been taught to target at an early age?

Apparantly we're supposed to be at the peak of evolution and apparantly we're supposed to be the most advanced civilization there ever was, but i'm thinking we've either gone back a few steps or just haven't taken any steps forward... At least when it comes to female stereotypes...


I was kicking my husband's ass in basketball when we were in ky, scoring 3 pointer's and getting it in almost everytime (thanks to my dad's good coaching as a child) you know what he said to me??? obviously not thinking his thoughts out first because he was way too into...

"I have to leave this court a man" and wanted to keep playing me until he defeated me... It's part of our society that shaped the way males think about women... we are just as capable if not more in some areas that men may not be... btw, he is a man, he is a responsible, compassionate, straightforward type of guy, he's far from w.t... what he said shocked me though because it was so out of character, and when he said it I thought wow, this is how guys really think.. Not because they "want" to but because they've been indoctrinated in their early years.. we learn when we're children the stereotypes... boys don't play with barbies or their gay, girls aren't supposed to play with army tanks, we're keeping the paralells... but why??

really, why keep the paralells??



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
what i would like to see is the Christian/Pauline/Peteric concept of women as inferior destroyed and done completely away with.

as to the possibility of a world controled by women and their qualifications
Indira Ghandi, Golda Mier, and Bodecea come to mind. I forsee or at least
hope to see a world of balance where qualification not gender is the deciding
factor.

this male/female thing can i believe be traced back directly to the roots of christianity and the disputes between Peter and Mary M..

For 24 years I have had the pleasure and Privledge to walk beside the most special and wonderful woman that walks this earth. notice I said walk BESIDE , we walk together and share almost everything. We have been blessed inthat we share almost completely the same interests and hobbies.

i would wish this kind of relationship for the rest of the world.


has ony one else ever wondered why the questionably most socially acceptable slang terms for the male genetalia is Peter.
just a thought.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
and what about peter peter pumpkin eater??
sorry, couldn't help it..

What you said about is awesome, i'm happy for you and yours, I too hope and wish this for the world... That will be my one christmas wish for all this year...
We would get much farther as a whole... Unite, not divide...



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Minime, when you asked the question, were you thinking about matriarchy replacing patriarchy in most of the World? If so, then the answer is quite simple.

Instead of archetypical fatherly figures of authority, you'll get archetypical motherly figures of authority.

Would it be different? Probably, but not that much. Ask some archeologist about primitive matriarchal tribes and ask them if they were so different then patriarchal tribes.

Would it be better? No, because power corrupts people regardless of gender, religion or race.

Will it ever happen? Doubt so. Women will never rule the world the way men did for so long, because men will never be almost completely cast off seats of power the way women have been for milleniums.

Since the Age of Enlightenment and Liberal Revolutions, the World has been slowly but steadily evolving toward an individualistic civilization where boundaries between genders, races, religions and other individual traits have become more and more blurred. Soon all will be undifferentiated. The gender, race or religion of someone in power won't hold any meaning anymore.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I cant see it being any different than it is now. Women do get pissed off at eachother you know, it isnt all flowers and poems. They too are only human.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Regardless of how I feel on this issue, the first thing you women need to do in order to take over the world properly is to eliminate pathetic religions that subjugate you to second class, and put you below us men.

Like Christianity for example:

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)

History is FUN



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Well, one thing would probably stay the same: the number of "surplus" males who cannot get any!

Me, I like what a previous poster wrote about ending the age of hierarchies. I think there's a lot of truth in that. In the future, NO ONE will be in charge!


Funny it is, how a few people take an instant dislike to me because I have obviously masculine attributes: bushy eyebrows, Goatee; rich booming baritone voice; my cackling, villianous laugh; etc.

Yet I have my feminine side as well: My love for billowing crimson robes, and my beautiful ring of inneffable power in which my mortal soul is stored for safekeeping.

On the other hand, friends often find it humorous that we have taken "opposite" roles in our marriage. Frau Dr. does the bills, while I do the dishes and am the ONLY biped who ever bothers to pick up laundry here at Strangecraft manor.

Personally, I think Fau Dr. enjoys playing the subservient role on occasion, and can do so without feeling like she's permanently relinquishing her role as an equal in the marriage. God knows I'd "step in the middle of" anyone who tried to treat her as somehow less than worthy of the respect any one, male or female in our society deserves.

Anyhoo, the ways of love and lust are too complex for you mere humans to comprehend. So you can relax in the knowledge that Frau Dr. & I are doing our best to keep the battle of the sexes where it belongs: between the sheets!

And so, as Tiny Tim observed, "God Bless us. Ev'ry one!"

Merry Christmas.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Minime

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
The women I know are not in any way like the sappy, timid women you portray. Where do you find these women? What kind of world do you live in?
*SNIP*

And, really, all you guys with the PMS remarks, stifle yourselves. It's not like you all don't have your testosterone moments.
Many, if not most, women do not become blithering fools one week a month?
And, by the way, it's not an accident that the Creator made women to bear children...a lot, if not most, of you guys couldn't take it.



Oh give over, you find these sort of women everywhere. What kind of world do you live in? Gladiator Women land?

Sure, there are women like thelibra talks about. But, they are by all means not the majority of women. That was my point.
And, I don't hang with women that are like the ones thelibra describes.


By no means gladiator women, just independent, happily married women or unmarried women. The libra makes it sound like most women couldn't find their way out of a paper bag .



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I think the world would turn into a happy place and everyone would help one another, i mean if you get dragged shopping then watch the amazeing organisation and teamwork they have, AND THEY DONT KNOW EACH OTHER !
Its insane!
One woman gets into trouble about 20 random women arrive and help her and walk off with out even saying hello or asking for help!



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I can't see it being anything but better than it is now. After all, isn't violence and fighting often associated to a men's behavior? (there are exceptions, I know)

Don't you think there would have been less genocides and less witches-burning if womens ruled the world? Somehow, I do.

Here, Byrd (great post BTW, really touched me) kinda showed what I meant, unintentionnaly.

Originally posted by Byrd
Men who were beaten by me were ridiculed (because they were beaten by a woman... not because they were beaten by a better chess player.) I have had men throw chess pieces at me when I won.


Somehow, I can't imagine a women throwing a pieces at someone else because she has lost at a mind-game.

[edit on 24-12-2004 by m0rbid]



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0rbidSomehow, I can't imagine a women throwing a pieces at someone else because she has lost at a mind-game.

[edit on 24-12-2004 by m0rbid]


In that case I think you need to meet more women wielding game pieces



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I didn't originally post this, because I didn't want to lessen the impact of Byrd's own post.

I am a man (a large one) and have also had a number of men throw pieces at me. Though I am sure its the same for women targets only moreso.

Hmmm. My research prospectus: "The sociology of parataxic distortion as embodied in male agression in amateur and professional chess competitions."

Peripheral males among the "lower" primates sometimes resort to violence after losing a dominance display. But one does this only if they are certain that the one displacing him cannot retaliate because of his own rank as the higher-statused individual. In other words, competition is only possible between equals. Violence is used by the loser, to imply that the two are NOT equals, and that the competition had no meaning because the two combatants were of unequal rank to begin with: "That didn't count, because I can still use agression against you, and you can't/ won't retaliate."

Interestingly, the power structure, at least among vervets and similar Savannah-dwelling primates, includes females, with their own power structure that is completely emmeshed with the males'. In addition to an alpha male, there is often an "alpha female," usually the mother or sexual partner of the male, who wields her own social clout in order to butress and enlarge the alpha males web of dominance.

I have seen this among vervets. When a female of medium status had a stillbirth, the alpha male's mother stood guard over the dead infant, and would not allow other females to approach it. Comforting sick infants is one way that females show and maintain dominance ties. Higher ranking females comfort lower ranking ones, never the opposite.

So the alpha female was not allowing anyone else to comfort the bereaved mother, thereby elevating the status of the aggrieved female. The father of the dead infant was crucial support as a lieutenant of the alpha male. The "queen mother" was making sure that the lieutenant's mate was elevated in status, thus assuring her own son's continued leadership of the troop.

Personally, I believe that female humans are at least as complicated as vervets, and instinctively use power to protect and enhance the chances of their families. Certainly, female equality in our society would not limit this aspect of culture, but give it a whole added dimension.

Look at the matriarchal cultures we know of. The Atlantic coast of SubSaharan Africa contain several matriarchal cultures, many of them in rapidly developing nations. The village structure is a female mayor and city council, and a central market where women act as merchants while the men farm and care for children who are old enough to walk. A complex society, full of promise. But hardly paradise, or free from strife.

Other examples might be the Innuit, several ethnic groups in Tibet, as well as groups with affinities to the Inca. Many of these matriarchal societies are in climates with extremely high infant mortality rates (high altitude, or extreme cold). The ability of a woman to produce viable offspring gives her tremendous social power, and many tibetan women as late as 1900 had 3 or more husbands.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   
why does it have to be one gender ruling? why can't we rule together? why can't male and females create a happy productive earth? i mean,come on we do need each other to continue the human race. we couldn't live without the opposite sex. so why must it be one way or another? why can't it be together,working for a greater purpose? men and women canlarn from each other. women are more sensitive(emotonally) and men are more logical. why can't we try and teach each other to be more astute in theses areas?



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
The libra makes it sound like most women couldn't find their way out of a paper bag .



That reminds me of the blonde joke where she's running from the cops and hides in a potatoe bag, the cop goes to kick the brunette's potatoe bag and says she ''woof'', the red head gets kicked and says ''meow'', but when the cop hits the blondes potatoe sack and she says, "potatoe"!



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   
.
flukemole,

dont wait for other emotional people like gays which are taking away your platform from your feet

Excuse [gay] me but I believe i personally am very open to the minds and ideas of women and control by intelligent women.

Not a few of the white men marching in Selma Alabama were gay men. Some of whom were murdered for it.

Not a few of the leaders of Equal rights for women were gay women.

Gay people, due to the constant persecution they endure, are much more likely to be open to other, alternative leadership.

As mankind [peoplekind?] becomes more powerful and dominate the planet much more gentility and care will be required to keep it a place we can survive on. Women, when not competing with other women for ego/mates or against males for a place in the hierarchy, are biologically better inclined to act with judiciousness and reason.

Thatcher was very good for England, until she finally got a bit too full of herself. Men have a similar problem when they get too full of themselves.

When the Earth was huge beyond understanding and human powers were comparatively small, the wreckless, aggressive tendancy of males to conquer everything in sight probably was very useful. Now that we see we live on a tiny bubble in space and our collective powers are vastly greater care and nurturing of the place is in order.

Men can use their traits in the mastering of space, where that may be useful. They can also work on defending the planet and not ruthlessly destroying it.
.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
why does it have to be one gender ruling? why can't we rule together? why can't male and females create a happy productive earth? i mean,come on we do need each other to continue the human race. we couldn't live without the opposite sex. so why must it be one way or another? why can't it be together,working for a greater purpose? men and women canlarn from each other. women are more sensitive(emotonally) and men are more logical. why can't we try and teach each other to be more astute in theses areas?

Because most males , like i am i suppose, are control freaks.
We (both sex's) dont really seem to grasp the whole peace thing yet.

[edit on 27-12-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Because most males , like i am i suppose, are control freaks.
We (both sex's) dont really seem to grasp the whole peace thing yet.


A work-place where females are the dominant gender is a nice microcosme of what a female-ruled World could look like. If in such place there's peace in apparance (ie. no open display of agression), there's plenty of back-stabbing and harassment.

Power is bound to the territory of ego, and violence/agression happens when egos collide. Women have egos just like men, they simply have different violence/agression mechanisms.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Sure, there are women like thelibra talks about. But, they are by all means not the majority of women. That was my point.
And, I don't hang with women that are like the ones thelibra describes.


By no means gladiator women, just independent, happily married women or unmarried women. The libra makes it sound like most women couldn't find their way out of a paper bag .


Okay, first off, if you're going to use my moniker to illustrate a point, you'd best understand my views first. I do not appreciate being libeled, especially on things I feel quite passionate about.

Now, to address your posts (sorry, was on leave from conspiracy for the holidays...)...

DTOM, the areas of which I speak are in the more urban areas Texas (Houston, The DFW Metroplex, and Austin) and in Seattle Washington, and Mizoola (sp) Montana. I realize this is only a fraction of the United States, but unfortunately I haven't lived everywhere. And not every woman I've known has been ruled by fear (or at the very least, put up an excellent front). Additionally, the women I've met from more rural areas were hard as nails, and twice as dependable as the men. So you have to understand, I'm speaking from the perspective of a primarily Texan city-slicker.

But you have to realize what I mean by fear. I'm not talking about cowering little waifs who flinch if you look at them hard. I'm also talking about ball-busting feminazis who overcompensate their hatred for men, because of fear of looking weak, or fear of going back to whatever they were that made them a manhater to begin with. I'm talking about women who bow to the social pressures of Victoria's Secret and Glamour magazine, and all those other mags. And so on, and so forth. Fear has many forms, and the majority of women I have personally known (which is a lot), from all walks of life, have been ruled by fear.

And, I'm very sorry, but most women I know are not educated in automobile maintenance and repair. This is not something I am happy about, nor am I stating as a taunt. I'm stating as simple fact, and one I heavily encourage women to change. Any future daughters I have will get a full education in care and maintenance of their vehicles, as well as other basics that are usually taught to boys instead of girls.

Now I should also point out that women are perpetuating this problem upon future generations just as much as the men are. A good example is my fiance, who in response to my saying our daughter would take GMR, kickboxing, and firearms classes, replied that it wouldn't leave much time for ballet, and that she didn't want me turning our daughter into a Tomboy.

Women need to learn, as a majority, that it's entirely possible to be educated in "Man Stuff" and not be a greasy stinky hairy ape, like men are. My grandmother lived a very traditional "Woman's Life", she more resembled the Stepford wives than in the movies. But she was a crackshot with a pistol, took on an armed robber with nothing but an umbrella bucket and won, could rebuild a motor, and used to go on camping trips out in the desert with little more than a canteen, bedroll, and pocket knife. She raised me, for the most part.

This is how I'm able to have at least some defensible point of reference on this. I know strong women. I know what they are capable of, and I would depend on them sooner than I would most of my male friends. But most of the other women I have met in my lifetime limit themselves even more than males try to limit them.


Originally posted by Byrd
I was a professionally ranked chess player in the 1970's...
...I faced a lot of unkindness because of my gender...

I was thought to be a freak. Men who were beaten by me were ridiculed (because they were beaten by a woman... not because they were beaten by a better chess player.) I have had men throw chess pieces at me when I won.


Byrd, first and foremost, should you ever take up chess again, I would love to play you a few rounds. As a previous USCF member, myself, good chess players are rare. Women chess players are even rarer. If you are as good as you say, I would consider it an honor to be able to say I played against a woman of such skill, and would be only too happy to say I lost (assuming I did lose).

However, I need to point out your experience was not entirely unique in chess. Men do that in games. We cuss each other out, make threats both overt and vague, play dirty, sometimes throw pieces at each other, and sometimes even storm away from the game with an uproarious temper.

I will say this, women are almost invariably better sports at games than men. Their behaviour (again, only from my limited perspective) at game tables, by comparison, makes men seem infantile. I'm not sure why. I guess men are raised from an early age to be extremely competitive and use any and all means to win. This is one reason I left the USCF. I do not doubt that you probably received the extreme end of all this, but it's really not that uncommon to run across, even at the higher tiers.


Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I really enjoy chess, and play it incessantly. The fact is, I have never found a female who could beat me consistently in competitive play. For some reason (not necesarrily genetic, mind you) women don't seem to be able to acquire the analytical skill needed to think in the subjunctive tense. Is that sexist? Perhaps. It is also true, though.


Dr. Strangecraft, you should take up "Go." It's a lot more popular in Asian countries, especially Korea, China, and Japan, and though the number of 9-Dan (highest rank possible) female players are still not quite equal with the men, they are several magnitudes greater in number than in Chess. I had the honor of (very briefly) having a female 9-dan sensei at the Seattle Go Center when I was living in Seattle. She was able to conceptualize and think so far ahead that by less than 50 moves into the game she could predict the score to the half-point with about 95% accuracy. (a typical game of Go can go on for hundreds of moves, and the scores are often in the hundreds as well).


[edit on 12/28/2004 by thelibra]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join