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.

 

Do you think that we will ever have a gynocracy?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Do you think that we will ever have a gynocracy where men are slaves?

What would a society be like if women were slaves?




posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
John Norman's fantasy "Gor" serie postulated that. Sounded like a good idea to me at the time. Wife didn't agree. And although the books are no longer in print, since they are a pretty much politically incorrect, There are several Gorean communities on the internet.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
dictionary.reference.com...

thanks I never learned that word

biblically women are weaker physically and spiritally and although equal there is a pecking order

I would not stand by if I saw a women being discriminated or abused but we all have our "place" and leadership is best served by men.

I am not a misogamist or woman hater [hey I married a school teacher lady]

I like the thought though as women give the appearance of being better budgeters and do a fine job of food/clothes hunter gatherers but THINK men if they got off the booze/football/work treadmill would / do do better.

peace.
funny concept but won't work



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ROO-meh
 





I would not stand by if I saw a women being discriminated or abused but we all have our "place" and leadership is best served by men.


The above quote makes me ill...*Snip*.

Patriarchy has dominated society for far too long; and it's this *Snip* mentality that allows it to remain an integral part of our lives.

Until people such as yourself take the time to realize what *Snip* you are and just how much damage (on soooo many levels) this mind-set has caused, things will never change - more than likely, neither will you.





edit for grammar!



Mod Edit: Circumvention Of The Censors/Profanity. Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 10/10/2008 by chapter29]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Speaking from the female side I beg to differ... pecking order? What on earth happened there? Oh, C21st! There are plenty of female role models - for example Margaret Thatcher - at least as a PM she was all talk, all action (instead of all talk no action)

The female of the species are fully integrated in society and possibly better at the same sort of Leader roles.

RooMeh, we all have our place? From my POV, we have a place if we let others walk all over us like carpets, male or female. Well, that's my perspective on that anyway.

Mabus - in what context was your question? Slaves meaning in a physical way?



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by emmy


Mabus - in what context was your question? Slaves meaning in a physical way?


Slaves in the context of a two tier society where one sex is elevated over another. The best example would the societal role of women in the roman empire. I am not really sure society could function whereas one part of society essentially owned another.

I don't think men would stay sex slaves too long after natural inclinations occurred, plus most women would get bored. I think if women were sex slaves society would breakdown as well. Tom Brady would be targeted by "Gisele Bundchen" thieves.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mabus325

I don't think men would stay sex slaves too long after natural inclinations occurred, plus most women would get bored. I think if women were sex slaves society would breakdown as well. Tom Brady would be targeted by "Gisele Bundchen" thieves.



I sure hope not. Besides, anyone who thinks about this and is for this, then we obviously know where there brain lays...and it's not in the cranium capacity (If I yodel in there would it echo?!
)



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ROO-meh
 


Oh dear.....

"Biblically"...y'know, the whole world doesn't run by the Bible. Note even many Christians can interpret and live by the bible, so let's not go there.

"Misogamist"...did you mean "misogynist"?

"Weaker Physically"...ok, will agree with that, but what we *sometimes* lack in muscle, we make up for in endurance....and what does it have to do with politics, intellect or understanding?

"Weaker spiritually"....please just don't go there with me....justify this argument with your reasons if you would like to start this discussion on another thread with me, but I recommend that you don't.

And finally...."pecking order", "place" and "leadership is best served by men"....would you like to expand on your theories and beliefs about these points so I can counter your arguement properly? I think it's only polite to allow you to have your say first since you raised these issues. Explain please, and we can debate.

Cait



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Me myself, think we are heading for a one gender world, where we will be more male than female.

I would not like to see a world, dominated by bitchyness, and hollow in terms of spiritual awareness. The world sometimes need the straight forward talking of males, instead of the snide two faced side of females.

May not be pc, but i am sure the people running this world, understand my view. Even alot of women do not like working with women, and prefer working with males, that says it all.

Could you imagine a world, where every one was a bitch, what society would that be? lol

There is a reason, why catholic priests are not female, and its down to 1000's of years worth of occult knowledge.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Andy, I think it's interesting that you seem to have such a negative view of women, and see us all as bitches...is that really how you think? We all have masculine and feminine aspects to our personalities, and the best working environment is an even mix of both. I went to a girls school, and work with mainly women, and yes, it can be hell....but men are just as capable of bitchyness.

And why bring religion into this again? I would not hold up the Catholic Church as a bastion of best practise and exemplary behaviour on any level. Emmy mentioned Margaret Thatcher...and what ever we feel about her politics, in tems of drive and leadership....top girl!

I'm still hoping that someone will explain the "spiritual weakness and hollowness" thing....

Cait



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by caitlinfae
 



I am trying to project a view of what a world full of females would be like. From my experience women alot of the times, do not like working with women, as whether you call that bitcheness or not, there is that.

I would think that being in an all boy school, is probably easier than being in an all girl school.

Try to think of what examples we have in society, and how it would be to be all female, or all male, type of world.

Thats all i am saying, and if you think i am being sexist, thats your choice. But if your female, try to think in a world of all females, and try to see negatives as well as positives from your point of view.

I am just trying to give you guys a straight answer, to the question poised in this thread.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Andy...

Thank you for your reply...and I do think that you are being basically sexist, in the purist sense of the word, as you seem to see women as essentially one dimensional...we are all the same, or appear to be in your world, and your view of us doesn't seem to be positive.

I think that people might make make the mistake of assuming, when gynocracy is mentioned, that a female ruled world would be run on some kind of collective basis, and there would be very little or no hierarchy. Whichever gender is in the majority, there is still a real need for structure and leadership, as evidenced by Thatcher, for any system to work. In fact, I am struggling against this very problem where I work, which is mainly with women, so we have a "we all do everything" mentality. This is fine on a small scale, in a family unit or very small company for instance, but as organisations and societies grow and develop, there is a need for leadership, decision making and democracy...and these are not gender specific traits. BOTH genders are equally capable of producing fine examples of these, and for me, ths issue is not whether women are capable of it, but whether we will actually ever get the chance to do it. It would seem that the odds, the politics and the prejudices are really stacked against us.

My feeling is that a female led society would be more focused on basic rights and needs, like healthcare, housing, food production and education, and more willing to share information and resources with others. There might be a better balance of energies and intentions, with the naturally more empathetic female traits mixed well with masculine leadership skills, which we all have, regardless of gender. We all have masculine and feminine traits, but many women are too scared or too subdued by society to make the most of their masculine edge. Using this does not make us less feminine, but much more powerful.

So....what about this spiritual weakness thing then...do you want to discuss? What do you mean by "spiritually hollow"

[edit on 11-10-2008 by caitlinfae]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
"Occult knowledge" - what?

Perhaps it will be more peaceful with more female leaders. Australia's deputy PM is female, and there certainly is a share of hedonistic male politicians that have made it known underhandedly that they don't approve of it.

Why do you think men always build bigger and bigger missiles and bombs?

Man will always be compensating for his own shortcomings no matter how much power he holds.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I have a book somewhere .. trying to remember the title

' Natural Superiority of Women' I think -- written in the 70's, anyway.

Only skimmed it and that was a while ago, but I remember reading that archaeologists are actually truer sources of history than are historians proper, and from their digs, are aware that prior to Christianity, there were a great many female leaders .. far more than history allows.

The book claimed that archaelogists reasonably often find the supposed busts and statues of male leaders and prominent politicians etc. of their day. But when thoroughly investigated, it's discovered that beneath the image of the male, lies the original .. which is female.

Apparently, in times past, they recycled statues, busts, etc. and moulded the faces of males over the original females.

The book also stated that thousands of years ago, women were the leaders in society, with men in the lesser and slave roles, similar in a way to the bee-hive with its queen bee and worker drones.

The book said this was recognised by today's academics but received scant publicity.

The author claimed that women contributed to their own downfall by selecting as mates and biological fathers for their children .. the strongest, tallest males. These eventually usurped women's superiority via their physical 'superiority', i.e., greater physical strength via which they eventually wrested control from females.

All this was suggested as the primary reason for misogyny evident within the ancient greeks (who taught that women were subject to vile spirits, unpredictable, dangerous, 'unclean' etc. due to menstruation, subject to fits brought on by the phases of the moon .. basic witches who sapped men's 'vital juices' and so on) and the misogyny inherent in the Abrahamic religions.

The author stated that men harbour within themselves an awareness of women's power and their fear of this. For this reason, women were pushed and held down by religion and State, by males (claimed the author) who remain terrified that women will realise their strength and power and reclaim it.

Interesting theory



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 





Could you imagine a world, where every one was a bitch, what society would that be?


No, but I could imagine a better world without you in it...


Ya know, I think there are two possibilities to your ingnorance:

1. Either your pledging a gay fraternity and this is part of your hazing

or

2. You thought it would be funny to throw out a comment of this nature and sit back and watch the hate...

Either way, you are an f'ing idiot...

Please go drink some bleach...




posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

I would not like to see a world, dominated by bitchyness, and hollow in terms of spiritual awareness. The world sometimes need the straight forward talking of males, instead of the snide two faced side of females.


Jeeze, do you have a bolt loose in your head? You've probably not met the entire female race. Yes, some can be superficial and bitchy - however - you haven't, therefore how can you judge if all females are two faced? For example. I'm not, what you see is what you get, however, if I don't like something, I'll talk it out in an adult way.

Anyway, I'm deriving from my point. Which is - if you intend to pull up a serious discussion/debate using sexism as the platform (and actually being insulting, which Sir, I find you are) then you should have pressed Save As Draft instead of posting - this is the most irrelevant thread I may have commented on.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Its funny as i made a thread about 6 years ago, about the opposite of this thread, where the world would be just males. On the board, it was one of the longest topics, and certainly stirred plenty of debate. It was a thread that included alot of science as well, so not all sexism. I tried to do a serious thread on it, like your doing here, and we discussed plenty of what arguments i assume you may come up with.

What i was trying to say above, the females that respond to this thread, should try to look at the negatives as well as the positives to your position on this subject. Maybe one day we all will be one gender again, so it may be a serious question one day.

I personally think the world with one gender, and that gender should be more male than female, but the people in this thread are entitled to there opinions.

Happy debating.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 

As a woman, who happens to work, I love working with other women, more so than men. I admit, I am partial to females, since I AM one! Where I work, females are kind of a minority, so we tend to stick together, and we help each other out. I think some men have a false sense of women, as in they think it is all gossip and backstabbing and claws out.

I think the world needs to go back to a mother based society, like it started out. The catholic church and its misogynist patriarchal views have done a lot to harm women.

The world does not need slaves in any capacity, ever, men or women slaves.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Wow, way to use a big word there, OP!


Personally--I don't think there would be much difference in the way things were, other than the gender reversal.

If anything governments might be MORE beurocratic... seeing as how woman love to gab... assuming it wasn't a dictatorship I think any effort to get one specific thing done would snowball... not specifically a bad thing so long as there was some check and balance to this.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
The subject of women and the relationship of equality is a rather complicated and oft misunderstood one.

In America, in particular, women are inured by popular culture to value beauty, success, sexuality and buying power. While there are some strong female role models, a majority of the women tend to admire the physical image imprinted by the media.

Note that I say most women in America.

What this tends to encourage is a general sense of insecurity of the self. Women tend to be less inclined to think their own ideas are good ones, and society in and of itself tends to encourage women to accept men's ideas as "Better" or "More Preferable".

For several months I've been gathering general opinions (Which admittedly is in a limited range of my area of life) which tend to encourage my hypothesis that Young women and girls tend to be DIScouraged from forming any interests outside of "FEMALE" ones, and tend to be DIScouraged from making their own hobbies and doings a strong part of any sexual relationship with men.

In short, women are encouraged to be "LESS INTERESTING" and "MORE PRETTY". This creates a schism in the psyche of women, where the majority tend to be always insecure, always willing to remodel themselves to please their mate, and always competitive in these senses with other females.

The Feminist movement has exacerbated this issue in some ways due to certain brands of its extremism. The foremost example that I use (And the one most relevant to me) is that many women who view themselves as strong desire a double-standard to exist whereas it concerns Women's reproductive rights as well as legal responsibilities.

Strong women perpetuate the idea that in situations where abuse happens, it must always be the male's fault. Many courts in the United States tend to presume this is true, and I remind you, STRONG women are encouraging this hypocritical stance. Essentially, some want to have their cake and eat it too... they want men to be viewed as the evil aggressors in any situation whereas it suits them, and they wish to be seen as superior to men in every other situation.

Likewise, women who perceive themselves as strong tend to not understand why there is a disparity in Pay in the business-place between women and men, and why that difference has zero to do with Sexism and more to do with stark economic cost-benefit analysis.

Women tend to be more likely to take sick days due to painful menstruation. Women have the ability to get pregnant, which affects quarterly workloads. Women, in a general sense, tend to be more socio-political which can affect work-place comfort.

So as it stands, a Gynocracy in the United States would be ultimately more disastrous than beneficial... because the Social Identity of American Women is not consolidated or firm in the least. Women aren't sure of themselves, and in a general sense they tend to favor the big, strong, dumb men who give great sex versus the quiet, intelligent, pudgy men who aren't that good in the sack.

I'm sure I've given plenty of canon fodder to use against me, so in the words of a Prime-A idiot... bring it on.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join