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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Do not hold back there, at least you have seemed to have thought about the subject. But you never brought up the subject of an all female world, and what that would be like.

I agree with you on some points, but the question also is about globally, and not just american women.

Why do any of the people here think an all female world, would be positive for our civilisation?




posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ROO-meh
dictionary.reference.com...


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



Maybe by using the word bibically it means something different but don't call women weaker physically until you have had a baby or two.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blogstalker

Originally posted by ROO-meh
dictionary.reference.com...


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



Maybe by using the word bibically it means something different but don't call women weaker physically until you have had a baby or two.


No kidding!


Men are stronger in shorter bursts, physically, but woman can easily outpace them when it comes to endurance.

I defy you to find a man that could carry and birth a child.
(Edit: I'm going to smack anybody who plays the smartarse and links up that 'pregnant man'
)

Anyways... when we take the Bible and its influence out of the equation, most spiritual traditions beleived that woman were inherantly more spiritual men, specifically because they did menstrate and conceive children... thus carrying to power to create life... and in the process facing their own mortality. It was considered a very powerful thing: for instance the Aztecs beleived that the only people who got to the true Heaven were men who died on the battlefield and women who died in labor.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by asmeone2]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2

Originally posted by Blogstalker

Originally posted by ROO-meh
dictionary.reference.com...


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



Maybe by using the word bibically it means something different but don't call women weaker physically until you have had a baby or two.


No kidding!


Men are stronger in shorter bursts, physically, but woman can easily outpace them when it comes to endurance.

I defy you to find a man that could carry and birth a child.
(Edit: I'm going to smack anybody who plays the smartarse and links up that 'pregnant man'
)

Anyways... when we take the Bible and its influence out of the equation, most spiritual traditions beleived that woman were inherantly more spiritual men, specifically because they did menstrate and conceive children... thus carrying to power to create life... and in the process facing their own mortality. It was considered a very powerful thing: for instance the Aztecs beleived that the only people who got to the true Heaven were men who died on the battlefield and women who died in labor.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by asmeone2]


I defy you to find a man that would have a baby. I have heard some say they would like to know what it is like but when push comes to shove they wouldn't do it. (pun not intended lol)

As far as how the bible feels about women I can't really say as my bible knowledge is limited. But in order to maintain "man" we only need a few men and lots of women.


[edit on 10/11/2008 by Blogstalker]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Maybe I am missing something, but wouldn't a society totally dominated by any specific gender (in this day and age) be totally stupid?

In my opinion, women who want a female dominated society are insecure and lonely and angry and bitter . In my opinion, men who want a male dominated society are insecure and lonely and angry and bitter. Just look at some of the posts by men in this thread about bitchiness, and look at some of the posts I've seen on threads about men being idiots.

Hate to break this to the men of the world, but all women aren't bitchy and weak and moody and over-emotional.

Hate to break this to the women of the world, but all men aren't pigs and sexists and brutes and idiots.

Guess what? Women can make a life and be happy without a man. And, men can make a life and be happy without a woman. But, things are a helluva lot better when the right man and the right woman get together and build a life together by working together. Same thing goes with the world....

Let's work together instead of working against each other.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Great points skeptic1, a nice balance would be great. Need a few more women to step up and a few more men to move over. Checks and balances.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blogstalker

I defy you to find a man that would have a baby.


Good ol' Arnie in the film Junior


Ah, if only the OP stated his original intentions - sometimes I need people to explain what they mean a little more in depth (the whole intention and not a one liner which then confuses me....ah, I'm easily confused!) Ah well!

Personally, with the same amount of training, any female can be as strong as a male, given that they go through the same and no cut corners to allowed to females... I'm all for equal opportunities me!



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   


Ah, if only the OP stated his original intentions - sometimes I need people to explain what they mean a little more in depth (the whole intention and not a one liner which then confuses me....ah, I'm easily confused!) Ah well!


What I am talking about is society where women rule and men are second tier citizens. Or conversely, men would rule and women would be second tier citizens. This would include sexual bondage. the ability to legally control sexually the other sex.

For example, laws would be enacted to dictate such every day things such as dress and what kind of job you have. The problem with such a system is that eventually labor shortages would occur and the other sex would essentially gain the upper hand.

Also, the ruling class would be bypassed after a period of time when it would be necessary for one sex to give the other sex the tools needed to advance economies.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mabus325
 


What would be the point?

What good would come from it....it would only separate people even more.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Isn't the key-BALANCE? Isn't that why God/Nature/Universe
made male and female? Yin and Yang? Seems to me that's the way to go..



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Annnnd.... I guess I went on too long with too much informative responding, since one person responded and all the women ignored my comments.

The Short of it.... I agree that no singular form of people should rule. Men, Women, Black, White, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Rich or Poor.

Because whether you like the stereotypes or not, they exist for a reason; there are enough people that behave that way as to propogate the stereotype.

And so, a Gynocracy probably would involve some of the elements that seem like "Misogynist" points of view. After all, doesn't an All male Government already contain many accurate depictions of Misandry?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
What, we don't have a gynocracy now?????


LIARS!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Critical_Mass
What, we don't have a gynocracy now?????


LIARS!!!!!!



I think what we have is more along the lines of an idiocracy.

(Heavy emphasis on the intended oxymoron...)

Pull, oxen, pull...!!



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
No, we will never have a gynocracy.

Humans are pretty flexible when it comes to social arrangements, but a society ruled by women, in which men are slaves, is the complete inverse of the default human condition.

The default human condition is polygyny, with dominant males cornering most of the mating opportunities, even maintaining harems whenever resources and the state of power relations between males in the group permit it. Females have no status except what they gain from their mates and their suitability for breeding purposes.

Over the millennia we have been able to change and adapt ourselves to some degree (polygyny is now more likely to be serial and females play a wide range of parts in society), but the complete male-female role-reversal of gynocracy would, I think, be rather too much for Homo Sapiens in its present unreconstructed form.

I believe some African tribe was reported to be gynocratic. But anthropology is such a suspect discipline it's hard to believe anything written by anthropologists before, say, the end of the twentieth century.

However, there are human societies in which women have unusual power due to matrilineal inheritance laws. The Minangkabau people of Sumatra and the Kandyans of Ceylon were among them. The Kandyans, a mountain people, actually practised polyandry together with matrilineal inheritance in order to preserve family rice lands from subdivision.

Still, none of this is ever going to stop men - bigger, stronger, more aggressive and designed by evolution to duck parental responsibilities and spread their seed as widely as possible - from asserting their privileges as the stronger sex and their instinct for dominance.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I don't believe a gynocracy would be a viable option.
What most of the posters are overlooking is that men and women each have their place in society, because men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. Women tend to be great managers. Don't believe it? Look at a housewife, one who does not work outside the home.
She has to be a dietician, chef, laundress, seamstress, teacher, nurse, maid, plus about a hundred other jobs. Being a housewife is one of the most underappreciated, and definitely the most underpaid job in the world.
It is my belief that the equality movement is a large portion of the reason for the breakdown of society.
Children are turned over to strangers tol be raised. Most women don't realize that they don't realize very much from their paychecks but the time they pay for daycare, gas for a second vehicle, A single parent obviously has to have income.)
And in case your wondering, my wife is a fulltime housewife. We don't miss her paycheck. We're getting by okay.
Maybe more people should give it a try.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
gynocracy...

...gynocracy...

......gynotopia......

..gynocentricism....

.............gynolicious.............

......gynonater.......

...gyno...

mmmm...gyno...

I just like saying gyno...


Right up their with Busom...


Oddly, before I was ummm....better socialized I sweared I was in a gynocracy with how women walked all over me...

haha, just had a bunch of crazy memories come flooding back.

These crazy posters...putting the "sex" back in "sexist" 'insert quagmire laugh'




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join