Would the world be different if TPTB were all women instead of men?

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I can't believe anyone still thinks like this!

And history shows that women have almost always been successful and more loved by their people.

Take Cleopatra for instance, she was an extremely successful ruler and extremely intelligent, granted she lost Egypt to Rome, but really who didn't see that coming. She was a powerful women that truly did everything a man would and could. Yet today she is seen as a whore that traded Caesar for Anthony. No one knows that she truly loved them and to Cleopatra, caring anyone else's children but the Great Caesar and Anthony would not suffice.

Other than that, from what archeology has found of cultures before 6000BC, women were very succeful and benelovent leaders and there weren't even "leaders." There was a balance between the sexes that was kept and respected. After 6000BC, or our "accepted" history, is when patriarchy went into full swing as did war, mass production, organized religion, and slavery.

The world would be much different if there were a BALANCE.

This thread is disappointing, it really shows how far we have come...and it's 2010. We have had at least 8,000 years to learn and we still haven't learned to get along, how disgustingly sexist this thread is...on both sides of the aisle. I'm a 21 year old female by the way.

It's time to learn that BALANCE between the sexes is the the key, is truth, is the answer.

Too much of masculine or famine leads to trouble.

The first step to achieving balance is RESPECT, which there is a clear lack of.

Especially from you Sherlock Holmes...read some books.

It's about intelligence, character and leadership.
These traits are not gender based.

The one advantage women generally have is that we have more aptitude for subtle communication.
Sometimes being a good communicator can enable one to avoid violent disputes.
However a male leader can get this benefit by luck, practice or by having a good female adviser.

Ideally both sexes should be working together in leadership roles, as the figurehead, of whichever gender, will always need much support.

The differences in behaviour between the genders is mainly cultural, they learn different ways to achieve what they want.


Of course, if it was all about gender, we could get the best of both sexes by choosing a person of what some have called the third gender, XXY.

cant help...this idea scares me ^^

dont know why....its like an invasion from outer space :S....i think i would be more happy about aliens



dont hate me women :/

Originally posted by SlyFox_79
This thread is disappointing, it really shows how far we have come...and it's 2010. We have had at least 8,000 years to learn and we still haven't learned to get along, how disgustingly sexist this thread is...on both sides of the aisle. I'm a 21 year old female by the way.

It's time to learn that BALANCE between the sexes is the the key, is truth, is the answer.

Too much of masculine or famine leads to trouble.

The first step to achieving balance is RESPECT, which there is a clear lack of.

Especially from you Sherlock Holmes...read some books.

Couldn't agree more, well said. I think it's absolutely shocking that people still have pig-ignorant sexist attitudes in this day and age. Mind you, it's not all that shocking when you look at the state the world is in.

reply to post by SlyFox_79


It never helps an argument to exaggerate. They were just as loved not any more or less. Cleopatra was a tyranical murderer just like the leaders of today. There are better examples like rosa parks or Susan b Anthony. Real heroes

reply to post by doobydoll


If you think we scrap now!? The mystery of what women want is the ultimate mystery. When I worked in forensic corrections the female inmates scrapped way more than the men! Just taunting the ladies...
Seriously, I think that both sexes make the same mistakes. We're equally stupid and greedy.

If women ruled, I think there's be a lot more sacred caves than obelisks littered around the planet. That, and every third week would be hell week.

reply to post by doobydoll


For Better me thinks....not sure how much worse men culd muck it up!

Originally posted by NorEaster
If women ruled, I think there's be a lot more sacred caves than obelisks littered around the planet. That, and every third week would be hell week.

That said, if it weren't for women, men would be f*cking dogs and eating their own poop for the protein residue that one of them would've figured out is still in there - "so as not to let it go to waste". The natural order of communal humanity features women as the ones handed the problems to work out, and men as the implementers of the decisions that the women make to address those problems. This is how the nuclear family always works, and this is how the family clan works and this is how all naturally formed human units of community work. It's only when community organization involves the potential for money to be made that men take charge (and take a dump on everything as a result).

Humanity almost was wiped out about 10,000 years ago, and since then, fear has changed the way that large-scale community is structured. Men (the natural implementation agents of the two genders) blamed women (the natural leaders of the two genders) for that harrowing brush with extinction, and the patriarchal society emerged. It's been a mess ever since. Men have no natural capacity for making decisions based on the best interest of the community at large. Their biological focus is just not naturally designed for such an application.

reply to post by NorEaster


Sorry but that is utter Feminist bull#. There is a male and female for a reason but it does not garner supremacy. Not to mention the bigoted ethnocentric view you present. Try some real anthropology it requires an etic and Emic point of view. "society" wasn't only in Mesopotamia. Yet everyone seems to present it that way. China and mesoameric have just as much society that dates back more than 10,000 years.

Originally posted by doobydoll
If women were put in charge of everything - governments, corporations, banking, ecology, economy, military etc., would things be different? And how would things be different?

...it would depend upon how those women were raised... if they were raised by greedy supremacist pigs, then things would be no different than they are now...

...what we need are leaders (female, male and any variation thereof) that were raised to be socially minded, religiously tolerant, racially blind, fair and compassionate - then, things could be a lot better than they are now... maybe one day...

To be perfectly honest, I think it would be worse.

I'm not talking about leadership skills, I'm talking about deliberately conspiring to deceive others against their own interests.

We all know which gender is better at this.

reply to post by doobydoll


We would be bigger slaves to the system than we already are. And I bet the women would all be housewives.

Also, probably no thongs, or sexy outfits Life would be DULL AND PINK

Two words...Indira Gandhi.

This is a female that ruled as head of state in a country run by men. India. Check out her information at the link below:

en.wikipedia.org...

I suggest this because it could be used as a blue print as to the "what if" proposed here by the OP.

My personal belief is that balance between male and female ideologies is what is needed. With that would come compromise, and the best of both worlds.

Male or female...black or white...up or down...one can not reach a balance point without COMPROMISE and WISDOM to understand that no one and nothing is better than the other. We are all different...but at the base level we all want the same thing...we are all connected, are we not?

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Wow.

Well, "as a rule" women are often found at the leading edge of social change - Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks. Not to mention these ladies who could take care of business.

Emmeline Pankhurst and the suffragettes, as well.

All of the social change that these women may have instigated, was implemented by men.

I'm not saying that women don't have a valuable contribution to society. It's just that they, as a rule, aren't cut out for responsible leadership.

That is all.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...it would depend upon how those women were raised... if they were raised by greedy supremacist pigs, then things would be no different than they are now...

So are you saying that women are brainless robots, whose opinions and beliefs are easily moulded and sculpted by influential people who surround them...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...what we need are leaders (female, male and any variation thereof) that were raised to be socially minded, religiously tolerant, racially blind, fair and compassionate - then, things could be a lot better than they are now... maybe one day...

LOL.

Good luck with finding any of those...

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
And it's my opinion that men aren't cut out for responsible leadership because they let their need to be alpha male and to stroke their own ego get in the way of properly serving their communities.

Maybe so, on occasions.

However, men, in general, can make a decent effort of leading and ruling; I'm not sure the same can be said for women.

Originally posted by SlyFox_79
I can't believe anyone still thinks like this!

You better believe it !

Originally posted by SlyFox_79
And history shows that women have almost always been successful and more loved by their people.

With respect, that's bollocks.

History shows that people are happy when resources are abundant, regardless of the gender of their leader or leaders.

Originally posted by SlyFox_79
Take Cleopatra for instance, she was an extremely successful ruler and extremely intelligent, granted she lost Egypt to Rome, but really who didn't see that coming. She was a powerful women that truly did everything a man would and could. Yet today she is seen as a whore that traded Caesar for Anthony. No one knows that she truly loved them and to Cleopatra, caring anyone else's children but the Great Caesar and Anthony would not suffice.

A lot of the 'history' that surrounds Cleopatra is over-dramatised and apocryphal.

It is very difficult to gauge the accuracy of any stories that may surround her reign.


I've heard that she was apparently quite fit.

Originally posted by SlyFox_79
Other than that, from what archeology has found of cultures before 6000BC, women were very succeful and benelovent leaders and there weren't even "leaders." There was a balance between the sexes that was kept and respected. After 6000BC, or our "accepted" history, is when patriarchy went into full swing as did war, mass production, organized religion, and slavery.

The world would be much different if there were a BALANCE.

There is a balance nowadays.

Men and women compliment each other wonderfully.


It's just that women aren't really suitable for responsible leadership in a modern-day society.

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Sorry but that is utter Feminist bull#. There is a male and female for a reason but it does not garner supremacy. Not to mention the bigoted ethnocentric view you present. Try some real anthropology it requires an etic and Emic point of view. "society" wasn't only in Mesopotamia. Yet everyone seems to present it that way. China and mesoameric have just as much society that dates back more than 10,000 years.

Okay, 70,000 years ago - at least the 1st that we're aware of....

news.bbc.co.uk...

The truth is that all you need to do is look at the nuclear family unit - and especially the extended family unit - to immediately see the natural organizational, leadership structure that always develops. It gets even more obvious as each gender ages. Women never lose their capacity for interpersonal influence and control, whereas men tend to become more and more psychologically isolative as they age. The more "feminine" the culture, the less obvious it is, but the difference between how the male reacts to community and how the female reacts to community is consistent regardless of the culture.

I'm a humanist. I'm not a feminist or a masculinist. We do each have our strengths and weaknesses. If I was a hand, I would be content with being the best hand I could be, and wouldn't resent a foot for being able to do what I'm not designed to do. Maybe, when I was younger I would've been concerned that I couldn't support the entire body in the same manner that the foot can, but I've come to realize that I don't have to be good, or even capable, at everything. I only have to be the best version of what I am, and offer the best of what I am naturally gifted with. Anything else is just me trying to compete with other people, and for what?

I appreciate the few men who have the feminine qualities required to not make a mess of governing an entire society. Some men have been particularly talented, and we all know who those men are. Statesmen, we call them. What's made them great is their ability to restrain the biological pre-disposition that causes men to draw in and protect what they have against rivals. The "leaders of men" who've become famous due to their military accomplishments are also to be admired, but generally speaking, putting such men behind a statehouse desk is like hitching a Lamborghini up to a flatbed and hauling freight cross-country. Sure the horsepower is there, but the application of all that power would just be wrong for too many reasons. Being the wrong person for a job is not a slam against that person. Lamborghinis do just fine when they're properly applied.