Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What if females were the dominant sex?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 1:50:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I wonder how life would be if we were a matriarchal society.

Would we have ended up with this, say, 8 hr workday with 2 days off a week? Would our lives be defined by our career, job, salary, etc.?

Wars? Technology? Art?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 2:02:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It would not be much different, they would still all get in a flap and need to get a man to sort it out for them. The only difference is that they would be even less polite and grateful for it. But they would probably be happier.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 2:12:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 1:50:36 PM, Indophile wrote:
I wonder how life would be if we were a matriarchal society.

Would we have ended up with this, say, 8 hr workday with 2 days off a week? Would our lives be defined by our career, job, salary, etc.?

Wars? Technology? Art?

DUDE.

You're not married, are you?

(please answer quick so I can delete this before my wife finds it)
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 3:34:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 2:12:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:50:36 PM, Indophile wrote:
I wonder how life would be if we were a matriarchal society.

Would we have ended up with this, say, 8 hr workday with 2 days off a week? Would our lives be defined by our career, job, salary, etc.?

Wars? Technology? Art?

DUDE.

You're not Jewish, are you?

(please answer quick so I can delete this before my mom finds it)
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 3:44:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 3:34:15 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/11/2011 2:12:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:50:36 PM, Indophile wrote:
I wonder how life would be if we were a matriarchal society.

Would we have ended up with this, say, 8 hr workday with 2 days off a week? Would our lives be defined by our career, job, salary, etc.?

Wars? Technology? Art?

DUDE.

You're not Jewish, are you?

(please answer quick so I can delete this before my mom finds it)

You help make my point.

Wives and moms (and especially attractive women) already control the universe. They just pretend to non-cognizant of the fact.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 4:44:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 1:50:36 PM, Indophile wrote:
I wonder how life would be if we were a matriarchal society.

Would we have ended up with this, say, 8 hr workday with 2 days off a week? Would our lives be defined by our career, job, salary, etc.?

Wars? Technology? Art?:

Erase any notion out of your mind that females are the softer, gentler sex because it's simply not true.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 4:53:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 3:44:21 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/11/2011 3:34:15 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/11/2011 2:12:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:50:36 PM, Indophile wrote:
I wonder how life would be if we were a matriarchal society.

Would we have ended up with this, say, 8 hr workday with 2 days off a week? Would our lives be defined by our career, job, salary, etc.?

Wars? Technology? Art?

DUDE.

You're not Jewish, are you?

(please answer quick so I can delete this before my mom finds it)

You help make my point.

Wives and moms (and especially attractive women) already control the universe. They just pretend to non-cognizant of the fact.\
Exactly woman already are in charge they jut let us think they aren't
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 4:59:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 4:09:47 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/11/2011 3:51:24 PM, Lasagna wrote:
What if women weren't the dominant sex?

This

double this
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 5:08:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever f*ck things up like this." ~George Carlin
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:20:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Define "The dominant sex."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:39:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:20:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Define "The dominant sex."

Well, you know, the fact that men seem to have made all the rules, at least till very recently, just because of their superior strength.

Even now, it's men who are a majority in positions of power.

That kind of dominance.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:42:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 4:44:50 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:50:36 PM, Indophile wrote:
I wonder how life would be if we were a matriarchal society.

Would we have ended up with this, say, 8 hr workday with 2 days off a week? Would our lives be defined by our career, job, salary, etc.?

Wars? Technology? Art?:

Erase any notion out of your mind that females are the softer, gentler sex because it's simply not true.

You are not getting my drift. I never implied they were softer or gentler. Just how our time would've been divided up.

For example, considering that women are the only ones who can bear children, wouldn't everbody's life have revolved around their specific bodily functions.

Holidays when they are having periods, holidays around when they are having a child, etc. etc.

The skills in which they are superior would be given more weightage. It won't be the strongest warrior who would be the chief (which is the case with men), but well....I hope you get my drift now.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:47:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:39:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:20:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Define "The dominant sex."

Well, you know, the fact that men seem to have made all the rules, at least till very recently, just because of their superior strength.

Even now, it's men who are a majority in positions of power.

That kind of dominance.:

What if it is more indicative of a natural pattern and not quite so indicative of a patriarchal society intentionally trying to keep females shackled to a kitchen with just enough slack to reach the bedroom? Behold the animal kingdom. I think we forget that human beings are animals too, and we cannot overstate the significance of hormonal disparaties that are of no fault of men or women.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:55:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:47:10 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:39:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:20:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Define "The dominant sex."

Well, you know, the fact that men seem to have made all the rules, at least till very recently, just because of their superior strength.

Even now, it's men who are a majority in positions of power.

That kind of dominance.:

What if it is more indicative of a natural pattern and not quite so indicative of a patriarchal society intentionally trying to keep females shackled to a kitchen with just enough slack to reach the bedroom? Behold the animal kingdom. I think we forget that human beings are animals too, and we cannot overstate the significance of hormonal disparaties that are of no fault of men or women.

Yet some animals manage to keep women in positions of power. Elephants for example. Bull elephants are kicked out from the group and left to fend for themselves. Their society is a female dominated one.

I know it's played out this way in humans. I was just wondering if it had played out the other way. Maybe men were kicked out of the group at puberty. What then?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:57:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:39:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:20:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Define "The dominant sex."

Well, you know, the fact that men seem to have made all the rules, at least till very recently, just because of their superior strength

Even now, it's men who are a majority in positions of power.
It doesn't seem there's a clearly defined context that would reverse this, and you need that to make an answer to your question seem coherent. This is an effect, not a cause.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:58:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know it's played out this way in humans. I was just wondering if it had played out the other way. Maybe men were kicked out of the group at puberty. What then?

Humans aren't herd animals.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:59:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Women could be the dominant sex. Most are just too distracted to realize it, or aren't good enough at exploiting it. The ones who are fascinate me :P
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:03:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:47:10 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I think we forget that human beings are animals too, and we cannot overstate the significance of hormonal disparaties that are of no fault of men or women.

I agree. It's also hilarious to me when people suggest that "men are rational while women are emotional," as men are far more likely to overreact out of anger which of course is a hormonal (emotional) occurrence. Men are just as subject to their emotions as women; people just think that "sensitivity" translates to weakness which doesn't really follow. Also studies show that men are often just as sensitive as women, though simply express (or rather don't express) it differently.
President of DDO
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:04:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:57:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:39:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:20:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Define "The dominant sex."

Well, you know, the fact that men seem to have made all the rules, at least till very recently, just because of their superior strength

Even now, it's men who are a majority in positions of power.
It doesn't seem there's a clearly defined context that would reverse this, and you need that to make an answer to your question seem coherent. This is an effect, not a cause.

Yes, there is no context. We'd have to make up one.

For example, during our hunting/gathering days, suppose due to some quirk, it was not physical strength and agility that was required, but whatever it is that females are better at inherently (I'm no expert, but I'd say caring for children, keeping family bonds, etc.) were the traits that were needed for humanity to survive.

That would be the context which would then put females in positions of power.

Thus, the what if scenario.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:11:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:58:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I know it's played out this way in humans. I was just wondering if it had played out the other way. Maybe men were kicked out of the group at puberty. What then?

Humans aren't herd animals.

Even in the initial stages? Herding could be voluntary too, which it was initially with the tribal system.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:20:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 7:04:39 PM, Indophile wrote:

Yes, there is no context. We'd have to make up one.

For example, during our hunting/gathering days, suppose due to some quirk, it was not physical strength and agility that was required, but whatever it is that females are better at inherently (I'm no expert, but I'd say caring for children, keeping family bonds, etc.) were the traits that were needed for humanity to survive.
Both were needed for humanity to survive. This is irrelevant to who makes the rules.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:25:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 7:11:30 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:58:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I know it's played out this way in humans. I was just wondering if it had played out the other way. Maybe men were kicked out of the group at puberty. What then?

Humans aren't herd animals.

Even in the initial stages? Herding could be voluntary too, which it was initially with the tribal system.
We already have the word tribe for that, not herd.

Tribes kicking out all males at puberty would defeat the point of having a tribe. The point behind a tribe is to kill rival tribes or at one point large, dangerous, but prey animals such as mammoths.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:37:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 7:20:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/11/2011 7:04:39 PM, Indophile wrote:

Yes, there is no context. We'd have to make up one.

For example, during our hunting/gathering days, suppose due to some quirk, it was not physical strength and agility that was required, but whatever it is that females are better at inherently (I'm no expert, but I'd say caring for children, keeping family bonds, etc.) were the traits that were needed for humanity to survive.
Both were needed for humanity to survive. This is irrelevant to who makes the rules.

Yes, both were needed. Only one was needed more than the other. In fact, one was dependent on the other.

Only if one was safe would one be able to have children, etc.

If the level of danger was relatively low, like it is now, we would have seen women hold power oftener, as we are seeing now.

In fact, taking today's conditions as a starting point, it's not hard to envisage a future society where females would be the dominant sex.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:55:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 7:37:02 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/11/2011 7:20:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/11/2011 7:04:39 PM, Indophile wrote:

Yes, there is no context. We'd have to make up one.

For example, during our hunting/gathering days, suppose due to some quirk, it was not physical strength and agility that was required, but whatever it is that females are better at inherently (I'm no expert, but I'd say caring for children, keeping family bonds, etc.) were the traits that were needed for humanity to survive.
Both were needed for humanity to survive. This is irrelevant to who makes the rules.

Yes, both were needed. Only one was needed more than the other. In fact, one was dependent on the other.
They were interdependent, one was not needed more than the other.

If the level of danger was relatively low, like it is now, we would have seen women hold power oftener, as we are seeing now.
Humans dont need an evolutionary environment to provide dangers, they make their own when danger isn't provided. Power is something people seek in dangerous ways, it isn't just automatically handed to the valuable people.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 8:08:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 7:55:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/11/2011 7:37:02 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/11/2011 7:20:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/11/2011 7:04:39 PM, Indophile wrote:

Yes, there is no context. We'd have to make up one.

For example, during our hunting/gathering days, suppose due to some quirk, it was not physical strength and agility that was required, but whatever it is that females are better at inherently (I'm no expert, but I'd say caring for children, keeping family bonds, etc.) were the traits that were needed for humanity to survive.
Both were needed for humanity to survive. This is irrelevant to who makes the rules.

Yes, both were needed. Only one was needed more than the other. In fact, one was dependent on the other.
They were interdependent, one was not needed more than the other.

Okay. I guess the ones who were able to enforce the rules made them up. Men, in this case.


If the level of danger was relatively low, like it is now, we would have seen women hold power oftener, as we are seeing now.
Humans dont need an evolutionary environment to provide dangers, they make their own when danger isn't provided. Power is something people seek in dangerous ways, it isn't just automatically handed to the valuable people.

I would think that if ever power was handed out, it would be to the valuable people. Hardly would valuable people seek/grab power. People who do so are probably not the best ones to wield that power.

And anyway, no amount of seeking power would ensure that power remains with them, unless they have a means of stopping other people from usurping that power.

To put this in context to our thread, I'd say that ultimately power will reside with those who provide more value. Society has undergone a sea change in the millennia since hunting/gathering and the value provided by males seem to be eroding.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 8:21:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Okay. I guess the ones who were able to enforce the rules made them up. Men, in this case.
More or less.

I would think that if ever power was handed out, it would be to the valuable people.
Power isn't handed out so it's moot

Hardly would valuable people seek/grab power. People who do so are probably not the best ones to wield that power.
At least the ones who seek it are likely to have thought of what to do with it. This means that class will include the best and the worst :).


And anyway, no amount of seeking power would ensure that power remains with them, unless they have a means of stopping other people from usurping that power.
That means is called.... drumroll please... being the best at seeking power :P


To put this in context to our thread, I'd say that ultimately power will reside with those who provide more value.
Then the result of your "what if" is that we live in a fairy tale world before we even consider the gender relations. Anything else you want to know about it?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 8:59:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 7:04:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:57:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:39:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/11/2011 6:20:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Define "The dominant sex."

Well, you know, the fact that men seem to have made all the rules, at least till very recently, just because of their superior strength

Even now, it's men who are a majority in positions of power.
It doesn't seem there's a clearly defined context that would reverse this, and you need that to make an answer to your question seem coherent. This is an effect, not a cause.

Yes, there is no context. We'd have to make up one.

For example, during our hunting/gathering days, suppose due to some quirk, it was not physical strength and agility that was required, but whatever it is that females are better at inherently (I'm no expert, but I'd say caring for children, keeping family bonds, etc.) were the traits that were needed for humanity to survive.

That would be the context which would then put females in positions of power.

Thus, the what if scenario.

Reply: If you have ever studied old world culture you would find that woman had a lot of influence throughout the community. In many tribes the men were indeed the leaders, but only the woman could vote on who the leaders would be. Also, a woman's ability to give birth was held in the highest regard during those times.

Opinion: In our younger culture societies, we tend to downplay the significance of woman in general. Old world traditional values give a lot of positive influence towards maintaining an efficient cycle of life and happiness. A man and a woman are designed differently and they should take different roles in the family structure. Modern society seems to be losing touch with these basic essentials.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."