Women Rule? A World Without Men
81
Men fear, and some feminists have joyously awaited the day when we no longer need men in our societies. Instead we can reproduce through the wonders of science, and live in a golden age of peace and prosperity, presumably because, having gotten rid of men, we will no longer have all that angry war and greed around the place.
Here's why I think that is less likely than highly advanced aliens coming to the planet to get relationship advice from Dr Phil.
There will always be aggressive and war like women. Don't forget, the military used to be men only, but women actually fought for the right to go to war as well, and not just as nurses and doctors and support staff, but as point and shoot fighters. It's a fallacy to think that women would not engage in wars, Margaret Thatcher already disproved that notion when Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982.
Wars are fought over one thing – territory, and women are just as territorial as men, if not more so.
I don't think a world without men wouldn't work because women couldn't fulfill traditional male roles, I think it wouldn't work any better than the current system, because women could quite easily fulfill traditional male roles, with all the horrors that come with them.
I also don't think we'd get rid of men for one, very simple reason. Women like men. We have evolved in tandem with men, and we are, on the whole attracted to them for the very traits we whine about. It's no new idea that women choose to mate with 'bad boys' and then have relationships with 'nice guys'. If we didn't like males and strong, yes even sometimes aggressive male traits, we wouldn't have deliberately selected for them over thousands of years.
They theory that idyllic female only societies will one day exist actually perpetuates the myth that woman are sweet, demure, loving creatures who like to potter about making the world a better place. The truth is, it is because many women employ (not in a fiscal sense, though in a real sense none the less) men to act as their protectors, that they can then potter about, raising children, crocheting lap rugs and painting pottery without having to worry too much. They can afford to be vulnerable and sweet, because the need for them to display aggression is gone.
We have placed men in the roles of both aggressor and protector, and then we get mad at them when they fulfill these roles too well, or when these impulses are deployed inappropriately.
One could even say, (and plenty people have said,) that the women's liberation movement actually stripped away much of the protections women had built up around themselves. Having a system where it was accepted that women stayed home and men went out and earned the money and defended the family seemed to be unfair to the woman who was being 'deprived her hopes and dreams', but it also allowed her the freedom to raise her children without worrying about how she was going to feed them or how she was going to protect them. Of course, the system was not perfect, and personally, as a woman I am glad that I have the option to be able to create a career, though I've personally elected to make that one as far away from the traditional work force as humanly possible.
We think we're so modern, but I don't know that we truly are. Women, on the whole, still prefer men with good jobs and healthy, masculine bodies. I honestly believe that 99% of the relationship problems that men who wear lingerie and cross dress have stems from the fact that women see these men, on a primal level, as not being able to protect or provide for them. Now that's not true, but it is how they are being perceived on a very deep level.
Men make women feel good. Even the most empowered, self actualized, career driven woman, can still find enjoyment in the company of a man. Women don't fight men for power very often because they don't want it. That's probably going to be a controversial statement, but its way down here at the bottom of the page, so it probably won't be read as much, but it is, I believe, true. Women like to leave things up to men, and what is interpreted as having 'power' is really men working for women.
No we don't 'need' men, but we want them. They make us feel loved, secure and protected, and they seem to enjoy doing a great deal of the work which many women just don't want to do.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (2)
- Funny
- Awesome (4)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (2)
CommentsLoading...
I can't believe you read it all either. Heck, I can't believe I wrote the whole thing. We both deserve a prize.
I can't believe that I read the whole thing. I even went back and reread most of it, and I even agree with most of it.
Hope- another great Hub.
That's two people who read the whole thing! Also, two people that can't believe they read the whole thing. This must appear a very daunting hub when you start it from the top :D
YES it is!
A very creative and well written Hub. After losing two teeth trying to stop a fight between 2 female students I can vouch for the fact that there are very aggressive women on this earth!........brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
You lost two teeth? Damn, that's excessive.
RAmen! I want you too, Hope :)
There is a great distance between
1. "women rule" and
2. "a world without men."
Like you, I highly doubt 2 would work well. You cite enough reasons.
However, as I point out elsewhere, our planet was for the longest time and still is for the most part "a man's world." While women in the West and perhaps elsewhere have made great strides, we see in the US large disparities in pay FOR THE SAME WORK, at least in many private companies. Look at our political bodies: House, Senate and Judiciary. Women in places of power remain a minority. In private industry they call it the glass ceiling.
I have no scientific proof, but I contend male leaders have messed things up quite a bit. Like take the recent or ongoing financial meltdown. Any women CEOs involved that you can name? Or how about Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Saddam Hussein and the lot of 20th century male tyrants? I would have added Richard Cheney and George W Bush to the first list, but that might provoke another food fight altogether. Not to forget the Catholic Church. Ever hear of Hildegard von Bingen?
I for one would be willing to see what the 'lassies' could do.
Cool Hub....A Sgt. Major of the Army once told me that he trained women for battle. He said that women were ruthless fighters and as good as men when it came to being soldiers. The only problem was that women didn't survive as well as men. They were far less cautious and charged into fire to help a friend instead of waiting for the right time. He tried explaining to them that if you are dead, you can't help anyone.
He noted: Some of the women did get better at being cautious and all were good soldiers.
Nat, people danced when Margaret Thatcher died. She was was Prime Minister during the greatest rise in poverty and unemployment in modern history in Britain. She crushed the unions, and sold off state assets. There are places in the UK where people will still fly into a rage at the mere mention of her name.
Oh, and when Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska, she made women pay for their own rape kits. She would have removed women's right to abortions if given the chance. Having failed in the VP bid, she quit being governor of Alaska mid term. God knows what she would have done if she made it in as VP. Apart from observe Russia from the Alaskan border, of course.
I don't think women are any worse than men, I just don't think gender makes you better. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead.
Also, saying that you'd like to see what the 'lassies' could do is incredibly condescending. India, Pakistan, New Zealand, the UK and many other countries in the world have had 'lassies' running them for some time. They're no different than men.
Hope,
If I gave the impression that gender makes one better, I am sorry. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. I don't think either gender is inherently better.
I am sorry you took some offense at the word 'lassies.' The word was a reference to the Robert Burns poem "Green grow the rashes, o'.
Not to defend either Mrs. Thatcher or Mrs. Palin, but they were elected with large majorities. Mrs. Thatcher was re-elected several times over, I believe.
As for India, Pakistan, New Zealand and the UK, I would respond that until females make up a majority of parliaments, the judiciary and corporate leaders, one cannot that women have had their FAIR chance. Men have been in power for 4000 or more years.
Aha! You can't use GW Bush as an example of a bad male leader and then explain away Thatcher because she was re-elected. GW won by more the second time after he arguably stole the first election. Evil people are almost always popular.
As to the rest, I don't think women necessarily want to make up the majority of parliaments and whatnot. There's been a backlash in the female community over the past 10 years or so as women have realized that you can't actually wait until you're 40 to have kids and have a full time career and be there for them when they need you. Well, you can, but its hard. Women are now choosing to stay home more than they have in a long time.
Oh boy (just an expression, nothing gender-specific intended), more misunderstandings. My writing must be really sloppy. Sorry.
I was focusing more on the "Women rule" portion of the question rather than the second half -- NO men allowed.
I did not say or intend to say that women WANTED to be the majority in parliament, etc. I tried to say that "women rule" cannot really apply until they actually ARE in the majority of lawmakers, etc. And I would say not just for a 4 or 6 year term.
Perhaps we are disagreeing over the definition of "rule." I think you agree that for 4000 years life -- political, legal, cultural, economic, scientific, religious -- on earth among humans has been dominated ("ruled") by men. In my opinion women will not "rule" or dominate until they dominate those key areas. They may not want to do so and prefer to be stay-at-home moms or whatever they wish to be. And I am not saying being a stay-at-home mom or whatever is bad or inferior to a career-minded woman or a man.
As to GWB... There is some question (Ohio) as to whether GW Bush actually won the 2004 election. But, that aside, for some, for many, maybe even for a majority of people, Thatcher and Bush were "good" leaders. They won the majority of votes counted and that may not equate to the majority of the people. As I said or implied, I did not like Mrs Thatcher or Mr Bush as leaders or think they did the best things for their countries. I don't see why you chide me for throwing in Bush.
I am not sure I can agree with your statement about evil people being almost always popular. Certainly some are. Somethings that popularity may be based more on FEAR than anything else. People would not dare to object or critcize openly for fear of their life. Stalin, Hitler come to mind.
I view everyone on a personal level, not part of a group. So I think no matter how much you may not like some group, you might like people that fall in that group on personal level.
Nat, Hitler won by a freakin' landslide. People LOVED him. If it wasn't for the whole Holocaust thing, he would have been the most popular German leader ever. The difference is, GW got away with invading Iraq and killing several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians and didn't try to invade Russia in the winter. Hitler had bigger numbers, but anyone who smiles and lets people die is evil in my book.
I say we love evil people, because a great deal of people are attracted to the 'don't give a damn' charisma that evil people have. Even Charles Manson has fans.
I think you have your facts wrong. Quoting from a website
"The story of how Hitler became a dictator is set forth in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer, on which this article is based.
In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were:
Hindenburg 49.6 percent
Hitler 30.1 percent
Thaelmann 13.2 percent
Duesterberg 6.8 percent
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, almost 70 percent of the German people voted against Hitler, causing his supporter Joseph Goebbels, who would later become Hitler’s minister of propaganda, to lament in his journal, “We’re beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected.”
"
Agree some people will love an evil person.
MikeNV:
I agree about meeting people on an INDIVIDUAL basis.
So you don't think we can generalize about male v female behavior?
Hope great read. I agree 100% with you. Also agree 100% with the above Bush/Hitler comparison.
Hm, on closer inspection it seems that Germany really fucked up when it came to those elections.
Germany didn't have a two party system as the US does, they had what appears to be a 'klusterfuk' system, whereby things got so confusing trying to come by a majority that eventually Hitler was made chancellor of a coalition in an attempt for any political majority to exist. So Joseph Goebbels may have written that, but a year later, Hitler was chancellor. They weren't that beaten at all. Agreed that the public leaned significantly towards Hindenburg, though in the second round of elections in April, Hitler won 35% percent of the vote.
If Hindenburg hadn't kicked the bucket, history may have been quite different.
Then Hitler did an Ahmadinejad to the extreme, making the Nazi party the only legal party. (Now that's how you win an election.) And then saying that the death of the President called for the transfer of all power to Hitler.
Hitler was way more evil than Bush, or perhaps, far more resourceful and power hungry. I'm sure we're now way off the original topic.
Now this one I adore...gives kudos without complaint, and without degrading women's fulfillment of 'traditional' masculine roles. You are spot on about territory and aggression.
I'm loving these comments! Women rule=====>Bush=Hitler.
On the original subject though: I remember my dad always joking about wanting to have that 50's family dynamic where he was the head of the house and would come home to warm greetings and a nice hot meal. We had the meals, my mother is a great cook, but there was no doubt that she had my old man by the balls, and if something didn't fly with her, there would be hell to pay. I'm a little afraid of a world run like this. Don't get me wrong, I love women, but my mom scared the shit outta me sometimes.
Yeah, the comments have raged far from the initial issue, and no, Bush isn't Hitler. But he is an evil twat responsible for the deaths of many.
Katherine the Great, Elisabeth I, The Women on the Isle of Lesbos, and Hominy Jones who beat the crap out if me when I was 6. Good hub.
Of course Bush wasn't Hitler, he had neither the mustache nor the brains to pull that off.
There may have been a couple of other tiny differences between them, perhaps, on a good day, EdG :)
Ralwus, 'Hominy' is an awesome name.
Hominy is an awesome woman today too. LOL She now is Hominy Astrachan and 6' 2" tall.
To the subject of the original discussion I think that you talk about exactly why women in many cases (not all of course) don't have equal pay and that is that they do not desire or feel that they have a roll to fulfill which is either required or expected of them. Many men who feel that their jobs do not pay well etc will simply quit and find something different leaving an employer to ask 'why do my trained people not stay' which has nothing to do with wheather or not its a woman or man.
I think if this happened more often more employers would say 'I need to pay women as much as the men so they dont leave' On the other hand one must be careful how stats are compiled simply because a woman does the same work does not mean she deserves as much money as the man who does the same thing for 20 years longer and has more experience doing it than she does. Same as with men.
Good hub I enjoyed it.....all the way to the end I might add.
great article hope!
as for the "women rule" argument.
i don't think women would do it any better than men have. Also i dont think women will ever hold a majority. Because men are not faced with the choice of career vs devoted parenthood we chase harder and do not sacrifice as much of our careers where as women will have to make a choice and if they make the choice to follow their careers to the pinnacle of power that we are talking they can be just as good of leaders or better than any given man.
but it is simple statistics that if you have less women vying for the top levels of power less will get there even if it is completely merit based.
Though I think your Cause de Guerre was off by a few degrees, I have to say that for the most part, you made an excellent argument with several good points, Hope.
An all woman society would still be divided into roles whether we labeled them masculine or feminine or not. Nature needs balance, so simply see everyone as an individual, repect their differences, but focus on the similarities. Conflict arises from focusing on the differences. Gender does not matter in the least. The world is shifting from a masculine based system to a feminine system in order to create balance. We need care and compassion in the world now, or we will soon not have a world to discuss.
Oh really? What should my Cause de Guerre be? :D
it wouldn't be good without men, and we came first not women frankly it wouldn't be good with all men either
I enjoyed arguements more than your hub. Naturally men have been dominating in every age. It can't be believable that one day women will dominate the male society.
Upal, it's pretty obvious that you read neither. You just read the title and left your silly misogynistic little blather down here without listening to what anyone said. Stop wasting everyone's time.
the world was meant to be equal. right now it's not war is going on and this isn't making anything better
Jeromeo Level 2 Commenter 2 years ago
Here, Here, Hope.
And I'll add to that.
If all men were gone what would garment makers do with all the extra lingerie & panties? lol
Great Hub. I can' t believe I read the whole thing.