Will women rule the world of the future

Taking cue from recently concluded Darren's thread, I would like to know what your thoughts are on this topic? :)

Here is a requote:

Adjust your jock strap, because here are some uncomfortable statistics (for men): More than 70 percent of last year's high school valedictorians had periods, 83 percent of the money spent on consumer goods last year came out of a purse and 75 percent of jobs created in the E.U. since 2000 have gone to people who can't even pee their own names in a snowbank.

Source : http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-women-will-rule-future/

When historians write about the great recession of 2007-08, they may very well have a new name for it: the MANCESSION.

(From NEWSWEEK article - http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/06/women-will-rule-the-world.html )

There is a device called a she-wee that gives women the ability to pee their name in a snowbank :)

I think these statistics just prove women are as capable and men. Success takes a few things.. luck (sometimes), hard work, determination and motivation. Those are gender neutral qualities. Tell a motivated individual they cant, and they will.

How about we stop talking about men and women and start talking about people?

And it's not a mancession, whatever that is. It's called equality.

"There is a device called a she-wee that gives women the ability to pee their name in a snowbank "
^ I wonder if that device allows them to shoot as far? :)

I would not be shocked with some pieces of the news, with the "hook up" culture in full swing! Here is a quote from a NY times book review:

"If you thought today's "hookup" culture was run by young testosterone-charged men who want sex and no commitment, think again. Rosin insists that women are often in charge and the primary beneficiaries." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/books/review/the-end-of-men-by-hanna-rosin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Now if they had a device in cars that allowed them to fix their faces without readjusting the rear view mirror the roads would be safer. :)

Women never could rule the world by themselves :

because men never did it either!! The world only could be ruled in coexistence and partnership.
Ruler is only the reflection in the superficial eyes.
All the rulers were rulers because: "BEHIND EVERY SUCCESSFUL MAN, THERE IS A WOMAN."
( for the rulers were successful ones, the losers could never rule.)
And in behind, the silent partner, the stronger ones ( always the silent partner is the stronger one~ like Laurel and Hardy.~) did not need to show off. They only ruled because they were strong enough to either rule through someone else, or just help ruling a better world.
After all, away from the superficial eyes, what the difference does it make who rules, if rulings are right??

Editted:

I need some sleep.

Yes you dosed yourself to sleep.

the lover: I love your almond eyes!!
the beloved: can I have some almond??

^^^Well! Let us examine this statement for a moment:

"Women never could rule the world by themselves "

^Many did, and very successfully beginning with the Pharaoh times to as recent as Queen Elizabeth II, without the meddling of their husbands.....

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/rulers.html
http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/rulers-more.html

This happens when you read just one sentence without its connection to the next!!

I left the distance on purpose .

"because men never did it either!! The world only could be ruled in coexistence and partnership.
Ruler is only the reflection in the superficial eyes.
All the rulers were rulers because: "BEHIND EVERY SUCCESSFUL MAN, THERE IS A WOMAN."

^Somehow the connection is not well made. You implied above that woman could never do it on their own! I would say MANY DID (widowers and single women) on the list in the links. So there is a little disagreement on the "absoluteness" of the statement made above.

Anyway, I would let others make their comment on this one and not contest it any more.

Moving on, it appears that men think with their "grey" and women process speedier with their "white" matter....a scientific truth revealed several years ago. Perhaps, the reason why (in general, exceptions are always there) women can speed through multiple tasks simultaneously(multitaskers), whereas men get stuck with one task (unitaskers). So from simple housework to complex administrative and business tasks, banking, supervision & organization, teaching, and many other fields they seem to excel, ever since they were given the opportunity for equal education (compared to ancient times).

When a society allows women to contribute all the personal and gender-based qualities given at birth is when it benefits to the max.

There was a time when Apartheid ruled in some parts of the world. I ask you: were they ever right in assuming colored people are inferior to those who happen to be born in areas where the sun shines less abundantly? Are they in assuming gender makes one inferior to the other?

I feel men have both a fear of the power women possess and also have a need to dominate due to the testosteron in their bodies. The more they have of that hormone, the more they feel the need to rule.

I feel the Bonone society is one that has some really great advantages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

We could learn something from this intelligent species!

Interesting matriarchal society, the bonobo's ....very different than chimpanzees. The alpha male, though still exhibits aggressive behavior during mating, due to high T-levels, when the female is receptive during the estrous cycle, which is almost daily!

EDIT (3-8-13): A few other things that the human kind can learn from bonobo's, famous for their sex-lives is here (Bonobo's are among the most sexual of all living animals!) :)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201202/7-things-bonobos-can-teach-us-about-love-and-sex

However, you probably want to point out the Egalitarianism (=equality) reflected in this bonobo species behavior, considered by some as another predecessor to the human kind.

A study published in 2009 took into account data sets from major world economies and correlated them with inequality indices. The study found that the absolute wealth within a country had little effect on the citizens' well-being or social cohesion, and that income inequality correlated strongly with social problems such as homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population. For example, countries such as Japan, Finland and Norway scored highly in social well-being and income equality, while countries such as the United States and United Kingdom scored low in both.

^ Agree, that inequality needs to be erased. However, men are not inferior either, and much of the math, physics, law/legislation, business and political world, the armed forces, the endurance requiring heavy industries, mining and similar tough fields seem to be better suited to them (some not necessarily -hormone dependent).

What do you make of the suggestion that beginning about 3500 years ago the Indo-European civilizations underwent a transformation from being matriarchal and trade based to patriarchal and war based?

One aspect of this transformation was the supplanting of local land-goddesses with more consolidated war and storm gods.

I've heard that idea before. If it's accurate, I wonder if it might be tied up with a growing population. It's easier to stay peaceful when you're part of a small, isolated, self-sufficient group. In that scenario, cooperation within the group is necessary, and competition is likely to get you ostracized. Peace is important when your village either lives or dies together. It's even easier to stay friendly and trade resources with another group, if you each have enough space (it's like hosting extended family for the holidays... You love your fam, but you might like them more when they're not sleeping on your couch.)

But once the population grows and you start rubbing shoulders with other groups, I could see that being where competition between groups comes in to play. More war... more war gods.

This is based on absolutely no evidence one way or the other, as far as I know. But a possible topic for this thought experiment ; )

I am not sure if this concept of pre-historic ancient matriarchy was myth or real, mostly taught in church? Not Biblical and may be a nice propaganda for the cause of egalitarianism amongst feminists. I found this critique from NY Times book review worth reading. According to this person's research, it may have been a myth, with not an oz of real evidence to support it.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/eller-myth.html

Because one person seeks to debunk a theory no more discredits it than another person promoting it.

I'm a bit surprised, David, that you latch onto the conjectures about conjectures & purport to have the final word.

All humans are nomadic, we still are for any number of reasons, resources have been the main driving force behind that the quest for a better life, land, more accessible food, water, minerals, oil, wood, stone etc etc. And when you get that you get groups of people coming into conflict with each other. for thousands of years physical strength has been the determining factor in the outcome of those conflicts, a male role as males are physically stronger. In the last 100 years countries Boarders are pretty much set in stone (bar a few) so now male physical dominance has become obsolete. We can achieve total ruin by the push of a button. We now need to rely on the dexterity of the human mind to achieve our goals. Something I think many women are better evolved to handle as its a skill they have been learning for many thousands of years while their men were off fighting battles.

In fact i find many females more logical in their approach to problems than most men I've worked with

Sorry, Larry. Din't think I was sounding rude by re-quoting someone else's research...specifically I can't find me as the one demolishing the hypothesis of ancient cultures 3500 BC and before. I was simply re-stating Sybs last sentence with a bit of research added from reading a few articles, since you asked my opinion on it. Certainly, I am no authority in this anthropological research of matriarchy, so I apologize if my words sounded inadvertently harsh.

A few more authoritative sources that I found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy) seem to support the same:
"In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development--now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some so-called primitive societies--enjoyed popularity. The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second wave feminism, but this hypothesis of matriarchy as having been an early stage of human development is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it never existed." (Encyclopedia Brittanica 2007 ).

"No true matriarchy is known actually to have existed." (Adovasio, J. M., Olga Soffer, & Jake Page, The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory (Smithsonian Books & Collins (HarperCollinsPublishers), ed. 2007 (ISBN 978-0-06-117091-1), pp. 251-255, esp. p. 255.)

"The concept of a matriarchal golden age in the Neolithic Age has been denounced as feminist wishful thinking in The Inevitability of Patriarchy, in Why Men Rule, more recently by Philip G. Davis in Goddess Unmasked (1998), and by Cynthia Eller, professor at Montclair State University, in The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory (2000). According to Eller, Gimbutas had a large part in constructing a myth of historical matriarchy by examining Eastern Europe cultures...."

But, not being an authority, I once again apologize, and would love to hear your perspective, and where you first learnt about this theory.

Instead of creating another thread, I thought I would use this thread to give my best wishes to all the women of PnQ on this

International Women's day.....created to honor the spirit of working women in 1909. This day is for:

".......respect, appreciation and love towards women to a celebration for women's economic, political and social achievements".

We already rule.

^
True. Especially you, Karla.

I'm all for women ruling as long as I don't have to do it. Nothing hotter than being bossed around by a woman you don't have to obey, but you do it anyway.

We'd need to get rid of organized religions before women could really take over, cause all the major ones don't suppport women's rights.

Once that is dealt with, we just make jars easy to open and we're all set. Men can retire to an island to hit things with sticks and fight each other and the ladies can sort the world out.

^^ troublesome..

^^DON'T DISAGREE with Mr. Kev! What do you think will happen if (your) woman "bossed" you around all day? Would you lose your s** drive if the "macho" role is reversed. :) A recent
study published somewhere that I read a month ago, showed that men who were "tame" (= extremely polite, submissive and supported femdom=female dominance) did not perform well - I would presume because they lost libido/T-hormone to submission, something un-natural to the brain of the male human (and many)species. So, Kev, I take it you support femdom! Have you in actuality any experience. :)

TOTALLY agree that religious and cultural belief's were/are largely responsible for the perpetuation of modern day male-superiority culture. Like you, I would like to see these false perceptions disappear and egalitarianism (not femdom) prevail. Though I guess Brazilian women may like femdom. :)

LASTLY, no I wouldn't want to go to retire to an island with men only ! That would be too dangerous! Women (I meant most) are extremely helpful in letting men see a reason behind their animosity and aggression, preventing or breaking up men-to-men fights, with their sweetness and feminine charm. NOPE I WONT RETIRE TO YOUR ISLAND, SORRY!

(Let us keep it all lighthearted, fun & jokes.)

I live with a woman who is a dominatrix and burlesque performer, so yes I think I've experienced dominant females. She lived with a submissive man before I moved in, so..she is learning to adjust to me. I'm a very caring flatmate (constant cups of tea and pep talks) but I don't take orders from anyone.

She is...doing ok with it and I've no scars!

Sounds like you've found yourself a really good partner, Kevin.

We're flatmates, platonic flatmates. I've just come out of a serious relationship and I never dive straight into another one for at least a few months.

She is a good friend, very inspiring in her creative projects.

The only thing that can rule me is the right thing.
it does not have gender!!

That sounds like a great 80's song!

Your relationship or my motto??

"We'd need to get rid of organized religions before women could really take over, cause all the major ones don't suppport women's rights."

^I disagree with that. It's an exaggeration to say that "all the major [religions] don't suppport women's rights." It's just the bad representation that Christians get because of people like Michelle & Mark Bachmann, Fred Phelps, and other right side extremists. I've never myself, nor any of my Christian friends, opposed abortion or gender equality, or marriage equality. It has a lot to do with the "Christians" who cling desperately to the Old Testament as an excuse to uphold their bigoted mindset and unreasonable prejudice. The new-age Christians are actually quite a bit more tolerant. It's generational, I think. Give it a few more years, and it should be much lighter.

But eliminating organized religion is not the answer. It's a violation of Constitutional rights. You can't fight for some rights and try to eliminate others.

"I've never myself, nor any of my Christian friends, opposed abortion or gender equality, or marriage equality. It has a lot to do with the "Christians" who cling desperately to the Old Testament as an excuse to uphold their bigoted mindset and unreasonable prejudice"

How many female Popes have there been? How many female cardinals or bishops? If we ever get to a place, globally where we really value the rights and contributions of women, it won't be because we paid more attention to our holy books.

I agree, but eliminating organized religion is not the solution. Opening the minds of others is. Can't do that if you've got such a narrow one to begin with. :)

I'd wager we'd be more open minded on a global scale if we'd never had organized religion. You might be the exception to the general rule of religious ignorance and prejudice, but don't pretend religion in any form isn't a massive problem for genuine free thought and expression.

My 2 pence worth

1) If a mind is narrow then at least there is room to open it.

2) if I was to start a debate about chickens would that then turn to a religous debate about 20 comments in?

Changing the subject

what was wrong with the old order that men ruled the world and women ruled the men.

it needed more diligence that the new generation could ever imagine.

haha power always belongs to those who do not need to be in front

The bees have no Religion,
The ants have not Religion,
yet they are ruled by Queens.
These diligent insects are
a fierce Collective and it works!
For Eons they still need a King
or a provider to sow seed or egg
or whatever we may want to call it.
These small, large Societies
are Dictatorships. The workers
are programmed to go - do not
think, go - gather - get!
There is no choice by individual.
Mankind has a choice - Each
and every one has a choice.
We are not insects, but we can
become programmed Beings.
In lieu - We all need helpmates
to succeed! So woman nor man
can ever rule the World;
without each others company.

Yeah, lets get back to how we're going to bring about women controlling everything and us menfolk being free to grow our beards in peace.

I'm sick of controlling Scotland on my own!

Yup that is the bottom line::
We all should let go; controlling is not good!!

Scottish know this in their beards

ruling over others is for primitives; we need democracy!!
I hope this "song" is ageless!!