HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What would society look l...

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:19 PM

 

What would society look like if men were not in charge?

What would be different if 75% of congress were female?

If the NFL was all women?

Please, no knee-jerk reactions.

72 replies, 3990 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply What would society look like if men were not in charge? (Original post)
RobertEarl May 2014 OP
Brickbat May 2014 #1
el_bryanto May 2014 #4
Brickbat May 2014 #8
el_bryanto May 2014 #12
RobertEarl May 2014 #36
Liberal Veteran May 2014 #2
Skidmore May 2014 #3
zappaman May 2014 #5
valerief May 2014 #10
zappaman May 2014 #14
valerief May 2014 #17
chrisa May 2014 #22
zappaman May 2014 #23
SheilaT May 2014 #6
RobertEarl May 2014 #18
haele May 2014 #39
SheilaT May 2014 #65
valerief May 2014 #7
The2ndWheel May 2014 #16
valerief May 2014 #21
RobertEarl May 2014 #29
valerief May 2014 #33
LanternWaste May 2014 #9
KurtNYC May 2014 #31
LanternWaste May 2014 #48
randome May 2014 #11
MineralMan May 2014 #13
Xyzse May 2014 #15
RobertEarl May 2014 #19
Whisp May 2014 #20
RobertEarl May 2014 #27
Whisp May 2014 #32
one_voice May 2014 #41
Whisp May 2014 #52
treestar May 2014 #49
calimary May 2014 #24
SheilaT May 2014 #25
IronLionZion May 2014 #26
Brother Buzz May 2014 #28
Jamastiene May 2014 #30
RobertEarl May 2014 #42
one_voice May 2014 #44
KitSileya May 2014 #71
Squinch May 2014 #34
Jamastiene May 2014 #43
Squinch May 2014 #45
Jamastiene May 2014 #47
Squinch May 2014 #50
snooper2 May 2014 #35
abakan May 2014 #37
Blue_Adept May 2014 #38
ancianita May 2014 #54
Prophet 451 May 2014 #68
Blue_Adept May 2014 #72
KansDem May 2014 #40
AverageJoe90 May 2014 #46
messiah May 2014 #51
Zorra May 2014 #53
dawg May 2014 #55
thucythucy May 2014 #56
Shandris May 2014 #57
RobertEarl May 2014 #61
janlyn May 2014 #58
cherokeeprogressive May 2014 #59
quinnox May 2014 #60
ancianita May 2014 #62
Skittles May 2014 #63
Warren DeMontague May 2014 #64
Prophet 451 May 2014 #66
LadyHawkAZ May 2014 #67
Edim May 2014 #69
auntsue May 2014 #70

Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:23 PM

1. Different.

But any time only one group is "in charge," there are going to be problems. Better to aim for a closer attempt at equality, rather than simply imagining what things would be like if everything were "flipped."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #1)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:27 PM

4. I see where you are coming from - but many of our values are gendered, which makes this discussion

worthwhile. Being tough, for example, is seen as a masculine value, while being gentle is seen as a feminine value. I think that's kind of shit - I think everybody should try to be both tough and gentle (at different times) -but that's the world we live in.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #4)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:31 PM

8. Right, but if women were "in charge," would gentleness still be seen as a feminine value?

I think values are gendered because of the power that gender holds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #8)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:33 PM

12. That's an interesting question right there

One argument is that when woman are in charge now they are often according masculine vitures - being tough for example, but is that because being tough is a leadership value or is it because in order to be respected in a male dominated world, they have to try and assume the values of that world?

I don't know. Interesting question.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #8)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:10 PM

36. I was raised to be a 'Gentleman'

 

Have been successful at it, mostly.

And it was my tough old man that drilled it into me.

But then i watched as he negated that line repeatedly. I think it was society that made him turn away and act mean. We even see that sort of pressure on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:24 PM

2. That sorta depends. Are the 75% mostly Michelle Bachmann or Elizabeth Warren? -nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:25 PM

3. That is a tough what-if to shape up because in human history

there have been all too few times that women have been in charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:28 PM

5. What would society look like if raccoons were in charge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #5)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:31 PM

10. Bwahaha! Or if porcupines were in charge...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #10)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:33 PM

14. or dolphins!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #14)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:37 PM

17. Or opossum aliens.

&index=8&list=UUATJh3BJNXTRX4EdxK2oDKw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #5)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:49 PM

22. They are - It's called Wall Street.

They steal our shit and act like we're the bad guys when we try and stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chrisa (Reply #22)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:51 PM

23. I like the analogy but...

Wall Street does need masks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:29 PM

6. Some years back I read something

 

about this. The reference was to some Scandinavian countries which have very high female representation in their governments. It was said that women make up some threshold percentage in government -- and I'm thinking it was around thirty percent but of course can't recall the exact number -- policies and laws start becoming much more family friendly, much more attuned to the actual needs of citizens.

The problem with people like Michele Bachman or Sarah Palin is that they are too much of the current mainstream of American politics which is not at all family or individual friendly. They may inhabit female bodies, but their souls are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #6)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:39 PM

18. Very interesting

 

They do seem to have a better functioning society because equality is a deep concern. Ya know, real family values.

My favorite politicians in general are females. There is a reason for that, it isn't just coincidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #6)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:12 PM

39. Scandinavia has also had a history of women staying at home for months while most men were gone.

Either viking or fishing, or something similar. So free women and women householders kept the towns and villages going while their men were out, and this had to be acknowledged within the society if it were to keep functioning over generations. It wasn't a definitive matriarchy, but it also wasn't a total patriarchy; there was a social acknowledgment that women had significant responsibilities, so they must have significant rights and voice in policy, as they were the ones that would be left to carry on while most of the men were gone.
The men might have been physically stronger and thus able to force women into submission as they had in other developing agricultural tribal cultures, but that sort of patriarchy only "works" if there's a number of trusted men with a vested interest in submission to a hierarchy that are able to be in place to manage the homesteads and households - and women - most of the time.

Similar arrangements and governmental structures were in place in cultures where there was a similar hunter/gatherer remote tribal or family structure; the physically stronger males learned the hard way that if you don't give your women equal voice, respect and responsibility - if you didn't treat them as a full partner - you couldn't depend on them to maintain your home base while you were gone for a season or two to gather enough resources to survive the winter. You certainly couldn't trust a slave, no matter how well you treated him or her.

The Scandinavians learned early on that if you didn't treat your "housewife" as a full partner, you and the other adult males in your household would only be coming back home in the fall to die of exposure and ill preparation, or to find bandits, greedy neighbors, or your lazy stay-at-home cousin had stole your property, stock and stores by force or law while you were off fishing the North Sea or Outer Banks for five months.

You don't see a lot of that in the more agricultural or city-state cultures with a more concentrated population, where you can always hire another freeman to keep "your women" under a patriarchal system when your culture developed to put a higher value on physicality rather than capability.

Haele

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haele (Reply #39)

Wed May 28, 2014, 06:18 PM

65. Thanks.

 

I didn't know very much about Scandinavian history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:30 PM

7. We wouldn't have an NFL, luv. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #7)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:36 PM

16. What if men wanted to play football in a professional league?

Would that choice be denied to men?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The2ndWheel (Reply #16)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:48 PM

21. Look at the question to which I was responding. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #21)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:02 PM

29. You ever play football?

 

I mean down and dirty, 'i will hurt you the next chance i get', kind of football.

Do you know how many young men were raised to love, and imitate the NFL? Playing football was an education in what pain, suffering, blood, sweet and tears really are. The agony of defeat! The triumph of victory! It was a real education for many of us.

Are you experienced?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #29)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:06 PM

33. Go away, if you won't look at the question to which I was responding. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:31 PM

9. There's no historical precedent from which I can draw any valid reference

There's not really any historical precedent from which I can draw any valid reference to base a guess on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #9)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:03 PM

31. The Iroquois, from whom we got the Senate and House representation system was mostly matriarchal

The Iroquois are a Mother Clan system, which is gender equal. No person is entitled to 'own' land, but it is believed that the Creator appointed women as stewards of the land. Traditionally, the Clan Mothers appoint leaders, as they have raised children and are therefore held to a higher regard. By the same token, if a leader does not prove sound, becomes corrupt or does not listen to the people, the Clan Mothers have the power to strip him of his leadership.

When Americans and Canadians of European descent began to study Iroquois customs in the 18th and 19th centuries, they learned that the people had a matrilineal system: women held property and hereditary leadership passed through their lines. They held dwellings, horses and farmed land, and a woman's property before marriage stayed in her possession without being mixed with that of her husband. They had separate roles but real power in the nations. The work of a woman's hands was hers to do with as she saw fit. At marriage, a young couple lived in the longhouse of the wife's family. A woman choosing to divorce a shiftless or otherwise unsatisfactory husband was able to ask him to leave the dwelling and take his possessions with him.

The children of the marriage belong to their mother's clan and gain their social status through hers. Her brothers are important teachers and mentors to the children, especially introducing boys to men's roles and societies. The clans are matrilineal, that is, clan ties are traced through the mother's line. If a couple separated, the woman traditionally kept the children. The chief of a clan can be removed at any time by a council of the women elders of that clan. The chief's sister was responsible for nominating his successor.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Women_in_society

So we just changed women to men and used their 2 house system of representative government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KurtNYC (Reply #31)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:31 PM

48. even during that period, men only made political decisions

I was under the impression that was limited to only three of the Canadian tribes rather than the Iroquois nation as a whole... and that even during that period, men only made political decisions (e.g., going to war with the Algonquin, Huron, et.al., establishment of the Iroquois League, etc.), meaning that any power held by women was at the pleasure of men granting it, in all practical effect, not rulers at all, but figureheads, mother-figures, extensions of the personification of the Fertility Goddess, etc,




(sources: The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire, F. Jennings. and Sisters in Spirit by Sally Roesch (sp?) Wagner)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:32 PM

11. Thomas Berger wrote an interesting novel in 1973 entitled Regiment of Women.

 

It's dated, of course, and more than a little silly, but at the time it was an interesting read about what kind of a world would exist if women were in charge and men were treated like 'darlings'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:33 PM

13. No knee-jerk reactions?

Oh, well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:35 PM

15. When asked this, I would have to probably go and devolve it a bit...

Meaning, I would probably head back towards the Bonobos.
They are a more female oriented tribe of monkeys.

Then, after trying to figure out what are their motivations.
Which is then placed upon love, sex, sharing and keeping peace through less violent interactions. Then, I would probably move it forwards from there, and figure out the motivations once a society and technology improves.

For one, I would think the motivations of the society would be a much healthier one.

Namely, it would probably be more towards inclusion, infrastructure and health.
As long as it is done in a mutually respecting manner, I think it might be alright.

However, please note, that such societies were taken over by more war-like tribes. It could last for a while, but I am not really sure it is sustainable.

I remember in looking at certain older cultures before they were taken over by Rome, their basis of inheritance is through the mother. That is because, one can actually trace their lineage through their mothers better than their fathers. It is a more accurate way of tracing genealogy.

Any way, I think I lost myself somewhere in my post, as I rambled on trying to think on how it could be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xyzse (Reply #15)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:44 PM

19. Hey, not an easy question to answer.

 

But you did try, so kudos to you.

The reason i ask is that i firmly believe if we are to survive as a society, we need better representation. That with more equal representation we would not have so many problems with government. Expanding that into society, i feel we would have less focus on empire and more focus on community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:44 PM

20. No precedents, but I am willing to go out on a limb and say

 

there is a chance things would be as screwed up as they are now as women have the full range of character flaws as men do because of that little thing called an imperfect human being.

But, I would Like to think that because women are the child bearers and raisers, for the most part (you, back there sit down) MAYBE wars would be on the menu less and social issues would be dealt with more fairly.

I would like to live long enough to find out the reality of that - (except the NFL thing, I can live without megasports stupidity no matter who the players are) - but not likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #20)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:55 PM

27. I was raied to love the NFL

 

The world would be so different without it.

Sandlot football: I can remember beating up the competition just to score non-existing points, as i imitated what i saw on TV, those many Sunday afternoons. And everyone had a good time. Except for the losers! <grin>

I do believe if more people like my mother had been our politicians, the idea of love one another would have been so much more prevalent in our government and society today. Instead, this is more my father's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #27)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:03 PM

32. I like sports for kids and just having fun with it.

 

When kids go without equipment due to budgets whether school or parent/s while the billionaire and millionaires gluttonize and choke on all their money, that pisses me right off and I like to bring that up whenever I can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #27)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:17 PM

41. I LOVE football!!

Everyone knows not to bother me during the games. I grew up on football. I played 'hard touch' with my brothers and their friends. Broke my ankle during one of the games.

I play fantasy every year. My sister & my daughter are also football nuts. Love , love, love me some football.

I watch other sports too. I use to be a huge hockey fan but I slowly got away from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #41)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:41 PM

52. I used to love baseball. Women from my work joined a league.

 

And I was crazy about it.

But I'd fall down bored watching the World Series.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #20)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:33 PM

49. Good point. Agree about the wars

Especially if other countries had women in charge. Never had kids, but pregnancy and child birth look like enough work - and raising the children - that it would be far more valued to compromise rather than risk lives in wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:51 PM

24. What immediately comes to my mind is - the whole idea of empathy would not be sneered at so readily.

The way the cheneys do it. Empathy wouldn't be a dirty word. Empathy would be far more mainstream, accepted, taken more seriously, and not derided.

But women are people, too. Fallible human people. So I imagine the same intoxicants of power and money would infect many of them as well. But the idea of no NFL is not terribly repugnant to me, I must admit. I, too, can live without megasports stupidity no matter who the players are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:51 PM

25. The Disappearance by Philip Wylie.

 

First published in 1951. The world splits in two. In one world all the men disappear, in the other all the women disappear. The consequences for both are profound, especially given it was written when gender roles where far more rigid and stratified than they are now.

Haven't read it in many years, but my recollection is that in the men's world crime more or less got out of control. In the woman's, once they dealt with how to run things that men had formerly all been doing, it was much better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:51 PM

26. No more war

just a bunch of jealous countries not talking to each other because did you hear what that other country said about you at the last G8 meeting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 03:57 PM

28. Now I wish you to know about the strangest thing ever found anywhere....

I tell you that on the right-hand side of the Indies there was an island called California, which was very close to the region of the Earthly Paradise. This island was inhabited by black women, and there were no males among them at all, for their life style was similar to that of the Amazons. The island was made up of the wildest cliffs and the sharpest precipices found anywhere in the world. These women had energetic bodies and courageous, ardent hearts, and they were very strong. Their armor was made entirely out of gold—which was the only metal found on the island—as were the trappings on the fierce beasts that they rode once they were tamed. They lived in very well-designed caves. They had many ships they used to sail forth on their raiding expeditions and in which they carried away the men they seized and whom they killed in a way about which you will soon hear. On occasion, they kept the peace with their male opponents, and the females and the males mixed with each other with complete safety, and they had carnal relations, from which unions it follows that many of the women became pregnant. If they bore a female, they kept her, but if they bore a male, he was immediately killed. The reason for this, inasmuch as it is known, is that, according to their thinking, they were set on reducing the number of males to so small a group that the Amazons could easily rule over them and all their lands; therefore, they kept only those few men whom they realized they needed for their race not to die out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:02 PM

30. Better health care.

To me, that alone, would be worth it.

Rapists would actually get punished, finally. Rape would be a serious crime and taken seriously. No more she was asking for it, she wore revealing clothing, she deserved it for being a lesbian (in my case that was what I was told).

Children would actually be fed instead of only fought for when they are in the womb and left to go hungry once they are born and pretty much get ignored while they suffer the ravages of domestic abuse and violence.

Speaking of, domestic abuse would be considered a crime and actually be punishable by law in all 50 states instead of permitted once a week or on Sundays like in some states. There are laws like that still on the books. Even in states that do not have laws like that, and where there is supposedly a law against it, women are still made to feel like pure shit if they dare try to press charges against the man. So, that shit would be stopped and if the male cops didn't enforce the laws protecting women, they'd be replaced.

Oh, you mean, if women who are already powerful were in charge? Probably same shit, different day. They didn't get where they are without playing the game the same exact way as men play it.

Never mind the good stuff above. I thought I and other non sellout women might be in charge for a change. Yes, I said that. Rail away. I don't give a shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #30)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:19 PM

42. I liked the 'good stuff above'

 

But then i was raised to be a gentleman.

Also raised to win whenever i played football. At those times it was gentleness be damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #30)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:27 PM

44. I agree with all this...

Better health care.

Rapists would actually get punished, finally. Rape would be a serious crime and taken seriously. No more she was asking for it, she wore revealing clothing, she deserved it for being a lesbian (in my case that was what I was told).

Children would actually be fed instead of only fought for when they are in the womb and left to go hungry once they are born and pretty much get ignored while they suffer the ravages of domestic abuse and violence.

Speaking of, domestic abuse would be considered a crime and actually be punishable by law in all 50 states instead of permitted once a week or on Sundays like in some states. There are laws like that still on the books. Even in states that do not have laws like that, and where there is supposedly a law against it, women are still made to feel like pure shit if they dare try to press charges against the man. So, that shit would be stopped and if the male cops didn't enforce the laws protecting women, they'd be replaced.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #30)

Thu May 29, 2014, 02:32 AM

71. I thibk most people tend to forget,

That any woman who has fought her way up to a position of prominence, whether in politics or in business, has had to do exactly that, fight. They are more akin to war veterans than hot house flowers. They have to endure constant rape and death threats, condescension, patronising men, and hostility. Those women who are currently acting on the national stage are true dandelions, having clawed their way into the light in small crevasses between flagstones and tarmac. It has shaped their growth. - not that I am saying that there is something wrong with them, but that a world where women has equal power with men (I am not asking for power *over* men) is only possible where men have taken responsibility alongside women in educating those who currently let rape threats stand, don't counter 'I'd tap that' statements that reduce women to objects, who steal the credit for women's work, who make rape and misogynistic jokes and, and, and.

If I weren't on a mobile device, I'd link to one of Melissa McEwan's recent posts, where she storified her tweeting on the Elliot Rodgers massacre. For once, she retweeted the misogynistic retorts she got from ordinary men, and when you read them, the realisation that pretty much any woman who sticks her head out in public experiences this is very sobering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:07 PM

34. I think it would look like Iceland. Seriously.

More cooperative, less "alpha" status-seeking, vulnerable members of communities taken care of, fewer wars, less violence.

Anemic military industrial complex, healthy availability to reproductive choices, thus healthier population. Less crime.

If the NFL was all women, there would be no NFL because football is ersatz war, and it wouldn't be something the culture would be interested in.

This is the DU member formerly known as Squinch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #34)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:25 PM

43. I wish there could be a WNFL for women who want to watch other women play.

There might be quite a few men who would watch it too. Who knows? I'm talking in addition to the current NFL. Or maybe a coed, no holds barred football league. I'd even watch that readily and happily. I can just see myself swooning over the best female athletes who know how to kick ass on the field, kind of like roller derby, only coed and football instead.

I realize it might be like you said, most likely actually, but I would love to see female athletes playing football, real football, not that stupid wimpy flag football shit.

I wish there was a WMLB too. I used to want to be a baseball player when I was a little girl. The guys in the neighborhood let me play with them. When they went off and started playing Little League, I was denied even a chance (I was picked first for teams in the neighborhood pickup games usually). Instead, the park stuck me in girls' t-ball which was a crock of shit wimpy nonsense. They made us use softballs too. And fuck a damn T. Pitch to me, dammit. I had to switch gloves to a larger glove than my glove for baseball and I was left handed. The only glove we had laying around the house big enough for softball was for right handed people. I had to learn to throw right handed AND underhanded. I could rant and rave all day long about how much I hated that wimpy throwing underhanded crap too. I learned to "throw like a boy." Whatever the fuck that means. I learned to throw a baseball and loved baseball, not softball with a stupid T. Throwing underhanded was nonsense to me. Garbage. I already knew how to switch hit. That part was no problem, but nooooo, they would not allow me to do even that.

I was still good at the girls' T-ball, but it never had the fun of real baseball. I only played that nonsense one season. I finally swore off all sports because fuck it, if I'm not allowed to really compete like it was in the neighborhood with all the boys who didn't know I was a girl (except my one neighbor who never told them so I could play), why bother?

If I was the woman in charge in this neat little scenario, I'd ban wimpy crap like T-ball. Fuck a damn T.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #43)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:29 PM

45. I think the sports that would be huge like football is now, though,

would not involve beating the crap out of each other and damaging each other's brains. Football would occupy the same importance to society that shoe shopping does now.

But you are right. T ball sucks.
This is the DU member formerly known as Squinch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #45)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:30 PM

47. Thank you.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who knows how much T ball sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #47)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:34 PM

50. LOL! Secretly, I think everyone knows that T ball sucks.

This is the DU member formerly known as Squinch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:09 PM

35. The Jock Strap Industry would go bankrupt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:10 PM

37. NFL = Nancy's Female League

Congress = things getting done...Bring back the second most productive congress in history... 2008-2010

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:12 PM

38. Are there any fictional stories like this?

Most tend to be written by men, so those are easy to discount. That said, they can be interesting as well. Wonder Woman gives us their island with no men. I read an early 70's one when I was younger called Alph which was interesting as well; https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1330809.Alph

Are there any female written novels of this nature?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #38)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:49 PM

54. Not like this. But a good read, anyway, is Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #38)

Wed May 28, 2014, 06:33 PM

68. Not written by a woman

But there is the comic book series "Y: The Last Man" which follows the only two males left in a world where every other male suddenly died in 2008. It's an interesting read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #38)

Thu May 29, 2014, 11:21 AM

72. Found another

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:16 PM

40. "All That Glitters" (1977)

Anyone else remember this Norman Lear T.V. show?

All That Glitters is an American situation comedy television series by producer Norman Lear. It consisted of 65 episodes and aired between April 18 and July 15, 1977 in broadcast syndication. The show, a spoof of the soap opera format, depicted the trials and tribulations of a group of executives at the Globatron corporation. The twist of the series was that it was set within a world of complete role-reversal: Women were the "stronger sex," the executives and breadwinners, while the "weaker sex" – the men – were the secretaries or stay-at-home househusbands. Men were often treated as sex objects.

The series features Eileen Brennan, Greg Evigan, Lois Nettleton, Gary Sandy, Tim Thomerson and Jessica Walter. Comic actor and cartoon voice artist Chuck McCann was also a regular. Linda Gray played transgender[1] fashion model Linda Murkland, the first transgender series regular on American television.[2]

Before and after its premiere, All That Glitters was negatively received and the series lasted just 13 weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_That_Glitters_(TV_series)


I remember watching a few episodes but don't recall too much about it except that it did cause one think more about gender roles and sexual stereotypes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:29 PM

46. Depends on the women in charge. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:37 PM

51. Women have the same voice in the head as men do

and with that voice, the negative side of the femininity would eventually rear its ugly head (EGO).








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:46 PM

53. A Matriarchal Society in the age of Globalization Juchitán/Southern Mexico



A Matriarchal Society in the age of Globalization Juchitán/Southern Mexico

Juchitán, the town of women

The women of Juchitán, of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, are famous throughout the nation of Mexico because of their beauty and their economic power. Something of this power could be felt in the recent film about the world famous painter Frida Kahlo, who had her Mexican roots in this area. In this country whose character is stamped by "Machismo", the Latino male superiority, one often hears it said "Juchitán is run by women's rule." In Mexico a man is teasingly called a "Teco" (derived from Juchiteco) when he displays supposedly un-masculine softness in the dispute between the sexes. "Teca" is the name for a woman who is proud and energetic and able to prevail. This reflects the ethnic character of women in Juchitán quite well.
snip---
There is quite a rigid division of labour in Juchitán along the line of the two basic sexes of women and men. Labour defines the sex to a great degree. One could almost get the impression that the rigidity in the sexual division of labour serves mainly the definition of further sexual identities and not so much that of man and woman. The mushes, mostly homosexual men who define themselves as women, do women's work and refuse to do men's work, thus defining their sexual identity through their work. It is similar with the marimachas, women who live with other women and take the male part in the relationship. The sexual practices themselves are rather secondary in view of the social sex assignment. The sexual partner of a mushe is not seen as a mushe, or as homosexual, but simply as a man. The same holds for the partner of a marimacha. If same sex partners do not assign themselves through their work as - biologically antidromic – a third or fourth sex, then sexual contact is rather sporadic and is not an issue in the wider society. What we call bi-sexuality has a very high occurrence in Juchitán.

The rather rigid sex based division of work is a protection for women from a sort of hostile take-over. In this way the position of trader and market-woman is undeniably women's domain.

Thus the economy of Juchitán is solidly in women's hands, which proves furthermore, and rather contrary to Marxist views, the importance of the circulation sphere for the whole of the economy. Both men and women are convinced that women are better at buying and selling and handling money. For this reason farmers and fishermen prefer to deliver their products to the women rather then to large trading organisations which would take the raw materials out of the region. Thanks to the special relationship between the sexes in Juchitán processing happens in the region and with this comes added product value. The man who works as a labourer in the nearby crude oil refinery delivers his complete income to the woman, for her to manage it. In this way a self-contained, women-centred economy of a very special quality has developed. (more)


I've spent time in Juchitan, it's an interesting place, and I may go live there for awhile at some point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:54 PM

55. It things were more or less equal between the sexes, that would be great.

If women ran everything, there would be problems. That would be evidence of an unfair and unjust society; just a mirror image of what we have today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 04:58 PM

56. I say we give it a try and see what happens.

We already know what it's like with men in charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 05:05 PM

57. Judging by the things I witness around here and in the real world?

 

Very little to nothing would change.

If women and men are equal and there is no difference between us, then there is likewise no cause to believe that we'd be any different over the long course of history. We don't get to say we're completely equal and the same...and then say we'd be completely different if we had total power. It doesn't work that way.

The thing is, it's very hard for us to see how we'd get to that point because we don't have the long march of history to rely on. But even if the change were sudden, the women who closest approximated the previous rulers would be the most successful and the strongest leaders would rise to the top by mimicking them. Again...in any view over the very short-term, nothing would change.

As a humorous side-note, I'd like to watch that first meeting of Congress. It'd be like Mean Girls 2, the Motion Picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shandris (Reply #57)

Wed May 28, 2014, 05:20 PM

61. We've become conditioned

 

It wasn't an overnite conditioning. It was a long drawn out process that shaped our society for more man-power. From what i have seen of how the different genders react to worldly confrontations, i believe that had we not been so Man-powered, we would have a better functioning, more equal society in that we would be more family oriented.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 05:10 PM

58. A bunch of fat, happy women

and no war?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 05:16 PM

59. The word "peace" would not exist...

 

Because its counterpart, war, would never have been devised.

No par 5's, shorter par 4's and every green would funnel toward the hole.

Oh, there would be more butterflies and unicorns would be as common as ants.

Other than that, I got nothin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 05:18 PM

60. Rainbows, fluffy clouds, and sunshine

 

But seriously, it would probably be just as fucked up as it is now, and maybe even worse. Anyone who doesn't think women aren't capable of being barbaric savages just like men, needs to read up on history. Or, just look at the more current historical figure of Margaret Thatcher and her reign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 05:30 PM

62. No one in my life has ever asked this in a public forum! Hmm...If women were having their way...

I envision the following, which I believe they would make totally doable.

Domestic spending policy would reprioritize toward

1. single payer health care, including payments for abortion
2. re-tooling fossil fuel transportation industry toward green energy, with all the attendant tax incentives
3. All fracking on American soil stops
4. use existing dept. of motor vehicles facilities to monitor and license gun ownership and gun ownership insurance, with proper state authorities providing thorough background checks for every purchase and fees paid for every transfer; gun ownership would be allowed by membership in a state militia; thus, the 2nd amendment would be revised; no guns ownership would be allowed in homes that have people under 21 living in them;
5. Wall St. multinational, publicly held companies that have foreign labor forces would be required to pay 25% of all profits toward a national labor and education escrow account, to be spent on adult education programs to build skills and business within the USA, increase university school of education budgets to train field professionals; those that refuse lose their American-based corporate charters and must negotiate trade deals as foreign companies now do;
6. All American corporations and foreign corporations with American holdings will be given 30 days to pay up their back taxes on offshore accounts or be fined 25% of their profits in perpetuity, or lose their American charter status
7. All corporate farmland would be returned for homesteading to any persons wanting to own farmland
8. All GMO food would be labeled; CEO's of companies that fail to do so face jail time;
9. Media will be held accountable for lies; fact-checking is mandatory; The Fairness Doctrine is established by constitutional amendment
10. All denominations of all religions pay taxes
11. Child care, publicly paid for, will be available in all states.
12. All taxpayers will receive a tax credit for all greening and energy revamping of their primary and secondary homes in perpetuity. All rentors will receive tax credits for the same within a ten year window.

Governance:


1. All branches of federal and state government would be 51% women in perpetuity in proportion to their population numbers, by constitutional amendment
2. all lobbying would be disallowed by constitutional amendment; with stiff jail time for under-the-table pay-to-play and kickback deals; all states must undergo independent audits to be reported to citizens of each state during election years;
3. mandatory voting by constitutional amendment, per the Australian system;
4. all campaigns would be limited to three months, all candidates receiving the same federal funds to run;
5. Voting age would be lowered to age 16.
6. The budget would be balanced by constitutional amendment;
7. Mandatory minimum living wage would be in place by constitutional amendment;
8. All male and female 18 - 21 year-olds would be required to choose to (and show proof that they)
a) attend college full time, or
b) do community service for one year, or
c) go through military basic training and serve in the military for one year.
9. Glass-Steagall would become a constitutional amendment;
10. Environmental cleanup corporations would receive tax incentives.

You probably think I've gone crazy but I've got a thousand other ideas besides these.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 06:26 PM

66. Impossible to say

Anything we imagine will be a reaction against our existing culture and so defined by it. We can't say there would be no serial killers since there have been female serials, we can't say there would be no war because there have been female warmongers. And insisting that everything would be smiley happy rainbows is just saying everything is the fault of men and a example of that rarest of beasts, genuine misandry. That said, a couple of things that spring to mind:

- Gail Simone would be the highest paid comics writer in the world. Gail is one of the few women writing comics, she's fantastic, the fans love her and buy her books (mostly) but the industry treats her like crap.

- Women's wrestling would be dignified. The world's biggest wrestling promotion is WWE. WWE tend to hire fitness models as wrestlers, the result being that they have about two dozen women under contract, only three of whom can work a decent match. I have no problem with omen wrestling when they have talent. I do have a problm with the fact that female wrestlers can't get signed by bi promotions unless they look like centrefolds.

- The porn industry would still exist but would be a damn sight better regulated and teh women would be better paid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 06:30 PM

67. A whole lot like it does now

Humans are human, regardless of plumbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 06:53 PM

69. This reminds me of George Carlin:

“He - and if there is a God, I am convinced he is a he, because no woman could or would ever fuck things up this badly.”

But also:

“Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 10:37 PM

70. well it depends one "which women"

.if the women are like Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachman -- well no thanks
but if they are like Ann Richards, or Hillary Clinton . then YES please

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread