TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

      • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo

      • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

What do you think a world run by women would look like?

thats_not_what_i_hea
June 27, 2015
4 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title What do you think a world run by women would look like?
Author

thats_not_what_i_hea
Upvotes 4
Comments 246
Date June 27, 2015 1:57 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3bay4x/what_do_you_think_a_world_run_by_women_would_look/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-do-you-think-a-world-run-by-women-would-look.281381
https://theredarchive.com/post/281381
Top posts by thats_not_what_i_hea

Is it possible that some of what gets called misogyny/sexism is actually equal treatment and women aren't used to that?

42 upvotes
August 6, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Why do androgynous pretty boys get so many women drooling over them if women want hyper-masculine alphas?

17 upvotes
May 2, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Why do so few women/feminists lean in the libertarian direction, considering Ayn Rand was a such a huge influence on it?

16 upvotes
May 14, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Is it at all common for women to think men can get sex as easily as they can?

15 upvotes
July 30, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Do women find technology and machinery to be boring?

15 upvotes
July 15, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Do you think we're moving into a more gender-segregated future?

12 upvotes
December 7, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Q4BP: would you date a transsexual?

9 upvotes
March 24, 2016
/r/PurplePillDebate

Is it possible to be a swinger/have open relationships as a man without just becoming a "cuck"?

9 upvotes
August 21, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Comments

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill24 points25 points26 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." - Camille Paglia

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]thats_not_what_i_healol neither[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Is it any wonder that this happens when we coddle women so much though, while men have to prove themselves over and over from as early as they can think?

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]thats_not_what_i_healol neither[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I know, but I'm suggesting that working against it would change things like this.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You'll also have to convince men that they should stop giving free shit to women all the time. A lot of men actually like giving stuff away to women, its almost perverse.

[–]ChromeGhost0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Do you think male reproductive technologies like the male birth control pill and artificial wombs will help change this?

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]ChromeGhost0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

What do you think go this? Growing number of straight single men using surrogates: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2015/03/17/single-straight-men-ivf-surrogates-become-fathers I can understand why you are skeptical of feminism given how some go them behave. I am more optimistic though especially since gay marriage will open things up for single men. I am also a transhumanist, so I believe in making things better for all using technology

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Coddling women is deeply routed in our psyche because of their reproductive value. Separating that from them doesn't make any sense. It's never gonna change and it's better to discuss society with that in mind.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why women had far less rights.

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Based on Australian Survivor, Americans are idiots who camp in dry creek beds and burn their hands.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Plus, they deliberately pick people who will make a good show, not people who are any good at anything.

[–]chazzALB37yo Purple Perma-Virgin19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Which women? A world run by Margaret Thatcher would be incredibly different from a world run by Indira Ghandi.

[–]Amethhyst7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is really the only sensible answer here.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which women?

I think he means all of them.

A history in which it is Alexandra the Great. And Julie Ceasar. And Eva Hitler. And Gerogina Washington. The full gamut of female personalities that would rise to the top of the female order, just as history is filled with their male equivalents, who arose through the male power structure.

How would that history be meaningfully different. Not because of any individual female personality, but by rule of the aggregate of "powerful women" personalities in a world where "powerful woman" is defined by the traits that get women to the top of female hierarchies.

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Great answer.

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What was Indira Ghandi like?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They were both bossy shrews, which is kind of a prerequisite to excel as a female politician.

[–]thats_not_what_i_healol neither[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

All of them.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How would that work, exactly? Like, all men lose the right to vote and don't care to get it back?

[–]thats_not_what_i_healol neither[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There isn't any lore in this hypothetical situation but you're welcome to your own fan fiction, sure.

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Except neither ran the world. In fact, they didn't even really run their countries. They were administrative figureheads of social democracies driven by massive bureaucracies. Their authority came from the system around them, not their "leadership."

So, who built the system?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So are you calling all American men stupid since they built no system themselves, that was left to the Greeks, then Romans, so on to the British? Its fine, I'll gladly accept you letting me know you think all black, Australian, American, and Canadian men are stupid as hell and can't make a system for themselves.

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, the American Republic spontaneously erupted from the ground.

Along with your strawman.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh no it was a long system built... By the British and Dutch. Enjoy the fruits of other men's labor and claiming it as your own.

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because the British Empire totally existed before the Brits even showed up for the party.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well judging by the way feminists run things it'll be a fascist dictatorship that uses "feelings" and "triggers" as a justification for crushing any and all dissent.

Anyone who dares question the herd will be ruthlessly purged.

Let's hope that doesn't happen.

[–]thats_not_what_i_healol neither[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but only 1/5 of women identify as feminists.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is quite reassuring.

A society dominated by regular women would probably not be all that different: those who make it to the top are predominately self serving assholes who do whatever to stay at the top.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesnt matter when you introduce feminism from kindergarten till serior of HS. Hey, it sounds just like the Quaraan.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Amethhyst1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Wait, what? Ireland isn't run by women...

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Amethhyst6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

My bad.

But my comment still stands. Neither is Iceland run by women. They have a lot of female representation in politics, yes - but men still make up the majority of the leadership.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh I forgot the two sexes, men and feminist. Apparently all feminists are women, right. Genius!

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Three sexes: men, women and feminists of both genders. If the last outnumber the others or have enough clout to push their agenda...

[–]Amethhyst5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

It's still not run by women. Men are making those policies.

[–]Kill_Your_Ego11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Feminists all seem to have this bizarre idea that men have an in group bias. That's your solipsism acting up. Women have an in group bias. This causes you to feel like men do as well. Men do not. Men have an out group bias towards women. This is why men do what women want. This is why having all the powerful be men is fine. Because they do not use that power to disadvantage women but to help them instead. But having all the powerful be women is a fucking nightmare of slavery and oppression. Because women will use their power to advantage women and disadvantage men.

It's just laughable when women seem to think that men are like women. Men are not like women. Unless you are thinking that just as many men hate other men and prefer women as women do. Men do not look out for other men. Men look out for other women. Get that into your woman brain.

[–]Amethhyst4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture. None of this is based in fact.

I was going to write a proper reply, but then:

Get that into your inferior woman brain.

I know, what business do us silly little wimin' folk having posting on the internets?? It's an outrage, a scandal!! You might even have AIDS now because you interacted with a yucky female! Jesus fucking Christ dude. Shave your neckbeard, leave your parents' basement, stop thinking having a penis makes you special.

I hate to break it you you, but you're not exactly coming across an an intellectual giant here.

Edit: Just noticed you changed your text after I replied. Got a bit scared, did you? Hahaha. don't worry. If we ever cross paths again I'll remember you. You've lost your frame forever now.

[–]Kill_Your_Ego2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

What do you consider facts in your feelings based brain? Multiple peer reviewed studies? Cause that's where I'm getting those thoughts in my head. Not because my feelz tell me so.

[–]Amethhyst0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Post the peer-reviewed studies then, and let's see these ideas backed up outside of your mulch-based brain.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are so intellectual the only way they can have any sense of discourse is through unrelated insults like petulant spoiled brats.

[–]parduscat1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What is wrong with you?

[–]Kill_Your_Ego0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are going to have to be more specific.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Amethhyst2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

The question was what the world would look like if it were run by women.

Iceland is not run by women.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]Amethhyst2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am merely sticking to the question - the fact is that Iceland is NOT run by women.

I'm not downvoting you. I don't know who is.

Don't 'typical female' me. Is that seriously all you have to resort to? Typical virgin neckbeard. See how that works?

[–]lbspredh-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

well it's run by the biggest ratio of women to men, and the different policies might suggest a pattern were that ratio to increase

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

what percent of women identify as libertarians or any political liberty worldview? if its very small, which i believe it is, why is that?

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep I'm a libertarian, that's still funny though

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for your brilliant and insightful comment, you are a sophisticated political thinker, a scholar and a philosopher

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

what sausage?

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He was insinuating that you are a man.

Sorry you had to be subjected to such misandry. :)

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

More of a man than most

[–]belletaco0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can also look at germany.

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Something like this, of course.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We'd keep the hot, tall guys alive for procreation and gina tingles and kill off the rest. Sweet, sweet utopia.

[–]IramadanceRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Snu snu?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So Magic Mike 24/7? Meh, I've heard worse ideas.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

The world would likely have less technology, less violence, more safety and stability, better healthcare, and more comfort. It wouldn't have progressed as rapidly without the male ambition, but the life of the average citizen would probably be pretty sweet.

[–]thats_not_what_i_healol neither[S] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Less technology but greater comfort?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Less mechanical technology. I would expect women to put effort into researching health related subjects or inventing simple things to help in the day to day living.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So we'd have better smartphones? I'm cool with that.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well a lot of us love to talk, so communication technology might be a priority lol.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're quite delusional

[–]Lonny_zone1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Some people focus on what "would have" or "should have" been rather than accepting what "could have" been, and matriarchy couldn't have invented Western Civilization.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I agree. But it could have created something different.

[–]Lonny_zone1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Matriarchy didn't happen, therefore it couldn't have happened.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

What? That's terribly faulty logic. Just because something has not happened yet doesn't make it impossible. Walking on the moon was thought to be literally impossible until 1969.

[–]Lonny_zone1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Just because something has not happened yet doesn't make it impossible.

Not what I said. If something didn't happen, it couldn't have happened. I'm talking about the past. My logic stands, untarnished.

Walking on the moon was thought to be literally impossible until 1969.

Walking on the moon was impossible until 1969, because no one had pulled it off until then. Get it now?

Matriarchy was impossible in 1900. Matriarchy is impossible until it happens.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Matriarchy has happened in the history of humanity, so it's clearly possible. And any number of factors could change the course of history. There are plenty of things that never occurred but were definitely possible. For example, even though the United States has never invaded Canada, it certainly could have at any point. Even though Christopher Columbus happened to take a wrong turn and land on North America instead of India, he still could have been capable of finding India.

[–]Lonny_zone0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, lets drop the philosophy you will apparently never get, lets get back on topic:

Matriarchy has happened in the history of humanity, so it's clearly possible.

Show me a successful, lasting Matriarchy. The top societies have all been a "patriarchy."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When did matriarchies occur? The only I can think of is the Mosuo and even there the men hold the political power, which is really strange to me.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No technology, less violence because of less technology, no safety, no stability, no healthcare, and minimal comfort.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

You really think women don't have the brain power necessary to create basic tools? Even chimps have technology. Less violence because women aren't as bloodthirsty by nature. Women don't go out looking for fights like men do. Why would there be no safety, healthcare, or comfort when those are the things women seem to care about the most?

Your complete lack of faith in half of humanity is delusional. Maybe it's time to find pride in something other than owning a penis?

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe it's time to find pride in something other than owning a penis?

But... but that's all I got! :C

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Less violence because women aren't as bloodthirsty by nature.

Y'all are smarter in that regard. You get men to do your fighting. You get men to be the guards, the police, the soldiers.

Anything potentially fatal, is a job done by a man. Men are disposable (I agree with this for biotruth reasons).

[–]Amethhyst10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

Probably similar to what a world run by men looks like?

I certainly don't think it would be any kind of utopia. Power corrupts.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

You believe left up to their own devices women would have come up with ordered liberty, the scientific method and advanced technological civilization?

[–]Amethhyst8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

Yes.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]sibeliushelpBlue Pill Woman5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because the majority weren't educated or permitted to pursue those careers.

[–]Amethhyst11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Cut the snark. I'm bored of it.

I didn't hold them up as a 'paragon'. You said there had never been such a thing as a successful matriarchy, and I demonstrated that this was not the case.

That's a ridiculous argument - there are plenty of patriarchal societies that didn't come up with those things either. Why didn't any of those societies come up with cold fusion?

Men have not been proven to be more intelligent than or mentally superior to women, which is why I think that women, all other things being equal, would be no less capable of coming up with the things Atlas_B_Shruggin mentions than men.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Where are these successful matriarchies? Whenever people show me matrialineage, it's grass huts.

[–]Amethhyst3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough. I'm not sure I could come up different examples.

To be fair though, there have been far more patriarchal societies than matriarchal ones - the odds of success favour patriarchal societies here because there have been so few matriarchal societies. The flip side of the coin is that there are far more unsuccessful patriarchies than successful ones. What about all those patriarchal societies that are also grass huts?

I'm sure you're aware, but I will point out again that matrilineal =/= matriarchal, and the two can't really be taken as examples of one another.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I know, it's just the closest examples I've seen.

As for the fact that there are more, giving more chances to succeed, it makes sense from a statistical standpoint. However, I think it's also important to ask why there are so many patriarchal societies to begin with. As a sort of parallel to the ontological argument, existence of your cultural or society is better than not existing. Do you think it's random that there are no matriarchies that have developed, or that there are a specific set of traits that cause patriarchies to thrive? I lean toward the latter.

[–]Amethhyst4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you think it's random that there are no matriarchies that have developed

Not at all - but we probably have a different view of the causation and effect.

I think the person who posited than the only way a female-run society could exist is if men 'allowed' them to had a point. Men are obviously the stronger sex; I don't deny that. If it came down to it for some reason, men acting together could probably over-power an all-female leadership structure. For the same reason, women have never really been in the running when it comes to being at the 'top of the food chain'. You need both physical power and a good head for governing people to get there. Ultimately then, men win the physical aspect. I'd argue that women are no less capable in the governance aspect - and where maintaining power through physical force is no longer an issue (and I'd further argue that this becomes less and less of an issues as societies become more stable and advanced), I can't see matriarchies being any less successful - or really very different from - patriarchies.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I see. I personally don't believe we will move away from explicit competition as our primary driving trait in advancement over cooperation. If it did, I think we would be overtaken by something else external to humans. I think male competitiveness, risk-taking, and aggression that comes from biology will always give an edge in area.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The flip side of the coin is that there are far more unsuccessful patriarchies than successful ones. What about all those patriarchal societies that are also grass huts?

The successful patriarchies quite literally literally account for 99% of all the humans who have ever been alive after the advent of agriculture. So the comparison is moot.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep, first world woman are equivalent to grass hut tribes in Africa when building a society.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Amethhyst5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I've read about those trends in intelligence. From what I've read on the subject though, I didn't get the impression that men have 'far' more geniuses and idiots - I thought it was a case of there being a few outliers.

Eh, I think there would be enough female geniuses to get somewhere. I see what you're saying though.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It doesnt take much intelligence for shelter, food, water, clothes, safety, and reproduction. Women are just not capable enough to make a sophisticated society.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men have not been proven to be more intelligent than or mentally superior to women, which is why I think that women, all other things being equal, would be no less capable of coming up with the things Atlas_B_Shruggin mentions than men.

This is actually demonstrably false. Psychological studies have shown that men are more variable in their traits such as intelligence. Thus, there are far more male geniuses than there are female geniuses, women just tend to cluster closer to 'average' than men. Geniuses are often what pushes society forward in terms of progress, so a woman-run society would be stagnant.

[–]Lonny_zone2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

Please show me all these female scientists and industrialists that are as notable as the menz.

[–]Amethhyst5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

And what will this list supposedly prove? There aren't as many 'notable' examples, I don't deny that. Women have only fairly recently had equal access to the same fields as men - of course there are more male breakthroughs right now. That doesn't mean women aren't capable of making the same achievements over time.

[–]Lonny_zone0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't mean women aren't capable of making the same achievements over time.

Technically, it does, because they haven't.

[–]sibeliushelpBlue Pill Woman6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

I guess the lower classes throughout history are incapable as well since they lacked the opportunities to prove themselves. I guess they're just naturally inferior right?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

how were they subjugated if they weren't inferior to those who subjugated them in some crucial aspect?

[–]sibeliushelpBlue Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

They are physically smaller and weaker.

In this day in age that hardly makes you inferior or determines your success, unless you're an athlete.

[–]Lonny_zone4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

African bushmen weren't physically inferior to the Anglos.

[–]Lonny_zone0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It is self-evident.

[–]sibeliushelpBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

lol. I guess the royals are our natural superiors then.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The royals descend from conquerors who subjected people by superior force

[–]Amethhyst1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

over time

Well then, you start with giving me a list of notable male breakthrough scientists in the last 20 years or so, and we'll go from there.

[–]Lonny_zone0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You failed to list "female scientists and industrialists that are as notable as the menz." You tried to get me to make another list because you floundered on your own. My point is getting proven here.

[–]sibeliushelpBlue Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Show me all the notable male scientists who weren't educated, allowed to attend university or pursue careers as scientists.

[–]Lonny_zone1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Close to a century of women in higher education: no genius scientific pioneers or titans of industry in Western Civilization amongst the top, even in the U.S.A.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Lonny_zone0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Emmy Noether. End of discussion.

One name. Serves to prove my point.

What did her contributions to abstract algebra have to do with "genius scientific pioneers or titans of industry?" The genius that matters changes society. Abstract algebra!? Math exercises that no one cares about but academics. Her theorems have led to the invention of nothing.

Her work is foundational to modern physics.

Lol, no. tell me how? Explain to me (off the top of your head). You cannot. Proves my point.

You're forgiven for not knowing Noether, but Marie Curie?

Are these two women household names? No. I knew Marie Curie in name only. What they did doesn't even compare to the top genius level developments of all time, all of which men were responsible for.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Lonny_zone0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Two genius women among dozens of men throughout history with better accomplishments.

[–]sibeliushelpBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_scientists_before_the_21st_century#20th_century

[–]Lonny_zone-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

amongst the top

Point proven by your wiki.

[–]sibeliushelpBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Explain?

Obviously women don't constitute ALL of the top scientists.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They make up around 1% of the important names.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]Amethhyst3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are truly an intellectual giant. Startling level of input. I can only stand in awe of your genius.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Women are not capable and thats a fact.

[–]C0UNTdrama6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You need to chill bro.

[–]Amethhyst5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why the fuck are you here dude?

[–]sibeliushelpBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol

[–]haircombsnightmare2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Depends on the woman. Some female presidents have been excellent and some have sucked.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Some female presidents have been excellent and some have sucked.

Those women who got to the top already were very different from the average woman, even moreso than alpha males are from regular men.

[–]haircombsnightmare0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, they were rich AF and lucky. In my case, also a terrible human being.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No woman have the capacity to build a society to the level of the current first world.

[–]Amethhyst5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Mods, what is it with this guy? He doesn't seem to try to contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion... He comes in, drops and an inflammatory statement or an insult, and then runs away when asked to backup his arguments.

[–]tintedlipbalmfemale-to-tamale woman1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. It's pretty overt trolling and I have reported his comments but no idea if the mods will take action.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

cough cough Germany is a hugely successful nation but continue to drink the misogyny Kool Aid cough cough

[–]IramadanceRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That was all Hitler though. /s

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Merkel has done literally nothing for germany. Ask actual germans to list Merkel's achievements in office.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay find me actual Germans who say this.

[–]VermiciousKnidzzBlue Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

every animal matriarchal society has been extremely peaceful and thriving, so....

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You never heard of elephants?

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You mean the world as it has been run for the past 20,000 years?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

If women had absolute power, the world might be as shitty and war-mongering as it is now.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

No wars but a bunch of pissed off countries refusing to talk to one another.

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Paleolithic.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (39 children) | Copy Link

The world is not, was not, and never will be run by women. What there are are cultures that are run on matristic values and cultures that are run on patristic values. Matristic values are present in africa and hut cultures and are the opposite of the values that create and sustain civilization

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

im sorry, i dont speak your SJW jive, do "sexist " and "racist" argue against what im saying in some way?

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

major African cities and empires

yes im unaware of them, show them to me. Zimbabwe was extremely primitive for example, it had walls that rested on each other rather than being jointed, millenia after the near east and china mastered these things

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

hut "empires", stretching the word

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never once said i thought all modern africans live din huts, youre just readign what you want to read

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol are you still going on?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They were

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Of course there are CITIES in africa now. Show me African city states that developed independently, like SUmer in the near east, Teotihuacan in meso america, the harrapan valley in india, China

lol you sent me a list of all the cities in africa. Africa BARELY developed civilization on its own, thats what im talking about, you think i believ ePOSTCOLONIAL africa doesnt have any cities in it?

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You seem to think "kingdom" means "civilization".

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes after a superior civilization colonized Africa that superior civilization built cities

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, youre an SJW because you think your lefty swear words like racist and sexist are actual arguments or matter to peopel who arent part of your lefty religion

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You have funny words for reality.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Lonny_zone0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We can handle the truth. It seems that you cannot.

[–]sibeliushelpBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The next American president is probably going to be a woman.

Did Thatcher run her country on matristic values? Does Merkel?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

All welfare states are run on matristic values

[–]sibeliushelpBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If that's true, then a lot of women don't have matristic values.

[–]KHJohanNo false idols2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We would still be in the stone age if women ruled society, maybe bronze age.

Men build to gain value, women already have value because they control their uterus.

There would not be much fighting between tribes, but their would be much fighting within the tribe for "ownership" of the most attractive man and the most productive man.

[–]ProtoPillRed Before Red2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Like this.

My favorite line:

"Making close to half a million in our first year should have meant profit, but this was wiped out by high salaries and accounting errors by staff."

[–]Quintus_PillusA danger to society1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Something like this, no doubt.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

It would be a zoo. Kept safe by men.

There is no recorded example of a non-patriarchal civilization that has ever existed. Not a single exception.

The closest we have to matriarchies are matrilineal societies, which are uniformly endangered and irrelevant tribes. The theory is, patriarchal societies are just better competitors, and whoever chooses to not take advantage of patriarchal gender roles without being able to back it up becomes easy fodder for the larger, meaner, more productive groups.

The only way a world run by women could exist then, is if the men allowed them to.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

So really, the fact that feminism even exists is tacit proof that women are inferior.

Mm, TRP. So much self-improvement.

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Can the guy be allowed his conjecture without TRP being part of it?

It makes sense anyways, if one only looks at how easy the suffragettes had it.

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Dude, you're giving approval to a comment that emphasized how women are the inferior sex. That's pure, unadulterated TRP right there.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm kind of sad, too. It's becoming easier and easier to find the hilarious things TeRPers say. There's hardly any challenge nowadays...

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Uh, why would I argue with you? No offense, but it's kinda like butting heads with a devout creationist.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not really I'm agreeing with the comment that states how one group has never gained power over the other. And it is true, there have been instances of all sorts of back and forths with power EXCEPT successful instances of the fairer sex being in power as a class.

Maybe as a class, they don't have that ability, which would make them inferior in that aspect.

TRP has nothing to do with it. Shits just conjecture.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, no. Sorry that I'm reluctant to swallow your funny lil' "biotruths".

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Mods, is this person invisible?

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

What's that now? I'm invisible?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I am trying to point out your constant stream of against the rules personal attacking and circlejerking, after reporting all of your comments

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Huh, you really have it out for me.

I don't really know what qualifies as circle-jerking, in this case. Is it because I dismiss TRP's "biotruths" and flagrant displays of misogyny? Yeah, sorry, I can't really take those seriously. Principles, you know?

Personal attacks? No, I don't rely on those.

To be honest, I'd like to say I'm contributing a whole lot more to PPD this time around. Sorry if I've offended you?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Your whole style is personal attack snark. I will keep reporting and let the mods decide, obv

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

If women were equal, they would've gained power at some point

Aren't they doing that now?

Women have been disadvantaged from the start by nature. First they're physically weaker and smaller than men, so they're easily controlled by bullies they can't fight back against. And then as soon as they hit puberty, said bullies are ready to impregnate them by force. Between being beaten into submission and dying from complications of teenage pregnancy, there wasn't much opportunity for the average primitive woman to rise to power.

I think the historic treatment of women reflects badly upon male nature, not the oppressed group who didn't really have much of a chance to begin with. There are winners and losers in life, but men started the game with an unfair advantage, and then won through brute force and cruelty. So that's a hollow victory and not something to be proud of.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

There is no such thing as "historical oppression of women" but nice try

What do you call a history of being sexual/reproductive chattel and objects to be fought over?

How much cognitive dissonance does it take to say "women were never oppressed" and "women have always been inferior" in the same breath?

The ridiculous notion that is feminism will be over the moment that men decide it's over

How would they end it? Now that the rule of the fist is over, men can't rely on bullying to get their way. Guns are the great equalizer. Do you think women would meekly give up their freedoms?

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What do you call a history of being sexual/reproductive chattel

Whose fault is it that there is a female sex? Why aren't feminists fighting for the liberation of bitches from male dogs?

and objects to be fought over?

Would you rather be the one fighting and dying?

How would they end it?

It will end itself, like communism did.

Guns are the great equalizer.

Men make the guns.

Do you think women would meekly give up their freedoms?

This goes on around you every day, but you are conditioned not to notice. How many times have you stood up to authority? How many times have you challenged the system? Not as part of the class of women, but you individually? How many times have you asserted your personal freedom?

Or are you just operating comfortably in a legal landscape designed by men?

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Alright, so, one or two lines of your last post just re-emphasized your belief that women are inferior (based on whatever historical narrative you're relying on).

The rest of your comment went on like a typical /r/lewronggeneration post, whining about "kids these days" and political correctness.

None of it changes the fact that TRP is often a cesspool of bitter misogyny behind a guise of "self-improvement".

Have a good day, buddy,

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like you're admitting defeat. Good choice.

Oh, of course. Clearly, the historical and sociological factors behind "patriarchal" civilization, which ultimately supplanted the more egalitarian mechanics of pre-agricultural human society, are undeniable proof for your beliefs that women are inferior creatures. Sub-human, if you really think about it.

With your victory, I guess I'll have to swear fealty to you now.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This has always been the paradox of feminism for me, and really all other equality movements. Feminism doesn't exist if men didn't allow it to. So really, the fact that feminism even exists is tacit proof that women are inferior.

Men would exist only in very small, controlled numbers if women chose so. If women killed males at birth, except for a few kept for breeding, patriarchy wouldn't exist.

Men and patriarchy exist because women have allowed men to exist in equal numbers.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You mean the women reliant on men for food and protection from other tribes? The exceptions to patriarchy do not exist because the former is a very logical arrangement for population growth, social order, incentive for males to work and most importantly, competition with other groups. Even experiments on ants show that if you reduce the proportion born as soldiers, said colonies don't survive well in proximity to other war-faring ants.

There is no rule in nature that says if you don't attack, you're suddenly off-limits. Which is why I find the idea that female societies would wage no war nonsensical. The idiots who are pacifist and disband their armies wouldnt last very long in the face of the first group smart enough to organize. And its a pretty quick thing to have happen too. The mongol Khans took all of Asia in a single generation. The average rate of population-decimating wars for most countries has been 2-5(region dependent) per 100 years.

Women didn't allow shit. All of this is taking the unlikely scenario where they are incharge of who lives and who dies anyway.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You mean the women reliant on men for food and protection from other tribes?

Other tribes would consist of mainly women, get it? Who are more likely to cooperate with other tribes for resources.

And without so many men around, some women would never get pregnant at all. They would become the hunters.

The exceptions to patriarchy do not exist because the former is a very logical arrangement for population growth, social order, incentive for males to work and most importantly, competition with other groups.

As far as we know, women haven't tried killing males at birth. We have nothing to base your assumptions on. If a woman's baby is dead, she can become pregnant again quickly, and try for a girl next time.

Even experiments on ants show that if you reduce the proportion born as soldiers, said colonies don't survive well in proximity to other war-faring ants.

Human aren't born as 'roles'. We don't have born soldiers. Humans don't have to be war-faring. If there were mainly women everywhere, all over the world, incidences of war could well be much less. Incidences of cooperation between tribes could have lead to a much better world.

The mongol Khans took all of Asia in a single generation. The average rate of population-decimating wars for most countries has been 2-5(region dependent) per 100 years.

Men bring bloodshed. What's new? The world is now in crisis. Our economies rely on the population growth that is destroying the natural world. It's unsustainable. We don't even know how much clean drinking water there is left in the world.

Women didn't allow shit. All of this is taking the unlikely scenario where they are in charge of who lives and who dies anyway.

They indeed did allow it. They are the ones in charge of the babies and left with the babies while the men are hunting.

We all come from the mother that is nature and the female. We all start as female in the womb, we're all born of woman, we all rely on nature to feed and shelter us. She encomapsses everything.

Women didn't kill their babies because who wishes to live like that? Who wants to live like the warmongers who had to keep invading and murdering just to stay alive?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And without so many men around, some women would never get pregnant at all. They would become the hunters.

Grossly inefficient. Your example basically limits your population growth, and probably even goes into population decline. Given pre-modern infant and child mortality(upwards of 50% of children did not make it to 10 yo, even in 1700), pop growth was already super low. Adding the deaths of even more viable newborns (more boys than girls are naturally born), you'd probably die off on your own.

More than that, you're taking inferior labour and food supply(effective pre-modern farming requires strong labour. Many famines have been caused by lack of manpower) and lack of war-fighting ability for the unproven concept of "women, unlike all other life on planet earth, would be peaceful". Such a society wouldn't last very long against one which did not do this. Which is where your idea falls apart. Your thesis could never be tested. Because women are helpless.

Rather than spending time explaining why, let me ask you to qualify your own theory.

1) External competition: In your out-of-this world unrealistic scenario needed for women to dominate, how do you ensure all the tribes play fair? Because you only need one weirdo tribe for survival of the fittest to automatically come into play. (very prominent examples of sociological natural selection: Europe and its technological weirdness. OR The people of the steppe and their warfighting/brutality weirdness. Both subjugated huge swathes of the world. The latter hundreds of times over millenia). Such a competing tribe would have tremendous advantages. One being the ability to churn out huge amounts of (superior) soldiers and miners, workers, builders, etc each generation without batting an eye, meanwhile you kill yours at birth. You also have to consider that these males are probably going to come kill you simply because they have population excess with nothing better to do.

1A) Inevitability of new competing tribes with males in power: I predict your answer teh above with some variation of "we'd enforce it". Well, suppose we give you your fantasy that all established tribes become perfectly vigilant about the evils of men, and successful at keeping them cropping up within them... whats to stop men from making their own tribes? All sorts of settlers and colonizers didn't actually bring women on their voyages and journeys. They took women after killing the locals, and started whole new ethnicities/nations which later become significant. Many groups of Vikings are good examples. Same for the afore-mentioned steppe peoples. And so were Greek and Roman colonies across the Mediterranean. And on and on. Whats to stop a tough group of boys banding together and going around making their own tribes? This was actually a major seed of genetic and cultural diversity and intermixing before globalization.

2) Internal competition: Lets ignore the obvious where aggressive, naturally hierarchy-aware males are going to take playing second fiddle to women lying down. Too obvious. Lets explore how your society leaves great room for change to occur by males acquiring value and power. How do you prevent them from doing so? In patriarchal society, women truly have no other merits than sex and baby machines. There is nothing that only they can do. Exemplified by your scenario where keeping women in power involves killing the competition. In contrast, matriarchal society has huge opportunities which only men could fill. Armies of well-trained men could increase the wealth of a society several-fold overnight. Similarly, in times of emergency, males could save everyone. Males working farms or crafts or construction would increase productivity more than any woman. Men are braver, more mentally resilient, more creative and they can open pickle jars. In contrast, female participation in the US economy since the 1930s has only contributed about $2 trillion to GDP growth. Imagine how pathetic that achievement is.

I'd go on but i imagine the above is enough.

Human aren't born as 'roles'. We don't have born soldiers. Humans don't have to be war-faring. If there were mainly women everywhere, all over the world, incidences of war could well be much less.

Stop taking things so literally. Stop being such a TBPer for one second and show some critical thinking. I did not mean literally born as soldiers. But yeah, even human societies which can't defend themselves, die off. And yes, humans have to be war-faring. Even female societies, with no male nature to speak of, would develop war because its not linked to male nature. Competition arises because to not compete means to die.

Our economies rely on the population growth that is destroying the natural world. It's unsustainable. We don't even know how much clean drinking water there is left in the world.

Baseless unscientific rubbish that is not at all related to male dominance.

They indeed did allow it. They are the ones in charge of the babies and left with the babies while the men are hunting.

Women are at the mercy of men as much as their babies are at the mercy of women.

We all come from the mother that is nature and the female. We all start as female in the womb, we're all born of woman, we all rely on nature to feed and shelter us. She encomapsses everything.

You are being a hippie.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is by nature, asking the old masters to give the girls a turn. There is no equality. It is all pretend.

Think about it. The entirety of women's achievements are things men have already done, but worse.

The great heroes of women-kind have all been people who asked men to do things for them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is by nature, asking the old masters to give the girls a turn. There is no equality. It is all pretend. Think about it. The entirety of women's achievements are things men have already done, but worse.

A lot of it has been men snatching women's achievements for themselves.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And then you have these pitiful appeals to the odd exceptions.

[–]seeker900 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I did a fair bit of research into this a few months ago and it's actually pretty astounding just how often this happened in the past (possibly still today, but I don't know). As well as discrediting the work and achievements of individual women, it serves to make chauvinists with a lack of critical thinking and research skills even more sure of their twisted worldview. Saddening.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I did a fair bit of research into this a few months ago and it's actually pretty astounding just how often this happened in the past (possibly still today, but I don't know).

True and most of it we'll never know about. It happened to men as well, which was sad for those individuals, but didn't erase the achievements of an entire sex.

Women also had to pretend to be men to study or work in some areas, such as the arts, or they were barred from studying. Yes it does serve to make chauvinists certain of their world view.

[–]seeker900 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

'The entirety of women's achievements are things men have already done, but worse'

That's demonstrably false and you know it. Yes, men may be more successful and innovative than women as a whole but there have been countless inventions and other successes brought about by women, even a couple of hundred years ago when it was very difficult for women to break into these sorts of things. I'm a male scientist and do a lot of research into scientific history as part of my role in STEM outreach, so I come across a lot of these things. I'd be delighted to link you to a few resources but I get the feeling you're just here to troll and give yourself a pat on the back for having been born male. Really, what have YOU done lately? Not our gender, but you as an individual? I always see TRP morons claiming that they themselves are superior just because they think men are. Please stop belittling the hard work and achievements of many women. Yes, some are dumb and lazy, but so are some men.

Edit: some phrasing because I'm terrible at English, sorry

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It depends on which women we are talking about, and the circumstances/timing of the shift, TBH.

Would country borders still be intact? Could men still vote?

Incidentally if anyone knows of any good speculative fiction in this vein, please feel free to link me. I've found a handful of good stories + a ton of pulp fiction + some pie-in-the-sky fiction.

[–]sariarubut are they tictacs?0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It would look exactly like this. /s

I'm so sorry. I know WitchWind never adds anything productive to a discussion, but I couldn't help myself.

[–]OlBastardRP|She said she was 18.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What would a hydrogen atom look like with 3 protons?

I don't even think we'd develop a language. I doubt that without the sexually selective forced at play, humanity would have any incentive to progress much.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just ask Queen Victoria.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Who's to say that a society living in grass huts is somehow less than our society?

I visited a small village in Bolivia for a week. These people had nothing, but appeared to be so much happier than the first world people.

[–]thats_not_what_i_healol neither[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Imagine how much happier they'd be if they could get HD video footage of a girl with supermodel looks spreading her asshole open.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Ew, do you really believe other cultures would find the hole made for expelling waste sexually stimulating? I predict the western obsession with the poop chute would be found gross and weird to cultures not used to it.

[–]thats_not_what_i_healol neither[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ancient Greece would like a word.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well of course the Greeks and Romans liked the butt hole, they had lots of gay sex.

A 100% heterosexual man will always choose the vagina, the hole with an explicitly sexual purpose.

[–]lbspredh2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's nonesense

[–]C0UNTdrama0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Depends on the woman. Generally, things would be more peaceful and society would be better taken care of as a whole.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Go read y the last man.

[–]C0UNTdrama0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Look no further than Africa. 99.9% shit hole.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Amethhyst7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Women doing the work doesn't a matriarchy make. The parts of Africa you're referring to are run by warlords. They're violent, anarchistic autocracies.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Amethhyst6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Right. And decidedly not 'run by women'.

But hey, I didn't know about the matrilineal thing. That's interesting.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Amethhyst2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo

Whatever dude.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

All that proves is that female run cultures are technology free hut cultures, which is what people are asserting

[–]Amethhyst1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't trying to prove anything except that there have been successful matriarchies.

Edit: When I say successful, I don't mean necessarily technologically advanced - I just mean that they were able to function and build a stable society.

I normally wouldn't quote myself, but since I just had a similar discussion and to save me writing it out again I'm just going to drop this in here.

there have been far more patriarchal societies than matriarchal ones - the odds of success favour patriarchal societies here because there have been so few matriarchal societies. The flip side of the coin is that there are far more unsuccessful patriarchies than successful ones. What about all those patriarchal societies that are also grass huts?

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Amethhyst1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right. I guess it was the part where you said 'in human history' that threw me. As far as I know these guys are contemporary though...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Let me know when those women can fend off a gang of men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So physical strength is what makes a person superior? I guess you should go tell Steven Hawking that he is inferior. Or does his y chromosome make up for his lack of physical ability in your eyes?

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So physical strength is what makes a person superior?

It makes them physically superior.

I guess you should go tell Steven Hawking that he is inferior.

Can you show us one woman as bright as Stephen Hawking?

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter