Female Led Society

[Yarglenurp]

Arguably the patriarchy hasn't been just about men occupying leadership positions. It also included the oppression women in order to compel certain behaviours that benefit men. The double standard was truly different rules for men and women both formally and informally. Women didn't always behave accordingly, but even when they didn't those rules were part of heir existence. That still exists but has been substantially diluted.

If society became a matriarchy would women do the same and implement different rules for men and women? Or would it be more a matter of leading, but with roughly similar rules except for who occupies the leadership positions?

In my view, what is traditionally called the patriarchy is basically formalized kratocracy, with the strong governing the weak. What goes unsaid in polite society is that patriarchy tends to fundamentally work because the man is more willing and more likely to beat his partner into submission and to death. Even in our more “polite” society, most baseline humans still implicitly operate off this “might makes right” philosophy. We might deride brutes on paper, but we reward artfully hidden brutality with extreme wealth, privilege, and implied breeding potential.

If women were the more aggressive and stronger sex, we’d probably have the exact structures now, just with bigger and more brutish women battering their husbands. I doubt this is the type of matriarchal society anyone actually wants.

For an idyllic matriarchal society to take place in a meaningful way, this fundamental “strength-worship” trait in humans needs to get modified somehow. You can’t eliminate it, since it does serve a useful purpose, but it would need to change so that physical strength and sociopathic stubborness becomes way more under-weighted in our evaluation of worthiness to lead.

 

[SlutAddicted]

In my view, what is traditionally called the patriarchy is basically formalized kratocracy, with the strong governing the weak. What goes unsaid in polite society is that patriarchy tends to fundamentally work because the man is more willing and more likely to beat his partner into submission and to death. Even in our more “polite” society, most baseline humans still implicitly operate off this “might makes right” philosophy. We might deride brutes on paper, but we reward artfully hidden brutality with extreme wealth, privilege, and implied breeding potential.

If women were the more aggressive and stronger sex, we’d probably have the exact structures now, just with bigger and more brutish women battering their husbands. I doubt this is the type of matriarchal society anyone actually wants.

For an idyllic matriarchal society to take place in a meaningful way, this fundamental “strength-worship” trait in humans needs to get modified somehow. You can’t eliminate it, since it does serve a useful purpose, but it would need to change so that physical strength and sociopathic stubborness becomes way more under-weighted in our evaluation of worthiness to lead.

I think the there is also some merit to the premise that when looking at the relative aggressiveness of men versus women the difference is magnified at the extremes. So, while the "average" male is moderately more aggressive than the "average" female, the most aggressive sociopaths who tend to seize power are mostly men.

I think that to dilute the "strength-worship" trait requires some kind of collective social compact. But that can only come about if enough people see true benefit in it and gain an enlightened understanding of leadership. A pretty tall order.

Ironically I think that what we have in society recently is a progressive agenda try to bring about that social compact (or some version of it) and it actually backfired because the people doing so used cancel culture as their source of might. To your point they tried to make it all about the patriarchy as if men (especially white men) were the only one inclined to try to impose their will on others right up to the point that they were blind to their own tyranny.

So, in order for any kind of collective social compact to come into being it isn't enough to resist or change the powers that be. We must rise to a new level of collective understanding.

 

[Mike302]

No, not like it is now. Now we still have a patriarchy that attempts to compel women to behave in certain ways at their behest. Under no circumstances should anybody have the power to compel certain behaviour from another.

But in loving relationships we do have duties to one another without either party being compelled. In a world where married women have ultimate sexual freedom and their husband has no right to compel certain behaviour it would be appropriate for her as the leader on her own volition to take up the duty to see that he also has a chance to be sexually fulfilled.

And while we are at it I do believe that both partners have a duty to support one another in many ways including sexually. Not on demand or under duress, but yes it is a duty. One that cannot be imposed upon us but which we choose to take on in a mutually supportive relationship.

My wife has sexual freedom. She isn't interested in anyone else. It seems as far as she knows I fulfill her needs.

She doesn't offer reciprocity though. No other women for me. She has zero interest in other women. As for me playing with other men it's don't ask don't tell. But I never have.

Completely suppressing a person's sexual needs doesn't work. It isn't kind behavior towards a person you love. This is where the "duty" comes in. My wife and I are first and foremost friends. She knows I need my dick sucked. She wants me to be happy. She encourages me to let her suck it as much as I want. It's only 5-15 minutes of her time and she enjoys it anyway. It's good for the "team".

Obviously, I'll do whatever she wants when she wants it.

 

[Yarglenurp]

My wife has sexual freedom. She isn't interested in anyone else. It seems as far as she knows I fulfill her needs.

She doesn't offer reciprocity though. No other women for me. She has zero interest in other women. As for me playing with other men it's don't ask don't tell. But I never have.

Completely suppressing a person's sexual needs doesn't work. It isn't kind behavior towards a person you love. This is where the "duty" comes in. My wife and I are first and foremost friends. She knows I need my dick sucked. She wants me to be happy. She encourages me to let her suck it as much as I want. It's only 5-15 minutes of her time and she enjoys it anyway. It's good for the "team".

Obviously, I'll do whatever she wants when she wants it.

Ok, but what if she wants to do quaaludes and start day-trading crypto while putting up the house as leverage?

 

[Mike302]

Ok, but what if she wants to do quaaludes and start day-trading crypto while putting up the house as leverage?

I've known her over 20 years. She's not gonna do that.

But if she did, there's going to be some heated discussions!

 

[Mike302]

If women truly embraced the matriarchy I think we would be more accepting of submissive men. It is one thing to want the trappings of leadership and another to actually lead. Doing so would require us to adopt a strong position and not look down upon the men who choose to be submissive.

There is a Russian feminist on YT that talks about this very thing! How women should be celebrating submissive men. Her name is Alla Mesistophelies or similar...I can't get that last name right. check her out.

She moved out of Russia. Way to oppressive regarding women.

She likes what my wife likes, masculine, submissive men.

 

[Yarglenurp]

There is a Russian feminist on YT that talks about this very thing! How women should be celebrating submissive men. Her name is Alla Mesistophelies or similar...I can't get that last name right. check her out.

She moved out of Russia. Way to oppressive regarding women.

She likes what my wife likes, masculine, submissive men.

Well, power to her. Hope she succeeds in mainstreaming the view. I suspect it’ll be tough.

 

[Justfantasies]

I suspect that women would make clearer distinctions between guys they wanted to marry and those they just wanted to sleep with and would act accordingly

 

[ibshy2003]

In a female led society women would probably fuck around a lot without having to care about their reputations because there'd be no patriarchy to shame us.

But men would hang on to their virginities until they met 'the one' and got married. Men's virginities would be fetishised by the church. Mothers would encourage their teenage sons to wear chastity rings.

But abortion would be freely available. So that's a bonus.

Women do fuck around a lot more. They are just better at not getting caught their husbands are clueless. In a female lead society, they wouldn’t have to sneak around.

 

[Justfantasies]

Women do fuck around a lot more. They are just better at not getting caught their husbands are clueless. In a female lead society, they wouldn’t have to sneak around.

Yes that's my point exactly -- women find husbands and they find lovers. Two different kinds of person

 

[policywank]

Yes that's my point exactly -- women find husbands and they find lovers. Two different kinds of person

As has been noted, we already do this. I don't just mean cheating, but also in our selection of men at various points in our life or for varying purposes. It is interesting how men often see this as some sort of strange contradiction even though they do it too. Or at least to the extent they have the opportunity they will often choose a different woman for a hot fuck than they will for a life partner.

Society gets confused and criticizes women when we say we want a sweet, understanding stable man then go off and fuck a bad boy. That isn't really a contradiction, nor an unsolvable mystery. But people think it is because they have convinced themselves that women are fundamentally different than men in our sexual proclivities and made it unacceptable for us to say otherwise.

If you really believe women never want to just have a hot fuck then yes our behaviour makes no sense. Why go off with the bad boy if we know he is bad for us? Sometimes we do it for dumb reasons (men do it too), but the stereotype that that is what always drives us is wrong. Often times we know what we are doing, do it anyway for the good dick and enjoy it without regrets. Turn it around and look at men. Would they want a traditional wife and a racy hot slut to fuck on the side? Or would they choose one "type" of woman for a sexual fling and another for a long-term partner? Some would and some wouldn't, but they all understand that sentiment. If they observe that behaviour in men they may disapprove but they don't see it as some big mysterious contradiction.

the perceived contradiction when a woman does it is rooted in the flawed assumption that women not inclined to seek out a partner primarily for sexual gratification when in fact we are just as inclined as men are. The main differences are that we have more opportunity to do so and are more likely to be criticized for it. So we do, keep it quiet and let men keep on wondering why they don't understand us.

 

[Justfantasies]

As has been noted, we already do this. I don't just mean cheating, but also in our selection of men at various points in our life or for varying purposes. It is interesting how men often see this as some sort of strange contradiction even though they do it too. Or at least to the extent they have the opportunity they will often choose a different woman for a hot fuck than they will for a life partner.

Society gets confused and criticizes women when we say we want a sweet, understanding stable man then go off and fuck a bad boy. That isn't really a contradiction, nor an unsolvable mystery. But people think it is because they have convinced themselves that women are fundamentally different than men in our sexual proclivities and made it unacceptable for us to say otherwise.

If you really believe women never want to just have a hot fuck then yes our behaviour makes no sense. Why go off with the bad boy if we know he is bad for us? Sometimes we do it for dumb reasons (men do it too), but the stereotype that that is what always drives us is wrong. Often times we know what we are doing, do it anyway for the good dick and enjoy it without regrets. Turn it around and look at men. Would they want a traditional wife and a racy hot slut to fuck on the side? Or would they choose one "type" of woman for a sexual fling and another for a long-term partner? Some would and some wouldn't, but they all understand that sentiment. If they observe that behaviour in men they may disapprove but they don't see it as some big mysterious contradiction.

the perceived contradiction when a woman does it is rooted in the flawed assumption that women not inclined to seek out a partner primarily for sexual gratification when in fact we are just as inclined as men are. The main differences are that we have more opportunity to do so and are more likely to be criticized for it. So we do, keep it quiet and let men keep on wondering why they don't understand us.

Women have been selecting guys for different functions and at different times in their lives since the dawn of time. However, it seems that few men actually understand this or perhaps they are never told.

 

[policywank]

Women have been selecting guys for different functions and at different times in their lives since the dawn of time. However, it seems that few men actually understand this or perhaps they are never told.

I think that men have actively sought to convince themselves and society otherwise. Doing so provides the latitude to use shame and judgment to enforce a double standard which legitimizes the premise that it is ok for men but not for women. I think that there is lots of history to this, but it is at least in part due to men's desire to mitigate the advantage that women hold in the sexual marketplace by punishing women who avail themselves of the sexual opportunities available to them. I suppose it may have worked to some degree, but in significant measure it just encouraged women to be more discrete.

There is an interesting aspect to the manner in which men have helped create the conditions that obscure their view of reality. Men have developed the impression that they can identify a promiscuous or sexually active woman by her appearance or behaviour. It isn't true. Some women present themselves that way regardless of their sexual activity, but that doesn't mean we all oblige. Some men will look for those markers that they think indicates a sexually active woman and assume that a woman who doesn't present those markers is not sexually active. But reality is that women are perfectly capable of carrying on an active sex life discretely and you will never know about it unless she tells you.

Meanwhile men do espouse the premise that a woman's real number of sexual partners is 2x what she tells you but a man's is 1/2 of what he tells you, yet somehow they will have more insight to the woman they are with. Nope, not unless she wants you to know. I am not saying women will necessarily be less honest than men (though we have more motive to be less honest due to the behaviour of men), just that we have learned to be discrete and the idea that we will somehow always present evidence of our sexual behaviour is silly.

 

[SandraMaus]

First of all, a woman lead world woul definitely smell nice

 

[live4thebj]

i,m curious what women would do living in such world,would they tease men dressed in sexy outfits or demanding men they should wear sexy lingerie&high heels in womenclothes,would they fuck other men?And what about their family,sons&daughters etc?And what would be teached at school&what are the rules in the church?You can share your ideas &fantasies&rules etc ,personally i would love this is happening,as obedient CD forced to put sexy lingerie&shoes etc(i do everyday now)and tease &please everyone and do whatever a woman asks,that would be a dream cum true,so ladies please tell what you want,and if you want something from me sharing it in this forum,please demand&force me,please

Spacebar broken?

 

[Justfantasies]

I think that men have actively sought to convince themselves and society otherwise. Doing so provides the latitude to use shame and judgment to enforce a double standard which legitimizes the premise that it is ok for men but not for women. I think that there is lots of history to this, but it is at least in part due to men's desire to mitigate the advantage that women hold in the sexual marketplace by punishing women who avail themselves of the sexual opportunities available to them. I suppose it may have worked to some degree, but in significant measure it just encouraged women to be more discrete.

There is an interesting aspect to the manner in which men have helped create the conditions that obscure their view of reality. Men have developed the impression that they can identify a promiscuous or sexually active woman by her appearance or behaviour. It isn't true. Some women present themselves that way regardless of their sexual activity, but that doesn't mean we all oblige. Some men will look for those markers that they think indicates a sexually active woman and assume that a woman who doesn't present those markers is not sexually active. But reality is that women are perfectly capable of carrying on an active sex life discretely and you will never know about it unless she tells you.

Meanwhile men do espouse the premise that a woman's real number of sexual partners is 2x what she tells you but a man's is 1/2 of what he tells you, yet somehow they will have more insight to the woman they are with. Nope, not unless she wants you to know. I am not saying women will necessarily be less honest than men (though we have more motive to be less honest due to the behaviour of men), just that we have learned to be discrete and the idea that we will somehow always present evidence of our sexual behaviour is silly.

 

[Justfantasies]

I agree with all you say. But I would add that while the origins of men's behavior is an infantile (and pernicious) need to control women, it is also often just ignorance or possibly just an unwillingness to see reality. This was certainly true for me. I was in my 30s when my then wife and I decided to open up our marriage. It was a complete shock to me that an attractive woman like my wife would find it easy to find other sex partners, while it was difficult for me.

Women have always tended to tell me about their sexual adventures, so I also should have understood that women like sex as much as guys. But I didn't. My first wife when we got married told me she had slept with five guys before me, but admitted that it was closer to 70. So in her case it was 14x

jf

 

[policywank]

I agree with all you say. But I would add that while the origins of men's behavior is an infantile (and pernicious) need to control women, it is also often just ignorance or possibly just an unwillingness to see reality. This was certainly true for me. I was in my 30s when my then wife and I decided to open up our marriage. It was a complete shock to me that an attractive woman like my wife would find it easy to find other sex partners, while it was difficult for me.

Women have always tended to tell me about their sexual adventures, so I also should have understood that women like sex as much as guys. But I didn't. My first wife when we got married told me she had slept with five guys before me, but admitted that it was closer to 70. So in her case it was 14x

jf

Yes I agree it is often simply an individual guy's ignorance. I'd say that lack of awareness comes from what guys are taught or not taught as the case may be. It has always surprised me a bit the way guys' views on women are informed by other guys and then they wonder why they don't understand women.

I think that at a high level across society most or many people aren't really consciously aware of these dynamics. For guys who like the double standard (and from their point of view what's not to like) they are inclined to just accept it at face value without looking deeper. And many women of previous generations were conditioned into buying into it to the point that even if they disagreed with it or resented it they genuinely believed that they were the outlier. So, in either case people saw different rules for men and women but bought into the notion that things were supposed to be that way so it didn't have the same unfairness connotation as the double standard. Much as I go on about how these dynamics were established by the patriarchy, I don't see it as a group of men sitting down to deliberately craft a plan but rather people just acting in their own self interest - both in terms of what they did and how they justified it - over many year.

 

[Mike302]

As has been noted, we already do this. I don't just mean cheating, but also in our selection of men at various points in our life or for varying purposes. It is interesting how men often see this as some sort of strange contradiction even though they do it too. Or at least to the extent they have the opportunity they will often choose a different woman for a hot fuck than they will for a life partner.

Society gets confused and criticizes women when we say we want a sweet, understanding stable man then go off and fuck a bad boy. That isn't really a contradiction, nor an unsolvable mystery. But people think it is because they have convinced themselves that women are fundamentally different than men in our sexual proclivities and made it unacceptable for us to say otherwise.

If you really believe women never want to just have a hot fuck then yes our behaviour makes no sense. Why go off with the bad boy if we know he is bad for us? Sometimes we do it for dumb reasons (men do it too), but the stereotype that that is what always drives us is wrong. Often times we know what we are doing, do it anyway for the good dick and enjoy it without regrets. Turn it around and look at men. Would they want a traditional wife and a racy hot slut to fuck on the side? Or would they choose one "type" of woman for a sexual fling and another for a long-term partner? Some would and some wouldn't, but they all understand that sentiment. If they observe that behaviour in men they may disapprove but they don't see it as some big mysterious contradiction.

the perceived contradiction when a woman does it is rooted in the flawed assumption that women not inclined to seek out a partner primarily for sexual gratification when in fact we are just as inclined as men are. The main differences are that we have more opportunity to do so and are more likely to be criticized for it. So we do, keep it quiet and let men keep on wondering why they don't understand us.

The only part I think is debatable is "...Just as inclined as men are."

 

[Justfantasies]

The only part I think is debatable is "...Just as inclined as men are."

It's certainly debatable, but I certainly think it is close. The difference is that women can afford to be more discerning

 

[Justfantasies]

Yes I agree it is often simply an individual guy's ignorance. I'd say that lack of awareness comes from what guys are taught or not taught as the case may be. It has always surprised me a bit the way guys' views on women are informed by other guys and then they wonder why they don't understand women.

I think that at a high level across society most or many people aren't really consciously aware of these dynamics. For guys who like the double standard (and from their point of view what's not to like) they are inclined to just accept it at face value without looking deeper. And many women of previous generations were conditioned into buying into it to the point that even if they disagreed with it or resented it they genuinely believed that they were the outlier. So, in either case people saw different rules for men and women but bought into the notion that things were supposed to be that way so it didn't have the same unfairness connotation as the double standard. Much as I go on about how these dynamics were established by the patriarchy, I don't see it as a group of men sitting down to deliberately craft a plan but rather people just acting in their own self interest - both in terms of what they did and how they justified it - over many year.

Yes guys listen too much to other guys and don't look deeper. Of course, the dangers of not looking deeper apply to many things. If you do look deeper you get "red pilled," and discover how things really are. And this can be very scary.

 

[Purple_Fronds]

Our society isn’t this way because a group of men got together and said this is how we’re going to run things. It’s just the result of where we’ve come from as a species, when the protection of the tribe was paramount. Even today there is a tendency to forget that our liberal societies are only able to exist because our physical security is reasonably guaranteed and assured. The majority of that assurance comes from men. Most societal rules and customs come from a need for cohesion with-in and strength projected out.

I don’t think a female led society would be much different, men and women are much more alike than they are different.

Of course submissive men have a certain fantasy but I’m pretty certain they don’t picture Margret Thatcher, then again maybe they do.

 

[policywank]

The only part I think is debatable is "...Just as inclined as men are."

There are many differences between the genders and one can make the argument one is somewhat more inclined to pursue a partner primarily for sexual gratification. My point is that the notion that we are polar opposites and what is supposedly completely natural for a man is anathema for a woman is wrong. I think there are far more differences between individuals of either gender than there are between the genders overall.

 

[policywank]

Yes guys listen too much to other guys and don't look deeper. Of course, the dangers of not looking deeper apply to many things. If you do look deeper you get "red pilled," and discover how things really are. And this can be very scary.

I think this is true. For guys that have been conditioned to believe in the double standard it can be a very scary thing to contemplate women who will not comply and who (for the most part) will easily outpace them in this regard. With that one red pill they go from having the upper hand to no hand at all.

 

[policywank]

Our society isn’t this way because a group of men got together and said this is how we’re going to run things. It’s just the result of where we’ve come from as a species, when the protection of the tribe was paramount. Even today there is a tendency to forget that our liberal societies are only able to exist because our physical security is reasonably guaranteed and assured. The majority of that assurance comes from men. Most societal rules and customs come from a need for cohesion with-in and strength projected out.

I don’t think a female led society would be much different, men and women are much more alike than they are different.

Of course submissive men have a certain fantasy but I’m pretty certain they don’t picture Margret Thatcher, then again maybe they do.

For much of history the main thing women needed protection from was men and that was in part because male dominated society actively denied women the right to earn a living and banished any that didn't comply to the fringes of society. It wasn't a coordinated nefarious plan, just something men could see benefited them and therefore had a vested interest in perpetuating.

And while yes physical protection is heavily dependent upon men that doesn't mean they are naturally the ones to lead. Consider the analogy of the military - much of modern democratic society is built on the premise that the military is our protector, but that it should not run the government. Quite the opposite, the military is largely made up of strong followers with a few leaders who defer to civilian government . And it is well established that a military run government is generally not a bad idea. So, it doesn't hold up that the people that protect us should be the ones who lead us.

I agree that a female society would not necessarily be much different. We have a bad habit of looking at the behaviour of different groups in society and assuming that is their intrinsic nature to behave in a certain way rather than a by-product of their status and power. To the extent that we don't see women or other groups using power in certain ways it is because they don't have power, not because they wouldn't do the same things if they had it.