Female Led Society

[waratah]

It's a bullshit question and assumes if we were the dominant gender we'd still be pandering to men's desires.

So like, if women were in charge we'd all swan around in lingerie? No. Maybe we'd make men wear it so they could look ridiculous while we all sat around at home masturbating over underwear websites? No.

We'd be the ones wearing comfy clothing. WITH FUCKING POCKETS!

Whats stopping you wearing comfy clothes with pockets now?

 

[Purple_Fronds]

For much of history the main thing women needed protection from was men

i don’t disagree that’s absolutely the case but it’s certainly a lot more nuanced than this. Yes men have always been and still are both the aggressors and the protectors but they’re not doing this in a vacuum, women are right there in the mix, both as supporters and sometimes instigators. Over and over again it’s one society trying to gain or protect its resources from another. Women are far from innocent in this struggle which is why I don’t believe it would be any different.

We also don’t have to think in wider terms to see this in action, after all I believe most men have experienced what I like to call “let me see what my big boyfriend can do” which nearly always involves the woman flexing her influence for an unwarranted outcome for themselves. In short women and men both exert power selfishly for themselves when they can.

And while yes physical protection is heavily dependent upon men that doesn't mean they are naturally the ones to lead.

I don’t disagree with this point either but neither is the counter true, good leaders are good leaders, however like most things it’s harder to lead if you haven’t done the job yourself. It’s not the commander in chief it’s the squad leader, the duty sergeant, and as all good leaders know, you have to take your people with you. People are not sheep and if they’re not sure their leaders have their best interest at heart they will most likely take action, or simply not follow.

If we remove the sexual fantasy part of the hypothetical premise, then I’m just not sure how this could possibly come about and if somehow we convince all these men that risk their lives to ensure our security but they would be second class citizens then I’m not sure it’s a better society than what we have.

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

We agree a hundred percent, and there are plenty of examples that prove this. I weighed in on this thread because the subject is interesting and I appreciated some of the serious considerations people made. I also wanted to make the case that I think it’s important to realize that for a lot of men especially young men they already think we’re in a female led society. We can point to all the reasons why this isn’t true but for them it is, and as a consequence they feel very marginalized, which should concern everybody.

 

[Justfantasies]

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.

I was "lucky." My mother came from an earthy family who talked openly about affairs and sex, so I got a more realistic view early on

 

[policywank]

i don’t disagree that’s absolutely the case but it’s certainly a lot more nuanced than this. Yes men have always been and still are both the aggressors and the protectors but they’re not doing this in a vacuum, women are right there in the mix, both as supporters and sometimes instigators. Over and over again it’s one society trying to gain or protect its resources from another. Women are far from innocent in this struggle which is why I don’t believe it would be any different.

We also don’t have to think in wider terms to see this in action, after all I believe most men have experienced what I like to call “let me see what my big boyfriend can do” which nearly always involves the woman flexing her influence for an unwarranted outcome for themselves. In short women and men both exert power selfishly for themselves when they can.

I don’t disagree with this point either but neither is the counter true, good leaders are good leaders, however like most things it’s harder to lead if you haven’t done the job yourself. It’s not the commander in chief it’s the squad leader, the duty sergeant, and as all good leaders know, you have to take your people with you. People are not sheep and if they’re not sure their leaders have their best interest at heart they will most likely take action, or simply not follow.

If we remove the sexual fantasy part of the hypothetical premise, then I’m just not sure how this could possibly come about and if somehow we convince all these men that risk their lives to ensure our security but they would be second class citizens then I’m not sure it’s a better society than what we have.



We agree a hundred percent, and there are plenty of examples that prove this. I weighed in on this thread because the subject is interesting and I appreciated some of the serious considerations people made. I also wanted to make the case that I think it’s important to realize that for a lot of men especially young men they already think we’re in a female led society. We can point to all the reasons why this isn’t true but for them it is, and as a consequence they feel very marginalized, which should concern everybody.

Yes of course it is more nuanced than men simply being the aggressors towards women or the false premise that the reverse cannot be true. But I do find that men (and sometimes women) subscribe to overly simplistic interpretations of the past and evolutionary psychology concepts to rationalize the double standard. For instance the notion that women are inherently more inclined towards monogamy because we need a man to protect and provide is not a dynamic that exists in isolation. The main thing we need protection from is men and the main reason we needed someone to provide is because we were denied access to the means to make a living. So, are we naturally more monogamous or did men create the situation wherein that was the only viable option. The analogy I have used here before is like observing a bird in a cage in a room full of cats. You can't just look at the fact that the bird prefers to stay in the cage and conclude that it wants to live in a cage without regard for the rest of the fact pattern. Likewise you can't just look at female behaviour in a male dominated society that cels that behaviour and punishes any deviation and conclude that what we are seeing is women's intrinsic nature.

I think women can be every bit as complicit and engaged as men in aggression and the struggle for resources including taking it from others. We go about it in different ways than men because we have different characteristics and areas of competitive advantage. Just because using brute force ourselves is not the obvious avenue doesn't mean we are more altruistic or less aggressive. How many wars or battles or bar fights have been over a woman? It isn't like we are innocent in all of those scenarios. Often we are using the tools at our disposal to get men to do those things on our behalf.

The leadership question has two sides. Yes it helps to have experience in a given field to be a leader in that field. So, if a country is at war then having a leader who is experienced in war (i.e Churchill vs Chamberlain) has merit. But countries don't exist solely for war. And people from a given field often tend to see the world through the lens of that experience (to a carpenter every problem is a nail that requires a hammer). So a leader who sees all foreign and domestic policy from a militaristic perspective may be a problem. A leader of society should be aware of the need to protect and perhaps even conquer, but that mustn't be too much of their focus.

I think that fundamentally the idea of society being dominated by one gender or ethnic group or whatever group is fundamentally flawed. Beyond fantasy the notion presumes that the chosen group is intrinsically better at leading not only on average but in the absolute sense. At its worst the patriarchy doesn't just presume the world should be led by men, but it also presumes that not a single woman anywhere contains any leadership ability whatsoever and that in fact every single man is a better leader than every single woman. That is absurd just as the opposite would be absurd. Even if any one group does possess more of a certain characteristics doesn't mean that other groups don't possess some of those characteristics or that every single individual in each group has the same quotient of those characteristics relative to the individuals of other groups.

The marginalization of young men is a serious matter. I see both sides of it. On the one hand men have been so used to having unassailable advantages and the benefit of the double standard that they have come to see the erosion of those privileges as persecution even though they were never entitled to those privileges. That is a little like getting mad at your neighbour because he won't let you steal his wifi anymore. On the other hand progressive ideals have led us to the place where all of society's ills are being blamed on young men (especially young white men) and while so many other groups are protected from any kind of discomfort or criticism it is open season on them without mercy. We have confused notions of privilege with blame or fault for even the slightest injustice. And we have assigned victim and oppressor roles to whole groups of people without regard for individual behaviour.

 

[wildp]

Funny I had a dream last night after being on here late. Was at a resort and normal white pool. Noticed another pool with more activity and was told was a Women run pool. I went over and got in it and set in the steps at shallow end. Two women swam up to me and one removed my swim trunks and they led me on into the pool pulling me by my cock.

 

[Purple_Fronds]

For instance the notion that women are inherently more inclined towards monogamy because we need a man to protect and provide is not a dynamic that exists in isolation.

I don’t know where this notion comes from either. I think women have always selected what’s best for them but due to biology, different culture norms and opportunities than men have had to go about it in different ways. Fundamentally women have had the advantage in terms of certainty over their offspring but are disadvantaged due to being physically weaker. Having certainty over their children has always vexed men and a lot of their subscription to monogamy and the desire to control their partner comes from this uncertainty. Women have had to be more cautious due to their higher risk of getting pregnant I don’t think that should ever be confused with a lack of sexual appetite. Both men and women show a desire for different partners for different aspects, men favoring a different woman to marry and have children with than they might pick for sexual fulfillment. I think women do exactly the same, the difference has been until relatively recently the cost to men for this behavior was significantly less. Obviously science has changed things significantly and hopefully that will continue, a male pill for example. I always think ww2 was a good indicator of women’s sexual desire when you see how many children were fathered by American gis.

Likewise you can't just look at female behaviour in a male dominated society that cels that behaviour and punishes any deviation and conclude that what we are seeing is women's intrinsic nature.

I agree with this i think this is a common mistake made in observation of a lot of societal constructs, but at the same time a lot of these things come to be for “good” reasons. Polygamy for example makes a lot of sense if your tribe looses a lot of men and have an excess of women that need partners. This of course doesn’t equate to today where most women are capable of providing for themselves.

Often we are using the tools at our disposal to get men to do those things on our behalf.

Completely, and it’s a dumb man that doesn’t realize that.

The leadership question has two sides. Yes it helps to have experience in a given field to be a leader in that field. So, if a country is at war then having a leader who is experienced in war (i.e Churchill vs Chamberlain) has merit. But countries don't exist solely for war. And people from a given field often tend to see the world through the lens of that experience (to a carpenter every problem is a nail that requires a hammer). So a leader who sees all foreign and domestic policy from a militaristic perspective may be a problem. A leader of society should be aware of the need to protect and perhaps even conquer, but that mustn't be too much of their focus.

My point was not well made, I wasn’t referring to the leader, but leadership in general. All organizations have multiple levels of leaders and the vast majority started off as practitioners, and in the case of security such as the police force this is mostly men. What has just happened in Syria is a good example where it was the rank and file that decided they no longer wanted to support Assad. For the record however I think there has been numerous examples of female leaders, Margret Thatcher comes to mind, irrespective of whether you love or loath her she was a very effective security orientated leader and also just as ruthless. Of course there’s plenty more.

At its worst the patriarchy doesn't just presume the world should be led by men, but it also presumes that not a single woman anywhere contains any leadership ability whatsoever and that in fact every single man is a better leader than every single woman

Yep, I agree it’s bullshit, there are some differences in style but this is minor, like most people I’ve observed and experienced both. What this does also open up though is the fact that just like men, women are unlikely to think you’re a good leader just because you’re a woman. They might be willing to give you more of an initial chance, but that’s all.

The marginalization of young men is a serious matter. I see both sides of it. On the one hand men have been so used to having unassailable advantages and the benefit of the double standard that they have come to see the erosion of those privileges as persecution even though they were never entitled to those privileges. That is a little like getting mad at your neighbour because he won't let you steal his wifi anymore. On the other hand progressive ideals have led us to the place where all of society's ills are being blamed on young men (especially young white men) and while so many other groups are protected from any kind of discomfort or criticism it is open season on them without mercy. We have confused notions of privilege with blame or fault for even the slightest injustice. And we have assigned victim and oppressor roles to whole groups of people without regard for individual behaviour.

I couldn’t agree more, although it’s always tough to assign past bad deeds to a new generation. Like you I see both sides and as a father of both have seen their respective challenges, the ongoing sexism and chauvinism is still unfortunately still very present. However there’s still a ton of mixed signals on both sides, I have sympathy for young men because they are asked to be softer, more vulnerable but quickly find out that this is a turn off for the majority of young women. I’ve read a lot of feminist literature and agree with a lot of the conclusions with in them but they seem to always dodge one of the main tenets which is that most male behavior is developed by men to attract and win the favor of women.

 

[policywank]

I don’t know where this notion comes from either. I think women have always selected what’s best for them but due to biology, different culture norms and opportunities than men have had to go about it in different ways. Fundamentally women have had the advantage in terms of certainty over their offspring but are disadvantaged due to being physically weaker. Having certainty over their children has always vexed men and a lot of their subscription to monogamy and the desire to control their partner comes from this uncertainty. Women have had to be more cautious due to their higher risk of getting pregnant I don’t think that should ever be confused with a lack of sexual appetite. Both men and women show a desire for different partners for different aspects, men favoring a different woman to marry and have children with than they might pick for sexual fulfillment. I think women do exactly the same, the difference has been until relatively recently the cost to men for this behavior was significantly less. Obviously science has changed things significantly and hopefully that will continue, a male pill for example. I always think ww2 was a good indicator of women’s sexual desire when you see how many children were fathered by American gis.

I agree with this i think this is a common mistake made in observation of a lot of societal constructs, but at the same time a lot of these things come to be for “good” reasons. Polygamy for example makes a lot of sense if your tribe looses a lot of men and have an excess of women that need partners. This of course doesn’t equate to today where most women are capable of providing for themselves.



Completely, and it’s a dumb man that doesn’t realize that.

My point was not well made, I wasn’t referring to the leader, but leadership in general. All organizations have multiple levels of leaders and the vast majority started off as practitioners, and in the case of security such as the police force this is mostly men. What has just happened in Syria is a good example where it was the rank and file that decided they no longer wanted to support Assad. For the record however I think there has been numerous examples of female leaders, Margret Thatcher comes to mind, irrespective of whether you love or loath her she was a very effective security orientated leader and also just as ruthless. Of course there’s plenty more.



Yep, I agree it’s bullshit, there are some differences in style but this is minor, like most people I’ve observed and experienced both. What this does also open up though is the fact that just like men, women are unlikely to think you’re a good leader just because you’re a woman. They might be willing to give you more of an initial chance, but that’s all.

I couldn’t agree more, although it’s always tough to assign past bad deeds to a new generation. Like you I see both sides and as a father of both have seen their respective challenges, the ongoing sexism and chauvinism is still unfortunately still very present. However there’s still a ton of mixed signals on both sides, I have sympathy for young men because they are asked to be softer, more vulnerable but quickly find out that this is a turn off for the majority of young women. I’ve read a lot of feminist literature and agree with a lot of the conclusions with in them but they seem to always dodge one of the main tenets which is that most male behavior is developed by men to attract and win the favor of women.

When we look at the cost to men and women of seeking out different sexual partners for sexual pleasure there are the intrinsic factors like the chances of getting pregnant and men worried about paternity. But there are also the societal constructs such as the fact that women were judged far more harshly and much more likely to be made to suffer for their choice.

Likewise when we talk about all kinds of aspects of evolutionary psychology we tend to merge the notions of intrinsic nature and circumstantial factors. There were a variety of reasons for many different relationship models throughout history, but observing them doesn't mean that women (or men) evolved to the point that it is part of our intrinsic nature. When people talk about the circumstances that compelled women towards monogamy they like to assert that women actually adapted in an evolutionary sense to desire monogamy. We have no control group of women at the same points in time and place that didn't have those pressures to compare. But we do know that almost as soon as those constraints were removed women became less inclined towards monogamy, more inclined towards sex for pleasure with men who didn't fit the profile of a life partner and more inclined to want to provide for themselves. That strongly suggests that we have not evolved towards desiring monogamy as much as some might think.

Yes, leaders benefit from having walked in the shoes of those that they lead. So, for a military it is logical that there will be more men because yes men are intrinsically better suited to military service than women. Or at least they are better suited to battle.

I think that our current desire for equality has gone a bit too far. For quite a while it was all about equal opportunity. But more recently someone came up with the silly notion that if we truly had equal opportunity we would have equal outcomes and therefore the absence of equal outcomes means there must be systematic injustice imbedded in the system. While there may be some systematic injustice in the system it is wrong to think that if there weren't we would all have equal outcomes in all aspects of life. Men and women are not the same. It is just that the ways in which we are different are not necessarily well reflected in the traditional thinking of a male dominated society.

I think that the reality is that women are still growing into notions of equality. One of the best examples I can think of is the notion of the "boss bitch." Women complain that men get away with being aggressive or abrasive in leadership roles than women. That is probably true. But the reality is that while some leaders are aggressive assholes those are generally not great leadership qualities in either gender. Stability, mentorship, knowledge, decisiveness, etc. are all more important and expecting that being a boss bitch is necessary to be a good leader suggest someone who is profoundly unprepared for the role.

One of the things that probably makes it difficult for young men to find their way with women is our own rhetoric. Like many groups there is tendency for a relatively few voices to claim to speak for everyone. That seems to happen with almost any identifiable group on the internet nowadays. But going back to the beginning of the feminist movement a few women claimed to speak for all. In fact rather than truly seek female empowerment they sought to supplant the old patriarchy's rules for women with their own rules for women. Men can probably be forgiven for thinking that all women were in agreement but we weren't. And just as men discouraged women from speaking openly about their sexuality so too did the feminists - again they defined that differently butt there were clear do's and don'ts . Meanwhile we have our own double standard. Think of the hot girl who criticizes guys that don't want to date her ugly friend for being shallow and talk a big game about what is inside that counts and how sweet this or that guy is.....but she only dates hot guys. Guys don't participate in that hypocrisy to the same degree. So, are they really more shallow or just more honest about it? Either way the messages are as mixed and confusing at a time when men have lost the upper hand (or at least it has been weakened) in gender relations. It is no surprise that many are lost. Unfortunately it is still not safe for women to be truly honest about our sexuality.

 

[Mike302]

Whats stopping you wearing comfy clothes with pockets now?

Was talking to the wife one day where she said she had no room in her pockets for something and like a fool I didn't understand. She took me through her wardrobe, and I was amazed. Women's clothes have no or very shallow pockets! What the hell?

 

[Mike302]

I like to see men calling out other men when misogyny occurs and do so myself. I'm still learning. I've seen it in my own behavior, far less than when I was young, but I like to think I'm rapidly evolving.

I like seeing some influencers on the internet beginning to appreciate and encourage submissive men. Not just in kink. Men need validation from other men and women to encourage change.

Both sexes can work on this.

Reducing the number of men would also help:

- Keep encouraging the use of birth control to reduce pregnancies
- Encourage men not getting sex from women to get sex from eachother and trans-people
- Make it easier to get abortions under state laws
- A movement encouraging selective abortions to favor female births

 

[waratah]

Was talking to the wife one day where she said she had no room in her pockets for something and like a fool I didn't understand. She took me through her wardrobe, and I was amazed. Women's clothes have no or very shallow pockets! What the hell?

So women can shop better? Set up clothing factories? Solve the problem??

 

[Yarglenurp]

So women can shop better? Set up clothing factories? Solve the problem??

They tried this, the pants didn’t sell. Something about how the women didn’t like having bulky stuff hug to their hips. It’s actually a fun thing to read about. Designers keep having the notion of functional pockets on women’s pants, and the the brand keeps failing because not enough women want them.