The oppression of women by men needs no comment- we have almost all of history as an example. But what if the shoe was on the other foot? Suppose for some reason (magic?) women collectively held the power to dictate the mores of society and men had no choice but to submit. In what ways might women be unjust and exploitative of men?
Certainly not to the extent that men can and do oppress women.
That being said:
- Quite possibly, the legal standard to get a conviction for a rape or sexual assault charge would be set so low as to be “guilty until proven innocent” - in fact, perhaps a woman would only have to accuse a man of such an act to get a conviction, absent truly exonerating evidence to the contrary.
- Along the lines of 1#, but not exactly the same: “Rape” might be redefined as sex that the woman didn’t like or regretted afterwards, even if she consented. I recall an Internet comment from someone who said that he had consensual sex with a woman, but she later said that his sex amounted to, or was akin, to rape, because she wasn’t feeling emotionally well at the time due to personal grief or unhappy circumstances. That’s a real dangerous legal slippery slope.
I’ve heard men say some pretty off the wall things that have yet to be codified into law, so I doubt very much what Velocity said would have a high chance of happening.
A few more thoughts:
- The pay scale might be set in such a way that women are actually paid more than men for doing the same work - a reverse version of the ‘Women are paid 77 cents for every man’s dollar’ claim of today. I’ve encountered an argument that once said that women should be exempt from Selective Service as a way of compensating for their natural disadvantages/unfairness (the example was that only women have to put up with things like pregnancy, etc. ) so it’s not totally unbelievable that someone might say that women deserve to be paid more than men as a way of compensating them for things like menstruation, pregnancy, physical vulnerability, etc.
- If one gender controls the Internet and/or social media, they may very well be able to selectively stifle or ban opinions that they do not like, while promoting opinions that they do like and approve of. So we might see feminists banning or suspending certain opinions of men, if they don’t like those opinions. (Again, if men were to run the Internet, they would be just as capable of doing this to women’s free speech, too. The power to stifle free speech is something both sides would be very tempted by.)
It depends on how much extent is meant by “rule the world.” Does it mean merely having, say, a 60% majority in a democratic society? Or does it mean truly having unlimited, undemocratic power that cannot be effectively countered or resisted.
I dunno, it’s not too far removed from the systematic injustices underclasses have historically faced. The unlikely element is how men in general (as opposed to, say, black men in the southern U.S. who were convicted or even lynched on similarly tenuous accusations) get to that stage.
In the current American educational system today (in which I believe the large majority of school administrators and teachers in the US are women,) there have already been people who have commented about how some schools try to actively discourage ‘boyish behavior’ - in the sense that boys who run around, are active, high-energy or are restless are prescribed Ritalin or other such drugs in an almost reflexive response. (There are, of course, hyper girls who get prescribed such meds, too, but boys are more likely to exhibit the need-to-run-and-play behavior).
So in the dystopia that the OP describes, there might be this culture in schools whereby a preference - by either boys or girls - for ‘boy things’ such as combat, war, violent sports, hunting, guns, etc. is discouraged.
Prosecuting attorneys would be the ones remaining silent - for hours, until you figured out what you were being charged with, and apologizing. There wouldn’t be any wars, but the UN would consist of the US and China going out to lunch together and talking about Russia behind her back. And there would be crying in baseball.
Regards,
Shodan
Call me unimaginative but I would think they would be happy with flipping societal norms as we have them today. Promiscuous men are ostracized, maybe more pressure is put on men to be seen not heard.
Piggybacking off of what Velocity’s comment about the increasing number of women in university, maybe women take control of academia and a culture develops where a man’s place is not in the classroom?
My guess is a lot of it would be the same kind of oppression women have dealt with. If you flipped the genders, women would be the powerful figures in the world. They would tend to look to other women first when they were promoting people and those women would, in turn, become the next generation of powerful figures and would perpetuate the system. Men would be the outsiders who were marginalized on the fringe.
I could see it generally being accepted that men have superior bodies while women have superior minds. And so therefore men are suited to manual labor while women are suited for everything else.
It’s a good thing VCR technology will be obsolete because nobody would know how to hook one up.
If women ruled the world, in what ways would men be oppressed?
What do you mean by ‘If’?
Ooooooooooo! under our new oestrogen overlords you’d now be banished to the salt mines for hard labour, reeducation…and snu-snu.
Fathers would be seen as much more expendable than they are now. The idea that “woman give birth to children” would hold much more authority than the idea of sperm donation.
Many of the same beliefs that hold back women could easily be used to oppress men. In a matriarchal society biased against masculine interests, we might see:
-
Men considered unfit for high-powered roles and occupations because “hormones make them emotional and irrational”. It would be treated as a given that testosterone is a risk factor for dangerous decision-making, aggressiveness, and distractability (what, with all those intrusive sexual thoughts getting in the way of reason), so men would be discouraged from assuming leadership positions.
-
Physiological and developmental gender differences would be interpreted as evidence of male inferiority and justification for why men deserve to be dominated. Males are slower to mature than females? Well, obviously with them being child-like even in adulthood, that means women are called to be the head of their households while men must submit to the authority of their wives. Movies would be full of stories of women swooping down to rescue men from danger and/or effortlessly solving all their problems using inexhaustible supplies of wisdom.
-
Constructs associated with femininity would be esteemed while those associated with masculinity would be stigmatized. As a result, boys could be “tom girls” and be considered cool and edgy and admirable. But girls taking on boyish interests will be asking to be mocked and treated like freaks. Female-dominated professions would be the highest paid and the most prestigious. Male-dominated ones would be the butt of all jokes.
-
Men would be frequently faulted if women did bad things to them and they failed to take all the precautions they could to prevent that.
I’m guessing abortion would be a sacrament.
This does lead to an interesting question - how conservative vs. liberal politics would play out in a women-dominated world.
Within the ranks of women (like within the ranks of any group of people,) there are Christians, atheists, conservatives, liberals, white and minority women, etc. They certainly wouldn’t see eye to eye on things. Women as a whole are indeed somewhat more liberal than men as a whole (at least in America,) but there might still be an ardent pro-life faction among women, just like there is today (indeed, many of the protesters marching for life at pro-life rallies are women.)
Would it simply be a case of pro-choice women outvoting or out-talking pro-life women?
Men would be forced into compulsory military service to fight wars, against armies of other men.
Men would be pressed into service as cheap entertainment (sport) while destroying their own bodies in the process.
Men would be required to occupy dangerous, dirty, and/or un-glamorous occupations.
Men would be at all times under suspicion for trying to help a stranger, and especially if they were trying to help a child.
Men would be discouraged from entering professions that require caring, such as nursing; and being around children, such as teaching.
Oh, wait.
Well, if men no longer dominate organized religion (I assume), will abortion even remain a religious issue? It wasn’t always - it was several years after Roe that the nascent Religious Right grabbed onto abortion as an issue, after initial ambivalence or even support for the decision.