Would Death by Snu Snu be part of the criminal justice system?
That was already the mindset in the backwater where my great-grandfather grew up in the late 19th century, and it wasn’t the women who were in charge. His father disliked his wife’s insistence to teach their letters to all their children, as “that’s for people who wear skirts!” (priests and women). The boys weren’t to let people know they could read.
The most matriarchal culture I know was sending fishermen to the Newfoundland banks pretty early in the 16th century; some people say it may have been earlier. Hey, as a way to get the husband out of your kitchen it sure works, and they bring fish back!
Which, directly leads us to the question, what exactly is meant by “oppressed”? You cannot pigeon-hole 7 billion people.
Who is higher on societys totem-pole, a middle class housewife? Or a male casual farm laborer? Who has a higher quality of life and more freedoms to choose?
Your male immigrant who travels to a foreign country and does backbreaking work in difficult conditions and sends most of his pay back home, might not agree that his wife is oppressed and he is’nt.
Walking marriages. Mosuo - Wikipedia
Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk Pro
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of evolution. Men got to be in political power because back before we had a thing called politics, men were in charge because they were bigger and stronger. and by default women of the pre-politics era were oppressed.
Female oppression is not a modern day invention.
…
I figure war would be less common, but not eliminated. Most soldiers would still be male, but you would find more female commanding officers than you might expect, considering more men would still be applying. Everyone would “know” that women have the most strategic minds (I doubt there’s any advantage one way or the other) so most of the generals would be female. I figure there would be fewer soldiers in general.
There would be more female police officers, as everyone “knows” it’s a bad idea to give testosterone-fueled people guns and then expect them to talk down people rather than just shoot them. There probably would be fewer police shootings, but also discrimination against male police officers. Some jobs (eg SWAT team members) would still mostly go to males. In fact men who want to become detectives might be directed toward the more “suitable” SWAT team instead.
The workforce would change, in many ways for the better. There would be no “maternal wall” that disadvantages mothers compared to childless women and men in the workforce. (The maternal wall is almost absent in careers, such as scientists and medical doctors, where the worker can control their own schedule.)
A willingness to work long hours (common among unmarried men) wouldn’t be seen as an advantage, and there might be rules forcing people to only work forty hours per week, as longer hours disproportionately benefit unmarried men. Such rules wouldn’t directly target men, but more men than women would be affected (as usually more men want to do overtime).
Female-dominated professions (eg teachers) would see pay increases. Male-dominated professions (eg soldiers) would see pay freezes. Pay equity legislation might go overboard. (Women are generally paid less than men these days, but much of that is due to the maternal wall and not wanting to work as many hours. Of course, some of the pay difference is just blatant sexism.) Company pay rates by gender would be published annually, and if the rates are by yearly pay rather than by hour, it could prompt overreach in an effort to “correct” any pay differences.
Male sports stars would wear less clothing (apparently lots of women went to the original Greek Olympics to watch nude male sprinters) and might not be given much or any choice in the matter. These events would be called “Mister Universe Sports”. Actresses and female sports stars would wear more clothing. There would be significant changes to visual media and pornography.
If this sort of thing happened in the modern world, I don’t think there would be that many changes. There would be more women in positions of authority and they’d be getting paid better, but as there are few outright sexist laws in the modern west, there would be little overt change.
I wouldn’t go that far. There would be wars, but they would be about different issues. Not about territorial conquest, for example. But I can see something like the following scenario.
The prime ministers of England and France have a meeting, and the PM of England suggests that she sees this as somewhat informal and intends to dress casually. Taking her cue from this, the PM of France shows up dressed casually herself, only to find the PM of England dressed to the nines and completely outclassing her. WW3 breaks out …
High heels would have never been invented,
I disagree with 90% of the comments in this thread. I LOVE high heels. I want all people to be educated.
I think the problem with the assumption in the OP is very simple. Are we walking about doing a sudden switcheroo? Because then there would be constant comparison to “how things were” vs. “how things are.” So I could see how some of the ideas mentioned here could be that knee-jerk backlash reaction to having had a patriarchal society forever.
Or are we talking about: there never was a patriarchy and we are just trying to imagine what a matriarchal society would be like if there had never been a patriarchy? I have no idea what that would look like and I don’t think any of us can speculate with any degree of accuracy at all.
I also think many of the responses are about “if radical feminists ruled the world” more than about “if women ruled the world”. Perhaps this is because the notion of women ruling the world is automatically equated with radical feminism. Nonetheless, if it was just “women” and not “radical feminists”, then I think much of the speculation here wouldn’t hold.
Most likely there would be a great increase in both male and female homosexuality.
Huh? Why?
Let’s settle this once and for all: Are homosexuals born homosexual, or choose to be?
We will have to sit when we pee
I don’t think “In a society where homosexuality is met with disapproval, a Kinsey 2 is straight, but in a society where homosexuality is met with approval, they are bi” is incompatible with “being a kinsey 2 is biologically determined.”
To answer OP, I think all the changes are pregnancy related. Option one is that since women do the work of carrying the kid, men do the work of raising it, in which case men face very similar discrimination to what women face now. Option two is women continue to be primary caretakers of children, but the position is given more esteem and made easier than in our current society. I’m not sure how they maintain political control with option 2 though.
:rolleyes: This has jack-shit to do with “female-dominated” educational systems of “today”. Because in almost all formal educational systems of yesteryear, in which the large majority of school administrators and teachers were men (and most if not all students were boys), schools constantly tried to “actively discourage ‘boyish behavior’” - in the sense that “boys who [ran] around, [were] active, high-energy or [were] restless” generally had the everloving snot beaten out of them by a male disciplinarian.
School discipline has always been biased against “letting boys be boys” (at least in the sense of letting boys be “high-energy”, “restless”, inattentive, disruptive, etc.). And for most of educational history, that bias has been enthusiastically promoted and encouraged by overwhelmingly male teachers and administrators. (Not to mention parents of boys themselves.)
It’s only very recently, since girls started getting equal opportunities and support in school and consequently started outperforming boys, than anybody started noticing that traditional schooling is in some respects better suited to how we socialize girls than to how we socialize boys. In fact, most of the educators noticing and promoting the importance of accommodating diverse learning styles have been women (and feminist women, at that).
In short: When you complain about “overactive” boys being scolded by female teachers (or medicated because of complaints from female teachers) because of their natural boyish high spirits, just remember that in earlier times, the same “overactive” boys would been scolded (or whipped) by male teachers because of the same natural boyish high spirits.
By all means, let’s work to change our traditional educational system so that it functions better for students of all different genders, learning styles, and socialization patterns. But FFS let’s stop ignorantly trying to lay the blame for the newly-apparent shortcomings of our traditional educational system at the feet of feminists, or women in general.
Women would get shorter jail terms than men who commit the same offences.
Healthcare spending on women’s health issues would be significantly higher than healthcare spending on men’s issues.
Women would be greatly preferenced in custody hearings.