Dominating Women

Stiffler2

If Women had dominated Planet Earth from the very begininning and men were in the kitchen from 10,000 AD.

If women had to go out hunting for food while we minded the babies and if men only got equal rights in the last 20 years or so what would be different ??


basically switch the roles of men v's women right from the beginning.

What in your opinion would be different about the world today ??

I for one think we'd all be dead because I doubt women could have caught the meals back in the day but that's just my opinion.

What do you think about this ??

Mr Benevolent

Nuclear winter every month.

dmcronin

Dammit, thought it was a different sort of thread!

davet82

not a whip in sight

mikemac1

Thread disappoints

Someone might buy me nice things for a change.

biko

What made us survive back in the day wasn't anything other than pure brain power. Mankind is a pink sack of meat and most animals can kill us.
We just had to be smarter.
The difference between men and women, then and now, is that men are usually stronger and can beat down women by sheer force. This was, and is, the only significant deciding difference between us. Imo.

Having said that I don't think things would be much different, we would probably be at this stage in evolution anyway.

admiralofthefleet

wash it and iron it and give it back to us

o1s1n

I can't decide how to read the thread title - as women who dominate or the act of dominating women

summerskin

No handshakes, only squeals.

And we'd all be "ma girlies"

ie. "went to see ma girlies at the G8 summit, wazz MADD craic( that merkin is a biatch tho xxxooooxxx)"
And so on. Forever.

Battered Mars Bar

Be still stuck in the stone age tbh. Name a good invention by a woman Wars would've lasted 100 times longer too with both sides b*tching about each other to some poor neutral country for decades on end. Wars would also start over the slighest thing, like if the Queen of Germany said her husbands a great cook, the Queen of France would take that as saying her husband can't cook or some nonsense.

Don't think democracy would've developed either. Every country would need a queen with an attitude of "I'm right all the time"

smash

Stiffler2 wrote: »

If Women had dominated Planet Earth from the very begininning and men were in the kitchen from 10,000 AD.

Was that a question?

flutterflye

If women had all the male roles, then they would have to be made up differently - more like men.
And men would have to be made up more like a woman.
So very little would be different.

tommylimerick

there would be a lot less people on the planet for one

seamus

It wouldn't really make any sense for the roles to have been reversed 10,000 years ago because the roles were dictated to us by our biology. Men being stronger and with greater stamina and spatial skills made better hunters, while women with better fine motor control and organisational skills were better at maintaining the home.

The reason that these roles are no longer quite so important is because men and women were so good as a team in developing communities that we've arrived where we are today.

Most likely if the roles had been reversed it would be a much weaker team as the men inadvertently killed the children and formed smaller social groups while the women were (in the long term) less successful in bringing home the hunt.

Chances are humans would be a smaller population of a few hundred thousand individuals living in huts, if we were still here at all. We haven't gotten where we are today because of men's suitability to hunting. After all, you can hunt till the cows come home, but if your partner is no good at rearing children, your bloodline ends. We're only here today because both men and women have been exceptionally accomplished at doing what they do.

Nothingbetter2d

basketball would sure suck if women dominated the world

mikemac1

If only Mayo could give us Grace O'Malley instead of Enda Kenny then this country would not be walked over by the rest of Europe

Come on Mayo, give us a proper leader!

Zab

Stiffler2 wrote: »

If Women had dominated Planet Earth from the very begininning and men were in the kitchen from 10,000 AD.

If women had to go out hunting for food while we minded the babies and if men only got equal rights in the last 20 years or so what would be different ??


basically switch the roles of men v's women right from the beginning.

What in your opinion would be different about the world today ??

I for one think we'd all be dead because I doubt women could have caught the meals back in the day but that's just my opinion.

What do you think about this ??

You haven't made women "dominating", you've made them into men and you've made the men into women. So, things would be basically the same except with the roles reversed.

A less ridiculous question would be asking where we'd be if women had dominated in leadership and control.

paul_mcshane

Stiffler2 wrote: »

If Women had dominated Planet Earth from the very begininning and men were in the kitchen from 10,000 AD.

If women had to go out hunting for food while we minded the babies and if men only got equal rights in the last 20 years or so what would be different ??


basically switch the roles of men v's women right from the beginning.

What in your opinion would be different about the world today ??

I for one think we'd all be dead because I doubt women could have caught the meals back in the day but that's just my opinion.

What do you think about this ??

all the men would have committed suicide

a hard as nails dominering man will leave you alone and respect you if you show your worth

a ball busting feminazi isnt happy untill you have been hammered into submission and are bereft of self esteem and dignity

smash

Zab wrote: »

You haven't made women "dominating", you've made them into men and you've made the men into women. So, things would be basically the same except with the roles reversed.

Well I'm pretty sure men can't give birth or breast feed so it's not reversing the roles... Let me check wikipedia first though before I confirm!

Sauve

This thread makes zero sense.

Zab

smash wrote: »

Well I'm pretty sure men can't give birth or breast feed so it's not reversing the roles... Let me check wikipedia first though before I confirm!

You're right, I clearly meant that men would have started giving birth to babies rather than their roles in society

hooradiation

Stiffler2 wrote: »

If Women had dominated Planet Earth from the very begininning and men were in the kitchen from 10,000 AD.

A.D means "Anno Domini" as in after the birth of christ. 10,000 A.D is 7,988 years from now.

Logical Fallacy

Stiffler2 wrote: »

If Women had dominated Planet Earth from the very begininning and men were in the kitchen from 10,000 AD.

If women had to go out hunting for food while we minded the babies and if men only got equal rights in the last 20 years or so what would be different ??


basically switch the roles of men v's women right from the beginning.

What in your opinion would be different about the world today ??

I for one think we'd all be dead because I doubt women could have caught the meals back in the day but that's just my opinion.

What do you think about this ??

Nothing would be different. If males gave birth they would be females and if females didn't they would be males.

End.

paul_mcshane

Zab wrote: »

You haven't made women "dominating", you've made them into men and you've made the men into women. So, things would be basically the same except with the roles reversed.

A less ridiculous question would be asking where we'd be if women had dominated in leadership and control.

the pc gender neutral zealots who influence every facet of western culture are working hard to root out traditional male traits , masculinity is potrayed as probelmatic , agressive and highly objectionable , yet we wonder why young men have an identity crisis and are taking their own lives

Stiffler2

hooradiation wrote: »

A.D means "Anno Domini" as in after the birth of christ. 10,000 A.D is 7,988 years from now.

Lol - oh my - how embarassing ( although no one else copped )

I'm scarlet for me......

omgitsthelazor

It would be literal role reversal, the only difference would be the dominant gender would give birth.

It's not exactly unusual and many current species have those sort of roles. Many insects like spiders or mantis have females who literally eat the males after copulation. :pac:
Others like the heyena have bigger, physically stronger females.

Spotted hyenas are a classic example of female dominance. Females are larger than males, and all females are superior to all males - in other words, even the lowest-ranked female outranks the highest-ranked male. Females have an enlarged clitoris almost exactly the same size and shape as the male's penis, and also 'pseudo-testes' - fatty lumps in the lips of the vagina that resemble testicles. These block the entrance to the vagina, meaning that this species must mate and give birth through the clitoris. Since the cubs are large in relation to the size of the mother, the clitoris often splits during birth, which can sometimes cause the death of the mother.

So y'know it can happen quite easily and not flip the entire world upside down.

Paparazzo

Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Be still stuck in the stone age tbh. Name a good invention by a woman Wars would've lasted 100 times longer too with both sides b*tching about each other to some poor neutral country for decades on end. Wars would also start over the slighest thing, like if the Queen of Germany said her husbands a great cook, the Queen of France would take that as saying her husband can't cook or some nonsense.

Don't think democracy would've developed either. Every country would need a queen with an attitude of "I'm right all the time"

There would be no wars, the presidents of all the countries would gather in a room passing notes to each other saying that Mrs Jong Il and Mrs Chavez are bitches and the rest of the girls aren't talking to them.

Death by snu snu would be good though

Dravokivich

Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Be still stuck in the stone age tbh. Name a good invention by a woman Wars would've lasted 100 times longer too with both sides b*tching about each other to some poor neutral country for decades on end. Wars would also start over the slighest thing, like if the Queen of Germany said her husbands a great cook, the Queen of France would take that as saying her husband can't cook or some nonsense.

Don't think democracy would've developed either. Every country would need a queen with an attitude of "I'm right all the time"

Funny you should say that, this site is a quick google click away: http://www.women-inventors.com/

With the following piece on it's homepage:

Although better known for her Silver Screen exploits, Austrian actress Hedy Lamarr (born Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler) also became a pioneer in the field of wireless communications following her emigration to the United States. The international beauty icon, along with co-inventor George Anthiel, developed a "Secret Communications System" to help combat the Nazis in World War II. By manipulating radio frequencies at irregular intervals between transmission and reception, the invention formed an unbreakable code to prevent classified messages from being intercepted by enemy personnel.

Scanlas The 2nd

biko wrote: »

What made us survive back in the day wasn't anything other than pure brain power. Mankind is a pink sack of meat and most animals can kill us.
We just had to be smarter.
The difference between men and women, then and now, is that men are usually stronger and can beat down women by sheer force. This was, and is, the only significant deciding difference between us. Imo.

Having said that I don't think things would be much different, we would probably be at this stage in evolution anyway.

I think women have better social skills to compensate for being less independent in the days of hunter gatherers. If a woman was expelled from her tribe it would be a greater threat to her survival than a man, especially if she was heavily pregnant.

CageWager

men would be campaigning for our right to run in the womens mini marathon... oh wait...

Defiler Of The Coffin

The first computer programmer might have been a man!

Sindri

Stiffler2 wrote: »

I for one think we'd all be dead because I doubt women could have caught the meals back in the day but that's just my opinion.

What do you think about this ??

For quite a while in human history women were actually the main breadwinners as such because their gathering enterprise were more successful than men's hunting.

Tym

men and women, then and now, is that men are usually stronger

IMO, that's really more of an on average thing.:P I personal don't think men are naturally stronger then women, but society's view of a good male is strong, and six-packed while society's view of a good looking female is slim.

Stiffler2

Sindri wrote: »

For quite a while in human history women were actually the main breadwinners as such because their gathering enterprise were more successful than men's hunting.

this may or may not be true, I am not argueing.

But I would like to see a gang of women taking down, let's say a buffallo with a spear to feed the familes back in the cave.

Ellis Dee

It would make no difference which gender was on top. We'd still have jiggy-jiggy.:):):):)

http://ppcolliercounty.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pp1520male20chauvinist20pig.jpg

Duggy747

Nothing on telly but reality shows and celebrity gossip and....................good Lord, it's already happened!!

Video games wouldn't be embarrasingly cheesy towards women. The female characters would probably be Ripley-esque by being strong, independant, intelligent, etc, and wear better-fitting clothes that doesn't look like their bewbs and arse are about to explode out of.

The male characters would be bumbling idiots who can't cook or look after kids :pac:

Zab

Tym wrote: »

IMO, that's really more of an on average thing.:P I personal don't think men are naturally stronger then women, but society's view of a good male is strong, and six-packed while society's view of a good looking female is slim.

Is it that you don't believe men have more testosterone than women or that you don't believe it aids muscle growth?

Logical Fallacy

Stiffler2 wrote: »

this may or may not be true, I am not argueing.

But I would like to see a gang of women taking down, let's say a buffallo with a spear to feed the familes back in the cave.

Indeed, who ever heard of a woman throwing something?

Tym wrote: »

IMO, that's really more of an on average thing. I personal don't think men are naturally stronger then women, but society's view of a good male is strong, and six-packed while society's view of a good looking female is slim.

What you believe has little to do with anything. Men are naturally stronger, when talking about mean strength.

Stiffler2

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Indeed, who ever heard of a woman throwing something?



What you believe has little to do with anything. Men are naturally stronger, when talking about mean strength.

stop being the opposite of your username

Battered Mars Bar

Dravokivich wrote: »

Funny you should say that, this site is a quick google click away: http://www.women-inventors.com/

With the following piece on it's homepage:

Co-inventor George...ah now :pac:

Lets see....woman invented windshield wipers but did she invent the car?

other quotes...."She spent the greater part of her childhood hanging around the manufacturing plant run by her father and uncle, two men who combined to invent, among other things, an industrial lathe"

"Barbie doll is a staple in the toy chests of little girls everywhere. Along with co-founding (probably with a man) the renowned toy company Mattel, woman inventor Ruth Handler also designed the doll that would become an American cultural icon."

Ah yea yea yea :pac:

biko

Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Be still stuck in the stone age tbh. Name a good invention by a woman

I only need to name one, Marie Curie.
Curie was the first person to win two Nobel Prizes.
Physics 1903
Chemistry 1911

She is one of only two people who have been awarded a Nobel Prize in two different fields, the other person being Linus Pauling for chemistry and for peace (how gay is that?).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4jCTiGSuwU

Casillas

There's been loads of female inventions;

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0906931.html

Stiffler2

biko wrote: »

I only need to name one, Marie Curie.
Curie was the first person to win two Nobel Prizes.
Physics 1903
Chemistry 1911

She is one of only two people who have been awarded a Nobel Prize in two different fields, the other person being Linus Pauling for chemistry and for peace (how gay is that?).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4jCTiGSuwU

yeah but I heard Marie Curie stole the idea / notes from her husband which had something to do with radiation, is that right ?

biko

Stiffler2 wrote: »

yeah but I heard Marie Curie stole the idea / notes from her husband which had something to do with radiation, is that right ?

Watch the video.

Tym

Is it that you don't believe men have more testosterone than women or that you don't believe it aids muscle growth?

Yeah, I think it does aid muscle growth, but I think a diet filled with protein, carbohydrites and various red-meats helps as well:D

ScumLord

Males of most species are mostly physical specimens for reproduction. If traditional African tribes are any indications of how small human tribes worked then men didn't even contribute much to the food supply with their hunting. Hunting is hard and wouldn't have been a guaranteed way of putting food on the table. Most food would have been gathered by the women foraging. Hunting men is a display of fitness, cunning and reckless behaviour which women tend to think are desirable attributes.

If women didn't decide to pass those kind of attributes on future generations we probably wouldn't have had as many wars but probably wouldn't have advanced as quickly as we did because people wouldn't take as many risks. Would probably be less healthy too.

Sindri

Stiffler2 wrote: »

this may or may not be true, I am not argueing.

But I would like to see a gang of women taking down, let's say a buffallo with a spear to feed the familes back in the cave.

Well I'd presume they would be quite good at it as the typical weapons used, a javellin, would be quite easy to us as the were usually propelled with a device to assist distance and accuracy, as well as the reason for the success of humans in hunting which was our superior social communication skills, which women are renowned for. :rolleyes:

Paparazzo

Casillas wrote: »

There's been loads of female inventions;

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0906931.html

I checked a few random ones.
Circular saw is debatable. No one really knows
Globe. No.
Ironing Board. No
Rotary engine. No
Windshield wiper. yay! Finally!

And what a list, a paper bag making machine?

Nothingbetter2d

Bessie Littlejohn invented the pyrex dish :P

RobbieTheRobber

Casillas wrote: »

There's been loads of female inventions;

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0906931.html

I hope your not using that site to prove their are loads of inventions by women there are 20 odd there and one of them is "Chocolate-chip cookies".

although thank god they were invented eh the world wouldnt be the same, for a start i wouldnt come home from work look in the press and say something like how come all the Chocolate-chip cookies i bought yesterday have been eaten?