If women ruled the world...

Japan is experiencing a cultural shift away from sex in under 35s, which is interesting.

I personally did feel a real need to have a baby that I wouldn't say was socially influenced. I'm not saying some people don't feel pressure to have children, but among the people I know everyone was of the 'not for at least 5 years' mind. I was 30 when I got pregnant. I don't think it's impossible that some women may want lots of children, just that they're outliers, and balanced by those who want none or only one. Most will want a small family, looking at how the birth rate has changed in areas where women have access to birth control.

My understanding is that lots of women stopped having sex with their husbands because pregnancies took such a toll

Throughout the ages until a 'reliable' contraception

How does anyone know what a female chimp gets off on.

It's very anthropomorphic to say violence/pain = rape. There are species where the male dies during or after sex. But that's accepted without a moral analysis superimposed on it as 'just what nature does'. Yet when a female chimp has been chased or beaten, there is no way that could be part of just what nature does and part of the sex act for the female

Besides, rape isn't determined by analysis of the sex act. Rape is sex against consent. A man could be incredibly gentle and slow and still be raping a woman. A man could be rough and potentially cause injury but be with a partner who has enthusiastically consented.

I really don't like this thing of analysing animal sex acts as rape because it takes away from the very definition of rape which is to do with the mind not the body. We cannot determine consent in animals we can't communicate with. Rape does NOT only occur where the woman is injured and the man has scratch marks. Often it occurs with no physical damage at all. A man having scratch marks and the woman having bruises does NOT mean she was raped.

I have been raped with no injury at all and then in a separate incident many years later was raped and left physically injured. The second rape wasn't somehow more rapey. Both were rape, and neither were rape because of an outside analysis of the physical act, they were rape purely and simply because I did not want to have sex.

I've also been left with sex injuries from activities with DH categorically not rape!!

Wow, Ava. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that you don't credit women with any responsibility at all, every decision ever made is because men.
To read your posts you would think throughout history and prehistory, the only reason the human race survived is that men raped women into having children.
Women never want children of their own accord. Or if they do, it's only one or two, because hey, you only want one or two so it figures that the billions of women throughout history probably wanted the same that you want, right?
Of course, if a woman did want 10 kids, she didn't really know her own mind, silly wee thing, she was conditioned or forced.
The reason women had lots of pregnancies back when the world's population was low, is due to very high infant mortality rate.
People, men and yes, women, want to reproduce. If their child dies, they want to replace it.
I don't buy that a Victorian woman would think "well, I've had two children die in infancy, so I'd just give up, but I'm being forced to have more".
People, not just men, want to reproduce. Or have throughout history.

My point about non-patriarchal (or at least not as brutally so) societies is that they either didn't seek to dominate the planet so def not power hungry

Which non-patriarchal societies are you referring to?

Most of the undernourished children in the world are girls, and most of those who die under 5 y.o. are girls, because the parents give away the food and medical treatment to boys.

Where specifically is this so? It's not the case in the UK is it? Blanket cross-cultural statements like that are meaningless.

As for the zoological perspective: it's not the facts that matter, but the way they get used to service the human patriarchy.

Both willing sex and rape are common among many species. What's certain, however, is that females do not willingly choose the dominant males. Even when they seem to do so - it's a survival strategy to ward off more violence from other males towards them and their babies. In many species they sneak off to mate with the less violent males while the dominant male isn't looking with great risk to themselves. Again, like Vestal said - the females may very well like sex when they're given choice in the matter. Just like the human ones.

What's depressing is that our genetic cousins the chimps are REALLY high on the rape scale. Practically all of their mating is various strategies of sexual coercion, much of it violent. Generally, more violence = more reproductive success for a male. But that is through rape and intimidation, not because the female gets off on it like the MRAs claim. Females get off on somewhat consensual, female-friendly sex like the bonobos do it.

Vestal is correct to cite dolphins because they're crazily intelligent...and still highly rapey despite that.

My point about non-patriarchal (or at least not as brutally so) societies is that they either didn't seek to dominate the planet so def not power hungry, or that the oppression they practiced was ineffective in that goal. Which is why they're all gone past the colonial stage.

Phew, I've written a thesis here...

"If men overpopulated the world, they did it by enabling children to live to adulthood."

...after forcing women to have countless children to start with. Men have pushed constant PIV on them regardless - only now the collateral damage from that gets to live more often (with more chances if it's male). Most of the undernourished children in the world are girls, and most of those who die under 5 y.o. are girls, because the parents give away the food and medical treatment to boys.

User, I have no idea what you're trying to argue as a main point. When you say: "people want power", you really mean: "men and the few women who behave like men want power". You have no basis for arguing that women on the whole want power equally because we just don't know - because the world has been patriarchal for all of written history. You're making the error of viewing all of humanity through the male lens, because men are the default humans in our world.

"You've said several times that men caused the overpopulation of the world, but the overpopulation was caused by huge advances in medicine, not in any increase in reproduction."

Do you seriously think that women wanted the 14 or so children forced on them in 1800? Medicine has just kept more of those babies alive. It's technology layering on top of the patriarchy and reproductive sex being forced on women. Frosting on a cake.

The 1st city in the world predicted to run out of water is in Yemen. This is because the country's population has quadripled in the past 60 or so years. It also happens to rank one of the lowest in the world on gender equality. So even in that microcosm the scenario plays out the same regarding patriarchy, unwanted PIV, too many humans, poverty and the environment.

The patriarchy is killing this planet and torturing women in the process. No wonder feminists are so pessimistic these days. We've already hit the iceberg, but men keep merrily throwing more water in to sink the Titanic faster via overpopulation - all just to service their dicks on the regular.

Mexico was considered a China-like economic miracle in the 50s, but it could not develop fast enough to outpace the rapid population growth. It had to take a breather to institute nation-wide family planning programs in the 70s. Men were often resistant to them to the point of violence. After several decades of that and a degree of female empowerment, it beat the fertility rate down enough to be able to resume reasonable, but not spectacular development.

So no, oppression's not just about the economy. Otherwise Mexican men would've thought back in the 50s: "Hey, let's give women full reproductive autonomy to make fewer babies so we'll all be richer." Men everywhere could invent and use a chemical suppressant of the excessive sex+violence+misogyny hormones along the lines of the trans hormones and surgery or anti-depressants. So we can all be richer, safer, use the full intellectual potential of half of our species, breathe cleaner air and divide resources among fewer humans. Why don't they???

Look at the fact that womens' sex drive plunges while breast-feeding, and for some - for years after. For some it disappears during pregnancy. Sure, there are non-biological factors there like exhaustion and finding alone time, but it also seems to be nature's way of spacing pregnancies. The whole concept of marriage took away that opportunity from women, because their male slave-owner was legally entitled to force intercourse on them despite their natural lack of desire, and still is in many, many places of the world. Those places also happen to be poor and overpopulated. Gee, I wonder why...

Vestal is 100% right on the main problem being men continuously forcing themselves on women and producing too many humans as a result. Genes are selfish, but so is self-preservation and avoidance of pain. Which is why women have always had to be coerced into having lots of PIV - because they're smart enough to know the consequences.

Look at Japan which doesn't believe in pain relief for childbirth. As a result, 1/3 of women have no children at all out of fear, and the rest only have 1 because they don't want to put themselves through the pain again. Luckily for them, despite their deeply sexist society they have access to contraception and some economic independence to make that choice.

It's a vicious cycle:

Male physical strength + strong craving for PIV = rape or other form of coercion of females into unwanted PIV > too many humans> wars for resources (relying on too many humans being available for armies) > economic inequality via empire building by the militarily stronger societies > even more humans thanks to feeding on plundering of resources of the militarily weaker societies > technological development growing out of economic prosperity > tonnes more humans thanks to medical technology outpacing access to contraception (because women are still coerced into PIV).

It all comes down to unwanted PIV by women since the dawn of time. Which could only be enabled by male muscle mass and lack of empathy.

And the MRA argument is different. They adopt a religion-like argument that men abusing their physical strength is moral and good because it has always been like that. That nature made men inherently superior in muscle mass, therefore they must be superior in everything else too. Natural+misogyny+no morals=good to them.

The feminist argument follows the Dworkin statement: "We believe in the humanity of men despite all evidence to the contrary". I, too, believe in the humanity of men somewhere deep down buried under their toxic mix of sexist, selfish, violent hormones. Nicer, more empathetic men are better at overriding their hormonal craziness, but there are just not enough of them to change things. I see misogyny as a kind of mental illness that can only be done away with via neurological treatment, because the CBT has had only marginal effect.

User, you're wrong on overpopulation. It did not start in 1800. It started with the agricultural revolution around 10,000 years ago. That's when large scale wars began as competition over resources - which would've never been a problem without overpopulation.

As for the economy driving oppression: well, look at who makes and has always made those economic decisions. MEN. Which wouldn't have happened if women weren't shut out of the leadership process by the pre-existing patriarchy.

"Patriarchy is a social cultural construct - it has nothing to do with genes, limbic brains, evolution or hormones. Nothing."

So why do most male mammals behave like absolute monsters to the females? Among our cousin primates, females plan their whole lives around trying to survive male violence on themselves and the young. Only the tree-dwelling monkeys have more equitable mating processes. Among chimps the male on female violence is not always even sex-related, but just for kicks.

If women were just as strong as men physically, patriarchy would not have happened. Because there is no other advantage that men possess that gives them power. Even the reproductive burden would not weaken women as much if they were not raped into constant pregnancy thanks to strength disparity.

The genes are selfish regardless of whether they are carried in a female or male body.

The genes might in a sense be selfish (although there is a LOT of debate about Dawkins' book and hypothesis now) but the way that 'selfishness' is manifested is culturally determined. For example, people in our culture feel compelled to acquire possessions in order top secure status, but there is nothing universal about that compulsion. It would make no sense to some Amazonian tribes person. Neither is it always strictly selfish in the sense of being self-advantageous. People say bankers are 'selfish' or 'greedy' but are they all really? I saw a programme about young men who went into the finance industry who had ended up completely burnt out wrecks with mental health problems because they were continually compelled by a system to compete for status. What they were doing was putting their own well-being in jeopardy.

So I think there are always power systems but the way they manifest themselves varies from culture to culture. The patriarchal power system seems universal but there is no theoretical reason to believe that it will always be so.

They don't always hide them Vestal and the males don't always go on a killing spree. It depends on various factors.

Female animals can and do destroy their young in circumstances where it would be more beneficial for their general reproduction success to do so. The genes are selfish regardless of whether they are carried in a female or male body.

What s/he said ^^

Before the patriarchy-caused overpopulation of the world, humans could live, and very well, in small hunter-gatherer tribes. Which they probably would have continued to do (as many hunter-gatherer cultures did before they were killed off by colonialists) if males had not caused overpopulation.

You've said several times that men caused the overpopulation of the world, but the overpopulation was caused by huge advances in medicine, not in any increase in reproduction.
Google world population graphs, it's more or less static until 1800.
If men overpopulated the world, they did it by enabling children to live to adulthood.

Before the patriarchy-caused overpopulation of the world, humans could live, and very well, in small hunter-gatherer tribes. Which they probably would have continued to do (as many hunter-gatherer cultures did before they were killed off by colonialists) if males had not caused overpopulation.

Erm..well people have babies....and then they migrate...I'm not sure you can ascribe that just to men. We could not have stayed 'hunter gatherer communities'. They hunted numerous species such as Mammoths and Mastodons to extinction. Furthermore, there's no physical evidence to indicate what kind of organisational structure existed back then, so talk of 'egalitarianism' is very speculative.

It's what Marx called 'primitive communism' and the whole structure of Marxism has its root in an understanding of primitive communism and his hypothesis that the dialectical process of social evolution through class struggle will eventually lead back to a classless society (communism) but at a much higher level of human civilization, monopoly capitalism being the last stage of the private ownership of the means of production.

Marx was right about many things but not about this. We can't go back to a decentralised egalitarianism.

But there is always a power hierarchy in any group be it males only, females only or mixed. That's true of humans and animals of all ages.

Have you ever been part of a group of humans who assembled out of their own free wills, to do a hobby or such?

Yes, there's usually someone who dominates the discourse and gets to make decisions because the others don't care enough, and making decisions is hard.

As soon as this person pisses off a majority of other people, this person is kicked out.

But could it be as simple as the knowledge that she is pregnant? His job is done? Off to the next fertile female.

Probably more subconsciously. Lack of attraction as his body considers the job done, and the lack of morals in his brain then cause him to cheat.

Of course, cheating also has an element of abusiveness, and we know abusers feel safer when their victim is pregnant.

You'd just end up with a load of Margaret Thatchers & Nicola Sturgeons - Think I'd rather have the men.

But she would not have risen to power in a society without patriarchal power structures. Because there would have not been any power to rise to. But there is always a power hierarchy in any group be it males only, females only or mixed. That's true of humans and animals of all ages.