If women ruled the world...

I don't think that's oppression though user, is it? It's male violence though, definitely.

But systematic oppression has a hierarchy where the material gain goes upwards. So gender stereotypes are used to oppress women in order to exploit their reproductive labour. Coupled with an inherent threat if you don't comply.

Society accepts that inherent threat because it's run by the oppressors.

Isn't the idea of oppression that the reason for it is to gain a material advantage. Not just for the sake of it.

No, in a word (in my humble opinion).

Power goes far beyond material gain or any kind of narrow advantage.

People oppress others by blowing themselves up.

Isn't the idea of oppression that the reason for it is to gain a material advantage. Not just for the sake of it.

So men's oppression of women is to gain reproductive labour, etc.

What would women have to gain from oppressing men?

And I don't see what having control of reproduction - as good a thing as that may be - has got to do with how nice someone is.

If women were in control of reproduction - not Theresa May, women, then Theresa May would not be the same kind of person she is in patriarchy.

That's a highly dubious position. What evidence do you have for that? Patriarchy is wrong, as is racism. But surely no one would argue that people of colour are in any innate sense nobler to white people (indeed, the idea of the 'noble savage' and other dehumanising tropes have been rightly identified as racist) or that if they occupy positions of power they are any less likely to abuse that power. It is simply the case that we should not deny black people power because of the colour of their skin - because to do so is socially unjust and the colour of their skin has nothing to do with their character or qualities as a political leader. It's the same with women.

I don't think you can entirely explain the fact that Maggie Thatcher was a Grade A arsehole of mega proportions in terms of patriarchy. It's partly because she was not a nice human being who derived some sort of a perverse power kick from plunging hundreds of thousands of people into unemployment.

I would love a gender equal world, but find this panglossian idea that if one does happen then there will no more political corruption, war, cruelty or violence absurd. Furthermore, I think it almost reinforces patriarchal gender stereotypes of women being meek nurturers rather than human beings capable of the full range of human behaviours and creditable with moral and existential agency for those behaviours.

As this is just a thought experiment - if the premise is reproductive control, what would happen if all men suddenly went off sex? Not just a lower libido, but actually didn't want it. At all.

Interesting premise.
Presumably women would have strong urges to reproduce still, and you didn't suggest that they would be opposed to women reproducing by artificial insemination so I think it would free women up a lot in some ways.
Of course, many women would still want sex, but what they could or would do to obtain it? I can't see it being as extreme as men would go in a similar scenario.

There are women who are in positions of power who are supportive of other women, civilised in debate and conflict, and not violent. Those women are problem solvers.

The type of women who thrive in male, patriarchal type situations thrive on ruthless conflict, divide and rule. They are in the minority.

Did anyone watch The Ascent of Woman? They looked at an early civilisation that was more matriarchal in nature. As we often attribute the subjugation of women to stem from becoming civilised (in its true living in towns meaning) I'd be interested to know more.

Also due to the misogyny inherent in society many people buy into the myth that "girls are so cruel" and when any girl does bully someone in such a way it's "typical girls".

School bullying is a perfect example. Boys beat their victims up, whereas girls tend to resort to much more subtle forms of emotional abuse

This isn't true. There was a study which actually looked at this.

It found that both girls and boys use subtle forms of emotional abuse to ostracise other children, but additionally, boys also use physical violence. The violence is so noteworthy and obvious, that it tends to overshadow the boys' emotional abuse.

School bullying is a perfect example. Boys beat their victims up, whereas girls tend to resort to much more subtle forms of emotional abuse

What tripe this is yet it always gets spouted. So much bullying at mixed schools now is boys bullying girls in a variety of ways - shaming them for sexual activity, coercing them to send then passing private photographs of them around, using misogynist language, all the way up to sexual assault which has risen in schools. Also at the boys' school I know some pupils at I've never heard of anyone being beaten up but have certainly heard boys spreading unpleasant gossip about other pupils.

The whole Brexit issue would have been solved by the Brexiters just going to settle somewhere else

I voted Remain and that is a ridiculous statement.

As this is just a thought experiment - if the premise is reproductive control, what would happen if all men suddenly went off sex? Not just a lower libido, but actually didn't want it. At all.

Firstly, the human race would take a massive battering, because they are stonger than us and hard to force.

But I can easily see enclaves where they were held prisoner. The biological imperative for women to reproduce would force them organise and oppress.

It's depressing really. It means that women are always going to be submerged in the system that is by men and for men. Women rising to power like, Theresa May, are still doing so within that system. Still buying into the reasons for war, resources, etc.

So more women in power might be able to tweak the system to make things easier for women. Like working hours, parental leave, pay gap, rape laws, etc. But basically all they are doing is gaming the system to make it easier for women to play.

But play they must.

People who become leaders of countries/companies etc don't get there because they ask to get there.

Indeed. Power is no accident.
Why do you think we live in a patriarchy? It is because men craved power.

If women were in control of reproduction - not Theresa May, women, then Theresa May would not be the same kind of person she is in patriarchy. She might still crave power, but she wouldn't get anywhere much with it.

Men let themselves be oppressed by other men so they can be in control of women. Perhaps not consciously, but that's it how the whole thing works, isn't it?

If it had been up to women ... well, perhaps there wouldn't even be humans on the British Isles.

The whole Brexit issue would have been solved by the Brexiters just going to settle somewhere else.

I mean look at what Theresa May has just done and who with all to stay at number 10.

I think if women were in power they would be the same kind of horrible people as we have in power now. People who become leaders of countries/companies etc don't get there because they ask to get there. They get there by walking over the top of everyone else in their way to "there". They are pushy, dominant, manipulative, opportunists. They shady deals, tell lies, and pay people what they need to to get where they want to go. This would happen just as much if women were in power because these personality types exist in women just as in men and those women who were so inclined would do what they needed to to get the power they crave.

can I tell you that I find your posts really informative.

Thanks! (And no, it is not empty flattery when you really mean it!)

vestal is a true feminist badass.

Thank you so much. That's what I always wanted to be.
.
I think until we acknowledge that the root of women's oppression is the desire to control reproductive capacity we can't really get very far in this thought experiment as we will be thinking about power as something that men have by accident almost.

Yes, exactly. I see this thought experiment as mainly being about what the world would be like if women had remained in control of reproduction. This "ruling the world" sounds rather patriarchal in and of itself. Not because I see women as inherently nicer, but because if there weren't more people than resources, then everyone could have enough without any fighting for control. And people would live in smaller communities with no "ruling" taking place.

People always say this. It's not my experience. The boys were just as good at the subtle comment, and girls at elbowing as they went by. I have a sneaky suspicion that it's not as true as all that.

I was of course making a generalisation. Overall, on a very general level, female cruelty takes more subtle or covert forms.

Agreed.

vestal is a true feminist badass.

Vestal you are completely right there, and were obviously thinking about power and sexual equality at a much more fundamental level than I was. It's an interesting thought, and I hadn't considered it at all, that sex may be completely different with a different power structure.

I mainly mentioned contraception as it's had measurable effects that are basically the same accross very different cultures, which I think is pretty conclusive proof that the vast majority of women do not want to go through pregnancy and birth a great deal of times, even if they are relatively safe, or if larger families are depended on for agricultural labour for example. Just a couple of generations ago the women in my family were in a near constant state of pregnancy, and their attitudes towards sex we're pretty negative. No bloody wonder.

I think until we acknowledge that the root of women's oppression is the desire to control reproductive capacity we can't really get very far in this thought experiment as we will be thinking about power as something that men have by accident almost.

Vestal if it's not too kiss arse-y to say, can I tell you that I find your posts really informative. That last one alone probably gave me at least 4 things to go away and think about/look up.

If women had it, they would abuse it, just as men do.

So you think the fact we live in a patriarchy is an accident? How is it possible that patriarchy and male violence spread over the whole fucking world by mere accident?

Men built patriarchy because they wanted power, and they wanted power in order to oppress women.

They didn't just get handed power by some god, even if patriarchal religions sure like to make it look like that.

Women would never act like men, for the simple reason that women aren't men.

Women simply have no reason to oppress and exploit men.

Men want to exploit women's reproductive potential because they can't have children and cannot accept that.

Women ... just happen to be able to have children naturally, without doing any violence to men. In fact, the only thing men are needed for in making children is very pleasant for men. Why on earth would women want to build a system that oppresses men?

Answer: They wouldn't, and haven't.

And while I would love to believe that we can educate men to not be aggressive anymore, the fact that we castrate male animals to reduce their aggression hints to it being very likely that there's a biological component. It seems that it benefits most male mammals to be aggressive towards each other and females.

Though teaching men it is socially acceptable to be aggressive sure doesn't help. And teaching women that aggressive and violent men make good fathers for their children also doesn't help changing the problem via evolution.

Yes, Vestal, I think there are several studies that show availability of contraception to women leads to small families regardless of culture and environmental factors.

Oh, I was not even thinking of modern methods of contraception, actually. I was thinking of women just saying no to piv and men respecting that. Which would be the case if women were in charge. If piv was not so normalized and glorified as only possible source of sexual pleasure women would also say no to it a lot more, especially with no condoms available.
But of course, contraception would also be used a lot more with women in charge. There's a direct correlation between male domestic violence and unwanted pregnancy rates.

The line I think rings truest in The Power is in response to the question, why do people abuse power. And the answer is "Because they can. That's the only answer there ever is".

If women had it, they would abuse it, just as men do.

School bullying is a perfect example. Boys beat their victims up, whereas girls tend to resort to much more subtle forms of emotional abuse

People always say this. It's not my experience. The boys were just as good at the subtle comment, and girls at elbowing as they went by. I have a sneaky suspicion that it's not as true as all that.

Perhaps it changes when the kids get older - as girls did definitely get come down on with a ton of bricks for fighting, whereas people were more easy going about boys. (although 16 year old boys aren't exactly strangers to manipulation either)

Few women act like men even when given the chance. You can see that from trolls online, or from DV stats.

That's true, but is that because they're better people in an innate sense? It could be that females are socialised to be more meek, passive and less demonstrative, and behave accordingly. In a completely different culture where women are raised to believe they are equal to men they could behave very differently. I'd also add that when women do abuse power and behave mendaciously, it's usually in a very covert way. School bullying is a perfect example. Boys beat their victims up, whereas girls tend to resort to much more subtle forms of emotional abuse.

I think some feminists find themselves to be in a bit of a theoretical bind on this issue. On the one hand they - or some of them - want to believe that woman are on average inherently less socially pathological than men; and on the other they argue against gender essentialist notions of women being 'the fairer sex'. Because of course, the idea that women are all lovely and fluffy and nice is a patriarchal one, used to convince women that they're the superior nurturers and therefore their rightful place is in the home.

It's an interesting question though. A lot of people blamed the financial crisis in 2008 on an excess of testosterone. It would have been fascinating to know if the same thing would've happened if all those city traders and investment bankers had been women. Who knows?

Of course men are on average more violent, sexually deviant, abusive of political power etc; but is that because they're born that way, or is it because they simply have been given more power to abuse?

Theoretically, in a completely gender equal world surely the amount of both bad and good things done by each gender would be roughly 50/50, no?