A Woman-Only Country

[greasyshoes]

Just a random thought; what if there was a country in which only women were allowed to live?

Googled and found very little on the topic, so decided to start a thread. Would it work in practice? Would it be beneficial? Would such a country have any problems, and what would those problems be?

@DowntonCrabby

I read this 20 odd years ago in higher English, I remember it being fab but really should read again as an adult.

Herland is a utopian novel from 1915, written by American feminist Charlotte Perkins Gilman. The book describes an isolated society composed entirely of women, who bear children without men. The result is an ideal social order: free of war, conflict, and domination. Wikipedia

I just can't see how anyone can take this kind of idea seriously. Not only do I know plenty of women who are not nice, I'm a woman myself. I like to think I am mostly a good person but I am quite aware that I have a will to power and a capacity for evil.

I can't imagine how that would change all of a sudden if men were not around.

@MangyInseam Do you think women's propensity for violence and aggression would expand to take the place of the violence and aggression that would no longer be perpetrated by men? Same for other criminality that is heavily skewed by sex? So the number of offences would remain roughly the same, but with women becoming the perpetrators rather than men.

@Tsuni

What would happen if there was a spider infestation? The whole country would grind to a halt.

Let alone if we need IT systems to run things. I don't think I've met anyone in the IT department in our company who is female:)

Yes there are some female coders out there but female network technicians etc? Us ladies need to reskill (and fast) for this new country!

My son is only a baby. Can I keep him with me but raise him to be a feminist?

I don't think there's anything remotely ethical about sex selective abortions or IVF treatments.

Why not?

But suppose there was an ethical way of ensuring a female-only population. Suppose it was somehow possible to obtain semen free of Y chromosomes. Pure sci-fi, but just a suggestion to remove the ethical problems from the picture.

My son is only a baby. Can I keep him with me but raise him to be a feminist?

I don't think the idea works with if boys can stay in the country. It means that the state would be investing in the education and development of boys, only to have them leave once they reach adulthood because they're not allowed to stay there as men.

It would be the worst case of a country being unable to retain working adults, anywhere in the world, and the economy would suffer too much.

Would a nation "free of war, conflict, and domination" be willing to maintain a military, and send them to fight in defence of other members?

Why would a woman-only country be unable to meet the commitments needed to join NATO?

[quote RoseslnTheHospital]@MangyInseam Do you think women's propensity for violence and aggression would expand to take the place of the violence and aggression that would no longer be perpetrated by men? Same for other criminality that is heavily skewed by sex? So the number of offences would remain roughly the same, but with women becoming the perpetrators rather than men.[/quote]
Humans are violent and aggressive towards weaker humans, although men are more violent than women against adult humans. Sadly, mothers and fathers equally physically abuse and kill their children according to crime statistics. Single sex domestic violence does also happen between female partners, albeit at a lower rate than mixed sex and single sex male relationships. So women are violent, although at a lower rate than men overall.

I don’t think women would get more violent or less violent. We’d stay the same. I think women’s violence would continue and in the absence of men, will get more attention as instead of being second most violent adults (men being most violent), wed become by default the most violent adults in the country.

there was an ethical way of ensuring a female-only population

There cannot be an ethical way because the goal of a female only population is inherently unethical eugenics.

There cannot be an ethical way because the goal of a female only population is inherently unethical eugenics.

It's eugenics, yes, but not unethical because the goal is just to have one country for women.

[quote RoseslnTheHospital]@MangyInseam Do you think women's propensity for violence and aggression would expand to take the place of the violence and aggression that would no longer be perpetrated by men? Same for other criminality that is heavily skewed by sex? So the number of offences would remain roughly the same, but with women becoming the perpetrators rather than men.[/quote]
I don't know. It's a bit weird because in that sort of scenario, it's a totally unnatural situation. Men and women have developed in complement to each other since we were mammals in the trees. If suddenly half the equation didn't exist, maybe it would change the course of our development in other ways?

But I suppose my gut feeling is that a society of all women now, if it could exist, would operate somewhat differently, but not necessarily better. Maybe there would be less physical aggression, but more of the social management or rank that is more typical among women.

That being said, women can be physically aggressive with relation to protecting their offspring, and maybe that would increase. Some women can feel quite justified in being dishonest or aggressive if it means giving their own kids an advantage over others. I don't think that would go away just because there were no men.

Imagine a situation where there was a famine, and not enough food to go around. Would all the women be content to let the kids stave slowly, or might some feel their first duty was to their own child, even at the expense of another?

The trouble with utopianism is that often the systems it imagines only work when things are good.

@greasyshoes

Would a nation "free of war, conflict, and domination" be willing to maintain a military, and send them to fight in defence of other members?

Why would a woman-only country be unable to meet the commitments needed to join NATO?

You've suggested they would be peaceful people uninterested in fighting and military matters. If they are going to belong to NATO they need a military.

@greasyshoes

There cannot be an ethical way because the goal of a female only population is inherently unethical eugenics.

It's eugenics, yes, but not unethical because the goal is just to have one country for women.

What other groups of people are allowed to use eugenics to have only one kind of people in their country?

God it would be miserable.

For the majority of women who are hetrosexual: no sexual attraction, (we have no idea what the result of no focus for the natural attraction drives of an entire population would be but I can't imagine it wouldn't be good).

And just no 'diversity' of the differing strengths men and women bring. Diversity is a good thing isn't it??

Or are we claiming men and women are the same except for biology? In which case a world without men would be... the same?

Or if the differences are entirely socialised the thought experiment is a world where men have been socialised into being just like women?
Which sounds miserable to hetrosexual women.

The simplistic nonsense that women are nice, men are not, so a world without men would be nice. Is just stupidity disguised as feminism.

The suggestion we'd be better off without our sons and husbands is actually grotesque.

Most women love and value men, if you have no good men in your life, poor you, it's a genuine tragedy but it's not the norm.

Imagine the drama when we’re all PMT, no thanks I can’t bear working in an all female environment for 8 hours a day let alone 24/7

"Man" is analogous to "woman", not "male". how very dare you @greasyshoes 😉. Op's comment alone is enough to convince me that a female only country would be a very bad idea, it takes me back to the bitchy all female offices I worked in during my early work years!

I think the fact that for the large majority there would be no prospect of a sexual/romantic relationship would mean such a society wouldn't work. You'd see young women leaving I think, to find outlets for their sexuality.

The closest situation I can imagine is a closed order of nuns, who have all chosen to actively opt out of sexual relationships. The only way such a group can maintain itself long term is to seek volunteers to join them, obviously.

@greasyshoes

There cannot be an ethical way because the goal of a female only population is inherently unethical eugenics.

It's eugenics, yes, but not unethical because the goal is just to have one country for women.

The goal to have one country for only women is unethical. This is the lesser evil to larger evils like a white supremacist who wants a country just for white people and also advocating editing DNA to make everyone one white race. You’re literally advocating editing human DNA to erase all XYs...half the world population, how can you possibly think this is ethical in any way?

Ethical eugenics is a new one on me.

greasyshoes

*There cannot be an ethical way because the goal of a female only population is inherently unethical eugenics.

It's eugenics, yes, but not unethical because the goal is just to have one country for women*

Of course its unethical, how can you not see that? Replace woman with white people, christians, hetrosexuals, hell replace it with men, unethical in every senario

Also which country are we planning on invading and taking over for this? As there arent masses of uninhabited countries around?

It would be hell.

A society based on a profound immorality, with deeply unfulfilled women, who'd probably destroy each other driven by guilt and misery.

Saying that I do think women only communities are often a wonderful option in some situations for some women.
But not all the time for everyone.

You've suggested they would be peaceful people uninterested in fighting and military matters. If they are going to belong to NATO they need a military.

I don't believe I did...

For the majority of women who are hetrosexual: no sexual attraction, (we have no idea what the result of no focus for the natural attraction drives of an entire population would be but I can't imagine it wouldn't be good).

How could it be that bad? I could very easily go for months or years without sex if I had to, and I'm a man. The women in our hypothetical country could go on holiday once or twice a year, have sex a few times to get it out of their system, then return home.

The goal to have one country for only women is unethical. This is the lesser evil to larger evils like a white supremacist who wants a country just for white people and also advocating editing DNA to make everyone one white race. You’re literally advocating editing human DNA to erase all XYs...half the world population, how can you possibly think this is ethical in any way?

The comparison with white supremacists is flawed because white supremacists inflict direct harm upon real living people. Selecting the sex of your child doesn't hurt anyone.

it wouldn't be gene-editing either. I was thinking along the lines of, say if it was somehow possible, to separate Y sperm from X sperm. So it would be sex-selection without any gene editing techniques.

Also, just to be clear, I am not "advocating" anything in putting forward this scenario. I've had a thought once in a while about what a woman-only country would be like. I Googled, found very little about it, so asked what women think of it. Some women have said they would like to live in a woman-only country, others have said they strongly dislike it. That's all.

The women in our hypothetical country could go on holiday once or twice a year, have sex a few times to get it out of their system, then return home.

What about love/close companionship?
Sounds great for sociopaths, not so much for the rest of us.