If women ruled the world...

[InigoTaran]

Would it be a better place? Interesting article in The Guardian today with opinions from various prominent women.

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/jul/05/what-if-women-ruled-the-world

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I know it's a school of thought. But, like you, I find myself picking holes in it.

The way it was explained to me is over th transgender issue. Men oppress women. So men identifying as women cannot be oppressed.

Discriminated against, yes. But not oppressed.

I see your point Datun, though I think the desire to oppress, subjugate, humiliate or degrade a person goes way beyond material advantage in the Marxist sense. Some people partly do it simply because they enjoy it. They just like the power of seeing others suffering and oppressed. To put it in a Freudian, psychosexual way, it's a fetish.

Obviously there are economic factors at play in the oppression of women, just as there was in the slave trade. But I don't think people just oppressed blacks because they benefited economically from their labour. It goes much deeper than that I think...

I don't think it's just about control of reproductive labour, but of sexual behaviour generally. It's easy to forget that until very recently sex for women meant strong risk of pregnancy, and pregnancy meant strong risk of death - don't be misled by the availability of effecive contraception now. For men sex will always be a purely pleasurable activity with few natural consequences, but there's the small problem of talking women into accepting the risks of their 'rewards' and - as someone said somewhere on these boards recently, choosing the wrong men that other men don't think deserve the rewards.

I also don't think it's the case that control is always about sexual behaviour or reproductive labour. There are plenty of examples of men controlling and oppressing other men (to get the value of their physical or mental labour, or just for kicks).

I completely agree with user1498662042, who's taken the time to express the point that I was trying to get at a day or two ago. Women are people, with moral agency and responsibility. We're socialised to be "nicer" than men in various ways, and the world punishes us if we don't behave like that. I don't for a split second believe that we actually are nicer, or kinder. I would love to see a gender equal world, and the problems would look different from the ones we have now (including, quite probably, less physical violence), but I don't believe it would be a utopia.

I also don't think it's the case that control is always about sexual behaviour or reproductive labour. There are plenty of examples of men controlling and oppressing other men (to get the value of their physical or mental labour, or just for kicks).

I agree Thomasina. I doubt the average rapist cares very much his victim's capacity for reproductive labour. He just hates women, and he expresses that hatred in the most outrageous way possible even though he is putting his liberty and social reputation at risk - which demonstrates that oppression is not just an issue of material gain.

What would women have to gain from oppressing men?

Nothing necessarily. I don't imagine that if society were equal that the table's would turn and women would start oppressing men. But there could be a new system of power that has nothing to do with gender - with, say, one group group of men and women oppressing another. And in such a system there is no theoretical reason why the women would not be behaving as badly as the men.

Vestal, I feel like you're my radfem doppleganger, especially in those posts regarding overpopulation. And thank you for inviting me to this board.

Birth control is just damage control. The real problem is men forcing and coercing PIV on women via physical, social and economic means. If women only ever had PIV when they wanted with whom they wanted - they would indeed have been no overpopulation or competition over resources to start with. Even at its most loving, consensual and pleasurable PIV is so bloody costly for women (even with modern contraception) with statistically little orgasmic pay-off.

I think even men fully co-operating in contraception could cut down overpopulation drastically. You only have to go onto the Relationship or Sex boards here to witness all of the partners/husbands whining about getting vasectomies or not even considering. In developing countries where sterilization is common, its overwhelmingly women getting it done despite the fact that it's a much more complex and invasive procedure and less effective.

"And in such a system there is no theoretical reason why the women would not be behaving as badly as the men."

There are several reasons actually:

1)Women give birth to all men through excruciating suffering and with high death risk.

2. Women have extraordinarily strong emotional investment in the humans that come out of their body and get nurtured by them. Psychologically, it makes no sense for them to oppress half of those humans.

3)Women do not have the same high violence + sex hormone mix in their brains. I sincerely believe that testosterone damages the brain and misogyny is psychogenic. More empathetic and intelligent men are just better at overriding that biological programming.

4)Like Vestal said: what is there for women to gain from oppressing men? Men get enormous pleasure out of reproduction at no cost to them, so they're up for making children anytime with no coercion. Women were the gatherers and brought in most of the food anyway.
On the whole, women just want to live peaceful lives with peaceful men raising peaceful children while being treated as fully human.

5. If women really did have the same drive for violence, they would be a mass epidemic of men being stabbed with kitchen knives and poisoned in retaliation for chaining women to the kitchen since time immemorial.

'IF' they ruled the world....?

"I doubt the average rapist cares very much his victim's capacity for reproductive labour."

In the primal lizard section of his brain - he may. Rape is a very common reproductive strategy among mammals. Unlike birds, few mammal females get any say in mating.

"what would happen if all men suddenly went off sex"

Do you mean all sex or just PIV? I don't think the lack PIV would bother women very much if there were still sperm banks, IVF, sex toys and other kinds of sex.

As for the patriarchal stereotype of being meek nurturers:

Its the phrasing that's patriarchal bollocks, not the basic biology behind it. Women are not meek, but they do lack the muscle mass to defend themselves against male violence. They (as a group) also have bonding hormones to their children prompting the nurturing. Exploiting those 2 things has allowed men to imprison women.

Women as a group may absolutely be arseholes and a female-driven world absolutely won't be a utopia. It definitely would not be a disaster that it is now, however, because there would be much fewer humans. It would not be a gender-equal world because gender would not exist (as it's a socially constructed product of the patriarchy).

Maggie Thatcher and other female figureheads at the top of male structures might not even have any power in a female-driven world because politics would look different without the patriarchy.

Well given what a total fuck up men have made of ruling the world I think it's about time they stopped being in sole charge. It's not working.

As said excellently by Vestal, women have no reason to oppress men. And as the sex that grows new humans in our bodies with all the risk to ourselves that that involves, IMO women value human lives properly.

There is no reason to think that if society were no longer patriarchal things would be just as bad as under patriarchy.

When I hear women saying that power corrupts and Theresa May is as bad as any man therefore women being in charge would be as bad as men being in charge, I hear internalized misogyny.

Look at what happens when micro loans are made available to women in lesser developed countries ; they set up micro businesses and improve child poverty and raise the general standard of living.

I think it's well overdue that women were given a chance to run things and redress the balance.

Ava, I find your analysis very gendered. A Victoria patriarch would be bending over backwards to agree with your concept of 'biological programming' - that women are so much more nurturing and 'emotionally invested' in their children's welfare because of their neurology and physiology - and that male violence is of course a result of testosterone levels. Both imply that the difference between men and women are determined by nature and therefore inequality is only to be expected.

I am quite shocked how conservative many feminists have become in this sense recently.

Lots and lots of women do not have a 'strong emotional investment' with the humans who come out of their body'. My mother never did with me.

However, I do agree that women are clearly not as violent as men and there is not an epidemic of them stabbing their husbands. However, I believe this is because we are living in a patriarchal culture and women lack the power to retaliate against men (who are generally stronger) in this way. Furthermore, women are raised in our culture to be meek and compliant.

Like Vestal said: what is there for women to gain from oppressing men?

Nothing. As I said, if there were equality there is no reason why women would oppress men. But they might oppress other people. Patriarchy is only one power system: there may be others involving new classifications. Maybe in the future the primary division of power will be religion or cultural background.

Recently, I was having what seemed to be a pleasant conversation with a very well-educated Russian lady - an art historian - who is now living in Sweden. We were chatting away about Renaissance painting and then got onto politics. 'Do you know what the problem with our society?" she said. 'The fucking queers, the blacks - the economic migrants coming over to my country and raping our women'. I turned cold, made my excuses and left.

On the whole, women just want to live peaceful lives with peaceful men raising peaceful children while being treated as fully human.

'Women' do not want anything. Women are not a unitary consciousness. Women are individual human beings who want as vast an array of things as men.

Yes, I think so.

I recently read The Power by Naomi Alderman. I'll admit I wasn't a huge fan, and didn't feel the quality of writing loved up to the hype. The biggest problem I had with it was the idea of armies of women using their power to gang rape men in a war zone. Perhaps Alderman included this because she wanted to highlight the casual way the lives of women and children are currently obliterates in the most disgraceful way in similar situations, and provoke a visceral reaction from men reading the book where they see themselves as objects of humiliation, perhaps for the first time. However, I just didn't feel it was plausible that female militias would operate in such a way when faced with such a situation. Maybe others will disagree.

It definitely would not be a disaster that it is now, however, because there would be much fewer humans.

Erm, really not sure about that. There were a lot less humans in the Dark Ages. Malthusianism has been pretty much discredited.

"Look at what happens when micro loans are made available to women in lesser developed countries ; they set up micro businesses and improve child poverty and raise the general standard of living. "

While men piss the money away on their own pleasure - gambling, prostitution, smoking etc. Which is why charity organisations deal directly with women these days.

There were already too many humans in the Dark Ages.

wmionline.org/aboutus/whatmicro/whatmicro.html

"The feminization of poverty."

UN statistics reflect that women represent the overwhelming majority of the world's poor. Women have a higher unemployment rate than men and receive lower wages when employed. Typically, they are excluded from access to financial service. They are socially disenfranchised, geographically isolated and vastly undereducated compared to men. All of these factors have contributed to the feminization of poverty.

Yet, women emerged as more reliable microfinance clients than men. They were more likely to repay their loans in a timely manner and less likely to default. In one comparison of gender specific lending conducted by the Sinapi Aba Trust (SAT), a microfinance organization in Ghana, SAT found that the arrears rate in their all-male lending facility was 250% that of the all-female lending facility.

"Women are less likely to spend income in a non-productive, short-term manner."

Evidence from microfinance organizations such as the Women's Entrepreneurship Development Trust Fund, the UN's Children's Defense Fund and UNIFEM found that women's economic empowerment raises the living standard of the entire household because women are less likely to spend income in a non-productive, short term manner. Women's priorities for spending income are: children, medical services, nutrition, school fees and household needs. Their primary interest is the well-being of their families. Lending to women produces a positive ripple effect of improved health, education and welfare for all household members.

An excellent credit risk from the lender's standpoint, women have demonstrated attributes that makes them more attractive as customers. On the whole, they are: co-operative and willingly attend weekly meetings; averse to taking undue business risks; cautious about extending credit to business customers; and, committed to the mutual guaranty of loans. Lenders have found that a woman will have a very positive attitude about validating the trust which a lender shows to her by making the loan and providing her the opportunity to engage in business ventures previously reserved to men.

Advocating for self and family In addition to improving the prospects of the household in general, access to microcredit empowers women. Along with economic rewards, women who are able to operate successful micro businesses gain self-confidence, independence and a sense of pride in their accomplishments. They enjoy increased respect in the community.

Operating their business requires the women to become skilled in dealing with suppliers, marketers and customers. Learning to negotiate business hurdles improves their decision-making ability. As they become more confident, they are likely to become more involved in their communities and local institutions.

Gradually, these skills can migrate to social and political circles so that women become more adept at advocating for themselves and their families. Learning the process of accessing, or advocating for, much needed local services can accelerate poverty reduction on a multitude of fronts. Microfinance is truly an investment that improves women's social capital and promotes gender equality through economic success.