So... When you ask a question like this, you need to look deeper than most people usually do.
Most people, when they ask (or entertain) this kind of question, think of a "female-dominated society" as essentially the same construct we have now, but with mostly or entirely women in the titular positions of power.
The problem is, *that* construct would STILL be a male-dominated society, because all of the existing "power positions" -- along with all of the hierarchies of which tehy're at the top -- are fundamentally built around the way boys and men organize and operate.
If the truth of this isn't already obvious, then, just think about the way children play -- especially when they're older than toddlers but younger than tweens, when they naturally congregate in single-sex play groups.
When BOYS play together and make up games, they...
... place each other on well-defined teams, "us" and "them"
... play games with detailed, objective sets of rules, down to the slightest nit-pick
... designate specific boys as "captains" or "it" or whatever -- and once a label exists, it generally sticks (there isn't much a boy can do to get *rid* of such a label, other than "wait his turn")
... keep some sort of score -- which, like the rules, tends to be objective and uniformly determined
When GIRLS play together, and make up games, they...
... don't tend to be "us" versus "them" or have a scoreboard; it's rare for girls' spontaneous games to even have explicit winners or losers
... tend to revolve around collaboration, more than competition. Sure there's interpersonal competition (à la Mean Girls, but not quite so campy), but competition isn't *the whole point* like it is in boys' games
... tend to involve some sort of role play -- in which the roles are assigned with regard to [whatever happens to be known about] the girls' personalities and likes/dislikes
Etc etc.
It's as plain as day by the time kids are even 8 or 9 years old -- Girls don't socialize, organize, play, or DO things in the same fundamental ways boys do.
Adult life being what it is -- basically just an extension of the way kids play, but, with bigger stakes and more "adult" themes -- the same things translate pretty clearly into adult life.
Men gravitate toward organizations that are top-down, hierarchical, rigid, and objective [... on their face, although internal machinations and intrigue are another matter mahah]. In general, men also tend to try to formalize or systematize just about everything, as
though life were one giant AI module that needs to be programmable in code.
Women, on the other hand, are more collaborative, empathetic, group-oriented, and fundamentally PERSONAL, and *much* less detached and objective, in their social dealings of all kinds.
There are both good and bad sides to this, of course. For instance, the "group-oriented" nature of most women's socialization can put HUGE roadblocks in the way of women's innovation, leadership, and self-actualization... as I wrote in my opinion here:
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q2137550-why-are-women-more-silent-when-it-comes-to-important-issues
Likewise, empathy can be used for evil means, too. I remember all too well my own teenage manic/depressive years, when I would use my own gift of considerable empathy to figure out exactly how to HURT people the most (... mostly just with words, rarely with deeds -- depressive phases meant there generally weren't a lot of deeds happening in any capacity).
So, I am
This was really informative, thank you. So having said all of that can you pick one you'd personally prefer?
certainly not holding up either of these as uniformly better than the other.
BUT... I do think the world would be a better place if the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of society were more fundamentally shaped by female influence.
It's hard to say in a few hundred words exactly what that structure would be like -- but, it would definitely be a LOT less top-down and a LOT less driven by formal titles of authority (which, as we know all too well from studying history, are pretty much nothing but an invitation to corruption).
Right now, our society is absolutely a playground for people whose individual skill set includes ambition, dissatisfaction with life, and hunger for power -- but, all too often it marginalizes other, honestly more important skill sets (empathy, self-awareness, social consciousness, forbearance, foresight, and **especially** COLLABORATIVE talent).
If we want to talk about a "female-dominated society" in seriousness, we have to try to imagine how things would be re-structured to
Oops sorry i didn't know you was still typing but thank you, i do understand what you mean. Can you try to explain or imagine what the restructured society would be like?
place those other kinds of skills/priorities at the center of society, rather than at the margins as they all too often are at present.
Contra what most people are writing here, it rlly doesn't matter whether the individuals in "power positions" are male or female (... especially considering that many, perhaps even most, of those titular "power positions" wouldn't even EXIST in a society designed around female socialization).
If you take TODAY's society and simply place females in the "power positions", you're just going to get the same male-oriented society as always, except it will be [nominally] run by women who just happen to have personalities and skill sets that work well with traditionally male methods of organizing.
... Which, incidentally, is a nice way to basically hoodwink women into making us *think* we are making "progress" and "gaining influence", when, if anything, the opposite is true.
What I mean is, women have ALWAYS had a huge influence on society -- through the
influence we have over our children, and over the men in our lives... and, in all honesty, over-emphasizing women's "leadership" in male-style organizations (business, government, etc) is probably COSTING us a fair amount of that influence.
We shouldn't *push* for certain percentages of those posts to be held by females. Instead, we should just let women who *want* those positions gravitate toward them, and remove the existing bullshit that stands in their way (... like the pressure against "rocking the boat" or going against group norms, that I wrote about in the link above) -- but we shouldn't push or shove anyone toward a path that's clearly inappropriate for her.
The MOST important thing we can do, though, is remember that we are constant sources of influence, motivation, and **inspiration** -- to a much greater extent than men are, as individuals -- and to carry ourselves accordingly, and to stand up for other women when they need the support.
We need to raise girls who don't
apologize for who they are, who don't measure themselves by the attention of people who don't care about them, and who have the confidence to deal with others on an equal footing. And we need to raise boys who respect and value women in general, and who *adore* the women they love and who love them.
Those things ^^ are what we can REALISTICALLY do... not to create a society that's "female-dominated", but one in which female **influence** keeps MALE-dominated parts of society in line.
Because that's pretty much where we have the greatest influence, is... keeping boys from destroying, killing and undermining each other. If this isn't obvious, just consider what all-male prisons are like -- and also mining towns, frontier settlements, and any other places where women are rare or absent (just in case you're going to respond with "Prisoners aren't a good example of normal people")... Boys basically CAN'T coexist peacefully, and advance their societies, without OUR influence.
That's on us.
[hopefully that answers the question you typed inline, too... gtg for now]
i completely agree with you, that's you so much for taking the time to write all of this, it was great :) i agree with you 100%
It really does make sense if you really think about it
Okay bye :)
Thank you.
I chose male-dominated society.
I'm not sure how a female-dominated society is supposed to work. Women biologically give birth to children and feed children with breastmilk. The childrearing would force the mother to stay at home. While at home, she may do some household chores with her baby behind her back. Because the housework is done by the women, the men are free to do other things, which include going out to the fields and working. If you view the male role and female role as ying and yang, not superior-inferior, then I think men are more likely to engage in the world outside the home, defending the home, supporting the home, etc. I wouldn't call that a "male-dominated society", if the society has everyone, male and female, working together harmoniously. It's only male-dominated, when females want to become males and are denied that status. Understandably, females may want to become males, because the male head of household dies, and the women of the house risk losing everything.
Some one finally gets it! Thank you, this notion that raising children is some how inferior work to manual labor never really made sense to me at all. Raising children is the most important task a person can perform, its the biological reason of life, its why we function the way we do, and it ensures the survival of the society. I think the only reason why women want to take on male roles is because they have been convinced that taking care of children is some how inferior and bad when it very much isn't. We where meant to compliment each other not compete against each other.
@hellionthesagereborn My last sentence is one big problem with a male-dominated society. In a male-dominated society, there is one male head of household, the patriarch. If that patriarch has no male heirs, then his wife and daughters may lose the property and status in society. The father must educate the daughters, so they can live on their own. If not, then marriage is always an option, but that's not a guarantee, as even men can be picky about a bride. Also, in a male-dominated society, the mother's opinion doesn't matter. The marriage would be made between the father of the woman and her suitor, so if the father arranges a marriage for his daughter with a really old, ugly man with a history of violence, well, tough luck.
But it ignores the reason why everything when to the man. Strength. Historically almost every one was a farmer, this required massive amounts of physical labor to grow enough food just for subsistence, something which women are not physically capable of doing. That's why things whent to the eldest male, because he would be the one capable of utilizing the land and growing the food to provide for the woman. Historically women could do as they wished it was just that if they where married then all the responsibility and thus "privilege" whent to their husband, he was legally required to care for her and provide for her. If she did not wish to live like that she didn't have to, it was just that most work was grueling and took years (if at all) to make it profitable. Once technology began removing this limitation is when you start to see a shift in this view. As for the mothers opinion, it does matter in fact she is suppose to be his second in command
This is where the phrase "behind every great man is a great woman" because she was an advisor and his support. Its just that the view has been twisted so much that people have forgotten (or if I may give my honest opinion, intentionally erased) this fact. Their was a female writer who for a year or so became a man (through acting prosthetics) and she was actually surprised at what she found, namely men where nothing like what society (primarily women) portray them as. In fact they talked about their marriage with reverence, trying to make their wives happy etc. This is not the talk of people who view women poorly or as inferior. Unfortantely in this day and age women don't interact with men any more so they get these weird twisted notions of what men are and how they act. A man will go out of his way for a woman, again this is not a sign of him looking down on her. As for marriages, mothers arranged that as well and it was for the benefit of the woman that they did this.
I mean honestly are you going to tell me a man is so heartless that he would give his daughter away, literally sell her to anybody who would pay with complete disregard for her well being? That's an absurd notion and would be unacceptable if it was said about women. I mean by that reasoning I can safely say that women, mothers wives and daughters did not care about their sons husbands brothers and fathers because it was the duty of men to die in a womans defense. That's where the women and children first came from, so did these women just abandon these men to their death without giving a damn about them? You have to look at it within context of the time. Dowry was meant to show the man had the means to take care of the woman that was the concern of the father that she be cared for and provided for (because again things where much harsher) it had nothing to do with selling her off but rather the mans ability to care for her and his investment in her.
@hellionthesagereborn When people are poor and desperate, they will do anything, including selling their own children or abandoning them. Life is much easier, when you are rich and happy. Corrupt people exist.
Also, bride price and dowry are two different things and can occur at the same time in the same society. Dowry is the money and valuables given to the daughter, as she moves into her husband's house. If her husband dies or leaves her, then she may return to the house of her father, but there is always a risk of living with her brother and his family. Bride price is the money given by the suitor to the woman's father to provide some financial security, as the woman's parents may have no one to care for them in old age; it's also to show that the husband has enough money to provide for his wife.
I never said their are not corrupt people, I said that claiming the system was corrupt was incorrect. I did conflate dowry and the bride price I apologize, but my statement still stands.
@hellionthesagereborn That's like criticizing Christianity is corrupt, because the religious authorities of the Middle Ages were corrupt and held too much political power.
Yes that was my point, its irrational to claim the majority did something because a few do. That's what I was saying with the "selling" their own daughters to men and not caring if they where abusive, that's not true, sure some did but most would very much be against that so claiming this is some how the fault of the patriarchal system is an unfair conclusion to make (also this system was due to the harshness of life not to patriarchal/matriarchal society that's why when their started to be a middle class it began to change (you no longer needed brute force to get things done you could compensate with money) and then changed entirely with the advent of modern technology (you no longer needed brute force at all you could use money or technology to even things out).
@hellionthesagereborn I guess. Though, if you have modern technologies, then it will seem unfair that the old way of life is still in place.
But it isn't. It was in fact the first thing to go, most laws changed to reflect the times without groups like feminist to force that change (in fact it can be argued that they hindered the change). As I said women owning property while married changed, they had started the change in the 1600s. The problem was it went back and forth for awhile because no one bothered to change the male side of things i. e. his requirement to care for the woman so this resulted in some very bad things to him (it happens even now in the middle east where women work but the man still has to pay taxes on her money which if he doesn't (as some have found out) he is the one who goes to prison). The problem isn't change does not happen, its that change is one sided. Look at the stats, men are willing to marry women who are career driven and who earn more, but women are not willing to marry men who are not career driven or who earn less. Men adapt but the standards men are held to are static and unchanging.
@hellionthesagereborn Stay-at-home fathers are on the rise, and it's becoming more socially acceptable to be a stay-at-home father. FYI.
No, it really isn't. .8% of Married couples with children 15 years of age or younger are where the man stays home and the wife works. About 25% have the woman stay at home and almost all the rest have the woman working part time and the father full time. Women with stay at home husbands are far more likely to divorce/cheat on their husbands then those who stay home and have the husband work, those women who earn more then their husbands are rare (obviously a slight difference is negligible but we are talking noticeable differences in income) and are more likely to bypass these men (hence women being more likely to marry later in life or being less likely to marry the more she earns) and those who don't report lower levels of marital satisfaction then men in these relationships. Their is a reason why 80% of women reported that they preffer the man to pay for dates, its biology. Women have greater leeway then men do in gender roles, women do not tolerate deviation as much as men do.
@hellionthesagereborn awesome. Just blame everything on women.
So would you preffer I blame all men like you and so many others do? Listen I never once blamed women, this is biology, I would no more blame a woman for this then a man wanting an attractive woman. Their is a biological component to this, there is nothing wrong with that. However there is something wrong with ignoring biology, ignoring the reason why we do what we do and then trying to blame men for the actions of women, you are perfectly comfortable saying its all mens fault, that its men who are some how being unfair and unkind to women yet when the data shows that isn't the case your immediate response is to act offended that I would suggest that women play apart in society and how it functiones? Doesn't that tell you something?
Well I guess I will go with man. Let's face it, history shows that it's men who have shaped the world it is today.. they conquered lands, invented technologies that have helped humanity throughout centuries.. that's not saying women haven't helped or accomplished anything.. it's just men were created to create and conquer. In my opinion the world has always been male dominated.. it's men who went to war, it's men who provided for their families, it's men who search and discovered things.
After some consideration, I have decided for female-dominated.
My reasoning is pretty much the same as that of @nalaa. In fact, there is good evidence for her case. I've watched an interesting documentary on Bhutan some time ago (the country, not the chemical element ;-)). Bhutan is officially a matriarchy (=female-dominated society). While there are some institutional discriminations against men in Bhutan that I disagree with, I have to say it is nothing like some of the patriarchic societies on earth... say, Saudi Arabia or Iran. Men in Bhutan don't experience open hate or violence. It's not like in Russia where - get this - FORTY THOUSAND women are killed every single year due to domestic violence and the police just turns a blind eye on it (the Russian parliament just recently legalized domestic violence against women in a law). In Bhutan, men don't get to inherit anything and I find that bad but they're not treated like slaves by women. Heck, Bhutan even has a male king! Can you imagine Saudi Arabia go like "oh yeah, let's have a queen as head of the country"? Exactly.
Finally, Bhutan has put down a rule for the country some years ago that it now strictly follows: the Bhutanese government has officially declared that material wealth should not be considered the sole important goal to strive towards. Instead, it's only one of many factors. Rather than money, the Bhutanese government has stated that they consider human happiness the most important social and political goal. This includes things like maintaining their customs and religious beliefs but also a very strict protection of the country's environment (because a healthy nature makes people healthy and happy). This is the type of idea that can only come to fruition in a female-dominated society. Men are too obsessed with money and power and those things. And for that awesome idea, I love Bhutan.
And sure, it's a poor country. I wouldn't even deny that. But do you really need to be some kind of millionaire if you live in this scenery?
aktivexperiences.com/.../...92b736d0f66ceb67b8.jpg
Back in the day (I'm a 70's baby), I'd have said female. Women had REAL skills then, and families were strong. Not just taking Gender Studies courses and getting AA entitlements, while hiding behind White Knights whenever they didn't get their way. Now? Definitely male. The last 50 home cooked good meals I've had-have all been by men. The females houses I've been to-look like hurricanes. Most of them can only be open socially if they're consuming alcohol or popping pills left and right. Most have NO control over their kids-or themselves-in public. Yet all I hear is ,"woe is me, it's all someone else's fault, I want, I want, I want." Puke, pule, puke. The exceptions to this are immigrant women, and women in my generation and further back. For those of you born in the 90's or later... GOOOOD LUCK! Women are the bedrock of a strong family. Are most families strong now? Connect the dots. If women took over this country, I'd move to Baja and buy a piece of property like my partner did... and he hasn't come back.
👍🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
@Lopezz1999 If I had a son now (I don't), but I wouldn't hide any of this from him. I've traveled extensively, and I'd thoroughly encourage him to only date or help immigrant women and older women (except for, well, toddler/little girls). But dating what you guys have now? Why would I advise him to commit suicide?
Another great point!
@Lopezz1999 Can you stop replying to the opinions on my post.
If you don't mind me asking, but why do you ask?
@Lopezz1999 It's just annoying because you are replying to a lot of them
Really? 3/8 opinions is a lot? Just because we have different views doesn't give you the right to stop me from replying to other views.
@Lopezz1999 Yes it does, it's my post. Do make your own post if you want to reply to everyone.
Go make your own*
That's a big waste of time, given that everyone here has used time to comment and reply to your post. By making any question or comment here, you, by the rules of the website, allow anyone to publicly voice their opinions on whatever you asked. You are probably going to block me, but it's true.
@Lopezz1999 I've already blocked you.
You are an emotional thinker. It's why you're so annoyed with me.
@Lopezz1999 No i just dont like you.
Now what qualities do I have that you don't like, and what makes a person those qualities? I have only commented on 2 other opinions and gave my reasoning for why I chose my option like you said. Because I'm challenging your views with logic, and because you "feel" differently, you're going to be annoyed with me. It's nothing to do with me. It's everything to do with what I've said, because you simply don't agree with what you told me to speak about.
Opinion
41Opinion
Male dominated for several reasons, first women tends towards safety rather then freedom, this means more socialistic laws which inhibit freedoms and put power into the hands of a small group which can and does get easily exploited. It also makes building of businesses and the running of a society harder because it places a burden on the people making them indebted to the government which means they are less likely to push back against tyranny and also when your on welfare and you have a chance to improve the situation you won't because you would end up losing that welfare which would actually make things harder for you not better (you would need a pay increase that is more then what is acquired from welfare but in socialist economies this is difficult to do plus it would then put you in a higher tax bracket and thus drag you back down to where you started minus the welfare program thus ensuring minimal upwards mobility). The other reason is that men and women are both wired to place women on pedestals (that's why women are screaming about how they are oppressed despite the fact that all data, law, and statistics show that they are better off and more privileged then any other group in America/the west while men are actually lacking in basic rights (like genital integrity in America, reproductive rights in general, parental rights etc.) and are statistically more likely to suffer in all catagories (they are less likely to graduate from college and more likely to drop out of school, they are 80% of the homeless and 75% of all suicide victims). So with this tendency women will always prioritize women to the detriment of men (as we are seeing right now), for men however they put women on a pedestal but they also have to function, this acts like a counter balance, that is they will always prioritize women but they will grant men privileges in order to do the job this would help counter the female prioritization by preventing women from essentially having the privilege to do what ever they want when ever they want with little to no consequence. Both parties would still be free but it would be fair unlike today where a man is expected to provide for a woman even if she gives nothing in return (originally marriage was a reproductive contract where the man HAD to provide his resources and the woman HAD to provide hers (reproduction) now he HAS to provide for her but she does not have to uphold her end of the agreement hence divorce being initiated by women).
Male because well we built civilization and society and we've kept it running for thousands of years. Under us we've kept our societies safe, we've made great advancements in science, explorations, constructions, technology, medicine to name a few fields.
And women have proved that they aren't capable of running anything effectively, women in general are more self serving then men, more concerned with themselves rather then what's best for the group this has been proven by the way.
There was even a all female advertising company that was run by a woman in an attempt to prove that women can do what men do in the business world just as effectively as we can.
That business burned to the ground in less then 2 years from female infighting, back stabbing, name calling, managers taking sides in fights and not doing their job, women calling in sick and skipping out on work, women making fun of each other and talking behind peoples backs, and even violent and physical altercations occurred.
What started out as an attempt by women to prove that have what it takes to work on par with men in the same way as men and in the same capacity. Ended up proving why women shouldn't be in charge.
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...-goodbye-conflict-.html
Another good example would be Hillary Clinton who destabilized 2 middle eastern countries, killed over half a million people, displaced million of people causing the immigration crisis in Europe. And who's policies would have decimated our country. And stole million of dollars that was raised to help the people in Haiti. Sure she is a woman but she's a horrible leader with a history of being self serving doing what benefits her, corruption, violence and breaking the law. But hey she got away with all of it.
There were also 3 instances of Survivor men vs women in the US, Dutch and UK in all 3 instances women were completely useless and couldn't fend for themselves and again were serving thinking only about themselves. While men had built shelter, fire, tables, chairs and had food and were dry while it was raining, women were the opposite of that. And the men had to help the women out because they couldn't do anything.
And again on Bear Grylls were he put men on one island and women on the other and again the women failed miserably and didn't have a single clue what to do. But when push came to shove men united to survivor and provide. And again they had to help out the women who didn't have a clue.
The male dominated social system has developed successfully so far and brought us to today's day and age, so why change it? And ever since the feminist movement snowballed, society has been changed in an irrevocable manner, and society as a whole is taking underlying damage.
And on a ironic note women didn't start to be truly unhappy until feminism really took off from that point it was just a downward spiral to what we have now.
O and here is a video from the Bear video.
https://youtu.be/w7NoW703iQY
MHO right here.
Male dominated. Its a biological fact that men are superior to women, and we are the dominant gender. As we can see, the so called balance between the genders only really work when the man is in charge, as women are programmed instinctually to want men who are "above" them in all kinds of things (height, status, strength, and mental strenght for her emotional support etc). So when we try to artificially elevate women to the level of men, then gender relations became much worse because women cannot handle being treated like an equal as most of them still expect special privileges but none of the responsibility of a man.
History has proven that matriarchal societies cannot last for any signficant ammount of time and that patriarchy is the natural order of things. Men are simply just better than women, we can still treat women well and take care and provide for them but in return there must be an universal acknowledgement and acceptance from society at large as well as within every individual that men are better and have higher authority than women. Just accepting this as common knowledge while still giving everyone regardless of gender the same opportunities but not expecting equal outcomes is the best way for society to progress.
As a man, I would much rather live in a female dominated society. Especially one where women basically do whatever they want, and men are limited to what we legally have the right to do.
I feel our government would be better off 100% under female control
Minimum wage for women should be $5 more than for men, women should have access to free education, women should not have to pay taxes, only women should be allowed to vote, and honestly, males who commit crimes, or cannot pay their debts or taxes should be sold into slavery.
Men have no reason to be considered equal to men, men should pay 75% of income into taxes, men should not be allowed free college, we should not be offered manager positions or even be allowed to own a business, or weapons for that matter. The world would be much better off this way, men are incapable of making decisions, and we should do as we are told.
There are too many bad men out there for us ever to be considered equal to women. In a perfect world women are hired before men. Men should have little to no say in any decisions in anything, and absolutely no say in laws of the world.
In a perfect world, men should be lucky if we aren't slaves at birth.
In a perfect world, women do what they want, and men do as they are told by women.
Same sex marriage and same sex adoption should only be legal in the case of two lesbians.
Single males and gay makes should not be permitted children or male on male marriage.
Basically, a man's life should be struggle, and a womans luxury.
As dumb and retarded as so many male leaders are and have been, women have way too many mood swings and arenot exactly known for being the easiest to talk to our converse with out getting confused. They also tend to go crazy or simply change their mind too much.
On the other hand women are most often than not more understanding and willing to avert unnecessary damage. Their motherly instinct to protect and provide can also be seen as to nurture their society.
In the end I feel men can get over conflict as quickly as they start it while women hang on to things far too long. Also, every economist I have read and agree with happened to be male...
As much as I'd want to choose, I'd still say neither. I don't believe men are from mars and women are from venus thing. Both are equally capable and both are also corruptible. Like Korea's Park Geun-hye who rose to power but has been forced to step down due to corruption charges. There is also Thailand's Yingluck Shinawatra and Philippine's Gloria Arroyo that ended up with corruption charges. Women leaders I think are not so special. Women in power can also be ruthless contrary to their image as a caring mother. Not that I say men are any better though. For me, good leaders are not ruled by gender.
What is ideal though is good gender equality/balance among the leadership. Both voices can be heard and not neglected.
After today I'm tired of old men ruining everything. I say get rid of all of them and replace them with women and men who have proven they're not single handedly trying to usher in the apocalypse.
Oh okay, what happened today if you don't mind me asking
Trump and his unconstitutional bullshit
What had he said this time lol?
has*
Look up his 'muslim ban". It's horrible. Just call him donald hitler from now on.
I wouldn't go that far lol he's no where near as bad as hitler like way way way further to be called hitler. He's done some good things already since he's came into the office. I think the ban for Muslims in 6 countries was too far but it is what it is i guess, nothing we can do about it.
OP. He has done *nothing* good. He can't stop lying, he can't even be polite at a memorial, and he's costing the taxpayer by pushing stupid programs.
It's a 7 country ban and not only is it illegal it's discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Well Hillary Clinton took Bush's mess ion the Middle East and fucked it up even more.
Angela Merkel let her estrogen induced emotions import a shit ton of people she didn't screen properly who than began to terrorize the women of her nation.
Some female democratic Senator just had to ask the New SECDEF about LGTQ rights in the military, when in reality the Military isn't a social experiment, and its his job to make sure the military is at its most lethal.
Marie Le Pen seems ok
Also, final conclusion,.
therightstuff.biz/.../ministers-of-europe.jpg
Unless Western women behave like Spartan women back in the day, society is fucked
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...813365743c.jpg
Male dominated. Even females want male dominance.
Every decade after the WWII women in general have been getting unhappier even though their gender roles have been broken down and they're no longer held back. Look it up.
The male dominated social system has developed successfully so far and brought us to today's day and age, so why change it? And ever since the feminist movement snowballed, society has been changed in an irrevocable manner, and society as a whole is taking underlying damage.
I suppose everyone is gonna pick the society they think they will be better off it. And for men that's patriarchal for women matriarchal
Yeah that's true. I just didn't think about that before i started lol but i guess the men or women who choose the opposite sex will be interesting to see how they explain why they choose that.
Are men not naturally dominant? And don't women want to be led? What makes this any different?
Not really, women can be naturally dominant and some men want to be led.
Generally speaking. Would you rather have society led by rationale or emotion?
Women aren't all emotional, they can be strong and great leaders.
So are you saying the female brain in general isn't emotionally structured?
Yes that's what im saying.
Alright. Then why do you "feel" that way?
Because im not sexist.
What? How does that make any sense?
Lopezz he just basically said "I have no evidence so if you disagree your Sexist"
Yeah, he blocked me and dedicated a question to me. It's pathetic honestly..
I find it so funny when people lose the block
then*
Check out my other challenge with him on tamont3's opinion. Bring a tissue, since you may end up crying because of that potential laughter.
haha
"Only the strongest shall rule Mandalore!" so if I have to choose I go with males. :)
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTough
It might work if it was led by women not raised in the modern USA. The modern USA woman is too used to being coddled by society, legally given unequally advantageous treatment and then screaming sexism every time they are not the declared the winner. A society led by the modern American women would crumble and starve inside of 5 years. Participation trophies don't put food on the table.
I'd say female. There haven't been many female rulers, but they're almost always good rulers, going all the way back to Hatshepsut. The only bad ones I can think of is Merkel and Bloody Mary.
The Etruscans were about the only civilization that had females on equal status with males, and their society thrived for centuries.
We haven't had a properly female dominated society lest i dont think we have my historys not 100% (Sparta?) so we don't actually know how that would go we have just had male dominated equil and ones that are maybe perhaps a bit more female dominated.
Personally I don't want to go back to the levels of dominance we had from many now ancient cultures but i also definitly don't want women to have that over me.
There have been female dominated societies in the past.
My history knowledge isn't that strong. When was this?
A long time ago
Thats very helpful i thought it was in the future!
Do you know when and where specifically?
There are actually some that still exist in some parts of the world and let me check.
Prehistoric times till 3000BC in Egypt there was a matriarchy
There was a female ruler that doesn't mean there was a matriarchy.
There was a matriarchy, look it up
Obviously most people will pick their own gender, as they believe that means they would be better off.
Yeah true. What would you pick?
Female, as I'm a female. Patriachal societies have always treated women poorly. Only now are women being treated more fairly, and it is because patriachy isn't as predominant. Not only that, but even if women were in charge, (which has been the case in a couple of societies) they still wouldn't treat men as badly as they treat us, as women have children and some of those children are boys, and women don't have as much physical strength to hurt men.
Of course, the men here will pretend that the reason they want a male dominated society is because they think women are too emotion and blah blah, blah, when the real reason is the one I stated above - they just want themselves to have the power.
Eh true. I can agree with this.
I agree with you 100% thank you so much for that beautiful response. I wish i knew who you were lol
lol You're welcome.
Most people will pick their own gender? are you sure about it girl? :D
cdn.psychologytoday.com/.../...20chart%20image.png
Are you seriously comparing this to sex?
LMAO!!
Lol exactly, that chart has no correlation to what i was talking about.
Or what she was talking about
@Berethor Do you struggle to read?
Not really. Women are always better off whether its male or female dominated, the difference is in male "dominated"(I use the term loosely) societies their is greater stability as the men prioritize functionality to the benefit of women while in female dominated societies women prioritize their freedom (both freedom to act and freedom from consequence). Thats what we are seeing in the west right now, thats why women who are currently dominate gaining massive rights almost all of which are to the detriment of men, this in turn causes men to not want to function in their original capacity which in turn actually causes more problems for women in the long run. We are biologically predisposed to put women on a pedestal (women more so then men as they have a 4x greater in group prefference (called the "women are swell" affect) but men tend to be less emotionally driven and more results driven. So both would benefit women and prioritize women.
You're beyond delusional, and the perfect example of how people mainly look out for their own interest, including men. Tell that to the women fighting for their rights in the 18 and 1900s.
What rights where they fighting for exactly? To vote? Well men where also fighting for that right, only unlike women they where literally fighting (conscription) while women where not (in fact many anti-suffragest where women). Men only got the right to vote 67 years before women and that was only due to men being forcibly conscripted under threat of arrest into posses, search and rescues, bucket brigades and military conscription. Women never had to do any of these things yet demanded the right to vote but only if they where not themselves subject to conscription, which of course was granted. In fact to this day men have to sign up for selective services in order to get the right to vote, drivers license, citizenship, state/federal loans, government work etc. while women get the right to vote and all those other things merely by existing. So, the claim women didn't have rights is really not accurate it ignores quite a bit. Women have always had more rights then men, hence conscription
No, the right to vote was one of the least of women's problems. How about just the right to be a free person, and not have to be controlled by your husband with every move you make? When men were fighting for their right to vote, women weren't even allowed to speak. Also, I love how you say "only" as if 67 years is nothing because, of course, you're men, so it's only normal that you got that right 67 years before women… >_> Women didn't demand anything, it is men that didn't ALLOW women to fight in combat because men see women as weaker, and not to mention, who would look after their children? It was the women's role, after all. Besides, the draft hasn't been implemented in 44 years, and there's not a day in sight that it might will be.
sorry but you are wrong, it is very easy to prove that a male dominated society is superior to a female dominated one, and one of the most obvious reasons why is of course that the extremely few female dominated societies that exist only are that way because the men let the women be in charge or because there are no men within that society. Patriarchal societies do not treat women badly, in fact women are protected and cared for in such societies while the men are seen as expendable. Women are just weaker mentally and physically so are not as deserving of respect as the average man, but majority of men will still treat such women nicely. And look at feminism, they barely care at all about male issues so your argument that a female dominated society would treat men better than the opposite is false. The patriarchy that we live in the west has done so much for women, everything feminism "accomplished" was actually men who allowed it to happen, and they did it for their women.
@alphadoggystyle Actually in a matriarchy males treated good just like women are treated good and everything is much fairer.
not really. Unless you have some kind of evidence for that? I mean the current society is highly gynocentric and its been terrible to males.
I'm going to go with female dominated. Because if it were male dominated the rate of births would drastically go down, as fewer women essentially mean fewer wombs. Also you would probably have conflicts over whose seed shall impregnate the few women available.
But if it's female dominant, the few men would be able to impregnate multiple women and the rate of births wouldn't decrease as heavily.
No i dont mean in terms of population it's more so with power
Can you choose either a male or female dominated society and explain why?
It's okay lol dont worry. i agree with you anyway
I would have to disagree on your opening statement. male dominated would mean polygamous behaviour would happen and strong males would get like 10 women and the rest would leave no legacy but natural selection would make us better. for an example of something like this look to Africa and their massive population
@Nightshades That's a good point.
Really the world over populated. More babies would be a bad thing.
I don't think that Is good because countless study have shown one man one women is far superior and stops poverty mental illnesses abuse early puberty which leads to breast cancer women with daddy issues are gold diggers aggressive etc
@Nightshades Um I meant that's a good point to bring up in the discussion. Not necessarily in the scenario. But thinking about it, I don't think polygamous relationships would result in one male 10 females. If their is a surplus of males and not many females, it would be more likely that one woman would have multiple partners.
Natural selection would definitely favour the strong however that might not be a good thing. If strong is the males that are able to manipulate the situation to their advantage. We do after all live in an age of advanced weaponry...
This would actually make a pretty awesome dystopian novel. Lol
women prefer polygamy and men prefer monogamy because men don't want to share but women don't care along as the get resourses
women think with emotion and will cuck themselve before needy people like they have been trying to do with SJW'S and feminist. they are actually sympathising with isis the women's March was lead by a sharia supporter who also has connection to isis
@Nightshades yes the feminist support for Islam, shows why women should not lead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3NDeyR_1-U
ikr I don't even know why
Neither.
But since I get the point of that, just gunna go on a whim and choose female.
Not because they're better or I think they'll do better, merely because they're cuter. That's literally about the sound logic I can use to determine that, and no I don't think it's a wise choice to decide by who is cuter.
I don't know, I like other dudes and I tend to do better with them... So B
A patriarchal social system has worked successfully for the longest.
Successfully? i don't know about that. I agree that it's worked but it's also been the reason for huge wars around the world and it;s oppressed women and minorities.
I didn't say that. I just said that women can be dominant too and some men want to be led.
Oops sorry i meant to send that last reply to someone else.
@nalaa I agree, i certainly don't think a patriarchy is going to work at all if we want equality and to empower women.
No it won't work since it's male orientated and works for men and men only. We don't need or want that anymore. We want to have equality and we want to empower women. What are you talking about? Women can be strong, powerful and great leaders.
Do you want it to be at a man's convenience? you know the people who oppressed women for a very very long time. I don't think so. I think it's only right that it's on their terms.
Yes they are.
women are depressed the more they become "empowered" they are making beta males then rejecting them for being pussys. so no feminist aren't the way to go
@Nightshades No they aren't lol they will feel better as they are empowered. Stop lying.
are you five? cause you argue like a child "no it isn't dummy liar" prove it 1 in 5 women are on prescribed anti depressants women report feeling worse the old they get due to them not being able to find a stable guy or have children.
you are assuming they feel better the more they act like men but news flash they aren't men they are women
I wouldn't even bother with @Asker, I have a feeling he's this guy, who goes under the name @ObedientMalee
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q2266821-are-men-naturally-dominant-leaders
yea sometimes the cuck in some guys is too strong
@Nightshades I'm not a cuck
4/8.
sorry cuckold
Well, I'm a man, so that makes me lean towards male dominated. Also, our nature kinda forces us to be male dominated, so that's another reason.
I went with female dominated society because women have shown to be more willing to compromise, which is important for a working society. But a balance between men and women is way better, so don't be offended by my opinion, I had to pick one of the two and in that case, I'll pick women.
I'm not offended at all lol don't worry, i like honestly rather than sugar coated stuff. I'd pick women too anyway.
Finally.. a woman who expressed why she'd like a female dominated society..
but isn't the willingness to compromise that makes a weak society because instead of negotiation for the best deal for you. you end up worse off?
@Nightshades But when you negotiate, you are compromising. You work with the other person to make them happy and still get as much of what you want as you can.
compromising means you are losing on somthing men push for the best deal. women try to work their way up after being fucked over
@Nightshades but isn't that the reason why we should compromise? Not everyone can be an "alpha male" without a lot of conflict, which again is the reason why I have picked women. Just imagine several Donald Trumps in a room and think of the consequence.
well they would work out a deal that equally benifits them. a bunch of hillarys would make 4 new genders and have ever women payed 2000 dollars for having a vagina.
What evidence do you have of that?(was it a study or something?) From what i have seen men are far more willing to work together, in fact studies show this that men are willing to put aside differences and work together and not hold grudges while women are far more likely to hold a grudge and thus try to sabatoge the other person even if its detrimental to the group.
@hellionthesagereborn yes, there is a study, published in the Journal of Consumers, which states that when a woman is involved in negotiating deals, it's much more likely to find a compromise, while men go "all or nothing". Anyway, as I said in my initial comment, a society should consist of both genders but I was supposed to pick one, so I picked women because a) I'm female and b) women are scientifically the smarter choice in that scenario.
Do you have a link?(not starting anything I just like to have data for current and future references.(If you see any of my posts they are almost always referencing something))
men are scientifically the smarter choice for leaders, since men are smarter and more capable than women. Its fact.
@hellionthesagereborn there you go: time.com/.../
@alphadoggystyle no, they're not. They have a different leadership style than women and I truly believe that both styles have their advantages and disadvantages, which is why we need both male and female leaders. THAT is a scientific fact. I don't get why so many guys are so bitter, you all need to calm down, I said that I prefer a balance of both, if you'd read my original comment correctly you'd know that.
Sorry but you are wrong, and i am correct, history as well as IQ studies all show that men are more capable leaders than women. Im not saying women are useless, but men are clearly superior to women, its a cold hard fact. and regardless of how much you deny it, it will always be true. I didn't fail to read your initial comment, i simply corrected you and you failed to realize that.
@alphadoggystyle hbr.org/2012/03/a-study-in-leadership-women-do
On what would you like to correct me? I have done some reading on what you claim and in the IQ department: yes, they have but studies in that field are very much contradictory (aka not too scientifically reliable) and I would like to point out that intelligence is not the only quality a good leader has to have. Men and women can absolutely be equally good leaders and I hope you will reach a point in your life where you will be confident enough to admit that instead of tearing women down.
Opinion owner, read the comments in that article.
You cannot seriously expect a study based on individual opinions to actually be representative of any facts. There are so many ways that study can be completely dismissed, partly because you can be sure that most people will be less critical or judgmental of women in the workplace due to a fear of being labeled a sexist.
Its far better to look at actual results. here is a study which proves that more women in corporate boards actually results in a decline in overall performance.
c4mb.wordpress.com/.../
And no, the studies in the IQ field are not contradictory, it all shows men having higher IQ on average and far more men in mensa level IQ, the only studies that dont support this are the ones who tested children that where below puberty in age, which makes them meaningless as boys mature later than girls do.
Men are definitely smarter on average and are better leaders than women, its a genetic fact. Me saying this has nothing to do with my level of confidence, which is very high by the way. A more interesting question is when in life will you reach the maturity level to accept the fact that men and women are not equal?
@alphadoggystyle I have studied the paper with great interest and while you did bring to my attention that a forced quota is bad, here are the points you missed:
- the authors clearly stated that the new female leaders were significantly younger and less experienced than their male counterparts
- they also explained that a board with homogeneous personalities works best and that this wasn't necessarily given because of the differences in age and experience
- while the operational value decreased, business oriented themselves more to long term goals
- a referenced study observes that introducing women in leader ship positions only affect human resources decisions all other ones are the same
- in the referenced study, the researchers explicitly state that they can not pinpoint the financial effects to the change in gender composition because of a significant number of not calculable other factors
In conclusion: while there was a drop in firm value, the authors do not confirm that the female CEOs are the reason behind it. They explicitly state that there are multiple reasons behind the drops in firm value and make the assumption that it is likely that the hastiness in which this quota was implemented and that the huge changes in a short period of time influenced the ability to make good business decisions.
I did not miss anything, but im not surprised you would argue with a strawman. You have to ask yourself this, when these corporations where actively trying to find competent women for these positions to fulfill these quotas, they had to pick younger and less experienced individuals, then that means that there is a significant absence of older and more experienced women. So they had to pick less experienced ones. This essentially means that there are less competent women around compared to men, which i again state is because of biology, men on average are simply more competent.
@alphadoggystyle if you take the age difference out of account and weren't so damn ignorant, you would be aware that the average millennial woman is more educated than her male peer. More young women than young men are pursuing a higher education, a. k. a in the near future, there will be more qualified women out there than men. I can't understand why you're so adamant on the point of men being better than women when the empirical evidence for women in leadership positions is clearly speaking for it. I don't want women to replace every man or say that they're better than them but the abilities of men and women in this field are very much equal and you keep bringing up points that you fail to support with evidence.
Im not ignorant, you are just in denial. The average millennial woman is only more educated than the average millennial man because more women chose to pursue useless social studies degrees which dont lead to high paying jobs, which is the reason why men avoid them, men rather take a physical labour job that doesn't require further studies when it pays better than those easy social science jobs. Men are more educated when it comes to the STEM fields where the difficult and high paying jobs exist.
So where it matters, men will always outperform women. High positions in the most important sectors of the workplace will be dominated by men just as it has always been. All the empirical evidence with real substance clearly proves this. Men and women are not equal in this, men are factually the more capable gender, regardless of how many times you deny it, it will always be a fact.
I would love to be in a female dominated society, I am somewhat passive as men go, so if women were more dominant, they could more often than not make the first move, which I would really like. :-)
Female. Because guys started all the wars and killing, and it;s usually boys/men that are mentally ill. And guys have all that hormone T.
Are you serious or being sarcastic because the few women who where rulers started massive wars and genocides, women are actually more likely to be mentally ill then men and testosterone only increases compatitiveness which is what drives both the economy and societal advancment. So are you being sarcastic?
*cough* citation needed *cough*
@ThatJarHead whom is that directed to?
@hellionthesagereborn There, only a few women ruled, so how can you know? The rest is subjective.
@hellionthesagereborn At Vampy
@ThatJarHead Guys might not have started all wars, but they did for most. LOL so if men started 90% or more of wars what difference does it make?
Not the citation I meant
@ThatJarHead Then what?
Okay, well for one if men where the primary rulers and the majority then claiming women would not be violent is inaccurate as their simply would not be enough women rulers to make that judgment so your reasoning is flawed. As for female rulers: Queen Isabella responsible for not only the enslaving of the native people of mexico but also the inquisition, Queen Mary I also known as blood mary because she persecuted and murdered/excuted protestants (forcing almost a 1,000 of them to flee the country), Ranavalona I Queen of Madagascar who through war and the murdering of her own people managed to kill 75% of the population, Wu Zetian of China (murdered just about anyone who she felt was a threat to her rule), Catherine the great who increased the size and power of russia through war, Margret Thatcher who was involved with many military measures, Matilda of Tuscany who was a military leader and fought against the austrian emperors support of the pope, Queen Elizebeth, Cleopatra
And that's just the ones who where known for wars. So I don't think your statement has merit.
@hellionthesagereborn I wasn't talking to you lol
"@hellionthesagereborn There, only a few women ruled, so how can you know? The rest is subjective." this is your exact quote which I responded to. Also if everything is subjective then so is your statement and since your using the term subjective as a dismissal of the argument that then means your own argument can be dismissed begging the question of why it was stated anyway (and stated as if it was provable fact) if it was not really a fact?
That men have the majority of mental disorders. That's not right.
Gender is correlated with the prevalence of certain mental disorders, including depression, anxiety and somatic complaints. Major depression is twice as common in women. ... There are no marked gender differences in the diagnosis rates of serious psychological disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
If you want to lump ADHD and Hyper-Libido into mental disorders then, yes, you are correct. But in reality, mental disorders are far more prevalent in women according to both WHO (World Health Organization) scholar studies as well as the DSM-V. This has been proven in Modern Psychology and Archaic Psychology (aka Freudian Psychology) multiple times. As women are far more susceptible to chemical and hormone imbalance because of the prevalence of Oestrogen and lack of Testosterone.
On the topic of ADHD and Hyper-Libido, those are not Mental Disorders they are Behavioural Disorders as categorised by the DSM-V.
The DSM-V, of course, being The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Volume Five.
@ThatJarHead I should have said it differently. I think you're right about those, but I meant really bad disorders that harm other people. Most killers, and psychos were/are male. Most criminals are male, etc.
Most criminals aren't males. Males are convicted more. That doesn't mean they are all guilty criminals and that doesn't mean all the women acquitted weren't. Men tend to be guilty of more aggressive crimes sure but women are far more prone to sociopathy, Borderline Personality Disorder, Pathological Lying and Schizophrenia. Women are also more likely to utilise a weapon in an assault or domestic abuse and are more likely to intend to kill their victims. Whereas a lot of men only intend to wound or maim but kill anyways resulting in man slaughter though because of the nature of the dispute (likely a bar fight) it is chocked up to Third Degree Murder which means the intent was to cause bodily harm but not necessarily death. 90.3 percent of all murders are perpetrated by men, yes, but that doesn't mean all of them were First Degree Murder. Which is planned premeditated and carried out with the intent of taking a person's life. Man Slaughter is also lumped in there, though.
So in short, men are less susceptible to mental disorders but women have the natural ability to handle them better because the female brain naturally produces a higher amount of Oxytocin, Serotonin and Dopamine. Which are the chemicals and hormones in the brain that cause feelings of happiness, emotional connection/empathy and sensory awareness/self-awareness. Men have Mental Disorder less frequently but find them harder to manage than our female counterparts.
@ThatJarHead They may not all be guilty, but they still have the higher and official convictions rates. It's not easy to get into prison or even jail for a long time these days, not with plea bargains and all that. So men have way higher rates of being crazy, which is worse than lots of mental illnesses. And mental illness, can definitely be over diagnosed, like anxiety and depression, so the med system can make $.
The term "crazy" is a very broad term. If you're talking about persons who suffer from frequent psychological breaks (people who lack the ability to connect with reality or themselves) you'd still be wrong. The major mental disorders that cause those issues are Schizophrenia, Borderline Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Multiple Personality Disorder and Depersonalization Disorder which are all more common in women according to the DSM-V. I'm not saying you're wrong in the whole, just that your rationalisation is based on false facts and bloated media reporting.
@ThatJarHead We already got past the mental illness part, which you could be right about. So men commit more crimes and harm more people, and it's just that simple. By being crazy, like I said, I meant committing crimes. That's much worse than having a disorder that just harms mostly you.
Just because men commit more violent crimes doesn't mean they're crazy. Think about the context in which the assault happened. Maybe a man was harassing a woman and he kicked his ass, maybe someone was being abused and he shot him in the face, maybe some drunk idiot was going out of his way to pick a fight and he got laid out. You have to think about the morality of the situation. A crime is a crime is a crime. Although, you need to take into account the mental state of the perpetrator and the context in which the crime happened before you judge the person. Most assault charges brought against men were charges that originated from defending another or oneself. They still committed a crime and should be punished, but they weren't morally wrong.
Actually that's inaccurate. Men probably commit some crimes more then women but considering that women are almost never punished for their crimes (one woman bashed a mans face in with a glass in public and was not even put on probation for it) and whne they do they have there sentence reduced or offset to something else (andrea yeats murdered her 8 children by drowning them and she was said to "need help" and placed in a mental institute, another woman killed her two children and got the same sentence. A woman raped a 12 year old boy sued him for childsupport and won) so you really can't make that claim (especially when you look at the statistics, women are far more likely to abuse men and children then the other way around.
male dominated
if it was female dominated : hell on earth
no diplomacy just countries not talking to each other
id rather have someone with brains and common sense empathy and compassion driven society
male dominated societies are natural and will always happen, female dominated societies are unnatural and can only exist through legislation and big government. since im against big government i choose male dominated society.
I think the fact there hasn't been a successful matriarchal lead/built nation kind of proves that male dominated societies are just more practical.
It should be equal, we shouldn't divide the genders and say one has to be dominant.
People should be dominant.
Can I choose to kill my self? I'd rather do that than choose which sex to be dominant
Male dominated because men are much more intelligent and get things done when it is important to them.
Inventions, discoveries, scientific method, keeping their family safe, providing, etc.
If it was female dominated we would have been extinct already from back in the cave man days. They couldn't have took a club or made a spear and killed to survive. Wild animals would have wiped out humans long ago.
Male dominated. Because we already had that and everything worked just fine. Then feminism and other retarded shit appeared and look at society now
Not dominated but I prefer to give women the opportunity to make their decisions.
Your basically saying you want each sex to have a choice in decisions and i specifically said in my question i want you to pick either a male or female dominated society.
I'm a male conservative
Women hate women. It wouldn't work. The amount of drama and back stabbing would increase ten fold.
Why does someone have to dominate?
It's just a theoretical question
“Always two there are, a Master, and an apprentice. And you are the apprentice.” ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUevM0XLJLQ
@HANSOLONG most of my swtor toons are sith-lightside sith
A male dominated society.
Girls are already given special treatment and help with everything they do and men are much more generous so even in such a world they would be better of than the man would be in the female version.
That and women are able to marry a guy to look after her where as men need to impress women meaning it would make their job even harder.
I think it shouldn't be like male or female dominated or any favor based on gender or anything like that. It should be based on merit.
Neither. One that's dominated solely by me
Make it happen lol. I wouldn't complain.
Why not whoever is qualified?
Men have had their turn to fuck everything up so lets give the ladies a try. They can't do much worse.
simps gonna simp
convoswithcosmo.com/.../...nd_of_The_Beta_Male.jpg
Male dominated. Women are too irrational to run things. They would do something stupid like banning the colour blue or basing policy on their horrorscope.
No they wouldn't at all, that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard.
Maybe I gave extreme examples but the principle is sound. Women's decisions are based on emotions, not logic. That's why they should never be put in charge of anything.
Harry's right look at what they've done to the world in a couple of decades
@Nightshades Women haven't even been in control. It's men who have ruined the world.
why not both?
Please pick one or the other.
second one
Really? how come?
It's just interesting since your a female and you'd prefer a male dominated one
just a choice
I picked female-dominated because at least that's good for me in the dating world?
Lol but still, I still think it shouldn't be either.
Male dominated society.
Because female dominent society will be better for women at least.
Yeah that's true, good point :)
It's funny guys in here say they voted for B because women are not good at being a leader. Male leaders were perfect? They were irrational and made too much craps. They just wanna live a society where they have more rights and deny saying the truth lol guys just be honest
Lol i know right! i'd rather live in a society which helps and benefits women then one which benefits men. You sound awesome. Can you follow me?
Every society was better for women. Its just a matter of how fast you burn the candl, do you want a society that is good for women and is maintainable with a few restrictions or a society that is great for women with no restrictions that quickly deteriorates. Thats reall the only difference.
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...ce-men-study-finds.html
Yet nearly 40% of women would prefer a male boss...
So many simp manginas have no no clue.
None, one gender shouldn´t dominate the other.
... Can I pick neither so we can be equal?
What we have now is fine.
I don't vote in 2 choices polls
Okay?
2 choices polls are a fallacy
image.slidesharecdn.com/.../...-buffalo-10-638.jpg
Both sound horrible.
Female because males have ruled long enough.
Men. We already live in a women centric world.
Male
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions