Imagine if the radical feminists got their way and all men were eradicated from the planet or turned into women (because even feminists wouldn’t want to kill their husbands/ boyfriends/ brothers, etc.) and science enabled women to reproduce without men and only produce girls. What would the world look like? Would it be a better or worse place? And remember I’m not asking what the world would be like if men had never existed, I’m asking what it would be like if men were phased out of all societies across the world until eventually there was no such thing as a man (you might argue it’s already happening but that’s a discussion for another time).
I think I understand the set up, you shouldn't ask if an all women world existed what would it be like. Power corrupts no matter the sex. Also, read everything before you reply. The question should be what would the world be like if men were more sensitive to feelings, had more empathy on others, enviroment, animals, etc. As for the men make the world go round rhetoric, I've been in many industrial jobs and seen women work them, I have seen a 40 something yr old women stack 60lb bails of soil, while men were lazy as fuck. Also overly sensitivity about P. C. would cause massive problems, look how Germany hidden women getting raped because they were afraid to seem like Nazi Germany all over again. So, your own government wouldn't protect you. Men controlled leadership in that scenario of Germany at least in the U. S, would practically go to war when "rape" happened and the news got out fast. P. C is deviding and destroying the U. S now. As for the scenario what if men were more sensitive to feelings and empathy as such, we are. You don't need to take hormones for that. We are very empathetic, men have a lot of comradery. Also how I was raised by my father, is you help people no matter who, if you can. The fact is our nature is very competitive that drives us to be way more destructive. Men only really seek mad power is for women, men have to buy our "princesses" whatever they materially want. Think about this Guy likes a women, she chooses another guy because, his physical features, resources, and many other material things. First guy competes for women, he now made himself more apealing to her. Second guy now competes more, as you can see it escalates. I know you think guys competing for you is awesome, but it's not. Now think about Australia, women have to compete for men. They have to rely on intelligence, looks, personality, own money, to compete for men. So, in that instance men have pushed women to better themselves. Before you get super mad at that, ask yourself this... What kind of guy would you date? The jock or the nerd, I am not talking about the good looking nerd that rarely exists, but the one who is socially awkward, is not very good looking in masculine features. With the last of my statement, if you want the world to be a better place be a better women, inspire men to be better people. Inspire your boyfriend to do "good" raise your son's to be better, not feminine. I think that if the women in the above photo was like "I would marry the first guy to end world hunger" well you know there would be no world hunger. I could go on and on... But I got to go.
Well... I can say at least... the world would be less violent? Less killing? Would it be better? who knows? watching the world slowly becoming more populated with women then phase out men? I doubt it. As I skim through the opinions... I can see quite a few guys/men show some... masculinity or patriarch view of the world... and I bet if they had the choice to fight for men's reproductive rights and... progress? to continue having sons in the world then yeah... we'd be going to war real quick and it would be ugly.
And there is no real... what if all women became lesbians... there wouldn't be a choice really. Like sexual partners would be limited to other women... so if your are christan or any belief that goes against that... then you are SOL. And the cherry on top would be that you can even masturbate if you are like 100% faithful to your religion. So... You'd have a lot of emotions plus a sex drive that can't be tamed if your are not willing to break any religious rules. Honestly... I think that would cripple a lot of societies. No sexual relief would kill a lot of other animals.
I worked in IVF so I get the idea of reproducing kids however, the major hurdle would be genetic diversity and extracting the XX chromosomes from i guess... two ovaries then somehow have them bind to one another to have... woman on woman babies. But this is already assumed to happen in this hypothetical world.
So in short... I don't think it would be a world that can slowly phase out men. It would be like... a virus that either... wiped men out slowly or something that changes our reproductive probabilities for girls to be born more frequently than boys. If such a world would happen... then Chaos would ensue from religious groups as they can no longer sustain their... beliefs in marriage, sex, and masturbation. plus more... I am not religious however I have heard quite a few and the most popular ones are male centric or dominate ideals. Women that aren't bound by religion would probably has a better time however not without any conflict or sadness as the world slowly fights for the last man standing.
Honestly, I’m not sure. I’m just lucky that most feminists aren’t as radical as to want that. I’m not a feminist myself because as a black girl feminism to me just seems to not deal with real issues. I believe in some view points that can be categorized as feminist but I don’t identify with the movement, I just consider myself pro female if that makes sense. From my experience, most feminist just want equality of the genders but I’ve definitely come across some more radical ones that don’t stand for equality at all and just make problems where their are absolutely none (and those I don’t support), or feminists that just want to be greater than men rather than just being equal.
For example “man spreading” man spreading is an absolutely ridiculous radical feminist taking point that just makes the feminist movement look extremely bad which makes me sad because a lot of educated and well informed feminists exist but the most popular view of feminism are just those “feminist sjw cringe complications” that go viral on yt and people eat up which gives them a false impression of what most feminists actually are like. Making for them to have good debates/conversation with others about their views and or beliefs since people discredit them so much based off of those type of things.
It's difficult to say, but I will say there would be: * Far fewer wars * Not as much crime, especially violent crimes like assault * Competitiveness wouldn't be as highly valued. In fact, it may disappear altogether * The streets would be relatively safe at night Being bi, I don't think it would be as difficult for me personally to adjust to such a drastic change, but even with all of these considerations taken into account I don't think it would be a good idea. We need balance, male and female traits and characteristics. Men do all the dirty and dangerous jobs that females never volunteer for (ex. electricians, sewage workers, construction).
The war point is interesting because whilst men are more aggressive (at least physically) religion would still be a thing and dictatorships would still exist except leaders of countries like Iran and N. Korea would be women but would still want their power (especially if it were the same leaders they have now but turned into women) so maybe those places would still pose a threat to the rest of the world. In fact Kim Jon Un was apparently going to be replaced by his sister if he died of COVID so it’s not like a woman would be any different.
Naomi Alderman disagrees with you. She wrote "The Power" for just that reason. In her novel, women become the dominant sex... and they abuse their power every bit as much as men do now.
However, I feel a bit like both of you are correct.
@ADFSDF1996 That's right "buddy", I'm not. But if it makes you happy, then yes, I'm a man-hating, castrating rad fem who has orange hair, doesn't shave under her arms, and likes to scream at the top of her lungs about the evil patriarchy. :)
I know you are being sarcastic but the thing is I don’t believe you when you say you aren’t a feminist.
Thinking there would be less wars, less crime, less competition and safer streets without men is a common feminist fantasy. Even though history has shown that women can be just as aggressive as men are.
1) Cynane either fought in or caused wars. Boudicca herself was savagely brutal. The best spies during WWI/WWII were women. Women are just as capable of war. It's ignorance that says otherwise.
2) Women are more than capable of assaulting someone. They are also more than capable of raping someone, murdering someone, torturing someone. It's ignorance that says otherwise.
3) Obviously you don't know many women. Women aren't just as or more competitive they're petty & vindictive in their competitiveness. Some make men look like winged & haloed angels in comparison.
It would look like a hybrid of the third reich and Stalin’s Soviet Union. Straight women would be the ones who are oppressed, since us guys would be extinct.
The only hope would be for God to intervene and wipe out the “feminazi/commie” regime and resurrect men.
It would also be possible for the last men in hiding to open a portal to the multiverse to allow an invasion from a male dominant world to wipe out the feminazis as well.
Um... Hitler and Stalin, and all of their ministers, were male. ALL of them were male. In Italy Mussolini - a man. In Japan Hirohito and Tojo - men. Women played virtually no role in running those nations.
In the reality I made up in my question everyone would be female. All men would become women without escaping it (somehow) and everyone would become a lesbian because whatever strange phenomenon that turned men into women would also change everyone’s sexuality to be the same because the scientists who made it happen would ensure that the human race can still continue. Countries wouldn’t necessarily go communist since conservatives would still exist in positions of power except they’d be women. I mean social conservatism might be a thing of the past to an extent but a lot of people would still be fiscally conservative therefore capitalism would still be a thing in most places.
@Bellatris But keep dreaming about having a feminist global regime, it will never happen as many people are starting to realize just how much of a problem feminism is.
Mud. Hmm... Now where did I come across that idea before? Oh, I know! GENESIS. The book of, that is. You know, how Adam was created from the dust of the earth. Yeah, that story.
Okay, ignore my last stupid comment. I wrote it before I checked out the article. Yes, that's the creation myth of abiogenesis, the belief (based on absolutely nothing) that life just somehow spontaneously arose from non-life, which is absurd.
@Bellatris Abiogenesis isn’t “disproven” but it is controversial. Although this new theory shown in the link is based on newer findings, so it hardly qualifies as abiogenesis.
And if you want more proof. It’s recently been discovered that snakes once had limbs but “evolution” made their limbs recessive. www.nationalgeographic.com/.../snakes-grow-legs-evolution Much like how in Genesis, the snake didn’t slither until it was cursed by God in Genesis 3:14.
That's hardly "proof" of anything. Evolutionists accept that biological organisms change over time, but creationists are against that idea. So, are you an evolutionist or a creationist? You can't be both, you can't use evidence (not proof, by the way) for the theory of evolution to say that the Bible is therefore correct, because the Bible clearly states that all current forms have been the way they are now since they were created.
@Bellatris What gives you the right to tell someone what kind of proof they can or can’t use? Typical atheist rhetoric, you guys are afraid of Christians who use science to support Christianity, so you try to set rules to limit Christians’ arguments.
Not to mention that Christians actually contributed the most towards scientific discoveries.
You clearly do not understand the concept of proof, or even evidence. The snake attributes you think constitute some kind of "proof" for God's existence isn't anything of the kind. Evolutionists, as I said before, accept the fact that organisms change over time. The Bible, on the other hand, does not. Your mention of Genesis 3:14 - "“Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life." - isn't terribly impressive. It's proof of precisely nothing, apart from the fact that coincidences sometimes occur. In a book as large as the Bible is, they were bound to get some things right, purely by chance! What about all the other garbage in it? You know, like the belief that bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13 to 19).
@Bellatris Now you are arguing semantics. You say I don’t understand the concept of “proof” because I got you thinking “what if he’s right?” I know how hard it is to accept the truth so I don’t blame you.
But here’s the thing though, like many atheists you don’t seem to understand that the Bible isn’t always literal. When the Bible mentions unicorns it isn’t talking about unicorns but rather rhinoceros.
Unbelievable. You're not even willing to consider counter evidence. The sites I linked provide QUOTES direct from the Bible to back up their claims. They consider the FACTS, the historical (and other) realities. Why are you so afraid of the truth? Whether these people are atheists or not is beside the point, because they don't just make empty claims here.
Example: 5. Ezekiel 29:10-11 "therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years."
FAIL: Egypt has NEVER been uninhabited, let alone for forty years, in it's history (since it's inception). It is currently inhabited by almost 80 million people.
Another example: 4. Ezekiel 30:10-11 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his army - the most ruthless of nations - will be brought in to destroy the land. They will draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain."
FAIL: Ezekiel predicts that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon will conquer Egypt filling it's borders with the slain. In 568 BCE Nebuchadnezzar attempted to conquer Egypt without success. Egypt's king ruled for another generation and outlived Nebuchadnezzar thereby escaping the fulfillment of this prophecy. The Egyptians were not scattered or dispersed or slain in droves across the lands.
@Bellatris It’s talking about the Egyptian empire which no longer exists. And Egypt today is not even a shell of it’s former glory. Way to go taking things out of context.
Oh right, I'm "taking things out of context". Sure (eyeroll). The excuses Christian theists make for all these blatant mistakes are endless and hilarious! What about the promise, made by non other than Jesus H. Christ, that "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." - Matthew 16:23 Care to attempt to explain this abject failure?
@Bellatris I’ve been soundly refuting every single one of your arguments yet here you are stubbornly continuing to argue. You can’t even get your Bible verses right. That’s John 1:51, not Matthew 16:23. And it’s talking about Jacob’s ladder where angels ascend and descend between heaven and Earth. https://www.bibleref.com/John/1/John-1-51.html
Wow. You really are delusional. You haven't "refuted" any of my points. In your imagination maybe you have. The quote is Matthew 16:28. Simple mistake. Don't make such a big deal out of it. The fact is that so-called prophecy has failed to come true. Reality is what it is regardless of what you may want to believe about it. Facts don't care about your feelings, as B. Shapiro would put it.
You know, it's strange that you complained when the links I provided to back up my specific claims were all from atheistic websites, and yet you're doing basically the same here when you link to sites run by Christian theists. Is this a case of do as I say but don't do as I do, as so many self-proclaimed Christians like to practice? In any case, the evidence I presented before is irrefutable. There's no denying the fact that the Bible is an incoherent mish-mash of odious practices, dodgy history, and wrong science. Christ was a false prophet, and if I had to select a religion, it would be Judaism, not Christianity.
@Bellatris The difference is that your left wing atheist pals are taking parts of the Bible out of context to suit their anti Christian rhetoric rather than actually trying to understand what says biblical passages mean.
Now you're making another assumption about me: that I'm "left-wing". Actually, my political views go right across the spectrum. In many ways I'm really conservative, but when it comes to the claims made by Christian apologists, then no, I reject their whole worldview, because it is clearly wrong. By the way, a person can have conservative views and still be an atheist. You do know that don't you? And a person can be a Christian and a socialist as well. Christ preached a communistic way of life, he was the world's very first SJW hippie.
Like I said before, my views go right across the spectrum. In SOME ways I may appear to be conservative, and have conservative views (ex. I'm absolutely opposed to the radical indoctrination of children in our schools, 'gender studies' or anything related being taught), but in other respects I'm progressive (ex. support a free universal national health scheme, am opposed to any private individual owning firearms, despise nationalism in all its ugly forms).
Anyone who parrots the “feminazi” narrative is beyond repair lol yeah it would suck without dick but look at the bright side, there would be no war or mass incarceration.
Just look on GAG, how many women are "conservative"? Women are brutal socialist by nature. Given power women would immediately instill a harsh dictatorship. Look at the feminist governments of Germany and Scandinavia, they have criminalised any kind of speech they don't like and punish thought crimes with a vengeance. Women with majority political power is a very bad thing.
What do your husbands, fathers, brothers, sons do for work? Could you do it? Do you think women are going to line up to do my job involving heavy lifting, driving a forklift, shoveling/stacking/carrying cinder block? Working in the heat and cold and rain.
Do you think they will live up to do the harder or disgusting jobs? Do you think they have enough women that know how? How will your cars run when men aren’t risking their lives drilling and transporting the oil? How many women do you know that can run an electric plant? Drive a semi?
Let’s be honest... women don’t have the knowledge or numbers to replace men in the work place to keep their lives running. As sad as it is to day and you hate to admit it and rude as it sounds... women can’t survive without men period. We created a world that give you freedom through electricity, automation, security... you don’t have to rely on men to hunt anymore or protect you but when that safe world collapses what then?
It was a man that created birth control and the bra and the tampon... women don’t have their freedom without men. A world without men with leave you the hunters and hard workers and the comfort you enjoy now disappears literally over a single night of no men. Electricity over night. Gas over a week or 2 at the most.
Don’t take my word for it. Look up the % of women working as electrical engineers and truck drivers. That tells you the efficiency you would run at IF they knew ALL the logistics like where their going, what their taking, how to Load and unload it, how to maintain their equipment, how to deal with a situation... and women used to die in child birth at a rate of 1/4 and the rate of infant mortality was very high with people having 10 kids to get 1 son that lived... take away half the birthing doctors and maintain the rate of child birth. Do you think only men war? I’ve seen women fight. Your vicious and cruel. But cruelty isn’t strength. Do you have the strength to kill your enemy?
Ironically women COULD survive without men IF they could maintain today’s standards of healthcare, electrical, distribution, got over their fucking fear of insects, toughened up and accepted they have to work hard to get somewhere... but your nowhere near any of these. You’re just now surpassing men in the work force overall. That’s not considering fields of study and ability. What one man could do alone it will take 2 women if it was physically demanding.
Lol women don’t want men to disappear. Your not that stupid. Most of you understand the world would fall into chaos and your easy dainty lives would be over. No you want men to fall in line and be your slaves to do your bidding and be used as you see fit.
Also curious... your periods synchronize in the home... I wonder if the entire world would close down for an official PMS day...
I am looking at this logically, she said the men were turned into women, so all that personality and knowledge is still there. The ability for jobs to get done will still be there. I've seen women do "men" work, from what you describe. Also, I think that means there would be masculine women, that would do the dirty work.
And logically how many masculine women with the k ow how? How long to train the new girls to catch up to old production?
And turn them into women... like how? A trannys still a god damn man biologically. All the hormone blockers in the world can’t stop 40 years of testosterone. Their still gonna want to fuck and fight.
There's a movie about this (that @lanadelrey25 reminded me of last week). And while it is extremely unrealistic and almost seems entirely like feminist propaganda, it was made before wokeness took full effect.
In reality, anyone with a brain knows that women HATE each other, and psychologically, are evil and sadistic in how they treat each other (especially in high school). All female companies literally can't even survive most of the time. I'll link you proof of that.
This isn't me trying to sound like a red-piller or MGTOW or anything, since I love good, kind, feminine, intelligent, mature, classy women, but... Feminists are quite literally some of the stupidest people on planet Earth, no hyperbole. Most women don't get along with each other. I predict an all-female planet wouldn't last more than a week.
Firstly an all female world wouldn't last long after all the men were wiped out. In fact we have two examples of what an all female world would like. The Dutch and British versions of the Survivor show pitted an all female group versus the males. The males after working 3 long days establishing food, water, and shelter were able to drastically cut back their work day from 14 hours to 4 hours. Those extra hours were left for the males to do as they pleased as long as the supplies and shelter were maintained.
The women, on the other hand, needed constant medical intervention from the production crew. They never created any shelter where they were not exposed to the elements. They were dehydrated and starving by week two. Many of them resorted to just lounging around and sun bathing. And if one woman started to cry, they would all stop what they were doing to tend to her feelings.
Then there's the issue of how would this all female world reproduce? As they are finding out about ectogenesis, men carry enough genetic diversity in their ejaculate that one man can easily reproduce via ectogenesis without causing genetic problems. Women on the other hand, they have to scope out a few hundred eggs and then drill into her femur to obtain enough genetic diversity so as to not cause inbreeding. You know inbreeding? That wonderful practice that is the death knell for humans.
This is an interesting question. Why are you asking it? And what do feminists have to do with this? They are irrelevant.
To answer your question though there are plenty of fictional stories with this premise.
For instance, in "The X-Y" as it is known in North America and "Who Runs The World" as it is known elsewhere, author Virginia Bergin presents a world 60 years after a virus wiped out almost all men. The surviving men are put into "quarantine" but are basically prisoners in a female-run world.
In "The Outer Limits", there is an episode called "Lithia" in which it is many years after The Scourge - an illness after that last world war that resulted in all men being gone. However, some were put in suspended animation and are woken up on occasion to see if men could be reintroduced into society.
In "The Power", a best-selling novel by Naomi Alderman and being made into a 10-part series for Amazon, men don't disappear, but women develop a new organ which can cause electrocution like an electric eel. Men do not have this organ. The world soon changes with women eventually becoming the dominant sex.
In the recent novel "The Fortress" by S. A. Jones, a man who is a douchebag to women is given a choice by his wife: Either spend one year at The Fortress to get an attitude adjustment or his wife will divorce him taking their unborn baby. He opts for The Fortress, a strange ancient society of women. Men who visit there never talk about it after they return to their lives in the real world.
There are lots of other stories - many older - in which we are talking about female-led or female-only societies.
An electrical energy within women is awakened overnight. Women begin to develop the ability to release electrical jolts from their fingers. Suddenly, teenage girls have immense physical power. With just a touch, they can cause agonising pain or death. This 2016 science fiction novel speculates how this shift in power relations would reverberate, destabilizing every aspect of the world we live in. It is a powerful experiment in “what if,” imagining women as the newly dominant gender. Wild and pacey, with great breadth of focus, Alderman’s alternative reality explores the mechanism of power and the shocking speed with which it corrupts those who hold it.
There's a couple of big clues about this: Women only businesses and the shows women vs men survival shows. In both cases it has been found that women are less likely to actually do stuff, but rather talk about doing stuff. In other words not a lot of stuff actually gets done.
Im both a manager and business owner (yes I have two jobs) and read a lot of business literature including articles on management and leadership. I recently read an article written by a woman who started an all female tech firm and the nightmares if getting anything DONE.
So I would predict that at first things would be goid. But as equipment deteriorates and services start breaking down quality of life would also deteriorate. Though women can do anything a man can they often choose not to.
I would think that many less then desirable jobs would be regulated to inmate labor, and as the needs for that type of labor gets greater and greater. More stiff penalties and longer sentences will become the norm. More and more acts will become criminalized until you have a slave class replacing the existing male labor force.
Women would have to put their nose to the grindstone. Many more than there are would need to be educated/trained in the male-dominated work areas like blue collar jobs, stem work, and the military.
They would also likely begin to take on more masculine attributes as a whole in addition to their feminine ones, in order to make up for the lack of masculinity elsewhere
Or perhaps women would begin to diverge into more masculine women and more feminine women, and the masculine would gradually end up in majority filling the roles men used to.
Also, the age of fertility would fuckin drop. I don't know why some weird genetic thing where if there's not a man in the house the girls bodies mature faster. With no men at all I assume that'd happen to every kid, and the age of consent would likely drop as well.
Also, all media would change drastically in many different ways, some of them positive. How women are portrayed would certainly change, as would how men are, and how dominant (or even if) men are. Queer (or just lesbian) representation would also change dramatically.
Also everything that seperates genders like bathrooms, dorm rooms, sports, the medical field, would all be basically reduced by half. And lots of stuff made specifically for men would suddenly no longer be needed. This would produce a lot of shot jobs so unemployment would likely skyrocket until new jobs were created/made accessible/trained for.
I believe that most of us males that aren't scumbags are feminists, despite what arguments or opinions one may have that would disagree. We all have a mother, grandmother, some of us have sisters and daughters, girlfriends and wives, etc. of which we want only the best and would do anything for. That being said I am pulling the guy card out of my pocket on this one. I think it would be uneventful. Bereft of adventure. Not very funny at all. Chicks aren't funny. As a whole. There are a few here and there that possess great humor but a world without a Mel Brooks or a Dave Chapelle? Boo that shit, man. It would be cleaner and better overall but soooo boring. Honestly, if there was not a perceived chance that just maybe girls would reproduce with us - we wouldn't hang out with them. There's so much unnecessary droning and chatter about shit that doesn't matter or excite us and they always wanna do shit like volunteer at 5:30 a. m. at the whatever thing and then go picnic and yoga in the park and after that go whatever with their mother on your one day off in the last 9 days, when all your want to do is absolutely nothing until its time to make a cocktail and/or your homeboy drops by with his boat on the way to lake because its awesome and he knows you are totally into it at 3 in the afternoon.
Initially, it would go downhill really quick. There are virtually no women sanitation workers, garbage collectors, masons, steelworkers, concrete workers. lineman, and very few plumbers, electricians, and framers. Within a few days or weeks at the most, houses would not have electricity, running water, the sewers would be stopped up or overflowing. No new buildings, houses, or roads would be built and many would not be repaired. There would be no mining or oil production therefore no gasoline for cars.
However, evolution wouldn't stop and there are a few women that have the inclination and ability to learn those thing, s and since initially they would be more successful since their skill would be extremely valuable, they would produce more descendants. Therefore, in less than 1,000 generations, technology and construction of houses, building, road, power plants, mining, and oil production would be restored. Women would become larger, stronger, more muscular. and more logical because those traits would be in greater demand.
@KrakenAttackin Not in the current numbers because it takes technology for billions of humans to survive. However, provided they can raise, gather, hunt and fish for adequate food women have proven they can survive in a primitive environment. And, 1,000 generations (20,000 to 25,000 years) is just a flash in the pan in our evolutionary history of humans and primates. However, that is long enough for the minor within a species to make the necessary changes.
@KrakenAttackin Of course, that is assuming it is possible for a two sex-species to change into a one sex species. Especially, without advanced technology which, without the men to maintain it, initially would disappear.
First, I applaud you for thinking about reproducing, that was going to be my first concern... Second, there was/were a Twilight Zone episode (s) that explored this exact question. It doesn't end well for humanity...
I think it would be worse. Most women, at least at the current moment, are emotional rather than logical or practical, so their Amazonian/philosophical society (with shopping) would be a mess because certain hard decisions may not be made correctly and lead to further destruction. An all female, and all male for that matter, world would ultimately, one way or another, end up destroying itself due to lack of balance.
Honestly? Men are the unthanked backbone of society. If these remaining women didn't get with the program and fill the enormous vacuum in the manual labors quickly, society would collapse at its pillars. But perhaps they could, I don't know.
But that wouldn't matter, we'd go extinct when the youngest women finally got old and died. Bone marrow babies can't survive and well, if men are gone reproduction doesn't work obviously lol.
Moreover, it would certainly be an imbalanced society. men and women's mentalities must cross pollinate to create human perfection. to only have one (and an abundance of one at that) would surely create issues.
Well sex wouldn't be needed to reproduce, could just reproduce without that.
Chances are though women would fall into the same historical patterns of human history, repeating the same mistakes that men did... only this time they could only blame themselves.
The children would all have to be born female too, likely due to the science. All the daughters being raised without good fatherly influence would be a very interesting scenario.
Eventually the science could fail and that would be the end.
I would say women probably fare better than men in terms of sustaining the human population long enough to find a way reproduce artificially. There is still plenty of sperm in storage that could be used to buy some time as a more permanent solution is found.
In terms of politics, I don’t think too much will be different. There’s still corruption, wealth gap, etc. The people in power may have different faces, but they still have the same motivations and values, so don’t expect transformative social changes.
In terms of how future generations look back, it would certainly be interesting. A future generation may find it bizarre that a completely different set of humans coexisted in the past and may look in disdain as how female were treated in this past society.
Feminist or not, i dont wanna be in an all female world. Most females are bitter or mean or bullies or just overall competitive with eachother. I’d be pissed not getting to see male eyecandy.
I dont believe in the whole born gay thing and no ones gonna force me to go that way. The other ladies can do whatever they want, but like i said i’d “see my way out”
@Tyrael i know many people who consider it a trend. Maybe not all, but many. In HS they supposedly turned gay and now they try to pretend they never were and that they only like dick. So like i said... i wouldn't go that way
@Tyrael when i said gay, im referring to the whole lgbt whatever because i dont have time to question if they like one or both. Just if they do a gay act, i just sum it up as gay. Im not tryna be politically correct. @catlover1999 Yea i know what you mean and i’m saying i’d kill myself before i go for that
I think there would be a lot more rioting. Cause women are sensitive to everything and they will find something to complain about.
Now that all men are gone they will have to complain about each other. I think there will be a lot more cyber bullying or shaming over really dumb stuff.
And I think there might be more rioting because again women are sensitive. And I think it would create somewhat of a fake society. Where everybody pretends everything is ok.
Who wants to talk about negative things that make women feel upset when you can just talk about the positives I public.
Horrid honestly. I think we need the balance, I'm sure some things would change, like male criminality, but day to day being only confronted with women and having more chance to run into the catty petty ones ugh no. Also curious to know how we would all become lesbians, I'm way too straight.
Bitchyness, scrabbling, not much getting done too much envy. Loads of drama, my god most girls live on it and if there isn't drama they create it. I'm glad I don't live in one
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 
