Woman control theory

[Coral Rhedd]

There is a problem with this entire discussion and the premise upon which it is based. Who would first kill all the men on earth?

[Ophiolite]

There is a problem with this entire discussion and the premise upon which it is based. Who[/b'] would first kill all the men on earth?

Men aren't all that bright, so you could fairly readily get them to kill each other. By the time they figured it out, it would be too late.

[alt_f13]

Well, I'm not sure about you lot, but a world without the opposite sex would be pretty horrid to me.

[Playmaker03]

First of all, this as turned into a ridiculous thread and yet i feel compelled to add a reponse.

 

It is ludicris to even think of the world wide eradication of all males (speaking theoretically or not) because it just will never happen.

 

At the risk of sounding hypocritical, If anything it would be the other way around, even if you feminist females don't like it, females have approx only 60% a males physical strength and at the most equal intelligence (i say at the most because in history all the 'geniuses' have been male-einstein,hawking,newton, even shakesphere).

 

However, i think both sexes play an important role in society and a world without either would be a dull place i am sure.

 

As a final point it would be amusing to see how females would cope with the manual work (construction etc..), i have worked in construction for years, my father even longer and have never once seen a female on site, and only an handfull behind the scenes.

[Coral Rhedd]

At the risk of sounding hypocritical' date=' If anything it would be the other way around . . .[/quote']

 

Oh I think you are absolutely right! Men would be much more likely to kill all the women.

[Ophiolite]

As a final point it would be amusing to see how females would cope with the manual work (construction etc..), i have worked in construction for years, my father even longer and have never once seen a female on site, and only an handfull behind the scenes.

Hmmm.. You don't think that might be something to do with the hiring policy of a male dominated industry do you? Nooooo, surely not.

[coquina]

As a final point it would be amusing to see how females would cope with the manual work (construction etc..), i have worked in construction for years, my father even longer and have never once seen a female on site, and only an handfull behind the scenes.

 

I'll bet you haven't seen many women machinists either, but you've met one now.

 

As for why more women aren't carpenters, plumbers, auto mechanics, or machinists, these are trades that have traditionally been passed from father to son. I was an only child, so I grew up in my dad's machine shop. I can honestly say that I have 50 years of machine shop experience, because I learned to use a file to remove burrs when I was 5.

 

As for lack of physical (brute) strength, that can be a hindrence as well as a help. Inexperienced machinists think that they need to tighten bolts as tight as they can possibly get them - it stretches the threads out of shape or strips them. You snug them up, give 'em another half turn, and they're as tight as they're gonna get. The answer lies in having more bolts, not overtightening too few of them. In the machine shop, we have lifts for moving heavy equipment, and we have rules that 2 people move anything over 40# - men might be stronger, but they still get ruptured disks and hernias, and then my Workers Comp has to cough up money for an operation and lost time.

 

As to construction, probably true that you see few women framers, but in my area there are a lot of women finish carpenters and cabinet makers. I know how to use all woodworking tools, my husband and I used to restore boats - one was a 42' wooden one - and nothing is "square" on a boat. One has to deal with compound curves to make things fit, and it is a real challange. He used to have me do all the detail work because I had more dexterity. My dad used to have me make all the tiny parts for the same reason - he said women had a "finer hand".

 

You might find it interesting to do some research on the jobs women performed during WW2 - more than just "Rosie the Riveter", they ferried completed planes and worked in all phases of manufacturing. When the war was over, they went back to home making and raising the "baby boomers".

 

But back to what this thread was originally about - the original premise:

awhile back, i read a book that suggested a theory to end war... it was pretty detailed, woman could take sperm sample of men and then kill them, and have woman procreate thru artificial insemination. There were other contingencies of course but the point of the theory is that woman are more emmotional and less violent, therefore by eliminating the male sex (to a certain extent) war/fighting could end.... but i think there are a lot of physcological loopholes.... Do you think woman could take the part of men, is there any chance of this working to any extent if so how long.. just general points of vies since i thought it was interesting.....

 

Please don't think I agree with this, but am just throwing out the idea for fun...

 

Has anybody pointed out that roughly half the offspring would be male? What would be done about that?

 

Maybe you allow them to grow up under close supervision, and castrate all the ones with aggressive personalities? Maybe you neuter the females with agressive personalities too.

[Coral Rhedd]

Yep. Castration. I know how to do that. I used to work on a ranch.

[Playmaker03]

I must admit i did expect a backlash to my comments. The post by coquina was clearly well thought through and completley fair and impartial, and i fully apprietiate the womens important role in WW2.

 

However in response to Ophilite's comment i am a little suprised. These days there is so much pressure to hire a certain percentage of females,ethnics,disabled (mabey not so outside the uk) that women would be the first appointed IF they chose such careers (which they dont because at the collage recruitment centres the vast vast majority of applicants are male).

 

The reason i am suprised is because you are also from the uk, so i can only assume you have no idea what you are talking about and/or you feel the need to send sarcastic responses to try and get a rise out of people.

[Coral Rhedd]

Women do not seek out these careers in the U.S. because of the reality that such jobs actually entail. There is a history of women being harassed when they enter male dominated careers.

 

However, I think that there is also another factor: Childbearing/rearing. It really is only blue collar jobs that require physical strength (although less than some people like to believe) and these male-dominated professions often require long hours. Working class women are less likely to postpone motherhood than any other group -- much to their economic detriment. You can change rules overnight, but you cannot change culture with the same speed.

[Ophiolite]

Playmaker,

When someone posts a comment such as, “As a final point it would be amusing to see how females would cope with the manual work”, I suspect one of the following will likely be true:

 

The poster is talking tongue in cheek.

Or,

The poster is part of the reason, or should I say problem, that has led to a dearth of females in many industries and trades.

 

My response,

“Hmmm.. You don't think that might be something to do with the hiring policy of a male dominated industry do you? Nooooo, surely not.”

addresses both of these possibilities. If the former, it may be seen as light hearted acknowledgement of the tongue in cheek remark. If the latter, it conveys my distaste for such an outdated attitude.

 

I have worked in two male dominated industries: oil exploration and construction. I have witnessed the attitudes and actions, overt and covert, formal and informal, managerial and shop floor, that make these industries unattractive to female employees. Dismissive comments such as yours will discourage all but the most committed females from serious consideration of work in the construction industry. The few who do join encounter the attitude behind such comments on a daily basis, from colleagues, bosses and subordinates. Is it any wonder that many leave and advise younger friends or relatives “not for you”. That is why, as you say, at the "collage[sic] recruitment centres the vast vast majority of applicants are male".

 

So, I make no apologies for attacking an outmoded mindset which I view with contempt. I find it interesting that you have chosen to criticise my style rather than the substance of my post. You may console yourself with the thought that I “have no idea what I am talking about” and that I “feel the need to send sarcastic responses to try and get a rise out of people”. Clearly, it has nothing to do with a passionate belief in fair play.

[Ophiolite]

However, I think that there is also another factor: Childbearing/rearing.

I am in complete agreement with you here. However, if male dominated industries were welcoming to women the cultural changes needed to accomodate children could be achieved more smoothly. As long as

There is a history of women being harassed when they enter male dominated careers.

.

that will be difficult to achieve.

[Coral Rhedd]

I am in complete agreement with you here. However' date=' if male dominated industries were welcoming to women the cultural changes needed to accomodate children could be achieved more smoothly. As long as

 

that will be difficult to achieve.[/quote']

 

No class of people in power has easily surrendered it to those out of power. To get what they want women will have to learn to take what they want. Waiting for men change is a total waste of time.

 

Maybe if Freud were alive now he would finally understand what women want: His job.

 

In other words, women will not achieve true equality with men until they can enjoy the ecomonic fruits of success without having to f * * k men to get it.

[coquina]

They are the men behind the scenes. I have run into them on more than one occasion. In my opinion, there are several reasons that some men look down on women in a typically male dominated field.

 

For example - when competing for government jobs, some contracts are "set-aside" for women-owned businesses. It didn't take men long to figure out that they could put the majority of the ownership of their business in their wive's name in order to be able to bid on these jobs, even though the woman knew doodly-squat about the business. Legitimate men owned (and this woman-owned) business resented that. I resent it, because people have assumed because my husband and I worked together in the business, that I didn't know what I was doing. However, my husband came to work for me when the company he was working for went on an extended strike. He had experience in purchasing materials, and in military specifications, but initially he did not know about reading blueprints or machining technology. When someone made the wrong assumption, he corrected them right away, telling them that I was the manufacturing oriented person in the business, and if they wanted to know how a job should be done, they needed to talk to me.

 

Further more, if I do say so, I think I am a better boss than most men, and I would say my employees agree with me. I never ask them to do something unrealistic, and I don't get angry with them when they make mistakes. I have run this business for over 20 years, but one of my machinists worked here when I was in high school. "My guys" (sexist comment, what? ) are the best machinists I have ever seen. When we get a new job to bid, we all sit around the table and talk about it.

 

I do not try to micro-manage how they do their work. I give them a drawing, tell them where the material is, and when I need the job to be complete. They have flexible work hours - as long as the job gets done on time, I don't care when or how they do it. If it's a pretty morning, they might take off and play a round of golf, but they come in late and work late.

 

After my husband died I gave them all raises and told them I was going to need all the help I could get to keep the business going. I can assure you, they would do double-back-flips for me if I asked it of them.

 

On the other hand, I recognise that the "good ole boy" network exists. If I suspect there is going to be a problem, I use my initials rather than my given name when I make an appointment.

 

I needed to go aboard a nuclear submarine last year to see if a machine we build would be suitable to make a repair in a close area. Knowing how some men feel about women aboard ships - I just gave my initials to have a visitors badge made. The commander of the sub looked none to happy when he saw me coming aboard, but he had to deal with me, and as soon as he realized I knew what the heck I was talking about, he was fine.

 

Men sense women with confidence - I was very lucky in that my father taught me and took me on job sites from the time I was very young.

 

I was at a meeting of our industrial authority and a newcomer mistook me for a waitress. I told him I was a board member and he was floored. He asked me didn't it feel weird being the only woman in a roomful of men. I genuinely hadn't noticed that I was. I am just used to being around men all the time.

 

As to whether a woman-controlled world would eliminate war, I doubt it. Most wars are fought over territory or scarce resources. Then there are the hatreds between enemies that have gone on for so long, that no one remembers the real reason for them. Take the palestinians for example - several of their suicide bombers have been women, even in a culture where women are denigrated.

 

Women will certainly fight tooth and toe-nail to protect their family and offspring. As population increases, and territory and goods become increasinly scarce, there are going to be more wars. Perhaps it is a built in part of our evolution, to limit the population. Just as the lemmings run into the sea and drown.

[Coral Rhedd]

For example - when competing for government jobs' date=' some contracts are "set-aside" for women-owned businesses. It didn't take men long to figure out that they could put the majority of the ownership of their business in their wive's name in order to be able to bid on these jobs, even though the woman knew doodly-squat about the business. Legitimate men owned (and this woman-owned) business resented that. I resent it, because people have assumed because my husband and I worked together in the business, that I didn't know what I was doing. [/quote']

 

Women should take advantage of whatever resources are available to them for them to legitimately achieve their goals. It makes no sense to pretend there is a level playing field when there isn't.

 

In the paraphrased words of excommunicated Mormon Sonia Johnson: Take your eyes off the guys and keep your eyes on the prize. Who cares what men think if you get what you want?

 

Some people would assume your didn't know what you were doing just because you are a woman in a traditionally male field. I believe the set-asides serve a useful purpose. Our government engineers a lot perks -- many of them for well-established large corporations.

[Coral Rhedd]

As to whether wars would end it there were only women, I can only say that I have seen women be very aggressive, I have seen women jockey madly for power, and I have seen women use force.

 

It is human nature -- not just the nature of men -- that causes war. Killing off men is hardly a good way to achieve peace even if it were feasible. Violence always begets violence.

[slickinfinit]

listen, i'm not disputing that! if you don't like the fact that it has been scientifically proved over and over again that woman are the gentle sex, fine! whatever floats your boat, but I would like to debate over the physcological prospects of the theory..... please. i will no longer defend that part of the theory, it's not even my theory. So, ok, that has been stated. Please, move on. I'm speaking of the after math of the theory anyway.

I disagree I live in the BAR-FIGHT capitol of north America (Hamilton, Ontario), I have seen men fight I have seen women fight and the funny thing is most of the fights involving men they always either go seperate ways or earn mutual respect but with women they hold grudges and all the most nasty wounds I seen were mostly women stabbing or smashing beer bottles and they figth dirty lol. They also seem to enjoy starting fights between men and kicking me when I am pounding their boyfriend lol (true story). I think most people are good, when a women gets mad she gets mad I think if all of any sex was in control it would be bad we bolth need to use our strenths for the better not worse.

[Coral Rhedd]

Slickinfinit, I think what you are saying about the difference between the way men and women fight may be true but there is a difference between fighting and killing. I have seen men engage in a sort of ritual fighting. It is sort of like my dog feels compelled to do when he meets another dog. He acts all big and tough and is prepared to give and take a few bites to defend his masculinity. (Should have had him neutered years ago.)

 

I think the difference you are seeing among the fighting rituals of the sexes is that women know they cannot depend upon physical strength alone and so are more likely to seize a weapon.

 

However, when we look at prison populations of people who have used lethal force they are overwhelmingly men. Guess who they often used lethal force against? When it comes to power and control issues, men are more likely to use lethal force against women -- most precisely against girlfriends and spouses. The time they are most likely to use this type of force is when the girlfriends/wives are leaving them, indicating that jealousy and attitudes of power, control, and possession are the motives. There is a difference between ritualized fighting and lethal force.

 

War is both. It is a longstanding, highly organized ritual. It's purpose may be all kinds of high minded slogans but in execution it is killing. The more hierarchy between the soldier/first line combatant and the guy who gives the orders, the more likely war is to be devastating to human life. Wars are fought by hierarchical powers to establish control over territory and wealth. If men were gone, women would just fill those slots in the hierarchy IMO. Wars would continue -- at least for a while. After many generations if such aggressions slowed one could conclude that there is something different about men and women when it comes to organized aggression. If a change came about it might be because women are less conformist rather than because they are less violent.

 

BTW, why are you fighting with women's boyfriends?

[coquina]

[quote

Women should take advantage of whatever resources are available to them for them to legitimately achieve their goals. It makes no sense to pretend there is a level playing field when there isn't.

 

In the paraphrased words of excommunicated Mormon Sonia Johnson: Take your eyes off the guys and keep your eyes on the prize. Who cares what men think if you get what you want?

.

 

Carol, I can't agree with your second paragraph. I admit, I am very lucky to be in the position to have worked almost primarily with men since the git-go, so, take it from me, you will be accepted if you can demonstrate that you know what you are doing. Many women are not as lucky as I was - I grew up in a man's world. Learn it, know it. Never, ever, try to "baffle 'em with bull shit if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance." Do not ever try to bull your way through something you are not sure about. Ask the man to explain it to you. Just as you would do if you were a young man trying to learn what an older man has to teach.

 

Put yourself on an even playing field. Do not expect a man to help you more than he would a young man. However, if you don't understand, don't pretend that you do.

 

Men are not ogres - I have worked with them for many years. They are not catty. Show them that you are legitimatelly seeking to learn from them, and they will teach you.

[Coral Rhedd]

[quote

Women should take advantage of whatever resources are available to them for them to legitimately achieve their goals. It makes no sense to pretend there is a level playing field when there isn't.

 

In the paraphrased words of excommunicated Mormon Sonia Johnson: Take your eyes off the guys and keep your eyes on the prize. Who cares what men think if you get what you want?

.

 

Carol' date= I can't agree with your second paragraph. I admit, I am very lucky to be in the position to have worked almost primarily with men since the git-go, so, take it from me, you will be accepted if you can demonstrate that you know what you are doing. Many women are not as lucky as I was - I grew up in a man's world. Learn it, know it. Never, ever, try to "baffle 'em with bull shit if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance." Do not ever try to bull your way through something you are not sure about. Ask the man to explain it to you. Just as you would do if you were a young man trying to learn what an older man has to teach.

 

Put yourself on an even playing field. Do not expect a man to help you more than he would a young man. However, if you don't understand, don't pretend that you do.

 

Men are not ogres - I have worked with them for many years. They are not catty. Show them that you are legitimatelly seeking to learn from them, and they will teach you.[/quote]

 

Sandi, I don't think we disagree much. I grew up with three younger brothers. I spent a significant amount of my childhood telling them what to do. But I do respect what men or any knowledgeable person can teach me. I don't dislike men but I have to admit to having some problems with women who are overidentified with men as a source to fill their needs. This is because as women age they usually find that the strategies they have utilized as young women to deal with men do not work as well as they used to work. Contrary to what the media may try to convey sex appeal is not the currency of the world.

 

My second paragraph and its paraphrase of a quote was meant to convey that if women wait for men to approve of their progress, they will wait along time. I actually like working with men because they are more direct and I don't have to pretend to slavishly altruistic or completely lacking in personal ambition. I currently work mostly with women in a social work type field as a government contractor. Some people act as if I should apologize for making a profit.

 

Some men are catty. But overall they do seem to be less catty than women on the face of things. But I think both men and women can be very manipulative.

 

If my posts seem biting sometimes, I think you will find that my teeth are equal opportunity employers. I enjoy wielding words, I find people incredibly amusing, and I adore the works of Oscar Wilde. You can rein me in if I get out of hand. I won't mind. Just tell me if I am being rude and I will try to correct my course.

 

Also I expect almost everyone posting in this forum is my superior in the hard sciences.

 

Regards,

CORAL

[Playmaker03]

Coquina, i have to say it is refreshing to read your post, you are obviously a intelligent women who can see things from all different perspectives and i repect that, credit where credit is due.

 

Ophiolite, after reading your response to my post, i must admit you make a fair point, and of course i was speaking 'tongue and cheek'.

 

The way i see it, the person who should get a job is the person who is the better qualified regardless of sex or race etc.., which of course stands to reason. However because in the past women were discriminated against, a lot of companies (in uk) are forced to employ a certain percentage of women and minorites even if they are not the most qualified.

 

I realise its a touchy subject but i just say what i think.

[coquina]

Another big problem about getting women (and men) to be interested in "the trades" is that in the US, the quality of a high school is graded on how many people are accepted into a college. (Not on how many graduate from said college - one just has to get in.)

 

Therefore - guidance councilors push their stundents towards college, even though some of them are not good candidates for it. Of course - this happens even more often with women students than it does with men.

 

Many students go to college, and a lot of them flunk out - more of them come out with a degree in a profession that is so flooded with qualified people, that they cannot earn a decent living.

 

What is really sad, is that parents waste a bundle of money on a college education that turns out to be virtually worthless, while if a person went into a trade and becomes an apprentice, he is paid to learn. Machine shop apprentices learn on the job in the shop and go to school a couple of nights a week to learn blueprint reading, shop math, CAD/CAM (computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing), some metallurgy, and some physics. The employer usually pays for the classes. A journeyman machinist must be very intelligent and motivated to learn these skills. There is absolutely no reason that a woman cannot be just as successful in the trade as a man. Further - if one decides to further one's education, going on to earn an engineering degree, or a certificate in Project Management, makes one a highly desired commodity.

 

I went to a meeting at the vocational education section of our local community college. The director has asked me to go with him to talk to the students at local high schools - especially young women, about what a machinist does and what kind of job they can expect to get when they become a journeyman.... and to encourage them to enter the trade.

 

OK - I'm off my soapbox.

[Coral Rhedd]

Sandi, when I taught at my local community college (as an English instructor) I found that many students who were interested in the trades were struggling with more traditional college offerings like English. I honestly could not figure out for instance why students learning to be welders needed to learn to write a 12 page research paper in MLA format with a works cited page.

 

Maybe you can help me understand. Is this something machinist would really need to know how to do or is this just because colleges want to collect that tuition money? They keep pushing students towards an associate degree when, in many cases, it seems a certification would do fine. Even certifications require a certain level of English.

 

The reason I ask is that in my community there are many primarily Spanish speaking people who are never likely to learn English well enough to pass university level English classes and yet that is what the community college is making a requirement. (The community college in this instance is economically married to the U.)

[coquina]

Sandi' date=' when I taught at my local community college (as an English instructor) I found that many students who were interested in the trades were struggling with more traditional college offerings like English. I honestly could not figure out for instance why students learning to be welders needed to learn to write a 12 page research paper in MLA format with a works cited page.

 

Maybe you can help me understand. Is this something machinist would really need to know how to do or is this just because colleges want to collect that tuition money? They keep pushing students towards an associate degree when, in many cases, it seems a certification would do fine. Even certifications require a certain level of English.

 

The reason I ask is that in my community there are many primarily Spanish speaking people who are never likely to learn English well enough to pass university level English classes and yet that is what the community college is making a requirement. (The community college in this instance is economically married to the U.)[/quote']

 

Coral - you have hit the nail right square on the head. Vocational students do not need to read Beowolf. Neither do they need to be able to write an epistle about it. Many of them are kinesthetic learners and they have a very tough time in an academic setting. What is forced upon them, (that will be largely unused by any of us later on) frustrates them and causes them to drop the whole shooting match.

 

As far as English goes, they need to learn basic communication skills - technical writing, so that they can communicate information to someone else, who is not reading a damned novel. Subject, verb, object, the less adjectives and adverbs the better - get the damned point across and be done with it.

 

They need to understand basic shop math, geometry and trig. While this is difficult for many people in an academic setting it is far more understandable in a shop setting, where one is given a blueprint, a milling machine, and a mentor who shows them how to set up the job and the reasoning behind it.

 

Much of my life experience deals with what I learned from my mom and dad - so from me you often get anecdotes.

 

My great-great grandfather was a machinist/inventor and one of the people who started Baltimore Polytechnic Institute - aka "Poly". When a student was in junior high school, they were given the opportunity to go through a more formal education or to go to "Poly", which fast-tracked students interested in pursuing a career in engineering or trades. A high school degree from poly was the equivalent of a 2 year college degree anywhere else.

 

My dad went to Poly and graduated just after the advent of the depression, when no one else could get a job. He was hired by Newport News Shipbuilding based on his diploma from Poly and because of their superior record of turning out students who had not learned anything by rote, but hands on from skilled trades people.

[Martin]

My dad went to Poly and graduated just after the advent of the depression' date=' when no one else could get a job. He was hired by Newport News Shipbuilding based on his diploma from Poly and because of their superior record of turning out students who had not learned anything by rote, but hands on from skilled trades people.[/quote']

 

my wife's dad lived in San Francisco during the depression

and they had a really good Polytechnic High School

He learned very valuable skills---like machinist stuff, and electricity

 

nowadays high school education is often just a farce, but this was

a public highschool specializing on training a skilled industrial workforce and the quality was enviable

 

he went on to college in electrical engineering and then applied physics and became one of the scientists who helped develop Radar during WW2

 

then he and his buddies started a company

and he was alway the one that knew how to solve manufacturing problems on the assembly line

because he knew both the physics and the hands-on machinist stuff

 

-----------------------

 

then much later my wife was in Middle School and they wanted girls to learn cooking and sewing, while the boys (like her brothers) had the option of doing woodshop and metalshop

 

so Dad went to the school and raised hell (which embarrassed the children) because he said "She already knows how to cook and sew, which she learned from her mother and she has been doing for years. Now she shall go to woodshop and metalshop class as is proper."

 

I do not remember how this issue was resolved. It was in the 1950s and a different world from now, in certain respects.