Woman control theory

[Ami]

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.....

[fafalone]

Women fight.

[Ami]

yes they do, but they fight for protective reasons.. it's proven that woman are less violent, men go through a chemical wash in the womb that stunts the growth of teh emmotion part of the brain, they don't think with their proverbial heart as much as woman..

[fafalone]

Estrogen floods are just as bad as testosterone floods.

[Ami]

probably worse, but less violent, that really wasn't the part of the theory i hoped to talk about tho...

[Ami]

i appologize if i made it sound like I thought woman are superior, i just found the theory interesting...

[dragoon]

i know some girls who could kick my ass... and who go around kickin ass --- what about them?

[Ami]

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.

[Katie]

Hmm as to the psychological aspects... Would you block all past literature and make it a Farenheit 451 kind of thing? People are naturally curious, whether they be male or female, and eventually there would be a rebellion which would lead back to a sufficient amount of males in the population. Even a stupid romance novel could spark a revolution, so if this theory was to work, it would be imperative that knowledge be taken away.

Do we want to sacrifice knowledge for the sake of peace?

[aman]

A storage of sperm is stagnant.

Mens sperm evolves and changes as men are exposed to the changing enviroment. The soley female society would be missing out on an important half of the evolutionary process. In the far future this could be detrimental

Just aman

[Katie]

Also there is the problem of inbreeding, per say, for a small amount of the same male's semen impregnating a large amount of woman would make a huge amount of children siblings-preventing any of these women's sons from being potential sperm donors to any of the other women's daughters. The genetic pool would have to be greatly varied to prevent mutation-a great number of males would have to be allowed to reach sexual maturity and then killed.

 

I have to question how much missing out on half of the evolutionary process would hurt human evolution, after all, there is a part of inheritence that is solely from the mother (mitochondrial DNA), which may make her the more important of the genetic contributors? Also, I wonder how far into the future we are looking... there must be some glitch on the way in this plan that would make it fall apart, even before the harm it does to our evolutionary development becomes evident.

 

The glitch may be social, it may be psychological, enviornmental, even physical, but I have a feeling this plan wouldn't last for long enough to view the scientific effects it would have on our species.

[fafalone]

This is all a load of crap anyway.

[dragoon]

what if people rebel to this way of life?

[aman]

I would love to see it just for the fact that when women royaly screw it up I could say to my wife. "See it ain't just men"

Just aman

[fafalone]

Originally posted by dragoon

what if people rebel to this way of life?

 

 

What if llamas sprouted wings, flew into space, and ate the ISS astronauts?

[Katie]

We'd need a new Bellerophon, that's for sure...

[blike]

I don't know how you women would cope without us .

 

In all honestly, I dont' really know enough about psychology to answer with anything worthwhile (though I took 2 semesters, it was basically a nap time for me).

 

Obviously social roles would have to be re-arranged, and how this would effect women psychologically is uncertain. Perhaps women could take the role of men. Maybe our roles aren't as necessary as we think. I mean, pretty much all our sociological functions have their basis in evolutionary needs. The bigger, stronger males protect, and the females make the nest. While these are stereotypical roles, we see this pattern often in nature. Perhaps women have some hard-coded psychological need for a male presence. While this is not apparent in all cases [homosexuals], it is still a possibility. If they don't, an all-female society could likely replace the role of males, keeping only our sperm for reproduction.

 

All that to say I don't know. It might be interesting to check into some research done on social structures [if there are any] where women play a dominant role, and men a submissive role.

[fafalone]

Men could grow babies in feeding chambers and eliminate women... in fact I'm sure the government has already perfected the technology.

[Radical Edward]

more war seems to be caused by religion and ideology as far as I can see.

[blike]

Ami, are we supposed to be discussing whether or not this would end war, or whether or not males could be eliminated...or both ??

[Katie]

Men could grow babies in feeding chambers and eliminate women... in fact I'm sure the government has already perfected the technology.

The point of this thread (correct me if I'm wrong, Ami) was not to debate which sex was superior, it was to determine the psychological effects of such a theory on society, or, the physical effects on humans as a species. Fafalone, we are not trying to insut you personally! On the whole (and yes, this is a sterotype, but it happens to be based in fact) women are more peaceful than men. Okay? Not ALL women and not ALL the time, but on a whole. We're not rivaling theories here, the point is not to decide whether it'd be better to eliminate women or men! No offense... but you missed the point of the thread.

 

 

 

more war seems to be caused by religion and ideology as far as I can see.

That is true as well, but war is usually planned, instigated, and carried out by men. I'm not saying it'd be worth a shot to see what would happen if we eliminated males, but it is true that they are certainly key instruments in war. And, if you want to get back to it, to the roots of religion. Again, this isn't really what the post is about...

 

Perhaps women have some hard-coded psychological need for a male presence. While this is not apparent in all cases [homosexuals], it is still a possibility. If they don't, an all-female society could likely replace the role of males, keeping only our sperm for reproduction.

It is possible that women may "need" a male presence, but is it also possible that the entire human race could exist soley as homosexuals? I'm not sure, but I don't think this has been resolved as a scientific debate, if it is indeed purely a social matter, it's possible that propoganda (even in something as simple as changing the characters in a romance novel to two women) could press the entire race toward homosexuality. Perhaps that would show us how far we as a species have truly come from evolution-the primary force should be reproduction, and that, for us, is a male and a female. Would females with no knowledge of the existance of males yearn for something more?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Katie

That is true as well, but war is usually planned, instigated, and carried out by men.

 

largely because they have the control. While women would probably be more likely to negotiate ofver issues like land and property, when it came to Ideology, I'm not so sure. Looking at areas like palesting, even the women seem pretty militant when it comes to it.

Another aspect would be female bitchiness... something that doesn't really exist to the same extent in men. Cliques would still form, and conflict would probably still end up taking place.

 

anyway, it has drifted off the point. I don't think we have really come that far from evolution.. There was a very interesting program on the BBC lately about instinct by Prof. Robert Winston, which was fascinating. So many of the things that we do are a result of thousands of years of living in the wild. While intellectually we like to think we have advanced, In terms of general instinct and so on we definitely havent, and this would probably make a single-sex society that used an artificial method of reproduction completely unworkable.

[fafalone]

Since some women are more agressive, they would be the ones who fought to get power; things wouldn't be that different as far as war.

[Ami]

there are always usurpers in every society, but that could be over come pretty easily, there would still be law, and with woman having the majority (and only vote) democracy would go far and the few power hunger couldn't gain power, or if you grow up in a society with only certain standards, often ideas like that won't surface.. at least not as often

[Katie]

Maybe we haven't come far enough to disregard the genetic need for an opposite sex, but maybe we have. In any case, I don't believe that bitchiness is a factor... I mean honestly, how far can war get with catfights?

Although there are differences from "the norm" in every stereotype, especially ones of gender, it is true that MOSTLY there are less aggressive women than men, and thus less chance for wars to erupt. The maternal instinct is to preserve life, if you want to go back to simple insincts. The male instinct was to PROTECT life, which does not necessarily include preserving the lives of others. Translate: women have babies, men go out and gather food and kill things that try and attack the women and babies.

Not to say these roles weren't occasionally reversed, but it was rare.

It's all about probability... if there were less males, then it would be less probable that wars would break out.

Now as to whether this plan would work socially... I'm thinking some kind of mass amnesia would be necessary to start it in the first place, and to keep it up...at least for the first few generations.