|
Comments
The future belongs in the Women Women are gaining power at an accelerating rate. Eventually, we will be governed by women, and there will be no choice but to accept it and support it to keep order. B.G.Jan 19 2004 9:59pm Women are taking over educationally, and will definitely be in charge within a couple of generations, if not sooner. Girls are leaving boys in the dust at school, and education is the key to power. AmyJan 30 2004 7:30pm The girls of today are the women who will rule the world in years to come. KarraFeb 06 2004 11:50am Absoloutely yes, we need to elect a woman president and start a transition towards a feminine management style in government. This is more appropriate for the modern world. The male dominated system is outdated and has proven it doesn't work anymore. SylviaFeb 10 2004 8:34pm Yes, women are more intelligent, mature, and compassionate. JeanneFeb 16 2004 10:09pm I agree. Once there is a woman president we will see more and more females in congress and in executive positions. There will be a gradual shift towards a female majority, and eventually there will be a government run exclusively by women. This is the direction society is going in. CarrieFeb 20 2004 9:29pm Why not support a government run entirely by women? In the past people have supported governments run entirely by men. It's only men worried about losing their unfair privileges who object. HeatherMar 06 2004 6:45am Women will be in charge eventually. It is already starting to happen one step at a time. GiselleMar 06 2004 7:46pm I think the government is on its way to being constituted exclusively of women sooner than we think. When it happens, there really won't be much of a choice in the matter. A lot of Democrats don't like Bush, but they still pay taxes and obey the law. We will still pay taxes when women are in control. BrettMar 08 2004 10:25pm Women are more capable of having intelligent discussions. If all politicians were women, things would work much better. It is a truth that women are more successful than men. SarahMar 09 2004 10:41pm I hope that I am alive when women "take over the world". And then when we still have great problems to be solved, I can laugh in their faces. Of course, as women tend to do, they'll probably find a way to blame their messes on men. It's something that women always do, inable to accept accountability for anything. It all ties in with that "It's a woman's perogative to change her mind." How convenient for you. RandyMar 11 2004 4:34am So you want there to be problems so you can laugh in the faces of women? In other words, by your own admission, you have no aspiration to be active in solving problems, only to ridicule those charged with the responsibility of seeing things through. You are part of the problem, not the solution. So if women blame "their messes" on men like you, they are absolutely correct. At least you are big enough to admit it. Your comments are just one example of why it is time for women to take charge, before men destroy the world. BillMar 12 2004 10:27am Women are emerging as the stronger sex in today's society, and will naturally assume more political power as this concept becomes further established. SalMar 12 2004 10:35pm Mr. Bill. I never once said that I would laugh in the faces of people who are truly committed to their statements. What I've said, and I have had this kind of conversation face-to-face with those like minded people (both women and men) who have come right out and said that the world would be a better place if women were in charge, but when pressed with questions as to how such a utopia would come about, they had no specific idea on how this would come about. This is the kind of thing that makes me "want to laugh in the faces" of these women and men who make claims without support for their idea. Would the world be a better place if women took charge? Who knows? It is not a given fact that it would or would not be. I just do not give much respect to replies like "It would be a better place, just because" which is the standard answer that a five-year-old would give. As far as me admit- ting that I do not want to help solve problems, you do not have the right to tell me what I meant to say. I did not imply directly or otherwise that I do not want to help solve the world's problems. I just meant to say, that I want the world's problems to be solved by people with actual ideas that would make the world far better than it is now. Women and men have to work together to solve the problems, one group alone will not be able to do it. And ideas are the foundation of a better world, not one line statements by some people in these polls that say "Yea, women rule! or men have messed things up since the dawn of time!" Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! And in many cases, women can be just as full of it, as men are. No one has a lock on empty comments. RandyMar 15 2004 5:20am Crime statistics reveal most problems in this world are caused by males. Women are more productive citizens, and are better equipped for handling authority. Cry about it all you want, you can't change what is happening in society. Women are already running things. ChereMar 16 2004 8:52am The results of this poll are interesting, a landslide in favor of a government ruled by women. The fact that so many people support this idea makes me think it could actually happen. StarrMar 19 2004 7:21pm It's intersting that when men "rule" the world, it is a bad thing, but when women are destined to "rule" the world, then everything would be so much better. I have news for the believers of female rule. Rulers make bad leaders, and female rulers will not be any better. Rulers are those individuals or groups who are more interested in gaining power for personal reasons than they are for the common good. It seems that we have a lot of women on this board who are more interested in being rulers. Kind of sounds like the syst- em that we already have in place. As far as Chere's comments are concerned, of course men have caused most of the world's problems. Men have had most of the power since the beginning of the world. The reason why women have had to be more product- ive citizens is not because of an inate ability, but because of a lack of power and as time goes on, women will continue to accomplish great things, but they will also abuse their power as men have done. Martha Stewart's recent conviction as well Leona Helmsley are just two examples of that. Of course, those people who do not want to face the truth will simply pass this off as "men picking on strong women" in order to have to avoid facing the truth. RandyMar 23 2004 5:26pm Give it up randy, women are superior and will rule every aspect of your life very soon. MelissaMar 23 2004 10:00pm Give it up melissa, women are not superior, and if I wasn't intimidated by all the other posts spouting off about female superiority and the downfall of mankind, then I am not intimidated by your feeble one-liner RandyMar 25 2004 8:14am There is another poll on this site about mandatory castration for males. This guy Randy would be a good candidate for such a program, perhaps then he could learn to behave himself. Bad boy! RosanneMar 27 2004 2:14pm Maybe if we cut all their balls off, they wouldn't rape their daughters anymore. TheresaMar 27 2004 2:16pm Preach on, Randy! Amen! Testify! What a bunch of puffed up psychopaths. Its all the same dreck! "Women are superior", "We are going to castrate you!", "Seems like every month there is a new study indicating that women are smarter than men." Studies by whom? Berkeley? The organization of man hating, radical feminazis? The national league of puffed up princesses? The coalition for rationalizing being a psychotic bitch. The fact is, those who seek power the most are those who should least have it. AaronMar 31 2004 9:26am Theresa, would you actually castrate a little boy because you believe that you have the right to claim superiority for your sex? Men rape women not because of testosterone, they do it because they want to control women, to dominate them. You don't know any female control freaks? I sure do. But lets talk about women who kill their children. What excuses are you going to put up for these women? RandyApr 15 2004 3:21pm I think a government constituted of women could be in the formative stage even now. The Democrats could run Hillary Clinton in 2008, and if they do, it is possible the Republicans will nominate a female as well (Condaleeza Rice?). If this happens, we could see a new pecking order in the future. LJApr 16 2004 9:47pm If you are trying to prove that women are superior politicians than men, then you better use better examples than Hillary Clinton or Condaleeza Rice. Or are these two women the only ones you know anything about? RandyMay 05 2004 12:18pm Afraid not Melissa, you see most all the power you brag about was given to you by men. You fought, we listened. It is not a good idea to become arrogant at the fact that men have allowed you to become more than just a housewife. In an all-out war against man, women will lose, no doubt. Men and women together have formed a current media fad of "bad ass" females, but the world is not really like this and if women push against men in society beyond their bounds, it will be an absolute mess. In no way will men simply yeild all the power we have created. You women are simply not prepared for that. Bill M.May 11 2004 7:08pm Men did not give women power, they have oppressed women and tried to keep us down throughout history. The achievements of women have been accomplished by competing against men and beating them against the odds in what was once their world. To the victors go the spoils, and it is a woman's world now. MelissaMay 16 2004 10:37pm No it is not a woman's world now. Men are still the majority of political figures. You are simply confusing facts with what the media tells you. Bill M.May 17 2004 7:34pm Within a generation that situation will be reversed. If you do not believe it, compare the status of women today to that of 20 years ago. The trend will only gain momentum . AnonymousMay 20 2004 10:36pm That is not factual, it is simply speculation on your part, a.k.a an opinion. Bill M.May 21 2004 5:46pm Why not support reversing the gender ratio in the government? If the governement was mostly women and only a small percentage of men, things would probably be a lot better for everyone. Equality of the sexes is a myth. Part of the evolution of the human species will be the elevation of women to superior status over males. It's not some kinky fantasy, it's just logical. Women have been proved to be superior to men academically, better in business, better at life. The dominance of men has given us a world full of technological marvels and ecological catastrophe. Economic dispariy and incredible violence and destruction. Nations at war for centuries while male 'leaders' argue about who should have nukes and who shouldn't. People starve while armies are rallied to carry out insane adventures and cause needless destruction. We won't know what the world could be like if women were in charge in big numbers, but it would have to be better than the world under patriarchy. mereboyJun 01 2004 10:37pm I would support a government consisting of women in the majority, at least. Women comprise more than half the population, and should represent not only themselves, but children. I don't see why a minority, adult males, should have a monopoly on power. In the same way, I'm glad to see that the majority of law and medical students are women. We deserve to be represented in legal, medical and ethical affairs, and to have our interests supported through majorities in the professions and in politics. KaitlynJun 09 2004 8:10pm What starts out as a majority will eventually snowball into a monopoly in favor of women. It is already in place. PricillaJun 09 2004 10:32pm I would support funding for research into dyslexia. HHJun 25 2004 10:14am Oh, and as long as the majority--women--keep voting men into power, they have no right to complain that men still rule. Where's the female president? Why do you keep voting men into office, ladies? HHJun 25 2004 10:16am Randy is correct. Power can corrupt, no matter what the gender. The historical Amazons of northern Anatolia (that's now called Turkey, for the historically challenged) were not just a bunch of women as is portrayed by folklore. The Amazons were a culture ruled by the females. In order to control the men, all male infants had their Achilles tendons cut, crippling them for life. This prevented the males from military life, of course, so the women had to protect the land. The men performed all the menial slave labor. This was cruel, and it was done by women to men. That's not a halo over a woman's head--it's a cartoon bubble that says "I'm gonna getcha, boy." Kevin Canadian BaconJun 25 2004 11:12am History takes time to evolve. Women will be voted into office soon enough. And when future generations look back, they will realize how quickly it happened in a historical perspective. KathyJun 25 2004 3:43pm When I was a kid my dad used to tell me that someday women would rule the world. When I see the way things have changed since then it appears he wasn't kidding. I have no doubt that eventually we will see a government run by females. It's hard to say if I would support it. That depends on how much choice I have in the matter. TracyJun 27 2004 10:42pm Amazons of northern Anatolia? Too many comic books or too many video games? Where do you people get this stuff? RandyJun 27 2004 10:45pm I think Kathy's point is important - it was only thirty or forty years ago that things really began to change for women. A couple of generations. A couple more, what will western society look like? AnonymousJul 02 2004 7:42pm water. AnonymousJul 20 2004 9:50pm The way the question is worded seems like an attempt to get people to say yes. AnonymousAug 15 2004 11:43am Feminists and female superiorists/supremacists always conflate the distinction between man and boy into one category namely, males. They do this simple so that they can attack boys. Men did not conflate the girl/woman distinction into females, and back when men were in control ALL children regardless of their sex were in the same category namely that of children, a group which had a right to protection. Feminists have removed boys from the protected status, and thus we now see t-shirts like 'boys are stupid - throw rocks at them' and many others. In other words, when women realized they could not win the ?battle of the sexes? against men they turned towards boys and abused them verbally and manipulated them. That is exactly why we see so many boys here seconding the women who support the idea of female superiority. They have been brainwashed and manipulated as kids, abused at the hands of adult women who should know better. Some, though, stand strong, and in spite of all the manipulation and brainwashing they still can see the truth, which off course is that it is impossible to be ?generally superior? this is simply an oxymoron. If you do not understand why this is so, forget it, I shall not waste my time. Women are not morally superior to men, quite on the contrary. This is becoming more evident day after day, and most off the comments here just testify to this trend. Yep!Sep 24 2004 10:25am I would support an all female government before I supported an all male government but I'd rather not have to make that choice. AnonymousOct 06 2004 6:22pm Soon AnonymousNov 04 2004 10:25am When the time comes, you won't be asked if you want to accept it. If women seize power through the electoral process, the authority to hold that power will be rightfully theirs, that is how it works. FrankNov 10 2004 11:17pm Yeah but 100% women? If it ever does happen I don't expect to live long enough to see it. I regard this as a hypothetical question. There may be a majority of women sooner than people expect but not exclusively women. AnonymousNov 11 2004 7:34am There have been ballots in the past on which all the candidates were men. Just the opposite could happen in the future. Anything is possible. If 2008 ends up with Hillary Clinton Vs. Condoleeza Rice, that will only be the beginning. AnonymousNov 14 2004 5:21am Women are so far ahead of men scholastically and their management acumen is unattainable by men. It is inevitable that they will take over in the political realm as well if they choose to. Whenever a man says that women aren't more intelligent he ends up sounding defensive and bitter - scared even. Not to mention misinformed. Yet when a woman says that women are more intelligent she sounds confident and progressive. An all female run government might be a bit of a stretch but 15 years ago the idea of females outperforming males in school by 15% on average didn't seem likely either. Now educators believe that the gap will widen even further. Not only would I support an all female government, I think we should have all female governments. Although I don't think it's likely in my lifetime and I'm ok with that. a guyDec 28 2004 2:34pm "You would yes support government constituted only from women?" doesn't make any sense. The poll should say "Would you support a government constituted only from women?" I thought women were supposed to be intellectually superior (and blah, blah, blah, blah...)!? Anyways, you girls should to try to master the rules of grammar before you go master the universe. OK?? AaronMar 16 2005 7:18pm I think it will start with a woman being elected president, then the trend will pick up for women to be promoted and for the agenda of women to be advanced. GlennJul 25 2005 12:28am Abortion is about to go down the drain and hopefully it will take all these irresponsible baby killers with them. RandyJul 26 2005 9:38pm I don't understand this question. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I have a College Education that prevents me from understanding weird phrased questions. I will always support women. They are the future, and they have always been in HIStory, but not well documented. A WomanOct 08 2005 11:12pm we have only one boy in our highschool student government...we needed a token guy, i guess. the girl who lost to him felt soooooo embarassed losing to a guy! anyways, i think society will be the same way soon-- a token guy in politics here and there but dominated by intelligent, motivated, educated, articulate women!!! lauraOct 23 2005 1:51pm The Future is FEMALE!!! In time we will see a government and society controlled by Women as no male can hope to keep up with a Woman. It may not happen in total for many years, but to not see that Women are slowly taking control is being blind to the reality of the situation. I fully support an all Female government and have been voting Female for many years. Female Supremacy is the natural order of life! JRNov 04 2005 1:23pm well with how the world is going,they may not rule long,before some damn maniac starts ww3,i mean with the way the arabs and western countrys are acting these days,we may be entering the last century of the planet,i feel women may have started to move foward to late.I mean can you for one moment really see,the arab world or say china accepting or dealing with a western female goverment,in reality they will probaly look on them as weak and ripe to try and conquer,and oh if you think im talking poo,just check out all the arab websites,and see the contempt they have for the west. frankNov 19 2005 2:55pm Benizir Bhutto was twice elected president of Pakistan. Indira Ghandi was prime minister of India. Indonesia has the highest muslim population in the world and they have or at least had a female president. When I was in China I noticed that the majority of their communal arbitrators are old women and one great thing Mao gave Chinese women was legal equality. Sure, they're still oppressed but at least they are legally equal. One thing that impressed me was how assertive Chinese women were and I can't imagine them behaving that way during imperialist times. Frank, I think you're confusing zealot websites with the true majority. I'm not suggesting that most men wack off at the thought of women being superior, that's obviously over the top fantasy. What most people everywhere want is a healthy society that's supportive of all it's citizens. AnonymousDec 01 2005 4:55pm And i have nothing wrong with a fair and equal society,for all creeds and sexs.But for some reason i would fear just as much with mad females getting power,as much as men having it. FRANKDec 16 2005 6:00pm Yes but I was disagreeing with your statement about China and Arab countries accepting female leadership. It's actually quite the contrary. Even Liberia has now elected a female president and they're the war torn impoverished African country founded by the US in the 1830's for liberated slaves. Thus the name; Liberia. I'll bet it's inconceivable for most Americans to accept a female president. Yours is the country that is almost the least represented by women in government among the industrialized nations. Even several mid east countries have quotas for female representation that is higher than the current US government. So I wouldn't worry too much about the rest of the world regarding you weak because of too many women in politics. AnonymousDec 17 2005 10:25am I would support a women only goverment and I'm a republican! I understand that women are nicer, and will most likey do the right thing. You can see this by the amount of men in prison compared to women. Michael.Feb 25 2006 11:46pm You know, I have never, ever seen eye-to-eye with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, but man, the term "feminazi" is finally starting to make sense to me! I've never liked that term. But it makes such perfect sense now. Tell me, ladies: how is "female supremacy" any different than male supremacy? Or white supremacy? Supremacy, period, is a very, very dangerous ideology. Throughout history, every time people have taken this ball and run with it, the results have been disastrous. Do you realize how ironic it is that you're telling us how enlightened you are, and framing it in the language of supremacy? You make me laugh. I want a government of the smartest and wisest people, whoever they may be, whatever they've got between their legs. CragsladMar 08 2006 3:26pm It is what is between the ears which counts, but one would not expect a man to understand that concept. And if school records are any indication of intelligence, a very strong case can be made for the intellectual superiority of the female. It makes perfect sense to be governed by those most capable of making intelligent decisions. DawnApr 16 2006 12:39pm Michael is correct. Women conduct themselves in a much more civilized and enlightened manner. Women lead by example, and female role models are the best influence for young people. There would not be so much corruption with women in charge. MaeApr 20 2006 10:19pm Great point Kaitlyn,Women and childen far outnumber males and thus Women who look after the greater amoung of children should be the only voters. Males opinions would not be banned but they would be considered.However it would be monstrous to allow males to determine the future of Womynkind.The poll results here show always that there is a majority for a Female Supremacist future.I for one now have a better life since my wife took over the finances and ultimate decision making in the family.She still loves me and does what she thinks is right for me her and our children and our society.Applied nationally this would certainly lead to a saner kinder world. Would Mothers,Siters,Aunts,Wives,Girlfreinds, Daughters,Female freinds,Grandmothers want to hurt their sons,brothers,nephews,hubbies,boytoys,brothers,male freinds,grandsons.I don't think so.They just want them to be less angry,resentful,obstinate,destructive,criminal,antisocial etc. As long as i never raise my voice or sulk my wife listens to me.I accept her decision after discussion but we rarely have had an arguement.When my voice does get to loud she asks me to take a deep breath and to lower my voice. I apologise and kiss her chhek or hand.On the odd occasion i have continued to be obsteporous and she has quite rightly slapped my face.At this point i know i have really overstepped the mark and i kneel down or prostrate myself and kiss her foot shoe or bottom. After my monthly discipline review i am allowed to speak my peice for a quater of an hour while she listens without talking.She then pronounces on any grievences i have and attempts to alter her behaviour or to make me see the error of my arguements.I am not punished further and the air is cleared.we call this "parliament" and as i kneel between her legs looking up into the face of the benevolent caring Woman i love often through the tears of my discplining i know things are going to be O.K. Lou RollsApr 30 2006 7:28am www.likelike.com/poll.php?poll_id=2550 AnonymousJun 06 2006 2:53pm Man and woman have been created, that is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. ?Being man? or ?being woman? is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their creator. Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity ?in the image of God.? Man and woman were made ?for each other? ? not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be a ?helpmate? to the other, for they are equal as persons ? and complementary as masculine and feminine. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 369 and 372. AnonymousJul 07 2006 11:34am Perhaps these good ladies on here would give examples of female leaders who have been peace lovers.Go on name them. mike sSep 19 2006 9:58am Benizir Bhutto, Indira Ghandi. I might add Jane Goodall who isn't a politician but she has evolved from a research scientist into a respected znd benevolent political force. The same could be said for Dianne Fossey who was brutaaly murdered by the same poachers she was trying to peaceably curtail. AnonymousOct 19 2006 7:15pm What is the earliest age at which athletically active girls can have beautiful muscular legs that men like: (1) Age 18 (2) Age 21 (3) Age 25 (4) Age 30. MiniPollOct 31 2006 8:29pm A government of the smartest and wisest people? That is impossible, because the majority of voters have no idea what the issues are. They vote for the politician who is the best at hiding their true agenda and deceiving the people. The fact is, the best and brightest people in society do not aspire to go into politics, they are in the private sector. RonNov 06 2006 1:59am Considering most males in government have been feminized by political correctness, this is already the situation. AnonymousJan 28 2007 7:07am Indira Ghandi and Benizar Bhutto both succeeded fathers. (For those out there who are ignorant of history Indira's father was Jawaharlu Nehru, not Mahatma Ghandi, she married a man named Ghandi who also was not related to Mahatma Ghandi) The same thing is true for Sukarno in Indonesia and Bhandarake in Sri Lanka. Since the mid-sixties Asians have shown a willingness to elect daughters of famous men. I am a Goddess Worshiper, a Matriarchist, and a husband whose marriage vows required ME to promise to love, honor and obey but lets not confuse Women who built on careers of fathers or husbands(Cory Acquino, Hillary Clinton) with Female Supremacists. obedient husbandMay 19 2007 8:12pm You are an insecure, weak man. You lack the intellect to recognize your wife is using your sexual fantasies to make a fool of you. She has no respect for you as a man, and carries on sexual relationships with other men. She will become tired of you and dump you eventually. Women are not turned on by submissive men, they are disgusted by them. Grow up and get a grip on reality. GrettaJun 04 2007 4:11pm Ms. Gretta, since You are member of the Superior Sex I owe You respect. However, with all due respect, Wife has owned me for the last fifteen years and does not seem to tire of me. You take a traditional Patriarchal view toward sex. A true Matriarchist accepts the fact that the Wife/Female owner in a relationship has the right to have many slaves and also has the right to loan Her husband/ or slaves out to other Women either for profit or for Her own amusement. Nevertheless, the strong manner in which You express Yourself implies that if You could overcome Your prejudices You would be quite capable of owning and using Your own male slaves. Respectfully obedient husbandJun 14 2007 6:45pm I stand corrected. GrettaJun 23 2007 12:58pm Why thank you Ma'am. I hope you find an obedient male to serve you. obedient husbandJun 23 2007 7:22pm HILLARY CLINTON IS THE BIGGEST LIAR IN THIS COUNTRY. SHE BADS MOUTH BUSH..WHEN SHE KNOWS HE HAS MADE ALL THE RIGHT DECISIONS. LELGTJun 30 2007 7:18pm Yes but Kay Bailey Hutchinson would make a better President than Howard Dean. There was a time when most Female politicians were liberal socialist Democrats but that is no longer true. Assessing the merits of an all Female government based on one person is as illogical on assessing the merits of an all male government based on Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. obedient husbandJul 01 2007 7:13pm #0082 - (Thu.) 7/26/07 UpdateJul 26 2007 9:26pm The only correct decision Bush made was to go into Afghanistan, which anybody would have done. He made the wrong decision to invade weakling, formerly irrelevant Iraq. He made the wrong decision by declaring to the world the US was willing and capabe of fighting on as many fronts as necessary to combat terrorism. Evidently, we're not even capable of fighting on one front because we have absolved ourselves of primary responsibility in Afghanistan in order to direct our military resources into Iraq (which ain't going too well by the way). It was wrong, if not insane to declare to the world that the United States was prepared to launch a nuclear strike at suspected terrorist locations, N. Korea or Iran. He made the wrong decision to threaten N. Korea but I supppose some credit should be given on his reversal of the Kim Jong Il thing but capitulation isn't a strong stance. He was wrong to threaten Iran instead of opening up official channels with them 5 years ago and soliciting the cooperation of Russia, since Iran is more in their back pocket than ours. He shouldn't have pretended to be supporting democracy while supporting Saudi Arabia, possibly the least democratic country in the world. He shouldn't have supported Pakistan unconditionally knowing that Mushareef is a military dictator who usurped a democratically elected Benizir Bhutto. A bloodless coup to be sure and Bhutto was under scrutiny for corruption but a military coup none the less. He shouldn't have censored every single environmental recommendation until it became impossible to muzzle the global scientific community. The list is almost endless...having said that however, Hillary certainly does lie. She supported Bush on Iraq and it is obvious she understood his real agenda and wasn't hoodwinked at all by the White houses concealment of intelligence regarding Iraqi WMD's. She knew all along they didn't have any, just like Bush knew all along they didn't have any. We're the ones who sold them their WMD's in the first place, how could we not have had a pretty damn good idea of how many of them remained? It was impossible for Hussein to have hid any significant amount since the confiscation and destruction of them was carefully accounted for. Bush is all lies. Every utterance he has made as president is a lie. Hillary probably wouldn't be much more honest though. AnonymousAug 05 2007 9:00am It is a wonderful topic to see being discussed. Who would have thought even 10 or 20 years ago that anyone would dream of a Women run government. That just shows how far Women have come. Would i support a government made up of 100% Women. ABSOLUTELY. Every election, i vote for every Woman i can. As a general rule, Women are smarter than men, more willing to work hard, more caring, and more focused. Also, it seems like Women are getting to be in better shape. underherAug 10 2007 10:45am Bush has never done anything wrong. People are being duped by the propaganda of a liberal media out of control. And it is amazing to see how passionately these left wing nut cases believe what they see on the news. By the time they figure out who they have been supporting, the damage will already be done. AnonymousAug 17 2007 5:30pm Explain the rationale behind your statement that bush has never done anything wrong. I was certainly willing to offer up some examples of why I don't respect that ignorant fool a couple of posts ago but like always, you George Shrub supportrs never actually explain why you agree with his policies. It's like none of you have minds of your own, you just drool out the same inane diatribe time and time again. "Liberal media campaign" As for believing the news, have you ever even been out of the US? Have you ever even bothered to travel to some of these countries and see with your own eyes what actually goes on on the world? I don't think any of you people do. AnonymousSep 13 2007 5:13pm It should also be stated that defending your own ignorance by declaring everything propoganda is paranoid and pathetic. Where did you get this information anyway? How do you know the informant you depend on isn't the one spreading propoganda? You're entitled to support Bush despite his being childishly incompetent and appallingly corrupt, my point is that none of you ever argue anything of substance. Why do you think it was wise NOT to stay the course in Afghanistan. What was it about Iraq that struck you as being more important to invade than finishing the job in Afghanistan? What do you find so prescient and virtuous about an administration that has denied environmental change is linked to human activity until their 7th year in office. Now they admit humans can and should act on climate change. The Shrub administration has done absolutely nothing right. It's the worst administration in U.S. history. It's an embarrassment. AnonymousSep 14 2007 9:43am Well let's get back on track. Catherine Asaro wrote a book called The Last Hawk about a planet that was divided up into Feudal Estates. The rulers of the Estates met periodically in counsel. But what made it interesting is that all the rulers were Women. They each kept harems of male slaves and traded and sold these slaves among themselves. obedient husbandSep 15 2007 6:03pm That sounds like a very interesting book. AnonymousSep 27 2007 11:01am It was. Read it and let me know what you think. obedient husbandOct 10 2007 4:20pm The fact is, liberals have so much blind hatred for Bush that are not even capable of recognizing he alone has protected the U.S. from another attack, in spite of all the cowards on both sides of the political spectrum. The fact that they owe their lives to George W. Bush is more than they can bear to admit. Kind of like angry teenagers who hate their parents, although they are supported and protected by them. WilliamNov 03 2007 4:43am Only if it is purely coincidental as a result of a democratic voting process of men and women voting for men and women. You cannot have it both ways, if men are diferent to women then diversity is needed in a good government. If they are the same then it doesnt matter if a man or woman is in power. Which is it to be ?. FNOLNov 08 2007 10:46pm Women will be pushed beck to the oppression of the 7th century when radical islam overruns Western Society. This may seem like an improbable notion, but be advised that America no longer has the will to defend herself. When you are unwilling to defend against an enemy willing to die, survival is impossible. ShellyJan 14 2008 3:45pm I just farted AnonymousFeb 01 2008 4:12pm #0095 - (Tue.) * 4/22/08 UpdateApr 22 2008 9:16pm No, I wouldn't support a government only by women and that isn't about to happen. Since cabinet posts have to be approved by the house and senate, and since the government is still dominated by white males, it isn't going to happen any time so even if Hillary and Bill are able to steal the election. ChelseaApr 25 2008 5:50pm Cabinet posts only have to be approved by the Senate. As a mere male I should not be contradicting a Female(I assume Chelsea is a Female) but the facts are the facts. Nevertheless Chelsea would still be entitled to beat me for contradicting Her. obedient husbandMay 08 2008 6:49pm I would no support a government run only by women and would run all of the pansy boys out first, starting with obedient husband. (tool) StevenMay 14 2008 6:14pm So, obedient husband. If we can assume that Chelsea is a female, can we be equally chauvenistic in assuming you are too? SteveMay 14 2008 6:15pm Hillary Clinton is living proof that women are equal to men in being crooked, dishonest and condescending. She is such a phony, I cannot believe anyone is actually swalling her load. I suppose these were the same people with her in Bosnia. Bill ClintonMay 14 2008 6:17pm Laura, if you are talking about the one boy in your class government being token, then you are not as smart or articulate as you boast. You are a chauvenistic pig however. RandyMay 14 2008 6:19pm https://donate.barackobama.com AnonymousJun 19 2008 1:48pm Now that lying HIllary is out, there are no more ramblings from the female supremacists? I few well thought out posts from reality seekers and you all fold up like obedient husband's winnie in a windstorm. So much for female domination. Defender of the male spiritAug 13 2008 2:55pm Sarah Palin will be president within 8 years, and women shall rule the earth. Obedient BoyfriendSep 05 2008 5:15pm f*ck women, Men always rules in government and in politics or in the right places where the work is doned. ownerOct 21 2008 7:31am The future will be feminine. Eventually, women will rule in government, business, and the professions. They will rule society and culture. In the modern world, education is the path to power. In educational attainment, females are leaving males far behind. In time, the average woman will be better educated, have a more prestigious job, and make more money than the average man. Women will comprise the majority of students in medical and law schools. It is only natural that in time they will comprise the majority of doctors and lawyers. The same will happen in business. The "glass ceiling" will eventually be shattered. It will be the men who will look up in corporations and see the opposite sex in charge. Women will comprise the majority in legislatures at all levels of government. Thus, they will make the laws. They will determine public policy. When most lawyers are women, it will be only natural that in time women will dominate the judiciary. Women will make the laws and women will judge the application of the laws. Being better educated, women will dominate the civil service. Lastly (in terms of consideration but not necessarily time), in time the majority of governors and presidents will be women. The pool of persons from whom government executives -- mayors, governors, and presidents -- are drawn will mostly be women. Moreover, the majority of voters will be women. All this will happen because females outperform males educationally. It is just a matter of time. It will be fact. There is no alternative to accepting it. We are a law-abiding people and there is no reason to think that both women and men will not accept female rule in government, business, and the professions. At the interpersonal level, there may be more stress in female-male relationships and marriage. The average girlfriend/wife will have a more prestigious job and make more money than her boyfriend/husband. It would be only natural for her to become the head of the relationship. Both women and men may find this change in traditional gender relationships stressful. However, men will probably feel more stress because at present, men are supposed to "wear the pants" in a relationship. They are objects of derision if they do not. However, in time, in most relationships the woman will "wear the pants" and eventually this will become the norm. The big question is, "Will business, government, and society be better off because women will have become the dominant sex?" I think the answer to that depends on your answer to another question, "Is the average woman morally superior to the average man?" I think the answer is "Yes!" Prophet of a Feminine FutureJun 08 2009 11:13am Dawn, girls are outperforming boys because the system has been rewired to favour the way girls learn, just as it was once wired to favour boys years ago. As to your statement that it's what's between the ears that counts, you are correct. What a shame it is for you to mess it all up by stating that one would not expect a man to understand that concept. Shame on you, you poor mysandronistic female chauvanist sow-bitch. P.S. I hope that the shock induced by your surprise at my knowlege of large, multi syllabic wordage did nit induce cardiac arrest. an intelligent life formJul 09 2009 4:26pm Sorry, that was supposed to be "did 'not' induce cardiac arrest." Even we I.L.Fs make the occasional typo. an intelligent life formJul 09 2009 4:31pm Prophet, much as I hesitate to admit, you may be on to something. As you omitted the 'ess' suffix from your name, thus repudiating the male chauvanist bovine faeces, you make a good case at least for equality. an intelligent life formJul 09 2009 5:03pm Prophet, much as I hesitate to admit, you may be on to something. As you omitted the 'ess' suffix from your name, thus repudiating the male chauvanist bovine faeces, you make a good case at least for equality. an intelligent life formJul 09 2009 5:03pm This is all nonsense women have never constituted any government. The only times when they have been in charge and of any consequence, such as Queen Elizabeth 1 and Margaret Thatcher in England they were surrounded by men and would have it no other way. Margaret Thatcher did have a very few women in her government when she started but soon got rid of them. The only time a number women get into government is when you have weak incompetent leaders like Obama and Blair. In answer to obedient boyfriend Sarah Palin is the reason Obama is now in the White House. AnonymousNov 23 2009 8:25am In the 90's Norway had a Female Prime Minister and the majority of the cabinet consisted of Women. obedient husbandJan 23 2010 12:12pm Women have lesser brains then men. But they are beatifull so I will vote for a government with all blonde naked women. AnonymousMar 01 2010 5:31am In the recent primary polls in the US, women have won hands down. It will not be long before women will take over in all areas and prove their superiorty and it will be about time to get the males out of power so women can once again clean up the mess the males have made. It is clear that the males do think with their pricks and they think just because they have balls, they can do anything they want. Well it is time for women to remove a lot of balls. RonJul 15 2010 2:20pm Males may have the balls, but women have the brains so YES lets let women rule MikeJul 18 2010 6:41am Women would have less wars but since war is a male activity, I contend that we should protect women better than it appers we have been. If men want to have wars 100% of those killed should be male. This includes civilian populations as no woman or child should die in wars, it should always be 100% male. During the Civil War, 660 mals died and only 60 women so it appears they did protect women better but if anyone had to die it should be males 660,000 women ZERO AmyJul 22 2010 8:14am Statistically, women are marginally more intelligent then men and perform somewhat better at school, largely due to cultural factors. The vast majority of women do not want an all-female government any more than men want the opposite. Even if current trends to continue without abating, it is a biological fact that males are ambitous (and also more bloodthirsty and belligerent) and are likely to continue to dominate the political system for precisely the same reason they also dominate the prison system. Female supremacy is a submissive's wet dream. Grow up. JacobOct 21 2010 11:59am LOL aww look at all these frustated women venting thru their peeholes. face it ladys..you bitches will never run poo..it sucks tht men were always the supreme rulers huh? melissa and rosanne are a perfect example. you 2 sluts should stfu and know your roles as females..boohoo..i got frsh tampons for both of you..lol jacob single mommy killahOct 24 2010 4:19pm f*ck women and fuc all you feminazi sluts..bw down to the c*ck like the ho's you are.HAHAHA jacob single mommy killahOct 24 2010 4:21pm Statistical Research consistently shows the males make up the majority of the highest percentile of intelligence. Its therefore a myth to maintain women are more intelligent than men. RealistFeb 03 2011 2:53pm Amy is a fascist pure and simple. We fought WWII against prejudice and intellectual poison like she pumps out. At least the Nazis wore uniforms that made them stand out. She insidiously mixes with normal people as if she believes in a deomcracy but really wants to abolish it for her twisted version of paradise. Anti-NaziFeb 03 2011 2:57pm Amy, do you really think that most men want to go war? Why do you think we had to draft men to fight? Do you realize that many men who signed up for armed forces service during the draft years did so only because they wanted some say so in how they served (branch, occupation)? What percentage of all men in the U.S. have faught in a war since the end of the Vietnam War when there was a draft? AskerMar 10 2011 8:48am IMHO, it's not likely in the next 20 years that we'll see such a dramatic shift, though I expect that we'll continue to see not only more women elected all levels of public office, but they will increasingly be elected to positions of power that were once held exclusively by men. This won't be an all or nothing development, rather, there will be an evolution to a more balanced government that reflects the society at large. I wouldn't be surprised if women begin to exert more influence over their husband/partner's vote in these elections either, since most studies seem to indicate that females a greater influence on household decisions than males do (not 100%, just greater). When this happens, as it did in elections from a by-gone day and men were more connected to power and better informed, then on the margin you'll begin to see a shift from marginal male candidates to female candidates both well-qualified and marginal. After some shakeout, I hope we'll be left with a more balanced government of females and males that I can support. David2Jun 02 2011 1:16pm michelle bachman for president... AnonymousDec 31 2011 7:27pm OH the Last Hawk is not really Femdom but about how Matriarchial Gynarchs fall in love with the super-Macho Kelric & cat-fight with each other for his affections !?!?!? AGAug 24 2012 1:21pm Okay, I don't want to spoil this fap-material for the femdom fans, but all this talk about females being more intelligent ... is wrong. Getting better grades in college (or other institutions) is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence. Especially seeing all the programs for the advancements of women and the feminism infected classes of e.g. liberal arts. You can be damn sure that more women attend university to learn about "gender relations", "women's studies" etc. - and they will even excel in these areas! But just because males ignore these courses (and thus not countering the higher amount of females overall) and even get fed up with feminist points of view starting as early as pre-school, doesn't mean they are less intelligent. I'm sure you can find a female on every campus in the US with better, higher grades than Einstein, who preferred to work in a patent office. Are they all more intelligent than Einstein? By your logic, they are. But where are their achievements? With what did they come up with, apart from a teacher's job telling students how women were opressed and ignored in classic american literature. Wow. I'm impressed. Way to waste your "suerior" intellect. Males have a broader range of intelligence, making the probability of a genius much more likely in men. Males also have a higher average IQ than women. Remember all the fuzz earlier this year when the media got crazy about how women overtook men in an intelligence test? For the first time ever? Meaning that back then when you girls (?) wrote your assumptions of superior intellect, you were actually inferior. "But it changed!", you may cry now. Bad news - it did not. The scientist (Flynn) complained that the media completely distorted the results and made wrong claims. Actually, the women did NOT surpass men. We can rightfully say that even on average, men are the superior intellect. Feel dumb now? Maybe it teaches you to not believe all these regular studies making (sometimes obvious, sometimes hidden) false claims in favor of women. Ever wondered were those radical left wing feminist ended up? Try journalism. And it also gives you a clear indication of what young boys have to endure, being wrongfully called "dumber" and "losers". You enjoy that? You accept that? Then you are even morally inferior. That being said, we might see an all-female government at one point in the future. But it surely won't be much more peaceful than a male one. Because women were cold blooded murderers in the past, evil maniacs that bathed in the blood of virgins. Women started wars, not only in ancient times and middle ages, just look at the "Iron Lady" Thatcher. Look at all the women signing up for military service so they can throw bombs on civilians at some distant place. Peaceful? No. This picture only came up for one reason: because males did fight the wars. And males ruled, so women, being physically inferior, maybe just didn't dare to live their violent urges out. (Though they abuse, mistreat and kill children to this day). And seeing all the hybris of women (?) here just continues to further erode your case, girls. Disclaimer: I'm well aware of the possibility that there never posted an actual female in this thread. In this case, eff you and your slave fantasies, for making me type all this in vain. The Power of GrayskullNov 18 2012 11:48am Where did all my paragraphs go? What the f*ck? You just give women a tiny bit of rights, and first thing they do is break the internet. see aboveNov 18 2012 11:50am Well AG to some degree but when they had him they did not fall prey to his dominance but rather tied him to a bed, brought themselves off by using his bare behind, and kept him in their version of a harem. obedient husbandDec 07 2012 5:41pm absolutely SarahJun 05 2013 5:27am the next harems will be flocks of men, kept my successful women. Males kept for the amusement of women, will do what men like to do--be lazy, play video games, and so forth--until summons by their mistress. SarahJun 05 2013 5:30am @Sarah. I like better the idea of a return to harems of women. Females kept for the amusement of men, who will do what women like to do--fix their hair, try on clothes, paint their nails, put on their faces, talk, talk, talk, and so forth--until summoned by their masters. I like the idea of owning a haughty woman like you, Sarah, and having you serve my pleasures. Got BallsJun 05 2013 7:51am look at how the world is changing--male strength no longer and advantage, many more girls finish college than boys, and women are taking over in politics, academics and businesses. Once we grab control we don't cede it back. In you families the women earn more than the men. It's all happening. Before is through you will be disenfranchised, and men will be socialized to please women. SarahJun 05 2013 9:52am Once women take control of politics and business, most men will gradually fall into line—and the number of troublesome males will decline but remain menacing. Men will be socialized differently—successful women will look for younger, virile mates—that are pleasant to look at. Increasingly, and then completely, men will be discouraged from attending universities, etc. and start competing for high earning wives Eventually, their opportunities will be as limited as those of women in another era, and men will fall dependent on and subject to the authority of women at work and in the home. It will be easy. Boys are interested in physical things, and girls in learning and building. Males to please females will increasingly emphasize body building and cultivating pleasing appearances for somewhat older females who will make the rules in relationships—all makes sense, as women live longer than men, are more inclined to multitask, and whereas men are focused on sex in relationships, women value and better manage the entire arrangment. With men better socialized, fewer men will be troublesome and resist all these necessary societal changes. Disenfranchising men, limiting their education to their natural inclinations, etc will just tumble into place. Limiting the mobility of men to keep them out of mischief will follow, and after a generation males raised in such an environment will offer little resistance. SarahJun 05 2013 10:10am @Sara. You think you have it all worked out, don't you?. "Once women take control of politics and business, most men will gradually fall into line." Don't think so. You must think men stupid not to realize women's ultimate objectives. We will, and then you will find male strength is still a decisive factor. Then we will once again subjugate women, only more so, because we will know what you would do given the chance. I am thinking how amusing it would be to have a female supremacist woman like you in my harem, Sara. Got BallsJun 06 2013 6:56am Ha Ha what will you do when we accomplish a majority in Congress--and that is coming--because we outvote you. Then we can make laws that put you in your place. The era brawn is over--and women are smarter and work harder. Harems are not coming back but women will rule and men will do what they are told In young families where women out earn mean, and there are many, that is already happening. AnonymousJun 06 2013 11:14am Ha Ha what will you do when we accomplish a majority in Congress--and that is coming--because we outvote you. Then we can make laws that put you in your place. The era brawn is over--and women are smarter and work harder. Harems are not coming back but women will rule and men will do what they are told In young families where women out earn mean, and there are many, that is already happening. In the end, men will work under the direction of women, politically disenfranchised, and perhaps enslaved SarahJun 06 2013 11:17am @Got Balls Sarah is right. Neanderthals like you are in your last days -- before we are done we will take your guns away and reduce you to manual labor. What's your collar size? We will need that for you dog tags and leash! AnneJun 06 2013 11:56am @ Sarah. Ha Ha yourself. So what if you accomplish a majority in Congress? So what if you made laws to put me in my place? Laws are only as good as they can be enforced. You couldn't enforce laws like that. We men wouldn't stand for it. We would rise up and re-establish the patriarchy. Only as I said, we would subjugate you even more than before. Look. Men have always been the dominant sex. That's not going to change. That's the natural order. @ Anne. I'm thinking of taking you and putting you in my harem to keep Sarah company when she and you are not attending to me. Got BallsJun 06 2013 1:49pm If I live long enough to see the full transformation, I will enjoy seeking men like you medicated, collared and lead around by a leash. AnneJun 06 2013 2:11pm By "full transformation" I suppose you mean the would-be transformation to a female supremacy where men are slaves. I'll give you and Sarah this, you are both true believers -- as in delusional! It's just not going to happen, Anne. All this talk about women grabbing control of government and business comes of us men giving you women the vote. We gave you the vote and we can take it away. You talk about gaining the majority in Congress, but it hasn't happened yet, not by a long shot. And it will never happen. Men are naturally the leaders and women naturally the followers. You may follow five paces behind me, Anne. Got BallsJun 06 2013 2:33pm @Anne. You seem to have a fixation about collars and leashes. I would love for you to try to collar and leash me. It would give me an excuse to turn you over my knee and spank you. You've read or heard of "Fifty Shades of Grey" haven't you. It was a best seller. Women bought it in droves. They rushed out and bought handcuffs and paddles. Imagine bedrooms all over the nation with willing women across the laps of their male partners. This shows what women really want below the veneer of female superiority they have be socialized to believe in. Wanna play Ana and Christian? Got BallsJun 06 2013 3:42pm you don't get it. Fantasy is one thing--even the fantasies we enjoy with our partners in bed. What we are about to do to men is something else altogether different AnneJun 06 2013 4:39pm @Anne. Are you admitting that you enjoy being play spanked by your partner(s) in bed? Gosh, wish I could get in on that. As for the "what we are about to men" comment, oh, I'm so scared. What do you think you little ladies going to do us men? If we were playing poker, I would say you are bluffing with a nothing hand. There's nothing you can do. Got BallsJun 06 2013 5:35pm you are demonstrating the inferiority of men AnneJun 06 2013 7:52pm @Anne. "You are demonstrating the inferiority of men." How so, Anne? I've noticed that you seem to be incapable of making any kind of argument. All you do is make short little threats. Why don't you display some of that great intellectual superiority over men that you women like to think you have? Got BallsJun 06 2013 8:04pm @Anne. Oops! Make that "All you do is make short little threats or put-downs." Got BallsJun 06 2013 9:00pm @got balls, you out to be caged up AnneJun 09 2013 4:14am @Anne. You would love that, I know, but you are just a woman, a weakling. So there you are. Got BallsJun 11 2013 10:31pm you are stronger, but once we have control of the government, etc. we will see who is tagged, tracked, maybe even leashed AnneJun 12 2013 5:52am @Anne. You keep talking about THE DAY when women control the government, etc. I actually feel a litte sorry for you, Anne. You seem to have such hope and faith in THIS GREAT DAY. You have indicated clearly, I think, what you think women would subject men to when THE GREAT DAY arrives. Tell me, Anne, how do you propose, step by step, "herstory" will unfold from now to THEN. Got BallsJun 12 2013 3:47pm @Anne. Well, I guess it's beyond your intellectual capacity to describe step by step your "herstory" will unfold from the present. Let's see, you said I ought to be caged up. What's the point of that. I wouldn't do that to you, Anne. You wouldn't be useful in a cage. You couldn't be in the kitchen making me a sandwich. Make that a BLT and easy on the mayo, Anne. Got BallsJun 19 2013 7:00pm Ms. Anne, You and Ms. Sarah have revitalized these sites. Thank You Ma'am. lawslaveJul 01 2013 5:51pm It seems that Ms. Anne and Ms. Sarah got scared and ran away. Got BallsJul 02 2013 2:31pm Or got bored. They haven't been around for a few weeks now and this site is as dead as ever. lawslaveJul 10 2013 3:38pm No we did not get scared SarahJul 15 2013 11:19am Ma'am, I am thrilled that You are back. lawslaveJul 15 2013 6:08pm By the way Ma'am, I had the utter thrill of groveling before a powerful Female Judge last week. lawslaveJul 15 2013 6:09pm What did you do to end up before a female judge? SarahJul 16 2013 1:44am Sarah, Ma'am since we do not yet have a Matriarchy I am still permitted to practice law. Hopefully when the Matriarchy comes and males are stripped of the law licenses (and perhaps of their clothing as well) Female Boss will keep me on as an office slave but last week She sent me to court to negotiate a case and I was assigned out to the Female Judge. Lawslave is my real life function, it is not just a line identity. Thank You for responding by the way. Attention from powerful Females is always an honor. lawslaveJul 17 2013 5:27pm I would like to have Sarah and Anne as my pets. I would allow them to have a pet of their own. That would be you, lawslave. Got BallsJul 19 2013 7:52am I think once you spent time with Sarah and Anne you would have to come up with a new name for yourself but hey, everyone is entitled to their own fantasy. lawslaveJul 20 2013 7:37pm lawslave. down't worry we would find a purpose for him, and name him appropriately. He is an example of why women will be compelled to impose a severe regime. SarahJul 21 2013 6:40am @lawslave. If you are implying that Sara and/or Anne would emasculate me, no way. They're women, after all. Got BallsJul 21 2013 7:12am @Sara. Talking about appropriate names, how about Sara The Sandwich Maker. You bluster a lot, but deep down, like all women, you know you feel submissive to men. Women universally are attracted to men who are taller, heavier, stronger, bolder than they are. They like to submit to powerful men, real men "with balls." Inside, you know you are no different, Sarah. You've gotten confused by all this feminist, female supremacy, matriarchy nonsense. Got BallsJul 21 2013 7:18am actually I like big men to do the heavy work women are not best suited to do. Much like draught animals SarahJul 21 2013 1:36pm @Sarah. Don't you see the flaw in your female supremacy fantasy is the natural submissiveness of women to men? Our species evolved so that men are strong and women are weak. Men are leaders and women are followers. That's our natures as men and women. How could you possibly think that a sex (women) that is submissive to the other sex (men) on an individual basis is collectively going to rule that other sex (men)? Got BallsJul 21 2013 6:55pm you say the same things over and over again and ignore what is going on these days SarahJul 25 2013 5:54am To "got balls" perhaps Sarah and Anne would keep you whole to use you as a sex object and would keep your balls in a chastity cage when you were not in use. With regard to "taller and heavier" I know a Woman named "Sara" (no h and presumably not this poster) who is 6' 200 lbs all of it solid muscle and She keeps two male husbands who are lighter and shorter than She, as personal slaves. So not all Women like taller, heavier men. lawslaveJul 25 2013 6:38pm Is lawslave the same as Obedient Husband ?!? AGJul 28 2013 7:14am also I am looking for "Frightened Male" SarahJul 28 2013 12:37pm lawslave, more likely we would just keep "Got Balls" for manual labor--that's all SarahJul 28 2013 12:38pm @Sarah. There is only one truth and sometimes with some people you have to say it again and again. The fact is you don't have an answer to my question, do you, sweetie? That's because there is no good answer. Women submit to men and that's the way it is, so women will never rule men. . . . . . . . . . . Look, I know about "The Coming American Matriarchy" and Hannah Rosin and "The End of Men" and other such nonsense. . . . . . . . . . . I know that girls do better in school than boys. That's because schools reward girls' passive and easier to control behavior and they cater to girls' learning styles. That all comes from the sexist feminist agenda. But the harm done to boys is slowly being recognized, and corrective action will be taken. Educators will learn how to teach to boys better and will do that (without harming the girls, as the sexist feminist agenda has done). . . . . . . . . . I know more young women than men graduate from college and even get more advanced degrees than men, except in the hard subjects like science, technology, engineering and math. They go to college (except for the hard subjects) because their options are more limited than men's options. It isn't just that they lack the muscle for heavy labor jobs, they avoid "dirty" jobs and dangerous jobs. But these jobs are essential and many pay better that jobs requiring a college education. Skilled jobs like plumbing and electrical work. Women opted out of these jobs; so they flocked to higher education. But you know there can be too much of a good thing. Supply can exceed demand and I think we are seeing that now. I know of many female college grads -- business majors even, who are waitresses and cashiers. Movements come and go. They overreach eventually. They run to excess and cause harm and then there's a counter reaction. That's what's going to happen. The so-called "Ascendancy of Woman" is causing more harm than good. Look what it's doing to the boys and hence to the young men. Look at what it's done to the most fundamental unit of society--the family. . . . . . . . . . Here is something else to consider, sugar. More men than women are born genius. This is why practically all the geniuses have been men and practically all the great intellectual achievements in math, science, engineering, philosophy, music, art, and on and on, have been by men. So it will continue. That's why in the future the great intellectual achievers will be men and the leaders of science, business, and government will still be men. Yes, I can hear you now--women geniuses in the past didn't have the opportunity to contribute as they could have. That's true, but when all is said and done, more males are born genius that females are, by far. So in the future, most of the great achievers and leaders will still be men. Think about that. . . . . . . . . . . And another thing, women didn't "win" the vote; men "gave" it to them, and we can take it away. Got BallsJul 29 2013 4:23pm So you recognized me AG. On another site there is a fellow who posts much more extensively than I do as "obedient husband". There also may be a blog or two by "obedient husband". So even though I think I predated these people I decided to let them have the name and come up with something more original. It also gives me a name I can use on general relationships rather than just marital ones. lawslaveJul 29 2013 5:15pm Ms. Sarah I am NOT "Frightened Male". I could refute "Got Balls" latest post but I will leave that to Your superior Female intellect. Wife uses me for manual labor quite extensively. lawslaveJul 29 2013 5:19pm I really don't want to go around and around with Got Balls SarahJul 31 2013 2:05pm Over the past few decades, the advances in technology have allowed us to take a closer look at what is happening within both the female and male brain. Male brains are larger than female brains, yet females can think and calculate faster than men can. Magnetic resonance imaging and other brain imaging techniques have shown that most female brains are more active than most male brains. Even when the female brain is resting it has been shown to be as active as an activated male brain. Considering such information, it appears that many girls will have an intelligence advantage over boys by being consistently engaged, even when they aren’t trying as hard as a boy. As a further result of MRI scans we are able to see and view the ways in which some boys and girls process information. Generally speaking, the female brain processes more responding stimulants, through more senses, and more completely than the male brain. When information content comes into the female brain it travels in through the limbic system up to the top four lobes of the brain where thinking occurs. On the other hand, many males seem to move this content through the limbic system down to the brain stem. Basically, this means that females are more likely to process the information faster and reach a conclusion, as more of the activity moves into the hemispheres that handle thinking. Comparatively, men take longer to process information than women because their brains have less neurons available for activity and the connections between those neurons are fewer in number than those found in women’s brains. It is hypothesized that because of this, women constantly operate on a superior level of awareness than men, as their brains are always taking in more sensory information. Because of the limited processing in male brains, they are more likely to need a rest period than in females. The study proved that many male brains frequently enter a reboot phase as they become overloaded easier than female brains, which aren’t as limited in terms of calculation. This phenomenon is similar to the fact that a computer with less RAM and a slower processing speed is more likely to lock up than one which is more powerful. In addition to processing speed and greater sensory intake, females also have a larger corpus callosum, which connects both brain hemispheres. Because the female brain can use both sides more efficiently and more effectively than the male brain, it is able to carry more information throughout more connections, increasing its speed and giving the female greater resources for thought. The differences between intelligence between the genders can be explained through biology. At conception, all life begins as female, marked by the XX chromosome. To roughly half of these embryos, a Y chromosome is introduced, turning the original female embryo into a male. Testosterone surges throughout the growth of the baby while in the womb at a much higher rate than in the female. This chemical transforms the original female brain, enlarging the sex and aggression centers. Testosterone also has been shown to kill off brain cells and damage connections within the brain, as while as put the male at a much higher risk for diseases and brain related disorders. To compensate for this, nature has made 105 males be conceived to every 100 females. Because males are more likely not to survive birth or to die at a younger age, their higher numbers shrink quickly, as females become roughly 52% of the population. These biological differences not only explain the limited cognitive abilities of the male brain in relation to the female, but also explain why females outlive males in humans as well as in the all animal kingdoms. These advantages of the female brain go even beyond intelligence. There are many different chemicals in the brain that affect the ways in which we act, feel, and respond in different situations. The feelings experienced as a result of these chemicals are caused by receptors in the brain which produce the effect of the chemical when activated. Because girls have more brain activity and more neurons in their brains than boys, they also have more receptors. A perfect example of a chemical reaction in the brain is orgasm. We feel orgasms as pleasurable because of the chemicals serotonin and oxytocin are released in our brain during climax. Because receptors are greater in number in the female brain then in men, orgasm will feel much better for a girl than it does for a boy. Brain scans show that during orgasm the female brain experiences 10 times the amount of pleasurable chemicals than in the male brain. In addition, the chemicals stick around in women’s brains longer than in the male brain, so the pleasurable experience lasts longer. Girls are also capable of multiple orgasms, so their brain remains ready to experience the pleasure over and over again for as long as she desires. Because of the refractory period men experience after they have an orgasm, they remain unable to have another orgasm for a period of time. This results in girls being capable of more powerful and longer lasting orgasms then in men, where orgasms are shorter, weaker, and fewer in number. In scientific studies, the equivalent of the male orgasm was played through the brains of volunteering women. Their experiences were recorded in written testimonies. Common remarks was that the intensity of the male orgasm was much weaker than what they normally experienced from orgasm and that the orgasm ended much quicker than they anticipated. When these women had female orgasms in the lab, they were much more vocal and their bodies contorted as their muscles contracted in response to the orgasm. When the same women experienced the male-style orgasm, they remained mostly quiet and stood almost completely still. They were actually quieter and moved less during the male orgasm then men who had their orgasms studied in the lab. Scientists hypothesized this was due to the females being used to experiencing a more powerful orgasm than the male-style orgasm that they experienced in the lab, while men experiencing the orgasm saw it as normal and had never felt anything better. Scientists were unable to allow the male volunteers of the study to experience the female orgasm, as the male brain is unable to handle the abundance of chemicals and activity the female orgasm provides. There was a theory that if the intensity of a girl’s orgasm was played through a boy’s brain, the shock to his system would kill him. Because of this, it appears the female orgasm remains a treat which can only be enjoyed by women. "I definitely feel very blessed that I was born female" study coordinator Sheryl Task joked. "If I was a man, I'd definitely be really jealous." from a recent scientific articleJul 31 2013 11:21pm @Sara. And I really don't want to go around and around with you, except perhaps in your boudoir, my dear. It's clear that neither of us has any hope of convincing the other to change his/her viewpoint. So all good things must come to an end and so should our dialogue. There's really no place to go from here. Before signing off, I would like to say that I have a BS in Computer Science, an MS in Software Engineering, an MBA in Information Techology Management, a six-figure salary, and bright prospects for the future. So wouldn't it be a waste to consign me to manual labor? Think of all the money you would lose! . . . . . . . . . . I think there is a social custom of allowing the "little lady" to have the last word when breaking up. It is chivalrous for a man to do that for a member of the weaker sex. This is truly my last post on this poll. Sara, so you don't have to worry about any devestating riposte from me. So now you have the last word, honey. Got BallsAug 01 2013 8:32am Got Balls, When some little woman had you by your balls, and runs you. Think of me. Good bye SarahAug 01 2013 3:37pm This is a long post and as this board appears to erase paragraph breaks, I have numbered the paragraphs. 1. “Recent Scientific Article,†I have read of these findings before. Without doubt, women are much more intelligent than men, while men are stronger and cruder in their sensitivity. When strength was more important than brains, men dominated, but now brains are more important, many young men can’t cope and gender roles are reversing. This is how I think matriarchy will evolve. 2. Young women are earning substantially more university degrees, landing better jobs and earning higher salaries than young men. Women are the majority of voters and tend to vote as a block for other women. Among the key fields women will dominate first are the governorships, legislatures, courts and legal professions, and academia—the rule makers, the rule enforcers and those who articulate what the rules should be. 3. The women who will make the rules and influence public opinion recognize females are more intelligent and have better temperaments than males—a superior species within a species. Once in control, they need harbor few reservations—scientific, ethical or moral—about arranging things in ways that help women dominate in all other fields, socialize boys to accept a subordinate status to girls, and allow women to exercise considerable authority over men. 4. Women will outnumber men by wide margins in managerial, professional and top leadership positions. Fewer men will go to college, and increasing numbers of men will be relegated to the intellectually less demanding, more physical and unpleasant jobs. 5. As their numbers shrink in the professional class, capable well-educated men will face increasing skepticism from female colleagues about their abilities (“he’s a man, how quick can his mind be?†and “working among women, he is too easily distracted, always thinking about sexâ€). Many unmarried men will live on small incomes, much as single women once did. Less intelligent males will struggle with only erratic employment. 6. In sum, women will be the “first sex,†with men increasingly dependent on their favor for decent employment or support through marriage. 7. Potential relationships between the sexes could take many forms, but it may be useful to consider three outcomes that represent points along a continuum. First, reversal in roles but with legal relationships much like those we have now. Women would vastly over represent men in powerful political offices, the courts, executive positions in government and business, and in the professions. At home, women would be the primary breadwinners and men would increasingly subordinate their careers to their wives, do the housework and cooking, and generally defer to women in public and at home. Second, something similar to the 1950’s, but with women at work and men as househusbands; the wife the expected to be the breadwinner and presumed head of the household; and both the wife and the husband acknowledging women as the dominant sex, socializing girls prepare for careers and leadership, and boys to defer to girls and prepare for marriage. Third would be a reversion to customs prevalent before the mid-19th century, where women couldn’t vote, own property, were under the supervision of father then husband, and so on. Instead this fate would now befall men who would become marital chattel, disempowered and informally the property of women. 8. I would caution men, the third option is not the end point—more severe regimes are quite possible—and what they get depends on how well they behave as things change. 9.Already, women are already the primary breadwinner in one-third of marriages and soon then will overwhelming majority. Then men will be put where they belong—wearing aprons in our kitchens, cleaning our houses, doing our laundry, ironing our dresses, diapering our children, running our errands, and whatever else suits our comfort and convenience. Many will become full time househusbands, and others well deployed as “office wives†to powerful female executives. The skirt not pants will be the new rhetorical symbol of authority. 10.Women will expect men to please and cultivate their favor to be chosen as a spouse by a breadwinning wife or a position serving a powerful female executive, to eagerly obey women in marriage and at the office, and general defer to the new dominant sex. 11.Some of this is quietly happening among younger couples where the women are better educated and earn substantially more than the men. Once the reversal in gender power is prevalent and widely accepted, women will assert presumptive dominance publically. 12.Where men end up on the continuum of arrangements will depends on how they react to the reversal in gender dominance. How costly will it be for women to pacify males? How freely will men accept their inferior status and the roles women assign them? In return for early capitulation, will males seek favorable terms from their new masters, or foolishly resist and fall victim to complete conquest by women? 13.When well educated and intelligent men wake up and realize reverse discrimination does not merely mean earning $120K instead of $150K a year but that their sons will be a househusbands or secretaries to the women, they will become very angry, uncooperative and sometimes self-destructive. None of that will incline women to offer men generous terms in defining new arrangements. 14.Many men, but especially the lower two quartiles, are inclined to become even more lazy, unproductive, passively aggressive, disrespectful, harassing, disruptive, abusive and violent when women become prime. Women in authority will have much less sympathy for the economic factors exacerbating these tendencies than they do for the laziness and sense of entitlement of some poor women. 15.Homemakers have a lot of freedom to manage their time. Unsupervised by their wives 60 hours a week, househusbands will not likely handle that freedom well or be as effective as women were in that role. Women won’t be happy with poorly kept houses, mediocre meals, etc, and nagging, verbally abusive and sometimes violent husbands. 16.All this will unnecessarily burden and threaten women, and women will continually experiment with arrangements between the genders to better ensure men ultimately accept their new status, work diligently, defer, and obey. If a more generous set of arrangements does not accomplish these, gender arrangements will change—in ways much less pleasant for males. 17.Out of all this, I expect arrangements to slide pretty quickly to something including important elements of your third option. It could afford women the kind of control they need. 18.I sincerely believe those terms are the most men deserve, and it would serve them well to accept them. Intellectually inferior to women, men are a lesser species within a species, and should not be permitted to vote, hold political office or participate in rule making or selecting leaders. However, like women in the 19th century, who were mistakenly thought inferior by men, men would still have legal rights in courts to protect them from attack, abandonment and abuse. 19.Yet, I honestly believe such a regime would not be enough to satisfy the legitimate needs of women, because men, especially those in the lower two quartiles, will not accept their diminished status well and a good deal when it is offered. Less intelligent males will not be able to understand the logic in reversal of gender roles and exhibit aimless rage. They will remain too difficult to manage and too often disruptive and inclined to violence—freedom of movement will make controlling the consequences a vexing challenge to women leaders. 20.Ultimately, women may conclude each male should be put under the direct control and care of a responsible woman, and this could well evolve into some kind of chattel state. At minimum men would be identified (e.g., iris scanning and DNA sampling) and tagged at birth, centrally tracked electronically and behavior monitored—paternalistic women leaders would view this as for men’s own good, 21.Further, the woman in such possession of each male might be able to gift, lease, sell or do whatever they like with them—reducing men to the status of property without legal personality. 22.Women, at least, will be empowered to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure disenfranchised males under their individual supervision behave and work as they should—electronic trackers and tethers, drug therapy, corporal punishment, and physical constraints. We will have the scientific justification (biological inferiority) and technology—electronic and medical—to impose our rule much more effectively than did 19th century males. 23.Sounds bizarre but think about how dependent wives have been kept on valium and other drugs over the last 30 or so years to make them compliant, how men freely spanked women and worse until recently, and how men leaving for the Crusades put women in chastity devices. Or even in the early 19th century, men selling their wives to pay debts in rural England. 24.In my mind, making men property and without legal personality is most logical. Why should a woman be responsible for an inferior creature’s actions and maintenance if she cannot transfer him by gift, lease or sale, to productively use his labor and more easily pacify him? If men are biologically inferior, and impose the necessity of bondage by their own threats and violence against women, how could women not be justified in imposing this condition to preserve the safety of women and the compliant males? 25.I would be quite happy in your third state—if it were stable, men behaved and worked as required, deferred, and obeyed—or this fourth, more-severe state—if that proved necessary. SarahAug 02 2013 9:17am Sarah, You leave me speechless AnneAug 02 2013 10:27am Now that I have thought about it, I think you are right about the direction we are going, I don't know we will go as far you might predict, but I like the idea of a 50s type model. I know you have put your engineer husband where he belongs--at home--and I could use a more compliant househusband. More support from social norms would be heaven. AnonymousAug 02 2013 12:28pm Sarah Ma'am, most respectfully I love Your posts but I can be something of a wise guy which is why Wife has to occasionally use a cane or paddle on my buttocks. In Paragraph 20 You talk of "paternalistic women leaders". Most respectfully Ma'am, in Your paradigm should that not be MATERNALISTIC women leaders. Also You speak of Wives spanking husbands. Do You use corporal discipline on Your househusband. Might that not be a motivator to make sure househusbands perform their tasks in a timely manner. Most respectfully lawslaveAug 02 2013 7:01pm PS I saw a Big Bang Theory rerun last night where an underemployed male spent money without his breadwinner Wife's permission. She yelled at him for spending Her money, took him off the joint account, and restricted him to a small allowance. lawslaveAug 02 2013 7:03pm Good for her! That's the future of female and male relationships. The woman in charge, disciplining her male partner. Good for Big Bang Theory for showing it! TV media has a lot of influence in molding people's points of view and expectations. JackAug 03 2013 6:46am i think one of the big problems with sarahs post is she mentions many times women are more intelligent then men and biologically superior without any evidence to back it up. you can't just say things you want to be true without evidence to support it. you mean to tell me my sister is smarter then me just because shes female? billAug 03 2013 9:13am http://ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/GurianBrains.jpg AnonymousAug 03 2013 10:13am http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lcwCpdgkNE AnonymousAug 03 2013 10:13am http://www.amazon.com/The-Natural-Superiority-Women-Edition/dp/076198982X AnonymousAug 03 2013 10:15am I don't need to spank my husband or do kinky things. He is well socialized after many years--what's more I control the money and sex. Men never had both. SarahAug 05 2013 9:24am Wife controls the money and sex but periodically She likes to bend me over and leave marks on my behind to remind me of my place. Anyway, thank You for responding Ma'am. lawslaveAug 06 2013 5:19pm If that is what makes the two of you happy.... My husband did not go easily into role reversal but my superior earning abilities--we are both engineers but I quickly became more successful--gave me the leverage to insist he be the stay at home spouse when we wanted children. From there, I gradually asserted myself. It was the old gold standard, "I bring home the gold, so I set the rules." Some men need a firmer hand, but not likely you. You and your wife engage in spanking for other reasons. SarahAug 07 2013 3:34am Sarah, ma’am. You describe three kinds of role reversal as a result of women gaining more power than men. In the third kind where there would be reversion to customs prevalent before the mind-19th century, you say men would be under the supervision of father, then husband, and so on. However, back then, I believe women sometimes came under the supervision of their sons. So I assume the same would be in the third kind of role reversal. For example, there might be a family with mother, daughter, and father and the mother dies, so then the father would presumably come under the supervision of his daughter if she were of legal age (if she were not of legal age I assume the father would come under the supervision of the closest female relative). Am I right about this transfer of the father’s supervision? I am the father of an 18 year old daughter and we are not on good terms and I find it discomforting and humiliating just to imagine I could come under her supervision (if we were in the third kind of role reversion JackAug 07 2013 8:42am Jack You are correct, and you daughter could and should be able to supervise you as she pleases. Remember, she would control you access to money, freedom of movement, etc SarahAug 07 2013 9:40am Also, Jack if you had known all these years that someday your daughter would be responsible for your behavior and support, you might have cultivated a better relationship with her, and you mother might of socialized you daughters to better recognize your shortcomings and to treat you with more charity. I will likely out live my husband, and even now, I am inclined to seek diversions has he becomes less capable, but if I should proceed him, my money goes into a trust. My eldest daughter is to provide my husband with an income--but things are structured so that he must comply with her wishes to receive it. Both daughters understand they are responsible for us in our old age. Even now, when I am away, my daughter looks in on my husband and he takes direction from her or he has to answer to me when I return. He is socialized to ask me and her for money and permission to do as he likes. We have a lot of violent and anti-social men in our prisons--who I think should be put to work rather than left to rot. Men that don't comply should join their numbers. SarahAug 07 2013 10:13am Jack, Sarah is right. You would have to have a better relationship with your daughter--simply men are going to have to learn to please the women important in their lives, and to accept the authority of their daughters should the need arise. You did no raise it, she notes jails are full of men who are violent and anti-social. Some means will have to be found to put them to productive use, because with matriarchy we will have more males who act out, behave badly etc AnneAug 07 2013 10:56am Sarah, ma’am. I understand better now. If I were truly a man in the third kind of role revision, I would be socialized from boyhood to accept the authority of a legal-age daughter over her father in certain circumstances, so I wouldn’t feel humiliated by it. We boys and men of today feel humiliated whenever we are bested by a female because we are socialized from boyhood to feel superior to them and to best them at everything. We are terrified of the prospect of a matriarchy because it would contradict everything we have been socialized to believe about gender relations. If things should go to the point of the third kind of role version, we would be socialized otherwise and would not feel humiliation at seeing women everywhere outperforming men, earning more money, having more power. If anything, women in that third kind of role reversion would feel humiliation at losing out to a man. Thank you for your tutelage, ma’am. JackAug 07 2013 11:43am Anne, ma’am. I will try to develop a better relationship with my daughter. I realize now that she and other young women are the future and that I should help her to be as successful as possible. Thank you for you tutelage, ma’am JackAug 07 2013 11:45am Jack, you will like the collars we fashion for you. SusanneAug 07 2013 1:03pm Jack, I am happy to discuss these issues with you but I don't need or want the yes ma'am's etc. SarahAug 07 2013 2:12pm Sarah, I understand and will stop doing that. I would like to say that Susanne is wrong, I would not like any collars. I am not into BDSM. I have never done it and do not want to start. It's just that when I encounter a confidant,intelligent, and assertive woman like you I have submissive feelings. In real life we are socialized not to like to see men being submissive (or, for that matter, for women to be overly submissive). On the internet, one can express that side of oneself. But it offends many and not a good habit to get into anyway, because one may slip up in real life. JackAug 07 2013 2:43pm Sarah. I am impressed by your long post. It is well organized and it presents a logical development of ideas about how a matriarchy will evolve from the way things are now. However, I think you wrong. I don’t think women will establish a matriarchy. I would like to discuss it with you and cannot think of a better way to start than they way you did. ********** It seems to me that in Paragraph (1) you make the following observations: (a) Women are more intelligent than men. (b) Intelligence is the modern world is now more important than in the past, where strength was so important. (c) Many young men can’t cope. (d) Gender roles are reversing. (Note: I use a, b, c, etc. to prevent confusion with your paragraph identification of 1, 2, 3, etc.) ********** I agree with (b). However, I would clarify it by adding to it that what we mean by “now†or “the modern world†includes equal opportunity. Better education leads to better jobs , higher earnings, and more power, but only if there is equal opportunity. I agree with (c) that young men today do seem to having a harder time coping with education and getting jobs than their female cohorts, with the clarification that it is not all men or even a majority of men. I agree with (d) that gender roles are reversing, with the reservation that what is happening now is a current process and that how far it will go is not known. That is, one should not be misled by the word “reversal†in thinking either that the process will go 360 degrees or that it will involve all or even most of the gender roles. ********** I disagree with (a) that women are more intelligent than men. So that seems to me the issue to discuss first, which I will open in the post below. Another No MatriarchyAug 07 2013 4:53pm Sarah. I disagree that women are more intelligent than men because on IQ tests average score for boys and girls and the average score for men and women equal – 100. However, the distributions of IQ are not equal. The curve for IQ scores for males is flatter than that for females. Unfortunately for the males, that means more boys are born morons than girls are. But, it also means that most of those born genius are boys. This means that (in an equal opportunity society) most of those in positions requiring the highest intelligence will be men. Another No MatriarchyAug 07 2013 4:54pm Sarah, You told Jack not to call you "Ma'am". On the other hand You have NOT told me not to call You Ma'am." As an inferior male I am not sure if I should call You Ma'am or not now. I respectfully request instruction. I think Jack needs to understand it is not about what HE wants, if a Woman orders him to wear a collar he should wear a collar. If his Wife decrees that his daughter is to inherit Her role as head of the family he should respect his daughter's position. In "real life" I took a vow to love, honor and obey Wife when we were married. I DO address Wife as Ma'am and Mistress. Wife loans me out to a powerful Female attorney as a lawslave and Female attorney deposits monies for my services into Wife's account. I call Female attorney Ma'am. Once at work I called one of Her Female supervisory attorneys "Mistress". It was a slip of the tongue but the Woman did not seem to mind. It is not humiliating to serve a Female, it is an honor. As for corporal discipline I AM more obedient after Wife has put some welts on my behind. If your husband does not need such reminders perhaps he is a better man than I am. Anyway, don't let the patriarchal posters scare You off. You and Anne have revived this site. Most respectfully lawslaveAug 08 2013 5:46pm pathetic pervs the lot of you! Get a LifeAug 11 2013 12:57pm Sarah (and other women posting on this board), I am quite intrigued by your assertion that "The skirt not pants will be the new rhetorical symbol of authority." Many people seem to assume that with the reversal of gender roles women will automatically take on traditionally male clothing. I think the opposite: that increasingly powerful women will flaunt their femininity rather than trying to imitate the male business suits of old. The new symbols of power will be the dress or skirt (hence the need for them to be ironed by the diligent househusband), tights/pantyhose and high heels. Male clothing too may become more feminine as men seek to emulate the "first sex" (as women did in the 20th century). I'm curious to know if you foresee more and more men taking a vow of obedience and assuming their wives' surnames upon marriage. Whether a couple goes by "Ms. and Mr. Jane Smith" instead of "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" does seem to be a powerful symbol of who "wears the skirts in the relationship. CuriousSep 13 2013 10:25pm Miss and Mrs Jane Smith The male becomes the misses. How about that? That is really symbolic though SarahSep 14 2013 6:37am "Ms. and Mr. Jane Smith" and "Miss and Mrs Jane Smith" both put the woman as the primary and the male as the accessory. Either is good and one or something like it will be typical of the future. Becky L.Sep 14 2013 1:42pm Sarah, it is a thrill to see that You are back. Most respectfully, what titles do You and Your househusband use? lawslaveSep 14 2013 6:44pm Sarah and Becky, thanks for your replies. I'd like a bit more clarification on the househusband using the title "Mrs.", however. Would this be because he's expected to take on a more feminine behaviour/attire or is it simply symbolic of his taking on the traditional female role in the relationship? I also have a lot of questions regarding Sarah's breathtaking vision of the matriarchal future posted on Aug 2nd above. If we do end up in the second (reverse 1950s) scenario ("with women at work and men as househusbands; the wife expected to be the breadwinner and presumed head of the household; and both the wife and the husband acknowledging women as the dominant sex, socializing girls prepare for careers and leadership, and boys to defer to girls and prepare for marriage), why would there be any need for society to proceed to the third (reverse pre-19th-century) model? I mean, if most men are already obedient househusbands or subordinate workers accepting of female authority, why bother to go to the trouble of depriving them of the vote, property, etc.? I'm assuming that under most conditions most property would be held in the wife's name anyway and men would be voting almost entirely for female political candidates (likely the ones they're told to by their wives). I'm also assuming that a female-dominated legal and law-enforcement system (because all the judges, lawyers and police officers would be female, right?) would deal with male offenders rather efficiently, so the whole notion of quashing male rebellion/disobedience would be unnecessary. I would welcome your reply as part of a larger, intelligent discussion on future matriarchy that you'd indicated on other threads that you'd like to have (and that applies to Anne, Becky L and other female contributors). CuriousSep 16 2013 1:51pm Sarah, I just wanted to let you know I've now read your exchanges with Just Wondering on the "Are men useless?" poll from June. I see that Just Wondering asked many of the same questions that I did in my previous post here and your replies gave me a much better understanding of why you think the matriarchal future will evolve beyond the reverse-1950s-type scenario. I also had the opportunity to read your ideas about female control of the police/military, which, in my view, would be necessary to establish and maintain the type of regime you envision. The key excerpt is as follows: "2. Women would occupy all positions of authority in the police and military—no male officers, except those in totally male support functions, such as logistics, nursing, etc. Specific percentage—for example 67 percent—of all line police officers must be female, and no man would be placed in a position to give a direct order to a woman. A 100 percent female police would be preferable and the ultimate goal. All military officers in combat arms would be female, and as would NCOs in the direct chain of command within combat units. No man would be in a position to give a direct order to a woman, and none would bear arms, unless under the direct command of a woman. Civilian males would be prohibited from owning, possessing or using fire arms or weapons. Male police would required to leave their weapons at the office." Moreover, "6. In the interests of protecting girls and women, all girls would receive firearms training and specific instructions for using those to stop males attempting acts of violence against them, other women or males within their range of control." As an advocate of strict gun control (I'm not an American), I don't think civilian women would need to own firearms to keep themselves safe, but your point about training (especially advanced self-defence) is well taken. Ultimately, it seems to me that 100% of the police would have to be female, not only for practical but also symbolic reasons. Think about it for a second: if you went to a foreign country today, and all you saw were female law-enforcement officers, it would tell you something about who wears the skirts (I like that expression) in that society and who is in charge of enforcing state authority. For practical reasons as well, I don't think a truly matriarchal society could tolerate an armed male police officer exercising authority over civilian females (because this type of situation would inevitably come up and having to wait for female backup would be impractical and unsafe). I suppose you could have male police officers taking direct orders from their female "partners", but I'm not sure that a fully matriarchal society would see the need to do that -- far better for policing and law enforcement to be female-only occupations, thereby putting the means of social/legal coercion completely in women's hands. The military is a somewhat different and possibly more complex subject which you also addressed in your June post and which I will come back to presently. But first, I'd like to see your reaction to what I've posted so far. CuriousSep 17 2013 1:18pm Curious, I believe things will "progress" further than a 1950s society "reversed" because so many men will be unmarried and disruptive, marginally employed, and disaffected. They will create so much trouble that it will be necessary for women to exert firmer control over men. In such an environment, male police officers would be out of the question. SarahSep 25 2013 10:42am Curious, In may marriage, I make most of the decisions. I do listen to what my husband has to say but I get two votes. He does virtually all the housework. SarahSep 25 2013 10:45am Sarah, most respectfully, perhaps the Female police officers would employ male civilian clerks to do their paperwork, clean the precinct and bring them coffee. Presumably these would be single men whose goal might be to marry some of the macha Female cops. Of course once married, the male would quit his job to raise the officer's children and clean Her house. At work my Female boss retired and is being replaced by a tougher Female boss who I am sure will work my behind off. As to your househusband, if you deign to tell us, I presume he also cooks you dinner and attends to all your other needs. lawslaveSep 30 2013 5:44pm Once a female government is established our first goal should be to harness and drive males to their full potential - with a whip. We can make excellent use of theri muscles and tongues. HeidiOct 06 2013 10:29pm Wife whipped me yesterdau so perhaps She is anticipating Ms. Heidi's scenario. lawslaveOct 08 2013 5:12pm That should have said "yesterday" not "yesterdau". Obviously as a mere male I am displaying my limitations. lawslaveOct 08 2013 5:13pm Once female governance is established, the first orders of business should be to disenfranchise men--let's keep women in charge permanently--and then establish systems to control the men--each should be tagged and embedded with a chip for tracking. Eventually, all should become chattel to their mothers, sisters and wives. AnneOct 13 2013 4:50am Heidi, I wish some woman could put a muzzle on lawslave. He is pathetic. My husband already has some sense about what you are talking about. I don't need a whip, but I have him running around, working for me and my daughters all the time. SarahOct 13 2013 10:30am Heidi and Anne, I have thought more about what you have written. Once a female dominated government is first established, we do need to take steps to ensure that the men can reverse things, and we should no longer tolerate their indolence and violent instincts. It will be necessary to deny men the vote, remove them from positions of authority in police at all levels, and pass laws to organize them so that each one is accountable to a woman and required to work. The should be compelled to accept women as the first sex, and expect to work their lives away for their new masters. SarahOct 14 2013 8:16am test testOct 16 2013 7:39am Ms. Sarah, I am sorry if I have displeased you. I accept my role as Wife's chattel and devote my life to serving Her. If She choosed to accentuate Her authority with corporal discipline is that not Her right? lawslaveOct 22 2013 4:51pm j8XrH5 Fantastic blog.Thanks Again. cWLNronFFOchHcjMCOct 24 2013 6:51pm Sarah, Heidi, Anne, do you really and sincerely believe these things will happen? Not just game playing? Dan.Oct 31 2013 9:36pm I'm asking because I am unmarried, and I wonder what would you do with me? DanOct 31 2013 9:39pm Yes these things will happen. As for you, I am married, I keep my husband at home, and he serves me as he should. I know is whereabouts always, and he obeys me not at his peril. I have done what is necessary to domesticate him. SarahNov 02 2013 7:19am What would be done with a cooperative, but unmarried male, like myself? DanNov 02 2013 3:39pm You mother would decide SarahNov 02 2013 5:06pm What if my mother is deceased, and there are no females attached to my life whatsoever. This is a serious question, as I'm sure therre will be more than a few males who have no women in their lives... DanNov 02 2013 7:53pm The closest female heir or become the property of the state SarahNov 03 2013 1:12am Dan, Sarah is being tactful. As Chattel you would go to some distant heir or be sold. You know that. So why are you pushing this point. Sarah, Dan sounds like the type that would require a firm hand! AnnieNov 03 2013 6:52am once laws are passed requiring all males to be fitted with remote controlled chastity devices which deliver an electric shock to the penis the battle of the sexes will be won. as the losers, we males will need to obey any female's immediate command in hopes of avoiding punishment. our life will be one of constant humiliation but we will be under such strict control we won't have any choice but to obey our superiors. realizing resistance is impossible, the male gender will come to accept it's slave status. our strong sex drives will be used against us as women will keep us in a constant state of sexual frustration without release as this will make us more obedient. orgasm for males will be a very rare event and will only take place as a reward for outstanding obedience and servitude over long time periods but some women will decided to keep their slaves permanently denied. public displays of obedience will become a sport among women as they will force their slaves to obey commands, wear painful chastity devices and endure ruined orgasms/whippings in public to show other women how much their slave is under their control (all while being pulled along by his master on a testicle leash, as leash laws will be enacted as well as laws forbidding males from wearing any sort of clothing). in addition, laws will be passed requiring all males to be euthanized at age 40 as being a slave will be physically demanding and only younger males will be in the right physical shape for the task. only women will be allowed to live the entire duration of their natural lifespan. slaves can be traded or new ones bought at a slave auction. these slave auctions will be dreaded by males, as current owners will put for-sale slaves through humiliating displays of obedience on stage (responding quickly to commands, vocally expressing his belief in female superiority, receiving painful punishment, etc) in order to show the audience of potential buyers how obedient the slave is as obedience will be a desired trait and will increase his price. a slave's erection during this spectacle is desired, as it shows bidders his willingness to obey (slaves will be handcuffed to prevent self-touching). this will make males more obedient to their masters as they will not want to displease her and give her any incentive to want to sell him forcing him to endure the humiliation of the slave auction. however, most males will experience it multiple times until they're euthanized as most women get bored of their slaves within a few years and will view males as objects to be controlled preventing women from becoming emotionally attached to them. women will pride themselves on exercising female superiority over the males they encounter. young girls will learn about the science of female superiority in school in order to understand how their gender was able to win the battle of the sexes and enslave boys. they'll learn about how the female brain is more intelligent, how males are controlled by their constant thoughts of sex, how females live longer and healthier, etc. once understanding why males are inferior to them, classes on how to train, control, and punish males will educate them on how to be in complete control of them at all times. girls will each be assigned a boy of their age to use during the learning process and will not graduate until she has demonstrated she can completely control him. this will allow girls to be familiar with the inferior male body and the various control devices installed on males and why they should never be removed in order to keep them enslaved. males will not be taught other subjects such as math, science and english reserved only for girls. graduation for males means a trip to the slave auction in search of a buyer. graduation for females means buying a slave and living a life of luxury at the expense of males. being taught only to obey females and seeing all other men leashed and under the complete control of a woman, boys will see it as only natural to obey girls. over generations, being male will come to mean accepting you're a slave until you're euthanized. AdamNov 03 2013 9:38am Adam, What you describe could happen but is extreme and unlikley. Men will be reduced to a chattel state, much like women in the early 19th Century. Whether it goes beyond that is uncertain. SarahNov 04 2013 1:02pm Adam, Sarah is right. We will want to get as much as we can out of men, and treating so badly doesn't make sense AnnieNov 04 2013 1:26pm Sarah and Annie, I must respectfully disagree. Us males need to kept kept under the firm control of women. Males must be treated poor in order to learn their place. This way each women can get the most out of their slaves. buck99Nov 04 2013 4:40pm Adam, your post is one of the best I've seen on here. Few have described such an accurate interpretation of what the future female-lead world will be like. To Sarah, I've noticed (from other posts) you seem to want a reverse 1950's housewife scenario for men. This is not the kind of servitude women deserve. This condition did not last for women so why would it last for men? Males are inferior and must be kept slaves for eternity. Only the strictest forms of control will make that possible. To be honest, your scenario seems to cater more towards pleasing males who enjoy being dominated when pleasing the women they serve is more important. It's no secret many males get off at the thought of being dominated by women, and as the superior sex we cannot spend all of our time catering to their fantasies while they get off. True slavery will require males to obey all women whether they want to or not, and I think Adam's post has painted the most accurate picture of how this future would realistically work towards it's main goal: pleasing women at male's expense. Were you my slave Adam, I'd likely keep you for a few extra years before sending you away to the slave auction. LauraNov 04 2013 4:48pm adam, if the male population ever outnumbers the female population, will some girls have multiple slaves? or the reverse, if the female population is larger how will each woman get a slave? also will males in colder climates still be required to be naked in public? nice post. 1995Nov 04 2013 5:38pm Laura What women deserve and what they get are two different things. Remember a lot of women are comfortable with present arrangements or will prove reluctant to totally enslave men. Early 19th Century law was much more severe than the 1950s Ossie and Harriet arrangements. Women could not own property and really were at the mercy of their husbands and fathers. They had few rights in divorce--if they could get one. Women deserve more than that--men belong in absolute slavery. Property with no rights. Adam's vision is too much of a male fantasy. Men will prove to valuable working for us--so that we may live in comfort and ease--to be tortured constantly. Some may be kept for amusement and show purposes--like trick dogs--but we will need to work most of them. I would prefer to invest in males--right now I keep my husband at home, under tight control to serve my needs--to train and rent out to provide income. I would also like see men also being the property of female owned enterprises. SarahNov 05 2013 1:56am It would desirable to move quickly after males are disenfranchised to reduced their status and control their whereabouts and movements quickly. For example, males should be prohibited from bringing suit in court, filing complaints with police or owning property. Any claims they have would be made on their behalf by a responsible woman. All males should be tagged and imbedded with GPS trackers indicating their identity (serial numbers issued by the government, birth date, etc) and the identity of their responsible female. Loose males found in public after a specified deadline would be returned to their nearest female relative--mother, wife, aunt--and lacking none become property of the state to be sold or otherwise put to productive purpose. Total enslavement--sale as property, breeding, etc--would easily evolve from such circumstances. AnneNov 05 2013 5:19am No surprise Sarah and Annie show up to agree with each other as always. Remember when Sarah said the same exact thing Annie just said about GPS trackers earlier? I noticed yesterday "Annie" commented on this poll at the exact same time "Sarah" commented on the poll "Should men prepare themselves for slavery under female rule?" At this point is anyone honestly not convinced they're the same guy? If only I had a nickel each time one of them says the word disenfranchise... AnonymousNov 05 2013 10:56am We are neighbors and friends. We have talked about this a lot, a whole lot SarahNov 05 2013 11:50am And, I notice you don't sign you messages SarahNov 05 2013 11:50am Anonymous thinks we are guys? Ask our husbands -- they only wish. Sarah, he just wants to derail the discussion. AnnieNov 05 2013 1:40pm I've known they are the same person about a week after they showed up on this site. STTGNov 05 2013 3:26pm Annie is bit more aggressive in her views, but believe what you like. Reactions to my comments or hers are welcome--leave it at that SarahNov 06 2013 5:06am What do you girls make of the recent elections? It seems that all the women voters, a majority of all voters, for sure, did not vote as a block to elect more women, did they? They voted for Christie in NJ, and all the married women in my state, Va, voted for the "Cooch", as we call him, an extreme right wing, female phobic tea bagger. Single women and minority women did vote for McAuliffe. And even locally, we couldn't get hardly ANY women to vote for Traci Dippert, a school teacher, running for Delegate, preferring right winger Ed Scott. Will this disunity among women be a hindrance to your future Utopia? DanNov 08 2013 10:17pm its very encouraging to see the positive response to my post, especially from you laura. a woman's approval means so much more then a man's as she is much more intelligent. i agree treating men as domestic servants seems to play more to the male fantasy than to serving women, which is the main goal. to "1995", i suspect laws will be put in place to control the male population and keep it at the right numbers to serve the demand for slaves. it's all about supply and demand. male fetuses could be aborted if there is no need for more slaves, and cloning/artificial insemination from sperm banks could solve the problem of a slave shortage. i am in favor of every woman owning at least one slave, with the option of owning multiple slaves should she desire. males will be pieces of property in this society, and will be kept naked even in cold weather. his discomfort does not matter, pleasing his owner should and will be his only concern. AdamNov 09 2013 12:59pm It's a fun fantasy, isn't it, Adam? DanNov 10 2013 2:57am dan, why do you doubt female is the superior gender? it's been proven scientifically they are smarter than us, have better orgasms, they live longer, live healthier, and you know as well as i do their sexual power over us allows them to control us. in the future, our mental leashes will become physical ones. it's our rightful place to be their slaves. if you disagree fine, but it's my guess you found this site seeking to read about the same kind of scenarios i post about--proving that secretly you know as well as i do our gender is the inferior one. AdamNov 10 2013 9:41am another male in denial. be funny to see his face when his balls are leashed up by a woman. SandyNov 10 2013 12:22pm Sarah and Anne are wonderful, even if Sarah chastised me for discussing the use of corporal discpline by Wives keeping husbands in line. Sarah will probably pleased to know that the last supervisory male in the law office where I worked retired this month. He was a dinosaur of the patriarchy and soon we will have a management group consisting in its entirety of four Women. I have discussed this with one of the Women who has always acted as a de facto supervisor over me (I call Her, "Office Wife") and promised Her that if She got the position She could work my behind off. AS to the real identities of Sarah, Anne, et al, alot of this IS fantasy but it is fun. Why try to destroy the illusion. It does not hurt me to believe that Sarah is powerful executive of an engineering firm who keeps a househusband. Carly Fiorina and some other corporate Women have done it so why not Sarah. I enjoy Sarah's posts and I will try to avoid displeasing Her in the future. lawslaveNov 10 2013 1:56pm I should probably add that both my Wife and my Priestess (two different Women) are "Sara" (no h) so the Sara(h) name always resonates with me. Our Female leadership recently hired a young lawyer named Sarah. Perhaps in ten years SHE'LL be my boss. lawslaveNov 10 2013 1:59pm Adam, that post was the best i've ever read on this site by a male. Good to know your gender knows it's place. SandyNov 10 2013 3:01pm *smiles* SarahNov 10 2013 3:28pm I don't don't for one moment that women are intellectually superior to men. I DO doubt that more than 25% all the women In America want to enslave their husbands, fathers, sons, grand sons, uncles, male friends....If you don't have a clear majority of women voters, who agree to enslave ALL the males in their lives, it will never be law. Dan.Nov 10 2013 11:10pm It won't happen all at once. It will sneak up on you. SarahNov 12 2013 2:17am I wish you'd sneak up on me... DanNov 12 2013 3:48am I meant to say I don't doubt for one moment that women are intellectually superior to men. DanNov 12 2013 3:50am Dan I understand though if I did sneak up it would be with a collar and leash. SarahNov 12 2013 5:54am I asked a feminist friend of mine if she really believed women could really ever takeover our government. This is her reply... Yes. Older women in the population are not cooperative to it, but as a slim majority, if we could get our numbers to the poll more vigorously than men, we could replace all the male candidates. However, we do not have interested females for all the currently male positions. Heck even their own parties have no options most of the time. It is not just who people will elect, it is who cares enough to run. What do you think of her answer, Sarah? DanNov 12 2013 6:17pm One of the exciting things about being lawslave is that I get to appear before powerful Female governing officials, Women Judges. This morning I went to a conference before a brilliant Judge who ordered me to come up with money to settle the case. The adjuster, a long term senior Female in the company refused to put any money on the case. I had to report back to the Judge that I could not comply with Her commands. "I'm sorry Ma'am," I said, "You could spank me but it is probably against the Court Rules." She laughed and said "I think it is against the Rules which is a shame because you're bad." She had a candy bowl on Her desk and several attorneys were allowed to take candy. One of them commented that it was nice of the Judge to give them "kisses". The Judge thought this was a scream. This was a real Woman, confident of Her powers over male attorneys and quite willing to toy with us. By the way Ms. Sarah, if Your *smiles* was for me, thank you. I would love to hear more about how your husband serves you. lawslaveNov 12 2013 7:20pm Those were for Sandy You get no kisses from me. SarahNov 13 2013 7:55am To state the obvious: lawslave is the same person as Sarah and Annie. p.s. that *smiles* comment looks awfully similar to a comment made by annie in the poll "what if there is no need to men for reproduction?" on Jun 14 6:20am ;) AnonymousNov 14 2013 5:38am I am hardly lawslave You are on steroid of some sort Go away SarahNov 14 2013 5:43am I am not Sarah or Annie. Are my posts that well written that someone believes I am really a Superior Female? I suppose I should be flattered. I should REALLY be flattered because Sarah responded to me again,even if it is only to chastise me. There actually WAS a song some years ago called Sarah Smiles by I believe Hall and Oates. lawslaveNov 15 2013 6:29pm niggas be jerkin it to dis poo now? lmfao!!! AnonymousNov 16 2013 10:06pm Dan Over the next decade this will change If we elect Hilary it will change quickly SarahNov 18 2013 7:34am Sarah, if you, and your superior female friends really want to see women take over our government/society, might I suggest that you give some time and money to Emily's List, which is trying to prepare progressive Democratic women to win as many gubernatorial and Congressional seats as possible. Also, you might want to join a few feminist Facebook groups. Also, there is a community page, Radical Feminist Army, that could use your support. It will take more than daydreaming to make this come to pass, so please get involved, and make it real. DanNov 18 2013 6:12pm What makes you think I am not already in the network? SarahNov 19 2013 3:14am Just checking. Sometimes we take it for granted that our dreams and visions will come true, without realizing that it takes effort, money, sacrifice, in order to shape the future. I just thought it a good idea to remind everybody of that, while we still have a little less than a year until the mid term elections. DanNov 19 2013 1:22pm Well Sarah you will probably like me even less but Hillary becoming President would be no different than Kirschner in Argentina, Megwati Sukarno in Indonesia, Benizar Bhutto in Pakistan and so forth, eg a Wife or Daughter of a prominent MALE politician cashing in on the family name. If you are oriented toward Democratic Women Elizabeth Warren would be much more deserving. The Republicans have done a better job of producing Women who rose independent of male politicians in recent years. Let's forget Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman for the monent because they are somewhat polarizing and any discussion of them usually flows into something else, but Kelly Ayotte, Susanna Martinez, Nimrata "Niki" Haley are examples of Women who made it without patriarchal sponsorship. If you prefer the Social Democratic side in addition to Warren there are Jeanine Shaheen and Tammy Baldwin. Most respectfully lawslaveNov 19 2013 5:22pm Most respectfully Sarah, what do you think of Fraulein Merkel? lawslaveNov 19 2013 5:33pm Lawslave makes some very good points, girls. How do you address his well thought out points? DanNov 19 2013 11:09pm The rabbit hole is a little deeper than you thought, eh girls? DanNov 19 2013 11:11pm The "revolution" will not be led by Republican women SarahNov 20 2013 3:56pm That's deep, and profound, Sarah. I will reflect on the nugget of wisdom that your last comment is. DanNov 21 2013 12:07am Most respectfully Ms. Sarah, I guess it depends on which revolution we are talking about. I always did find Aggressive Liberal Democratic Women to be exciting, even if I disagreed with their economic philosphies and back in 1981 when Liz Holtzman was elected Kings County DA I thought about applying to Her office so I could serve as a workslave to Her but my grades were not up to Her Superior Female Standards. But Hillary won't lead the revolution either, She is a creature of the patriarchal machine. And presumably in the Matriarchy there will be some Women who embrace socialism and others who want the freedom to become Matriarchal entrepeneurs free of excessive government regulations. There may even be debate as to what degree the Matriarchal government can regulate the ownership and use of male slaves. However, this will ultimately be determined by Women. If Wife were to sell me to either Kelly Ayotte or Barbara Boxer, my obligation would be to obey without considering either one's political philosphy. lawslaveNov 21 2013 2:19pm I think we scared poor Sarah, and the "other girls" away. "They" don't want to consider how many real obstacles there are to this whole enslavement of men thing there are. Women surely are taking control of America, and much of the world. But most women love their husbands, their fathers, their brothers, and their sons. They don't want to enslave men at all, they just want to be treated with respect. DanNov 21 2013 9:29pm Dan Wrong I just see this happening in more subtle ways than lawslave does. It will sneak up on men (in fact most women) Also I am quite busy. I am the principal breadwinner around here, and have quite a large job to attend to. I run an architectural consulting group of about 250. SarahNov 22 2013 8:04am Sarah, please give me some idea of how this could ever turn out the way you say it will. I read the long piece you wrote before, but it doesn't take into account the multitude of women, who genuinely love, and respect the men in their lives, who will be reluctant, at best, to enslave their loved ones. I can't imagine how this would happen. Dan.Nov 23 2013 1:34am I have considered arguments about male strength and similar comments posted by males here and elsewhere. However I than thought about why and how women will become the first sex, put men in their place and how society may then be structured (As this site runs all paragraphs together, I have numbered my paragraphs below). 1. Without doubt, women are much more intelligent than men, while men are stronger and cruder in their sensitivity. When strength was more important than brains, men dominated, but now brains are more important, many young men can’t cope and gender roles are reversing. This is how I think matriarchy will evolve. 2. Young women are earning substantially more university degrees, landing better jobs and earning higher salaries than young men. Women are the majority of voters and tend to vote as a block for other women. Among the key positions/fields women will dominate first are the governorships, legislatures, courts and legal professions, and academia—the rule makers, the rule enforcers and those who articulate what the rules should be. 3. The women who will make the rules and influence public opinion recognize females are more intelligent and have better temperaments than males—women are the superior gender within the specie. Once in control in politics, law and education women leaders need harbor few reservations—scientific, ethical or moral—about arranging things in ways that help women dominate in all other fields, socialize boys to accept a subordinate status to girls, and allow women to exercise considerable authority over men. 4. Women will outnumber men by wide margins in managerial, professional and top leadership positions. Declining numbers of men will go to college, and increasing numbers of men will be relegated to the intellectually less demanding, more physical and unpleasant jobs. 5. As their numbers shrink in the professional class, capable well-educated men will face increasing skepticism from female colleagues about their abilities (“he’s a man, how quick can his mind be?†and “working among women, he is so easily distracted, always thinking about sex, and can’t focusâ€). Many unmarried men will live on small incomes, much as single women once did. Less intelligent males will struggle with only erratic employment. Our society will have less need for what men do best—thoughtless manual labor. 6. In sum, women will be the “first sex,†with men increasingly dependent on the favor of women for decent employment or support through marriage. 7. Potential relationships between the sexes could take many forms, but it may be useful to consider three outcomes that represent points along a continuum. First, reversal in roles but with legal relationships much like those we have now. Women would vastly over represent men in powerful political offices, the courts, executive positions in government and business, and in the professions. At home, women most often would be the primary breadwinners and men would increasingly subordinate their careers to their higher-earning wives, do the housework and cooking, and generally defer to their wives and other women at home and in public. Second, something similar to the 1950’s, but with women at work and men as househusbands; the wife the expected to be the breadwinner and presumed head of the household; and both the wife and the husband acknowledging women as the dominant sex, socializing girls prepare for careers and leadership, and boys to defer to girls and prepare for marriage. Third would be a reversion to customs prevalent before the mid-19th century, where women couldn’t vote, own property, were under the supervision of father then husband, and so on. Instead this fate would now befall men who would become marital chattel, disempowered and informally the property of women. 8. I would caution men, the third option is not the end point—more severe regimes are quite possible—and what how they end up depends on how well they behave as things change. 9. Already, women are already the primary breadwinner in one-third of marriages and soon then will overwhelming majority. Then men will be put where they belong—wearing aprons in our kitchens, cleaning our houses, doing our laundry, ironing our dresses, diapering our children, running our errands, and whatever else suits our comfort and convenience. Many men will become full time househusbands, and others well deployed as “office wives†to powerful female executives. The skirt not pants will be the new rhetorical symbol of authority. 10. Women will expect men to please and cultivate their favor to be chosen as a spouse by a breadwinning wife or a position serving a powerful female executive, to eagerly obey women in marriage and at the office, and general defer to the new dominant sex. 11. Some of this is quietly happening among younger couples where the women are better educated and earn substantially more than the men. Once the reversal in gender power is prevalent and widely accepted, women will assert presumptive dominance publically. 12. Where men end up on the continuum of arrangements will depends on how they react to the reversal in gender dominance. How costly will it be for women to pacify males? How freely will men accept their inferior status and the roles women assign them? In return for early capitulation, will males seek favorable terms from their new masters, or foolishly resist and fall victim to complete conquest by women? 13. When well educated and intelligent men wake up and realize reverse discrimination does not merely mean earning $120K instead of $150K a year but that their sons will be a househusbands or secretaries to the women, they will become very angry, uncooperative and sometimes self-destructive. None of that will incline women to offer men generous terms in defining new arrangements. 14. Many men, but especially the lower two quartiles will become poorer, and inclined to become even more lazy, unproductive, passively aggressive, disrespectful, harassing, disruptive, abusive and violent when women become prime. Women in authority will have much less sympathy for the economic factors exacerbating these tendencies than they do for the laziness and sense of entitlement of some poor women. 15. Homemakers have a lot of freedom to manage their time. Unsupervised by their wives 60 hours a week, househusbands will not likely handle that freedom well or be as effective as women were in that role. Women won’t be happy with poorly kept houses, mediocre meals, etc, and nagging, verbally abusive and sometimes violent husbands. 16. All this will unnecessarily burden and threaten women, and women will continually experiment with arrangements between the genders to better ensure men ultimately accept their new status, work diligently, defer, and obey. If a more generous set of arrangements does not accomplish these, gender arrangements will change—in ways much less pleasant for males. 17. Out of all this, I expect arrangements to slide pretty quickly to something including important elements of the option. It could afford women the kind of control they need. 18. I sincerely believe those terms are the most men deserve, and it would serve them well to accept them. Intellectually inferior to women, men are a lesser species within a species, and should not be permitted to vote, hold political office or participate in rule making or selecting leaders. However, like women in the 19th century, who were mistakenly thought inferior by men, men would still have legal rights in courts to protect them from attack, abandonment and abuse. 19. Yet, I honestly believe such a regime would not be enough to satisfy the legitimate needs of women, because men, especially those in the lower two quartiles, will not accept their diminished status well and a good deal when it is offered. Less intelligent males will not be able to understand the logic in reversal of gender roles, exhibit aimless rage and act violently toward women and their compliant males. Freedom of movement will make controlling the consequences a vexing challenge for women leaders. 20. Ultimately, women may conclude each male should be put under the direct control and care of a responsible woman, and this could well evolve into some kind of chattel state. At minimum men would be identified (e.g., iris scanning and DNA sampling) and tagged at birth, centrally tracked electronically and behavior monitored—paternalistic women leaders would view this as for men’s own good, 21. Further, the woman in such possession of each male might be able to gift, lease, sell or do whatever they like with them—reducing men to the status of property without legal personality. 22. Women, at least, will be empowered to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure disenfranchised males under their individual supervision behave and work as they should—electronic trackers and tethers, drug therapy, corporal punishment, and physical constraints. We will have the scientific justification (biological inferiority) and technology—electronic and medical—to impose female rule over men much more effectively than did 19th century males over females. 23. Sounds bizarre but think about how dependent wives have been kept on valium and other drugs over the last 30 or so years to make them compliant, how men freely spanked women and worse until recently, and how men leaving for the Crusades put women in chastity devices. Or even in the early 19th century, men selling their wives to pay debts in rural England. 24. In my mind, making men property and without legal personality is most logical. Why should a woman be responsible for an inferior creature’s actions and maintenance if she cannot transfer him to his most productive use by gift, lease or sale. If men are biologically inferior, and impose the necessity of bondage by their own threats and violence, how could women not justify imposing this condition to preserve the safety of women and the compliant males? 25. I would be quite happy in your third state—if it were stable, men behaved and worked as required, deferred, and obeyed—or this fourth, more-severe state—if that proved necessary. 26. In the end, women will impose whatever it takes to establish a stable matriarchy and men as chattel suits me fine if that’s what it would take. I believe many men would acclimate to quite nicely. Consider, we will then be able to quickly cull from the population of troublesome males, closely monitor and limit the mobility of the rest of you, and then focus on breeding into men compliant traits. 27. Intelligent males—the outliers among males—who acquiesced to matriarchy, would be highly prized. As an owner, for example, I could make certain he received the education and opportunities that maximized my investment and still provide some resources to pacify you. Admittedly, I would work him as hard and as much as I could arrange without damaging him but if he was smart he would accept it. 28. He might be better off belonging to me than free in third state, where he would be viewed with suspicion owing to women’s concerns about their control over the male population. In the latter state, he would be subject to discrimination, frustration and likely work a lot harder but with fewer rewards, or end up a successful woman’s househusband or office wife working long hours at menial tasks for not much. 29. Intelligent male surely like the life they have now but that will not be an option two decades from now, and slavery may treat them better than the other possible stable options. 30. The age of man—like time of dinosaurs—has passed; the ascent of woman, like evolution, is irreversible; and the inferior sex will either cooperate or be sentenced to an eternity of very mean circumstances. 31. Are men prepared to concede the superiority of women, submit to their new masters, and accept reasonable arrangements? If you do not, we will complete our conquest and enslave you. SarahNov 23 2013 6:34am Well, at least you didn't take away our right to drive, like they do to women in Saudi Arabia. DanNov 23 2013 11:14am Sarah, what do you mean we will defer to other women in public? DanNov 23 2013 11:20am Women in addition to their wives If we need to take away your PRIVILEGE to drive, we will. In any case, it will be easy for us to transport males where they as needed SarahNov 23 2013 11:51am Dan, I think Sarah has got it scoped, right down the line Revoking driving privileges? That will be the least of your concerns. Whatever it takes AnnieNov 23 2013 1:05pm It will take at least 50-100 years to complete that process. DanNov 23 2013 8:32pm I suppose you'll want us to defer to little girls too? DanNov 23 2013 8:34pm It didn't take nearly that long in colonial Virginia (the first Africans arrived as indentured servants with fix terms of servitude) and things more quickly these days. However whenever that day occurs it will be the just outcome. Men could become the dependent, subordinate sex pretty quickly. That is happening among couples in their 20s because those women earn more than their husbands on average. As for deferring to girls, not so likely, if men are to be responsible for more of the domestic chores and child rearing, Deferring to grown daughters? Absolutely. SarahNov 24 2013 7:27am Yeah, but in the case of the slaves, they were taken from their own country, to lands they didn't know, and were separated from their wives and children. They didn't even speak our language when they got here. AND, what about the multitude of women who will refuse to enslave their loved ones? DanNov 24 2013 10:14am Dan what will happen, will happen. You can't convince me, and I can't convince you. SarahNov 24 2013 2:10pm Sarah, I am curious. In the future, do you think women will pass laws requiring all males to be circumcised or will it be phased out? It's been shown circumcision desensitizes the penis and numbs the head leaving the male more sexually frustrated and of course more willing to serve. circumcision could be a powerful symbol of female superiority and remind a male slave of his place. EdNov 24 2013 9:34pm I think that will continue to be left to the discretion of their mothers. If it improved the conduct of men under my control, I would have it done. My husband and sons have been circumcised, though I don't really need sexual frustration to control my husband. Regarding my sons, their frustrations made them less manageable during adolescence, though their wives are quite happy about. SarahNov 25 2013 3:47am I am not a sexual sadist. I have not desire to unduly frustrate or torture me, sexually or otherwise. I believe women are superior, and should govern as men once did, and marriages among younger people and politics are moving in that direction. To fully effect, it is necessary to do the logical, once we have the reins of power--disenfranchise men--and then take whatever steps are necessary to bring men under firm control. That way we can assign them roles as best suits the progress of society. If that requires reducing men to the status of chattel so be it. It may not and just look more like a reversal of 1950s or even 1830s roles. I expect my husband to love, honor and OBEY--period. If he doesn't I discipline him--but over the years he has become compliant and that is not much necessary. SarahNov 25 2013 4:10am Sarah, I think it is you who has scared off Dan and others. The want to ignore what they don't want to happen AnnieNov 25 2013 10:43am Thanks for your response. It is my opinion women should take big steps to remind the men in their life they are superior to them and in a position of power over them. I see circumcision as a powerful tool to remind a man of his place. Knowing women can enjoy their full sexuality the way nature intended and circumcision deprives the man of his ability to ever enjoy sex to it's full extent. This can have strong psychological factors for the men in the way that every time they look at their penis they'll be reminded they're living in a society where females are in charge and have more rights then they do. Regarding your sons, what are the frustrations you speak of and why were they less manageable during adolescence, and in what ways? EdNov 25 2013 1:47pm also, why are their wives quite happy about it? EdNov 25 2013 1:49pm The adolescent males have a lot of energy, hormone that drive reproductive instincts, and a natural desire to be dominant. Dealing with their outsized sex drives and teaching them to accept their inferiority and a subordinate status was difficult when so many queues from the popular culture encouraged the opposite. Still I raised my sons to accept their wives as dominant breadwinners and to obey them. It was hard but now their wives are happy for it. SarahNov 25 2013 4:01pm Most respectfully Sarah, did You arrange the marriage of Your sons to suitable Dominant Women by discussing it with the Mothers of the Women? Did you give them away to their Brides? Did they take vows to love honor and obey and do their Wives keep them as househusbands? As to Dan's comments, Wife has kept me in some form of personal servitude for over 20 years. I have no doubt that She loves me. A Woman who is strict with her males presumably takes the time with them because She loves them. Some Women use the whip but Sarah if you disagree with that approach, how did you initially discipline your husband? Most respectfully, lawslaveNov 25 2013 5:46pm Incidentally, the last male manager at my firm finally retired. I am now a workslave to a managerial group of five Women. This is progress. lawslaveNov 25 2013 5:48pm lawslave you are too kinky for me SarahNov 26 2013 2:40am Annie, I haven't been scared off. I'm doing everything in my human power to help get more women elected to political office. Also, I am the sole caretaker of my 78 year old mother, who is afflicted with a progressive neurological disease, called Huntingtons. I know how to be of service to a woman. Further, whenever I'm at the store, I go out of my way to help, or assist every woman I see, in anyway I possibly can. I'm not afraid of the world you and Sarah describe, I welcome most of it. I just disagree about how long these changes will take. What Sarah envisions will take at least 30-100 years to come to pass. That's just realistic. DanNov 26 2013 3:53am Sarah, first of all I LOVE your posts and I respect your right to put me in my place from time to time. I am trying to serve as a marital and an office slave in accord with most of the things you are saying. AS for kinkyness these sites do bring it out in me and others. If I indicate Wife whipped me (happens maybe twice a month) the crowd is interested. If on the other hand I post Wife made me pick up groceries (happens three or four times a month) Wife ordered me to do laundry (once or twice a week) or Wife directed me to take out the garbage (once or twice a day) I do not think the other posters would be that interested. But maybe my assumption is wrong. I would love to hear how you and Annie handle the day to day management of the males in your life. In the abstract, I think there are people who would the postulation of universal male slavery enforced by a Matriarchal government to be kinkier than a discussion of being spanked by one's Wife. Granted the former need not be about overt sexuality. However, it is worth noting that some Women have sexualized being controlled by the Patriarchy and fantasize about Dominant men. We have been through a paradigm where guys with the best jobs got to sleep with the best looking Women. The proliferation of romance novels (eg bodice rippers) is evidence that there were and still are Women whose fantasies are the mirror image of the men on this site. Hopefully under the leadership of Women such as yourself and Annie Women will move away from such ideas and actualize their true power. However, all social organzations can give rise to a sexual content. So yes, please continue to postulate how one day my Wife's athority over me will be enforced not only by my taking a vow of submission (When we met She told me she was looking for a younger male servant, would expect obedience at all times and would physically discipline me at Her whim--when we married I took a vow to love honor and obey) but the enforcement would be augmented by the laws of the Matriarchal government. As always respectfully, lawslaveNov 27 2013 11:13am Ms. Sarah I reread your Sat. 634 am post. With regard to Pt. 9 I do serve as an office wife to a powerful Female attorney with Wife's approval. Female attorney has occasionally told me that if I misbehave She will ask Wife to spank me when I get home. I also note that in Pt. 22 you advocate the use of corporal punishment to keep males in line. And Wife uses me as you advocate in Pt. 27. She rents me out to a Female centric firm and my paycheck is deposited into Her account, thus giving Her a return on Her investment in me and She also works my behind off at home. lawslaveNov 27 2013 11:27am Add a comment: Vote Results |
