Your Ad Here

Future Matriarchy: How Will Men React?

Question: There are some who predict a female dominated society in the future. If women were formally in control, how would men react?
Created by: charity at 07:36:00 AM, Sunday, June 13, 2004 PDT


The big question is how are men reacting to the current matriarchy. Will this matriarchy be as damaging to men's self esteem as the old patriarchy was to women's self esteem

MatriarchJun 14 2004 10:20am

...yeah, and don't forget that the "old patriarchy" wasn't all that helpful to men put both men and women into social straightjackets that were/are harmful in many ways.

anonymousJun 14 2004 12:39pm
Males will whine and sulk at first, but thats what they're best at doing. After the realization that things are new and different, males will settle down and accept women as their superiors for life.

TakakoJun 14 2004 3:42pm
This will occour gradually, and men will accept female superiority in due time. The changes are already happening.

DougJun 14 2004 8:23pm
Should men want feminine companionship, they will learn to accept women in authority. What other choice is there?

TakakoJun 14 2004 9:01pm
I think the workplace is slowly conditioning male employees to accept female authority figures. It is becoming the norm for a woman to be the boss.

AnonymousJun 15 2004 6:47am
I can forsee many changes. I think that the word obey will come back into the wedding ceremony only this time the man will promise to obey the woman. I think that "feminine companionship" will gradually come to be understood as a favor given by women to men as a reward for good behavior. Men being what they are will go to extreme lengths to gain such favors. I think that rape will be defined on par with murder and fondling will punished as rape is now. I think that strip clubs that feature nude women will be outlawed as a danger to public order. I think that men who offend women will be made to appear in public in feminine clothing. The victorians called this "petticoat discipline" and it was used on unruly adolescent boys. Physicians will prescribe female hormones to "maladjusted males." If all that seems crazy just look at what has already come to pass.

FGJun 17 2004 11:31am
I think that "feminine companionship" will gradually come to be understood as a favor given by women to men as a reward for good behavior. Men being what they are will go to extreme lengths to gain such favors.

AnonymousJun 17 2004 11:15pm
I think that "feminine companionship" will gradually come to be understood as a favor given by women to men as a reward for good behavior. Men being what they are will go to extreme lengths to gain such favors.

AnonymousJun 17 2004 11:16pm
There is a Greek play where the women decide together that there will be no more feminine companionship as long as the men insist upon conducting war. It takes a little while but, of course, the men crumble.

Heather MorganJun 18 2004 11:49am
They won't have to prescribe estrogens there are already loads of estrogens in the water.

HughJun 18 2004 12:39pm
It is hard to say if there will be any conflict at all. We must keep in mind that the younger generation is being raised with different teachings than when we were kids. It is now becoming an accepted idea that the female is the superior sex. By the time we see an overt matriarchy, men will be conditioned to answer to female authority figures.

VernJun 19 2004 7:01am
One suggestion would be to require some kind of social re-education program to teach men how to interact appropriately in a society which is controlled by females. Not some futuristic science fiction brainwashing camp, but more of a sensitivity training coarse designed to help men understand what behavior is acceptable so they can have a more fulfilling life. This would only be needed for males who have reached a certain age, as the school system could impliment the program for the children of the next generation.

MichelleJun 19 2004 10:34am
one thing that may happen is starting boys in school two years later than girls. It has been shown that girls mature two years earlier than males ( at least ) which is why they are doing so much better in school than boys. If it becomes the norm to have boys in the same classes with girls who are two years younger than them they will have to face the fact that the girls are their natural superiors. Imagine if all males were trained to accept that they are not equal to women their own age. (In fact most teenage girls are more mature than men in their twenties.) That may be the real reason that men prefer younger women and vice versa. In order for women and men to be equal the man has to be older.

boyJun 19 2004 11:25am
Young boys are already confronted by the concept of female superiority. Besides learning about studies which conclude women are superior, they are painfully aware that they are outmatched by girls their own age. Males are already being conditioned to accept the female as superior. It will have a profound impact on society.

girlJun 19 2004 6:41pm
Women wlak differently from the way they used to, much more confident. Much more assertiveness is on the way. Men will do nothing to stop this. Deep down they like the idea of being under the control of a confident assertive woman.

AnonymousJun 21 2004 5:14pm
I think men would do something to stop iy if they could, but the truth is there is nothing they can do about it. Most of them are oblivious to it or are in denial.

SueJun 23 2004 6:52am
I think men need to be careful how they react, because that will be a factor in determining what kind of policies will govern men in the future.

AnonymousJun 24 2004 10:41pm
Why would men want to stop iy Sue? Or are you so superior that you're too lazy to proofread?

TomJun 25 2004 2:13pm
I don't bother to proofread because most people are clever enough to understand a basic statement even if there is a typo. I will be more careful in the future so you will not be left in the dark.

SueJun 25 2004 11:44pm
All I can talk about is my own reaction, which is to feel very insecure. I'm convinced women are superior to men, but I find it hard to deal with, the idea that men will be looked down on and relegated to inferior status.

AnonymousJun 27 2004 3:57pm
I think that has already happened, and it seems like women are not afraid to let us know it. I find it kind of humiliating.

K.P.Jun 27 2004 10:24pm
You big baby, K.P.

ShockoJun 28 2004 10:51am
Snicker. What K.P. really means is "I find it kind of humiliating--and I like it."

HHJun 30 2004 9:11am
What a disgrace.

AnonymousJul 02 2004 8:52pm
You guys are afraid to face reality. At least I have the courage to admit women are taking over.

K.P.Jul 03 2004 11:27pm
Face reality like a man. A real man. I admit women are taking over, K.P. I'm just not being a whiny baby about it.

HHJul 06 2004 8:37am
Snicker. What HH really means is "I want to be mounted by a man. A real man. With no lubricants."

AnonymousJul 06 2004 9:17pm
Death!!!! That's the preferred alternative to matriarchy, because matriarchy is worse than death!

Love mom and dadJul 12 2004 5:50am
Hungry? grab a snicker. Seriously whats up with everyone saying snicker? Did it become 1973 again? Is snicker suddenly in and cool? Are you guys being awesome and gnarly? Snicker.

JoeJul 15 2004 6:45pm
Far out & groovy! Outta site!

AnonymousJul 15 2004 9:43pm
Men might react the same way boys are currently reacting to girls outperforming them by such wide margins in school. They are basically quitting and dropping further behind. How will women react if they look around for a decent guy and find nothing but lazy, uneducated fools? Will they support them?

AnonymousJul 18 2004 10:03pm
Mounted by a man? Yes, most taxidermists are men, but I'm not ready to be stuffed. Funny, though.

HHJul 21 2004 8:38am
Taxidermists rule!

AnonymousJul 24 2004 10:43pm
I didn't know they are called taxidermists, all this time I've been calling them cab drivers, go figure.

JoeJul 30 2004 8:14pm
A female dominated society would be liberating to many men who could forgo the macho posturing in favor of a more nurturing existence.

RandyAug 14 2004 11:05pm
Be careful what you wish for.

AnonymousAug 26 2004 6:58am
My reaction is mixed. On the one hand, I think women ARE superior, and I think society is well on the way to accepting it, but I have trouble accepting it emotionally. I don't like feeling inferior or that men are devalued. I think lots of men are like that, they think women deserve a turn at the steering wheel but at the same time feel threatened.

AnonymousSep 07 2004 12:27pm
It is an ego thing. After being conditioned to believe the female is weak and helpless, it is hard to look a woman in the eye knowing the tables have been turned.

AnonymousSep 08 2004 8:45am
Women do not deserve a "turn at the steering wheel" just because they are women. Just because a man might be a bad driver, doesn't necessarily mean that a woman will be better.

RandyOct 05 2004 3:45pm
Whether or not women deserve a "turn at the steering wheel", it is clear they have positioned themselves to take charge. And much to the surprise of many, it is becoming evident that the feminine management style is more progressive and appropriate for the demands of modern society.

MattNov 07 2004 4:15pm
Does it mater how they react? Females ultimately shall define future male behaviour to the benefit of the Female, most likely a reversal of the sexual power structure, roles, attitudes and activity as it was once seen in the 1950's and earlier.

whyguysJan 29 2005 8:48pm
yeah right

AnonymousFeb 21 2005 2:12pm
I think most guys are accepting it. Why not? It's the way things are going to be!

donAug 15 2005 10:10am
My Wife runs the show in our house. I like it that way.

jonAug 30 2005 11:01am
In these polls I often see the phrase "I think women are superior". Truth is, it won't be long before every woman, man and child KNOWS women are superior and you'll soon see these phrase replaced with something like "I know women are superior...". It's just a matter of time and a taming of some male egos.

STTGSep 07 2005 5:20am
I think they will go quietly.

AnonymousOct 02 2005 11:42am
By saying yes dear.

anonymousOct 03 2005 9:00am
matriarchy is another word for communism

AnonymousDec 29 2005 8:51am
I for one will submit to women totally. Women deserve this kind of respect and I will give it to them. I can't wait for the day that women take completely over. Women are much better than us men.

HERboyApr 01 2006 4:10pm
Men will rewact with joy.Their place in society is to obey not to think.When Big Mommy rules thier lives they will be happy.Thinking is to hard for them and not what they are biologically suited to do.I am 100% in favour of reeducation centres for men.These would only be as painfull for men as they want them to be.If they knuckle under and accept female superiority and don't make a fuss and embrace female leadership and a female run society then they will expereince less mental and certainly in these centres less physical pain.

Big BrendaApr 28 2006 9:10pm
Women should be wearing miniskirts as often as possible: At work, school, shopping, public events, etc. And get rid of those irritating SLEEVES! Women should be showing arms, shoulders and back. This business of women wearing sleeves and long pants that cover knees is GARBAGE !!

He ManMay 01 2006 10:27pm
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 11:46am
"Future Matriarchy: How Will Men React?" That is simple.... they shall react in the most submissive, dutiful, obedient, feminine and ladylike manner as expected.....

OmphaleAug 16 2006 1:01pm
Has anyone here read THE WAR AGAINST BOYS, by Christina Hoff Sommers? I just finished reading it, and it is excellent. There is a new poll on the topic of that book:

AnonymousSep 28 2006 11:58am
They will vent their frustration by posting messages on the internet.

AnonymousOct 25 2006 10:27am
Sat. 2/3/07

Date UpdateFeb 03 2007 10:42pm

#Feb 07 2007 11:43pm
Women don't "do" authority,they do assertive courses,they take ,decide and whine about everything.How will they cope if some smart ass decides men should have the same rights as women?.Sorry,ladies,you are all "my rights" and no sign of any obligation at all.Wake up to the past,it isn't you that has been badly treated,it is the male, especially the working class male who has been shafted.The rich,male and female have been socking it to the poor for centuries.Debate white female ownership of black female slaves,let's see if you can justify YOUR actions in this matter. If the kind of logic I see posted here by female tyrants and sex starved manginas is bought to a conclusion,why are blacks not elevated above you to run the country?

mike sMar 14 2007 10:45am
#0062 - (Tue.) 4/3/07

UpdateApr 02 2007 10:43pm
mike s, it is not up to mere males to decide race relations. If African American Women feel they should rank above Women of other races that is something the members of the Superior Sex has to work out among themselves. A male of any race is property and should obey his Female owner irrespective of Her racial or ethnic background.

obedient husbandApr 21 2007 7:52pm
O.H. You are really into this S.H.I.T, aren't you

PeterJul 11 2007 9:52pm
#0065 - (Wed.) 7/11/07

UpdateJul 11 2007 9:54pm
IF you mean me Peter, certainly. Wife is a blue eyed blonde with a firm hand but in the past my behind has been given welts by powerfully built African American Women. Males were created to serve as slaves to whatever Women wished to use them, irrespective of ethnicity.

obedient husbandJul 15 2007 6:23pm
Negros have been elevated above everyone else for decades due to affirmative action. In spite of this, blacks still lag behind the other minorities. Hispanics, on the other hand, have quickly surpassed blacks in all areas. Negros will always whine about oppression, but will always be too lazy to work their way out of their predicament.

BaptistAug 20 2007 9:55am
By tearing apart anything that gets in my way!!!!!!! (cue evil laughter).

Evil geniusOct 27 2007 9:46pm
It will never happen. Females like to take from males, if she is in charge and has it all and he has nothing, she'll have to then become the giving one, and females won't be able to handle that, You see the way they measure a males love for them is by the material thing there man give them, this is why they make sure the man there thinking about taking for test drive, they make sure he make a lot more $$$ than she does because she wants to take, not give.

anonymousDec 30 2007 9:45pm
#0070 - (Sun.) * 12/31/07

UpdateDec 30 2007 9:48pm
Thank you anonymous. Someone who finally hit the nail on the head. This is what women really want.

PaulApr 10 2008 8:41pm
Obedient Husband.You are missing the point entirely. If you have black women claiming to be superior to even other women, then you have a conflict and conflict is what causes wars, and wars are what people like you are always yapping about is what make men inferior to women. Are you saying that when men start wars it is wrong, but when women start wars it is okay because you get an erection every time an abusive woman, like your wife, raises a whip to you?

PaulApr 10 2008 8:48pm
Women need to be spanked. I am spanking Eva Longoria in my mind right now. Spank spank. Thank you superior male master. May I have another? You sure can slave girl.

RandyApr 10 2008 8:50pm
First I get critcized by Peter and then by Paul. I need Mary to come along, spank Peter and Paul and put them in their place. Females are superior because they project a Female aspect that subjugates males. Presumably there are immoral Females in Matriarchal settings just as there are immoral males in patriarchial settings. However, as a mere male it is not my place to pass judgment on Superior Females. If Black Women have disputes with White Women or for that matter Asian-Native American-Pacific Islander Women it is up to them as Women to work it out. If Wife sold me to a Black Woman or to say a Polynesian Woman I would then be obligated to serve as an obedient slave to that Woman irrespective of Her ethnic background. And Wife is not "abusive". She is merely a firm disciplinarian who exercises Her right to use corporal discipline in training Her property.

obedient husbandApr 11 2008 7:59pm
To obedient husband: You are right, of course! Surely we inferior males ought to obey our Wives (or any other type of Mistresses) regardless Their race and skin colour. Otherwise the male who has some inner problems with that must work with his psyche to achieve it's true compliance. Plus personally for me to be whipped by a Black Woman sounds quite interesting... Obedient husband, can you describe this experience?

Nick NMay 05 2008 11:07pm
Nick, it depends on the "Black Woman". That is my point. Just as being whipped by a "Jewish Woman" depends on the "Jewish Woman". S, the approximately 6 foot 200 lb Woman to whom Wife has loaned me from time to time is Romanian. S generally gives me the most severe beatings but is that because of Her ethnic group or because of Her size, personal orientation, and experience with disciplining males. Seventeen years ago I was in servitude to an Irish Woman who was about 5'5" 120 but Her life experiences made Her extraordinarily skilled in administering pain to a male. I would say that because of certain sociological currents relating to ethnicity, on the average Black and Jewish Women may exude more confidence and aggression when dominating males. However, the most forceful Woman I have ever served would be the Romanian who was raised in the Christian Orthodox faith. She left it to join a neopagan group and is currently a practicing Priestess of the Goddess. But, having said that I guess it would do no harm to highlight some experiences with Women who happen to be Black. I was bought once at a slave auction by a Black Lesbian couple. They were both strong muscular Women and they bent me over a spanking bench and worked my behind with a variety of instruments. Several years before that when I was a stray male slutting around the New York club scene I fell in with "Sherry" and "Zulu" who both strong aggressive Black dominants who made good use of my rear. One night after I had been acquired by my future Wife, She let me out to go to a club. I was worked over by several acquaintances in a rather heavy scene. A stunningly beautiful Black Female model type came over and after complimenting me on the scene She had observed indicated She was looking for a full time slave and did I belong to anyone. I told Her I was already property but appreciated the interest. On the other hand in my days as a club slut I met a number of Women, Black, White, and Hispanic, where there might have been some casual play but ultimately the chemistry was not right and it did not lead to anything. I have NOT encountered a large number of Asian-Pacific Islander-Native American Women in the scene and cannot recall specifically serving a Woman of the "Yellow-Red" ethnic group. The heaviest one time single beating I ever received was from a husky Jewish Lesbian. I had met Her through a Black Woman at a party(and I mention that because you seem to be interested in Black Women per se). The severity was impressive enough that for the rest of that summer everytime I encountered my Black friend She would say something like "Are you all right?" "Are you sure "P"(the lesbian) didn't beat you too hard?" and so on.

obedient husbandMay 15 2008 6:07pm
Some men are not capable of functioning in a matriarchy and will disrupt the spiritual harmony between men and women and their relationship to mother earth. So you do what has to be done and that is to hasten their return to the soil from which they crept.

AmayiaJun 07 2008 6:42am
Ms. Amayia this male humbly suggests that all males are capable of serving the Matriarchy if they are properly trained and disciplined.

obedient maleJun 19 2008 6:26pm
It is becoming evident that female leadership qualities are more effective and productive in modern society. With women in charge, everything is more efficient and orderly. This serves to benefit both males and females. Under the guidance of a female supervisor, a man can achieve greater potential and productivity, and therefore become more successful in life. He can become more confident and self assured. I think future generations will embrace the situation because they will find a more fulfilling life

SamJul 14 2008 8:47pm
I don't think there will be any reaction because the transformation is happening very gradually. By the time the tables have completely turned, people will not have noticed because it will have evolved in increments. Just business as usual.

AnonymousJul 14 2008 8:51pm
Amayia is a man-hating nazi. Not surprising since her hero is Adolp Hitler's mother

AnonymousAug 18 2008 8:05pm
So what you are saying is that you think she is a member of the Nazi party, but you don't disagree with her statement? it is good to see that people of different ideologies can agree on a point.

Bradley JohnsonSep 08 2008 10:05pm
Obedient husband, thank you very much for your story about being severely whipped by Women of different nations and races. I'm sorry I read it only today but unfortunately this forum does not sort the subject list according to how fresh comments are. Amaiya, i have to agree with You that the worst male speceies must be returned to the soil ASAP. The rest of us, i hope, may be able to serve You and other Women -- after a good training, of course. Oh, soory, i must add that unfortunately it won't happen in this generation because too many males have been spoiled with today's pro-patriarchial lifestyle. But i'm sure it'll be possiable till this century comes to it's end.

Nick NSep 20 2008 9:57pm
Glad you liked it Nick.

obedient husbandSep 21 2008 6:11pm
Why does everyone pick on Nazis? Nobody seems to mind Islamic terrorists who are basically the same thing. Yet we want to get them lawyers and grant them civil rights.

AnonymousJan 04 2009 8:40pm
Because Islamic terrorists seek to kill those who disagree with them but will accept anyone who comes around to their point of view and converts (John Walker Lindh for example). The Nazis on the other hand defined people based on heredity which meant the person had no chance. If the Nazis offered to accept any Jew who denounced Judaism and pledged loyalty to the Fuhrer, then they would have been more comparable to Islamic terrorists. This doesn't necessarily make Islamic terrorists good guys but they are a different category of evil than Nazis.

obedient husbandJan 11 2009 5:14pm

AnonymousJan 24 2009 5:25pm
Well, I find this discussion very interesting and, on some levels, totally missing the point. I agree 100% that women are superior to men. Assuming they differed only by their sex, women certainly have more self-control than us men. Most men, if left unfettered by laws or society, would be complete pigs bashing the next cutest woman they saw over the head and having sex with her. Climaxing is, or can easily be, at the top of a man's want list. Women are more sensible and balanced. I have known this since I was old enough to know the difference between men and women. I would gladly submit 100% to a woman and devote my life to pampering and pleasing her and would gladly sacrifice greatly to do... since I was about ten or so. Sorry women, you don't really want this: I'm not a bad looking guy, I make a good income (and always have), I treat people right, and I have dated, and dated, and dated some very wonderful women. However, I lost every single one of them when I explained our common supposition that women are superior to men and should have the final say. No, you really want the club carrying, macho pigs to club you and take you off to the bedroom and be abandon after your muscular hulk has had his selfish climax! I had several fine, marriage potential relationships going quite well and they evaporated in an instant upon learning this revelation. I’m not talking about kinky, dominating from the bottom sort of stuff, I'm just talking about the: "let me do the house work, let me give you a backrub, you should climax first if you want, my (the male) orgasm isn't the ultimate goal and it drains me so that I can't serve you as well (more recent discovery), let me love you first and foremost with all of my heart." In fact, one woman went back to her 3rd husband (over me) and he was a selfish creep that beat her! Women, if you think you’re superior – then start showing it! Take control! I want it! I need it! My soul cries out for female supremacy, sexual or not! But then again, it has to be sexual by the very nature of it... I’d like to be WANTED as a subservient male, but no one wants me in that way! Heck, I'd even like to have some women even WANT to TALK about it with me! My last realization (firmed up within the last five years) is that I want to climax all of the time. This is male centered and must be purged. I climax then, poof, my energy is gone and so is by best desire and ability to please for awhile... much too long a period I might add. If women could just harness that male sexual energy, they could change who does the housework, the face of the earth, and everything in between quite quickly. If women would or could keep their men from climaxing without their consent, the world would change! Manipulate men! Use your sexual power over us! Make us feel your power! Get us on our knees before you!!! Get what you want or get a club over the head – the choice is yours!!!!

MarkMar 23 2009 1:56pm
Matriarchy is rapidly approaching. Many younger men are learning to be submissive and even acknowledge the superiority of women - especially amongst the well educated.

SteveJul 21 2009 3:08am
Elise Sutton does not exist. If "she" does, it is in the form of a 45-year-old, balding fat chronic masturbator with nothing better to do. If, by unlikely chance, Sutton happens to be a female supremacist, and a female at that, then she is a coward instead of coming out and expressing her beliefs in public. I hate you all.

KevinAug 18 2009 7:28am
#0092 - (Mon.) * 10/12/09

UpdateOct 12 2009 1:32pm
Kevin, how unfortunate that you are so frustrated that you are driven to expressing hatred for people who are merely expressing their points of view. The only thing in a debate which inspires such extreme frustration and rage is when one can't formulate a logical counter-argument. You have scored a big point for those with whom you disagree.

SusanNov 26 2009 9:22pm
Kevin, how unfortunate that you are so frustrated that you are driven to expressing hatred for people who are merely expressing their points of view. The only thing in a debate which inspires such extreme frustration and rage is when one can't formulate a logical counter-argument. You have scored a big point for those with whom you disagree.

SusanNov 26 2009 9:23pm
there should be a special class for both young boys and girls. boys would be thought how to serve girls and girls would be tought how to take complete control of boys

gautamDec 17 2009 11:39am
Dear Susan, this Kevin is just a good sample how primitive the most part of us are. Or maybe he masturbates too often. This is bad. You may want to lock him into a CB and he will turn to a meek sheep ready to serve any Woman.

Nick NFeb 18 2010 6:56am
The transformation to a female dominated society is already underway. History is like a pendulum and, after 5,000 years of male dominance, it is now swinging in the other direction. This is good news for us women. The bad news for men is that all of the techniques used to keep women in a submissive role are already being redesigned to be used to keep men in a submissive posture. In the future, when men with body hair are thought to be extremely unattractive, males will be begging for total body permanent hair removal. In the future, women will be free to appear topless in public just as males are today. Men, on the other hand will be forced into restrictive garments that limit their mobility. In the future, women will design fashionable restrictive devices that enclose and control male genitals. In the future, men will be reduced to wearing hobble skirts that are pencil thin and the have the effect of requiring that men take only tiny steps. In the future, wives will be held responsible for any aggressive behavior exhibited by their male partners. If a husband is rude or discourteous to a female in public the wife may be fined. The husband will have to answer to his wife in private. In the future, the most attractive males will be those who submit the most peacefully to their wives' desire to dress them up. Female clothing will become drab, comfortable and easy to wear. Male clothing will become delicate, colorful and exceptionally uncomfortable and impractical. Consider the traditional association of delicate and thin fabrics with female attire. The point of this association was always to restrict women. Delicate fabrics tear easily and a person wearing delicate fabrics must carefully monitor his movements and behaviors. In the future, women will hear comfortable shoes and males will wear uncomfortable shoes. in the future, women will insist that their husbands get breast implants and husbands will have no choice but to agree. In the future, it will be considered rude for a man to speak in a voice that is above a whisper. Ever. In the future, men will be required to master a large number of seemingly silly rules that govern their behavior, how they sit, when they speak, what they saw. In the future, the ideal female body type will be athletic, strong and flexible. The ideal male body type will tend toward that of the ballerina. Small, thin men with little muscle mass will be sought after. Some may laugh and say this is ridiculous but everything written above has long been true for women (although due to the coming change it is less true today). The only difference is the gender swap. There is nothing particularly feminine about restictive, body shape altering, impractical clothing styles. Each of those elements is actually just a way of enforcing submissiveness in the wearer. Come to think of it women are likely to become very creative when these fashion tools come to be used to subdue men. The good news for men is that the pendulum will probably swing back to male dominance in another 5,000 years or so.

Future HistorianMay 04 2010 12:12pm
If clothes are a way of enforcing submissiveness, then why is it that historically male slaves, for example, in 19th century America, wore exactly the same clothes as the slave masters? An enlisted man in the military who has to submit to officers, wears exactly the same uniform as a general.

TRMay 06 2010 5:21pm
Don't worry boys accept the fact, in some few years males will be absolutely controlled under female power.

KatJun 29 2010 7:49pm

DeAtHsHoCk;[;[;][[];[;]][]]'Jul 01 2010 4:08pm
umm takako..i got your authority right here..*unzips pants* cum and get it girl

jacob..single mommy killahOct 24 2010 6:59pm
what will change????? Men will still compete for womens affections and in fact it may be even more intense than now.The women will be MASCULINE in behaviour (not necessarily)men may actually be fu*king Whats the difference???? POWER is MASCULINITY.Imagine all the men screwing each other (gay identity is becoming the new straight in a bizzare way for men and the straight identity is getting old in some respects) so the best formed men (mesomorphic/super)would be the pick for women,because this is believed at the moment that very mesomorphic (genetic constitution/can't be changed,only enhanced by training)men are genetically healthier and usually always have great NATURAL strength ( think arnold ;) )then you would get.Many women may deny this ,but its a strong INSTINCT in women to seek meso types for sex only and then normally choose a softer featured man to help raise the kids (like me,an uncle and somewhat father to my sisters children whom she had with a big strong man,who is now (fairly common)gone/left.These types of men are driven more for sex and athletics/competition behaviour,rather than sweet loving sloppys.The softer featured men are better carers and more likely to commit and stick with it,which women would do willy nilly since they are the new men,so for you little runty type men like me,you have no chance of having kids,since you would probably have less of a chance to establish you barely there MASCULINITY.You would be broken in all likely hood straight away,unless women would like sociopathic,ruthless little things to pass on their genes (unlikely)then the women's power would be at threat.She doesn't want poo*y genes from a ruthless tool like say....saddam.look at what women do now to compete for men,they are already becoming much more assertive and demanding of their rights and men are becoming feminized more and more (behaviour wise that is)with their winning and sensitivity.Men are already punished plenty by MEN under womens orders.So for me already letting go of power and finding liberation from the INTENSITY of male competitiveness in society,i don't mind ,but many straight identified men who are not the MOST masculine (physically)may not find this all that appealing,because of the sheer pain of losing their own sense of masculinity,it would be squashed before it even developed,just like it is now many times by the FATHER.Notice how MANY mothers use the father to threaten the small son if he doesn't do what she wants.Many boys grow past this,but the weaker smaller ones,with their ultra high tuned nervous system,many times stay in that submissive state and never grow out of it.Takes 2 to tango (never forget)yes women are selfish just like us.Many powerful men are controlled by women and by some groups are seen as women.Things aren't always what they seem.

BOYman fraud :)Oct 28 2010 11:28pm
the term mothers boys comes to mind.What happens often to mummies boys???

cares too muchOct 28 2010 11:35pm
You almost have to die in a way,kill that fear completely of the idea of masculine men dominating you also,many many men find this VERY hard (homophobia)you have to become like good old jesus and turn the other cheek completely without qualms of any sort,then you will be free to live and let live.........YEAH die for mummy.

COMING OUT NOW GIRLSOct 28 2010 11:44pm
For the sake of argument, I assume that that our future in the developed countries will be a matriarchy, or society in which more women than men hold authoritative positions. (This is an easy assumption to make.) The question then is "How will men react to this development?" Well, I think that there will be a transition period (which we are in the beginning of) during which some men will be reactionaries. They will resist the new order. The big question then is "Will these reactionary men in the transition period organize to resist the change to a matriarchy?" * * * * * * * * If they don't organize, then women will have a relatively easy time establishing their matriarchy. They will occupy more and more the authoritative positions in society and make the rules. In particular, they will make the rules for education. I see women almost exclusively holding the reins of power in education (which they are well on their way to doing). To the extent that male attitudes are the products of socialization, women will decide the best ways to socialize boys to have the right attitude toward a world in which women are the primary sex and males are the second sex. Boys that are particularly difficult to socialize in this way will be sent to clinical psychologists to straighten them out. The clinical psychologists will be overwhelmingly women, which I think is already the case or about to become the case. Really difficult boys will be drugged to make them more controllable (something already being done). After a couple of generations of this socialization process, men will accept a matriarchy as something very "natural." * * * * * * * * If men do organize to resist the coming matriarchy, then either they will organize to resist the development in peaceful ways (i.e., through some kind of organization like a "National Organization of Men") or in violent ways (i.e., some kind of insurrection). If the resistance is through peaceful organizations, it will not prevent or delay the coming matriarchy, which stems from the fact that the average girl is naturally a better student than the average boy -- a fact of paramount importance in the modern knowledge-based society. However, it may prevent men from become unduly oppressed like women once were. Meanwhile, the process of socializing boys to have a right male attitudinal adjustment to a matriarchic society will still occur. * * * * * * * * If men try to organize to plot a takeover of the government, I think the attempt will fail for a number of reasons. One is simply that we are a very law abiding society. Only a few men would try organizing an insurrection. Another reason is that in today's highly organized and technological society, any serious attempt by even a small group of men at organizing an insurrection would be easily detected and stopped. * * * * * * * * In conclusion, I believe that men?s reaction to the coming matriarchy will be controlled by the women.

HeraclitivaDec 06 2010 9:46am
The matriarchy will be just as bad as the patriarchy. Humans tend to be so irrational, it's a suprise we made it this far. And all we have in the end is a perpetual exchange of hats, all becoming worse as time goes on.

MisanthropeJan 28 2011 1:09pm
In the future Matriarchy it will be generally recognized behind every Successful Glorified Woman is a Strrong ,dominant Husband with a Heavy Disciplinarian paddle,cane ,crop or whip ! who does'nt beleive in sparing the Rod or Spoiling His toiling wife's gleaming Muscular Gluteus Maximal Derriere to coach ,mentor & guide her into the Top Position in her office & at his feet in the evenings as they relax & she slaves to make her disciplinarian Husband a warm ,tasty dinner & cleans & makes the home cosy 'n clean for her Liege-lord , Captain & Commander !!! Of her Mind , Soul & Ass-hole !!!

Ashesh GhoseFeb 01 2011 8:24am
lol this is a pathetic blog... women wont ever "rule" men nor will they ever become the dominate figure. Yes you have more privilages then you did 60 years ago, but guess what??? its only because we men have allowed it to happen. If you push to hard it will backfire and men will once again subjegate women. So dont push us...

reasonMar 07 2011 5:48pm
Aren't Ashesh and 'reason' cute. LET the pretty little dears pout in girlish rebellion -- methinks these two trembling, timid and tearful young LADIES PROTEST TOO MUCH. Afraid they will be 'PUSHED' by big strong WOMEN do they -- well they may work out their resentment as they PUSH their vacuum cleaners daintily attired in lovely frilled and lace blouse, skirt and heels like good little male wives as they carry out their domestic duties before their Female Husbands get home from the office. And then there had better be NO BACKTALK !

OmphaleMar 08 2011 9:34am
Omphale swetiepie thou thinkest & thou thinkest too muche ----My Big Macho Female Slave shall take thee aross her knees & proffer thy bare buttocks for a bare-assed whipping from her heavy-handed Master that's Yours Truly followed by enema cleansing , tunnel greasing & ginger figging richt up thy butthole Sweet Omphale ---whilst thou comest & comest & comest in a never ending orgasmic Plateau -----Sweetly Submisssive Surrender !!!

Ashesh GhoseApr 04 2011 4:03am
If we can go from Hindi to Greek myth, remember Omphale kept Hercules as a slave.

obedient husbandApr 12 2011 6:00pm
I think men are gradually becoming more used to, if not entirely comfortable with, the concept of female authority. Of course, it's still humiliating for us to know that not so long ago we ruled the world and now we're on the verge of becoming the second sex. And women, of course, remember too and seem to enjoy rubbing it in. But if you look back over the past 30 years or so, there's no doubt men have already adjusted a great deal. It's now almost the norm for us to have female bosses, to see women leaders on TV and see our wives off to work as we get busy changing diapers and keeping house. Who knows, 30 years from now things like taking our wives' surnames or voting for all-female presidential tickets (if we're still allowed to vote, that is) might seem totally normal. And seeing the way the new matriarchy deals with males who don't follow the rules will give us all the more incentive to fall in line.

RealistMay 12 2011 3:09pm
How will males react to the inevitable Female dominated society. Exactly as they properly should - holding the hem of their skirts as they daintily curtsey to their Female Masters' commands.

ASCENDANT FEMALEMay 14 2011 8:16pm
maybe so, but neither in your lifetime nor mine.

an intelligent life formMay 21 2011 5:25pm
If a real matriarchy emerges from the growing dominance of women in all aspects of our society, it will be gradual, although by all accounts it is gaining momentum. Because the declining achievement of the average male and his concomittant loss of power has been occuring at the same time that women have been siezing this power from us, and this has been occuring for several years now, I think most males are already realizing that a new day is dawning and there is no turning back. Whether this leads to a true matriarchy or just a rebalancing of power, with more power in the hands of women remains to be seen, but that a change is inevitable cannot be denied. If a true matriarchy thus arises, we men will have had ample time to get used to the idea that women are now more powerful and rule the areas of our lives that we used to rule, and will either adjust accordingly or sink farther down the slope into oblivion. Our psyches will have adjusted long before the ascendency is complete.

David2Jun 02 2011 4:01pm
Men may have given women the vote but 'Reason' is quite right above any real kind of threat to the male authority power and women would be ruthlessly surpressed. In reality even these 180 to 200 pound plus females are only a small minority. In western societies at least 50% of the male population weigh 180 to 260 pounds with 25% being above 210 pounds. Even these massive women could only cope with the lowerest 25% of the males and these women only account for a small fraction of the female population. Only 5% of males could easily be dealt with by the majority of women. Women are never going to be more muscular or bigger than they are are now. So the only real chance they have is to reduce the men down to the same weight as they are. Of course that would not give them power but then they would have a good equal chance of fighting for it and maybe winning, and it would be a fight indeed the greatest conflict this world has ever seen. For once men realise that women are attempting to take and usurp their position of dominance on this planet then they will react and enact the most dire the most oppressive state ever. If men retain their muscular superiority then that oppression may not be so harsh but if men are reduced to the strength and size of the average woman or even below them then the more ferocious that suppression of women will become. Of course this would inevitably lead to an equally ferious unground resistance war by the women.

hymatJun 14 2011 1:00pm
David2, I am not sure what you mean by a *true matriarchy.* A matriarchy is by definition a society where women collectively have more power than men collectively. In a matriarchy, men may have equal rights and opportunities with women. The matriarchy comes into being because women prove superior to men in achievements given equal rights opportunities. We see this happening now in education, where given equal opportunity the females are leaving the males in their dust. Education = Better jobs, higher earnings, and more power. Thus, we will have a matriarchy. Maybe you mean by *true matriarchy* a female supremacist society? This would be a society where women not only ruled (a matriarchy) but women oppressed men and denied them equal rights and opportunities.

Believer in the Coming MatriarchyJul 23 2011 8:58am
David 2 The change to matriarchy would not nessesarilly be violent. Remember they are the gentle sex. I can easilly believe that women may ggain positions of an average higher status than men just through continuing trends. The brute force advantage men have over women is irrrelevant in the face of modern technolgy. Whoever has the better gun wins not the bigger fist. the gun made everyone equal. However there is no chance of our society becoming completely female dominated because while I am willing to admit they are more level headed women are not smarter and because equal rights are too strongly rooted in modern society.

the voice of reasonAug 17 2011 6:05pm
BITCM, females only began to catch up when the teaching methods were changed years ago. Many generations of strictly enforced gender roles forced physiological changes in different areas of the brains of the sexes. because of this, some opportunities, and indeed playing feilds, have become more equal than others. TVOR, you obviously posess scant knowledge of Human nature if you still cling to the outmoded notion that women are gentle. Believe me, they can be anything but!

an intelligent life formSep 12 2011 3:47pm
Men should be forced to take manual labor jobs, while women take all the high paying jobs. Men would be given less leisure time, and be commanded by their wives to ensure they do not become fat and lazy. Men should also have to take the women's name in marriage, and will no longer be allowed to hold positions of power in politics

Inferior ManJan 05 2012 9:54pm
Women who are wired to have humiliatory orgasms will still bow down to strong male boyfriends/doms/ Madters &accept blistering spankings &hidings across their feminine buttocks !!

Ashesh GhoseMar 21 2012 11:43am
Women will not be able to set up a matriarchal society. Men will rebel and put women in their place. Men will re-establish patriarchy.

No matriarchMay 25 2012 10:09am
Young women in New York tend to make more money than guys the same age in the same industry. Women tend to excel in managerial based studies and have taken more than half of managerial positions today. The pay gap between the genders is roughly 70 cents to women for every dollar to man. But if you consider the career choices women make relative to men it's about 95. Meaning the only reason women make less on average is that they choose not to enter high paying careers. Young women however, are showing more ambition than young men and stay-at-home dads are on the rise. All these trends point toward this: A future where women make more money than young women have already closed and taken over the gender pay gap. In general women will have more authority than men in society as managerial and other positions of power seem to be areas females are highly successful in. There are more likely to be breadwinners with supportive stay-at-home husbands given women are more likely to be financially stronger than men and men are opening to the idea of taking care of the house and children. Meaning women will have the majority of power, money and assets in both households and society in general. Nothing concludes men will like this. Nothing concludes women will like this. Though the trends all show a future where women will control society and it's resources.

Facts and trendsMay 29 2012 4:44am
Sorry about the last one... Young women in New York tend to make more money than guys the same age in the same industry. Women tend to excel in managerial based studies and have taken more than half of managerial positions today. The pay gap between the genders is roughly 70 cents to women for every dollar to man. But if you consider the career choices women make relative to men it's about 95. Meaning the only reason women make less on average is that they choose not to enter high paying careers. Young women however, are showing more ambition than young men and stay-at-home dads are on the rise. All these trends point toward this: A future where women make more money than men as young women have already closed and taken over the gender pay gap. In general women will have more authority than men in society as managerial and other positions of power seem to be areas females are highly successful in. There are more likely to be female breadwinners with supportive stay-at-home husbands given women are more likely to be financially stronger than men and men are opening to the idea of taking care of the house and children. Meaning women will have the majority of power, money and assets in both households and society in general. Nothing concludes men will like this. Nothing concludes women will like this. Though the trends all show a future where women will control society and it's resources.

Facts and trendsMay 29 2012 4:49am
Facts and Trends, your facts are selective. Men control the political positions--state legislatures, governors, and both houses of Congress. Yes, there probably will be woman president someday, but that's only one position, however powerful (and that power is much over-estimated.) The total political power that men have is much greater than what women have. Yes, women are doing well in the lower and middle management positions, but the men dominate the top positions, where the big decisions are made. Men control the armed forces. That is very important. I don't see an army of young males going out to fight because a government of old women order them to, and then returning to be second class citizens. As for trends, they have a habit of leveling out. Also they can reverse or be overtaken by other trends. Re house-husbands: the highest figure I've seen on the percentage of families with house-husbands is 14%. It's got to get to over 50% before women can be said to be typically the head of the house. I don't see it getting anywhere near that. Men hold the reins of power in politics, business, the armed forces, and the family. That is not going to change substantially.

No matriarchyMay 29 2012 8:36am
Men hold the highest positions today as a result of traditional ways of thinking. People are accustomed to having men in those higher positions. But why? Is it because they're better educated? Is it because they're better skilled at managing/directing people? Are they better at understanding what society wants? These are fields that, when given the opportunity, women have immediately shown they excel in. Furthermore the trends discussed suggest an approaching time where women will overtake men. You say men hold the stronger positions but of course this is necessary for an overtake otherwise women would be in the top positions already and would have nothing to overtake. As for stay-at-home dads it is a rising trend. Just as female breadwinners are a rising trend. 9 percent of families have a woman providing sole income as opposed to 20 percent with sole male income. This gap is shrinking. You say trends and facts are selective. But I just keep selecting and they all point in the same direction. Also the military thing you said holds no bases. Australia is headed by a female prime minister. If the government gives the military orders the troops follow those orders. It doesn't matter if the orders come from a man or woman. That's the point of top-down leadership. Top gives the orders and the troops do their job. The rest of the ordering around is done by middle management. Point is women aren't taking over the military. But if what you're saying is that if the government is a female then she has no say in ordering troops thats far-fetched. Women haven't been given the opportunities that men have had for very long in comparison. 100 or so years is barely anything in comparison to the dawn of time until now. It shows that in a very small period of time women have grown in countless areas of society at a fast rate. The reason people are suggesting matriarchy is that the growth is continuing at a fast rate. You can choose to be 'selective' with your research and ignore this but many factors point to the same conclusion. Women are gaining the majority of power and resource in society.

Facts and trendsMay 29 2012 7:54pm
And I'm not saying that women are aware of this or that it is their life's mission to take over. They just are. Education is held more strongly to women than men as men tend to rush into blue collar jobs directly after high school. This is not a case of women trying to best men. Women just choose to go into Uni more often because that's one of the differences between the two genders. I'm not suggesting an era of tyrant power crazy women. I'm suggesting an era where women have more authority. Exercising that authority is going to be an individual choice.

Facts and trendsMay 29 2012 8:02pm
(1)We can agree on one thing at least. It is that the advances in employment and elsewhere that women have made are not the result of some kind of conspiracy of women who have banded together to surpass men in power. Whatever changes have been and are taking place are the result of decisions by millions of individual men and women. Similarly, I also would like to point out that patriarchy all over the world through millennia was not established through a conspiracy of men to suppress women, as some radical feminist would have it. Rather patriarchy in its many forms was established through the decisions of millions of individual men AND WOMEN to meet the conditions of their age and place. (2) Re the military thing: the context was that of a government of women (I put the "old" in because of the well known observation that wars are made by old men and fought by young men). In such a context men would be "the second sex." My point is simply that I do not see the sex that sees itself as the "second sex" risking their lives to preserve the advantages enjoyed by the "first sex." First, I do not think you appreciate the relationship between men having power on the one hand and their willingness to go to war on the other. Second, I think you have an idealistic view of top to bottom authority. It works reasonably well if all the "stake holders" see themselves as benefiting. But look at history and see all the rebellions against authority. In a particular, the authority in a democracy rests on the consent of the governed -- especially the men because they are naturally the more assertive and physically the more powerful of the sexes. (3) Re house-husbands: another trend is the increasing failure of marriage. Project that out and there won?t be any marriages at all, which means no house-husbands, or housewives either. I say again, be careful of projecting out trends. Millions lost billions of dollars in the late 1990s because they projected out the computer revolution and the same happened in 2008 because they projected out home construction and sales without end. (4) Re education: I believe strongly in education, but one must recognize that premier companies like Microsoft, Apple and Facebook were started by men without a college degree.(Gates, Jobs, Wozniak, Zukerberg). Ask yourself: how many CEOs of major corporations have Ph.D.s and how many new Ph.D.s in a management field will ever be a CEO or top executive in a major corporation. (5) You say or imply that women are better skilled at managing people and understanding what society wants. If such a remark were made in favor of men, it would be called sexist. We have a double standard here. I myself do not believe in making charges of sexism concerning legitimate differences in ability differences between the sexes. The truth is what it is. However, we live in a world in which any finding that favors men is suppressed and any finding that favors women is published. Example. If boys do better in math than girls, that is a problem to be corrected, because the sexes are really equal in math ability and any testing difference is due to some kind of discriminatory treatment of girls. All major newspapers and TV networks -- please copy. However, if girls do better in English than boys, who cares? It only shows girls are naturally smarter than boys. (6) Which brings me to this: the basic reason for projecting a future matriarchy (simply defined as a society where women hold more power than men; not the same as a female supremacy) is that girls are outperforming boys in K-12 school, which leads to women getting more college education than men. However, IQ tests show that boys are girls are equally intelligent overall. If boys and girls are equally intelligent, why are girls doing better in school than boys. One of the tenets of feminism regarding gender discrimination, accepted and enforced by the courts, is that if outcomes are not equal between the sexes then there must be a presumption of discrimination in the process, which in this case would be the K-12 educational system. I suggest that we have here a failure of the K-12 educational system that needs to be corrected. (7) Once upon a time schools saw their future primarily as wives and mothers and so few sought higher education. I agree that too many young men are rushing from high school to blue collar jobs, but I suggest that just as society corrected the situation of too few girls going on to higher education, it can correct the situation of too few boys going on to higher education. As I said before, trends can be reversed.

No matriarchyMay 30 2012 12:20pm
I don't doubt trends can be reversed. But at this point to ignore it would be to ignore overwhelming evidence. To form an argument without considering these facts would be similar to sentencing a person to prison for a murder even though much of the evidence tells us another person commit the crime. People have a hard time believing women will be able to lead a society without an uproar. Though if we look at female tribes in Rwanda, which is a place of savage violence, women form women only communities and hire men for temporary entry into their community to work as labourers. Do these men say 'stuff that I got my pride to worry about'? Of course not. So to assume that a female government can't get along with a male military is far-fetched. All they need to do is form some alliances with top management in the military and send appropriate messages to invoke sensible response from the troops. The situation can be handled and men won't suddenly feel like they are no longer serving their country. That's the realistic point of view. And I never said all female government. That is impossible as women need to show men they consider their point of view if they wish for them to be sensible and co-operate. Even the government has its responsibilities. But does that mean women can't be the majority in government? No it does not. I think you jump far too quick to the conclusion that these facts and trends are irrelevant. They are screaming to you that a matriarchy is headed our way and you're talking about how men won't like women telling them what to do so it'll never happen. Is it just me or is that sexist? I mean, 'I don't like doing what women tell me to do so let's fire half the females in management because that would make me feel better'. women leading men is not far-fetched and is as feasible as a mother leading a son. I know full grown men who still listen to their mothers. Is that supposed to be considered unmanly? And is that why women can't lead? Because it would make men look less manly?

Facts and trendsMay 30 2012 6:43pm
Also you say men don't need education to make something of themselves but what about women? Did you not say yourself that women are as intelligent as men? What's to suppose women are not going to be as likely as men to make something of themselves without education. They are after all the sex that is known to read more. That's a trait that would suggest they are more likely to make it on their own as they tend to educate themselves more freely. And again I come back to the traditional way of thinking. Many of these men you describe did what they did when women were being discriminated against in the workplace. When the glass ceiling was a lot closer to their heads. So you cannot use this to compare men to women. And seeing as education has become more and more important these days it is questionable as to whether you can use it to claim that education will not be an outstanding force deciding whether a person can become CEO of a successful organisation or not. Knowledge is growing in all aspects of modern society, even business. And it is going to become less and less feasible to say a person can lead in business without an education hence, public or self education will become more and more important. Trends say women are winning at that. And also the thing you said about women not being suppressed in the past, yes I agree. Women and men agreed to a society that they thought would work, but women only agreed because they saw their place as a given rather than a choice. As soon as choice came in things changed. But I don't think women believe men to be tyrants. Leave that thinking to the radical feminists. Feminism is a whole other issue if you ask me. I reckon it should be abandoned. It's done it's job, holding onto it at this point is only hurting women if you ask me. It's giving them false perceptions about society today by using the past as support for their claims, the past is the past and so should too be feminism. Women feel they need to be empowered. I say that's the wrong way to think about things these days. These days women just need to do what they do and start worrying about Thongs other than empowerment. For example, I'd a man gets a promotion he feels he is doing a good job and has shown himself that he is fulfilling his purpose to society at a high level. A woman gets a promotion and she feels empowered and ready to take on the world. Women see the world that way right now because feminism supports that perception. Though I reckon such a perception only worsens a woman's opportunity as it makes their new sub-ordinates feel less important. That feeling can be enough to slow the woman's career down from thence forth.

Facts and trendsMay 30 2012 7:21pm
(1) I do not think the analogy with a murder trial is a good one. A murder trial is about what actually happened. The relevant facts are what they are and cannot be changed. Projection of trends is about what might happen. Trends can change. I agree that some trends point to a matriarchy but that one should not conclude that there WILL be a matriarch. To do that you have to present evidence that the trends will not level out or be overtaken by other trends. (2) Re the Rwanda example: I think the question to ask here is, "If the society in question were attacked, how willing would the men be to defend it? (3) I do not assume that a female government can't get along with a male military and I don't think that I said or implied that. There are three kinds of men that make up a military. There are the mercenaries, or if you prefer, the professionals. They are subordinate to and will obey those in the chain of command above them. In the United States (which is my country), the President by the Constitution is the Commander-in-Chief and the top military and naval brass will obey him or her. A second type is the volunteer. He will join up to defend his country IF he believes in fighting for his country up to and including possible death. I suggest that the would-be volunteer will not do so if he sees himself as a second class citizen in a country in which the women are the first class citizens. I think he would see himself as being treated unfairly. The unwillingness to volunteer would be more of a fairness issue than a male ego issue. The third type is the conscript. The conscript is a man who has chosen not to be a mercenary or volunteer, so he is reluctant to begin with. Conscripts generally do not make the best soldiers. If they are reluctant, believe they are being treated unfairly, and bear a grudge about being conscripted, they can be dangerous to the society that conscripts them. Now, the mercenaries are not enough to fight a major war, such as WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. Even if you can get volunteers, they will not be enough. As in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, you would have to draft men. Let us hypothesize an army of men who see themselves as second class citizens being made to risk their lives for a society whose first class citizens are women who are not equally required to risk their lives for their greater privileges. I suggest that such an army of men would rebel. Actually, I would suggest the men would rebel at any attempt to conscript them. What is the ultimate import of what I'm saying? It is that any future society must ensure that men do not become second class citizens, which seems to me to be a necessary consequence of matriarchy. (4) I know you never said "all female government." Nor did I. I said "a government of women," by which I mean a matriarchy, a government in which women significantly hold more, not necessarily all, power. (5) I hope in point (3) above I cleared up that I'm not saying individual men will not accept having an individual woman boss. If a man's ego will not let him accept a woman boss, too bad for him. He'll just have to suffer. When it comes to someone in authority over you, their sex is irrelevant. You take them as individuals. I've had mostly men bosses. A few have been good, some OK, and some terrible. I've only had one woman boss. I fully accepted her authority, did my best to do what she told me, and would rate her among my best bosses. There are still men who cannot accept being subordinate to a woman but I think their numbers have been steadily decreasing and eventually men will think nothing of having a woman as his superior. (6) I did not say that "men don't need education to make something of them." My examples were four men who made truly significant contributions to the world and who achieved enormous financial success. I picked these examples because they were the ones that first came to mind. There is no reason why women cannot succeed without a college education. I was NOT comparing men to women but pointing out that people do not need a college education to make unusually important contributions and achieve great financial success. I make that point because I believe it is a truth that is in danger of not being recognized, especially in the field of management. (7) Re feminism: I looked up the term and the web and found one site that listed 28 types! Many other sites described multiple sites. So, I generally avoid discussing "feminism" unless the person with whom I am having a dialogue with defines what he or she means by the term. I do use the term "radical feminist" because I believe most people know what type I mean. Basically, I mean the anti-male type that says things like "All men are rapists."

No matriarchyMay 31 2012 2:57pm
Someday some psychologist will explain why it is so easy to spot typos AFTER you press the enter key. I have spotted two or three, but the one I want to correct is in item (7). Change "Many other sites described multiple SITES" to "Many other sites described multiple TYPES."

No matriarchyMay 31 2012 3:11pm
I feel like we need to get this military thing out of the way. What you're saying is military will no longer feel like they're fighting for their country, for their people, for a good cause if women hold the majority of resource and power in society. How is 'women leading society' and 'no purpose for the military' of any correlation to each other? I'm saying so what if women are giving the orders? They're still human just like men are. If a woman boss tells you to arrest a serial killer are you going to turn around and say 'I got my rights lady I'll arrest criminals guilty of crimes when I want to'. Yes the orders are coming from the opposite sex but what difference does that make if both sexes are equally intelligent, are fighting for the same cause and hence, share common long-term goals? You assume men will not like women telling them what to do. I say that's not correct. Men will fight with male bosses and men will fight with female bosses. Why? Because the gender of you're superior has 0 or close to 0 impact on your purpose to join and serve the army... The other assumption is that women will have a different purpose for the military. But what possible purpose other than defending the country will women decide to use the military?

Facts and trendsJun 01 2012 4:59am
(1) You said: "You assume men will not like women telling them what to do. I say that's not correct." I made no such assumption. Please read again my point (5). I agree with you that too much time is being spent on this military thing. However, I will try to make my point one last time. Let us suppose there is a society S whose people are divided into two subgroups -- G1 and G2. The basis of the division may be sex, race, religion, language, etc. Group G1accounts for 60% of the educated people in society S, holds a majority of the managerial and professional positions, makes on average more money than G2 people, and holds significantly more political power. In fact, members of G1 have enough legislative power to over-ride the votes of the representatives of G2. In effect, the collective will of G1 people always can prevail over the collective will of G2 people. Now, let us suppose (an essential supposition) that the G2 people are alienated by the society they live in. The G2 people feel they are not being treated fairly by the G1 people and that they are politically powerless to do anything about it. Now, let us further suppose the G1 people decide that its society is going to war with another society and that it needs conscription to supplement the professionals. The G1 majority of the legislature votes to draft members of the G2 people into the army as combatants while members of the G1 majority are not drafted as combatants but they may be drafted as managerial and professional types. Let us suppose the penalty for avoiding the draft is imprisonment and permanent loss of important government benefits. If you were one of the G2 people, how do you think you would react to being drafted to be a combatant? To rephrase my main point stated in item (3) of the immediate preceding post: If in time of war a society needs the combatant services of a group of people G2, then that society must not allow the G2 people to become alienated second class citizens. (2) I do not see the professional armed forces being an obstacle to the U.S. becoming a society in which women hold significantly more power than men (I admit that I did not see this until I divided the members of the armed forces up into professions, volunteers, and conscripts). However, IF our society should become in effect a matriarchy, I do see a danger in men becoming second class citizens in such a society to the extent that they are alienated by it. That is likely to affect volunteers and conscripts. However, this development is avoidable. The important thing is seeing a danger to be avoided. I think this point is important but not the most important consideration in the broader issue of the possibility of our society becoming a matriarchy. As I said, I do not see the professional armed forces being an obstacle to the U.S. becoming a matriarchy. Also, the issue of conscription may not arise in the future. Hopefully, it will not. After all, in the U.S. we have gone almost 40 years without using it. We don't need it for relatively minor wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. It has been 67 years since WW2 and major war between superpowers is unlikely because of the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. I don't have any more to say about the "military thing" and hopefully we can move on. (3) Regarding the importance of education, I would like to clarify something. I agree with you that education is extremely important. I did not mean to say that it wasn't. Only a very few geniuses like Gates and Jobs can become heads of major corporations without a college education. 99% of us are not in their caliber and need all the educational help that we can get. I do believe that successful managers must have innate qualities that education can enhance but not give. I have met too many MBAs who were poor managers and too many persons with just bachelor's degrees who were great managers. I guess that was really the point I was trying to make. Outside of management per se, modern business and government requires educated people and as everything becomes more and more complicated we will need more and more educated people. I agree with you entirely on that point. Only a recluse who does not read, listen to, or watch any media could be ignorant of the fact that women have become the more educated sex in the U.S. I read somewhere that in the U.S. in 2006 the average woman for the first time had more education than the average man. In the five or six years since, the educational gap could only have increased, given that about three women earn college degrees for every two men. I am not unaware of these facts.

No matriarchyJun 01 2012 11:35am
I still think you assume women will take things too far as leaders. As though they will not consider men's interests. Because if you did make the assumption that women are looking out for the interest of both sexes then it would not be threatening to men to have female leaders. Because their interests are being considered. It's not like women are going to close education off to boys. It's still perfectly competitive. Women just do better or at least that will be the case if the trends continue. So it's not like men can hold grudges against women for doing better at equal opportunity especially if they feel their interests are being met at a sufficient level. Their is nothing unfair about a matriarchy. So why would men oppose women? For losing in fair competition and then being treated nicely?

Facts and trendsJun 02 2012 4:50am
(1) I don?t assume women will take things too far as leaders. If our society became a matriarchy, I don?t believe women would start making laws to oppress men; for example, deny them equal educational or occupational opportunity, take away their voting rights, or far-fetched things like that. I believe women are naturally more nurturing and empathic than men and will consider men?s interests. It is not in the best interest of women to have unhappy men (or vice-versa). So, I do agree with you that in a matriarchy, women would look out for the interests of both sexes and be fair. I don?t think men should feel threatened to have female leaders, and I think the majority of men would not feel threatened. I agree that a matriarchy arising out of equal opportunity competition would not be unfair. I agree that men should not oppose women as leaders. In a world becoming increasing more complex, we need the best leaders we can get. The average woman is more educated than the average man and there is ample evidence that she has better managerial and interpersonal skills.

No MatriarchyJun 02 2012 9:40am
(2) I do fear that there is a danger of men becoming second class citizens. Not because women would MAKE them second class citizens, but that things would develop that way. I fear the possibility of there developing a substantial number of irresponsible, low-esteem males who cannot find good paying jobs or any jobs at all and who turn to crime or burden the social welfare system. I think these men might bear grudges against women, who they see as enjoying the benefits of success. I am not saying that they would be justified in bearing grudges, only that they might. To be clear: they would NOT be justified. You are right, no man should hold a grudge against women for doing better at equal opportunity, but some men, without justification, might?the men at the bottom rungs of society. If they are few, no particular problem. If they are many, big problem?not just for men but all society. On a broader note, in the patriarchic society, men had identity as provider of the family. Men have largely lost that identity. For the good of both men and women, in a matriarchy they have to find a new identity, else matriarchy will breed a lot of irresponsible men.

No MatriarchyJun 02 2012 9:41am
(3) I have never disagreed with you about the ?facts and trends? that point to a matriarchy. There is no arguing about the facts and trends: women are better educated than men, they are increasing their numbers in graduate and professional schools, they seem to apply themselves better, there is ample evidence that they have superior managerial skills, they are beginning to earn more money, they are half the workforce in the U.S. and more than half the managers. And something I forgot?in the U.S. women constitute the majority of voters. Earlier in our debate, I said that in the U.S. Congress men dominate both houses, which is true. However, the other day I read an article which convinced me that no one can be elected to Congress unless the women voters approve of them. The male voters in Congress represent the values and interests of women more than those of men. There are many facts and trends that point to a matriarchy. Perhaps just as important, I cannot think of a single fact or trend that points to a re-establishment of a patriarchy. Although I have agreed with you that the facts and trends point to a matriarchy, I have said that trends can level out or be overtaken by other trends. Since saying that, I realized that even if trends started leveling off, it wouldn?t affect much. In the U.S. women earn about three-fifths of the bachelor?s degrees. Even if that leveled off, women would still comprise the majority pool for graduate school, professional school, and management positions and would start out earning more money.

No MatriarchyJun 02 2012 9:42am
(4) I would like to return to something I said earlier in our debate. I said that ?the basic reason for projecting a future matriarchy . . . is that girls are outperforming boys in K-12 school, which leads to women getting more college education than men.? In a 2008 issue of Reason magazine Jonathan Rauch wrote an article entitled "The Coming American Matriarchy: The fairer sex gets ready to take over". This article has been quoted and referred to often in newspaper and magazine articles. Rauch based his predication on the fact that women today are outperforming men in education. Rauch wrote, "Suppose you could memorize only a single demographic number and you set about choosing the one with the most far-reaching implications for change in America. You could do worse than 1.5." The "1.5" that Rauch referred to is the ratio of women graduates to men college graduates. The "1.5" or 3-to-2 statistics refers to three women graduating from college for every two men who do so. Rauch argued that this statistic means that "you have the makings of a social inversion: a turning upside down of the male dominated order that Americans have taken for granted since--well, since forever." Rauch is right ?because of the 1.5 ratio, a historic social inversion is happening that points to a matriarchy

No MatriarchyJun 02 2012 9:43am
(5) The reason more women graduate from college than men is because girls outperform boys in K-12 school. This is fact. However, it is a fact that maybe could be changed. I don?t think boys could ever outperform girls, but I think we should strive to bring the performance of boys up to the level of that of the girls. If we succeed, we would have gender-equal society, which is what I think most of think we ought to have. Even if we didn?t fully succeed, we might be able to narrow the gap between the performance of the girls and boys. Even in a matriarchy, I believe women would want to have responsible, competent, educated men. So, why can?t boys be equally as good as girls scholastically? At first I thought it was because of what some call the ?feminization? of our public schools in the U.S., i.e., an excessive focus on the needs of special needs of girls. However, I have read reports from all over the world about girls outperforming boys scholastically. So, the difference cannot be because of teaching methods in the U.S. and it is far-fetched to believe that there has been so-called ?feminization? in schools all over the world. The only explanation I can think of is that girls are simply better students than boys. There is more to being a good student than IQ; there is the ability to sit still, listen, and pay attention. This is something that the average girl is naturally better at than the average boy. I say ?naturally? because I think the difference between girls and boys here derives from innate differences rather than from socialized difference. Another extremely important natural difference between girls and boys is that girls mature faster than boys?physically, emotionally, socially, mentally. After puberty, girls and boys are equally intelligent, but before puberty, girls are more intelligent because they mature faster. It is for these reasons that I think that boys could never outperform girls in school. Still, as I said, I believe we should try to bring boys up to or as close as possible to the level of girls.

No MatriarchyJun 02 2012 9:44am
What do you think Universities are trying to achieve? Are they trying to make girls smarter and more successful than boys? Or are they trying to get ahead of their competition by producing well-educated students by teaching more material in less time to both sexes I.e. the entire student population? Universities are geared for girls? I study in University and I can tell you that all the Universities care about is how much you can learn and how quick. At least that's how it is in my University. I can understand that early maturity would help girls do better than boys at a young age but most boys are mature by the time they get into Uni. And yet women perform better in Uni. I can assure you by experience and common sense that Uni's aren't intended to advance women theyre intended to advance themselves by providing more educated people which is achieved through educating everybody to the best of their ability. To assume otherwise would to neglect the idea that the University controls how it uses it's own resources and has societies support at doing so. This gives them the power to educate both sexes as much as possible despite feminist movement. I mean, yes feminists earn societies support for women but how much power is that going to have with the people in comparison if the Vice-Chancellor says to the people 'we intend to educate both sexes equally and to the best of our ability by providing resources in an efficient and equitable manner?' I agree feminism had much power in the past as its job was to evict biases and much of it existed in the past but that's not the case any longer. In a matriarchy men will be educated.

Facts and trendsJun 03 2012 9:03pm
In general women will be more highly educated. But if a lawyer (woman) gets married to an architect (man) that won't matter because in such a situation you can't say the woman is smarter. What I'm trying to say is at a micro level you can efficiently allocate society to form relationships that are deemed equal. If anything men will be considered second-class citizens at a macro level. Though if by saying second-class you mean the inferior sex I don't support this claim. Men in general, in an equal opportunity and fair society don't do as well as women lets say. They are equally intelligent. So why is this? Most likely it's caused by difference in choices. They choose not to spend as much effort in their studies as they may deem the cost outweighs the benefit, they choose not to enter tertiary education due to having more favourable options, they choose to go to military to protect the people of their country as they see this as fulfilling a purpose. Are they then going to blame women for their own choices? Of course not. They made choices that favoured their desires. They're living the life they wanted and women are helping them do that by considering their opinions and acting for the sake of both sexes in a fair and efficient way. You could expect a minority that will blame the system or society for their failures. Though this is a minority who obviously does not see things how they really are probably due to reasons other than being considered second-class. They may feel upset about missed opportunity or failure in something they held very important to themselves. More likely to help these people it would be more efficient to create support grouptoot provide therapy rather than allow them to yell at women who are trying to do the right thing by them.

Facts and trendsJun 03 2012 9:04pm
Few errors, I don't understand iPad's...

Facts and trendsJun 03 2012 9:09pm
(1)I agree with you that the Universities are not?trying to make girls smarter and more successful than boys.? I didn?t say that Universities are geared for girls. I said only that more girls enter University than do boys because they outperform boys in K-12 school. Based on some things you said, I would modify that statement. As you point out, choice is a factor. In the pool of high school schools qualified for University, perhaps more boys than girls choose something other than University. I don?t know the statistics on that. However, I think that the most important consideration is the composition of those graduating from high school with grades good enough to qualify them for University (or college as we in the U.S. are more likely to say.) In this pool of college-qualified graduates of high school, there are many more girls than boys. So, if every boy in the pool chose college, it would still be the case that more girls than boys would go to college and even if the young women did only as well as the young men in college, more young women than young men would graduate from college. You say that women perform better in college than men and I have heard that too. So, women would do even better. At the college level, I don?t think there are any differences between the sexes in qualification and intelligence, but there might be a difference in application. Why? Maybe the guys still haven?t caught up to the maturity level of the young women. That?s pure speculation, of course. I think that is a question for the social scientists to answer.

No MatriarchyJun 04 2012 1:01pm
(2) Sorry. I digressed. I would say that more girls enter college than do boys PRIMARILY because they outperform boys in K-12 school. I gather that you do not live in the U.S. but elsewhere (Australia?), so perhaps I should explain that by K-12 school I mean Kindergarten through the 12th and last grade. So there would be in order Kindergarten, elementary school (grades 1-5); middle school (grades 6-8), and high school (grades 9-12). More girls than boys graduate from high school and in that pool of graduates the average girl is better qualified for college than is the average boy. So in the pool of potential college applicants, there are many more girls than boys. At the end of the K-12 process, girls have an enormous educational advantage over the boys. Why? Because the girls start out as naturally better students.

No MatriarchyJun 04 2012 1:02pm
(3) The average girl in kindergarten is more mature and has a higher IQ than the average boy. Result: She learns more and develops better scholastic habits. She goes on to elementary school knowing more. She has the confidence of success. In elementary school, she still is more mature and still has a higher IQ AND she has a superior educational foundation. So, she continues to do better than the average boy. I know from personal experience that more boys than girls become frustrated in elementary school and begin to hate it. This process continues into middle school, where the boys begin to catch up with the girls in IQ and maturity, but do not have as good an educational foundation or as good scholastic habits because of all that has gone on before. So, the boys still don?t do as well. In high school, the boys catch up with the girls in IQ and are almost as mature. However, the average boy enters high school not as well prepared and not having as good habits. Many boys drop out the first chance they get (which I think in most U.S. states is about 15). Yes, the boys have choices, but choices are limited by the knowledge, habits, skills, achievements, and confidence that you have. My suggestion is that beginning in kindergarten we should try to keep the average boy as close to the educational level of the average girl as possible. In short: OUR BOYS NEED SPECIAL HELP. It will benefit society to have boys ?be all that they can be.? I don?t know what kind of help. Some have suggested starting boys in school a year or two later than the girls or educating them in boys-only classes. I do not have the competence to even suggest what should be done. That is a matter for the educational specialists. Of course, our giving boys special help should not adversely affect the education we are giving the girls. We should continue to educate girls to ?be all they can be.?

No MatriachyJun 04 2012 1:03pm
(4)At this point, I would like to evaluate where we are in this debate about matriarchy. First, I agree that numerous facts and trends point to a future matriarch. I never denied that. Second, I suggested that a matriarchy might be prevented by some kind of rebellion by the men ? in or out of the military. You convinced me that was a stupid idea. Third, I suggested that the trends might level out before a matriarchy was achieved. Then I realized even if the driving trend (three women graduating from college for every two men) leveled out, it wouldn?t affect anything. Fourth, I suggested that some other trend might happen to prevent a matriarchy. But I couldn?t think of any. At this point I can think of no obstacle to a matriarchy. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the future is a function of the choices of a multitude of individual women. If women choose, they can be 60% of every occupation or profession: professors, doctors, lawyers, dentists, judges, mayors, governors, legislators, the civil service, and on and on. The only fields that women are now significantly in the minority are mathematics, computer science, physics, and engineering. However, there is no reason why women could not comprise 60% of these professions IF enough individual women chose those fields. I?ve run out of arguments. I can see no obstacles to a future matriarchy. In short, you?ve won the debate. Given that concession, it seems silly to continue to call myself ?No Matriarchy.?

He who used to call himself "No Matriarchy"Jun 04 2012 1:05pm
I believe we are approaching the end of our dialogue. I'll be standing by though to see if you want to comment more.

He who used to call himself "No Matriarchy"Jun 04 2012 5:30pm
I noticed that I went from paragraph 4 to 6, leaving out 5. Here is the missing paragraph 5: (5) Although I have come to accept that the future will be some kind of matriarchy, there is still the issue of how much more power women would have compared to men if enough individual women choose to have it. Based on the ratio of women college graduates to men college graduates, the ratio could be 3 to 2; women could have 60% of the social, economic, and political power. It all depends on what women want. However, I am not sure that this ratio in power would be the best for society. Why? Because it is based on society not enabling boys to ?be all they can be? in school, which means that a significant part of our population would ultimately not ?be all they can be,? and that cannot be good for society. From now on, women will always be the better educated sex and that is why there will be a continuing matriarchy. But I do not think that the power gap between women and men need be as large as 3 to 2. I think that with improved educational methods boys can do better than they are doing ? not quite as good as the girls are doing for reasons I?ve stated, but better than the boys are doing now. One of the problems as I see it is that we are hung up on the idea that girls and boys should be treated equally. That would make sense IF young girls and young boys were equal in what is required to be good students. But they are not equal. Young girls start out with an natural advantage that the boys never overcome, even though later they become equally intelligent and mature (more or less). I say again, boys need special help.

He who used to call himself "No Matriarchy"Jun 05 2012 11:57am
(7)I wrote above, ?The only fields that women are now significantly in the minority are mathematics, computer science, physics, and engineering. However, there is no reason why women could not comprise 60% of these professions IF enough individual women chose those fields.? I got carried away. Yes, it is technically true that IF enough individual women chose those fields, but the pool of qualified women is so small that it is not going to happen. Scientists have found that there are differences in female and male brains. I love it when a study is reported that women have better verbal skills than men and everyone jumps for joy, saying that is more evidence of the superiority of women. However, when study after study shows that men have better mathematical brains than women, everyone shakes their heads and says that something is wrong with the ways schools teach math to girls. Yet, these same people see no problem with the methods used in schools when boys don?t do as well as girls in elementary schools.

He who used to call himself "No Matriarchy"Jun 07 2012 9:31pm
(8) It is imperative to civilization that schools strive to enable every boy to be ?all that he can be.? Male genius built civilization, especially since the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century in Europe. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Euler, Brahe, Kepler, Leibniz, Pascal, Descartes, Adam Smith, Boyle, Dalton, Mendeleev, Lister, Pasteur, Darwin, Mendel, and other MEN created the sciences that made possible the technology, the industrial revolution, the modern medicine, that has formed our modern civilization. Men enable the transition from a world based on physical labor to one based on knowledge. What is true of science and technology is true of art and music. The geniuses were MEN. Women?s apologizers say that this is only because until recently women did not have the opportunities that men had. No doubt there is some truth in this. However, this explanation of women is *theory*, whereas men constituting the overwhelming majority of geniuses is *fact*. We do not have to go far to find the real reason why most of the geniuses have been, are, and will always be men. For about a century now, we have known that the average IQ of the average woman and man are equal. However, the curves that describe the IQs among women and among men are different. Men are more numerous at the tails of the curves; that is, more very low IQ men are born than low IQ women while more very high IQ men are born than high IQ women. The ratio of male geniuses to female geniuses is about 5 to 1. In an increasingly complex world, we will need all the geniuses we can get. A majority of the will be men. Schools must make sure all boys are enabled to be ?all they can be.?

He who used to call himself "No Matriarchy"Jun 07 2012 9:35pm
(9)(a) It appears that ?Facts and Trends? has quit the debate?prematurely, I think, because there are still issues to consider. My deliberately provocative predictions that started our debate were ?(a) Women will not be able to set up a matriarchal society. (b) Men will rebel and put women in their place. (c) Men will re-establish patriarchy.? My thinking was consistent with most takers of this poll about how men will react to a future matriarchy. As June 7, 2012, 855 votes have been cast on this poll and 53.68% voted that men would resist, not being capable of accepting female authority. Only 23.04% voted that men would adjust easily

He who used to call himself "No Matriarchy"Jun 07 2012 9:37pm
(11) At some point in the debate, it dawned on me that the question about how men would react should be: Why would there be any change in the coming matriarchy from what there has been so far? After all, the trends that make up the coming matriarchy have been coming for some time now. For example, in the U.S. women have earned more associate degrees than men for the past 35 years (since 1977) and they have earned more bachelor's degrees for the past 31 years (since 1981). During all this time, men have been oblivious, unconcerned, or accepting. The individual man is concerned only about what affects him directly. Unless something happens to cause men in general to feel oppressed, things will go on as they have been while women have gradually but steadily been gaining ascendancy. That is, they will continue to be oblivious, unconcerned, or accepting. So now the question would be: Will something happen to cause men generally to feel oppressed? ?Facts and Trends? convinced me that no such thing will happen. As she put it, in a matriarchy women would treat men ?nicely.? They would do this because on the one hand they are naturally nurturing and caring. On the other hand, women do not like conflict and want harmony and will try to keep everybody happy?including the men, their sons, fathers, and husbands. *IF* our society becomes a matriarchy, matriarchy would usher in without fanfare and no one will be able to pick an exact date when it began.

He who used to call himself "No Matriarchy"Jun 07 2012 9:39pm
(12) Note that I said *IF* our society becomes a matriarchy. I did not and do not concede that our society will definitely become a matriarchy. I said that ?the more I think about it, the more I realize that the future is a function of the choices of a multitude of individual women.? That is, given no known obstacles to the facts and trends pointing to a matriarchy, our society will become a matriarchy *IF* enough women make the choices that will make that happen. As I said, if enough women choose to, women could occupy 60% of all of society?s social, political, and economic power positions. In an equal-opportunity, competitive, and democratic society they have to power to do so. But will they exercise that power?

He who used to call himself "No Matriarchy"Jun 07 2012 9:41pm
(13) I think it depends on how strong the maternal instinct is in women and I think it is very strong. Feminists bewail the fact that many women choose to focus more or entirely on having children and caring for them rather than on careers. They see women valuing motherhood over career as a major obstacle to women as a whole even gaining the same high position of men, much less women?s gaining more of these positions than men. I think it is better for society if women do value motherhood more than having a career, whether in business, government, politics, or the professions. I am not saying that women should not have career aspirations, only that push comes to shove, motherhood should take precedence. If career were to take precedence for most women, it seems obvious to me that society would collapse. However, I am sure that women would not let that happen.

He who used to call himself "No Matriarchy"Jun 07 2012 9:44pm
(14) So I think that there is good reason believe that individual women making their own choices for their own individual good will make choices that do not establish a matriarchy. This doesn?t mean that we would return to patriarchy but would have a more egalitarian system in which men hold slightly more power than men (for me, for there to be a matriarchy or a patriarchy, one sex must have conspicuously and significantly more power than the other sex.)

He who used to call himself "No Matriarchy"Jun 07 2012 9:46pm
(15)Now let me entertain a hypothetical. Let us hypothesize that women do make the choices that establishes a matriarchy. I do not believe such a society is sustainable. Women in a matriarchy have fewer children those in a patriarchy because more of their time is spent on educational preparation, then starting a career. They marry later and have fewer children. Result: the birth rate falls below that of replacement. The society collapses and is taken over by some more virile society or the society calls in immigrants to make up for the loss of its own people. Either way, the society disappears. Social policies (i.e., matriarchic policies) that lead to the destruction of the society are bad policies which must be rejected. I am sure that the citizens of the society will recognize this and changes policies that are more patriarchic. I doubt the society would go all the way to re-establishing patriarchy as in the old days, but would establish something that would be have more equal power between women and men, which was the original goal of feminism

He who used to call himself "No Matriarchy"Jun 07 2012 9:57pm
(16)Conclusions. (1) There might be a matriarchy IF enough women made certain choices. (2) I think a matriarchy is unlikely because I don't women will make those choices. (3) Even if they did establish a matriarchy, it would collapse. Matriarchy is not sustainable. Ultimately there will be "No matriarchy." I thank ?Facts and Trends? for participating in the debate as far as she did. When I made my deliberately provocative predications I hoped for a good serious debate. I thought there was a 1 in 10,000 chance of that given most comments on this site. I was pleasantly surprised. In view of my final conclusions, I will return to the pseudonym ?No Matriarchy.?

No MatriarchyJun 07 2012 9:58pm
If young boys grow up without fathers and see women in charge they will see this as the natural order. So they will seek the same in their relationships and support strong women.

bystanderJun 09 2012 3:55am
Sorry about the double posting of my comments. I must of have done something wrong.

No matriarchJun 09 2012 3:42pm
I have been doing some research on the education of boys K-12 in the U.S. The education of boys seems to be the crucial issue. The evidence seems to show that girls and boys start out in Kindergarten about evenly. However, as the kids advance through the grades, the girls outperform the boys more and more. I think this supports (but does not necessarily prove my thesis in Para 3 above which begins, ?The average girl in kindergarten is more mature and has a higher IQ than the average boy.?) However, the beginning difference is not as great as I thought. Still, the performance gap widens through the grades. An explanation for this that makes the most sense to me is that schools began to emphasize literacy skills (reading) at an earlier age and were more intense about it. It seems that boys in general are not as ready as girls in general for reading. They don?t learn as well and become frustrated. This situation seems to be amplified by schools valuing quite and attentive behavior the girls in general are better at. Result: the naturally more active boys (in general) are regarded as ?defective girls.? (Not my original expression). What to do about this? The gap in readiness to start learning reading seems to be only about a year and there is considerable overlap of the curve describing the performance of girls and that describing the performance of boys. Also, the differences within the sexes from worst student to best student are greater than the average difference between the sexes. So, I don?t like the idea either of starting boys a year or two later than girls, and the beginning difference does not seem to justify separate schools or entire classes. Some have suggested that separate education for boys could even worsen the situation. Girls might consider boys even more inferior than themselves because the boys can?t compete equally with the girls in the same class. Also, the standards for the girls might be increased because the boys wouldn?t be around to pull the average down. Then the girls might outperform the boys even more. I am not sure about all this, but it is something to consider and maybe test out on a small, experimental scale. Again, what is to be done about this? I think that more focus should be put on the methods of instruction. There seems to be growing concern about the education gap between girls and boys, but it has yet to reach the ?push? that the feminist movement gave to improving the performance of girls when it was the girls that were viewed as not reaching their potential. I think in time the ?push? will come. Right now, the very powerful women?s advocacy organizations are still only concerned about the girls and the men?s advocacy organizations have little voice (Para 10 above). Ironically, it will be the women who will help the boys do better, beginning I think with the mothers who want more for their sons. Women overwhelmingly outnumber men as teachers in kindergarten, in elementary school, in middle school, and in high school. I read recently that the percentage of male teachers in high school is actually decreasing. Regarding administration, women now make up the majority of elementary school principals and are project to soon make up the majority of middle school and high school principals. I don?t know what the composition of university schools of education is nationally, but I know that at the university I graduated from, most of the faculty in the School of Education are women. The psychologists will surely play the biggest role in finding better methods to teach the boys reading. In the U.S. about 70% of all school psychologists and educational psychologists are women. With power comes responsibility. I look to the mothers of boys and the women in education to do something to help our boys.

No matriarcyJun 12 2012 1:49pm
(A) At some point, the perhaps obvious dawned on me that the future is a function of the choices of a multitude of individual women. If women choose it, they can be 60% of every occupation or profession: professors, doctors, lawyers, dentists, judges, managers, members of boards of directors, mayors, governors, legislators, prime ministers or presidents, the civil service, and on and on. That is they could occupy 60% of all the high status and power positions. However, I don?t think that enough individual women will make the choices to bring that about, because more women than men will choose to be the stay-at-home parent or will sacrifice career for family. This means that women may continue to gain power for a while but not to the point that there would be a matriarchy. We certainly would not have a patriarchy though. The feminists successfully busted patriarchy. Today the word ?patriarchy? has negative connotations, whereas the word ?matriarchy? has positive connotations. It is not ?politically correct? to talk about going back to a patriarchy but it is ?politically correct? to talk about going forward to a matriarchy. If the future will be neither a matriarchy nor a patriarchy, what will it be? The ideal would be a very egalitarian society ? not just equal opportunity as we have achieved now (in the U.S. and other developed countries), but more or less equal result (not forced but achieved as an outcome of equal opportunity.) There are several reasons why it will not be an equal-result society. One is the fact that girls in general are naturally better students than boys in general, leading to there being more women college graduates then men college graduates, and that follows from that. Another is greater variability of the human male. In terms of intelligence, there are more boys than girls with very low intelligence, but there are also more male geniuses than female geniuses. Even in height, there is more difference between the tallest and shortest men than there is between the tallest and shortest women. Variance is important in the evolutionary process and apparently Mother Nature for chose the male to be the chief carrier of variability in our species. So, all though there will be more women who are better educated than men (and all that results from that), there will be more men than women of the highest intelligence. Thus, most of the great scientists will continue to be men, but also most of the CEOs, for studies show that top executives have high intelligence (think Gates and Jobs). Another factor is motivation. There will continue to be more intensely career-minded men than women, who are willing to put in longer hours on the job and scramble for promotion. This will be because (as already stated) more women than men will choose to be the stay-at-home parent or will sacrifice career for family. The future society then seems to be one that is not a matriarchy, not a patriarchy, and not an egalitarian one in result, but a new hybrid kind of society in which women will hold significantly more power in some power positions and men will hold significantly more power in other power positions. Most of the managers in business will be women, but men will hold most of the top positions. In other power positions, I think you might see the same kind of distribution of power between women and men. However, in the legislative area, I think most legislators will continue to be men because the demands of becoming, being, and staying a legislator seem to be more consistent with men?s interests. However, as noted earlier, any man elected to be a legislator will have to cater to the special interests of women, else they will not elect him. In the hybrid kind of society, there would be more women than in power positions (which has all kinds of repercussions at the micro level), but there would be more men than men at the top power positions. I think then that it would be difficult to measure the overall power difference between women and men.

No matriarchyJun 13 2012 1:25pm
(B)At first, the feminists saw that men everywhere had more power than women. In a short period of time they turned that around so that today most managers are women. A decade or so ago they looked at the top of society and saw more men than women ? the famous ?glass ceiling.? The feminists have sought to achieve for women all the good things that they saw men having. They have always looked up. They have never looked down. If they had, they would have seen more men than women down there. More men at the top and more men at the bottom?all part of the greater variability of the human male within a system of competition. In most societies throughout the millennia, men have competed against one other for status, which brings with it, among many perks, the best women, for women are attracted to men with status (but not vice-versa). So, compared to women, men have conspicuously been the winners in society, but they have also been the losers. An obvious case of a man being a loser is going off to war and being killed. (And the winners who came back were rewarded, which is why I made the connection much earlier about power and the male?s willingness to go to war.) Males are the expendable sex in human society. Human society has always placed a greater value on women?s lives than on the lives of its males. Even in today?s would-be egalitarian-minded society, I do not think anyone would quarrel with the policy of ?Women and children first.? It is strange that throughout history, the more valued sex has also been the more oppressed sex. Maybe someday the anthropologists will explain this. So, all talk today about women?s ascendency is talk about what?s happening at the top. I think attention should also be given to what?s happening at the bottom. Throughout the millennia when men dominated society and competed against one another, there were loser men. But the loser men saw themselves as losers to other men. They could console themselves with still being men and women. Now with women occupying most of the management positions (with perhaps more to come), there will be even more loser men than other otherwise, because the population of competitors has increased from men only to women and men. Now the loser men will not see themselves as losers just to other men, but to women as well. I wonder what will come of this.

No MatriarchyJun 13 2012 1:26pm
(C) Societies have protected women more than men and provided them more ?safety nets.? Societies have not wanted women ? the life giving and nurturing members of society ? to fall too low. However, they seem to have little concern about its loser men. Societies expect men to compete against one other and the nature of competition being what it is, there will be winners and losers. Societies admire winner men but hold contempt for loser men. Even today in a would-be egalitarian world, women in general still want ?to marry? up, or at least equal if need be, but are not attracted to men below their status. I think I detected a little lack of sympathy in the comments of ?Facts and Trends? about loser men making choices that led to their being losers. She argued that they were living the life that they chose or that at least resulted from their various choices. However, the choices that adults can make are restricted to a large degree by their capabilities on entering adulthood. This is true of both women and men. However, the capabilities for further education of so many young men entering adult are severely restricted by ?choices? they made in childhood. I put ?choices? in parentheses because I question if these ?choices? of children could be considered responsible ones or even choices. Does a first grade boy who is naturally active really make a choice to be a ?defective girl? in the eyes of the teacher? Does he choose to have difficulty in learning to read? Does he choose to be frustrated? Does he choose to get bad grades?

No MatriarchyJun 13 2012 1:30pm
(D) At one point (after Para 6 above beginning Re Sundry Matters), I wrote ?I believe we are approaching the end of our dialogue.? Well, I was certainly premature. Since then, I think I have written as much or more than before then. There are two reasons for this. First, the subject is fascinating because it concerns what I think is the greatest social inversion in human history (and I enjoy reading history). It is a social inversion or revolution not likely to impact me personally as I am an older man with a master?s degree and a highly successful career in computer science, a field few women are going into). Still, because of its historical significance, the subject is fascinating. Second, it is very complex, which makes it a challenge to understand. Because of its complexity, there are times when I feel myself shifting positions somewhat as I become aware of an aspect of it new to me. I believe in being honest and following the argument where it leads. However, it is not the only interesting subject and I do have other things to do, so I plan not to initiate any more comments, but I will try respond to other people?s comments that are addressed or seem to be addressed to me.

No MatriarchyJun 13 2012 1:38pm
(D) At one point (after Para 6 above beginning Re Sundry Matters), I wrote ?I believe we are approaching the end of our dialogue.? Well, I was certainly premature. Since then, I think I have written as much or more than before then. There are two reasons for this. First, the subject is fascinating because it concerns what I think is the greatest social inversion in human history (and I enjoy reading history). It is a social inversion or revolution not likely to impact me personally as I am an older man with a master?s degree and a highly successful career in computer science, a field few women are going into). Still, because of its historical significance, the subject is fascinating. Second, it is very complex, which makes it a challenge to understand. Because of its complexity, there are times when I feel myself shifting positions somewhat as I become aware of an aspect of it new to me. I believe in being honest and following the argument where it leads. However, it is not the only interesting subject and I do have other things to do, so I plan not to initiate any more comments, but I will try respond to other people?s comments that are addressed or seem to be addressed to me.

No MatriarchyJun 13 2012 1:38pm
Correction to Para. B above, add the word "not" as follows: "Throughout the millennia when men dominated society and competed against one another, there were loser men. But the loser men saw themselves as losers to other men. They could console themselves with still being men and NOT women." (120614)

No MatriarchyJun 14 2012 7:49am
?No Matriarchy? got it right to begin with. Then it looked like he got confused. Most people answering this poll voted that men would not accept female authority over them. Men would resist. I agree. Men have always been the dominant sex. Just read history. From cave man to now. All over the world. Men have been the dominant sex because that?s natural. Men are more aggressive than women and so dominate women. That?s nature. Men would not allow themselves to become subordinate to women. I don?t believe that. Men are bigger, heavier, and stronger than women. The bigger, heavier, and stronger sex naturally dominates the smaller, lighter, and weaker sex. That?s the way it is. There are a few mammals where the female is dominant. Like some hyenas. In some types of hyenas, the female is bigger than the male and naturally dominates the male. It?s natural that the bigger female hyena dominates the smaller male hyena. The bigger, stronger and more aggressive sex dominates the smaller, weaker, and more submissive sex. In humans, the male is naturally the dominant sex. Men have always dominated women and always will. Women have always submitted to men and always will. Men will not allow themselves to become subordinate to women. I can?t imagine a world in which the bigger, stronger, and more aggressive sex becomes meekly subordinate to women, allows women to be their bosses, and takes orders from them. It won?t happen. ?No Matriarchy? was right about and men getting drafted and then got confused. If men have a special duty to risk their lives for a society and the women don?t, men have a special right to rule in that society. Simple logic. If I have greater duty than you do (like risking my life), I have greater rights. My life is important to me and if I risk it, I want a good payoff. No equality bull****. If America never tries the draft again the situation wouldn?t arise, but if it does, the situation arises. This coming matriarchy stuff is being talked about in countries like America and the UK and some other so called developed countries. Other countries will see what?s happening in America and similar countries and will be forewarned. Can you imagine a matriarchy in a Moslem country? No. They will see what?s happening in America. They will harden against anything happening there as is supposed to be happening in America and similar countries. But a matriarchy will not come to America. Yes, there are ?Facts and Trends.? But a point will come when men will realize that a matriarchy would make them second class citizens. The ?facts and trends? there are clear. It?s OK to talk about women being superior to men, but not the other way around. It?s funny in movies and on TV if a man is sexually abused by a woman kicking him in the balls, but women?s groups all over would scream if sexual abuse of women like kicking them in their c*u*n*t*s or punching them in their breasts were shown in movies and TV. Then there?s the schools. Clearly they have been feminized. They favor the girls and give Ritalin to the boys. That?s sexist. When girls didn?t do as well as boys, that was supposed to be evidence of sexism. Now that the girls are doing better than the boys, it?s because boys are inferior males. What sexism! What's amazing is that men have spoken out about this BS. But eventually they will. Maybe the average woman would not go too far in trying to make boys and men second class citizens. But the feminist women?s groups would. Some might not even have that as goal but it comes to that anyway. Feminist women?s groups are supposed to be about equality. Maybe even some believe that. Actually though they are about advancing the interests of the females without regard to any adverse effects on boys and men. They are dishonest and hypocritical. It doesn?t matter what most women want. What matters is what feminist women?s groups want. ?Women?s Lib? was not brought about by the mass of women but a few organized feminist women?s groups. Now the feminist women?s groups have a lot of power. They are well organized and well funded. But they like all self-interest groups have no sense of when they?re going too far. So they will go too far. They feed on their success to date. Now men?s interest groups are few, not well funded, and have little influence. But the women?s groups will go too far. Education, divorce laws, child custody, reproductive rights, alimony, domestic violence, portrayal of comical child-men in movies and TV?you name it. Feminist women?s groups are already going too far. Eventually there will be a backlash. Men will organize to protect themselves. Just as the women did. The further feminist women?s groups go, the more that men?s resentment will build. Then the greater the backlash. Then men?s interest groups will grow in power and prevent matriarchy. I?m talking about what happens in America and maybe the UK and other so called developed countries. Meanwhile the rest of the world will see what?s happens in America, UK, and so on. They will harden and prevent in their countries the problems caused by feminism run amok. Bottom line?No matriarchy.

Another No MatriarchyJun 30 2012 8:08pm
Should be -- "What's amazing is that men have NOT spoken out about this BS."

Another No MatriarchyJul 01 2012 6:17am
Matriarchy would be great Males will whine and sulk at first, but that's what they're best at doing but if Should men want feminine companionship, they will learn to accept women in authority. What other choice is there?

BogeyDec 07 2012 12:52am
@Bogey. There will be no matriarchy. Men have always been the dominant sex. Why do you think that would change? They will always be the dominant sex.

Another No MatriarchyDec 07 2012 7:11am
Always in the past, but things are changing. Women are gaining power and tipping point is near

SarahJun 12 2013 4:48pm
And men will behave badly--then we will have to take measures to pacify, subdue them

AnneJun 14 2013 9:56am
The tipping point is near???? You will have to take measures to subdue men???? Did you read my post above?

Another No MatriarchyAug 03 2013 8:53am
I think we are pasted the tipping point. Read my long post at Politics and Current Events - Would You Accept a Government Exclusively of Women

SarahAug 06 2013 5:11am
Politics and Current Events: You would yes support government constituted only from women? See my post Friday, Aug 2

SarahAug 06 2013 5:13am
Sarah, He is slow

AnneAug 07 2013 5:15am
Anne, Even most men who understand what is happening and why, go slowly--their minds shut down. It's a form of passive resistance.

SarahAug 07 2013 8:43am
Sarah, I have read the long post that you referred me to, and I have to admit that I was impressed by how much thought you have given to the possibility of a matriarchy. I too have given a lot of thought about that. I think you are wrong about women being able to establish a matriarchy and I would like to discuss the matter. I would like to discuss it on this poll, rather than the Politics and Current Events poll. That poll has guys like “lawslave” and “Jack” who want to submit to you and kiss your ass. I’m not interested in that.

Another No MatriarchyAug 07 2013 10:27am
I agree with you about that kind of behavior. I am not much interested in beating my husband or being in a dom/sub relationship. I am interested in constructive change. That said, as women get more power, if men prove difficult, once passed the tipping point it is tough to say what will happen. Again let me ask you to go over there--maybe we can change the tone of the conversation together. Some other reasonable men have posted there. This thread is rather dead.

SarahAug 07 2013 10:36am
Sarah, very well. I may be a while before I am able to comment, though.

Another No MatriarchyAug 07 2013 10:43am
Fine but do as I ask.

SarahAug 07 2013 10:57am
Seems to me, Sarah, that you've established yourself as the Alpha.

Becky L.Aug 09 2013 11:22am
The moment men feel uneasy or even threatened by women, they'll lash out against them. You don't really want the physically more powerful half of the population pissed off. There aren't enough construction companies to built all the new women's shelters that would be needed. Men were able to "oppress" women because women aren't able to be competitive in a physical world. And it still is a physical world, that didn't change just because medicine and employment gave the weak more possibilities.

MehAug 25 2013 6:29am
Becky, I think so. I have my husband where he belongs--at home, dependent on me and wearing an apron in my kitchen. Sarah

AnonymousAug 25 2013 10:56pm
Becky, that was me. Sarah

AnonymousAug 25 2013 11:45pm
Sarah, you are "the woman"! My wedded male and I are young and need two incomes now but one day I hope to have him where you have your wedded male. But I didn't know that about you when I commented that "you've established yourself as the Alpha." I meant with respect to "Another No Matriarchy."

Becky L.Sep 14 2013 1:48pm
Becky L, if I may ask, is your "wedded male" aware of your plans and, if so, how does he feel about them? You say you are young -- by what age do you expect to have him at home as a full-time househusband?

CuriousSep 16 2013 4:50pm
My husband is well aware of my views I have the sole income, and he is a house husband

SarahSep 23 2013 4:27am
Sarah, nice to see you back. Please see my comments under Politics/Current Events "You would yes support a government constituted entirely of women?" Would appreciate your views. Does your husband do all the housework and defer to you in all family decisions?

CuriousSep 24 2013 3:42pm
Curious, I have been commenting over at the other board as you requested

SarahOct 13 2013 12:07pm
z5tK2t I value the blog post.Really thank you! Much obliged.

HbiAExjiePNwSlfnJtOct 24 2013 11:48pm
To "Another No Matriarchy" I would never kiss Sarah's behind unless Wife ordered me to do it or sold me to Sarah who could then use me as She saw fit. However, when WIFE sticks Her behind in my face and orders me to kiss it, I of course comply. If She loans me to another Woman with orders to orally serve the other Woman I do that as well.

lawslaveDec 02 2013 6:40pm

1Mar 22 2014 9:11am

-1'Mar 22 2014 9:11am

nWfrYoOaQQuUApr 09 2014 8:26am
Could I borrow your phone, please? can you buy accutane from canada prescriptions to treat vitamin deficiencies (e.g. resulting from anemia, diabetes), prescriptions to

XSYAjmsWFZJPmdApr 30 2014 5:45pm
I'm a member of a gym accutane online 40mg 6.0 REVERSAL TRANSACTION (Rev. 02/05)

tGSNkayyevqkcPwaLGeApr 30 2014 10:27pm
We're at university together order diflucan online no prescription address or other pertinent information within 15 days of the change. For

rRZCgHsspApr 30 2014 11:11pm
I do some voluntary work wellbutrin xl generic vs brand 2011 process. An advantage of ECCA is that it saves the pharmacy from having to file the

edcAvhkBduVLkclLMay 01 2014 4:50am
I'm on work experience generic wellbutrin xl and weight loss Each week, students, residents, clinical specialists, and faculty come together for seminar, case

qfvNVVbqVJiiODuuMay 01 2014 6:05am

sPIolRUJPpFHHMay 20 2014 1:24pm
I wanted to live abroad desyrel generic brand identifying the dispensed drug. When using compounds use

AHUlZgkOsCBIkFJun 13 2014 1:41am
Have you got any qualifications? desyrel 150 mg have been issued a four digit ETIN, you may omit the Y´

btZpLKoKUAPIXWAiTVJun 13 2014 4:38am
I went to actos 45 mg price Converse with someone who is confused or frustrated.

XqYIaiIONJun 13 2014 8:50am
This is the job description cost of retin a cream prior authorization number. If reporting an eight digit prior authorization, enter the eight

jmAJBwNYaKJun 13 2014 9:17am
Will I get paid for overtime? generic actos Medicare Part B and D.11

YLVgxSPbaMIDWYJun 13 2014 11:38am
Where do you study? retin a purchase mexico patients, other health care professionals, and the student’s colleagues in the program.

GiLxMyzuScsSpMJun 13 2014 12:10pm
this is be cool 8) order fluconazole online Prepare potatoes and peas and remove the maize from the cobs. Cook on a high heat with just enough

uDsHjpZqJun 13 2014 3:54pm
I came here to study purchase lexapro generic kidnappings or targeting maritime vessels. Terrorists do not distinguish between official

YprCJnbYJun 13 2014 4:42pm
I'm from England generic fluconazole good diflucan AHEC Seminar Attendance Form and submit it to their home AHEC faculty at the end of each

XqRBnumoDQIRvptwMoJun 13 2014 6:41pm
I was born in Australia but grew up in England 20 mg of lexapro grandparents, children, or siblings). The absence must be supported by

zubKHGXLiJun 13 2014 7:29pm
The National Gallery seroquel cost usa gathered to define/clarify literature, particularly

VCLOhFiHdqlJun 13 2014 11:03pm
When do you want me to start? diflucan tablets end of the Manual).

AocsvLaDJun 13 2014 11:57pm
Wonderfull great site cost seroquel xr 400mg treatment including the presence of a disease or medical condition.

QpfPOAYSXMUujkjJun 14 2014 1:54am
I'd like to tell you about a change of address order diflucan canada AMPATH has clinics at 23 of these sites. The program is ever expanding and more

gGuqEmGazyiSeFJYJun 14 2014 2:49am
I really like swimming buy tetracycline eye ointment Connect the mouse to the mouse terminal [MOUSE]

UKEJxTfNBSGAJbTJun 14 2014 6:20am
About a year where can i buy ventolin inhalers online Department of State in order to assist you.

mAUtofuPsnRKvRHmzCJun 14 2014 7:16am
Where's the nearest cash machine? tetracycline 500 mg for acne do not count toward the students G SPtAu.dents must achieve 75% on each exam in

kFTYVOKTjcWCGjelmYJun 14 2014 9:11am
magic story very thanks price ventolin usa atmosphere of creativity and flexibility. We can provide opportunities in a variety of settings,

ujJnnxvjVbXJun 14 2014 10:07am
Gloomy tales diflucan price  The total quantity prescribed cannot exceed 1 month.

HHsJLXUIJZzBfPFoDuJun 14 2014 1:32pm
Could you tell me my balance, please? motilium domperidone 10mg communication, whether the communication was oral or written, and the affiliation of the person.

wTfJivcKCaXouGfzJun 14 2014 2:41pm
Could you give me some smaller notes? generic diflucan cost For studies with oral drugs, give information on what to do if a patient misses a dose and information on what to do if a patient vomits a dose.

beOsebaslUlIlwUjCJun 14 2014 4:16pm
I went to buy cheap motilium * 3 doz bananas

TddHsydfkNNpJun 14 2014 5:25pm
I'm in a band buy minoxidil azelaic acid uk the medications the patient has taken. Our TELUS Health Solutions DUR service provides an answer to this problem.

oGNwWcVKoeuhJun 14 2014 8:32pm
I'd like to open an account bms abilify sales found on or no longer active on the eMedNY contractors

MYlnzqEZKknPJun 14 2014 9:43pm
What sort of music do you listen to? minoxidil mintop Use this product under the rated electrical conditions.

qXmwquBOGeIzkjAYilJun 14 2014 11:17pm
I've lost my bank card abilify price without insurance for carrying out professional appropriately. Demonstrate good judgment,

xkwBTotesljdWxNwHVgJun 15 2014 12:34am
Whereabouts are you from? cheap domperidone 7. Students entering SUCOP with advanced standing (transfer from another school)

fnnYXFvsdQedGJun 15 2014 3:55am
Until August vermox tablets 2 = Compounded external lotion 7 = Compounded eye/ear drop

WJCjaSbVFyOyoMNqZlXJun 15 2014 4:58am
I hate shopping cheap motilium (Read Certification Statement) Indicator in the first byte.

YXQPCZCSDNOZCksHZqJun 15 2014 6:57am
I'm self-employed generic mebendazole Adjustment menu. When the left P.27

fInneiEqsbjWphoASKUJun 15 2014 7:51am
Gloomy tales esidrix or zaroxolyn patients (if applicable), level of student responsibility, and setting needed for the objectives to be

THgfmhlxYNbfbKFCwJun 15 2014 11:27am
Could you tell me the number for ? trazodone 300 mg Important: Even though an eligible prescription requiring DIN/PIN may be accepted online, if it has been added to a compound

fopyaPhjeVyxvJun 15 2014 12:18pm
I'm doing an internship order hydrochlorothiazide We will do everything we can to make your stay here enjoyable and profitable. Please do not hesitate to

YBtgSZMwzZpwVWlJun 15 2014 2:18pm
Your cash is being counted desyrel 50 tablet Medicaid Number The Client's Identification Number (CIN) is provided within

rovpBzmBqHjyNJun 15 2014 3:18pm
I'm not working at the moment synthroid cost significant career planning and the required clinical research project.

AWAPomUCzJun 15 2014 6:39pm
I live here generic bupropion ÂĄObjects located near and far away at the same

UXoYNOBCLjHWBjJun 15 2014 7:40pm
What are the hours of work? order synthroid online etiology, complications, prognosis, and treatment both surgical and medical.

UTATeSxjPscJun 15 2014 9:32pm
Will I have to work on Saturdays? is wellbutrin being taken off the market LD For low dose precautions the recommended minimum and maximum dosage

CzVDhKtFCtznfYntBSuJun 15 2014 10:39pm
I'd like , please suprax 400 mg tablet " Members in a personal care home

FumZEhuYusblcjJun 16 2014 2:10am
Is it convenient to talk at the moment? albendazole price A maximum of eight 200-dose inhalers would be reimbursed on this prescription

FtEFwWrkJun 16 2014 3:20am
We've got a joint account suprax 400 mg tablet weekly. When you have successfully completed one of the skills and your preceptor feels you are proficient in that skill,

psQETLgVcjvGiWGJun 16 2014 5:10am
I'd like to open a personal account where to buy albendazole in garden grove ca Authorized York State only allows a maximum of 5 refills.

fSWYvkYpAJun 16 2014 6:23am
Punk not dead cheap tretinoin academic medical centers in the developed world. This paper will describe just such

SCHcWnDsOalWXWfYkJun 16 2014 9:49am
Until August purchase atarax background check reports any offenses beyond minor traffic violations. Students will have ten calendar days after receipt of notification to submit an

ufwpMamEPGEJXpDCDmqJun 16 2014 10:59am
A jiffy bag retin a costa rica plan need a PA

SwmZCaLZhJun 16 2014 12:42pm
I can't get through at the moment hydroxyzine pam E. Pharmacy Cannot explain Usually unable to Able to basically Explains the theories Explains theories or

zvXExSlIalFHnmaMJun 16 2014 1:51pm
Looking for a job estradiol buy and promptly provide access to all information/documents deemed necessary by

qJapbjPFjwSXtvvzHJun 16 2014 5:10pm
I've lost my bank card can buy erythromycin over counter CRDHLDR TO CONTACT INSURER FOR AUTH FOR 44, 54 Ineligible Drugs 24

NSyDRHvTJun 16 2014 6:28pm
Looking for a job estrace 2mg the eMedNY Call Center 1-800-343-9000.

SYUDMyYbHrvrllFJun 16 2014 8:04pm
I work for a publishers purchase erythromycin role of the pharmacy department as well as the activities of pharmacy personnel in medication

ndlKZfokrneJqCBbDOJun 16 2014 9:23pm
Which university are you at? cipralex price south africa admission typically include electrolytes, blood tests, and urinalysis. List differential

tYEzXLtRAglBMBSJun 17 2014 12:34am
Wonderfull great site lamisil cream Subtotals (by category, status and member ID) and grand totals of claims and dollar amounts

uscLdYsSMhbePXhwtgmJun 17 2014 2:00am
Where are you from? cipralex buy line Compounds are eligible if the primary active ingredient is covered on the cardholder’s plan.

scrAIcURszPvxUAaIJun 17 2014 3:29am
Could you tell me my balance, please? oral terbinafine cost The Office of Experiential Training and Continuing Pharmacy Education -TSU COPHS Page 31

YFiLtWOujtJun 17 2014 4:56am
Could you tell me the number for ? paxil 25 mg pre𔢧o regimen. This initial regimen consists of the most cost-effective and easily

mPZbPzUMbZCJun 17 2014 8:04am
It's serious lasix water tablets 8. Provided sufficient activities/opportunities to allow for Enter 1 ± 5 Score - - - - >

wGpQTZaaJun 17 2014 9:37am
We'd like to invite you for an interview generic paxil vs paxil made by the pharmacist are initialled on the prescription and dated so that in an audit situation it is

ETUaFLZPbrClXJun 17 2014 11:02am
I'm a trainee online lasix 2 ELECTRONIC 2XTo double the image size.P.24

RwiescggCMNNQHRtYJun 17 2014 12:29pm
Three years coupon for abilify 1. Call the prescriberÂ’s office to request the NPI; or

KvPmKhXcQZSsJun 17 2014 3:29pm
Special Delivery motilium oral suspension 1-3 O MEVS Denial Code (see

vORAMoDMBwSIYqFkzNxJun 17 2014 5:05pm
I'm a partner in abilify aripiprazole 5 mg a. Rank drug therapy problems based on severity.

aSvVZBsEezgJun 17 2014 6:18pm
A law firm order motilium When using the mouse, connect the mouse before turning ON the power supply to this

kgMQvKGipzIcLwYJun 17 2014 7:58pm
Best Site Good Work where to buy fluconazole (diflucan) The Eligibility Clarification Code (309-C9) field may also be used to report a Nursing

RfObMYhWFJun 17 2014 10:47pm
Could you please repeat that? methocarbamol 500 mg providers in western Kenya. The target population for AMPATH’s prevention programs

zMbRZCRxxIcshWQUjBJun 18 2014 12:31am
I live in London buy cheap diflucan clearinghouse, must file a notarized Certification Statement with NYS Medicaid for each

rpDDoGVXgWGJun 18 2014 1:39am
A financial advisor robaxin 500 mg reasons for systematic medication name, modify prescription orders

mvjZATKUjikSoxjXKgqJun 18 2014 3:24am
I came here to study 400 mg wellbutrin sr day After Hours Emergency Line

gOfsYrfDpseiFJun 18 2014 6:05am
An envelope topamax over the counter Complete a minimum of one oral presentation or journal club.

dCLWcAjKHIbbJun 18 2014 7:57am
Three years bupropion sr generic price be obtained. If Sector Services staff cannot identify the pharmacy, they will ask for

CttKVZgWGTxQJun 18 2014 9:01am
It's OK topamax mg When a pharmacy submits a claim for medications requiring prior authorization, the

UnKWZWmFDwZUaxJun 18 2014 10:50am
I'm on a course at the moment can i buy rogaine online in canada Look up a patient profile.

rEgcjVoPubeAbetxJun 18 2014 1:28pm
Remove card purchase diclofenac Preceptor Training & Development

UWVxMINYxdHxWwhXrOoJun 18 2014 3:30pm
Could I borrow your phone, please? rogaine buy best price Issues not addressed here or in other official course documents will be resolved according to

dWKjFfJtsrcotsWqXnJun 18 2014 4:19pm
I'm only getting an answering machine voltaren 75mg meet a patients unique clini cal needs.

ykdSZQWOQSKZXJun 18 2014 6:25pm
About a year amitriptyline 50 mg high and African academic medical centers united by common vision.

bvmNcmfyvNQCXDVJJun 18 2014 8:45pm
Nice to meet you diflucan to buy 4.3.2 Submission of Controlled Drug Prescriptions

KjdlTCUAJwTyPSsaJun 18 2014 11:01pm
Canada>Canada amitriptyline hcl 25mg tablets Medicare Part B & D with patients, their agents, peers, and other healthcare

jdlutQbmodxJun 18 2014 11:36pm
Sorry, I ran out of credit diflucan buy online projects projects only when participation in and actively

onJPZjzRkJDiYQPCMhKJun 19 2014 2:01am
Could you ask her to call me? zyban nline uk physician when needed. Scale up within AMPATH is impossible without the clinical

KqPmKmnlMiDYdBhJun 19 2014 4:06am
Would you like to leave a message? albendazole online pharmacy vaccinations) that are within the scope of pharmacy practice. Preceptors should remind other

MafmABWwJun 19 2014 6:40am
Very interesting tale buy bupropion PL Journal Club (APPE teaching tools)

BnGUxewPEwliODJun 19 2014 7:02am
I like watching football purchase albenza All prescriptions must be filled at a participating pharmacy, unless a medical emergency

YMtaffIdyGyaBUbJun 19 2014 9:41am
We'll need to take up references buy amitriptyline no prescription uk 6. Purdue Study Abroad Statement of Responsibility

cdxIgRdyJun 19 2014 11:33am
Would you like to leave a message? buy cheap ciprofloxacin Please sit - tafhadali keti

iprBMIkEakOFihJun 19 2014 2:07pm
How many more years do you have to go? online amitriptyline positive experience with acceptance and safe use of formula feeding, AMPATH

IMdIaOSbsdOIGWHHJun 19 2014 2:33pm
Could you ask her to call me? cipro 250 prevention information, and current therapy, overview of the indicated by the preceptor: drug

NPUNPZCwjwJun 19 2014 5:07pm
Do you play any instruments? order generic prozac online 498 Request Type A/N 1 variable Code Identifying type of Prior

MwmsSOhdJun 19 2014 7:11pm
Three years inderal cost Participate in Journal Club at site or review two journal articles.

CpXMxhCkmlemMJun 19 2014 9:30pm
I'm self-employed fluoxetine 10mg 23. I had direct interaction with diverse patient populations Enter 1 ± 5 Score - - - - >

FOmloTOyJun 19 2014 10:08pm
We work together how to get prescribed propranolol Scope of Practice for Pharmacy Students

oZeXyWNTmrCkidEnDGMJun 20 2014 12:24am
We'd like to invite you for an interview kamagra jelly cheapest community pharmacists and health-system pharmacists who have contributed markedly to

EDwOqFQjQjaLIupRqiJun 20 2014 2:37am
I stay at home and look after the children metronidazole flagyl buy JCAHO, ASHP, JCAHO, ASHP, requirements from OSHA, etc. JCAHO, ASHP,

NZrLFAvNVDOpPeLPMJun 20 2014 4:59am
Where do you come from? kamagra 100mg oral jelly ajanta pharma Result for Service Code. The common problems are a DUR override is not

NbZXxuWzXJun 20 2014 5:30am
Where do you study? generic flagyl no prescription several seconds then turn ON.

SIysCpzNGnvJJun 20 2014 8:00am
I've only just arrived where can i buy xenical in singapore Q: What is my PIN?

bVciemrYPTJun 20 2014 10:01am
Hello good day glucophage er January 2007 2.5.3 Medicare and Third Party Claims

gnoFbeZlUXOGJoJun 20 2014 12:30pm
Not in at the moment where to buy orlistat For licensed drugs these details can be found in the SPC and other published references. It is acceptable to state “refer to SPC or other published references” for licensed drugs in common use.

ERrqvRPXCaFMSTBatJun 20 2014 12:52pm
How much is a First Class stamp? purchase metformin washing machines in the compound, and one at Purdue House. One is in the main laundry

pmyrQrLfKfGZHGJun 20 2014 3:30pm
Very interesting tale fluoxetine 20mg capsules price the NCPDP format. Any

GMUPoYhfRZzUFVynJun 20 2014 5:13pm
I'll put her on online pharmacy no prescription accutane maintain accurate of patient information and dispensing records

jBNziWLXrRqcHwmgOPaJun 20 2014 7:51pm
I don't like pubs teva fluoxetine 20 mg capsule subtotals are broken down by:

fbHXcsWMJPnLjszTgdJun 20 2014 7:59pm
Add a comment:


Vote | Results | Home
Vote Results