Search:




Your Ad Here

If women become the dominant sex, will it be permanent?

Question: Many experts believe that, if current trends continue, women will become increasingly dominant in government, business and the professions. If women do become the dominant sex, do you think they will consolidate their hold on power and retain it indefinitely or will men gradually claw it back?
Created by: infohound at 10:04:38 AM, Friday, July 15, 2011 EDT

Comments

'Many experts beleive' Hahahahahahahahaha

steveJul 15 2011 8:59pm


One search of the internet and you find in many areas like education girls and women lead. One thing's for sure, no one can bragg about male leadership when you look at the world! What a mess! From male invented economies to wars it's nothing to bragg about. Women are taking power but what the outcome will be is not known. Right now it's a man's world and has been. Women have been kept from almost everything that a man has freedom to do. It's culture and nothing but. Strong men can be made into slaves. In the culture astablished my men, women are not aggressive and men are. Obviously women can be aggressive, sports, business, and politics show us that. If women continue to outnumber men in higher education than they will dominate society, it's that simple. That is a real trend. If men distroy the economy with their stupid debt based paper money inflation and unstable markets, it might be difficult for women and men to actually get anywhere! The trend in education is girls pulling farther and farther ahead. Now a sports culture is strengthening them to the point that it's no longer uncommon for her to be physically stronger and better educated. Especially considering the number of girls now spending both high school and college in sports and with sports comes gym work. They are not just ahead in education but can enter the real world stronger than most men. Men will find it difficult to challange her leadership in life, work, family and might actually turn out ok for both sexes as some pressure is taken off men and given to women to deal with and that encludes the stress. Fact is all you can do is watch things change and look for the good to come out of it.

Open mindedJul 16 2011 11:31am
We are living in some real interesting times here. Men have constructed the whole world to where we are now. So humanity is at this point where women can take over and run things in this man-made compartmentalised world for the first time ever, in theory. HOWEVER, things can not remain as such indefinitely. Not even for very long, and this is why. 1) Patriarchy IS civilization What the feminists refer to as patriarchy is actually what led our predecessors thousands of years ago to the point where we became a civilization. The world is naturally a matriarchy just like the animal kingdom where very few alpha males have harems of many females they mate with. Lesser males can 'take' a female when opportunity strikes (what we humans call 'rape') without hanging around or investing anything else to the parenting. In fact single males (animal or human) can fully survive while expending very little energy when on thier own. At some point it was observed that males, if it was certain that thier offspring was thiers (ie: monogoumous partner, marriage etc.) would invest everything, including death to protect and provide for his family. These men understood the need to cooperate and would therefore extend protection to their neighbours as well. This type of male investment in family, then community, then larger society, etc. is what led to modern civilization. In the early days this meant protective walls around the city, and offensive wars to combat active enemies. In more recent times it's meant technological advances that have propelled us into comfort and luxury. And in the present, it's led to political correctness, special privileges and re-structuring society to accomodate the wants of women albeit in an ultimately destructive form. Result: If we return to a matriarchal system, by the time all vestiges of patriarchy are gone, the next generation of men will invest very little in society. No one will do the heavy lifting (because there is no reward in doing so) and the whole structure will collapse reverting back to the jungle (the true matriarchy). We already have suedo matriarchies in the form of ghettos (single moms, fatherless boys in gangs, unmotivated men who don't strive for anything worthwhile with crime as the only outlet). 2)All the geniuses (as well as the mass murderers) are men Women are feeling pretty special these days taking over the school system and graduating in higher numbers in university etc. There are certainly issues with the feminization of the school system stifling boys but aside from that the actual point I want to bring up is that men are at the extremes and females are in the middle. In other words (those of Camille Paglia I believe) 'there will never be a female Mozart because there will never be a female Jack the Ripper'. Genius (as well as risk taking btw) manifests itself in the male gene structure as the drive to dominate the sex of all the females in the clan (remember the harem). The root of this stems from female hypergamy. Females mate up and males needed to be special to obtain access to females. If you were a male with a low drive, you would just zoom to the bottom. (just as most of the homeless are men) Result: Women running the world would result in no change, no risk, keep everything safe until society decays to the point where a nomad society comes in, slaughters all the men and enslaves all the women. 3)Hypergamy Touched on in #2 this needs it's own paragraph. Female hypergamy is the primal drive to mate upwards. In other words the female mating requirements almost always entail a male who is taller than her, who makes more money than her, who has higher status than her etc. etc. whereas a male doctor will just as easily marry his secretary. This worked fine for thousands of years until very recently where we have been educating and elevating the status of individual women. Now we can already witness the fallout of hypergamy in our modern society. Females are always asking 'where are all the good men' because they still demand men who are better than them in all respects. We are returning to harem like behavior in a shockingly short time frame. Most of the women feel they deserve the alpha male and wouldn't give a truly equal male (equal status, equal attractiveness) the time of day. Alpha males are in such demand they can just hook up now for free, no strings in a serial fashion with several women (getting damn close to harem structure). Everyday regular males and lower are turning to porn and video games. They are also opting out of the future and are not invested in society. (living at home, forgoing higher education) Result; Female hypergamy drive most of the women to the few alpha males who are not invested in them or society. They willingly take the free sex and don't have to work to prove anything else. The remaining males are unrewarded and so remain unmotivated and uninvested in society. Back to the jungle.

LimonJul 17 2011 12:53am
Also, I f*ck sheep.

LimonJul 17 2011 5:15am
What do you know?? There is another person here with the name Limon on this site. And this one F*cks sheep.

LimonJul 17 2011 9:47am
Limon's stupid theory never even thinks about the individual spirit of humans. L's view is all collectivism like communism & socialism. It doesn't work. America was founded on liberty and that allowed the U.S. to grow wealth and prosper, it's called freedom but now that America is playing the collectivist game, she is in decay. This is a cultural mistake and the results are right there to look at. The money of the U.S. (gold/silver) was taken from the people and replaced with paper managed by men. They created the economy they put up with. Gettos are the results of collectivism economies, moral dacay going right along with a debt driven society. Men abandoning their children is not the result of women seeking equal freedon at all. It is liberty FOR ALL that once made America great not collectivism that is now distroying her. It's freedon that puts women ahead not as you say "special privileges" like one step above slavery. Your stupid view is from a dog pack mentality! You forgot the most important aspect of being human... individual. When she is not caged up by stupid cultural collective bull, she gets ahead. Special privileges is what communist dictatorships grant to their slaves, Pharaohs, kings, even queens, grant special privileges to peons. This is nothing but slavery. Don't you think that if the world was on a "natural course" things would actually be better? There are very stupid ideas in full operation right now and just one of them is "special privileges" for women that men already have. FREEDOM. There is a real fear of women and that's why they have all kinds of obsticals put in their way by men. NOTE... the same obstical course has not been put in the man's path. Now as the playing field becomes level or more of an equal apportunity, you call it special privileges? Women are not dogs or slaves you collective idiot! They are not to be dominated any more than people in general by dictators. The world is in chaos mostly because of busy bodies with collective minds just like yours, shoving their ideas on everyone on how societies order should be and not based on the individual's choice. If men are now unrewarded and unmotivated ask yourself why not women? She tastes freedon and is eager! You men did this to yourselves, don't now start blaming women for your own failure. If you now have obsticals, women didn't put them there like men put in front of women. If men don't excel and women do, don't blame women. Or *special privileges* the blame is on themselves and the idiot progressive collectives managing society.

Lady LibertyJul 17 2011 11:38am
I agree with Open Minded that "if women continue to outnumber men in higher education than they will dominate society, it's that simple." I also agree that the "fact is all you can do is watch things change and look for the good to come out of it." However, I think that Limon makss some important points too. The evils that may come about from the coming matriachy may be worse than those of the old and still existing partriachy. As has been said, we can but wait and hope for the best. I also agree with Lady Liberty that "if men don't excel and women do, don't blame women."

Believer in the Coming MatriarchyJul 17 2011 1:10pm
Women by nature are in fact more peaceful so I doubt that evil will rise along with female leadership. It's not easy for anyone to say what is "natural" in such an artificial society of everything being managed by "central planer" type governments. One thing is clear is that when women have equal oportunity, they have excelled greatly and often beyond that of the opposite sex. Why would some predict disaster? Only men who believe in the authoritarian culture of having the power to grant special privileges to other humans. God like. Now as women do excell past men, the old culture of "I SAY YOU CAN'T" because I like the authoratarian way that keeps man #1 and foremost even if you are better at what ever! Not seeing any good comming out of it he would like to dream up a way of revoking the special privileges... AKA LIBERTY. If anything in society as controlled as it is can be seen as "natural" it is liberty and if during liberty women outpreform men it should tell you something about the real natural world. If she excells past men then it is nature who you should blame for equiping her to do so under equal opportunities. You have continued to "rig the game" of life against her to ensure her failure and now much of the "rigging" is being removed resulting in not just her success in general but her true leadership qualities. Of course like men not all women are ment to lead. The women who lead well should have the freedom to do so. Not all women lead well and politics proves that clearly. You can have brilliant men and down right stupid women at the helm. That's why a centrally controlled form of governing is a bad idea and always ends in disaster and a warped culture on the way down. Women can be just as much a problem in bad governing. The truth is that if they take the lead in higher education, they will be tomorrows leaders and that is exactly what is happening. Just level the playing field and let both men and women do what they are good at. At least liberty for all is as close to natural as humanly possible. If women excell, it's because it's natural for them to do so and no longer a rigged game. Action speaks louder than words.

AnonymousJul 17 2011 1:58pm
Some really interesting ideas being debated here. Thanks for a thought-provoking piece Limon, and also for Lady Liberty's response. People do have individual choices, but men and women also display characteristic behaviour, and I suspect women do still tend to look for a man who is taller, more intelligent etc. I honestly don't know whether that will ever change, but we are all hugely influenced by media images, stories, advertising etc, and they are gradually shifting to promoting the strong, self-reliant woman- and, incidentally, the helpless, dependent man. In British advertising and TV series it is a constant (and often annoying) theme. So, it may be women's self-definition is changing, and that they don't have to follow any 'biological programming'. There's an interesting book on this subject called 'The Dominant Sex' by Mathilde Vaerting, written in the 1920s . She argues strongly that dominance is all about social conditioning, and give many examples of societies where women were conditioned to be dominant. I'm not sure how good the evidence is, but it's worth a read. It's a free etext.

SteveJul 18 2011 2:53am
Hey, Limon, are you Welsh?

AnonymousJul 18 2011 4:33pm
Unfortunately the answer to the question is no. All the countries that have accepted feminism as the dominant philosiphy in their society are dying out. This is all the first world countries so to speak, North America & Western Europe mainly and all have below replacement birth levels. These countries have turned to mass immigration, and these immigrants are not feminist friendly. They also have a high birth rate. The magic year is set at around 2050 for the US and some countries in Europe to have the majority population as immigrants. It will be Machismo in the US and Allah in Europe as the dominant philosophies. Not intended to be racist at all, but to be realist. Food for though.

PhilJul 18 2011 8:35pm
Hello Anonymous. Se?or Limon is not Welsh just as anonymous is not Portuguese, correct? Good conversation going on here & I?m glad to be part of it. Let?s continue. I?ve noticed a big push in the concept of ?liberty? here as being the be-all end-all. A closer look at this aspect of our society should also go a long way to scrutinizing the answer to the posed question. Once the societies of the world moved to a patriarchal system it became men who began to control them. Control of course means the lessening of liberty. On the face of it this seems only as bad, but that?s not always the case as a black & white concept. Control was (and still is) needed to organize, assemble, construct and conquer, as well as to civilize and pass on knowledge and culture. So in essence ?control? is synonymous with civilization. That doesn?t mean all societies completely control their subjects (yes, even we are subjects in modern times. Just try to opt out of being subject to paying taxes, or following the laws and see how long your ?freedom? lasts), but it has always been a balancing act between control & complete freedom (or liberty). In times of great expansion as in early Rome there is very little freedom which leads to a one-mindedness and tight focus or drive. When society gets fat as in the end of empirical Rome there is lots of liberty and individualness (not a real word, I know) and civilized society tends to retract or outright die if it can?t reinvent itself. Fast forward to modern times and what do we see? It has always (in civilized times) been men who have been in control, but that doesn?t mean it?s ?men? that control the world. In other words (my own actually) your father or brother is subject to those same men who control society, just as is your mother or sister. Those men don?t give a damn about some minion just because of his sex, we are all worker bees. This debunks the other common idea floating around here about ?men? putting up barriers to control the whole female gender. This is nothing more than feminist claptrap, feminism being designed by those same men who control society as one part of communism and communism being the total package designed to control the whole of society. This is a separate topic too large to get into here in this conversation. But back to special privileges, it was men who had the privilege forced on them to build the empires and then to go to war and fight and die for them. Not such a nice thing after all. There was no barring women from pulling carts or hauling bricks around, or in later times conspiring to withhold their promotion to becoming lead chimney sweep for example. The idea that women would WANT to work at manual labor but were kept away from it is sheer feminist propaganda. No different than we all now believe that women got a taste of the working world (munitions factories and steel foundries) during WW II which led to feminists demanding ?careers? in the 1960?s. There has never been fulfilling work or what we have been brainwashed to call ?careers? in the whole history of time save for the last 50 or so years, particularly with regard to what women would choose as a ?career?. The vote is another popular topic when spun in popular feminist culture. We are led to believe that ?men? had voting privileges for thousands of years while women fought hard for them until finally winning them on their own in the 1920?s (US). In reality there was no vote as there was no democracy. And pre-democracy the men were out working (toiling) to provide for their family, there were no government services or women & children?s ministry. As we moved into democracy it was only those men who owned property that gained right to vote (they were known as the elite). Even their women were not emancipated; they were subject to their men under democracy because it was their men who were RESPONSIBLE for them and their children. It wasn?t until decades later that the ordinary man received the entitlement to vote and that is because they were expected to fight and die for their country, and the world view was moving more towards rewarding good rather than enslavement for bad. It was only a few short decades later that the wives of the ?elite? began their suffragette campaign to get the vote for all women. The common man was in agreement with this (you never hear about that) and the powers that be granted women the vote. It was understood to be a special privilege since women would not have to fight to defend the country and there was no structured work in which they could support themselves or give back to society. Moving to today, what we are left with currently is the patriarchal ideas of women needing special privileges to ?even out? the numbers as in hiring quotas. Also a substantial part of the society can?t quite shake the patriarchal ideas of protecting and honoring women (definite special privilege). In fact we can?t even agree if we should protect women, open doors for them, pay on dates, ask for dates, give them our bus seat etc. etc. begging the question; are we designed to live in a patriarchy? Whew, so much to discuss, so little time.

LimonJul 19 2011 9:11am
Limon, you have not debunked anything- "This debunks the other common idea floating around here about men putting up barriers to control the whole female gender" This is nonsense. History shows this is nonsense and you don't know history. Go ahead and re-write history in to bull. Women were forbiden to do almost anything just like negro slaves. No voting, no sports, no business, no management, no leadership, NO NOTHING! Then you have the audacity to tell us how things will be if women have liberty? What a bunch of bull! How would you even know how someone performs if they are never allowed to perform? Even the simple minded know this to be the truth! Now that women have liberty at least in some parts of the world, we see the women's skills, tallents, and strengths. No problems have been created by freeing the slaves any more than freeing women! You really do not know history at all and only myths! Democracy really doesn't work, that's why America is a Constitutional Republic but the democracy idea is always shoved down the throats of people. You keep calling freedom special privileges? You do not even understand. There would never be a "feminist culture" if women had not been treated like they have and it's true where women are treated like S/-/IT the place is a S/-/ITHOLE! Why aren't people or MEN in particular running across the border to the many S/-/ITHOLES in the world where women are nobodies? Mmm? It's funny that where women are given equal opportunities, those places are reather decent places to live! You can't blame women for those deplorable places and the men that live there and created "the way" desrve there own suffering and carma. Take a good look at it and hope it doesn't actually spread and liberty for all takes hold instead. If you are American why are you not running south for some heaping helping of Macho world? Don't blame women as they were never allowed to fuk things up!

AnonymousJul 19 2011 10:16am
@Anonymous. I agree that "women by nature are in fact more peaceful [than men]." However, is that "nature" innate or the result of socialization? Nobody seems to know. If the nature is the result of socialization then men could be just as peaceful. In fact, some men are more peaceful than some women. . . . . Anonymous continues with doubting "that evil will rise along with female leadership." I too doubt that evil will arise BECAUSE of female leadership". Women today in general (whether innately or by nurture) are more peaceful, caring, and nurturing than men in general and that argues for a better society for all--both women and men. . . . . However, evil may arise ALONG with female leadership. In his first post, Limon makes some good points about evils that may come about because of male reaction to a matriarchy. I see these evils as increased male violence or irresponsible sloth, or both. . . . . . Women have always had and will always have motherhood to define themselves but in the future matriarchy what will men have to define themselves? Not being the breadwinner as before. . . . . . Already in the U.S. the average woman is better educated than the average man (since about 2009 I think). As the older educated men die out and 2 women continue to graduate from college from every male, the gap in education will increase all the more. . . . . . Already the average young woman in the U.S. is out earning the average young male in major cities, and this trend will surely continue. . . . . . . Already women dominate many important professions and I see no reason why they will not eventually dominate all. . . . . . The ranks of management require education and so most bosses will be women and most men will be subordinate to a woman boss. . . . . I believe marriage should be as nearly equal a partnership as possible but it cannot be a democracy--rule by majority, because there is no majority. If push comes to shove, one spouse must be recognized as being the "tie breaker"--the one with the greater authority. It seems logical that that spouse would be the bigger breadwinner and better educated, and in the future in most marriages this will be the woman and so she should be the "head" of the family. . . . . . In a society in which men find themselves the "second sex" and subordinate in education, the business place, and in their marriages, how will men in general react? Will they accept their new roles? Will they rebel? Or will they just drop out and become lazy and irresponsible? If men accept their new roles then I think that the coming matriarchy will be good for all. If they rebel or drop out, evil "will arise along with female leadership." This evil may or may not be transitory. Who knows? Not me. I'm making no predications on male reaction to the coming matriarchy. I do predicate a coming matriarchy.

Believer in the Coming MatriarchyJul 19 2011 10:24am
As far as fighting for their country "men" have been suckered by "men" into battles started by "men" or leaders if you can call them that. Over and over again, even American men are fighting battles basically against the deplorable leadership of men not women! The American Idea is nobody is somebodies "subject" and plenty of Americans have died fighting stupid leadership, leadership so damaging that millions of dead are left in the wake of these stupid men and their distruction! Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, but we can go back in time or forward and take a look at all the murder! This is not leadership! It is human tragidy! Stupid men with stipid ideas distroying everything! You have the gall to blame women? For what? A future of bad leadership? What a joke. What... give women equal opportunities or even leadership and things will go bad? Open your eyes! Your FEAR is unfounded and you need to learn history!

AnonymousJul 19 2011 10:36am
@Limon, in your last post you make many points I would like to comment on, but for now I just add some information that you may be interested in. In the U.S. until the late ?60?s or early ?70?s, people had to be 21 years old to vote. However, during the Vietnam War people began to feel that it made no sense to draft young males at 18 to go and fight and die for their country when these young males weren?t allowed to vote. Legally, these young males were not adults until 21 and so the country was requiring boys, not young men, to go and fight and die for their country. Thus, it was thought that either the draft age should be made to be 21 or the voting age and age of adulthood should be made to be 18. It was decided to make the voting age and age of adulthood 18. The reason for the change in law was because of the male?s military obligation which the females did not have. Nevertheless, the voting age and age of adulthood for women was also changed to 18.

Vietnam Era PersonJul 19 2011 10:41am
This has turned into a really good, thoughtful discussion - I wish we had more of them on this site. One aspect I'm not really seeing addressed thus far is whether women will consolidate their hold on power once attaining it or whether things will revert to a more egalitarian culture. Would welcome the views of posters on this aspect of the debate.

PrognosticatorJul 19 2011 10:41am
Historically, males have relied on their larger average size, aggressiveness (testosterone poisoning) and muscular power to force patriarchy on the world. Males were convinced that the female was "the weaker vessel" and that the "seed of life" was contained within the male until the human ovum was discovered in 1826. This discovery overturned long held myths of patriarchy. Following this, the discovery of the Y chromosome some 80 years later further challenged male claims to superiority. Women have been more and more empowered as science has proven that THEY are in fact the STRONGER vessel. It is now well documented that females are biologically stronger and more resilient than males. Females are increasingly outstripping males in academia and have proven to be superior in the workplace, doing a better job in less time. ........ I believe this is an evolutionary phase which is now in its last days. Just as human consciousness has long moved on from believing that the Sun spins around the Earth and that the Earth is flat, so are we moving on from patriarchy. This is now inevitable. The ship of patriarchy is now a leaky sinking hulk which is going down and will not rise again except to be dredged from the murky depths someday to be placed in a museum and be marveled at for its absurdity. ....... Women will be the dominant sex in the near future. Will it be permanent? Let's hope so!

ymanJul 19 2011 10:55am
You know it seems kind of comical that the threat could be comming once again from men throwing tantrums because women excell in education! Men will become violent and have a fit! So should women be stopped? So men do not have tantrums? LOL! So the women should not be educated and not lead so to keep male violence in check? Well, when men are leaders, there seems to be no way of keeping them in check does there? Violent male leaders are the norm in world affairs. So with women leading I guess you are suggesting all men not just leaders can act like idiots on a grand scale! Ladies, you must dumb down for the sake of "MANkind" as he will have a tantrum! Right. We've already seen his tantrums and the millions dead. Not good reasoning or even any logic to the thought. They will have tantrums and fits of violence anyways and history proves it. Women earned what they have and it isn't special privileges that put them ahead of men in education one bit. It's called hard work. That's how they get educated. They work for it. Yes at one time they were not ALLOWED TO WORK FOR IT. A little history might actually educate YOU.

AnonymousJul 19 2011 11:10am
Many male "leaders" are psychopaths. So many that it is practically the norm. We accept male pathology as normal because most of the world is living in fear. Women are bravely challenging the corrupt patriarchy - they have to because the world is edging toward the brink of catastrophe and women are tho ones with the abilities to turn things around. As the world becomes more complex and interwoven, males are unable to function harmoniously because their instinctive urges to compete and conquer - to prove themselves to be the 'Alpha" - prevent them from comprehending the importance of global cooperation. There's too much at stake to continue with the failing masculine systems. Males have a death wish built into them. Males are easily programmed to fight and die because they are naturally expendable in the first place. Women have a much stronger sense of community and a much stronger instinct for survival and compassion. Women's instincts are moving them to make their way into powerful positions because they know that males are making a mess of things and it's no longer feasible to pander to the fragile male ego just to keep men from losing their cool. Women are getting stronger and are now more capable of confronting males and showing them who's boss! Men are now resorting to childish tantrums because they have no other options left. Males can either stamp their feet like little children and complain that it's "not fair" that women are overtaking them, or men can start wising up and realize that women are the ones who will show the way into the future. Maybe men will finally be able to evolve past the stone age mindset they're still stuck in.

ymanJul 19 2011 12:31pm
All women really want is equality. Most women, like men do not want to be "ruled" or be the subjects of a fake "order" and just want a chance at life. Not all women are leaders just like men and not all men are bad leaders. Still the "order" is chaotic simply because it is so unnatural to use coercion as a means of imposition of someone elses will. If liberty bring women to leadership then it is natural and not the results of coercion because liberty is not the same path at all. The truth is men have always made special privileges for themselves, now that women have liberty somehow that is precieved as special privileges? Only in the warped mind of elite rulling class mentality. The "harum of women" isn't much different than the "cotten pickin' negro" in real terms and so unnatural. It is forced on them. It's interesting that in Limon's view educating girls is "stifling boys" when all along we were stifling girls. What a twisted view. Also "'there will never be a female Mozart" really? Just what part of the female brain is it that can't compose music? Seeing that the women excell in education, you must have some very interesting data that shows that they can't compose music even though they are excelling in education. Limon believes strongly in myths. The all mighty Alpha Male and the dumb weak female following along... until they go to school and suddenly the alpha is really the female. The superior male with his harum theory is about as good as the superior plantation owner and his cotten pickers right along with the Germains wee the superior race and other stupid myths. Liberty trashes all your myths and gives people and that ecludes women a chance in life without forcing a fake pecking order on everyone. Women have had to work harder than men to get where they are simply because men have created special privileges for men only! Until recently.

AnonymousJul 19 2011 2:02pm
In my first comment I made the point of saying it was unfortunate that the answer to the question is No. I stand by that and rebuke Anonymous?s deflected logic. It might be true that those countries are sh*t holes that are terrible places to live, especially for women but facts are facts. They are mass immigrating and outbreeding us. They are pumping out the babies while we are getting on with our fabulous careers. The combined birth rate of 1.5 babies doesn?t even replace the 2 of us it took to make. I?m sorry you don?t like it, but pretending there won?t be a problem is just putting your head in the sand. And blaming men & Kenysian economics on the problems of our economy has absolutely nothing to do with our culture that will be replaced.

PhilJul 19 2011 2:16pm
The relationship between economics and culture... About 19,100,000 results on Google. You could never stop learning about what you thought had no link. Suprise!

LLJul 19 2011 3:10pm
If American does collapse, many will die off in those countries. If they "outbreed us" as you say and say take over America and od it "their way" they will also die for the simple fact that what they are doing doesn't work and that's why American has to feed them. So without American or changing their ways, they will die. It's their own culture/economics that bring on their own distruction. America can not afford to baby sit them any more. They have to do more than fuk to make it in this world. They have to change and abandon some of their culture. Fuking won't grow food.

AnonymousJul 19 2011 3:20pm
Something that doesn't make sense. Mexicans running across the boarder into the U.S. because of terrible living conditions in Mexico as a result of bad government and the economics that go with it but once the mexican is here, he waves his Mexican flag and acts like Mexicans are taking over! Why would any Mexican want to bring what they just escaped from? Turn the U.S. into another Mexico and then where do you run? Duh. None of these problems actually have anything to do with women leading except both the Mexican and women are looking for freedom to prosper and maybe do it their way in a place like the U.S. where you have at least a better chance.

AnonymousJul 19 2011 3:38pm
Limon, I think your comments are very insightful and I mostly agree with you.

AKJul 19 2011 3:49pm
it could go either way

AnonymousJul 19 2011 4:18pm
Greatly exaggerated, maybe but it's intersting we live in a time when a woman pilots a C130 gunship over Afghanistan blowing away Taliban! Two cultures, one makes a slave of women and the other a warrior! A culture based on freedom with a female warrior pounding them into the dust with a highly technological flying gun platform. Yes things have changed drastically from your 14th century beliefs Limon & AK.

AnonymousJul 19 2011 4:26pm
Anonymous said: "Yes things have changed drastically from your 14th century beliefs Limon & AK". Personal Attacks - Tool of the Loser.

AnonymousJul 19 2011 4:37pm
LL your thoughts are all over the place here. There is no kind of logic to it at all. First of of Limon at least makes coherent arguments with facts and real world examples then strings them into logical conclusions. Phil makes one solid point that you attempt to answer by bringing in other unrelated issues but completely avoid the one question. Now you would seem to justify a leading by the minority like South Africa's apartheid state used to be. Or are you advocating an aristocracy? You don't seem to have a grasp on history because the 14th century isn't particular for any reason, did you just pull this out of your hat? And your fascination with Liberty is rather amusing. You probably should define what it actually means to you as a concept that we can all understand rather than just throwing it around as a convenient buzzword in reply to everything you don't agree with. And finally you saying others are wrong means nothing except to yourself. If someone is wrong you need to logically dispute it please. Otherwise it seems a little juvenile.

AnonymousJul 19 2011 8:52pm
There is no mention of Hildegard von Bingen (1099-1179) whose ideas on universal gravitation predate Isaac Newton's. Why? Because men like Limon tried to hide the truth. The women did the heavy lifting when it came to the mathematics of astronomy once the telescope brought more understanding. An Inconvenient Truth.

LLJul 20 2011 10:43am
Actually its true all the smart responders dont use name calling or swaring like LL doing

AnonymousJul 20 2011 11:47am
Actually its true all the smart responders dont use name calling or swaring like LL doing

AnonymousJul 20 2011 11:52am
We seem to have 2 types of reasoning going on here. There is the logical, Limon, AK, and the emotional, LL and most of the anonymous posts. This is interesting for a change. Find myself agreeing with the logic. Checked out several of LL?s links. Most are just opinion & heresay.

AnonymousJul 20 2011 12:02pm
OK I just read up on Hildegard of Bingen. Definitely an accomplished woman of her time. Nun, writer, composer and advocate of the natural sciences. This is all good, just not the definition of Genius. The difference is Mozart was a musical genius. Einstein was a genius of physics & matter, Telsa was a genius of electrical & invention, Lenardo da Vinci was simply genius in several forms. There are only few geniuses in all of history. Hildegard like most men & women do not fit the definition of genius. In fact there are no living geniuses today. Lots of brilliant people but no geniuses. Thats the difference.

AnonymousJul 20 2011 12:12pm
It's interesting that the facts and history are posted by LL, Lady liberty and given references and links to the facts and history but are labeled "emotional" and Limon's views are based actually on emotion. The fact that women were not allowed to do these things in science or invention means nothing to the so called logical thinkers here who actually show no logic at all! Never mind this fact of hisory (Any sort of 'brainwork' was regarded as unhealthy and dangerous for women in those times) is the kind of logic that Limon has. No biological reason is given for this ever. Just like Limon. A woman will never be a Mozart because? Let me guess "unhealthy" for the woman's brain? No it's all bull and always was bull. Then you somehow have the ability to discern the "geniuses" as always men and not women simply by saying so? You are an idiot if you think it's easy to function in a culture that forbids thinking and actually doing something with that thinking when you are not allowed to use your brain in any way shape or form! You really think you can have good scientists in an inviroment that forbids scientists? Come on! Again for you slow learners... women did the heavy astronomical calculations until modern times and they did it better then men but of course they got screwed when (as usual) it came to pay day. They did a better job but got paid less. There is a real reason those astronomy "computers" called women did a better job with or without equal pay! They were smarter. Just like education today, they do a better job. The fact is a matter of history now and your two cents worth of nonsense will never change the truth or history. The culture and society did not nuture women in any of this at all! They went so far as to forbid it in most history. Like I said the fact of history is "special privileges" for men and not women. Tell us all why the women did the complex math better than men? There must be some explanation like Mmmm... What? Go ahead, why did the women understand the complex calculations of astronomical discovery better than men? If the women were brilliant but not geniuses, why were the man less able to do the calculations? Seeing that men are geniuses and women are not, you must have some brillient or even genius theory? It certainly wasn't the pay! Come on why? Why did the women out perform the men and it wasn't just at Harvard College Observatory either. What was the reason the superior male mind fell short of the inferior female mind in astronomical calculation?

LLJul 20 2011 3:54pm
You know in women's history they were not alowed to do most things not just science but sports and leadership positions. Obviously if you do not let someone do something than you have no idea how well they can do at the thing you stopped them from doing. So claiming a woman can't do as well by stopping them is only based on "heresay" & "opinon" and not actual performance. The mathematical performance of the women was actual reality and now history. Until women are given a chance and perform and show results, it is nothing but opinion & heresay to say that women are not well suited for some task or science without allowing then access is bogas as it gets. The fatcs of history are women were not given access, now that they are gaining acces we have actual results. The results speak for themselves in women doing better than men in higher education. LL is correct in the history as well as the performance. Facts are facts. I to would like your view Limon on why the women did much better with the complex calculations of astronomy? This doesn't fit your "logic" or your opinions. You clearly believe the female is an inferior thinker yet there it is for you to explain. I agree with LL that women were not allowed to do these things and it's a fact of history and would without a doubt prevent them from achievement. Why did the women do better at complex math using an inferior brain? I'm laughing when I type this!

ReallyJul 20 2011 4:17pm
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but the reason the Harvard collage observatory hired the harem of women was because Henry Drapers widow wife donated the money with the stipulation that women would do the work. The work was simple calculation and logging clerical type work but they were so novel that they became known as Pickerings Harem. All kinds of legend came about afterwards such as they replaced a group of bumbling men with sloppy record keeping skills and they went on to discover new constellations (they did not). Nothing more than an early You Go Girl session.

AnonymousJul 20 2011 4:24pm
A biological anomaly! The inferior female brain did much better at astronomical calculations than the superior male brain! The women were called computers before electronic computers were created. A big part of astronomical discovery! It really difies "Limon logic" as does women doing better then men today in higher education. Seeing that women are never so smart as to be geniuses. In a world that actually forbid them to exercise their thoughts or brains. Kind of like playing ball and taking away one teams gloves, bats, gear, and making up the rules along the way to favor your team! Making your team look like the better players! Tell us all wise Limon how those second place thinking women pulled it off! Why? Why are they doing better in school as well?

AnonymousJul 20 2011 4:31pm
i remember seeing that mensa graph a long time ago it shows the men are the smartest but also the dumbest

AnonymousJul 20 2011 4:41pm
Limon needs to understand the definion of some terms or words. Like "equal" as in access.

AnonymousJul 20 2011 5:21pm
I don't think it was Limon but it did come up in an earlier post somewhere that it has been 40 some years of equal opportunity for women by way of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Yet the only thing that has come of it has been political correctness and affirmative action. No new inventions, no new concepts and no breakthroughs by women that the world can benefit from.

AnonymousJul 20 2011 6:22pm
^That is a great point. I've been an engineer for 5 years and this is politically incorrect to say, but I personally have noticed that women tend to be less innovative. Now I've come across many smart women, but the truth is when I categorize someone as "brilliant" it's pretty much always a man. That's just my personal experience. Of course you can cherry pick inventions that women have created, but even in the past few decades (when men and women have had equal opportunity) all major technological breakthroughs have been made by men.

RonJul 20 2011 6:45pm
I concur with the previous 2 posts also. It seems women are perfectly in line to take over the jobs of the future, not so sure about the leadership. Women take orders well, don't talk back, do as their told, don't question authority and don't rock the boat. They are the herd, and that is perfect in a totalitarian society which is rapidly approaching by the way.

AnonymousJul 20 2011 8:40pm
I concur because I'm a moron like Limon. I have lots of facts like woman are not leaders only men. Women are not smart and follow my orders. Women can't do it.

LemonJul 20 2011 11:03pm
FACTS. Until about 1840, only 20 U.S. patents were issued to women. Patents are the proof of "ownership" of an invention and only the inventor(s) can apply for a patent. In the past, women were not allowed equal rights of property ownership (patents are a form of intellectual property) and many women patented their inventions under their husband's or father's names. In the past, women were also prevented from receiving the higher education necessary for inventing. On May 15 1809, Mary Dixon Kies received the first U. S. patent issued to a woman. Kies invented a process for weaving straw with silk or thread. At that time, in many states women could not legally own property independent of their husbands and many women inventors didn't bother to patent their new inventions. Mary Kies broke that pattern on May 5, 1809.

AnonymousJul 20 2011 11:35pm
A partial list of the many ingenious inventions by women. Antifungal antibiotic (Nystatin) Rachel Fuller Brown and Elizabeth Lee Hazen 1957 Barbi Doll Ruth Handler 1959 Brassiere Mary Phelps Jacob 1913 Battery container Nancy Perkins 1986 Beehive Thiphena Hornbrook 1861 Cabinet Bed Sarah Goode 1885 Canister vacuum Nancy Perkins 1987 Car heater Margaret Wilcox 1893 Circular saw Tabitha Babbit 1812 COBOL (Common Business-Oriented Language) Grace Hopper 1959 Computer program Augusta Ada Byron 1842 Cooking stove Elizabeth Hawk 1867 CPR Mannequin Dianne Croteau, et al 1989 Dam and reservoir construction Harriet Strong 1887 Direct and return mailing envelope Beulah Henry 1962 Dishwasher Josephine Cochran 1872 Disposable cell phone Randi Altschul 1999 Drinking fountain device Laurene O'Donnell 1985 Electric hot water heater Ida Forbes 1917 Elevated railway Mary Walton 1881 Engine muffler El Dorado Jones 1917 Feedback control for data processing Erna Hoover 1971 Fire escape Anna Connelly 1887 Fireplace damper actuator Virgie Ammons 1975 Geobond Patricia Billings 1997 Globes Ellen Fitz 1875 "Gong and signal chair" Miriam Benjamin 1888 Grain storage bin Lizzie Dickelman 1920 Hair products for African Americans Madame C.J. Walker 1908 Improved animal handling systems in meat plants Dr. Temple Grandin 1989 Improved locomotive wheels Mary Jane Montgomery 1864 Improvement in dredging machines Emily Tassey 1876 Improvement in stone pavements Emily Gross 1877 Kevlar, a steel-like fiber used in radial tires, crash helmets, and bulletproof vests Stephanie Kwolek 1966 Life raft Maria Beaseley 1882 Liquid Paper correction fluid Bette Nesmith Graham 1956 Locomotive chimney Mary Walton 1879 Medical syringe Letitia Geer 1899 Mop-wringer pail Eliza Wood 1889 Newborn Scoring System (Apgar Score) Dr. Virginia Apgar 1949 Non-reflective glass Katherine Blodgett 1938 Oil burner Amanda Jones 1880 Optical analysis systems Dr. Ellen Ochoa 1987 Permanent wave for the hair Marjorie Joyner 1928 Portable screen summer house Nettie Rood 1882 Process for isolating human stem cells Ann Tsukamoto, et al 1991 Refrigerator Florence Parpart 1914 Rolling pin Catherine Deiner 1891 Rotary engine Margaret Knight 1902 Safety device for elevators Harriet Tracy 1892 Signal generator Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson 1966 Spread spectrum Hedy Lamarr 1941 Street cleaning machine Florence Parpart 1900 Submarine lamp and telescope Sara Mather 1845 Suspenders Laura Cooney 1896 Washing machine Margaret Colvin 1871 Windshield wiper Mary Anderson 1903 Zigzag sewing machine Helen Blanchard 1873

Some things you might not want to go withoutJul 20 2011 11:45pm
How's about the manly "Circular saw" -Tabitha Babbit 1812. Let's not forget, Process for isolating human stem cells Ann Tsukamoto, et al 1991 MEN LOVE Kevlar, a steel-like fiber used in radial tires, crash helmets, and bulletproof vests Stephanie Kwolek 1966 *Rotary engine* Margaret Knight 1902

Taboo!Jul 20 2011 11:55pm
African American female patent holder Alice H. Parker Issued a patent for a heating furnace. The invention provided a mechanism for regulating heat to be carried to vaious rooms of a building. December 19,1919

Aren't you glad a "black woman" invented it!Jul 21 2011 12:02am
Patricia Bath, M.D. a black woman Inventor. Laser apparatus for surgery of cataractous lenses Method and apparatus for ablating and removing cataract Apparatus for Ablating & Removing Cataract Lenses Jul. 6, 1999 Dec.1,1998 May 17,1988

Yet againJul 21 2011 12:06am
Marie V.Brittan Brown a black woman inventor. "Home security system" Dec.2,1969 these are all patents

Thank herJul 21 2011 12:09am
The list of woman inventors is endless. After women were actually allowed to invent and patent the inventions. Most references state the list is "to large" in the patent records.

You don't know how manyJul 21 2011 12:19am
"I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but the reason the Harvard collage observatory hired the harem of women was because Henry Drapers widow wife donated the money with the stipulation that women would do the work. The work was simple calculation and logging clerical type work but they were so novel that they became known as Pickerings Harem. All kinds of legend came about afterwards such as they replaced a group of bumbling men with sloppy record keeping skills and they went on to discover new constellations (they did not). Nothing more than an early You Go Girl session." -You mean they even practiced Affirmative Action back then? lol.-

AnonymousJul 21 2011 5:59am
Notice womens so called inventions are additions or enhancements to the real deal. No discovering electricity, inventing the steam engine, cracking the atom and so on. One of the reasons is because the female disposition is collective rather than individual. Good for socializing bad for inventing. Some of the inventions listed above are just rehashes of the old. Note that Margaret Knight came up with devices *related* to rotary engines but of course this was more than a decade after Felix Millet showcased an actual real life whole rotary engine at the Paris Universal Exposition in 1889. Felix invented and Margaret enhanced. Similarily Alice Parker came up with an *improved* version of the heating furnace in 1919, but it was Abraham Darby who created the first actual blast furnace in 1709. And on & on it goes.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 7:35am
I hate to burst YOUR bubble but you are twisting the truth. I studied astronomy and the true history is the "complex math" whas done by the women and they did it better than men. The measurements of the objects in the universe and the luminosity is complex calculation that was way to mch work for just the astronomer to do, so not just someone but a group had to do the work. It is recorded in the history books as "complex mathematics" because that is what it was. The reason discovery is not directly by women even though much of the discovery was actually done through mathematics, was that women were not (allowed) to discover. Something you continue to not comprehend. It is probablu the truth that more discovery was actually done by women who wee in charge of actually studying the photographs and then bringing the discovery to the astronomer the findings. These women excelled at what they did and trusted by the astronomers. The fact that both men and women did this job but women were better at it and the complex math is a matter of historical fact and in the history books. You have your opinion.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 9:05am
Again for the slow learners. Women were not >allowed< to do anything until very recent. They were not even >cultured< in that direction, or pushed, or encouraged. You could say the same for blacks, "look, the black man has not done very many things, he has not invented like the smart white man" - case closed. Ignoring history is very convenient in forming your theory. I can now say black men are not good thinkers and inferior by ifgnoring the cultural history of not allowing them to do anything. Just like women. I would like to tie your hands and feet all up and then play ball with you! I'll really be so superior at ball while you go no place! I'm the better ball player! YAY! I win! Moron

AnonymousJul 21 2011 9:16am
The inferior female is ahead of the superior male. Limon's logic? Stifling boys and special privilege for girls is the reason. actual stupd thinking. special privilage was foe men until very recent. The word you need to learn is "equal" as in access to education. Now we have some results, actual real world results and not artificially rigged results from not having equal access. Again for the slow learner the reason for the changes is given in the articles "sex discrimination fading" the inconvenient truth. Let us one more time face the truth, sex discrimination is at the core. Just like racial discrimination has been an obstical for many. It was a rigged system, now things are changing and look at the results. Your artificial world is falling apart and the truth is revealed. As women are outpacing men in education, your inferior women theory is trashed right in front of your own stubborn mind. The real world results do not even resemble your male superiority. They don't! Obviousy you are mistaken. That is what the result actually prove. Talk is cheap. You can just keep blabbing about male superiority while women pull farther ahead in education and become scientists, doctors, CEO, and so on. Hilarious! Your dumb thinking defies reality!

Reality check.Jul 21 2011 9:50am
"I concur because I'm a moron like Limon. I have lots of facts like woman are not leaders only men. Women are not smart and follow my orders. Women can't do it. Lemon" -These are the comments of a loser. A sore loser who has nothing to offer except personal attacks. If you dont have the ability to think then please dont bother posting.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 9:56am
More from the self styled intellect: "YAY! I win! Moron" -The only thing you are "winning" at is showing how small minded you are. You have turned a discussion into a win/lose contest and its become apparant you want to win at all costs even if that means stretching the truth or rewriting history. You win alright, in your own head. Others who read these posts know better. You go girl!

AnonymousJul 21 2011 10:03am
More women have held bachelors for some time: Starting in the year 1996, women surpassed men in total numbers earning bachelors degrees: approximately 20.1-million women hold bachelor's degrees as compared to roughly 18.7-million men. This creates a "degree gap" with men lagging by nearly 1.5-million. Now, women have pulled ahead in masters and PhD degrees as well: The new numbers indicate that for the first time in history, 10.6-million women have earned advanced degrees compared to men, who stand at 10.5-million. These numbers are based on total adults 25 years of age and older. Women now lead men in all total education categories: According to the Current Population Survey, of total adults over age 25, women also lead men in numbers having graduated from high school. The latest statistics available are from March 2010, but show 87.6% of high school graduates to be women as opposed to 86.6% for young men. During the 1950's, the norm was for women to be employed in the home, raising children, with all the responsibilities and, often, inequities, that were associated with this reality. Men went to work in business and industry and were the wage-earners. But, as women gain ever- increasing success in earning advanced college degrees than men, the entire system appears to be in a state of reversal. Currently, the male unemployment number stands at 9.3%. On the other side of the coin, only 8.3% of women are jobless.

NEWS FLASH! Dumber women pulling ahead of smarter men in educatJul 21 2011 10:03am
"I don't think it was Limon but it did come up in an earlier post somewhere that it has been 40 some years of equal opportunity for women by way of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Yet the only thing that has come of it has been political correctness and affirmative action. No new inventions, no new concepts and no breakthroughs by women that the world can benefit from." -This is a great point still not replied to. If sexual discrimination was at the core for womens achievement in the past, then what has been holding them back for the last 40 years?

AnonymousJul 21 2011 10:08am
So what have women created with their degrees and advanced education? zippo, thought so.

NEWS FLASH! The real world is not the feminized world of educatJul 21 2011 10:11am
?Women have this self motivation and determination to succeed that men lack,? said small business owner Christopher Ruiz, 21. ?Multi tasking in a man?s mind is taking a piss and showering at the same time, but when a woman is multi tasking, she is going to school, working two jobs, taking care of her kids, cooking and keeping the house clean.? According to Associated Newspapers Ltd., the number of employed women has been rising, while the numbers for men continue to fall. The trend affects young people even more. Teenage men have been hit hardest by the recession. ?Among 16 and 17-year-olds, women already outnumber men in the workplace with 30 percent holding down a job, compared to 23 percent of men,? said Associated Newspapers Ltd. It seems that more and more women are working hard to assert and make a name for themselves in this male dominated society. While women seem to be progressing, men seem to be digressing. There are fewer men working than ever before and sadly, there are many who seem to be ok with that. The women of the 21st century continue to expand on the rights they were given during the women?s movement of the 1970s. Women are taking on male-dominated roles, while continuing to be the primary caretakers of their children. ?I think it?s because women have become more empowered and traditional gender roles are not as important,? said graduating senior Sahar Haraz, 25. ?I think women have stepped out of their traditional gender roles and are a force to be reckoned with.? ?It?s just sort of this dramatic revolution that?s taking place but nobody?s really talking about it that much,? says Beth Kobliner, author of Get A Financial Life: Personal Finance In Your 20?s and 30?s. ?Also, we?re seeing that more married women have unemployed husbands than ever before?so the question is: are we going to start seeing the real ?Mister Mom?s?? men doing the laundry and taking care of all those household jobs?? As women strive to be more successful, men are becoming more content with being mediocre. In many households, women are now becoming the primary breadwinners, where families are now relying on the woman?s income to pay the bills. In the singles sector, women are going to pick up the man for the date and the man is seemingly satisfied reclining in the passenger seat of the woman?s car. Have the traditional roles been reversed? ?The roles of women have expanded immensely,? said medical student Errisha Richardson, 24. ?If we work outside the home, we are still expected to cook, clean and take care of the children. Although I have no problem with those things, I think this work should be a shared effort. There are more men staying at home and less seeking higher education.?

Oh wellJul 21 2011 10:17am
Just more data that proves women are and will be the *workers* of the future. As previously mentioned here women are perfectly in line to take over the jobs of the future, not so sure about the leadership. Women take orders well, don't talk back, do as their told, don't question authority and don't rock the boat. They are the herd, and that is perfect in a totalitarian society which is rapidly approaching by the way.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 10:21am
As you can see "limon" again is wrong about economics having nothing to do with culture. Limon could actually use an education. As economics can completely change culture as it is now and back in Germany before WW2 and the fall of thr Roman Empire... all these cultures directly affected by economics and changed or collapsed as a result of economics.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 10:23am
An interesting sideline here; it used to be a common concept during the 1950's to pay a man a living wage because he would be supporting a family. The rise of womens lib and the resulting 2 income household of today got rid of that concept. I wonder if women now took over all the jobs would they take care of their man the way it used to work in reverse? Throwing it out there.

russJul 21 2011 10:27am
Education=leadership. I really do agree with you on one thing for sure. A totalitarian society is rapidly approaching. At the core of course is economics. Fiat paper money is collapsing because it has zero value and must be managed by polititions & bankers. That was how Germany changed prior to WW2. It is authoritarian economics and a rigged system. Rigged to fail at the moment which could result in totalitarian society.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 10:32am
russ of course not, that's why we're starting to see a decline in marriage. Women are selfish creatures who only care about themselves.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 10:32am
Russ, the idea of women staying at home and men working is just that, an idea. It isn't necessarily natural but is a human invention within a given economy just like the economy it's self is an invention.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 10:36am
Men are not selfish? Remember special privilege for men and not women? Selfishness on a grand scale!

AnonymousJul 21 2011 10:39am
Lets see, women are dumb and selfish. Pulling ahead of men anyway and dispite those mental handycaps! It must be Limon logic!

AnonymousJul 21 2011 10:41am
It wasn't limon who separated culture from economics, it was me who separated economics from mass immigration. And I still maintain that one has nothing to do with the other. Mass immigration of people from ANY economic background will lead to the displacement of our culture of careers and 1.5 babies. I went to the sidelines on this discussion once I got fed up with arguing against fuzzy logic.

PhilJul 21 2011 10:44am
Whew!! It's gotten hot in here since I last visited. Great to see so much activity, much of it inspiring. Now before I post again I'd like to say a few words (No, I'm NOT running for office). I have been (mildly) personally attacked here but I do not take offence and I will not do the same, it's not my style. I write what I know to be the truth based on my scholarly pursuits and often provide links or mention the name of the quote provider etc. I encourage everybody to read on from those as the true history is fascinating and not always what we are taught or told. And the funny part is what started off as counter culture & rebellious, things like feminism, homosexuality, rock & roll, drug culture, alternative lifestyles, gay marriage, the green movement, slandering Christianity & Islam and promoting the clash of those 2 cultures are now parroted as mainstream. So if you want to be rebellious now, you should actually rebut the current culture and in your pursuits you will be very surprised to learn that almost all 'grassroots' movements were sponsored by some 'elite' society or NGO (think Rockefeller, the CIA, the Ford foundation etc.). These NGO's foisted these 'movements' onto the governments of the past to weaken society into eventually accepting their one world order. Now our government has been infiltrated and so the rebellious movements of the past have become current government doctrine and the media is the puppet master. They tell us what to believe through popular culture. Enough on this, it's a complete discussion on it's own. But lastly I hope people would read what I write fully before misquoting me or putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Example is when I quoted Camille Paglia who said "There will never be a female Mozart because there will never be a female Jack the Ripper". From this single line I was slandered in a couple posts as if I believed women couldn't compose music. Not at all a correct assumption. Another novelty is claiming to know what I think as in "Limon logic" or "Limon believes that ... blah blah blah..." you get it. I would like to believe that the truly enlightened posters among us would refrain from using the previously mentioned routines. For all others, hope you enjoy the posts. Cheers.

LimonJul 21 2011 11:28am
Phil, let's clear up that fuzy logic again. The mass immigration is mostly un-educated and they are immigrating because of economic reasons. Even they know that. Recently as Taiwan's economy grew the culture changed from having 6 children and having them grow up to do hard labor to having 2 children and getting them educated. The Taiwanese figgured it out! In order to live better it takes an education and it costs money. Having 6 children do hard labor or 2 children in the new economy making much more money and living better! This cultural change happened in one decade and it was economics that caused this change. The immagration to America has always been for economic reasons. Even as a laborer, they have a better chance in a better economy but until anyone gets an education, they will never lead anyone. This is not the dark ages when a bigger clan meant bumping off the smaller clan! No fuzzy logic just your fuzzy thinking. It's little wonder women are pulling ahead as you guys can't put two & two together! Sheesh! Peons are NOT LEADERS!!! The poor Mexican's comming across the U.S. Boarder are just that "poor" and they are poor because they have no education and with no education comes low or little income! They CAN'T LEAD. It is so simple even the poor Mexican knows this is the truth but you do not? Leaders are educated unless they are leaders into the crops or factories to do hard labor. Forchrisakes! DUH!

common senseJul 21 2011 11:43am
Limon the lead women are taking in education really does not fit your evaluation of women. It defies your concusions. Your view is actually old world male dominance and can't even fit into what is actually happening. Although I strongly agree with your view of the direction of government in general. If women were actually the second rate thinkers you claim they are, things would not be changing as they are in women pulling ahead in education. Fact. Your flawed model doesn't work in the real world only in a artificial rigged world where women are stopped, forbiden, and lack equal access to education and science. In the real world they are pulling ahead of men as the artificial blockades are removed. It's the facts.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 11:57am
It defies your conclusions.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 11:58am
Hello Anonymous (the last 2 of you). Understand that I do not believe women are second rate thinkers (or most of the other negative things mentioned in my name) I previously stated that men were at the extremes and women were in the middle of the intelligence curves. There are all manner of brilliant women just as men. As far as the education system goes I am almost ready to post. Please be sure to read point #4 Women outstripping boys in school. Back in a bit.

LimonJul 21 2011 12:17pm
Limon I just wanted to compliment you on your composure and patience throughout this board. Others seem to be slandering you and skewing what you say because they don't like it when logic gets in the way of their fantasies. But I've learned a lot from your posts and think that they are objective.

Ronald R.Jul 21 2011 12:26pm
(1) IQ tests for ages have shown that in terms of intelligence the male is the more variable sex. For evolutionary purposes variation is important and I think nature gave that role to the males rather the females, at least where intelligence is concerned. At the extremes of the bell shaped curves for IQ in women and men, there are more men. Specifically, there are more male morons and more male geniuses. The advances in science, technology, and the arts have come about overwhelmingly because of male genius. Subjugation of women and not allowing them to develop their intellectual potential is a partial explanation of why men have caused most advances in civilization, but I think the fact that more men are geniuses than women is the main explanation. Since it seems that this variation in IQ is an innate thing rather than due to socialization, in the future there will still be more male geniuses that female ones. Since the world is becoming ever more complex and we face population, food, and environmental problems, we will need genius to find solutions. Some of the geniuses will be women, but most will be men. This does not mean that men as a class are smarter than women as a class. The average woman and the average man are equal in intelligence. It only means what it means?that there will be more male geniuses than females ones. Since we will sorely need genius in the future and most if will be male genius, it is vital that everyone regardless of sex have the opportunity to and be encouraged to develop their whatever talents they have. ***** (2) I pointed out that IQ tests indicate that the average woman and the average man are equal in intelligence. Given that, how do we explain the fact that girls are outperforming boys and young women are outperforming young men in education? One answer is that schools are discriminating against boys, perhaps unconsciously. However, the phenomenon of the females outperforming the males in education seems to be worldwide and it seems odd that schools systems and teachers colleges all over the world would be discriminating against the males. Another answer is that there are other differences between girls and boys that explain the greater school success of the girls. And if there are such differences, then we should ask if they exist innately or because of socialization. I personally do not have answers and I find it distressing that the so called social and behavioral *scientists* cannot form a consensus on answers. ***** (3) Liberty and equality are two great ideals. Some say that there is no progress in history, but I think that the ideals of liberty and equality have grown over the centuries and found wider and wider application. Slavery is universally condemned among the developed nations. The idea of democratic government with equal representation regardless of sex, race, creed, and ethnicity has grown tremendously in the last couple of centuries. I predict that these ideal of liberty and equality will not only continue in the future but will grow. Since I predicate a coming matriarchy, I predicate one founded on the ideals of liberty and equality. Thus, I do not think that any future matriarchy is likely try to subjugate men as women were subjugated (and still are in many countries). ***** (4) My last comment leads me to point out that a matriarchy is not necessarily a female supremacy. A matriarchy is simply a society in which women as a group hold more power than men as group. The disparity in power may not be very great or uniform. By *uniform* I mean in all important areas of life. For example, it might be that women will dominate the health professions and men would continue to dominate the engineering professions. If that should happen, neither women nor men would dominate in ALL important areas of life. In any case, a society can be a matriarchy and be true to the ideals of liberty and equality. A female supremacist society on the other hand one in which men are institutionally subjugated. Such a society is not true to the ideals of liberty and equality. ***** (5) Concerning equality, one might ask?equality of what? I have in mind two kinds of equality, distinct but intimately related. One is equality of basic rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every person regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity is equal to any other person, unless he or she forfeits a right, such as criminal forfeiting the right of liberty. The other equality is that of intrinsic worth. If we accept the equal intrinsic worth of every person, then we realize the focus at all times should be on the individual. To see a person as defined by her or his membership in a group is to stereotype?a too common intellectual error. ***** (6) People speaks of the *battle of the sexes* but I consider this expression to be a figure of speech, humorously used on occasion but not really substantive. However, we do have gender roles and sexual identities and those things are part of the picture. The most intimate of human relationships is that of wife and husband, where two people are so much in each other?s company and have responsibilities for the other. In such a close relationship there will be conflicts and where the wife and husband have different gender roles the two might see conflict in terms of gender, but fundamentally it is a conflict of individuals. On a larger scale, where society assigns women to one role or mode of behavior and men to another, most women will often develop interests and perspectives that are different from those of most men. Where public policy is a concern, women as a group and men as a group might vote differently on the policy. However, what is really going is that most individual women vote for one thing and most individual men for another. It is not that women conspire and organize to vote AS a group or that men do likewise. Each individual votes her or his way as an individual, not as a member of one sex or the other. ***** (7) As noted, more young women than young men are going to and graduating from college. This phenomenon is the result of millions of individual young women making their individual decisions to go to college. It is not that women got together and conspired to outdo their male peers in education. They did not decide and act AS members of the group *women? but decided and acted as individuals. ***** (8) Nevertheless, there is some *us vs. they* mentality that arises from members of one sex comparing themselves with members of the other sex. Feminism sought to raise awareness of female and male rights, opportunities, and achievements, and it was successful. Although there is some naturalness regarding the develop of *us vs. they* mentality, it has no place in serious policy making because it is stereotypical thinking and the focus, as noted above, should be on individuals. ***** (9) the commenter AK makes a good point when he (I think *he*) says *All trends have a tendency to reach a point of equilibrium and in many areas may have already hit that point.* I base my belief in a coming matriarchy on a number of trends concerning differences in where women are going and where men are going. I noted many of these trends in an earlier post. The most important trend seems to have reached equilibrium. It is that of more young women than young men graduating from college. However, the equilibrium is not 50-50 but something like 57% to 43% to the advantage of the women. Education = More earnings and more power. The implications of this very large advantage for women seem to me to lead to a matriarchy. It may not be an *uniform* one as defined above. AK may be right in that men will continue to comprise the majority of members in both houses of the U.S. Congress. If so, I think it will be because more men than women are interested in running for Congress, not because not enough women are capable but because not enough women are interested. Even so, legislative representatives serve at the pleasure of their constituents, a majority of whom will be women. These representatives must please the women to get and keep their positions. So who really has the power? In the federal executive branch, there will be women presidents and there will be men presidents, but I believe women will comprise the majority of the managers in the Civil Service. Women may well comprise a majority of the federal judges because women seem to like the legal profession and of course do well in it. Governments at the state and local levels will likely follow the federal pattern. I see overall the balance of governmental power belonging to women but not overwhelmingly so. At the personal level, there will eventually be equilibrium between families with female heads and those with male heads, and when it settles the women may have a slight advantage (skilled tradesmen like plumbers and electricians make good money). In any case, the roles of the sexes will be vastly changed from the 1960s and the days of *women-s liberation.* ***** (10) The question of this forum is: If women do become the dominant sex, do you think they will consolidate their hold on power and retain it indefinitely or will men gradually claw it back? Yes, women will become the dominant sex in that women collectively will hold more power than men collectively, but not overwhelmingly so (43% male college graduates is significant). Yes, women collectively will retain their greater power indefinitely, but not because *they* will consolidate it, where *they* means women acting in an organized group fashion rather than as individual. No, men will not gradually claw it back. This implies an *us vs. them* mentality where men organize as a group to *fight* women as a group. There will not be a male rebellion unless female supremacists in the matriarchy should gain control of society and try to subjugate men. The likelihood of this is fantastically small. The probability is that the majority of individual men will gradually accept a matriarchic society and maybe even like it and prefer it to the old patriarchic societies they will read about in the history books.

Believer in the Coming MatriarchyJul 21 2011 12:44pm
Well it's a long winded post coming your way. First off thank you Ronald R for your supportive words and if I was somehow able to have you learn from my tact ? well I'm just humbled. Thanks again. Again I wish I had more time, not sure if I can keep up this pace as I have to fulfill my duties in the real world too. I am sure this is going to be controversial again but I look forward to further communication later. Here we go: When I ended off on my last comment I said, so much to discuss, so little time. Wow, lots of replies and rebuts to my posts but I can?t possible answer them all. But what the heck, lets try: 1) Women are more peaceful: AK hit it right on the head, nuff said (and thanks for the support bud, it can be a hostile environment in here). Well maybe we can just add a couple more: Elizabeth I war with Spain (Spanish Armada), Joan of Arc 100 years war, Cleopatra war against Rome. Not to forget our current quagmire in Libya. It is secretary of state Hillary Clinton and UN ambassador Susan Rice who are credited with convincing Obama to begin the campaign there. 2) Men put up barriers to control women: There is so much (incorrect) belief in this one it shows what the big bucks behind feminism can achieve. (Rockefeller & CIA funding promotes feminism, please google for more, you?ll be surprised). Some of the points brought up here: ((A))-Women were forbidden to vote. I completely covered that in my last post,but I guess I could copy/paste it, here it is. The vote is another popular topic when spun in popular feminist culture. We are led to believe that ?men? had voting privileges for thousands of years while women fought hard for them until finally winning them on their own in the 1920?s (US). In reality there was no vote as there was no democracy. And pre-democracy the men were out working (toiling) to provide for their family, there were no government services or women & children?s ministry. As we moved into democracy it was only those men who owned property that gained right to vote (they were known as the elite). Even their women were not emancipated; they were subject to their men under democracy because it was their men who were RESPONSIBLE for them and their children. It wasn?t until decades later that the ordinary man received the entitlement to vote and that is because they were expected to fight and die for their country, and the world view was moving more towards rewarding good rather than enslavement for bad. It was only a few short decades later that the wives of the ?elite? began their suffragette campaign to get the vote for all women. The common man was in agreement with this (you never hear about that) and the powers that be granted women the vote. It was understood to be a special privilege since women would not have to fight to defend the country and there was no structured work in which they could support themselves or give back to society. ((B))-Forbidden from sports. Sports were historically a show-off of feats of strength of which men are superior. In the last few generations our society has embraced the idea of competitive sports (golf, chess, tennis) rather than sheer strength and women are inclusive in this movement. ((C))-Forbidden in business/management/leadership. As women were making strides into the workforce from the 60?s to the 80?s I will concur there may have been some resistance in accommodating 'the new kid on the block' with the previous generation of males. Aside from that this argument is a joke. Firstly there was no time. A non automated (no appliances) old fashion household with several children was a real full time job. There was NO business to contract and no company to manage. You want to manage a chimney sweep company that meant you went up the flue. The past was nothing like the present. Men died at 40 years of age from hard labor. You think they had to actively keep women away from that?? Well, I guess if the feminists say so. (not)! 3) Women want equality and liberty: So do I. So does everyone else. There are no impediments to women from men that do not also exist from men to men. Those men that rule us all, RULE US ALL. That means all of us brothers & sisters. The fanatical feminist notion that there is a worldwide conspiracy of all men to control women is absurd, but according to much of the commentary here, is a widely held belief. The equality that feminists push for is always the cream of the crop & never the crap (nice cushy jobs only please). There is always this talk of the 'glass ceiling' but no mention of the 'glass cellar', jobs that women avoid like the plague. The Glass Cellar consists of the hazardous jobs and the worst jobs (minimum security, low pay, bad conditions). The hazardous jobs-or Death Professions-result in 93% of the people who are killed at work being men. Of the 25 professions that the Jobs Rated Almanac rates as the worse professions, 24 have in common the fact that they constitute 85% or more males (welders, roofers, etc.). The Glass Cellar allows us to predict that virtually 100% of the firefighters and police officers who gave their lives at the World Trade Center on 9/11 would be men; that 100% of the recently trapped coal miners were men; that in the Gulf War, though men outnumbered women by 9 to 1, they were killed at a ratio of 27 to 1. Virtually no large office building or bridge is built without a man dying in its construction, whether as a coal miner, lumberjack, trucker, welder, roofer, or construction worker. I guess the don't reeeaaaaally want equality after all. 4) Women outstripping boys in school: Right off the hop congrats gals, you've come a long way. However another poster (in another forum) gives a clearer indication of why the gals shouldn't be so smug. "When females outperform males in the contrived, politically correct, feminized education system, it's due to their superior intellect and drive. When males outperform females in the real world, where you have to produce something of actual value to others, it's sexism." Well said. The truth of the K-12 education system is that it's stacked against boys. A decent review of Christina Hoff-Sommers' 2001 book The War Against Boy: how misguided feminism is harming our young men, tells it well. The second of her books criticizing radical feminism, is brilliant in introducing the idea that modern public education is failing boys, misdiagnosing them as learning disabled when really, they were just approaching learning like, well, boys. That is, they weren't as compliant, they wanted to know WHY they were learning things, and they are emotionally behind girls of the same age, and maturation expectations are unrealistic for many boys. Here are some critical points: 1). Boys, by nature, challenge authority As Sommers understood, it is boys? aggressive and rationalist nature?redefined by educators as a behavioral disorder?that?s getting so many of them in trouble in the feminized schools. Their problem: they don?t want to be girls. 2). If you don't answer the important questions boys ask, they disengage When a teacher assigns a paper or a project, girls will obediently flip their notebooks open and jot down the due date. Teachers love them. God loves them. Girls are calm and pleasant. They succeed through cooperation. Boys will pin you to the wall like a moth. They want a rational explanation for everything. If unconvinced by your reasons?or if you don?t bother to offer any?they slouch contemptuously in their chairs, beat their pencils, or watch the squirrels outside the window. 3). Our current system labels healthy male behaviors "learning disabled" The notion of male ethical inferiority first arises in grammar school, where women make up the overwhelming majority of teachers. It?s here that the alphabet soup of supposed male dysfunctions begins. And make no mistake: while girls occasionally exhibit symptoms of male-related disorders in this world, females diagnosed with learning disabilities simply don?t exist. 4). Labeling our boys as "learning disabled" is mostly a self-fulfilling prophecy In the first IEP (Individualized Educational Program) meeting, the boy and his parents learn the results of disability testing. When the boy hears from three smiling adults that he does indeed have a learning disability, his young face quivers like Jell-O. For him, it was never a hustle. From then on, however, his expectations of himself?and those of his teachers?plummet. 5). White males are now almost absent or relegated to the bottom rungs in our textbooks But even in their superficial aspects, the textbooks advertise publishers? intent to pander to the prevailing PC attitudes. The books feature page after page of healthy, exuberant young girls in winning portraits. Boys (white boys in particular) will more often than not be shunted to the background in photos or be absent entirely or appear sitting in wheelchairs. 6). Male characteristics actually help them excel in the hard sciences In today?s feminized classroom, with its ?cooperative learning? and ?inclusiveness,? a student?s demand for assurance of a worthwhile outcome for his effort isn?t met with a reasonable explanation but is considered inimical to the educational process. Yet it?s this very trait, innate to boys and men, that helps explain male success in the hard sciences, math, and business. There is plenty of data showing the average differences between both boys and girls, and how they learn and approach things, including reliable differences in: -Life priorities -Interest in people v. things -Risk-seeking -Spatial transformation -Mathematical reasoning -Variability Of course, we have in the recent past had overly masculinized education. The advances of healthy feminism have gone a good way towards correcting that. But radical and lesbian feminism, which hates the true masculine, and has tried to get us to buy that equal also means "the same," and that gender norms based on biology are harmful to "non-traditional gender identities" (read gays/transgenders), has damaged our entire culture, from education to marriage and sexuality.

LimonJul 21 2011 12:50pm
Look at it this way .... Females have been deliberately excluded from academia, business, politics, etc, for at least several thousand years, and still are suffering from blatant discrimination in many countries. In the west, until the start of the 20th century women were considered categorically inferior to men in all earthly matters except childbirth, which they were considered barely capable of. 19th century male doctors treated the female as a delicate with barely enough strength to produce a few children, and not enough left for much else. Volumes of medical books were written detailing the dangers to a woman's procreative function should she participate in the male arenae of science, business and politics. Women were systematically brainwashed into believing their own inferiority. This was possible because there are enough brutal males to make sure that women stay in their place. Women were isolated from one another and denied access to mass media. But that changed in the 20th century, partly as a result of scientific progress - biologists were able to establish that women were in fact biologically more resilient than males. Males - on average - have one biological/physiological advantage over women; size. This was made clear over the course of the 20th century and the world is catching up with the news. As for males being more variable than women. There's certainly plenty of evidence of this. There are way more male idiots than female. But the male advantage in "genius" is quite questionable. Considering the history of male oppression of women, the quantitative difference between RECORDED instances of male and female "genius" has to be questioned. As women ascend in academia, we will see the ratio change. Not because of any favoritism to women, but because women will continue to express their innate mental superiority. Women are less variable as a group, but that doesn't mean there have to be more male geniuses than female. Before long, the myth of the male genius advantage will be another forgotten patriarchal fallacy.

ymanJul 21 2011 3:29pm
Actually that Mensa study showing the intelligence curve is recent. Anybody of high intelligence can join Mensa, there?s no holding women back. If you are high IQ enough you can join, simple as that. It is understood that intelligence has a high heritability meaning it?s overwhelmingly in the genes. Which means that a lot of females going to school isnt going to affect that curve. Just as a white skinned person wont turn into a black person by moving to Jamaica. Might get a good tan though.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 3:47pm
Limon, everything you say is based on opinion and theory as if women have put some obsticals in front of males to cause them to fall behind. This is just so much nonsense. Like feminized class rooms? Baloney! You fail to recognize the reality of history in which women were forbiden to do anything and them tell us about the imaginary obsticals boys face through imaginary "feminized schools" as some new obstical now facing the male! Bull! Women lead in education and that's that and it's the result of allowing them an education and nothing more than that. You go on and on about theories of some kind of plot that's the true answer for what is happening and not hard work on the behalf of women. I do not think women are more intelligent than men or the other way around as a whole. I do believe the two genders actually think differnt. That difference in thinking is putting women ahead. As far as athletics again women are just getting started because of freedom so it's to early to say what is in the future. What is true is that women have quickly closed many of the perfomance gaps in a very short time. The gains in female performance is greater than any gans men have ever shown in there longer history of be allowed the special privilege to partake in sports. One area women are superior is in endurance extremes such as great didtance swimming. It was at one time the very measure of the strength and stamina of a man until women were allowed to take on distance swimming and way outpaced the men. Nobody knew this would happen until it happened. Now in education, nobody new it would happen until it did. These things only happen after women were given a chance and then the truth is revealed. The disance record for swimming is 104 miles by Diana Nyad and it is highly unlikely a man will ever be able to do that. At age 61 she is going to attempt to swim the 100 miles from Cuba to Florida as 30 years ago she didn't make it because storm current sent her towards Texas. This is endurance that men do not have. Estrogen protects her muscles from damage and might help her become a better athlete in other areas of sports as she develops her strength. It's been only about one human generation that female athletics has become more acceptable in our culture. Like education it has been TABOO and could "hurt the female" to do both think and excersise. Obvious bull and clearly a man made project to stop women from both strength and thought. Just history again and nothing more than facts.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 4:11pm
This whole argument is like looking at blacks who were not allowed access to many things and saying "look see, the blacks are inferior" all the while making sure that they had zero access to actually proving themselves in all the areas the were kept from being part of. If that isn't stupid thinking tell me what really qualifies? Like male and female it's the same damn thing. BOLONEY! It's so easy a cave man can understand it. Just how does feminized class rooms stifle boys? Pink pencels? Boys forced to wear skirts? Girls first? Easy quiz for females and difficult ones for boys? Give us one example of an obstical you call "feminized" class room that slowed boys down but sent girls ahead? I just don't see it. Nonsense.

The obstical course of females?Jul 21 2011 4:29pm
Difine geniuses? Some people think Hitler was one while he was actually a sick murderer. IQs are directly affected by education as they are based on asking people a buch of questions based on someones idea of how to measure inteligence. It's extremely difficult with uneducated people to actually measure their inteligence. Many so called geniuses have no common sense at all and are stupid in many respects.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 4:36pm
Also, women have been involved in athletics since the early 1900's (see Olympic games, Wimbeldon, etc.). That is about 5 generations not 1 lolzlzlzlzolzlzozozozlzl

AlphaJul 21 2011 4:46pm
^did you even read the article? didn't think so

AnonymousJul 21 2011 5:21pm
"Most distance records are held by women now but not all." - False.

Guinness Book of World RecordsJul 21 2011 5:40pm
girls are great in school but when they get out in the real world they don't actually create anything. They all work in offices and sluff off on facebook and talk about their boyfriends all day.

AnonymousJul 21 2011 7:08pm
Women were not permitted to run distances longer 200 meters at the Olympics until 1960 with sole exception of 1936 when Hitler had an 800 in his Olympics which was won by one of his hometown Aryan maidens, Lina Radke. The 400 was added in 1960, the 800 in 1968, the 1500 in 1972. The 3000 may have been in the 1980 Olympics but there was no TV in America because of the boycott so I don't know for sure. It, along with the Marathon was in the 1984 Olympics and Mary Decker had her collision with Zola Budd. The 10,000 was put in in 1992 so Women's distance running is still a developing sport in say it's second generation.

obedient husbandJul 21 2011 7:12pm
doesnt matter though, womens sports is a joke. everybody watches mens sports thats the real deal. women just find their niche then whine & whine until they are forced to include it in the olympics. meanwhile girls watch girl sports while everyone watches men sports

AnonymousJul 21 2011 7:34pm
men have feared women because they knew women were superior. they knew once women take over, it is permenant(forever). that why men have done anything to oppress females, since the beginning of time.

AnonymousJul 22 2011 9:22am
men oppressing females = feminist myth. Why don't men just start oppressing women now? How would they go about doing that? How did they ever do it to begin with?

AnonymousJul 22 2011 9:52am
We are all oppressed. The truth is closer to what Limon said in his last post "There are no impediments to women from men that do not also exist from men to men." Think about it: if all men were somehow able to agree to suppress females all this time then why did those men on the lower rungs of society accept their status? What benefit did the male street sweeper gain from oppressing his wife and children? And why didn't he demand more status for taking part in a worldwide conspiracy? The controllers are the 'illuminati' and they back feminism which is exaclty gender communism. It pits women against men. Divided people are easier to control. They fight their petty battles in the trenches below and remain distracted to the real oppressors above. Those that control us all.

AnonymousJul 22 2011 10:27am
Martin Strel's swimming records are bogas. I read an article that points out he gets in a river and ridesd the river current the great distances. They poined out that dead people would hold some records after falling or murdered and thrown in the river only to be found hundreds miles farther down the river.

AnonymousJul 22 2011 11:34am
men oppressing females = feminist myth? No it's called history and many of us have watched or been part of it stupid

AnonymousJul 22 2011 11:35am
You can't get it through you dumbfuk heads that women were not allowed into science, sports, and so on for centuries,

IdiotsJul 22 2011 11:37am
^How can women not be allowed into science yet still have made a few rare patents? And in the recent 50 years when women have had equal access (and arguably more access with affirmative action) to science, where are all the female inventors?

AnonymousJul 22 2011 12:16pm
Women were not allowed into science sports and so on for centuries? By WHO? MEN? Please tell me how "they" did that. I would like to do it again and get all the benefits of keeping my girlfriend down, once I figure out what those benefits are. Also we have the internet now so I guess I could even reach all the men in far away lands to go along with my new suppression. (laughing)

AnonymousJul 22 2011 12:28pm
men oppressing females = feminist myth. If you have watched or been part of it please explain how. How have you been part of this oppression when it's been illegal for 40 years? Tell me Stupidina. I want to know

AnonymousJul 22 2011 12:31pm
It wasn't until what? 1971 that title 9 law gave girls equal access to sports! 40 years! BIG FUKING DEAL! Compared to centuries it's a flash in the pan of lives come and gone. Same with science and industries. Only a numbskull thinks it's been smooth sailing for women! If you do not know any history who's fault is that? Listen stupid, the facts about science such as astronomy were already posted and the fact is part of history. NO ACCESS... ZERO. IT WASN'T CULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE. NO ASTRONOMERS, NO DOCTORS, NO CHEMISTS. TABOO! JUST LIKE NEGROS... NO ACCESS. idiot. Even today women get paid less doing the same fuking job! EVEN WHEN THEY DO IT BETTER!!!!! HOW STUIPD ARE YOU? BRAINDEAD? duh...

DUMSHITZJul 22 2011 1:09pm
1972... so long ago.

I'm a 12 year old male moronJul 22 2011 1:17pm
All MEN are created equal. It doen't say women. I don't understand. I'm not doing so well in school.

I'm a 12 year old male moronJul 22 2011 1:20pm
Listen hear Ms DUMSHITZ first of all being not culturally acceptable is NOT MEN OPPRESSING FEMALES! Culture is the whole society women & men. So you took part in oppressing yourselves, good on you, how smart (I'm so smart SMRT DUHH!) Secondly WOMEN ARE NOT PAID LESS FOR DOING THE SAME FUKING JOB. ITS ILLEGAL!!. Grow up girlie, You must be a 13 year old morina

AnonymousJul 22 2011 2:08pm
Pay Gap = Another Feminist Myth. If women are paid less for doing the same job I would hire ONLY women. To not do so would be a dumb business decision. Why would i pay more for men to do the same job?? Duh! Must be the thoughts of a moronic 13yr old girl who doesn't live in the real world!

Pay Gap Another Feminist MythJul 22 2011 2:12pm
Moving right along in our education here. The U.S. space program did put both men and women through the same tests to become astronauts. What was discovered is that women often did better than men but it really wasn't culturally correct for women to take any lead. As back then, more recent research shows women are not nearly effected at high altitude as men are. The recent finding were done by the U.S. Military in high terrian thin air.

AnonymousJul 22 2011 5:20pm
Ya some myths huh? Always a hard man made obstical course for women and cultural games played on women. Get your facts straight boys and you might actually learn something. You paint a fantasy world of myths.

AnonymousJul 22 2011 5:32pm
The Pay Gap is A Femisit Myth. It takes all the money working men make and all the money working women make REGARDLESS of individual choices women make like choosing work part time or in puffy fields of work and averages them out. This is from the link YOU sent. I guess you didn't read this part: "Nearly half a century after it became illegal to pay women less on the basis of their sex, why do American women still earn less than men? The answer depends on whom you ask ? and so does the size of the gap. Some say 77% is overly grim. One reason: it doesn't account for individual differences between workers. Once you control for factors like education and experience, notes Francine Blau ? who, along with fellow Cornell economist Lawrence Kahn, published a study on the 1998 wage gap ? women's earnings rise to 81% of men's. Factor in occupation, industry and whether they belong to a union, and they jump to 91%. That's partly because women tend to cluster in lower-paying fields. The most-educated swath of women, for example, gravitates toward the teaching and nursing fields. Men with comparable education become business executives, scientists, doctors and lawyers ? jobs that pay significantly more."

The Pay Gap is A Femisit MythJul 22 2011 5:48pm
^^you are preaching to the choir with this guy man, every one of his discussions lead to women having more muscle mass and potential blah blah blah which he then backs up with dubious studies of less then 30 people and other ridiculous statistics that fail to take into account sampling errors etc. As with your point above how he has failed to read parts of his own sources and makes out of context claims. He then goes on to pathetically demonstrate how reliable his sources are by posting 5 or 10 times in a row as multiple personalities in order to give his worthless theories some kind of peer creedence. It is likely that this discussion will then degenerate into personal insults and general jewry, claiming that the evidence of coming matriarchy is inevitable because some nurse beat up a man or some other HECKed up bullpoo along those lines.

Limon is a TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL!Jul 22 2011 6:01pm
^^^poor baby can't take the heat now. Nothing left to say except to call Limon a Troll? Suck it up. You can't win this.

Yooz a Dufus!Jul 22 2011 6:03pm
Are we having fun yet? The space program says it all. Personally people were used to men shooting each other down in airplanes so losing a man didn't seam so bad. Also many people didn't realize women were test pilots taking the same risk as men. Mostly because the men were put in the limelight and the public mostly ignorant about women in aviation. Discrimination.

AnonymousJul 22 2011 6:17pm
Captain America... has to be a man! 5-4-3-2-1 BLAST OFF! CAPTAIN AMERICA! Manly man man man MANLY MEN!!!

Myths, don't ya just love um!Jul 22 2011 6:20pm
Interesting about the space program stuff. But it was 1960 which is pre equal rights amendment. In looking on the internet I came across something more recent regarding the space program: "Remember that Mars probe that burned up entering the Martian atmosphere a few years ago? Guess the gender of the ?engineer? that didn?t convert Newtons to foot-pounds. Guess the gender of the project manager who didn?t catch the error. In fact, guess the gender of the ENTIRE design team. Chirp ?. chirp . . . chirp. NASA intended this mission to showcase Women In Engineering." They must have been trying to make up for the past.

AnonymousJul 22 2011 6:23pm
Jet Propulsion Laboratory & Lockheed Martin Astronautics in Denver failed to communicate... men and women were to blame! Maybe the "genders" were arguing! LOL!

It's my rocket!Jul 22 2011 8:14pm
At the Jet Propulsion Lab, which owes its international reputation to the unerring accuracy it has displayed in guiding spacecraft across the shoals of space, officials did not flinch from acknowledging their role in the mistake. "We know this error is the cause," said Thomas R. Gavin, deputy director of JPL's space and earth science directorate, which is responsible for the JPL Mars program. "And our failure to detect it in the mission caused the unfortunate loss of Mars Climate Orbiter. It understood that actually JPL would do the coversions for mission control and JPL did not. JPL has lost plenty of space junk.

Yes, it's your rocket now.Jul 22 2011 8:25pm
The reason the officials did not flinch from acknowledging their role in the mistake is because it was no secret how the space probe was designed and the development and programing. Made in the (USA) but JPL didn't even set up properly for control. JPL failed. Someone should have told them to read the owner's manual before lighting the fuse.

AnonymousJul 22 2011 8:37pm
Women's power builds societies. Creates relationships. It explains that men's power traditionally stems from dominance and aggression. Now doesn't it seem like one big mistake having men in complete control? I mean complete control! Not a healthy balance of man and woman has resulted in a terrible condition of almost endless wars. The male brain. Not his cup of tea... building societies. Should be done by women. They are hard wired for it. There's plenty of factss on the male and female brain although every person is different. It's what science revealed. Many texts show the same differences. No gender is superior per say but qiute different. For example men are usually better at math but women better at character recognition even in machanical engineering.

AnonymousJul 22 2011 10:55pm
Science publications on "the brain" pretty much all say the same thing. Male leadership as far as realations and social skills is patently a failure. I agree, men should actually not be in those possitions (leading nations) to start with. It would be a much better world if that was done by women with their brains more suited towards building societies and not distroying. Hear me out before you come un-glued guys. Imagine a world were the hassles of social relationships was left up to women leaders and men were free of that which they are not at all good at. Men would then be able to lead in the field of engineering and better world through science, technology, space exploration, mining and managing resources and things that they excell in. Clearly there is somthing wrong with the leadership structure as it is! True! War after war after war! The largest user of oil of any one single entity is the U.S. Military, a huge colossal waste of lives, money, resourses, and time policing the male leaders of the world! This change would actually lift male status and hopfully reduce all this tragidy and waste. I'm discusted with male leadership and men in general and I'M A MAN! At some point if men are as smart as has been portrayed on this poll, then they will also come to that conclusion! It is self evident! If the world was not such a man made mess, one could disregard the "brain science" but that's simply not the case at all! Men are pisspoor leaders except when it comes to killing and wasting recourse while doing it! When a family gathering happens it is always the women who lead the social gathering while men go off to the garage to talk cars and such, the women don't interfere because they are not that kind of thinkers. Maybe that is way to simple but men=engineering, building and exploring. Let women manage the one part of the world and men the other and maybe because of how our brains really work (no fault of our own) but the whole world would be better off. Look at the nut job MAN in Norway! This killing contantly is so common now we almost think it's normal. The only humans that can fix this is women as history proves men are not even capable of leading! Now that we have such power in weapons we might distroy our selves and men will lead the way to self distruction. I'm no feminist by any stretch of imagination but at least I can logically see the truth! Any sensible reasoning person can see this is true! Men have grabbed all power and authority and made a total mess with it in their hands! Any thinking man can't argue with what I've said here. Turn on the news! I would rather see qualified women handle the social aspects and men advancement in engineering a better world because what we have right now if a miserable failure.

Fed-up disgusted manly manJul 23 2011 11:36am
Exactly! Here's a family, Wife... "here's the list for the store, your brother will be here at noon, remeber he broke his ankle hunting so make sure he can park in the driveway, you father will be here at 2:00 and go ahead and pick up that rod & Reel he's talked about. Plaese don't argue with ungle fred about politics this time, and the kids can stay in the camper if that's ok" Social engineering! Husband... sort of listening but thinking about the compression ration of those new high performance cylinder heads he just recieved for his 454 cubic inch chevy powered flat bottom boat! "ok dear" envisioning sipping suds with the boys in the garage next to his beloved boat! Machanical engineering! This aprouch does not down grade men at all. It is a order that works well and should be the world order. Not a one world government but societies social aspects left to women while men "hot rod" our way of life for the better! Exploration and development lead by men while women work on human relations! Thank you manly man! I know this is a simple answer to our problems based on brain biology but it sounds like a better plan than what we have. In a sense it would lift both men and women to proper biologic rolls and perhaps speed human development to higher levels. Men could focus their brain power into improving the human condition actually smoothing out life. It's tough enough as it si without all the man made trouble. I dearly love men and hate to see the trouble resulting from this lack of balance. Not all women are ment to lead socially just like not all men are made to lead engineering and some overlap both directions would be normal. I really do not see this change as degrading men at all, it is a hassle managing human relations. Right now women overwhelmingly lead industry in the human resouces department because they are well suited for the job. MEN, what do you say? Please think about this and the benifits of being free to tinker with engineering a better world without fighting over dominance and territory like dogs in a pissing match! Thanks again.

Lady LibertyJul 23 2011 12:23pm
Women and men are both human, so they are more alike than different. We should never forget that. Still, there are differences. Women and men have different relative strengths and weaknesses. An obvious one is physical strength. The average man is stronger than the average woman. (Aside: this is not to say that every man is stronger than every woman or that women are weak. That is obvious nonsense and I should not have to point that out but unfortunately many fall into that kind of false thinking). To return to my main commentary: The patriarchical culture developed the way it did in order for societies to survive and otherwise meet human needs. It began and evolved in an environment in which male strength, assertiveness, and even aggressiveness were needed. On the other hand, it was also an environment in which women best served society as a whole by being ?dutiful wives? and ?stay at home moms.? But the total environment in which humans find themselves has changed, largely because of human discovery, invention, and innovation. By ?total environment? I include human culture and society as well as physical and biological things. In the early part of the last century, most people even in the developed nations lived on farms and few had or even needed more than a high school education. The cultural and social environment is vastly different now. In the developed nations we live closer together in cities (we are more social) and we require a large number of educated people. Also, within the last 70 years or so, we have weapons of mass destruction capable of destroying ourselves. As I said, our world is vastly different now. In this different world, human culture and society requires different strengths than before in the environment that give rise to patriarchical society.Physical strength (a trait which the average male has more of than the average female) is of less value than the ability to acquire education (a trait which the average female has more of than the average male). Women more than men posses the useful traits required in the future. These are traits like ability to acquire education, cooperativeness, peacefulness, and multi-tasking. Thus, in the future women will gain more social, business, and political power than men. We will have a matriarchy.

Believer in the Coming MatriarchyJul 23 2011 12:48pm
I'm glad we are back on topic. We must remember this is all theory. Maybe women could run the world better but they must first wrestle it from the patriarchs. I believe Limon is correct when he says it's not your brother or my father but a select group referred to as the illuminat that rule us all. That's why women leaders still go to war because we are actually controlled by Rockefeller Standard Oil, Rothschild banking, George Soros, Goldman Sachs, Reuters, AIPAC, CFR, Trilateral commission, and so many other special interest groups it's not funny. If you can win against them, you can rule the world.

AnonymousJul 23 2011 2:06pm
Not every man fails at relations you know, this discussion is just 1 meaningless generalization after another.

i can tell you people are uneducatedJul 24 2011 9:56am
Nobody every said anything like that. Over and over it's been noted it is in general or averages and overlaps are normal. I can tell that you either can't read or are uneducated. The information on how the brain works in both men and women is published by those in the field of work. The fact is the female brain is better at human relations than a man's brain. It is a fact and is a generalization. Not all men are stronger than women but generally. So if science and discovery are meaningless to you fine. You might not learn much because your generalization.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 11:06am
^ Well then I suppose if we take all generalizations such as human relations, physical strength, ingenuity, intellect, cunning, and so on, and mix them up in a blender what we end up with is that men come out ahead. It must be since it's been that way pretty much forever.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 11:19am
The basic argument here is one side is saying men are superior thinkers and leaders and history proves that. The other side is saying history is created through cultural manipulation, in other words not allowing women access to science and leadership possitions created artificial results basically because women did not participate. They were not allowed to participate until recently. Now we see the results defy what we were all lead to believe. That and modern medical science reveals the real story and truth. Also much of history has been re-written and is and now the truth comes out through modern science such as archaeological discovery reveals how women played a much bigger roll in the ancient world of rulership and warfare. I do not see the "1 meaningless generalization after another" and only the interesting argument at hand. Great info here with links to reputable science and history. Plenty of oppinion as well.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 11:24am
When the facts come out and they are the truth, myths are then relealed as what they really are. Myths. If a myths says a woman can't do something or never as good as a man but women weere not allowed to attempt it. It can only be called what it is... a myth. If later in history she is culturally allowed to do it and she does it just as well or in some cases better than a man, the obvious truth reveals that the previous thought was not based on actual reality but on myth. Only by allowing partisipation can we actually get results! It's like saying black men ae not good baseball players simply by saying so and latter letting the black men play, we find we were very wrong in our oppinion. Now through modern science and cultural changes we have different results and facts compared to myths. What women can and can not do is based more on action and modern science and less on cultural myths and down rite forbiden access AKA TABOO!

TABOOJul 24 2011 11:37am
When the facts come out and they are the truth, myths are then revealed as what they really are. Myths. If a myth says a woman can't do something or never as good as a man but women weere not allowed to attempt it. It can only be called what it is... a myth. If later in history she is culturally allowed to do it and she does it just as well or in some cases better than a man, the obvious truth reveals that the previous thought was not based on actual reality but on myth. Only by allowing partisipation can we actually get results! It's like saying black men ae not good baseball players simply by saying so and latter letting the black men play, we find we were very wrong in our oppinion. Now through modern science and cultural changes we have different results and facts compared to myths. What women can and can not do is based more on action and modern science and less on cultural myths and down rite forbiden access AKA TABOO!

(SP) TABOOJul 24 2011 11:39am
So we are back to asking that question: what have culturally supported, unoppressed, liberated women achieved in the last 50 years? Where are the female leaders that do anything different than the men? Where is the leader male or female who will stand up to those who run this world for their own benefit and not 'we the people'.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 12:02pm
50 years is not much time compared to human history or civilisation. It may sem like forever compared to your life but in history it is a very small fraction of time. I work on the largest mining equipment in the world as a grown man. When I was growing up I could not believe the established story of how ancient structures where actually built. Today I still hold that view because of both the size of the stones in structures like the Great Pyrimids and the precise design and fit of every stone weighing up to and over 100 tons. Stones cut withing 2,000 of an inch. Perfect. We are lead to believe this was done by a primitive civilisation with literally no tools! Even today expeerts in the industry of rock quary and rock cutting with modern tools say they can not do this with such precision. Why did they do the impossible? Why use such large stones when smaller stones could be used? My point is the "story" of the past just does not fit what we find. This includes culture and often leadership rolls in society in the past are not so clear cut as is how the construction in the past was done.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 12:46pm
50 years is too short. Women will begin to pull ahead in about 1000 years or so. First have to rewrite the last 5000 years of history like these previous examples.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 1:40pm
some of us guys just want to be ruled by amazon women i dont care who tells the story just bring it on.

sub manJul 24 2011 1:53pm
I don't think it takes a thousand years. Nations and cultures come and go in a fraction of time. No things can happen a lot faster. We devolpe the airplane and I'm sure many in the beganing couldn't imagine the modern F-16 Figher... with a girl at the controls. One intersting aspect of modern warfare is the military find women are often the best weapons systems operator because of the female brain in multitasking. Maybe it took men a thousand years to figure that out but there it is. Modern science reveals the brain function. Military studies verify it.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 2:00pm
One more intersting military find is that the voice command even though synthetic, should be female. The reason is that the male brain will liston to the female voice more carefully and follow it's command. Thus PULL UP PULL UP is female in the aircraft that a man is flying. Why? Because deep in the subconscious male mind, she is the authority and should be listened to. This reduces reaction time as the male brain quickly reacts to her words. If the command is a male voice, the male brain hesitates wasting time by analizing the authority of the voice. It can be measured and effects reactions and the male brain just can not help but react in such ways.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 2:10pm
Notice that the man will call the aircraft "she" long before synthetic vioce commands. The aircraft's power and authority is "she" and now the voice that the pilot quickly listens to is female. Interesting.

She's a good ol' airplane!Jul 24 2011 2:15pm
Also interesting that all the leaders in the military are men. It's a patriachal institution where women do very well because they follow orders. Men are individual, women are the herd.

follow the leaderJul 24 2011 2:26pm
Military aircraft's Nagging Norah's and they all seem to be female ,at least in the F-15 and 16's c*ckpit. True. Sometives this is better because radio chatter is other male pilots. In the subconscious male brain, the aircraft is female. She.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 2:27pm
It's true men love riding things, especially female

AnonymousJul 24 2011 2:34pm
Talk about dumb broads: Interesting article by Barbara Simpson from WorldNetDaily.com: If women are so smart, why are they so dumb? And before you get your panties in a bunch, I'm entitled to criticize females because the last time I checked, I'm one of them. Katie bar the door, I'm about to be incredibly politically incorrect. Women have been sold a bill of goods, which they bought hook, line and sinker. Ever since the '60s, when the brunt of feminism hit the media, the message was clear: Go for it! You can have (be, do, experience) everything! There's only one problem. It isn't true. Never was. Never will be. But men knew that. Lost in the burst for female "freedom" was the ugly truth that men, who supposedly had "everything" that women were being denied, were really victims of a system that kept them prisoner. It was the price they paid for being men. Their role in life was to be the breadwinner, the master of the home, the head and protector of the family, the person ultimately responsible for the survival of his tribe and the soldier-protector of his country. He had to be brave, smart, hard working and supportive of the family. He had to be husband, father, son, sibling, uncle, neighbor, friend. He had to work to earn the means to play all those roles, and he had no choice. This isn't to say there weren't scoundrels. Of course there were ? men who deserted their women and children, who drank or gambled the family earnings, or womanized their way through marriages which hung together for "the sake of the children." Guys like that aren't new and are still around. In fact, women's liberation has been great for men who prefer to chill out, and societal changes make it easy. Want sex? Take your pick. Chicks are there for the asking; in fact, they'll compete to be the "chosen one" for the day. Or night. No questions. No promises. How great is that? Don't want kids? No worry. There's all kinds of prevention (sounds like a plague, doesn't it?) with most of the responsibility on her. And if they don't "work" and a new life gets in the way, just get rid of it. It's legal, private and accepted. And if she's really a "today woman," she might not even tell you and just "take care of things" on her own. What a gal! What a life! Don't want marriage? Duh. Just live together. Get the bennies and avoid the legal technicalities. Get tired of that? Leave. Hey, the door is always open. Women's liberation freed men from responsibility. It encouraged women to "find" themselves. They were urged to "go for it" careerwise. Of course they could do it. Women are smart and able to work hard and succeed. But by doing it, they walked right into the trap that men had been in all along. Now they find themselves in careers that are time-consuming, require travel away from home and envelop their lives. In that sense, women turned into what they originally disliked about their men and in the process, made the ugly discovery that a major tradeoff was the signature of their femininity. They gave up or lost the opportunity to be a wife and a mother. Why weren't they smart enough to see that? A new book by Sylvia Ann Hewlett, "Creating A Life," comes to the conclusion, after surveying nearly 1,200 high-achieving career women, that they missed life. One was quoted as saying "I forgot to have a child." Forgot? Give me a break! Any woman who "forgets" so basic a part of the female psyche isn't smart enough to be considered a high achiever. Either that or today's standards aren't what they're cracked up to be. Women always had to choose. The choice for career meant sacrificing the family role. And that is the key. Sacrifice. Women are supposed to have been liberated from sacrifice. They are supposed to be able to have and do it all. Except for the fact that it doesn't work. The real tragedy of Hewlett's findings is the real, human loss to those women. By the time they realize the loss, they're too old biologically to have a child, and too old socially to find an appropriate man to marry. If she's been divorced or earns too much money, it's even harder. As for the men, as the old saying goes, why buy the cow when the milk is free? It makes you wonder who women's liberation really liberated?

Barbara SimpsonJul 24 2011 3:31pm
Not all women come from the cookie cutter.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 4:12pm
Forbiding women from access and achievement is one thing and mothering & wifing is another. They need to make that choice themselves and not men for them. Not all men become fathers and they also miss out on being a father but are not blocked from achievement which are two entirely different things.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 4:18pm
Research and application of the synthetic voice shows that with the public and women & children, the female vioce for imformation and male for warning works best. In military aircraft with male pilots, female vioce works best. Most air traffic control and command in the military is female. So the pilot hears male pilots male voices, female voices of air traffic control (multitaskers) and the aircraft it's self being a female voice. This system seems to work best.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 4:26pm
I also prefer a female voice when having phone sex

tell me what you want babyJul 24 2011 4:36pm
Well right now women are not forbidden from achieving anything. I think part of the point in that article is that these women made their own choices and then lived to regret it. Most of us will just work at mediocre jobs. We all love to think we're so special but it turns out we are overwhelmingly average. The genius amongst us always comes through, it cannot be supressed. We all know who they are.

AnonymousJul 24 2011 4:57pm
Economic/culture link. Both mom & pop must work as the "geniuses" distroy the dollar.

We all know who they are.Jul 25 2011 12:19am
So the dream world of mom staying home with the kids is being destroyed through economics and more exactly, currency devaluation. Adapt and survive. Without her working it often means poverty. Women are driven to education and better jobs by economic reasons.

AnonymousJul 25 2011 12:28am
One thing never considered is that as women have entered the job market increasing the supply of labor, the price of that labor goes down. Doubling the supply of available labor decreases it's value by half. Presto! Now 2 people have to work where one person used to be able to provide for a family. I realize it's not this simple but it surely let corporations off the hook that much easier and allows us a much longer slide before the inevitable revolution need occur to get us out of this mess.

AnonymousJul 25 2011 6:40am
I wouldn't call them economic geniuses but they sure are brilliant. By giving women the "choice" to work we now have no choice but TO work.

AnonymousJul 25 2011 6:46am
Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members. The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals?a view which implies that man?s senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality. Collectivism maintains that an elite endowed with special mystic insight should rule men?which implies the existence of an elite source of knowledge, a fund of revelations inaccessible to logic and transcending the mind. Collectivism denies that men should deal with one another by voluntary means, settling their disputes by a process of rational persuasion; it declares that men should live under the reign of physical force (as wielded by the dictator of the omnipotent state)?a position which jettisons reason as the guide and arbiter of human relationships. From every aspect, the theory of collectivism points to the same conclusion: collectivism and the advocacy of reason are philosophically antithetical; it is one or the other. The political philosophy of collectivism is based on a view of man as a congenital incompetent, a helpless, mindless creature who must be fooled and ruled by a special elite with some unspecified claim to superior wisdom and a lust for power. What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Just as the notion that ?Anything I do is right because I chose to do it,? is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality?so the notion that ?Anything society does is right because society chose to do it,? is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues. Collectivism has lost the two crucial weapons that raised it to world power and made all of its victories possible: intellectuality and idealism, or reason and morality. It had to lose them precisely at the height of its success, since its claim to both was a fraud: the full, actual reality of socialist-communist-fascist states has demonstrated the brute irrationality of collectivist systems and the inhumanity of altruism as a moral code. Collectivism does not preach sacrifice as a temporary means to some desirable end. Sacrifice is its end?sacrifice as a way of life. It is man?s independence, success, prosperity, and happiness that collectivists wish to destroy. Observe the snarling, hysterical hatred with which they greet any suggestion that sacrifice is not necessary, that a non-sacrificial society is possible to men, that it is the only society able to achieve man?s well-being. The advocates of collectivism are motivated not by a desire for men?s happiness, but by hatred for man . . . hatred of the good for being the good; . . . the focus of that hatred, the target of its passionate fury, is the man of ability. It is the truth for women as well.

Some geniuses huh...Jul 25 2011 9:51am
Men (stupid ones) try to use Collectivism on women, denying the reality that they are individuals.

AnonymousJul 25 2011 10:00am
^^and Women (idiotic ones) accept pressure from other people despite the fact that they enjoy the freedom to do anything they like, unopposed in this modern world.

AnonymousJul 25 2011 10:03am
Back to work! Your dollar is now worth 4 cents. We are mental geiuses! Remember congressman Anthony Weiner? Ya he was telling people to not buy gold starting at about $950.00 an ounce but finally self distructed using his little head. Brilliant! "Don't buy gold... look at my weiner" what a moron.

The 3 stooges Barack, Ben, & Turbo Tax Cheat Timmy!Jul 25 2011 10:07am
Feminism most likely woud never exist if women were not forbiden to make their own choices in their own pursuit of happiness just like the Black Panthers wouldn't be here either if the blacks had not been treated like Martians. Liberty works.

modern collectivists moronsJul 25 2011 10:19am
^^sure it would. Feminism is a big-bucks backed ideology (Rockefeller) designed to divide the genders so that society is divided and easier to control. The side benefits have been lower population and a near doubling of the workforce and consumers.

AnonymousJul 25 2011 11:27am
Lets all get enlightened here. Google "Betty Frieden & communism" then "Gloria Steinem & CIA". If that's not enough google "feminism & Rockefeller"

feminism is not grassrootsJul 25 2011 11:34am
You could be right, it's all one big conspiracy and they drive the dollar down to make women go get jobs. Still the fact remains women want the same liberty that men alwaus wanted. What the founders of America wanted... but they were men and that's all different? Women do not want culture or society or the central controller telling them what they can and can not do. It's not anything out of line this "liberty" unless you are the control freak wanting to control all the aspects of human behaviour.

AnonymousJul 25 2011 4:33pm
Fair enough. We are more or less equal of opportunity as it stands now. Our future fight is to prevent this slide away from freedom that we currently experiencing. The American dream is over unfortunately. There is an elite in power again and they control from behind the scenes. Democrat or Republlican makes no difference they are both beholden to special interests. We are all going to have to unite to fight the good fight. United we stand, divided we fall. Those that would divide us learned this lesson. Us that should be united have not. -yet.

AnonymousJul 25 2011 5:33pm
We are now on the same page my friend. I know how so many things can and have been "used" against us. I'm very pleased to see your knowledge of these real problems. Liberty is so very difficult to maintain. Feminism is often a tool used against us both men & women. Often a twisted and fake liberty. They are distroying the family unit. The youth has lost both perents who are working to survive the diliberate distruction of our currency.

LLibertyJul 25 2011 7:00pm
Ben shalom bernanke... Chairman of the federal reserve and PRACTICING JEW.

i told you 'small weak man' or whatecer your name isJul 26 2011 12:42pm
Fiat Currency is the Bubble Today's ADD culture and non-financial literate, government educated populace have forgotten that prior to 1971 gold, or at the very least something tied to gold, was money. Next month truly fiat global currencies celebrate their 40th anniversary. All of the agents of the state and the international fiat bankers have tried for forty years to convince people that gold is a barbarous relic. But the fact of the matter is that this period since 1971 has been the aberrant period and the current rise of gold is not a bubble - it is simply a reversion to the mean, in which gold and silver are a more widespread part of financial and goods markets. It is amazing how well the financial establishment has convinced people that gold is dead. During the 1990s and much of the 2000s anyone interested in gold was considered some kind of an anachronism, sort of like a cross between a stamp collector and a gun nut. As gold rises it will not be a "bubble". It will not rise to a certain number. $2,000. $3,000. $5,000. These are all numbers batted about. But the fact of the matter is that the most likely outcome is that the 40 year fiat currency bubble not only collapses but fiat currencies become completely worthless. The Return of Gold as Money Ben Bernanke, sadly, was correct when he said gold isn't money. However, the day draws very near when he will be incorrect. On that date, Bernanke will likely find himself hiding in a bathroom with a pistol in his mouth or hung from a tree. So, he better enjoy his box seats at Washington Nationals games while he can. His voice quivers every interview because he knows this is coming.

Fiat currencies are the bubble and they are about to go popJul 27 2011 12:06am
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato

AnonymousJul 27 2011 12:55am
Good. Ben bernanke and his Jew counterparts can all go f*cking die imo

obedient husbandJul 29 2011 5:58am
Limon are you the same Limon on 2+2 forums?

SunyAug 09 2011 12:32pm
Women could remain the dominant sex provided they remembered that to remain on top they had to emasculate men in the meantime. Its not having political power they need worry about its seeing that they are able to see to it that they provide 100% membership of the following the police the medical profession, teachers, lawyers and the emergency services. Then seeing that all men are only allowed to weigh between ninty to a hundred and thirty pounds and no more so that women in general can pick them up and carry them about as they like. Thats the point once they can do that and keep doing that then they have won permanently.

hymatAug 26 2011 7:11am
I do not see the importance of women dominating the emergency services positions. ******* Other important areas of power are government, the armed forces, and business corporations. ******* What about government -- the legislatures, top executive positions and the judiciary? (More about that question later). ******* What about the armed forces? I doubt women would ever constitute a majority of the armed forces. I also doubt they would be a majority of the police because of in sufficient interest. ******* I think it probable that women will dominate the medical and counseling and clinical psychological professions. They already are a majority of teachers. More importantly, they are likely to become a majority of principles, education professors, and members of school boards. ****** It is possible that women could be a majority of lawyers. It all depends on their interest. If they do become a majority of lawyers it is likely they would dominate the judiciary and maybe the legislatures. In any case, in a democracy, the majority of voters are women and anyone who is elected to a legislature must please the women voters. It is possible for women to be a majority of top elected executives. Whether or not that happens depends on their interest in such positions. ****** Because the average woman is now better educated than the average man, it is likely women will dominate top and middle management positions in both business corporations and government. ******* So much depends on education, which women will control. They can encourage girls more and more to seek positions in all areas of government and business management and at the same time discourage boys. This would be to reverse the educational outcomes that were standard until twenty or thirty years ago. I believe this will happen and that women will become a majority of lawyers, judges, legislators, and top and middle management in business and government. We then would have a matriarchy. This would be a society in which women collectively held more power than men. I do not envision a female supremacist society in which women exclusively hold power or in which male-hating women try to make men subservient to women. ***** Once a society becomes a matriarchy AND women control education, I do not see why it could not maintain itself indefinitely. ****** Men being a majority in the armed forces would not be a serious threat because they would be socialized to accept that the armed forces should be subservient to and obey duly constituted government. This attitude of the military to duly constituted government has been and is the case in the U.S. ****** similarly, men could be a majority of the police but socialized to accept that the police are subservient to duly constituted government. Further, I think that women, with their greater education, would be a majority of the top police officers. ****** So many comments in polls concerning matriarchy are about the average woman becoming physically more powerful than the average man. I think this is very unlikely for biological reasons and is not a necessary condition for a matriarchy. We will have a matriarchy not because the average woman has more muscles than the average man but because she has a better brain.

Believer in the Coming MatriarchyAug 26 2011 10:47am
"Men (stupid ones) try to use Collectivism on women, denying the reality that they are individuals." <<< That works both ways. There are plenty of women who spout male stereotypes as well.

AnonymousSep 09 2011 7:57am
"Men (stupid ones) try to use Collectivism on women, denying the reality that they are individuals." <<< That works both ways. There are plenty of women who spout male stereotypes as well.

AnonymousSep 09 2011 9:07am
Is it going to happen? It would seem so. Will it be permanent? Possibly. *** I don't think the female lead in education is going anywhere anytime soon. And once a woman takes a role in government that women have never held before, that will likely encourage women even more. By the time the current women are out of office, the next might be inspired and ready to step up (just like how it works with patriarchy). Of course, all of that happening would depend on the women. Leadership is about individuals, not just genders, and both genders need each other regardless of who leads. But theoretically, YES, matriarchy is capable of lasting forever/indefinitely.

AnonymousSep 09 2011 9:07am
Women will have to be either bigger and stronger than men which I believe is unlikely or men will have to be weaker and frailer than the average woman which women will have to somehow bring about otherwise the men are just going to overpower them and kill them if necessary its as simple as that.

hymatSep 14 2011 9:06am
I feel I should add here that the categories of women already mentioned can achieve the desired female object if they do desire that without sacrificing the very feminiety which makes them different from men. Political and business women can't they are thoroughly absorbed into the world of men and become a form of collaborater pseudo-man in typical business trouser suit. A masculine society is not going to be afraid of her because she has joined that society. Also this stuff about who has better brains is superfluous males and females have different brains not better ones.

hymatSep 17 2011 1:58pm
Much is said here about women becomming better educated than men and it is said in a tone that the writer thinks this is evidence of female superiority. There are two basic reasons females are out performing males accademicaly. 1. The educational system was reformed in the 80's when it was discovered males were out performing females accademicaly. The reforms set up an educational system that cathers to the learning style of women and plays to the weakness of boys in that the revised system favors girls and handicaps males. This is a major reason females are now out performing males. 2. Girls are being coached that it isn't good enough for girls to merely do as well as boys in order to get their share of high paying jobs. They must excel. They must out shine the boys. Therefor girls are being motivated to excel while blys are not being motivated. So part of the reason females are excelling in education is that they are being highly motivated while the boys are lacking in motivation. Once these two factors are corrected females and males will perform more or less equally which is what we should as a society be striving for. Thus we see women are not superior to men.

Deep thinkDec 16 2011 7:19am
-1'

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1' or 1=@@version--

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1 or 1=@@version--

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1) or 1=@@version--

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1)) or 1=@@version--

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1') or 1=@@version--

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1')) or 1=@@version--

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1

1Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1

-1'Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1

1' or 1=@@version--Feb 16 2012 2:31pm
1

1 or 1=@@version--Feb 16 2012 2:32pm
1

1) or 1=@@version--Feb 16 2012 2:32pm
1

1)) or 1=@@version--Feb 16 2012 2:32pm
1

1') or 1=@@version--Feb 16 2012 2:32pm
1

1')) or 1=@@version--Feb 16 2012 2:32pm
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 matriarchyMay 25 2012 10:10am
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 matriarchyMay 25 2012 10:10am
Open Minded: Actually, you are wrong. Look at history and how prosperous society was when men were in TOTAL control and look at where things actually started failing. You'll find the timelines starts when women were given more freedoms. The more you give women, the worse things get. From the 90's - 2000's, progressively worse--women have more power. Open your mind a little more and your eyes too and see what's actually going on.

Logical ThinkerJun 12 2012 1:02am
Interesting thread I stumbled on here. Great arguments for and against....Here's my two cents in the 'Western' society women will eventually take over, and I believe for a long time, until the system is changed....That's because we in 'Western' society have through changes and reasoning allowed women equal opportunities. Here's some food for thought, if we lived in a post-apocalyptic world who do you think will be the dominant sex? Will we return to how nature is supposed to be? And we know in nature it's not about reason, logic or education, is it? It's about strength, right?

HmmJun 13 2012 9:41pm
Interesting thread I stumbled on here. Great arguments for and against....Here's my two cents in the 'Western' society women will eventually take over, and I believe for a long time, until the system is changed....That's because we in 'Western' society have through changes and reasoning allowed women equal opportunities. Here's some food for thought, if we lived in a post-apocalyptic world who do you think will be the dominant sex? Will we return to how nature is supposed to be? And we know in nature it's not about reason, logic or education, is it? It's about strength, right?

HmmJun 13 2012 11:31pm
@Hmm. I assume by a "post-apocalytic world" you mean one like the world before the 20th century. In the pre-20th century world, men were the dominant sex and in a post-apocalypic world like that, men would again be the dominant sex. I do not think,though, that it says much for men that they can be the dominant sex only in a comparatively primitive world and not in a highly civilized world.

No MatriarchyJun 14 2012 8:16am
I made the provacative argument that "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." In the comments of the the poll "Future Matriarchy: How Will Men React?" (Category: Society and Culture), I debate and comment on this at length. Anyone interested in this topic should go to that poll.

No MatriarchyJun 14 2012 8:17am
Women as the dominant sex, what a joke.

AnonymousJul 02 2012 2:23am
@Anonymous. I agree. But why? I think there are facts and trends that you need to address.

No MatriarchyJul 02 2012 8:08am
-1'

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1' or 1=@@version--

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1 or 1=@@version--

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1) or 1=@@version--

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1)) or 1=@@version--

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1') or 1=@@version--

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1')) or 1=@@version--

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1

1Aug 19 2012 7:00pm
1

-1'Aug 19 2012 7:01pm
1

1' or 1=@@version--Aug 19 2012 7:01pm
1

1 or 1=@@version--Aug 19 2012 7:01pm
1

1) or 1=@@version--Aug 19 2012 7:01pm
1

1)) or 1=@@version--Aug 19 2012 7:01pm
1

1') or 1=@@version--Aug 19 2012 7:01pm
1

1')) or 1=@@version--Aug 19 2012 7:01pm
I have argued that women will not be able to set up a matriarchal society in the U.S. I would like to hear from others supporting this view. Can anyone provide facts and arguments supporting this content?

No MatriarchyAug 20 2012 1:56pm
"content" should be "contention."

No MatriarchyAug 21 2012 8:23am
Women will never made a matriarchal society, they are to weak minded and depend on men superior power.

AnonymousApr 28 2013 6:14am
Women do longer depend on men. Machines marginalize male brawn. Women are becoming more and more economically independent. Most high school graduates, most high school honor students, and 75% of high school valedictorians are girls. Women comprise about 60% of all college graduates and are earning more master's and doctorates than men. Eventually they will have 60% of all the high paying jobs and be most of the supervisors and managers. They are currently taking over more and more of the best paying jobs (accounting, financial management, banking, etc.). The average wife be better educated than and will out earn her husband. She will be the head of the house and he her dependent. Because of their superior education and jobs, eventually they will comprise the majority of the best political candidates. They outnumber and outvote men. Anytime they want, they can create a government of mostly women.

What's happeningJun 24 2013 11:10am
"Machines marginalize male brawn" Men invent, build, maintain, power, upgrade, and use these machines. "Women are becoming more and more economically independent" Because men allowed them too. You see the same trends with same sex couples and minorities because they've also just been given equality. Does this mean they'll take over? When you start from the bottom the only place is up. "Most high school graduates, most high school honor students, and 75% of high school valedictorians are girls" Because the current education system in most developed countries is sexist towards men. Men and women learn in different ways as proven in scientific studies, yet the education system only teaches in a way that favors the girl brain. To make matters worse, most teachers are female. Society is now beginning to change this. Expect a more even future. "They are currently taking over more and more of the best paying jobs" This is a flat out lie, women currently earn less than men because they chose lower paying jobs. Supervisors and managers are mostly male, and by a large margin. The rest of your idiotic post is subjective and opinionated. Many studies disprove all of your claims. No one's saying women need to depend on men, but your idea that women are surpassing men is false.

Wake upJun 30 2013 7:33pm
@Wake up. Re machines: men will continue (for some time or perhaps always) to comprise the majority of professional engineers (highly educated and well paid) that invent and design the machines. Still I think it obviously true that the percentage of occupations requiring brawn (male or female) had shrunk from what it was 100 years to very little, and jobs based primarily on brawn are low paying. . . . . I think that when you are comparing trends regarding women with those regarding same sex couples and minorities, you are comparing apples with oranges. The most important trend for women is that they comprise about 60% of all college graduates (in the U.S.; my focus is strictly with what's happening in the U.S.). Gays and members of any given minority do not comprise 60% of all college graduates. . . . . Suggested read: http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/15/the-coming-american-matriarchy. This article was an eye-opener for me. . . . . . Re the feminization of education in America: you may be right, but so what? It still remains that women comprise about 60% of all college graduates (and all that implies). You say "Society is now beginning to change this." Good! Do you have citations? . . . . . Re women taking over more and more of the best paying jobs: my source for this was a Forbes article called "20 Surprising Jobs are Taking Over." It surprised me that women are taking over so many money fields: accountants and auditors, financial managers, tax preparers. (Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/03/07/20-surprising-jobs-women-are-taking-over/). . . . . Also, see another article on jobs women are taking over: http://www.thestreet.com/story/11160146/1/men-not-at-work-jobs-women-are-taking-over.html. . . . . . The last source indicated that women are becoming even more dominant in the education field. I have seen elsewhere that more and more principals are women. You say that "society is beginning to change this." Interesting. What are your sources? . . . . . You say I'm wrong about women taking over more and more of the best paying jobs, that "this is flat out lie." No, it's the truth. The two sources I just cited back me up. . . . . . You say that women in the present earn less than men because in the past they chose lower paying jobs. There's some truth in that. But one should consider that in the past women's choices were more limited than men's choices because they didn't have as much education and they were discriminated against. That has changed. Now women are more educated and no longer discriminated against. Further, young women now value high-paying careers more than young men do (Source: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/04/19/a-gender-reversal-on-career-aspirations/). In connection with this, young women who are single and childless now earn more than their male cohorts in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S. There are numerous sources on this; here's one: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/09/01/young-single-women-earn-more-than-men/. And here is a satirical one that just came out today (7/9/13): http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/04/equal-pay-day-for-young-single-men-to-recognize-the-gender-pay-gap-in-favor-of-young-single-childless-women/. . . . . . . You say that my "idea that women are surpassing men is false." No, my idea is true. You just need to look at the facts. Women HAVE surpassed men in education. They ARE SURPASSING men in many good-paying occupations. Add to this, young women VALUE high-paying careers more than men. In the late 1960s a social revolution began that is still going on. The ramifications of women's greater education have yet to be worked out. It is clear that men's share of social, economic, and political power has gotten smaller whereas women's share has gotten bigger. The question is, "When the dust settles, who will have the greater share of power? Women or men?" No one knows for sure, but my contention is that educational attainment and power attainment are highly correlated. Thus, I hypothesize that because 60% of college graduates in the U.S. are women, then women can gain (IF they want to) 60% of all the positions of prestige, high earnings, and power in U.S. If you disagree, fine, but please cite sources, as I have done.

What's happeningJul 09 2013 11:46am
This will be my last post debunking your nonsense as I honestly don't care as much about your fantasy as you do. You also don't seem to realize the difference between actual sources and the opinionated, biased magazine-type articles you've posted. I'm sure if I continued this debacle you'd start posting articles from Cosmogirl or Seventeen Magazine (they also have many "girls rule" type articles). Keep in mind these "sources" cater to their target audience (women) and will bend the truth in order to give them what they want to hear in order to gain reads. Society is moving from a machine-dominated era to a technologically driven one, and that is an area where men also dominate. Computers are the future, and men dominate these and other similar fields(1). Even so, machines will always play a huge role in keeping our society going (cars, planes, boats, trains, construction) and men are near 100% responsible for creating them and keeping them going. After all, men are nearly 100% responsible for building and maintaining the houses and buildings that you and every other member of our society are fortunate enough to live in. It's jobs like this that allow society to be and progress. They're also not the low-paying jobs you think you are, the gender wage gap actually exists because women chose lower paying jobs than men do(2). Men are also most likely to work full time compared to the higher percentage of part-time workers among women, who actually get paid more than their male counterparts(3). Men and women get paid equal for the same work and figures supporting discrimination are often exaggerated(4). In response to your inflated importance of women being 60% of college students, it's the workforce (not college students) that drive society. I think you'd be interested to hear most people (male or female) end up working in careers that are unrelated to their college major(5). Also, attention is now being paid to the gender gap in schools to end the sexism toward boys. It's been reported more male teachers are needed(6), as well as changes is how children are taught. Studies prove the female brain learns best from the teaching style currently in place in schools, while men may find it harder to concentrate in this style of learning and prefer a more hands-on approach(7). This is the most likely reason girls get better grades, as well as why more women go into college. Also, anytime I view Forbes as a source I immediately view it as invalid. It should be no surprise women's numbers are rising in the workplace as more women are working now compared to decades past. They're not the majority so they're not "taking over" as the headline states, but I've come to expect a misleading headline from Forbes. Leave it to people like you to not look into it enough I guess. That’s what Forbes wants. The rest of your (again idiotic) post is simply random cherry-picked articles/statements that only favor women. I guess if you only look at biased sources that only report on areas where women appear superior, you'd end up with your kind of thinking. Most people learn by example, so I'll do the same with men: -Women are more submissive than men, and seek out men more likely to be in a position of power over them(8). -Science professors believe men are smarter than women(9). -Men are taller than women, and increased height has been related to an increase in intelligence(10). -So called "Men's rights" movements are gaining in popularity, aiming to end sexual discrimination against men in places like schools, divorce courts, and child custody battles. Expect this to grow in the future(11). -Men make better bosses than women, and most women prefer male bosses to female ones(12). The above findings and their attached sources are not reflective of my own personal beliefs. They merely show how easy it is to mirror your original post with the opposing views. It's not impressive to make claims about how women will become the majority of political candidates and/or hold most of the power in the future and seek articles on the internet that agree with you and use them as proof. The internet is a big place and sources can be subject to misrepresentation in order to make them look like they're proving something they're not. Imagine if I used the above points as an attempt to prove men will gain more power in the future. Although you can make predictions, no one knows what the future holds. It's more likely to assume both sexes will work towards equality in the political realm, but one on one, males will always be dominant over females as this exists naturally in most species closely related to humans. I wonder what your motive on this site is? You've made similar posts in polls such as "Is the notion female superiority being imprinted on the younger generation?". These polls were created by submissive men for the purpose of providing jerkoff material and aren't meant to be taken seriously. I wonder if you're simply a male playing out his fantasy in need of a dose of reality. Does it get you off to talk about a future in which women hold the majority of power? You're certainly not going to promote the rise of the female gender commenting about it in lengthy paragraphs on this site. Also, in the future, please cite your "sources" properly. Putting them within a paragraph is messy and unprofessional. Sources: 1. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19830319&id=C2wcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Dk8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4488,3984259 2. http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-gender-gap-jobs-20130613,0,3433188.story 3. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/in-part-time-jobs-women-out-earn-men/ 4. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap.html 5. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/most-college-graduates-have-jobs-unrelated-to-their-major/ 6. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-08-13/male-teachers-education-reform/57039176/1 7. http://www.education.com/reference/article/brain-differences-boys-girls/ 8. http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/13327/20121129/mans-smile-makes-women-more-obedient-submissive.htm 9. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/09/even-science-professors-think-men-are-smarter-women/57259/ 10. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/04/why-are-taller-people-more-intelligent/#.UeGkT6ygOSo 11. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/15/mens-rights-millennial-males-canada_n_3061876.html 12. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/men-more-favoured-as-bosses-than-women-in-workplace-survey-finds-1.1422389

Wake upJul 13 2013 12:37pm
Wake up- Very thoughtful and informative post. I don't think women will ever surpass men where they become the majority of the government, but equality isn't far away. Women still expect men to take them places and pay for them and protect them which shows women want men to be dominant. People like "what's happening" don't see things like this, they only listen to things they want to hear.

mac50Jul 16 2013 2:23pm
"What's happening", as a woman I honestly don't understand what you're talking about. Women have made great progress since being oppressed for centuries, but we still have a long way to go. Men still hold the majority of government positions and CEOs in every country in the world. I (and most other reasonable people) hope for a future of equality. Why would you want women to hold the majority of power and surpass men? That would make us just as bad as the men of the past who held women down and made decisions for them without their input. Women should hope to be equal to men, overpower them. Reverse sexism is just as bad as sexism.

AmandaJul 17 2013 2:03pm
In my last comment, I meant to say "Women should hope to be equal to men, NOT overpower them."

AmandaJul 17 2013 2:05pm
@Wake up. (A) I agree 100% with your statement that "Although you can make predictions, no one knows what the future holds." Still, there are trends, and it is reasonable to make predictions based on them, but the more variable there are, the less you should become attached to your predictions. . . . . . . . . . (B) Personal remarks, e.g. about what you think my motive might be, are irrelevant to the issue of women gaining more power than men. You also post long comments and I too might speculate that you are terrified of the possibility that women might gain more power than men. So what? You still might be right about your predictions as I, whatever my motives, might also be right. Let's stick to the issue, please, and avoid personalities.. . . . . . . . . . (C) The biggest difference between us, I think, is the importance attached to women being 60% of college graduates. You say I give "inflated importance" to it. I differ. We are too far apart on that issue to discuss it in this forum. . . . . . . . . . . (D) I would like to clarify my fundamental hypothesis, which was stated above and repeated here: "Because 60% of college graduates in the U.S. are women, then women can gain (IF they want to) 60% of all the positions of prestige, high earnings, and power in U.S." Note that the hypothesis is conditional and that in fact I emphasized the conditional by putting the word "IF" in all caps. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that. The condition would be that enough individual women in the college educated group would seek to be economically independent and to do the best for themselves that they can. The Pew Social Trends article that I cited indicates that "young women now value high-paying careers more than young men do." What does "enough individual women in the college educated group" mean? I think it would mean practically all women in that group--enough so that when the dust settled, at least 55% of the jobs requiring a college education would be held by women. I grant that that might be a hard condition to meet. Many women do opt for the "mommy track" wholly or partially, which would reduce the number of them seeking to be "best they can be" economically and politically. Anything less than 55% would, I think, not be enough for women to gain a clear majority of power--the power balance between the sexes would be approximately equal. .......... (E)Even my hypothesis proves true and women held 60% of all worthwhile power, by hypothesis men would hold 40%--arguably more than women have now. If my hypothesis proves true, we (the U.S.) would have a matriarchy. I am by no means hypothesizing a "female supremacy" and all that implies. A female supremacy would require practically 100% of all worthwhile power and that cannot happen because (1) women don't want it and (2) men wouldn't allow it. .......... (F) I see two major objections to my hypothesis. One is that men would rebel in one or more ways. At the extreme, men would rebel physically, put women "in their place", and re-establish the patriarchy. For many reasons that I will not go into, I don't think this will happen. One example of a lesser form of rebellion would be, as you pointed out, to end the sexism toward in the schools which causes the gender gap in education that favors girls. There surely are other examples. The second major objection to my hypothesis is that not enough women will seek to achieve the social, economic, and political power that they could achieve. I have already addressed this objection. .......... (G) I agree that on a one-on-one basis, the female is submissive to the male. However, one has to ask, "Is this because of nature or nurture?" It's a genuine question and neither you nor I know the answer. My gut feeling is that it is both but fundamentally is nature, which I suspect you would agree with. We have millennia of females being attracted to men taller, heavier, and stronger than they are. Such attraction surely got "into the genes." However, so what? It doesn't change the fact that since women are 60% of all college graduates, they can be 60% of all lawyers, and so 60% of all state and federal judges in the U.S. That is, hold more power than men in at least one of the three branches of government. I could make similar arguments for the other two branches. These scenarios lead to realization of my hypothesis. Individual females preferring stronger males (in all ways) would simply mean that both more women and men would have difficulties in their personal relationships with a member of the opposite. .......... (H) I am surprised that you didn't point out that most of the people scoring genius on IQ tests are male (and at the other end of the IQ scale, most morons are male.) The male sex is the more variable sex in IQ. That most geniuses are male explains why men have been the driving force behind human progress. Yes, oppression of women is also a reason, but in a situation where men and women have equal opportunity for intellectual achievement, men will outperform women because more men are born geniuses, i.e., with innate superior intellectual capacity........... (I)Thus, we have an odd situation in which females on average academically outperform males on average, but when it comes to the best of the best intellectually, males outperform females. That the average female academically outperforms the average male supports the hypothesis that women will be numerous among the power holders. That most geniuses are male supports a hypothesis that the top power holders will continue to be men. ........... (F)Well, I am growing weary of this topic. I put forth my hypothesis to see what rebuttals I might get, and I thank you "Wake you" for your contribution. Frankly, I think my own rebuttals are better.

What's happeningJul 17 2013 3:26pm
@Amanda. You asked, "Why would you want women to hold the majority of power and surpass men?" When did I say that?

What's happeningJul 17 2013 3:28pm
Changes needed for my last post to "Wake up." (1) In the first sentence in (E), change "Even my hypothesis" to "Even if my hypothesis." Second, in the second sentence in (I)beginning "That the average female . . .", change "will be numerous" to "will be more numerous."

What's happeningJul 17 2013 3:45pm
What a strange response. You pretty much agreed with everything I said and continued to inflate the importance of women being 60% of college students (you keep going back to this to support your thesis). May I again point you to source #5 in my second post which proves most people (male or female) do not work in careers related to their college major. That on it's own disproves most of your post. My response was long because I one by one debunked your original post, which was also large. You've now come and written another one, in addition to the few others on various topics on this site. Based on the backlash you've received your opinion is clearly not a popular one. If you want to avoid personal remarks I suggest you stop taking things so personally. This is an anonymous board and I suggest you devote your time to something a little more meaningful. You will not accomplish anything here. It's no surprise to me you'd think your buttals are better. At least some one does.

Wake upJul 17 2013 5:51pm
@What's happening, You said "Thus, I hypothesize that because 60% of college graduates in the U.S. are women, then women can gain (IF they want to) 60% of all the positions of prestige, high earnings, and power in U.S". Last time I checked 60% is more than half and would be the majority of power, surpassing men.

AmandaJul 18 2013 1:06pm
@Amanda. You are correct. I hypothesize that women as a group could acquire a larger share of social, economic, legal, and political power than men IF they want it. Such a situation would by definition be a matriarchy. I didn't say that I wanted that. It's as if my college basketball team were to play a much better college basket team. I would predict my college basketball team would lose, but I wouldn't want it. I'm trying to call the shots as I see them, not as I would have them.

What's happeningJul 18 2013 2:44pm
@Amanda. I believe in equality of opportunity, not result. Girls and boys, women and men should have the same opportunities such as education and employment and promotion based on merit. If in an equal opportunity situation one sex outperforms the other, that's the way the cookie crumbles. One of three things will develop. Men will keep the balance of power; the balance of power between the sexes would be approximately equal; or women will gain the balance of power. If the latter, as I hypothesize, that doesn't necessarily mean that there would be reverse sexism, that women would oppress men as men once oppressed women. I think we all have moved beyond that. I don't think women want that and if men retain 40% of the worthwhile power, I think that would sufficient voice for men. It's more than women have now in our legislatures, our government executive branches, our courts, and among the CEO's of business. My hypothesize applies only to the U.S. Considering just the what's happening in the U.S. is complex enough for me.

What's happeningJul 18 2013 3:04pm
@Wake up. You say that your point that most people do not work in careers related to their college major disproves most of my post. If that is your best shot, you fail. So what if most college grads don't work in a field related to their college majors? The point is that they are college grads and can get into entry positions that only college grads can get into. THE TEST is the correlation between earnings and educational attainment. For that, see http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm. This chart says it all, and its from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which for this kind of statistical information is as authoritative as you can get. The chart shows clearly that the more education leads to higher earnings and a higher employment rate. What's your next best shot?

What's happeningJul 19 2013 1:10pm
I'm puzzled at why you continue to mentioned things I've already disproved in my original post. Did you even read it? Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Although the fact most people work in fields outside their college major disproves your theory alone, pay attention to sources 2 and 3 in my post which states that most part time workers are women and most full time workers are men. The gender wage gap on its own disproves what you just said. If women are 60% of the college graduates, and education leads to hire earnings and a higher employment rate, why are women in less paying jobs compared to men and workings less? Sure, a college education definitely leads to a larger salary, but there is no correlation between women being 60% of college graduates causing women to earn more than men--it's actually the opposite. Feel free to try and gain ground somewhere else--but please do not bring up something that's already been disproved.

Wake upJul 20 2013 10:22am
@What's happening, with the amount of time you put into this women holding the majority of power is definitely something you're rooting for, which I think is wrong. I just don't see it happening, nothing you've said convinces me. Agree to disagree

AmandaJul 20 2013 10:05pm
@Amanda. I agree, we agree to disagree.

What's happeningJul 21 2013 6:48am
@Wake up. You are looking at current status. I am looking at trends and where they seem to lead. You've not disproved anything about the trends. It's clear that neither of us is going to persuade the other to a change of views. As Amanda said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

What's happeningJul 21 2013 6:51am
Over the past few decades, the advances in technology have allowed us to take a closer look at what is happening within both the female and male brain. Male brains are larger than female brains, yet females can think and calculate faster than men can. Magnetic resonance imaging and other brain imaging techniques have shown that most female brains are more active than most male brains. Even when the female brain is resting it has been shown to be as active as an activated male brain. Considering such information, it appears that many girls will have an intelligence advantage over boys by being consistently engaged, even when they aren’t trying as hard as a boy. As a further result of MRI scans we are able to see and view the ways in which some boys and girls process information. Generally speaking, the female brain processes more responding stimulants, through more senses, and more completely than the male brain. When information content comes into the female brain it travels in through the limbic system up to the top four lobes of the brain where thinking occurs. On the other hand, many males seem to move this content through the limbic system down to the brain stem. Basically, this means that females are more likely to process the information faster and reach a conclusion, as more of the activity moves into the hemispheres that handle thinking. Comparatively, men take longer to process information than women because their brains have less neurons available for activity and the connections between those neurons are fewer in number than those found in women’s brains. It is hypothesized that because of this, women constantly operate on a superior level of awareness than men, as their brains are always taking in more sensory information. Because of the limited processing in male brains, they are more likely to need a rest period than in females. The study proved that many male brains frequently enter a reboot phase as they become overloaded easier than female brains, which aren’t as limited in terms of calculation. This phenomenon is similar to the fact that a computer with less RAM and a slower processing speed is more likely to lock up than one which is more powerful. In addition to processing speed and greater sensory intake, females also have a larger corpus callosum, which connects both brain hemispheres. Because the female brain can use both sides more efficiently and more effectively than the male brain, it is able to carry more information throughout more connections, increasing its speed and giving the female greater resources for thought. The differences between intelligence between the genders can be explained through biology. At conception, all life begins as female, marked by the XX chromosome. To roughly half of these embryos, a Y chromosome is introduced, turning the original female embryo into a male. Testosterone surges throughout the growth of the baby while in the womb at a much higher rate than in the female. This chemical transforms the original female brain, enlarging the sex and aggression centers. Testosterone also has been shown to kill off brain cells and damage connections within the brain, as while as put the male at a much higher risk for diseases and brain related disorders. To compensate for this, nature has made 105 males be conceived to every 100 females. Because males are more likely not to survive birth or to die at a younger age, their higher numbers shrink quickly, as females become roughly 52% of the population. These biological differences not only explain the limited cognitive abilities of the male brain in relation to the female, but also explain why females outlive males in humans as well as in the all animal kingdoms. These advantages of the female brain go even beyond intelligence. There are many different chemicals in the brain that affect the ways in which we act, feel, and respond in different situations. The feelings experienced as a result of these chemicals are caused by receptors in the brain which produce the effect of the chemical when activated. Because girls have more brain activity and more neurons in their brains than boys, they also have more receptors. A perfect example of a chemical reaction in the brain is orgasm. We feel orgasms as pleasurable because of the chemicals serotonin and oxytocin are released in our brain during climax. Because receptors are greater in number in the female brain then in men, orgasm will feel much better for a girl than it does for a boy. Brain scans show that during orgasm the female brain experiences 10 times the amount of pleasurable chemicals than in the male brain. In addition, the chemicals stick around in women’s brains longer than in the male brain, so the pleasurable experience lasts longer. Girls are also capable of multiple orgasms, so their brain remains ready to experience the pleasure over and over again for as long as she desires. Because of the refractory period men experience after they have an orgasm, they remain unable to have another orgasm for a period of time. This results in girls being capable of more powerful and longer lasting orgasms then in men, where orgasms are shorter, weaker, and fewer in number. In scientific studies, the equivalent of the male orgasm was played through the brains of volunteering women. Their experiences were recorded in written testimonies. Common remarks was that the intensity of the male orgasm was much weaker than what they normally experienced from orgasm and that the orgasm ended much quicker than they anticipated. When these women had female orgasms in the lab, they were much more vocal and their bodies contorted as their muscles contracted in response to the orgasm. When the same women experienced the male-style orgasm, they remained mostly quiet and stood almost completely still. They were actually quieter and moved less during the male orgasm then men who had their orgasms studied in the lab. Scientists hypothesized this was due to the females being used to experiencing a more powerful orgasm than the male-style orgasm that they experienced in the lab, while men experiencing the orgasm saw it as normal and had never felt anything better. Scientists were unable to allow the male volunteers of the study to experience the female orgasm, as the male brain is unable to handle the abundance of chemicals and activity the female orgasm provides. There was a theory that if the intensity of a girl’s orgasm was played through a boy’s brain, the shock to his system would kill him. Because of this, it appears the female orgasm remains a treat which can only be enjoyed by women. "I definitely feel very blessed that I was born female" study coordinator Sheryl Task joked. "If I was a man, I'd definitely be really jealous."

from a scientific articleJul 23 2013 10:55pm
Surely you can tell from my last few posts and their provided sources that I am not only looking at current status. You're looking at current trends? Whatever happened to your original "apples to oranges" argument when I pointed out other trends you could draw the same conclusions from if you looked at other groups besides just women? Regardless I've debunked all of the conclusions you've drawn from your "trends" by providing more logical explanations. I'm not sure how old you are, but if you're around in 30-50 years, remember my posts when you look around and realize women still make less money (because they'll continue to chose lower paying jobs) and still do not control the majority of the most powerful positions in society. Maybe then you'll finally start to realize the tremendous credit male brawn deserves as it's responsible for building and maintaining our societies' buildings and infrastructure. Up until now you've simply downplayed the enormous contributions of men and inflated the importance of women's accomplishments. I guess the modern lifestyle you enjoy because of mostly male accomplishments has spoiled you.

Wake upAug 01 2013 1:30pm
@Wake up. Gee wheez guy, you wont give up, will you? When I last wrote "we'll just have to agree to disagree" I was saying, I thought clearly, that I wasn't interested to any further debate on the topic with you. If you think I'm "from a scientific article", you're mistaken. Argue with him/her if you like.

What's happeningAug 03 2013 6:57am
I don't give up? Some one sounds bitter. You've posted as many times as me on this thread, and more than me if you count the other pinhead posts on other threads you've written on this site. Lets also not overlook the fact I responded to you over 10 days later and received a response quickly suggesting you've been checking back on this thread daily to see if I've responded. I really wouldn't even call this a debate as it was pretty one-sided, but I'm always happy to debunk the opinions of your type.

Wake upAug 03 2013 9:21am
f

AnonymousAug 03 2013 9:30am
u

AnonymousAug 03 2013 9:30am
c

AnonymousAug 03 2013 9:30am
k

AnonymousAug 03 2013 9:30am
t

AnonymousAug 03 2013 9:30am
h

AnonymousAug 03 2013 9:30am
i

AnonymousAug 03 2013 9:31am
s

AnonymousAug 03 2013 9:31am
@Wake up. I have an interest in the topic of what appears to be a role reversal of the sexes resulting in women becoming the "first sex." So, I periodically check some polls on this website concerning that topic. I have bookmarked all of them and it takes a just a few minutes to see if there has been any recent activity. A week ago, I saw that "from a scientific article" had posted on this poll, as he had on some others, where his comment seemed to generate some responses. So today I checked to see if anyone had responded to his/her post and saw your post and responded to it. I did not check to see if you had made a comment. I don't care one way or another about whether or not you comment. It occurred to me that you might mistakenly think the comment from "from a scientific article" was from me and I wanted to correct your mistake. I am not going to debate the topic with you anymore because I don't think you have anything more to say that might be of any interest. This will be my last post to you. Gosh, guy, you really seem to get hot about this topic. I think you are really terrified of even the idea of women becoming the dominant sex (the topic of this particular poll.) Good-bye.

What's happeningAug 03 2013 11:50am
what's happening just curious but what are your thoughts on "from a scientific article"'s postings?

lisaAug 03 2013 12:19pm
@lisa. First, I wish the poster had cited the source. Second, I’m not a scientist and so realize I do not have the qualifications to make an informed judgment on the study results presented in the article. Also, I know that science is an ongoing activity and that today’s results may be qualified or even falsified by further research. Further, the study covers only some of the real or potential differences between the sexes. The differences covered in the article favor the females but other studies not mentioned in the study favor the males, for example, the better spatial and mathematical reasoning of males. Math is the “queen” of the sciences and it is the natural sciences that have made the modern world, which has opened up possibilities and opportunities for women; so, that advantage to the males is significant. Nothing I have said above leads to me to disbelieve the results in the article. I accept them but with the reservations just mentioned. However, I believe that there some differences between the sexes that I think are well-established and not likely to be disproved or significantly qualified. These include women’s overall biological, sensory, orgasmic, and verbal superiority. As a typical male who thinks about sex a lot I greatly envy women’s orgasmic superiority, but I don’t see how that qualifies women to “rule the world” – that is, to become the dominant sex (the question of this poll). However, I do think girl’s and women’s superior educational attainment, given equal opportunity with the males, is qualifying. I am really impressed by how well the girls and women are doing educationally. Here we have an indisputable fact (or perhaps more accurately, a set of indisputable facts) of tremendous significance – a reversal of the power allocation between the sexes and a role reversal that, if it happens, surely would the greatest social revolution in the human history. This why I am so interested in this topic. My hypothesis as stated above is “because 60% of college graduates in the U.S. are women, then women can gain (IF they want to) 60% of all the positions of prestige, high earnings, and power in U.S.” I’m not going to restate arguments for and possible arguments against, since they can be read above. I would say that I’ve posed this hypothesis on other polls, notably “Are Men Intimidated By The Prospect Of Female Supremacy?” where I have an interesting conversation with “Statsguy.” If you are really interested, you might check that poll out (in that poll, I use the pen name “A. I. G.”). . . . . . . . . . . Now that I have given you my thoughts, please give me yours on the posting from “from a scientific article” and I would very much appreciate your thoughts on my thesis.

What's happeningAug 05 2013 3:38pm
my thoughts are that the studies mentioned are true, as i've heard them before. obviously as you said all the findings mentioned favor females and leave out the advantages of being male but i think overall females are superior biologically/intellectually when all factors are considered. after all females outlive males not just in humans but in most animal species, mostly do to biology (XX vs XY chromosome, as i'm sure you're aware). most of the article discussed brain differences between the genders, and it seems the "hardware" in the female brain seems to operate faster with more potential. this leads me to believe even though men are overall better in the math/sciences, if a woman applied herself in those areas she could be better, as her brain is different then men due to biology. Males have more testosterone, which does have negative affects on the brain proven in other studies not even mentioned in from a scientific article's post. The brains of the genders are fundamentally different, so i feel even though every woman is not smarter than every man, most women could be if she applied herself because her brain has more potential. I guess you could compare it to cars, one with a smaller engine (male brain) even with modifications usually cannot go as fast as a larger engine (female brain). The smaller engine could go faster if the larger engine is not maintained well (like women who don't apply themselves), but if it is kept up, it will be faster as it's potential is greater. I'm aware i'm basically saying women are smarter than men--but understand that's not a knock to men. I think men are very smart, but I cannot say we're equal when studies come out proving the female brain works faster, has more connections, is more active, has better communication between hemispheres, as i've seen those findings and more elsewhere in addition to here. Men overall having better spatial and mathematical reasoning simply doesn't balance these differences out. no one gets upset when some one mentions men are stronger than women or taller than women because it's such a proven indisputable fact and i feel in the future the fact women are smarter than men will be accepted in the same way those other ones are. knowledge is learned and although most men in our society currently are more knowledgeable than women, a women with the same knowledge will be able to out think a man as her brain is faster and more efficient than his. If women apply themselves, they can surpass men. you mentioned women’s overall biological, sensory, orgasmic, and verbal superiority can you elaborate on this?

lisaAug 09 2013 12:51pm
lisa, you asked me to elaborate on women’s overall biological, sensory, orgasmic, and verbal superiority. I lack the specific knowledge to really elaborate on women’s overall biological, sensory, and orgasmic superiority. I guess I could do some research on Wikipedia and try to impress you with my knowledge, but that would be fakery. What I know is what everyone knows, or should know. Women live longer, have better immune systems, do not have the congenital defects males have, can see colors much better, and that women have more and better orgasms. I long ago read Ashley Montagu’s “The Natural Superiority of Women” and later articles. I have believed and accepted women’s overall biological, sensory and orgasmic superiority for so long that I don’t think about it much and so cannot elaborate “off the top of mind.” More men than women have some form of color blindness. I have a mild case of red-green color blindness and so I can speak from personal experience about the superiority of women’s color perception and so I can speak from personal experience about the superiority of women’s color perception. I can read about but not really know from experience what women’s orgasms are like. I think it ironic that males are such slaves to our sex drives and yet women are better at experiencing sex than we are. ---------- As I said don’t think much about women’s overall biological, sensory, and orgasmic superiority. I accept it as given. However, I don’t see women’s superiority in these areas as qualifying them to be the rulers. As I have said, I am interested in the possibility of, and the desirability, of a matriarchy, a society in which women rule--a society where women have more power than men, but not exclusive power. However, I do see women’s overall verbal superiority as qualifying--not a single, sufficient qualification, but one among many. One of the most important qualifications for executive, supervisory, and other leadership positions is the ability to communicate, and the average woman is better qualified than the average man. As you said, men’s greater spatial and mathematical reasoning “simply doesn’t balance” things out. It means that more men occupy most of the positions STEM fields. More men than women will be engineers, but engineers are well known to be lousy managers. The leadership positions, the power positions, require strong communication skills and there the women beat the men. ---------- I agree with you the studies mentioned are true and that “the brains of the genders are fundamentally different.” It’s just that I am not sure to what extent scientists have definitively correlated that with real world performance. I take it as gospel that the brains of women and men are anatomically and physiologically different. I believe that there is a reason for this—that this evolution of different female and male brains gave some kind of survival advantage for our species, but I believe science has a way to go before it has worked out what advantages (correlations to real world performance). I do agree that the studies mentioned suggest women’s brains have greater potential. ---------- That brings up female and male differences in IQ. Last year, for the first time women scored higher average IQs than men. The IQs of both sexes in developed countries have been rising slightly over the past 100 years. The best theory seems to be that just as putting more demand on muscles makes them stronger, so putting more intellectual demand on the brain raises IQ. However, the IQ of the average woman has risen faster than that of the average man and now surpasses it. The difference is small and implies no real world significant advantage, but still these changes suggest that the greater potential of the female brain is beginning to be realized and that in the future the average woman’s IQ may surpass that of the average man’s IQ by an amount that has real world consequences. ---------- Google “women iq higher men iq” and you will get lots of hits. Here’s some articles I thought informative: - Walton http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/07/16/women-surpass-men-in-iq-but-are-other-factors-more-important/ . . . . . .and . . . . . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9404856/Is-the-female-of-the-species-really-more-intelligent-than-the-male.html. --------- The touchstone of reality for me is having “real world consequences.” To me the most important difference between the sexes, as it relates to which will be the “first sex”, is the educational advantage the female has over the male. I live in the U.S. and generally confine myself to what’s happening here. I have limited time as it is to be informed about what is happening in the U.S. and little to become informed about what is happening elsewhere. The foundation of my hypothesis about a potential matriarchy is that in the U.S. about 60% of college graduates are women. Some say that is because of the “feminization” of our schools. However, it is a world-wide phenomenon. According to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, women surpass men in getting college degrees in 25 of the 27 developed nations in the Organization (all but Japan and Turkey). This suggests to me that girls are innately better students. One is tempted to say innately smarter, but there are factors that go into making a good student other than IQ, so I think it more accurate to say that girls are innately “better students.” ---------- You mentioned that “most men in our society currently are more knowledgeable than women.” Actually, I think this no longer the case, at least not in the U.S. In the U.S., I believe it was in 2008. Sources: please google “women better educated than men.” Here’s one source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/04/26/women-better-educated-than-men.html. ---------- lisa, please comment on my comment. BTW, Since you are using your name, I feel I should us mine rather than a pen name. It is John (really!).

John (aka What's happening)Aug 11 2013 9:29am
lisa i love tht you know women are smarter then men, do you see a future where women are in control and men obey or are even slaves?

mark33Sep 07 2013 10:14am
dKz8IH Fantastic blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.

IKjcLYfFkAYmxsVSkzSep 12 2013 5:07pm
lsDulD Im grateful for the article post.Thanks Again. Great.

AkoyMmtoOct 24 2013 5:40pm
NcwE4G Im grateful for the blog post.Really thank you! Really Great.

yotsyzTHAmdCPlzBGFOct 25 2013 12:14am
.AOLWebSuite.AOLPicturesFullSizeLink{ height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuitea {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuitea.hsSig{cursor: default} .AOLWebSuiteM1 {margin: 10px 20px;} .AOLWebSuiteM2 {margin: 5px;} .AOLWebSuiteM3 {margin: 10px;} .dmItemSelected{padding: 2px !important;text-decoration: none !important;color:#fff!important;background-color: #656565 !important;border-radius: 2px;} You ask. If women become the dominant sex, will it be permanent? I certainly hope so, for Women are without doubt the superior sex, they are more intelligent, more knowledgeable, wiser, cleverer, more articulate, better educated, better informed, better manipulators, are so much more attractive than men, have lovely silky smooth skin, beautiful hair, their complete overall body shape is far superior to ours, their clothing is far better than ours. I other words they are “Perfection”, and therefore, deserve to be kept continually in a state of idle luxury, at our expense. We males should realize that we are only here to be used by women for their pleasure, enjoyment, entertainment, amusement. To do all the housework, cleaning cooking, shopping excreta, and thereby enable our owners to enjoy a life of comparative ease, whilst at the same time exercising complete and total authority over a member of the inferior sex. Any male who a woman chooses to use as her slave should consider it an honour to have been selected by her. In fact he should worship her as the Goddess she is. We males are so abysmal that we are not worthy to lick the dirt off their boots. When however, one of us is chosen to be used by a woman. Then he knows that he has been considered worthy to lick the dirt off her boots.

faceunder1Oct 26 2013 10:19am
Sorry about the mess above, but I am not able to remove the unwanted material. You ask. If women become the dominant sex, will it be permanent? I certainly hope so, for Women are without doubt the superior sex, they are more intelligent, more knowledgeable, wiser, cleverer, more articulate, better educated, better informed, better manipulators, are so much more attractive than men, have lovely silky smooth skin, beautiful hair, their complete overall body shape is far superior to ours, their clothing is far better than ours. I other words they are “Perfection”, and therefore, deserve to be kept continually in a state of idle luxury, at our expense. We males should realize that we are only here to be used by women for their pleasure, enjoyment, entertainment, amusement. To do all the housework, cleaning cooking, shopping excreta, and thereby enable our owners to enjoy a life of comparative ease, whilst at the same time exercising complete and total authority over a member of the inferior sex. Any male who a woman chooses to use as her slave should consider it an honour to have been selected by her. In fact he should worship her as the Goddess she is. We males are so abysmal that we are not worthy to lick the dirt off their boots. When however, one of us is chosen to be used by a woman. Then he knows that he has been considered worthy to lick the dirt off her boots.

faceunder1Oct 26 2013 10:22am
mark33, Sorry to disappoint you, but Lisa is not real. I simply pretended to be a female supporter of female supremacy in order to expose the poster by the name of "What's Happening" (or John, as we've now learned). Now that we can plainly see his submissive sexual desires toward women are the motivation behind his political views we can officially dismiss his beliefs as fetishism. Although his argument was poor and had little evidence from the beginning, his mistake was ever attempting to be taken seriously in the first place. Fetishes have no place in politics. It's important these submissive fantasies stay just that--a fantasy. John is a perfect example of a person who's fetishes have gotten so out of control he's lost sight of the fine line between fantasy and reality. His desires most likely remain a secret he's kept with himself, and this website has been an outlet for him. So starts a slippery slope within him of increasingly disturbing deviant sexual behavior. Look at how many serial killers who's motivation was an embarrassing sexual fetish that they kept secret and eventually had to act it out in the real world. Let this be a lesson to others, this site is not real and the people on it are engaging in role play. Less alone time, healthy relationships and social interactions (with face-time) and a higher self confidence are the key toward happiness.

Wake UpNov 03 2013 9:56am
-1

1Dec 24 2013 9:12am
59TTLl I appreciate you sharing this article.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.

htcNWixBlijhBnCLbZgDec 24 2013 9:13am
qsj8QU Thanks a lot for the blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.

WEpNUqbgPMLNENCIFeb 04 2014 3:46am
the post above and others like it are spam.

AnonymousFeb 20 2014 11:37am
XhGekc Major thanks for the blog article.Really thank you! Will read on...

fzxFMhvHFNJun 17 2014 1:21pm
9ycwI1 Thanks again for the article post. Great.

welKjPRMXMNfgaXJul 03 2014 10:46am
4dSuMQ Thanks again for the post. Much obliged.

vIiSZRbdGgiydDTlbvWAug 03 2014 9:17pm
lzi7CX Appreciate you sharing, great blog article. Cool.

sgEamgdWyutBAPsAug 04 2014 10:53pm
4lN8Q9 Very neat article.Really thank you!

XEphgLQbKPLhkXRFEbwAug 05 2014 7:36am
the posts above and others like it are spam.

AnonymousOct 24 2014 3:24pm
IlU3py You made some clear points there. I did a search on the subject and found most individuals will consent with your website.

ufrPExkZBYwIEhrIwSWDec 20 2014 9:38pm
VEKsNB Hey there, You have done an excellent job. I'll certainly digg it and personally suggest to my friends. I am sure they'll be benefited from this site.

VoPvvmOFXgOvYtyWPPQApr 07 2015 3:44am
NASspf Thanks for the article.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

vKbEoenkwHgQJXcGLKISep 28 2015 1:26am
w8OgnW I cannot thank you enough for the article post.Thanks Again. Will read on...

updacfhdZphuEPBKMdOct 16 2015 6:24am
Cursed is the world and society if this comes about. Why did we men make the mistake of letting women out of the kitchen in the first place? We should have kept them there and there itself. For ever. We gave them an inch, and they have taken a mile. We only have ourselves to blame.

Tony.Nov 17 2015 7:46am
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Women taking over and running the world. BIG JOKE! Let us see them even trying!

Patrick.Nov 17 2015 7:47am
Once women are in charge that's it game over.

RealitybitesJun 09 2016 3:55am
Dear Patrick, it is happening now is your head buried in the sand ?

NostrodamusJun 09 2016 3:56am
Ndndndn. B

NsjdjdkkkSep 30 2016 9:53pm
Hehehebeb

BebdbdbdOct 19 2016 1:19pm
Vgl7Kv This blog is definitely cool and factual. I have discovered many interesting stuff out of this source. I ad love to visit it every once in a while. Cheers!

XQDPjHCftKFAug 12 2018 8:21am
8vs9T3 http://pills2sale.com/ levitra nizagara

luomeEbjxiPOct 18 2020 6:58am
1mZlGe http://pills2sale.com/ levitra nizagara

oayLXoOjMzVHOnVhOQOct 18 2020 7:11am
y4Cf2E http://pills2sale.com/ viagra cialis buy

drQywEgOalNov 01 2020 11:55am
I'm not working at the moment

okAOCogbhhNov 06 2020 5:51am
Directory enquiries

okAOCogbhhNov 06 2020 5:51am
Could I borrow your phone, please?

okAOCogbhhNov 06 2020 5:51am
International directory enquiries

okAOCogbhhNov 06 2020 5:51am
I've come to collect a parcel

okAOCogbhhNov 06 2020 5:51am
Canada>Canada

ITKIeJtjtwNov 06 2020 5:57am
What's the last date I can post this to to arrive in time for Christmas?

ITKIeJtjtwNov 06 2020 5:57am
What sort of music do you like?

ITKIeJtjtwNov 06 2020 5:57am
Could you ask her to call me?

ITKIeJtjtwNov 06 2020 5:57am
Add a comment:
Comment:


By:


Vote | Results | Home
Vote Results