If women ruled the world... [casting and OOC]

[Brazillian_Anna]

I am looking for anyone and everyone interested in RPing a story set in a future Earth where women rule. The women are iron-fisted rulers over men, who mate with them only out of necessity for survival. For the most part, women have turned to each other for their sexual fulfilment. The men are actively crusading for equal rights in many different ways, and a few deviant women have begun to join in their cause for a better world. I need several women and a men to participate. I will make the thread for the RP later, but in the meantime, please post here or PM me with any ideas you have for the story, and a character profile if you are interested in participating.

 

[ToolmanTim]

I could play a seneschal for a royal house, if you have a noble house.

 

[Brazillian_Anna]

I could play a seneschal for a royal house, if you have a noble house.

We might do that.

 

[kittenofdeath]

Could i play a valet?

 

[ToolmanTim]

I assume that certain powerful warmachines have been created that make the need for soldiers obsolete, hence a loss of the need for men's immensely superior physical strength, the main source of male domination across both time and the globe. If a group of women seized control of those warmachines they could take control of the planet fairly easily.

 

[badbabysitter]

Also could be something else, like sheer old genetics, or a plague.. dwindlling male population led women to fill all fields.. a growing resentment in many developing countries where women are treated as second class..violence ensues.. the eventual happens..women take firm control ..science is concentrated on some sort of reproduction.. but the results of society dominated by women are amazing.. sexuall assault is all but eradicated, prostitution rings are gone, women treated as property, reproductive rights..women decided they dont want the old world again

talk about run on sentence batman

 

[BadForm]

Now why would women in control mean ANY of those things? I cannot think of ANY case where one group has ruled another with an iron hand in which the ruling group has not used every means at its disposal to stamp its authority on the ruled. Note that I am not talking about any kind of "benevolent dictator" as has been suggested between captain and crew on some pirate ships for instance - in such a situation it's not an entirely iron hand. If women had the kind of control that you suggest, then it is highly likely that sex roles would largely be reversed with a reverse application of the sexual division of labor. Men would be victimized. Its simply the nature of the beast with tyranny.

As to men's power being based on their physical prowess, it's an oft quoted and yet never proven thing. To accept it we must accept the premises that 1) men are physically superior to women and 2) physical superiority results in political superiority (i.e. rulership).

The first has little to argue against it overall but there have been sufficient women warriors in history (assyrian women warriors? celtic warrior women? etc), and sufficient weak men, to cast doubt on it being an absolute. It also ceases to be an absolute with either scientific manipulation or genetic development (there are a number of mammals and other animals where women are more powerful) and nothing to say that genetic mutation may not end up with mankind back there some day hundreds of thousands of years in the future.

As it turns out, if we accept premise 1) above, premise 2) becomes questionable. It is seldom the greatest warriors that are at the pinnacle of any society. They may rise high, but they seldom outright govern. Elders do, intellectuals do, charismatic idiots sometimes do (as certain current world leaders demonstrate), warriros as a rule don't. After all, you don't send your leader to the head of a battle if you value the stability of your realm but you DO send warriors there. Further, if we accept the rule as simply being the sex/gender with the greatest physical power on average will rule this fails to account for the (admittedly limited in the grand scheme of history) number of matrifocal and matrilineal societies that have existed. A few Native American tribal nations were heavily focussed on female governance, still others on equality. The same can be said of some celtic and gaulish tribes. I believe at certain times Kush and Axum/Meroe was another society given to politically powerful women as being normal. Are we to assume that the women of these society were particularly strong, the men particularly weak? It seems unlikely.

Anyway, this long soap-box rant is my way of saying I'm in if you want me. I just love being dominated by strong women and it will save me opening one of my "taming the cat burglar" threads for extreme female domination.

 

[ToolmanTim]

Well there's other factors. Like women's high propensity for dying in childbirth pre-1940's. And the way men and women seem to think, linearly versus intuitively.

My point was that the capacity for men to fight and retain their rights, as men have historically been the main fighters of every society throughout history, needs to be addressed. Men must not be able to physically fight to win their rights back. Yes, there are women in armies around the world, Israel for one, but the overwhelming majority of warriors have been men. Even the Iriquois let the men do the fighting.

Which leads me to another point, a world ruled by women would not necessarily mean an end to the evils of human civilization. Sexual assault would happen every time a woman chose a man she would mate with without asking for his consent. And prostitution rings could also exist, in fact a man running a bordello to the leaders of the world could make for a great character.

I'm not saying that men are better then women or women are better then men, rather, that there are differences between the sexes, first and foremost what's between our legs

Hopefully some of this helps Anna decide how to hape her world that we all seem to want to play in.

 

[BadForm]

Hey Tim, just to let you know you're debating with someone who can happily debate whether he even exists or not. You are certainly right that men, in almost every society (I remain unconvinced that we can explicitly say every society) form the majority of the warriors. Let me propose another reason than strength that would make that necessary: disposability. One man can fertilize many women in rapid succession. However, one woman can only be fertilized once by one man then is pretty much out of the running for at least 9 months. Therefore men are more disposable - the population needs more women to replenish it than men. This need to care for women more could readily explain the propensity of tribally organized/clan organized societies to use more male warriors in general, with only a few tribes recognizing that women can make equally good (if somewhat different) warriors. Once a society has such a rule in its song, its story, its history and its scripture, it will perpetuate and so become the basis for larger societies. So, disposability or power? I remain to be convinced.