Talk:RyansWorld: Matriarchy
From Future
Yrr... -wha? Danila? Is that really you? LionKimbro
- nope sorry, this is Chaerani, as in Wikipedia:User:Chaerani, I just discovered future and tried to make a bit of contribution to the community.. how r u guys doin? Chaerani 08:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not very active at the moment. Hopefully more people will discover future and contribute. Thanks, btw. Unlike wikipedia we do welcome opinions, we just try to have a bit of a structure (separating opinions and possibilities from facts and inevitabilities), that's why your contribution was moved to scenario space. I'm glad to see that you found the main scenario page and linked it from there. And by all means, please continue contributing. Paranoid 17:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Maternalistic view of war between countries - "The country with more beautiful scenery and neat city wins"? - Anonymous
Who wrote this rubbish? Awful guesswork - makes me cringe. - Anonymous
Why not just clone women and abolish men all together. Men are obviously the root of all evil. This chick is just jealous of my dick. - Anonymous Conservative Male
I believe the tone of this article is sexist. Look at way it was written. They refer to a world where men cannot vote or own property as wonderful. I don't care how long woman have been opressed, It isn't fair to do the same thing to men. I was born with an X and Y chromosome, so they want me to grow up into a future where I can't vote because a bunch of my ancestors thought woman where property. By that same standard, as I white person I should give myself over to black people as a slave. - Anonymous White Conservative
You are right, Anon White Cons. The article is sexist, but moreover it is unrealistic. It takes the ideas of a fringe group of radicals and assumes that they will apply to an entire population. I'm sorry, but neither men nor women are going to buy into this to any calculable extent. A whole female population (probably 7 or 8 billion women at the time the article speaks of if population growth trends are correct) is not going to condemn men simply because their male ancestors did some unfair things. This article shouldn't be on the wiki as it does not represent a viable future, and is really just hyperdiscriminatory and misandric. - Anonymous Sentinent Human
"Men only rule the world because women are to busy fighting each other"
In other words until women become less emotional, men have nothing to fear -A male Human being
Table of Contents |
[edit] Margaret Thatcher
Need I say more?
Margaret Thatcher IS A BITCH
[edit] This is an exemplary article?
Sorry, but this article is terrible. You horribly generalise both genders. You think an entire gender is going to band together and refuse to become pregnant? What about love? What about married couples who want to start a family together? I'm sure the bonds between men and women and the urge to reproduce massively outweigh feminist political agendas.
The social comparison is a neat collection of stereotypes. Men are incapable of diplomacy, women are peaceloving and incapable of violence (most of the women I know are more physically aggressive then the men). Men are focused, women can "multi-task" and "experience in child-rearing" is pertinent for a career(???).
"Matriarchy is better than patriarchy because restrictions in a patriarchal society are 10 times more oppressive then for adults and twice as oppressive then they are for military soldiers and convicted felons." You succeeded in quantifying oppressiveness? :P
For some reason you seem to blame patriarchy for all the evil in the world. For some even stranger reason, you seem to think herding and killing cattle is evil. It may not be pretty but it's been an integral part of agriculture for millennia and mankind would be in a much worse state without it.
The section on liberated women is laughable. Apparently, a "liberated woman" is somebody who allows their personal hygiene to slip and, instead of associating themselves with their own gender or (as is best)freeing themselves of associating with either gender stereotype, becomes "one of the guys", i.e. becoming that which they've spent centuries hating and fighting against.
These are all your opinions so I can't tell you to change them, but if this is an exemplary article then shame on Future Wiki. And I've got nothing against visions of oppressive futures filled with inequality and descrimination, but please don't write as though they're a good thing.
And have you ever even met a woman?
-Anon
lol. Write what you like Ryan, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your article, although I think this future is as highly unlikely and undesirable as it is kinda sexy. That last comment by anon was most poignant! NZUlysses 11:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
To consider this a utopian future is frightening; to believe that it would be righteous, virtuous, and exemplary (as the article declares) is laughable. This scenario is not progress - it is a return to everything bad about an uber-patriarchical society, only the genders are reversed. I would think that after such a long, hard march towards equality people would hardly want to reverse all their progress. Just goes to show that the feminists really don't know a thing about equal rights. - Anonymous
[edit] Black White Woman Man
In the book Great Gatsby Tom Buchanan was afraid black people would take over the world. That white people would become their slaves.
Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream.
This article is the opposite.
This stuff is crazy, you people have to much spare time.
[edit] Deletion
This article is ridiculous. No, it is. Women are humans, they are not supernatural beings. There have been female tyrants in history, there have been female aggressors. The supposition that women will rule a happy euphoria of peace is utterly, totally ridiculous, ultra-utopianist, while being supremely sexist at the same time. I recommend the immediate deletion of this article. This isn't futurology, it's sanctioned bigotry and misandry. --195.195.166.31 18:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I say delete it or rewrite it. It is dystopian, not utopian; it is stuffed chock-full of stereotypes about both men and women. If you don't want to delete it, at least revise it to make it less biased. A fair, balanced article about a matriarchy scenario could complement Future Wiki, but this detracts from the site's value. If this were the first article I saw on the site I would probably never come back. - Alex C.
[edit] Changing gender roles
This article is way too short.
You can already see the gradual and soft gender changes taking place. Women are becoming more like men, and men are becoming more like women. There is a weird feeling that we could meet in the middle and become sexless--not good.
A more reasonable outcome in this subject would be that men simply decide to surrender to the inevitable loss of power. In gender terms, this would mean that the women would indeed be the superior in the relationship. This would not mean that they would dress like men, or act like men, but that many would continue to adopt clothing that fit their own unique feminine beauty. In contrast, men would be expected to work at the appearance not only of their homes, but of themselves as "trophy" spouses. The expected appearance would be one of beauty and elegance, and would include expressions of subordination to their women. This would mean that men would be rapidly adopting feminine wardrobes, feminine mannerisms, and feminine lifestyles. In short, men will continue their evolutionary process toward being feminized. This will occur initially and primarily at home, but will increasingly occur in public until it is mandated by law.
[edit] Absurd
Look, I'm all for women taking on an equal role in the world, but this is absurd. Its not more liberal to move to a matriarchy, its just as bad as a truly patriarchal society. Now the role of men in the home changing doesn't seem too bad, but the idea of denying men the right to vote is insane.
Men are warmongers; they don't deserve to vote or be in politics. Get used to it.
- Um, are you sure about that? There have been plenty of peaceful and liberal men. And some women are warmongers, too (but probably more men). I agree with the anon who wrote the first comment here. I mean I'm fine with women having jobs better than men, female prime ministers and presidents, but I agree, this is absurd. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Men are warmongers; they don't deserve to vote or be in politics. Get used to it."
- Ghandhi, do I really need to say any more. And the only reason there have been more male warmongers is that there have always been more men in places of power. JosephK19 15:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Right. Forgot about him there. Also, MLKJ. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Gross
I was just looking at the history and there's even more horrific, gross, sexist, etc. In the past history men are basically slaves to Women. This has never been done to women since the really sexist societies more than 1000 years ago. But some cannot ever be able to see, their testicles are removed, its just annoying. If any of you are sick of these sexist nonsense, I'm writing an article called TimesWorld: Gender Equality. Feel free to help out. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
What scares me about that scenario is not that men might be opressed but that I can just feel how many women reading this will think "finally they get what they deserve - payback time!".
I'm not afraid of female supremacy (if its the real thing) but I am afraid of hatred towards men (or any other group) which is all I find in this article.
