/g/ - girl talk

I think that if we had been raised the same way as men, historically, we could defend ourselves if a male country attacked. Maybe. I truly don't know how different we are in terms of physical strenght.
But everything yes, we would prosper. It's bullshit that women can't have positions of power because we are "emotional", we tend to be more considerate and empathetic than men, and that's good for someone who takes important decisions. Almost all women are more skilled than men even when they have the same position.

>>154518
it would prosper because historically women are the ones that manage the money. men might have earned it in the past, but women always administrated it. we are way more capable in every field and we can do multipe things at a time and do it well. also, empathy and "being emotional" is not a negative thing imo.

I think it would be utopia, but for sure it could never happen because men would constantly invade, refuse to cooperate and trade, and sabotage us. It could work if it was completely isolated from the rest of the world though. It would probably be some kind of ideal version of communism, women can share and be fair.

All I know the world's gone to shit at the hands of men and I highly doubt women would do equally bad or worse.

I'm not clear-headed enough to give a real response right now, but all I can say is fucking sign me up. I'm done with men. Sure women can be cruel and abusive too, but on a massively smaller scale as compared to men. I wish there was more research being done on matriarchal societies. I know they're not fully female but at least we'd have all the meaningful power. I'd be interested in joining one of those too. Pic rel is of Mosuo women who have one of the last existing matriarchies.

As much as I hate to admit it, women wouldn't stand a chance in combat against men. Physically, the testosterone they have gives them enhanced muscle and bone mass. If we had some kind of technological advantage, I guess it could be offset.

>>154620
I mean yeah, technological advantages have won wars for centuries. See every tribal society that was destroyed by superior firepower. Souped up male soldiers die to bullets just as easily as frail civilians. Maybe we could just get a robo army from Boston Dynamics so we didn’t even have to put ourselves in the line of fire.

>>154570
But even in matriarchal societies girls go through fucked up rituals in order to be fuckable for men and there's still pressure to have children etc. There's no escape from it as long as males are in the group. This piece was written by a woman with PhD in history, you don't have to agree with everything she says (about feminism, lesbianism etc.) but there's still valuable piece of information about matriarchal societies. It's long but I think it's worth reading
https://icemountainfire.wordpress.com/2017/08/20/the-invisible-male-of-matripatriarchy-a-radical-lesbian-reading-of-heide-gottner-abendroth-am-anfang-die-mutter-matriarchale-gesellschaft-und-politik-als-alternative-kohlhammer-stuttgart-2011/

Personally I wish I could live in a small female-only commune somewhere.

>>154624
I’m still reading anon. It’s interesting, especially as a woman who’s het and childfree by choice. I lost my boyfriend partly over it and have had to deal with confused and not so well-meaning individuals questioning me about it for ages. And even in a matriarchal society the Mosuo say “You are seen as complete once you become a mother.” I’ll be just fine without having to dedicate at least 2 decades of my life to a small being when there are already plenty of people out there who need help. I have nothing against women who want to be moms but it shouldn’t be help up as the only path to fulfillment, especially when many mothers don’t get anywhere near enough assistance with childcare.

>>154620
It's not just physical advantage. It's the mental one as well. Men are sadistic psychopaths and naturally hierarchical and wiling to throw their lives away for slight chance of gaining status. They are natural born killing machines. Women wouldn't stand a chance.

Honestly, women will never have separate society because we are too soft and most straight women are submissive toward men too. And men will never just let us live in peace, even if they get sexbots to satisfy their every need, they will hunt us down just because they genuinely are obsessed with dominating and humiliating women.

It would fail. Just like all-female companies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227846589_Failure_Rates_for_Female-Controlled_Businesses_Are_They_Any_Different
https://successresources.com/uk/women-owned-businesses-fail/(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)

>>154664
>daily mail article about a faggot industry like tv which is already filled with freaks
you got us there scrote! oh god please pump me full of facts and logic!

>>154664
First of all,
>dailymail

Secondly,
>googles some bullshit, links first 3 most relevant matches, doesn’t bother reading the articles or articulating a point

Dick or gtfo

This is why we cant have nice things! i smell triggered scrote itt already… fuck off!

this is going to be negative but tbh even a separatist space like an all-women farm or the like unfortunately won't survive because the moment a straight/bi woman brings (and they WILL) their "not like the other men" husband/son/relative nigel this separatist space will just crash and burn. honestly this is why i feel sad for the women (most of whom are lesbians lol) who think about or are working towards creating such spaces. some you will get triggered at this lol, but a female-only space can only work if it is lesbian only and even then a single "men are just as oppressed!!!" handmaiden can destroy everything.
also women only country/world is a pipedream anyway since it implies genociding men and women just don't have the guts for it even if we had the means for that (we actually kinda do lol - abortions). the average woman can't even be mean to a scrote without feeling guilty about it for the next 20 years

>>154719
I absolutely agree on this. Many "female only" communities in the 70s and 80s were destroyed for this exact reason.
At this point I just want to have a wife and a farm. Only female friends. I have literally zero important male figures in my life so it's easy to start, I don't have to go "boohooo but what about my shitty brother or dad who probably watches porn"

>>154835
i absolutely love your idea! women-only spaces do seem possible if it is shared between a small group of women

>>154719
>the moment a straight/bi woman brings (and they WILL) their "not like the other men" husband/son/relative nigel this separatist space will just crash and burn
Yeah, I saw women who had no problem with separatism EXCEPT for the "no underage sons" part and it's funny how they forget that male children are fucking monsters.

>>154660
>>154623
I wonder what would happen if a matriarchal society took over everything. What would happen to the majority of the men.

>>155427
All sacrificed to gaia

>>155429
I'm genuinely wonder how the gender roles would work. Political science does cover much of this subject - but all patriarchal society.

>>155430
The funny or handsome ones will be kept for fun, the rest would die out due to more based women scheming, and women would keep the number of men low once they grow out of our culture imposed dick worship. They're literally only good for coming then dying, sacrifice them all in a volcano when they turn 30.

>>155434
That would mean lots of girls would have to share one man.

>>155430
I think personality would place women into different roles, rather than a complete dismantling of them. Like, more social and charismatic women would probably be in political positions, but without the massive ego men tend to carry. More reserved women might choose to pursue a homemaker roll, but ultimately I think we’d see more crossover between roles than currently exists, because we’ve seen women embrace their ‘masculine’ traits without having a fucking breakdown like men do with anything feminine.

>>155516
When men stop being a status symbol for women (brag worthy husband) and no longer provide in any way (money, safety) then it’s unlikely women would care. They would pretty much just be sperm machines, which is all they are anyway without a global society they had to make to give them a higher value kek

>>154660
I'm not disagreeing with this statement just elaborating, (also soz late reply) but reading your post reminded me that surprisingly only 25% of men shot to kill in WW2. Society has definitely become more violent ever since though, and I believe to counteract that statistic they now train them with targets resembling humans, rather than literal targets. But I'm not sure if that proved fruitful or not. I do think through training and some biological differences they have the capacity to make those split second decisions, but don't really understand the cost in incurs on their psyche. This is normal men ofc, not the kind that commit atrocities like Nanjing. I also think if this theoretical situation ever took place a lot of men would be disadvantage by having to kill women. There'd definitely be some natural hesitation just like how we'd have a hard time taking life without extensive thought or necessity. Personally I'm thankful this scenario is all speculative kek.

>>155523
>This is normal men ofc, not the kind that commit atrocities like Nanjing
Oh my sweet summer child

What happen in all female society when woman has a son?

Without men to occupy the job of chief arseholes of the world I think some women would just replace them. Every time I'm tempted to think an all female society would be better I remember Thatcher and my hopes are dashed.

Really, it's kind of dehumanising to imagine women as being beyond flaws. To be human is to be capable of being monsters. What's more, men don't have to be the horrible fuckwits they are, they don't get off that easy. They are like that because of the power they feel entitled to as men, which entices them to be shitcunts. Leave the power structure in place and powerful women would act like that too.

>>159566
It's not about absolutes, it's about statistics. Agree that there could be power structures where women would overall cause as much suffering as men do though.

However, I don't think people are blank slates regardless of sex. In most cases the emergence of inhumane societal structures seems to be related to at least partially innate male aggression, their antisocial and overly competitive traits, etc.. Without the need to worry about men wither within or outside your society, women could plausibly do better.

A woman who succeeds in playing these games in our political system, like Thatcher, typically has to display many of the statistically more male-leaning traits as well. There will always be women like that too, it's just that the type of ruthlessness and lack of concern is less frequent in women.

tbh I was down for a society with only women until I started reading the whole men purge and keeping the pretty ones until they get into sex slavery and sacraficed… also there are cases of lesbian couples having their own baby but I'm not too well versed on it.

>>154570

From the Wikipedia article:

>When the society became known as the 'Kingdom of Women', tourists began to flock to the area. The Mosuo responded to these visitors by building hotels and other attractions to bring more visitors. Many Mosuo women make a living managing these hotels.

>The idea of 'walking marriages' has convinced many visitors that the Mosuo lead a salacious sexual life. It is common for visitors to flirt with the local Mosuo women in an effort to seduce them.

Of course.

To answer the question in the OP: it wouldn't be great.

Women can't create a utopia. I really believe that while frustrating, masculine and feminine traits really do balance each other out.

I'm sure in an all-female society, some women would start naturally taking on masculine roles. We would in effect still have "men."

>>159576
>masculine and feminine traits really do balance each other out.
I don't think it's balanced at all, currently and hasn't been since more than a millenia. But I agree that even with all women, it wouldn't be a utopia. Seeing how men have ruled though, I feel like women could do better.

>>159576
But women possess masculine traits all the time…? Masculine traits wouldn't dry up just because there were only women.

Does anyone remember that Radiolab episode (I think it’s called New Normal?) in which all the males of a chimp tribe died from eating out of a dumpster and the females assumed top of the hierarchy?

IIRC the males that changed their behaviors to be less violent got to survive and pass on their genes in the new matriarchy, and the subsequent male offspring now shows far less violent or conflict causing behavior, growing up in that tribe and having certain genes.
Sometimes I wonder if humans could do this, or if testosterone will make that impossible.

>>183351
I guess I should correct myself — the alpha males (the ones that got to eat out of the trash, can’t remember why) there were still males, I believe, but they had to adjust or be thrown out.

>>183351
>all the males of a chimp tribe died from eating out of a dumpster
Lmao this is just about the most perfect scenario to sum up male hubris I've heard. They gorge themselves on trash, they become trash, they deserve to die. But this is interesting, I'm not entirely surprised. Anyone familiar with Barbara Smuts' research and evolutionary factors in male violence/patriarchy (as described in Demonic Males) knows that species are heavily influenced not only by their biology but their environment, and that the two play into one another to determine what evolutionary traits are selected. A couple interesting examples: I'm blanking on the particular species right now (I think it might be orangutans), but there's a certain type of ape where the largest, strongest males approach the females gently and mating is a pleasurable process for both parties, but the smaller males tend to use violence and rape. This is because the species is solitary in the first place rather than living in groups, and the larger males are too slow to have any hope of catching up with the females in the first place, so they allow the females to simply come to them if they desire. The females do like the "chad" males' qualities since their strength allows them to defend territory. The smaller males only have their speed at their disposal so they use it to catch the females and spread their shit genes as they can.

In a human example, tribes where both sexes play an equal role in resource accumulation and distribution have virtually no rates of male on female violence, but when it's been commodified by males such as by only males hunting and portioning out meat, you see a lot more violence because it gives men control over said resources. The problem in modern human societies today is that men already have a several millennia headstart on resource commodification and have worked in additional cultural "values" that diminish femaleness at its heart, so we've had to fight tooth and nail to start taking back that power and our ability to provide for ourselves. It's why women having their own money is so fucking important, because men are opportunistic and often fall back into their ape programming and get abusive when they can. Don't be dependent on them for survival.

There was a documentary called Girl Alone. It's on YouTube in full, so anyone curious can check it out.

It was a social experiment where they put a group of young girls in a house to do what they wanted without adult intervention or supervision.

Its super interesting to see how they sorted a hierarchy and socialised, especially when compared to the Boys Alone documentary that was released alongside it. The boys all terrorised eachother and attempted to kill a hedgehog with stones for fun

>>183414
Sorry, samefag, I forgot to mention that one of the reasons I thought it was interesting is because it's rare we get to see how an all female "society" get documented and analyzed the way it was in this documentary

>>159556
If we ever got to the point of being in an all female society, we would either have just.. a shit ton of sperm frozen (which would be kind of morbid because it would all be the sperm of dead men? Unless this isn't a global thing) OR we would crack the code on mammalian parthenogenesis or female only reproduction. And to be honest we already have - experiments have been successful in producing full grown offspring from female mice without sperm, who lived healthily and were able to reproduce. The offspring I believe should always be female, unless it was a one in a million man with XO thing. In which case if the society is dedicated to being all female then there is always abortion. Or exile. I mean who knows? But besides that, there's just not much research about parthenogenesis and so it's not that advanced, in my opinion it's because men are scared we will finally realize they are not just societally but biologically unnecessary and excise them. Sorry for the sperg but I think about this all the time. Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3643847.stm

It would turn to shit, just like this world. There will always be crazy lunatics from either gender. Sex-crazed, manipulative, murderous, ostracizing, etc. And then you will have females who have more masculine traits/tomboys. What will you do with them?

>>183464
>What will you do with them?
lmao, wtf kind of question is this? Masculine women are just women, being a fucking tomboy isn't going to get someone kicked out of an imaginary female utopia. And seeing as they're less likely to be male identified they'd probably be at the forefront of any matriarchal society.

>>183464
Every single piece of shit garbage female I can think of, I’m sure there are a hundred males who are worse. Not worried.

We would probably have advanced medicine and better care. I don't know how far the hypothetical female society would've started but the birth care would be enough to urge us to technologically advance if it weren't for the males blocking us job paths. I just think women are in more need when it comes to that so we would focus on it more.

>>183464
As long as no one is forcibly raping and impregnating anyone else, it would still be 100% better than current society. If every woman who ever got pregnant only did so on purpose, no reproductive coercion whatsoever, society would be infinitely so much better.

>>183484
Agreed, not to mention that more than half of all the fucked up women I know are that way because of trauma forced on them by males. The sooner we can weed out the problem, the sooner we'd all be healthier.

>>183465
That post reminds of some moid on here a few years ago who unironically tried to argue that if males died out then masculine women would replace them in doing the raping, as if there's some kind of rape quota that needs to be fulfilled for the universe to stay in balance. Not revelant but I just remembered it and it made me laugh because wtf.

>>183464
>What will you do with them?
give them to me