I actualy agree with you PKamp3 that a female led world might not be the scary scenario I laid out. The key words here is “might not” The word might in this context suggest nothing is frozen in concrete here nor certain.In susport of your position Recent acheolgical society discoveries are suggesting that the earliest societies were matriachal societies and that these societies ruled by women had no millitaries and were peaceful and prosperous societies.

 Even modernday matriachal societies(yes there are some) are peaceful and relatively prosperous. And judging from modernday matriachacal societies men seem to be very contented under female rule suggesting that if your goal is to have a peaceful prosperous world that female traits such as compassionate, nutruring, net working, relationship driven, and less competiveness, less agression, and lesss combativeness are the very traits that we should want our leaders to have that would most likely bring about peace and prosperity. And surprise surprise men were contented in those societies.This is realy good news for those desireous of achieving a peaceful prosperous world, and the beauty of this is that if this be true we now know how to end wars. Put women in charge!

According to the article I got this information from this information is being supressed. Who might want to surpress this information? I can think of three groups. First we all know about the male ego. Men would not relish the idea that women have ruled the world before men and before men ruled the world the world was peaceful and prosperous. A second group of people who might oppose this information would be the military Industrial Complex who sell us on our need for them is because we need militaries to keep the peace or win the peace. It would seriously diminish their arguement to find out that societies were peaceful when there were no militaries! In every war we have somebody’s military albeit developed for peace that is fighting somebody elses military albeit developed for peace.

A third group that might want to supress this information are patriachal religions such as christianity that teach that the world won’t have peace until “ the Prince Of Peace” Jesus Christ, returns. This teaching makes man dependent upon the return Of Jesus Christ until than we are stuck with wars and the rumors of war. Christians  would not want it known that these early societies ruled by women had peace and prosperity before and without the “prince of peace”!

Thus you see something unusual here. I am writing in response to your critisism of somethinmg I wrote and I am actualy susporting your position perhaps even better than yourself. However that said if you google” magazine article The End Of Men” you will see see put forth in that article some reasons why there is cause for alarm that even though early societies ruled by women apparently turned out well for both genders that is not a guruntee that if today’s women judging from reading many of their blogs which express that many women believe in the natural superiority of women would have the same positive results the ancient ones had.

There are some things very different between the ancient world and the modern world which gives us pause for concern. First never before in the history of the world has the ability to procreate without males been possible. Today female sperm can be developed from female bone marrow that when placed in another woman will get her pregnant with a female child. This for the first time in history renders males unnecessary for procreation coupled with an ability to people the earth with females only! 

Also as far as we know never before in history has the male gender been identified as the chief culprit in why the world is so full of violence. Hence the danger here is if people who regard themselves as superior
in this case women supremicst ever got to be the rulers of the world they might ask themselves why should we alow male babies to be born which cause so much violence when we have the ability to people the world with all females! Don’t say it couldn’t or wouldn’t happen. In Germany Jews were warned that when Hitler came to power what his party would do but most of them didn’t believe it. A sveenteeth century America Indian warned his people that if they let the white man become their neighbors that these white men would poison them and steal their lands. But many Indians argued after christian missionaries went amongst them that Jesus Christ was a God of love who wouldn’t allow it. Well we know it did happen.

Through out history it is almost a certainty that when people who feel themselves to be superior get into power they create terrible crimes aganist those they feel are inferior.This is why I sound the alarm. There is danger here. So you see why I am conflicted. I agree that women do seem to have more desirous traits
than do males that we would like to see our leaders have yet I am fearful for the reasons stated above of what might happen given the lessons of history and the uniqueness of today’s world.

This is why I ask the question. Are these traits we say are feminene traits absent in the male? I think the answer is no but that these traits are more robust in the female. True enough. But can they be more fully developed in the male? I think so. If so than we don’t need a world ruled exclusively by either gender. What we do need is a world ruled by women and men who have these more desireable traits we identify as female traits. This then means we need to develop an educational system that develops the more desireable traits for a peaceful prosperous world in both genders. Can this be done? I think so.

An obstacle would be that males naturaly resist being feminized. How do they known they are being feminized? Because we list the more desireable traits as feminne. But Why? Why can’t we drop the labels fiminene and masquline when it comes to traits? Develop and educational system that is aimed at developing the more desireable human traits without the labels so that males won’t feel they are being feminized.

If this could be done we would have an educational system that developed the better traits for leadership amongst both genders so that in time the world would be being lead by women and men each having the more desireable traits. .Thus the danger I write about here would be averted.

As regards your statement that “ 
“Additionally, there are some differences between the sexes which suggest women would be better in certain positions of leadership – consider this study (http://theweek.com/article/ind... which found that women out-earn invest men when investing.  Personally, I feel that more women in leadership would be a welcome change.  I can point out plenty of male leadership failures both at home and abroad.”

 My feeling as regards this study is that first of all it only means that during a certain time period female investors did better than male investors. I remember once when awards were given for country western artist that far more women received awards than males. One might then jumpt to the conclusion that females are more talented than males. Yet several years latter in a similar award ceromny more males received awards than females. At any given time there may be more talented females than males but at another time there might be more talented males than females. the study you quote might have entirely different results if conducted ten years from now. Personaly I believe that if one gender is better at a skill than the other gender it is most likely because the more skillful gender has had more practice. Give the underachieving gender more practice and I suspect it will catch up.

I totaly agree with you that we need more women in leadership position but I would be careful not to give the impressin as many feminest do this is because of the superiority of women. I believe that there should be more women in position of leadership not because women are better but because when you add the female ellement to the male ellement you get better decissions than either gender would make alone.
Respectfyl yours
David AuCoin hence forth known as deep think

I mention that it is a good thing, but perhaps I could explain a little better why: the *potential* for equal earnings is the only thing I desire.  Saying that women out-earning men is bad is painting with a broad brush – every couple should be willing to talk about the issue on their own and subsequently decide how to split the burden of their careers.  In generations past, the choice may have been forced upon them.

That’s quite a scenario you laid out!

Men will likely continue to out-earn women for a different reason, and it has nothing to do with sexism or power hoarding – women bear children.  The fact is, any time out of a career has detrimental effects on earning, effects which have nothing to do with preconceived biases and strictly to do with falling behind in workload.  Being out of the workforce also means those absent won’t have the same opportunities for advancement – human nature being what it is, there is a social aspect to raises and promotions which will be lacking during maternity leave.

That said, a female run world wouldn’t be the scary scenario you laid out.  Since choosing to not have children is a valid option, females can have a comparable career with their male counterparts.  Studies have shown there is actually a *male* 3 cent wage gap when you consider single females and single males in their peak earning years (generally mid to late 40s.)

Additionally, there are some differences between the sexes which suggest women would be better in certain positions of leadership – consider this study (http://theweek.com/article/index/216424/why-women-are-better-investors) which found that women out-earn invest men when investing.  Personally, I feel that more women in leadership would be a welcome change.  I can point out plenty of male leadership failures both at home and abroad.

“Where are We Headed?

“I’d say the trend is to even more couples with higher earning females. That’s a good thing, even if it causes conflict in a traditionally male dominated role.”

Why does the author think it is a good thing for women to earn more money than their husbands” why is that some how better than men making more money than their wifes? She even admits it might cause conflict. When a statement is made the writer should explain why they made the statement