Herland...........

AngelicaC · 10-10-2005, 12:08 PM

A friend and I last night were discussing what society would be like were women to hold the reigns of power. Now before you snooze off, and yes this topic has been discussed, chewed upon etc etc a fair number of times but I wanted to get your feeback...... I came to the conclusion that society would be a little better run, more democratically, less voilently and that decisions would take a little longer to be made but they would be the right ones. Having recently read Charlotte Gilman Perkins' classic 'Herland' help sway me to this conclusion. My friend disagreed completely and professed that if you were to replace all the men with women in positions of power that (and wait say 100 years) there would be no difference in the way women would lead or govern. .. Over to you...

PeterL · 10-10-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelicaC

A friend and I last night were discussing what society would be like were women to hold the reigns of power. Now before you snooze off, and yes this topic has been discussed, chewed upon etc etc a fair number of times but I wanted to get your feeback...... I came to the conclusion that society would be a little better run, more democratically, less voilently and that decisions would take a little longer to be made but they would be the right ones. Having recently read Charlotte Gilman Perkins' classic 'Herland' help sway me to this conclusion. My friend disagreed completely and professed that if you were to replace all the men with women in positions of power that (and wait say 100 years) there would be no difference in the way women would lead or govern. .. Over to you...

Women do hold the reins of power, but they are sufficiently subtle that they give most men the illusion that men hold power.

RococoLocket · 10-10-2005, 01:09 PM

URGH FEMINISTS *shudder*

subterranean · 10-10-2005, 08:56 PM

Well not every women share the idea of women as the rulers of the world. Further, subconsciously, there are still many women who prefer that men take the position as leaders. I haven't read the book, so don't know the main arguments which lead you to that conclusion, maybe you can elaborate more

.

Welcome by the way.

OedipusReD · 10-13-2005, 09:57 PM

press conferances and state of the unions would consist of fashion tips and which locale cafe has the best cheese cake. on the other hand there's george bush....
*runs off and kills self

Rosalind · 10-14-2005, 12:34 AM

RococoLocket,
Urgh, feminists? Excuse me? *eyebrows jump* I'm going to assume you aren't trying to be blatantly mysoginistic, and understand 'feminists' as a word referring to man-haters who think that women should hold a position of absolute superiority. To the contrary, the definition of a feminist is a woman who believes that women are the intellectual and moral equal of men, and should therefore hold an equal place in society. For example, they should get paid the same salary for the same amount of labor, have the same rights, such as free speech, and have the opportunity to hold office or otherwise contribute to the way the country is run, with neither more nor less advantage then men. Oh, yeah, and we get to wear pants, too. There was a memo about that a few years back.

OedeipusReD,
Oh, come on. Fashion tips? Have you ever seen a woman senator give a press conference on the warm colors that are IN this season? Not all women, certainly not those actually elected to office, are like certain first ladies who discuss recipes because that's what the base thinks they should do. And yes, George "Nukular" Bush is plenty better than cheescake. Instead of local cafes, we get uninformed updates, mispronounced words, and info of Mr. President's golf game. *Jon Stuart imitation* "Heh heh heh."

Err...ok, I'm finished ranting now. In answer to the actual question, I think that woman are no more immune to corruption or political error then men. However, I agree that things might be a bit more democratic. The boys in 'Lord of the Flies' had power struggles and established an alpha male. Girls would have established a committe.

PeterL · 10-14-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosalind

RococoLocket,

OedeipusReD,
And yes, George "Nukular" Bush is plenty better than cheescake. Instead of local cafes, we get uninformed updates, mispronounced words, and info of Mr. President's golf game.

Excellent point

Nightshade · 10-14-2005, 04:57 PM

I used to think that maybe with women in power that we would have a better life but stop and think why it is that at the moment actually not even now but say oh 60 years ago women would have been better because they didnt have any form of equality so they could see what was bad as they wre on the reciving end
but
"power corrupts and absaloute power &t &t" and I cant see why women would be any better than men if they didnt have to fight for equality and fairness anyway.
you cant have your cake and eat it , if women were in power they be just as tunnel visioned and blind to the obvious as men.
oh and PeterL's pointabout women already holding powwer is one I agree with....has anyone read what every woman knows by Barrie ( the peter pan guy)

PeterL · 10-14-2005, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightshade

.has anyone read what every woman knows by Barrie ( the peter pan guy)

It would seem that not every woman knows any more. If they did, then there wouldn't have been the 'women's movement'.

Thanks for mentioning the play. What Every Woman Knows is available online at
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/ewkno11.txt

Nightshade · 10-15-2005, 01:24 PM

yupp got to be my all time fav play (well that is to read not watch)
but actually this link is straight to the text

Mind you some of it can be rather annoying
but the best bit is

Quote:

Every man who is high up loves to think that he has done it all
himself; and the wife smiles, and lets it go at that. It's our only
joke. Every woman knows that.

PeterL · 10-15-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightshade

yupp got to be my all time fav play (well that is not read not watch)
but actually this link is straight to the text

Mind you some of it can be rather annoying
but the best bit is

I didn't read the whole thing yet, but it looks like it is well developed. It's easy enough to just read the last part of the play. I think that I would like to see a performance of it.

10-10-2005, 12:08 PM	#1
AngelicaC Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1	Herland........... A friend and I last night were discussing what society would be like were women to hold the reigns of power. Now before you snooze off, and yes this topic has been discussed, chewed upon etc etc a fair number of times but I wanted to get your feeback...... I came to the conclusion that society would be a little better run, more democratically, less voilently and that decisions would take a little longer to be made but they would be the right ones. Having recently read Charlotte Gilman Perkins' classic 'Herland' help sway me to this conclusion. My friend disagreed completely and professed that if you were to replace all the men with women in positions of power that (and wait say 100 years) there would be no difference in the way women would lead or govern. .. Over to you...

10-10-2005, 01:09 PM	#3
RococoLocket ~Dolly Masquerade~ Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: England Posts: 175	URGH FEMINISTS shudder __________________ stagexbeauty @ LiveJournal _polaroid @ FaceParty Antigone @ DarkStarlings

10-10-2005, 08:56 PM	#4
subterranean precious... Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: København for the present Posts: 6,537 Blog Entries: 34	Well not every women share the idea of women as the rulers of the world. Further, subconsciously, there are still many women who prefer that men take the position as leaders. I haven't read the book, so don't know the main arguments which lead you to that conclusion, maybe you can elaborate more . Welcome by the way. __________________ "there are people in the world so hungry that God can not appear to them except in the form of bread" Mahatma Gandhi Last edited by subterranean; 10-10-2005 at 08:56 PM. Reason: TYPO

10-14-2005, 04:57 PM	#8
Nightshade Lady of Smilies Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Now that would be telling it, wouldnt it? Posts: 13,502 Blog Entries: 140	I used to think that maybe with women in power that we would have a better life but stop and think why it is that at the moment actually not even now but say oh 60 years ago women would have been better because they didnt have any form of equality so they could see what was bad as they wre on the reciving end but "power corrupts and absaloute power &t &t" and I cant see why women would be any better than men if they didnt have to fight for equality and fairness anyway. you cant have your cake and eat it , if women were in power they be just as tunnel visioned and blind to the obvious as men. oh and PeterL's pointabout women already holding powwer is one I agree with....has anyone read what every woman knows by Barrie ( the peter pan guy) __________________ My mission in life is to make YOU smile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The time has come," the Walrus said,"To talk of many things: Forum Rules- You know you want to read 'em \|Litnet Challange status = 5/260 \|currently reading

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

10-13-2005, 09:57 PM	#5
OedipusReD The Guy in the Corner Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Canada, eh Posts: 34	press conferances and state of the unions would consist of fashion tips and which locale cafe has the best cheese cake. on the other hand there's george bush.... *runs off and kills self

10-14-2005, 12:34 AM	#6
Rosalind In Arden with a book Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 109	RococoLocket, Urgh, feminists? Excuse me? eyebrows jump I'm going to assume you aren't trying to be blatantly mysoginistic, and understand 'feminists' as a word referring to man-haters who think that women should hold a position of absolute superiority. To the contrary, the definition of a feminist is a woman who believes that women are the intellectual and moral equal of men, and should therefore hold an equal place in society. For example, they should get paid the same salary for the same amount of labor, have the same rights, such as free speech, and have the opportunity to hold office or otherwise contribute to the way the country is run, with neither more nor less advantage then men. Oh, yeah, and we get to wear pants, too. There was a memo about that a few years back. OedeipusReD, Oh, come on. Fashion tips? Have you ever seen a woman senator give a press conference on the warm colors that are IN this season? Not all women, certainly not those actually elected to office, are like certain first ladies who discuss recipes because that's what the base thinks they should do. And yes, George "Nukular" Bush is plenty better than cheescake. Instead of local cafes, we get uninformed updates, mispronounced words, and info of Mr. President's golf game. Jon Stuart imitation "Heh heh heh." Err...ok, I'm finished ranting now. In answer to the actual question, I think that woman are no more immune to corruption or political error then men. However, I agree that things might be a bit more democratic. The boys in 'Lord of the Flies' had power struggles and established an alpha male. Girls would have established a committe.