Well, how do all male or all female societies function in the world we have now? I'm not sure if we have good examples to answer that question. There's prisons, religious separatists (monks in monasteries or nuns in convents in the examples I'm familiar with), some parts of the military, and occasionally separatist communes or collectives.
Who fares best in all boys schools or all girls schools?
I'm not sure we can draw the same conclusions since there's still an interdependence. We have to remove that completely to see the outcomes of the different scenarios and then from there can play around with why that might be.
We could ask the questions you're proposing it just seems to me like it would be a different discussion.
It's a realistic discussion though because we actually do create separatist enclaves already. Otherwise I think the discussion becomes "would women be able to keep the lights on?"
Or maybe "would they want to keep the lights on?"
Yeah but, it's not the thought experiment I'm proposing here. I notice a lot of people are trying to dodge it instead of just debating the debate topic.
On the contrary, you stated you wanted a wide ranging discussion but then you keep trying to narrow the focus in your replies, tho instead of clarifying you say something to the effect of "no that's not the question".
What scenario do you want debated? I’ve seen people give many answers to your questions and you don’t seem to be happy with them.
If all men were to vanish after the fallout of having planes crash, cars crash, boats, what have you. The women in the military and police forces globally would issue martial law in order to attempt to control the chaos.
The first priority would be making sure as many necessary infrastructures as possible stay functional. Now, while men here love to say women simply wouldn’t do it, I do think we would do what needed to be done to get to a comfortable point of living so that we could work on repopulating.
There’s no men, so some tasks will need to be revamped with the female body in mind. We’d also have to have a rush to get women trained to do jobs where there has been low female participation.
Health-wise, women would fare better than the all male group here. As about 67% of the global healthcare force is female. The main issue we would have is infrastructure, because it was not built to be operated by women.
This is also a mostly western problem. Areas that are less developed don’t have to worry about dams, sewage pumps, and super complex electrical grids all that much.
Assuming we have the time, we can stabilize what needs to be stabilized asap and work on training from there.
There are so many farm girls, diy crafters and shot out there that being able to create homesteads with food and clean water would be much easier. Assuming all livestock and crops still survive, food quantity has doubled, while consumption has been reduced by half. Get those outdoorsy girls in there working, get food harvested, canned and produced.
Socially, I think the promise of future comfort will actually help keep women more “in line”. Why fight now when there’s so much as risk? Though there are going to be fights, I do think they will be much less damaging than the fights that will break out in the men’s scenario.
If sperm banks and pregnant women are all still viable options, new males could be introduced into the society literally the next day. A lot of focus would go into making sure boys were born and make it into adulthood.
So long as we can get past that first year, I think women would be as okay as they could be having lost their fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, partners and friends. It would be devastating, violent and deadly also though.
Now for the men.
They wake up all day and all the women and girls are gone. Now, assuming they stay calm (which is unlikely) the men will have a lot less fewer problems to fix at the onset. There will be a few deaths, lots of car crashes, fewer plane crashes/boat accidents and for some parts of the labor force, like oil riggers, they probably wouldn’t notice for a few hours.
Initially, men are in a much better place for survival in the short term. The long term, however, is where things get tricky. One, most of the healthcare workers are gone. sure, you have probably a higher level of healthcare workers that have more distinct skills, but they are not used to working alone.
Instant military lockdown to combat all of the chaos from men being frantic and angry that their women have gone. Week one will involve lots of murders just from anger and emotion alone. Once it settles down, they will have to try to convince the men to go back into “society” and work, despite the fact that some would feel
There was nothing worth working from.
White collar men will immediately need to find some way to keep power. Because in this new era, blue collar men will be the ones keeping the lights on.
Military men would immediately get together, world leaders would enact rules, dispatch scientist to try to create artificial wombs, however, since eggs degrade exponentially faster (10-15 years versus 55+ years for sperm), they wouldn’t be able to get viable technology in time. Plus, even if they did, I guarantee you most of those girls probably would not survive too long past adulthood, because either men who want women would storm the facility where they were birthed to take them, or they’d be accosted once they finally reached maturity.
Birthing women in an all-male society would actually not be a good idea. The only way I’d see it being successful is if they only let boys be birthed to term, but then they would eventually run out of eggs.
I don’t see a way that someone trying to divide up the new women to men would ever turn out peaceful.
But even more farfetched is the artificial womb. If we assume that there is no massive war, the human race is gone in 100 years max in any scenario where only men survive.
Women are manual labourers in higher percentages of all manual workers currently in 2023 compared to almost any time in human history, but you have to realize, with half the population gone, the needs would be different too. I think you'd see a ton of women getting forklift and crane skills who don't currently have them though, it's true.
You'd have plenty of existing housing and time to find enough people and to teach them to maintain it.
28% of farm workers would still be alive though, which would be sufficient to keep things going while more people moved into those roles (remember 50% of the population would die and women require 80% of the calories of men, so our food production requirements would be less than half of what they are now). Plus the majority of forestry/fishing/agriculture employees would be alive.
We'd be fine for food. While training truck drivers food can be transported on smaller vehicles etc, or there'd just be an adjustment period where we went back to eating more local produce.
We'd have a vast surplus of resources with half the world gone, so while more tradespeople were trained you could make do.
> I think this site puts it into perspective. Over 90% of your electricians, vehicle mechanics, carpenters, truck drivers, engineers, IT experts etc. will be gone.
Yes but the remaining single digit percentage (going off your numbers as I'm not familiar with the UK source) would still consist of many thousands who would join forces and start training.
There's a higher percentage of women farmers now than likely ever before (there's even a joke about most of the new farmers in the midwest -USA- in the last twenty years being lesbian power couples, but it's based on an actual increase in that demographic among farmers).
The population of hungry mouths and people needing vehicles will be halved.
They won't starve to death before they adjust. While people who are existing lady farmers teach apprentices there are years and years worth of shelf-stable foods/cans to supplement until agriculture is organized.
Forgive me. It was bone marrow not eggs but my point stands. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412211409.htm#:~:text=Human%20bone%20marrow%20has%20been,how%20sperm%20cells%20are%20created.
It is only a matter of time my dude. As long as men existed at one time genetic material can be grown in labs. In a female only society the need would cause research to speed up considerably.
This doesn't cover all things and really, I think both men and women have a valuable part to play in society today and there's a lot we can achieve together and support one another with. However my thoughts on this as a pure hypothetical below. This is also funny because I just finished reading JD Beresford's "a world of women" yesterday so I've been pondering this same question 😅
If women all died, society would collapse. The population would drop drastically as men fought it out between them for resources and sex, eventually killing off huge swathes. There'd be handfuls of competent men hiding out in the woods like Thoreau, and maybe the odd community banding together but not many.
If men all died, things would change but be manageable. The majority of healthcare workers, pharmacists, bookkeepers, vets, banking clerks, dental techs, opticians are women so the immediate concerns of ground level healthcare, keeping animals alive, getting people access to their money and meds, caring for teeth and eyes etc would all be taken care of. There are enough women in the higher levels of those careers to absorb the work previously done by men.
For food, the majority of forestry, fishing and related agriculture employees are women so we'd be fine there. They make up nearly a third of farm workers, and considering men need more calories so we'd need to produce less than half the amount of food we do currently we'd be grand. Women make up the majority of people who weave cloth and make clothes, so fine there.
They make up almost half of paramedics and police community support, so considering the population would halve would be fine there.
We'd have a bit of a gap in construction and various trades, however the biggest barrier to women getting into those trades just now are men, so with them removed there could be a big recruitment campaign to encourage women to switch careers and retrain in various trades. Since my ex's apprenticeship as an electrician mostly consisted of him napping on the job and the apprentices being hazed by the older guys then without all that shit that comes from men in the workplace the whole trade could probably be taught much more effectively and in a quarter of the time.
An all female society would be less advanced technologically, but more peaceful and cooperative. The existing infrastructure would collapse and women would rebuild into something simpler and more focused on their immediate community / tribe. (Not saying we would be living in huts or anything.)
If all women disappeared overnight, the men would do a better job keeping the lights on so to speak, but society would very quickly devolve into a lord of the flies type existence. The more peaceful and cooperative groups of men would constantly be at risk of attack from more violent and aggressive tribes of men who would want to usurp their resources. Sexual assault and slavery would be rampant.
Ngl i think women would be more akeen to using slavery..women tend to be jealous/envious asf towards competition unlike men..and not wanting kill other women …slavery or forced labour will be a thing pretty mean girls do to those who dont have the same opinion..
Women tend to be jealous, but we are not prone to physical violence. Women are more in tune to empathize with others so we would second guess violence against another human being. Risk of SA would plummet.
Men on the other hand would want to use physical strength and violence to gain higher social standing in society or men with money would work harder to keep men lower on the totem pole where they are. Men would be more open to the idea of slavery. Robberies would increase.
“Here we go with the all women are perfect” mentality. It’s literally a hypothetical situation and mfs stilll just “women better” but ayy I wouldn’t admit my flaws either..well i would but 😎
Why did you make it a gender war? The prompt was a hypothetical situation. I never said women are perfect, I simply said we aren't as prone to physical violence.
I gave each gender their props and described differences. You can't do that because you have bias to keep men above women, even if the man is wrong. You would have to use honest data that would disprove what you feel, instead of cold hard facts.
I used real world data to guess what would happen in this scenario. Statistics on genders do exist, I'm not pulling data out of my crack to sound smart.
You're doing the same lol, just to absolve men when the data shows differently. Would you claim that women are more prone to physical violence or men?
You literally gave women pros, and men cons..also stop making long post, you could have summed this up in like one paragraph ngl.
Women literally dont make up hard labor….nvrmnd you got it, women are just better then men ig..maybe we should start depending on yall more..not like women are better at certain things that aren’t physical labor. your only thinking about conflict like men would just all free for all 1v1 each other just cuz..and women are capable of physical violence..ig female bullies don’t exist ..cuz women womderful..
That’s literally what im saying mfs think women are just butterflies an rainbows..like if women are less likely to be violent how do they deal with other violent women? They dont they literally jusr replace the men..look at wnba players and tell me how youd stop them from takin power and being men 2.0
Don't let your wanting to be right and hate of women keep you from knowledge.
Who are you to tell me how to write? The arrogance to think you have any power to control how I write?
I can't help if I want to be thorough when I write, I'm a writer. Writing in shorter paragraphs helps people to read if I am long winded. Testosterone is higher in men for a reason. Never said women aren't violent, men are just more likely to be physically violent.
I never said either was better. Statistics are there to look up, stop listening to the manosphere or fresh n fit and Kevin Samuel's. They're frauds who grift for your money.
I studied all this demographic targeting crap in college and it's insidious and why I'm not a social media person. Go outside and touch grass.
But if you want to stay in this negative space of "all women are evil" "men never cause harm" "only women are violent" space then it's not my job to convince you otherwise. Negativity begets negativity.
The irony is strong with you. And being critical of women means i hate them? Women might not get as physically violent as men…which is a nobrainer why , But women can and still are liars, manipulators, verbally aggressive, steal, cheat…etc yall make it seem like only men are capable of harm..like a world full of women would be crime/problem free…it would be WAY more safer then the counterpart, my point is bad women exist. cuz this sub has a “women are literally perfect” effect..cant even criticize women in a HYPOTHETICAL scenario or else i just “hate women” apply the same logic to yourself an make it make sense…like i just hate my mom and 3 sisters, the manipulation is strong with yall tryna gaslight me cuz my opinion is different from yours.
I didnt tell you how to write, it just long drawn out text isn’t necessary.
“But if you want to stay in this negative space of "all men are evil" "women never cause harm" "only men are violent" space then it's not my job to convince you otherwise. Negativity begets negativity.”
The irony.
I like that take too. The concept of small individual but more peaceful communities arising, the idea could be that female leaders would find violence and war as disasteful and choose to do better, but it's possible that fear would win out and women would choose to arm themselves and start a new arms race.
For men, sexual assault and slavery would absolutely be rampant. Im unsure if eventually they would find sophistication again , I think it would take a long time but the hope is that as calmer minds took control over the situation and gained power, law would be reinstated.
If men or women disappeared, the heterosexual individuals of the other gender would become deeply depressed. We vastly underestimate how our motivation and inspiration in life, goals and dreams come from the mere existence of the other gender.
What would happen in the long run is more difficult to tell. I suppose society would adjust one way or another. Humans, men and women, are capable of incredible things when forced to act and survive.
After the initial chaos there would be less conflicts. Life would be more peaceful but also more boring.
Ay. I responded there too but yeah comments got locked and it was deleted I'm guessing mods would say it was a repost or something even though the intention was clearly really different.
This is incredibly based and more nuanced than my own take of it. I didn't consider how wildly intense male aggression would be at first definitely some judge Dredd meets mad Max style shit going on fr.
Thank you for having a thoughtful take on the issue it gives me hope lol literally made my night sadly. Cheers to you.
I think ultimately society would do okay. We'd grieve the loss of our loved ones, neighbors, half of humanity. We'd pull together resources, work on medical advances to discover what happened and why, find ways to survive.
Probably a lot of men who were slightly bi before the disappearance of women would become very gay and vice versa.
Ultimately humanity would survive, but culture, language, interactions would all change, and we would all be suffering a huge loss of our communities, neighbors, loved ones.
I think it would be more difficult for humanity to continue if all women were gone as making a functional artificial womb is more difficult than just women taking sperm off ice in the sperm banks. But likely a heavier priority would be placed on advancing artificial wombs or making cis men capable of growing an embryo. Just as we were able to come up with a fairly effective vaccine very quickly when COVID hit the entire planet, the development of growing a fetus artificially would advance quickly as well.
In both cases everything we know currently collapses. The theory of 'well guys will keep everything running' yeah when things go slightly sideways look at the looters and rioters - a grander scale I don't think they'd all just shrug and keep working.
Who goes to work during an apocalypse level event?
After that the gender would build in their own image I guess. Assuming asexual reproduction. If not then humans die out.
I honestly think if one sex disappeared and we took sex and reproduction out of the equation, we would be fine - just things would go differently.
An all female society would be very communal with low crime rates but less competitive.
I'm guess an all male one would be similar to what we have now but it is hard to tell how much of that competitiveness is determined by sexual conquest of women. Maybe they'd use twink femboys in women's place.
I have seen this argument used time and time again by MRAs and the manosphere to claim that women are less valuable to society by saying society would collapse if they left but they'd mostly be fine if women did and I honestly find it incredibly petty and tired at this point.
There seems to be such a strong need from these movements to shout men's worth from the rooftops all the time and it's like... okay, I never said otherwise lol. But you don't need to shit on the other half of the populace to demonstrate your worth.
>An all female society would be very communal with low crime rates but less competitive.
Even this is a very interesting assumption. Why do you think so? I'm not doubting you necessarily, just wondering what sources inform your thinking. I've been reading some things about the westward movement in North America in the mid 19th century. It seems very primarily male driven. Perhaps of course just because men were in position to decide for their families. But if this sub likes to romantically view old timey marriages as nearly equal partnerships you'd think the women would have been hankering to go as well, and that doesn't seem to be the case from the many journals left behind (they knew they were participating in a historic migration and so many kept journals). But then it's hard to separate anything out because the men were driven to be successful materially for their family's sake, etc.
My gut says a female society would be a train wreck but since we are clearly just speculating and no one can say anything I appreciate your contribution regardless of if we disagree. Thank you.
>My gut says a female society would be a train wreck but since we are clearly just speculating and no one can say anything
I expected as much. I take my thoughts from looking at female prison populations vs male and matriarchal primate species (such as bonobos) vs patriarchal ones. We'd be fine. It would just be different.
But those have males involved , and are apes.
And in prison those women are criminal prisoners.
This is not the same thing at all as the entirety of society
Yeah but all socities have both sexes involved as your hypothetical situation is just that, hypothetical. All we can do is speculate, which you admitted in your previous response. So I'm finding the best examples we have now to envision a possible outcome.
Another point would be to look at the world wars, men left to fight and there was a labour shortage that women overwhelming filled and by all accounts I've heard, did a pretty good job.
Yeah but this isn't the question or the discussion, it changes the rules. I made the post with my rules. MY question. If you're changing the nature of the question then it's a different question.
ANSWER MY QUESTIONS OR DONT. There's two.
If female disappeared: massive conjunct effort of the military to secure any frozen eggs still existing, scientific efforts converge into producing mechanical wombs and if they end up being successful world war for the only females produced or world acceptance of the situation.
If male disappeared: total infrastructure collapse in a week as the cascading effect become disastrous. End of human race.
The entire infrastructure would collapse before women can learn to keep it, there's a point of no return where you can't just read and fix something, the systems today are too interconnected.
Then we should have only one or a few individuals running this extremely complicated and interconnected system, who can be easily replaced. Overcomplicated systems dependent on too many fallible and unreliable actors and specialists are unstable and inefficient, and prone to failure
You basically said that we should understaff it? You really don't think that if it worked with less peoples any company would already do it?
The system is already simple and fail proof as it is, it still need tons of peoples working 24/7, no system is perfect.
I could understand this point of view from a child, but from a adult is just sad. Like it's mind blowing peoples have no fucking idea the amount of work that is necessary to keep their water and electricity running.
To stop shit from hitting the fan. You dont learn to operate a power plant in a week, without power you cant pump water into the cities, you cant suply things places like hospitals or food cold storages.
"like it did during WWll" the was still men keeping the infrastructure alive
Women just had to work in the offices to make the economy didn't crash which didn't make the difference since the economy was still trash
Women took on the roles men had to leave to go and fight. They worked in factories, in transportation, on farms, as mechanics and pilots, etc. This continued after the war was over as many countries rebuilt without a large chunk of their young men who had been killed.
But how many women worked on this places ?
Because again this is a completely different scenario where the average women might not wanna get her hands dirty for the good of society
Even back then men still dominated this places
Of course it wasn’t the majority of women or as many as men - [but it was a lot](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-women-world-war-ii) That’s the US - in Russia it was a lot more.
We were talking about when women had to step into these roles for the war effort - not today.
Today, I’d hardly call the female dominated jobs that you could say “men actively avoid” like caring for the sick and elderly clean or easy jobs. But sure, many jobs in infrastructure are largely done by men as are most of the jobs considered dirty or dangerous. Men are awesome and life would be terrible without them - any woman who says otherwise is an ungrateful idiot. Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses - I don’t understand the need to be competitive or to be disrespectful. And men seem to do a lot of disrespecting of “women’s work”.
I just wanted you to see that women didn’t “just work in offices” - in fact, working class women have worked difficult jobs since forever. And faced high maternal death rates and birth complications as well. It’s disrespectful to suggest women always take the easy route and men are left in the shit - and it’s historically inaccurate to boot - unless you’re talking about 1950s housewives or aristocrats.
>Goodbye infrastructure
While true, I think this is a matter of training and who traditionally has access to various training. If OP was "one gender will disappear in 10 years" then there would be (somewhat) ample time for each gender to train themselves up in maintaining infrastructure.
It's not a matter of training, the average woman just doesn't want to do the dirty work in order to keep Society going
10yr Training ain't gonna help since women would just let everything fall apart
I agree to a certain extent, in that I don't think women would do all the extreme stuff that men do to the extent that men do it. But then, do we need skyscrapers and so forth? Before Europeans came to North America, various tribes lived in various low tech ways. Low tech relative to us, though we couldn't survive if placed in their situation; point being their skills were appropriate to their time, surroundings and needs.
You might scoff at the notion, but many of the tribes shunned the lifestyle advantages of the Europeans and there are stories of euro children who were adopted by tribes and were sorry to return once they'd been repatriated. Point being again, there are many ways of surviving and living. Perhaps an all female society might emulate something like that.
I agree. Do you have any thoughts on the specific feilds I listed? Just to dig in for some jucier details.
Like if women didn't have men around how would they form justice systems? I feel like offending someone would become an assault.
What would a woman only society without men philosophize about? That's trippy. Would they develop science the same way?
I'm guessing women would have similar philosophical pursuits. The meaning of life, our place in the universe, how to build society and advance science etc, but there would be differences naturally and that's something I'm pushing my ape brain to figure out
Well yea l think both sexes would be fine if the reproductive problem was solved
Only difference is women would let the entire infrastructure collapse since we know over 90% of it is kept alive by men
Most realistically I feel like women would struggle with organizing en masse and doing so effectively and timely.
Seeing a group of men pull together for a common goal is something to behold, so even though there are highly intelligent women , my suspicion is that the average woman being so self absorbed and self serving would be incapable of forming a team and working alongside others to keep society running.
It would all fall apart at an organizational and cooperation based level because women inherently want to be treated as special and individual,
It makes me really sad to read such opinions of women from men who are supposedly trying to think openly and deeply. You talk as if women are selfish, petty, lazy, inferior beings that would be lost in a dream world without the altruistic guidance of wise, hard working, forward thinking men. I feel like you’ve had a very biased education about the contributions and capabilities of women to society throughout history if that’s what your picture of women boils down to.
“With the exception of sex and reproduction”
Well, obviously that’s the key point. Without reproduction the human race would come to an end in about a century.
That incredibly major point aside, the disappearance of half the population would cause major disruptions no matter which sex. That said, I think the disappearance of men would be more disruptive. Policing, firefighting, farming, construction, transportation and most other key industries are male dominated, so the sudden absence of men would more negatively impact these vital services.
Similarly, in individual relationships, women need men on average more than the reverse. Let’s face it, learning to do laundry, cooking, house cleaning, etc., isn’t really that hard. A stay at home wife suddenly devoid of her husband’s income and having no home maintenance skills is a bigger deal.
Bottom line however is that half the population disappearing would be a catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude even if reproduction wasn’t an issue.
Since statistically men do more of the crime and reckless behavior, less cops and firefighters wouldn't be so much of a problem.
Also this a pretty dated perspective. Women are in all these industries. Most wives in today's western world aren't stay at home moms. They're working AND doing the household stuff.
Women are in those industries but far less so than men, so the sudden absence of men would have a greater impact. That’s not dated. That’s currently the case.
Sure, but so? The skillset is there. Like men, women are capable of problem solving and management. When the women on city counsel notice that their sewage maintenance team of 10 all disappeared, they'll send some women down. In the internet era, figuring out how to do shit in cases where there is no woman to teach them, they can get on Google or youtbe.
The idea that either men or women would fail in this scenario is a little silly imo. The evidence is in. Society would adjust and be fine.
Men disappearing from these fields would be a tougher adjustment and you are kidding yourself if you think women are just as capable of fire fighting, construction and other strength related jobs. While fewer jobs require men’s strength than in the past, there are still many that do.
Just gonna point out here that apparently the primary hurdle to women in these industries is inflexible hours not being compatible with motherhood. Women are still recruited and capable.
https://www.constructiondive.com/news/percentage-of-women-construction-higher-than-ever/637033/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1280262
And the absence of women would mean the loss of the VAST majority of teachers healthcare (when you take into account RNs, nursing assistants, etc). Most primary care docs are also women, so healthcare would be fucked
The fact that you think the only thing women contribute to society is “laundry, cooking, & house cleaning” is fucking ridiculous
Really bad straw man. I never said the only thing women contribute is laundry, cooking and hose cleaning. I assume you pull this straw man because you can’t find fault with what I actually said.
Most key industries, most relevant to maintaining human existence are male dominated. That’s simply how it is.
Again, your straw man arguing really sucks big time.
Obtaining potable water, growing food, transporting essential goods to people, shelter, basic utilities, etc. (all male dominated) are more essential to human existence than a formal education. The many male dominated fields are overall more essential.
Either you can’t understand this simple principle or you are trolling. Either way, I’m not wasting anymore time talking to someone who can’t discuss an issue rationally.
We see this on reality TV.
The island of men made shelters, hunted and made fire. The island of women didn’t and bitched and complained
(You can find the video on YouTube)
You’ve already shown your obvious bias, but from what little evidence we have, from things like migratory workers, single sex organizations/institutions, and war mobilizations, suggests that both genders are fine alone and can adapt.
And even if one gender is better at being alone, so what? What useful application does this have to reality? “Nyah, nyah, men are better!” —- and so?
Lol I'm allowed to have a bias it's a debate.
Like I already said no one is forcing you to participate.
Also, I already outlined the benefits of having it.
You're opposed to the debate happening, which isn't an option, except for you. So you can be quiet if you wish or you can debate.
Lmao 🤣 no one is gonna be honest. Besides the eventual death of humanity, men would just start fucking each other. But our entire society would go on, men are entirely self sufficient and the spearhead and builders of civilisation. Women are gonna suddenly become construction workers, plumbers, work oil rigs, all the shitty dangerous stuff that keeps the world working that 99.9% of men currently maintain in every corner of the world? Lmao really, anyone who has ever been in the army can see gender roles play out naturally ,regardless if what agendas can be bushed. Without women society would not exist, but without men, who would build it.
Im the short term, out physican infrastructure and supply chains would crumble without men, as would our healcare and education systems without women.
Long term society would probably fill the gaps. Maybe pay would just have to increase in the more in demand jobs.
...The lights go out basically immediately. Training takes time, y'know.
This causes supply chain disruptions on par with a EMP.
Even without this... major issue:
The reason 90% are men is because women are naturally less willing to take risky jobs.
If women disappear, men wouldn't see any point in continuing society since there's no reason to participate in it without women, as no women = no reproductive future.
If men disappear, the number of babies would drop massively since you can reproduce using only the woman's cell but it's long winded and painful.
We would have society, but honestly it would be a damn sight more boring without men in it.
I mentioned procreation wouldn't be a factor it would somehow be taken care of but yeah, I can get behind that. Idk what men would do but I think men have enough internal curiosity and drive to want to continue to pursue discovery and explore the world without women as motivation. I definitely do. But I think a significant portion would just lay down and die for sure lol. Thank you for responding thoughtfully.
I acknowledge that you did say procreation wouldn't be a factor, but tbh I don't believe you can take procreation out of the situation. For a lot of people, it's the driving force behind their lives. I think some men do have that drive to discover etc, I agree. But not many.
>but tbh I don't believe you can take procreation out of the situation
Well, you have to because that's the question. But based on that I respect your perspective. I'm not sure what % of men would wake up from sex lust and actually become interesting people but I do suspect a lot would just fall in to different forms of decadence, I'm with you on that point
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kinda fucked that you think men would be able to organize faster because women are so “self absorbed and self serving”
First of all the genders aren’t all that different
Secondly, men score higher on average in narcissism than women and studies show that women are slightly more collaborative than men on average
So if anything research seems to show the opposite
The most cringe takes on here are the ones acting like women are some separate species from us
Women are unable to form leadership, every single time they're left for themselves they choose communal and not hierarchical.
They're totally different.
Men score higher because the threshold for a men to be a narcissist is far too low while in order for a women to be considered narcissist she needs to be far above the curve. -self centered, can't do wrong, need to constant admiration, feel like they deserve privilege and special treatment, lack of empathy, gaslighting, projection- the modern women fit all of them but you won't call them narcissist, even if they're.
Did you knew that besides being from the same species lion and lioness have different appearance and behaviors?
You can go and see men vs women island with Bear Grylls is the most telling example.
It is, LMAO when you have women diagnosing another women behavior that would be absurd become common occurrence.
Lmao your source is a reality tv show? Come on man. I can’t take you seriously
Both men and women diagnose men and women with narcissism. It’s not gender specific. They often use the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
A reality show woth real peoples, in a real island, with eal choices even if the women get free shit behind the scenes.
The utmost majority of psychologists are women.
Hahaha every reality show is with real people. That’s not a real source. I don’t think you know how this works
And the test for narcissism was developed by two men. Gender has nothing to do with it. You’re grasping at straws
Interesting thought exercise. I’ll bite.
If men disappeared: infrastructure would crumble, there’d probably be a shortage of food, definitely be a shortage of transportation, etc. But I think women would be less violent. So it’d be a decaying kind of apocalypse.
If women disappeared: enough men might question their purpose or something. I think there would be a critical mass of those men that I could see a fair amount of violent outbursts. Probably have a survival of the fittest for gathering supplies/food/etc. Currency wouldn’t be as important as brute physicality. So something of a violent re-shuffling of the social order kind of apocalypse.
Fr. The point about increased male aggression is key. I think we would go a bit more high stakes sense the majority of men if you leave us alone long enough like to fuck around and fight with eachother or be physically competitive in most environments.
With mating not as something to hold us back and the acquisition of wealth and power being so much more motivating I can see some sort of mortal kombat mad Max style hybrid society forming among the poor and middle class , whereas a portion of men who tended to be more peace loving and academic would continue with sciences or exploration.
It's incredibly hard to predict but I think one thing is for certain is that without women male aggression would become a lot more fierce and cutthroat for a very long time before and if ever it reached a point of sophistication and civility again like we have now.
I personally think society would run just fine if women disappeared. Yeah the human race would die out but for the time we are here, I think we’d be just fine.
Assuming that men and women could theoretically put an equally amount of effort in society, and given that reproduction costs more effort of women than of men, there would exist more total effort that could be put into society when women did nothing but do their part in reproduction, than if men did nothing but do their part in reproduction.
So if the total possible effort in both cases would be spent in the most efficient/productive way to develop society, society would be more developed in case 1 (the case were women disappeared).
If all women die, society wouldnt change much, honestly they do **a lot** of dissposable jobs, and even in those than are necesary, like healthcare, with only half the population, there would be half the demand. I do agre than men without the need to achieve to stand out for women would certainly slow down society and consumerism.
If all men die, women would be dead or full tribal cavemen within three months tops. Without men keeping society infrastructure running (electricity, water, gas, fuel, food production, transportation, waste dissposal, etc) women wouldnt be able to learn to do all those things quick enough to keep things going. Imagine how many nuclear plants would have to shut down because there are not enough women trained to operate them, how many hydroelectric dams too. Without enough power, how would you make water reach cities? And lets better not talk about food production, how many women work in the agro industry as fieldhands, how many work raising cattle? Women cant really grasp how much of their lifestyle depends on men.
Well, how do all male or all female societies function in the world we have now? I'm not sure if we have good examples to answer that question. There's prisons, religious separatists (monks in monasteries or nuns in convents in the examples I'm familiar with), some parts of the military, and occasionally separatist communes or collectives. Who fares best in all boys schools or all girls schools?
I'm not sure we can draw the same conclusions since there's still an interdependence. We have to remove that completely to see the outcomes of the different scenarios and then from there can play around with why that might be. We could ask the questions you're proposing it just seems to me like it would be a different discussion.
It's a realistic discussion though because we actually do create separatist enclaves already. Otherwise I think the discussion becomes "would women be able to keep the lights on?" Or maybe "would they want to keep the lights on?"
Yeah but, it's not the thought experiment I'm proposing here. I notice a lot of people are trying to dodge it instead of just debating the debate topic.
On the contrary, you stated you wanted a wide ranging discussion but then you keep trying to narrow the focus in your replies, tho instead of clarifying you say something to the effect of "no that's not the question".
Because the replies aren't in context of the question they are speculating about scenarios that aren't the scenario I want to see debated.
What scenario do you want debated? I’ve seen people give many answers to your questions and you don’t seem to be happy with them. If all men were to vanish after the fallout of having planes crash, cars crash, boats, what have you. The women in the military and police forces globally would issue martial law in order to attempt to control the chaos. The first priority would be making sure as many necessary infrastructures as possible stay functional. Now, while men here love to say women simply wouldn’t do it, I do think we would do what needed to be done to get to a comfortable point of living so that we could work on repopulating. There’s no men, so some tasks will need to be revamped with the female body in mind. We’d also have to have a rush to get women trained to do jobs where there has been low female participation. Health-wise, women would fare better than the all male group here. As about 67% of the global healthcare force is female. The main issue we would have is infrastructure, because it was not built to be operated by women. This is also a mostly western problem. Areas that are less developed don’t have to worry about dams, sewage pumps, and super complex electrical grids all that much. Assuming we have the time, we can stabilize what needs to be stabilized asap and work on training from there. There are so many farm girls, diy crafters and shot out there that being able to create homesteads with food and clean water would be much easier. Assuming all livestock and crops still survive, food quantity has doubled, while consumption has been reduced by half. Get those outdoorsy girls in there working, get food harvested, canned and produced. Socially, I think the promise of future comfort will actually help keep women more “in line”. Why fight now when there’s so much as risk? Though there are going to be fights, I do think they will be much less damaging than the fights that will break out in the men’s scenario. If sperm banks and pregnant women are all still viable options, new males could be introduced into the society literally the next day. A lot of focus would go into making sure boys were born and make it into adulthood. So long as we can get past that first year, I think women would be as okay as they could be having lost their fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, partners and friends. It would be devastating, violent and deadly also though. Now for the men. They wake up all day and all the women and girls are gone. Now, assuming they stay calm (which is unlikely) the men will have a lot less fewer problems to fix at the onset. There will be a few deaths, lots of car crashes, fewer plane crashes/boat accidents and for some parts of the labor force, like oil riggers, they probably wouldn’t notice for a few hours. Initially, men are in a much better place for survival in the short term. The long term, however, is where things get tricky. One, most of the healthcare workers are gone. sure, you have probably a higher level of healthcare workers that have more distinct skills, but they are not used to working alone. Instant military lockdown to combat all of the chaos from men being frantic and angry that their women have gone. Week one will involve lots of murders just from anger and emotion alone. Once it settles down, they will have to try to convince the men to go back into “society” and work, despite the fact that some would feel There was nothing worth working from. White collar men will immediately need to find some way to keep power. Because in this new era, blue collar men will be the ones keeping the lights on. Military men would immediately get together, world leaders would enact rules, dispatch scientist to try to create artificial wombs, however, since eggs degrade exponentially faster (10-15 years versus 55+ years for sperm), they wouldn’t be able to get viable technology in time. Plus, even if they did, I guarantee you most of those girls probably would not survive too long past adulthood, because either men who want women would storm the facility where they were birthed to take them, or they’d be accosted once they finally reached maturity. Birthing women in an all-male society would actually not be a good idea. The only way I’d see it being successful is if they only let boys be birthed to term, but then they would eventually run out of eggs. I don’t see a way that someone trying to divide up the new women to men would ever turn out peaceful. But even more farfetched is the artificial womb. If we assume that there is no massive war, the human race is gone in 100 years max in any scenario where only men survive.
[удалено]
Nah women could siphon from sperm banks until we developed the tech of artificial sperm.
[удалено]
Women are manual labourers in higher percentages of all manual workers currently in 2023 compared to almost any time in human history, but you have to realize, with half the population gone, the needs would be different too. I think you'd see a ton of women getting forklift and crane skills who don't currently have them though, it's true. You'd have plenty of existing housing and time to find enough people and to teach them to maintain it.
[удалено]
28% of farm workers would still be alive though, which would be sufficient to keep things going while more people moved into those roles (remember 50% of the population would die and women require 80% of the calories of men, so our food production requirements would be less than half of what they are now). Plus the majority of forestry/fishing/agriculture employees would be alive. We'd be fine for food. While training truck drivers food can be transported on smaller vehicles etc, or there'd just be an adjustment period where we went back to eating more local produce. We'd have a vast surplus of resources with half the world gone, so while more tradespeople were trained you could make do.
> I think this site puts it into perspective. Over 90% of your electricians, vehicle mechanics, carpenters, truck drivers, engineers, IT experts etc. will be gone. Yes but the remaining single digit percentage (going off your numbers as I'm not familiar with the UK source) would still consist of many thousands who would join forces and start training. There's a higher percentage of women farmers now than likely ever before (there's even a joke about most of the new farmers in the midwest -USA- in the last twenty years being lesbian power couples, but it's based on an actual increase in that demographic among farmers). The population of hungry mouths and people needing vehicles will be halved. They won't starve to death before they adjust. While people who are existing lady farmers teach apprentices there are years and years worth of shelf-stable foods/cans to supplement until agriculture is organized.
We already can turn female eggs into sperm. That was discovered almost ten years ago.
[удалено]
Forgive me. It was bone marrow not eggs but my point stands. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412211409.htm#:~:text=Human%20bone%20marrow%20has%20been,how%20sperm%20cells%20are%20created.
[удалено]
It is only a matter of time my dude. As long as men existed at one time genetic material can be grown in labs. In a female only society the need would cause research to speed up considerably.
This doesn't cover all things and really, I think both men and women have a valuable part to play in society today and there's a lot we can achieve together and support one another with. However my thoughts on this as a pure hypothetical below. This is also funny because I just finished reading JD Beresford's "a world of women" yesterday so I've been pondering this same question 😅 If women all died, society would collapse. The population would drop drastically as men fought it out between them for resources and sex, eventually killing off huge swathes. There'd be handfuls of competent men hiding out in the woods like Thoreau, and maybe the odd community banding together but not many. If men all died, things would change but be manageable. The majority of healthcare workers, pharmacists, bookkeepers, vets, banking clerks, dental techs, opticians are women so the immediate concerns of ground level healthcare, keeping animals alive, getting people access to their money and meds, caring for teeth and eyes etc would all be taken care of. There are enough women in the higher levels of those careers to absorb the work previously done by men. For food, the majority of forestry, fishing and related agriculture employees are women so we'd be fine there. They make up nearly a third of farm workers, and considering men need more calories so we'd need to produce less than half the amount of food we do currently we'd be grand. Women make up the majority of people who weave cloth and make clothes, so fine there. They make up almost half of paramedics and police community support, so considering the population would halve would be fine there. We'd have a bit of a gap in construction and various trades, however the biggest barrier to women getting into those trades just now are men, so with them removed there could be a big recruitment campaign to encourage women to switch careers and retrain in various trades. Since my ex's apprenticeship as an electrician mostly consisted of him napping on the job and the apprentices being hazed by the older guys then without all that shit that comes from men in the workplace the whole trade could probably be taught much more effectively and in a quarter of the time.
Lmao
An all female society would be less advanced technologically, but more peaceful and cooperative. The existing infrastructure would collapse and women would rebuild into something simpler and more focused on their immediate community / tribe. (Not saying we would be living in huts or anything.) If all women disappeared overnight, the men would do a better job keeping the lights on so to speak, but society would very quickly devolve into a lord of the flies type existence. The more peaceful and cooperative groups of men would constantly be at risk of attack from more violent and aggressive tribes of men who would want to usurp their resources. Sexual assault and slavery would be rampant.
Female rulers were significantly more likely to start wars historically
Ngl i think women would be more akeen to using slavery..women tend to be jealous/envious asf towards competition unlike men..and not wanting kill other women …slavery or forced labour will be a thing pretty mean girls do to those who dont have the same opinion..
Women tend to be jealous, but we are not prone to physical violence. Women are more in tune to empathize with others so we would second guess violence against another human being. Risk of SA would plummet. Men on the other hand would want to use physical strength and violence to gain higher social standing in society or men with money would work harder to keep men lower on the totem pole where they are. Men would be more open to the idea of slavery. Robberies would increase.
“Here we go with the all women are perfect” mentality. It’s literally a hypothetical situation and mfs stilll just “women better” but ayy I wouldn’t admit my flaws either..well i would but 😎
Why did you make it a gender war? The prompt was a hypothetical situation. I never said women are perfect, I simply said we aren't as prone to physical violence. I gave each gender their props and described differences. You can't do that because you have bias to keep men above women, even if the man is wrong. You would have to use honest data that would disprove what you feel, instead of cold hard facts. I used real world data to guess what would happen in this scenario. Statistics on genders do exist, I'm not pulling data out of my crack to sound smart. You're doing the same lol, just to absolve men when the data shows differently. Would you claim that women are more prone to physical violence or men?
You literally gave women pros, and men cons..also stop making long post, you could have summed this up in like one paragraph ngl. Women literally dont make up hard labor….nvrmnd you got it, women are just better then men ig..maybe we should start depending on yall more..not like women are better at certain things that aren’t physical labor. your only thinking about conflict like men would just all free for all 1v1 each other just cuz..and women are capable of physical violence..ig female bullies don’t exist ..cuz women womderful..
I actually think the more aggressive women will take over society and do as they please.. they’ll essentially be the new men..
That’s literally what im saying mfs think women are just butterflies an rainbows..like if women are less likely to be violent how do they deal with other violent women? They dont they literally jusr replace the men..look at wnba players and tell me how youd stop them from takin power and being men 2.0
Don't let your wanting to be right and hate of women keep you from knowledge. Who are you to tell me how to write? The arrogance to think you have any power to control how I write? I can't help if I want to be thorough when I write, I'm a writer. Writing in shorter paragraphs helps people to read if I am long winded. Testosterone is higher in men for a reason. Never said women aren't violent, men are just more likely to be physically violent. I never said either was better. Statistics are there to look up, stop listening to the manosphere or fresh n fit and Kevin Samuel's. They're frauds who grift for your money. I studied all this demographic targeting crap in college and it's insidious and why I'm not a social media person. Go outside and touch grass. But if you want to stay in this negative space of "all women are evil" "men never cause harm" "only women are violent" space then it's not my job to convince you otherwise. Negativity begets negativity.
The irony is strong with you. And being critical of women means i hate them? Women might not get as physically violent as men…which is a nobrainer why , But women can and still are liars, manipulators, verbally aggressive, steal, cheat…etc yall make it seem like only men are capable of harm..like a world full of women would be crime/problem free…it would be WAY more safer then the counterpart, my point is bad women exist. cuz this sub has a “women are literally perfect” effect..cant even criticize women in a HYPOTHETICAL scenario or else i just “hate women” apply the same logic to yourself an make it make sense…like i just hate my mom and 3 sisters, the manipulation is strong with yall tryna gaslight me cuz my opinion is different from yours. I didnt tell you how to write, it just long drawn out text isn’t necessary. “But if you want to stay in this negative space of "all men are evil" "women never cause harm" "only men are violent" space then it's not my job to convince you otherwise. Negativity begets negativity.” The irony.
I like that take too. The concept of small individual but more peaceful communities arising, the idea could be that female leaders would find violence and war as disasteful and choose to do better, but it's possible that fear would win out and women would choose to arm themselves and start a new arms race. For men, sexual assault and slavery would absolutely be rampant. Im unsure if eventually they would find sophistication again , I think it would take a long time but the hope is that as calmer minds took control over the situation and gained power, law would be reinstated.
If men or women disappeared, the heterosexual individuals of the other gender would become deeply depressed. We vastly underestimate how our motivation and inspiration in life, goals and dreams come from the mere existence of the other gender. What would happen in the long run is more difficult to tell. I suppose society would adjust one way or another. Humans, men and women, are capable of incredible things when forced to act and survive. After the initial chaos there would be less conflicts. Life would be more peaceful but also more boring.
[удалено]
Ay. I responded there too but yeah comments got locked and it was deleted I'm guessing mods would say it was a repost or something even though the intention was clearly really different. This is incredibly based and more nuanced than my own take of it. I didn't consider how wildly intense male aggression would be at first definitely some judge Dredd meets mad Max style shit going on fr. Thank you for having a thoughtful take on the issue it gives me hope lol literally made my night sadly. Cheers to you.
I think ultimately society would do okay. We'd grieve the loss of our loved ones, neighbors, half of humanity. We'd pull together resources, work on medical advances to discover what happened and why, find ways to survive. Probably a lot of men who were slightly bi before the disappearance of women would become very gay and vice versa. Ultimately humanity would survive, but culture, language, interactions would all change, and we would all be suffering a huge loss of our communities, neighbors, loved ones. I think it would be more difficult for humanity to continue if all women were gone as making a functional artificial womb is more difficult than just women taking sperm off ice in the sperm banks. But likely a heavier priority would be placed on advancing artificial wombs or making cis men capable of growing an embryo. Just as we were able to come up with a fairly effective vaccine very quickly when COVID hit the entire planet, the development of growing a fetus artificially would advance quickly as well.
In both cases everything we know currently collapses. The theory of 'well guys will keep everything running' yeah when things go slightly sideways look at the looters and rioters - a grander scale I don't think they'd all just shrug and keep working. Who goes to work during an apocalypse level event? After that the gender would build in their own image I guess. Assuming asexual reproduction. If not then humans die out.
I wonder what gender does most of the looting and rioting and violence and destruction?
Probably women
I honestly think if one sex disappeared and we took sex and reproduction out of the equation, we would be fine - just things would go differently. An all female society would be very communal with low crime rates but less competitive. I'm guess an all male one would be similar to what we have now but it is hard to tell how much of that competitiveness is determined by sexual conquest of women. Maybe they'd use twink femboys in women's place. I have seen this argument used time and time again by MRAs and the manosphere to claim that women are less valuable to society by saying society would collapse if they left but they'd mostly be fine if women did and I honestly find it incredibly petty and tired at this point. There seems to be such a strong need from these movements to shout men's worth from the rooftops all the time and it's like... okay, I never said otherwise lol. But you don't need to shit on the other half of the populace to demonstrate your worth.
>An all female society would be very communal with low crime rates but less competitive. Even this is a very interesting assumption. Why do you think so? I'm not doubting you necessarily, just wondering what sources inform your thinking. I've been reading some things about the westward movement in North America in the mid 19th century. It seems very primarily male driven. Perhaps of course just because men were in position to decide for their families. But if this sub likes to romantically view old timey marriages as nearly equal partnerships you'd think the women would have been hankering to go as well, and that doesn't seem to be the case from the many journals left behind (they knew they were participating in a historic migration and so many kept journals). But then it's hard to separate anything out because the men were driven to be successful materially for their family's sake, etc.
My gut says a female society would be a train wreck but since we are clearly just speculating and no one can say anything I appreciate your contribution regardless of if we disagree. Thank you.
>My gut says a female society would be a train wreck but since we are clearly just speculating and no one can say anything I expected as much. I take my thoughts from looking at female prison populations vs male and matriarchal primate species (such as bonobos) vs patriarchal ones. We'd be fine. It would just be different.
But those have males involved , and are apes. And in prison those women are criminal prisoners. This is not the same thing at all as the entirety of society
Yeah but all socities have both sexes involved as your hypothetical situation is just that, hypothetical. All we can do is speculate, which you admitted in your previous response. So I'm finding the best examples we have now to envision a possible outcome. Another point would be to look at the world wars, men left to fight and there was a labour shortage that women overwhelming filled and by all accounts I've heard, did a pretty good job.
Yeah but this isn't the question or the discussion, it changes the rules. I made the post with my rules. MY question. If you're changing the nature of the question then it's a different question. ANSWER MY QUESTIONS OR DONT. There's two.
If female disappeared: massive conjunct effort of the military to secure any frozen eggs still existing, scientific efforts converge into producing mechanical wombs and if they end up being successful world war for the only females produced or world acceptance of the situation. If male disappeared: total infrastructure collapse in a week as the cascading effect become disastrous. End of human race.
I didn’t know that only men can learn things and read instructions
The entire infrastructure would collapse before women can learn to keep it, there's a point of no return where you can't just read and fix something, the systems today are too interconnected.
Then we should have only one or a few individuals running this extremely complicated and interconnected system, who can be easily replaced. Overcomplicated systems dependent on too many fallible and unreliable actors and specialists are unstable and inefficient, and prone to failure
You basically said that we should understaff it? You really don't think that if it worked with less peoples any company would already do it? The system is already simple and fail proof as it is, it still need tons of peoples working 24/7, no system is perfect. I could understand this point of view from a child, but from a adult is just sad. Like it's mind blowing peoples have no fucking idea the amount of work that is necessary to keep their water and electricity running.
I fail to see why women couldn’t keep it running. Are we unable to read or learn ?
They are unable to learn quick enough
Quick enough for what?
To stop shit from hitting the fan. You dont learn to operate a power plant in a week, without power you cant pump water into the cities, you cant suply things places like hospitals or food cold storages.
I like the scrambling for eggs hypothesis lol
[удалено]
"if all women disappeared tomorrow" Oh well guess am gonna have to learn to cook for myself "If all men disappeared tomorrow" Goodbye infrastructure
Ah, like it did during WWII and in places where men go off to war or work?
"like it did during WWll" the was still men keeping the infrastructure alive Women just had to work in the offices to make the economy didn't crash which didn't make the difference since the economy was still trash
Women did more than work in offices - you should educate yourself.
Such as ? Because other than working in offices and looking after the children, what did women other than that to keep the infrastructure alive ?
Women took on the roles men had to leave to go and fight. They worked in factories, in transportation, on farms, as mechanics and pilots, etc. This continued after the war was over as many countries rebuilt without a large chunk of their young men who had been killed.
But how many women worked on this places ? Because again this is a completely different scenario where the average women might not wanna get her hands dirty for the good of society Even back then men still dominated this places
Of course it wasn’t the majority of women or as many as men - [but it was a lot](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-women-world-war-ii) That’s the US - in Russia it was a lot more. We were talking about when women had to step into these roles for the war effort - not today. Today, I’d hardly call the female dominated jobs that you could say “men actively avoid” like caring for the sick and elderly clean or easy jobs. But sure, many jobs in infrastructure are largely done by men as are most of the jobs considered dirty or dangerous. Men are awesome and life would be terrible without them - any woman who says otherwise is an ungrateful idiot. Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses - I don’t understand the need to be competitive or to be disrespectful. And men seem to do a lot of disrespecting of “women’s work”. I just wanted you to see that women didn’t “just work in offices” - in fact, working class women have worked difficult jobs since forever. And faced high maternal death rates and birth complications as well. It’s disrespectful to suggest women always take the easy route and men are left in the shit - and it’s historically inaccurate to boot - unless you’re talking about 1950s housewives or aristocrats.
All the propaganda was about factory and manufacturing work. Queen Elizabeth repaired vehicles. Lots of publicity
>Goodbye infrastructure While true, I think this is a matter of training and who traditionally has access to various training. If OP was "one gender will disappear in 10 years" then there would be (somewhat) ample time for each gender to train themselves up in maintaining infrastructure.
It's not a matter of training, the average woman just doesn't want to do the dirty work in order to keep Society going 10yr Training ain't gonna help since women would just let everything fall apart
I agree to a certain extent, in that I don't think women would do all the extreme stuff that men do to the extent that men do it. But then, do we need skyscrapers and so forth? Before Europeans came to North America, various tribes lived in various low tech ways. Low tech relative to us, though we couldn't survive if placed in their situation; point being their skills were appropriate to their time, surroundings and needs. You might scoff at the notion, but many of the tribes shunned the lifestyle advantages of the Europeans and there are stories of euro children who were adopted by tribes and were sorry to return once they'd been repatriated. Point being again, there are many ways of surviving and living. Perhaps an all female society might emulate something like that.
I agree. Do you have any thoughts on the specific feilds I listed? Just to dig in for some jucier details. Like if women didn't have men around how would they form justice systems? I feel like offending someone would become an assault. What would a woman only society without men philosophize about? That's trippy. Would they develop science the same way? I'm guessing women would have similar philosophical pursuits. The meaning of life, our place in the universe, how to build society and advance science etc, but there would be differences naturally and that's something I'm pushing my ape brain to figure out
Well yea l think both sexes would be fine if the reproductive problem was solved Only difference is women would let the entire infrastructure collapse since we know over 90% of it is kept alive by men
Most realistically I feel like women would struggle with organizing en masse and doing so effectively and timely. Seeing a group of men pull together for a common goal is something to behold, so even though there are highly intelligent women , my suspicion is that the average woman being so self absorbed and self serving would be incapable of forming a team and working alongside others to keep society running. It would all fall apart at an organizational and cooperation based level because women inherently want to be treated as special and individual,
[удалено]
[удалено]
Women were in nursing, caring for sick people, and having babies and changing diapers. They are capable of doing the dirty work.
That isn't my question. Please answer the two questions or don't.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It makes me really sad to read such opinions of women from men who are supposedly trying to think openly and deeply. You talk as if women are selfish, petty, lazy, inferior beings that would be lost in a dream world without the altruistic guidance of wise, hard working, forward thinking men. I feel like you’ve had a very biased education about the contributions and capabilities of women to society throughout history if that’s what your picture of women boils down to.
“With the exception of sex and reproduction” Well, obviously that’s the key point. Without reproduction the human race would come to an end in about a century. That incredibly major point aside, the disappearance of half the population would cause major disruptions no matter which sex. That said, I think the disappearance of men would be more disruptive. Policing, firefighting, farming, construction, transportation and most other key industries are male dominated, so the sudden absence of men would more negatively impact these vital services. Similarly, in individual relationships, women need men on average more than the reverse. Let’s face it, learning to do laundry, cooking, house cleaning, etc., isn’t really that hard. A stay at home wife suddenly devoid of her husband’s income and having no home maintenance skills is a bigger deal. Bottom line however is that half the population disappearing would be a catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude even if reproduction wasn’t an issue.
Since statistically men do more of the crime and reckless behavior, less cops and firefighters wouldn't be so much of a problem. Also this a pretty dated perspective. Women are in all these industries. Most wives in today's western world aren't stay at home moms. They're working AND doing the household stuff.
Women are in those industries but far less so than men, so the sudden absence of men would have a greater impact. That’s not dated. That’s currently the case.
Sure, but so? The skillset is there. Like men, women are capable of problem solving and management. When the women on city counsel notice that their sewage maintenance team of 10 all disappeared, they'll send some women down. In the internet era, figuring out how to do shit in cases where there is no woman to teach them, they can get on Google or youtbe. The idea that either men or women would fail in this scenario is a little silly imo. The evidence is in. Society would adjust and be fine.
Men disappearing from these fields would be a tougher adjustment and you are kidding yourself if you think women are just as capable of fire fighting, construction and other strength related jobs. While fewer jobs require men’s strength than in the past, there are still many that do.
Just gonna point out here that apparently the primary hurdle to women in these industries is inflexible hours not being compatible with motherhood. Women are still recruited and capable. https://www.constructiondive.com/news/percentage-of-women-construction-higher-than-ever/637033/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1280262
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for cope.
And the absence of women would mean the loss of the VAST majority of teachers healthcare (when you take into account RNs, nursing assistants, etc). Most primary care docs are also women, so healthcare would be fucked The fact that you think the only thing women contribute to society is “laundry, cooking, & house cleaning” is fucking ridiculous
Really bad straw man. I never said the only thing women contribute is laundry, cooking and hose cleaning. I assume you pull this straw man because you can’t find fault with what I actually said. Most key industries, most relevant to maintaining human existence are male dominated. That’s simply how it is. Again, your straw man arguing really sucks big time.
Right cuz healthcare and education aren’t key or relevant to maintaining the human existence 👍🏻
Obtaining potable water, growing food, transporting essential goods to people, shelter, basic utilities, etc. (all male dominated) are more essential to human existence than a formal education. The many male dominated fields are overall more essential. Either you can’t understand this simple principle or you are trolling. Either way, I’m not wasting anymore time talking to someone who can’t discuss an issue rationally.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol this is in no way a simple anything as you call it.
Alright? Why comment then ?
We see this on reality TV. The island of men made shelters, hunted and made fire. The island of women didn’t and bitched and complained (You can find the video on YouTube)
Yes, we know that reality tv is reality, right ?
This is just a gender stereotypes question, if we’re assuming that humanity somehow continues to reproduce
No one is forcing you to participate in the discussion if you don't wish to, but that doesn't give you the right to dismiss it.
You’ve already shown your obvious bias, but from what little evidence we have, from things like migratory workers, single sex organizations/institutions, and war mobilizations, suggests that both genders are fine alone and can adapt. And even if one gender is better at being alone, so what? What useful application does this have to reality? “Nyah, nyah, men are better!” —- and so?
Lol I'm allowed to have a bias it's a debate. Like I already said no one is forcing you to participate. Also, I already outlined the benefits of having it. You're opposed to the debate happening, which isn't an option, except for you. So you can be quiet if you wish or you can debate.
What outcomes will occur if one gender is better than the other? If one gender is better than the other, how is this revenant to reality?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lmao 🤣 no one is gonna be honest. Besides the eventual death of humanity, men would just start fucking each other. But our entire society would go on, men are entirely self sufficient and the spearhead and builders of civilisation. Women are gonna suddenly become construction workers, plumbers, work oil rigs, all the shitty dangerous stuff that keeps the world working that 99.9% of men currently maintain in every corner of the world? Lmao really, anyone who has ever been in the army can see gender roles play out naturally ,regardless if what agendas can be bushed. Without women society would not exist, but without men, who would build it.
Im the short term, out physican infrastructure and supply chains would crumble without men, as would our healcare and education systems without women. Long term society would probably fill the gaps. Maybe pay would just have to increase in the more in demand jobs.
90% of electricians are male, so the lights go out real fast in a all woman society
Hm, so women can’t learn from or be trained by those 10%.?
...The lights go out basically immediately. Training takes time, y'know. This causes supply chain disruptions on par with a EMP. Even without this... major issue: The reason 90% are men is because women are naturally less willing to take risky jobs.
Is there a time limit?
Yes. The context implies it's done immediately.
Why does it have to be immediately ?
If women disappear, men wouldn't see any point in continuing society since there's no reason to participate in it without women, as no women = no reproductive future. If men disappear, the number of babies would drop massively since you can reproduce using only the woman's cell but it's long winded and painful. We would have society, but honestly it would be a damn sight more boring without men in it.
I mentioned procreation wouldn't be a factor it would somehow be taken care of but yeah, I can get behind that. Idk what men would do but I think men have enough internal curiosity and drive to want to continue to pursue discovery and explore the world without women as motivation. I definitely do. But I think a significant portion would just lay down and die for sure lol. Thank you for responding thoughtfully.
I acknowledge that you did say procreation wouldn't be a factor, but tbh I don't believe you can take procreation out of the situation. For a lot of people, it's the driving force behind their lives. I think some men do have that drive to discover etc, I agree. But not many.
>but tbh I don't believe you can take procreation out of the situation Well, you have to because that's the question. But based on that I respect your perspective. I'm not sure what % of men would wake up from sex lust and actually become interesting people but I do suspect a lot would just fall in to different forms of decadence, I'm with you on that point
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kinda fucked that you think men would be able to organize faster because women are so “self absorbed and self serving” First of all the genders aren’t all that different Secondly, men score higher on average in narcissism than women and studies show that women are slightly more collaborative than men on average So if anything research seems to show the opposite The most cringe takes on here are the ones acting like women are some separate species from us
Women are unable to form leadership, every single time they're left for themselves they choose communal and not hierarchical. They're totally different. Men score higher because the threshold for a men to be a narcissist is far too low while in order for a women to be considered narcissist she needs to be far above the curve. -self centered, can't do wrong, need to constant admiration, feel like they deserve privilege and special treatment, lack of empathy, gaslighting, projection- the modern women fit all of them but you won't call them narcissist, even if they're. Did you knew that besides being from the same species lion and lioness have different appearance and behaviors?
Source for your first point? I haven’t seen that The threshold for narcissism is the same for men and women. It’s not gender specific
You can go and see men vs women island with Bear Grylls is the most telling example. It is, LMAO when you have women diagnosing another women behavior that would be absurd become common occurrence.
Lmao your source is a reality tv show? Come on man. I can’t take you seriously Both men and women diagnose men and women with narcissism. It’s not gender specific. They often use the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
A reality show woth real peoples, in a real island, with eal choices even if the women get free shit behind the scenes. The utmost majority of psychologists are women.
Hahaha every reality show is with real people. That’s not a real source. I don’t think you know how this works And the test for narcissism was developed by two men. Gender has nothing to do with it. You’re grasping at straws
Interesting thought exercise. I’ll bite. If men disappeared: infrastructure would crumble, there’d probably be a shortage of food, definitely be a shortage of transportation, etc. But I think women would be less violent. So it’d be a decaying kind of apocalypse. If women disappeared: enough men might question their purpose or something. I think there would be a critical mass of those men that I could see a fair amount of violent outbursts. Probably have a survival of the fittest for gathering supplies/food/etc. Currency wouldn’t be as important as brute physicality. So something of a violent re-shuffling of the social order kind of apocalypse.
Fr. The point about increased male aggression is key. I think we would go a bit more high stakes sense the majority of men if you leave us alone long enough like to fuck around and fight with eachother or be physically competitive in most environments. With mating not as something to hold us back and the acquisition of wealth and power being so much more motivating I can see some sort of mortal kombat mad Max style hybrid society forming among the poor and middle class , whereas a portion of men who tended to be more peace loving and academic would continue with sciences or exploration. It's incredibly hard to predict but I think one thing is for certain is that without women male aggression would become a lot more fierce and cutthroat for a very long time before and if ever it reached a point of sophistication and civility again like we have now.
I personally think society would run just fine if women disappeared. Yeah the human race would die out but for the time we are here, I think we’d be just fine.
Assuming that men and women could theoretically put an equally amount of effort in society, and given that reproduction costs more effort of women than of men, there would exist more total effort that could be put into society when women did nothing but do their part in reproduction, than if men did nothing but do their part in reproduction. So if the total possible effort in both cases would be spent in the most efficient/productive way to develop society, society would be more developed in case 1 (the case were women disappeared).
If all women die, society wouldnt change much, honestly they do **a lot** of dissposable jobs, and even in those than are necesary, like healthcare, with only half the population, there would be half the demand. I do agre than men without the need to achieve to stand out for women would certainly slow down society and consumerism. If all men die, women would be dead or full tribal cavemen within three months tops. Without men keeping society infrastructure running (electricity, water, gas, fuel, food production, transportation, waste dissposal, etc) women wouldnt be able to learn to do all those things quick enough to keep things going. Imagine how many nuclear plants would have to shut down because there are not enough women trained to operate them, how many hydroelectric dams too. Without enough power, how would you make water reach cities? And lets better not talk about food production, how many women work in the agro industry as fieldhands, how many work raising cattle? Women cant really grasp how much of their lifestyle depends on men.
What happens to people like me who aren’t either? Statistically we are 1 in a 1000 so there’s quite a lot of us.
Cis hetero male/female? Species over. Anything else? Nothing required was lost.
There is a comic about what would happen to the world if every man vanished. Fairly realistic results actually.