What would happen in every man in the entire world had disappeared?
All men in earth just vanished. Cease to exist. Faded away. Leaving only the women in the world. What do you reckon the women would do?
shareSlow extinction.
share
MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > What would happen in every man in the en...
Rampant lesbianism and catty Mean Girl behavior…and then our species would eventually expire.
I bet it would be a paradise (even if I’m not around to see it)
shareWomen would turn on each other mostly by class and then race.
shareLikely true.
We really need to cut out all of this tribalism but sadly it seems to be wired into us.
We could all do better than this.
I totally disagree. Males are violent, warmongering and attempt to dominate. Women share feelings, share power and cooperate more.
You can see the difference in behavior with children. Earth would become paradise without men. You just need sperm for reproduction.
I don’t think broad generalisations like that really show the true picture. Individual human beings are far more complex than that and from my experience can never be neatly catagoeised according to their gender.
shareI'm not sure if it's hormones or socialization, but there is a behavioral difference between males and females.
The OP mentioned an entire world in which men disappear so we are not talking about an individual level.
Men only planet would be a disaster.
Male only and female only would both be, and would also be very short lived when all’s said and done!
shareMen would war and rape each other.
Women would share feelings, build communities to make them more egalitarian and travel.
Women do well without men. Don't you notice that divorcees and widows are perfectly happy never being with another man while men rush to find another wife? All the older women I observe hangout together and travel.
Now you just need a virus killing off one gender. Morbid, but it would make an interesting movie.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Wait, you're serious!?
Are you a female or are you just a pathetic example of a male who has a brain that's wired like a female's?
"Women would share feelings"
What would that accomplish?
"build communities"
Because female carpenters are so common, right? Are you saying they would just herd together in existing houses, nearly all of which were built by men?
"and travel"
On foot? On horses? Or would they use existing motor vehicles, etc., nearly all of which were designed by and manufactured by men? And if so, how many female mechanics would there be to keep them running?
"Women do well without men."
Yeah, right. Let's see how well they do without using anything that was invented/designed/manufactured by men. That would eliminate nearly all products of electrical, structural, and mechanical engineering, for starters.
"Don't you notice that divorcees and widows are perfectly happy never being with another man while men rush to find another wife?"
LOL at you making shit up.
"Now you just need a virus killing off one gender."
As a best case scenario, they would go extinct within about a century, obviously, since there would be no way to procreate. Even if you magically eliminated the inability to procreate problem, women would eventually be living in a post-apocalyptic type society as existing technology and various infrastructures which they didn't invent nor design, broke down, and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt that most of them wouldn't die due to starvation within a short period of time.
Women would replace male workers like they easily did during WWII.
Women aren't as violent, competitive nor aggressive as men. Destructive wars wouldn't exist. Women would organize and help each other like they do in real life in numerous women organizations and build functioning societies.
Women share feelings. That's what they do.
Women wouldn't starve since they cook and grow food.
If you watch the all boys house vs all girls house experiment, it was the boys who were starving because they refused to cook or work. They spent a week eating candy and other junk. The entire house was destroyed by the end of the week.
The first thing the girls did was organize work crews for cooking, cleaning and recreation. They cooked healthy meals and even baked cakes for dessert. They created art and put on shows in the evenings.
Sociologists have studied gender behavior. Great experiment with a boys house vs girls house. Definitely worth a watch:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bCePbRdQmbE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0gkiUF6liYQ
Other studies are about leadership which lead to tyrannies. Again, men tend to be authoritarian. Women would thrive in utopian societies sharing feelings and helping each other. Women are just more nurturing. Men would war and rape each other.
You're deluding yourself if you don't notice major gender differences in behavior.
"Women would replace male workers like they easily did during WWII."
Uh huh. You need more than low-level workers. And they didn't entirely replace male workers; not even close. It was mostly males in their late teens to early twenties who served in WWII. Management, engineering, R&D, machining, the older segment of low-level workers, and so on, were largely unaffected.
"Women would organize and help each other like they do in real life in numerous women organizations and build functioning societies."
Primitive societies, once the existing infrastructure breaks down due to there being relatively few women with the skills or aptitude to maintain it.
"Women share feelings. That's what they do."
Again, what would that accomplish?
"Women wouldn't starve since they cook and grow food."
Hardly any women these days have ever grown any food. The same applies to men, for that matter, but at least the major farming operations that supply the grocery stores are primarily operated by men.
And who's going to fix the tractors when they break down? For that matter, who's going to change 500-pound tractor tires? Who's going to be able to swing a hammer hard enough to break a ball joint loose on old farm truck? Most women have trouble opening pickle jars. How do you think they'll fare when attempting jobs that require real strength?
"If you watch the all boys house vs all girls house experiment, it was the boys who were starving because they refused to cook or work. They spent a week eating candy and other junk. The entire house was destroyed by the end of the week."
Kids are irrelevant. Who built the house in the first place? Who invented/designed/developed the oven, stove, refrigerator, and other appliances? Who invented/designed/developed the machinery that stamped out the spoons, forks, and other utensils? Who founded and operates the major farms and food factories that supplied the food to the house in the first place?
"Women would thrive in utopian societies sharing feelings and helping each other. Women are just more nurturing."
LOL at you. We already know that men help each other just fine, which is why men are almost 100% responsible for this modern technological world we live in (which required, and continues to require, countless instances of cooperation among men). If men had never existed, and if you ignore the inability to procreate problem, women would still be living in the stone age.
"You're deluding yourself if you don't notice major gender differences in behavior."
Is that a joke? I've been pointing out those major differences, Slow Doug.
Women would do fine if men disappeared especially since distractions like war and violent crime wouldn't exist.
Men discriminate against women then brag about wonen not being in certain occupations. LOL! Women would do fine.
Boys house failed vs Girls house thrived. No surprise.
Husbands and fathers are notorious for abandoning their families and women do it all alone anyway. No lost. It's men who die younger when women aren't around.
You hate and disrespect women which only proves my point they would thrive without the negativity and discrimination holding them back.
"Women would do fine if men disappeared especially since distractions like war and violent crime wouldn't exist."
You live in a fantasy world, simp. There are plenty of places on Earth with no current war and a very low violent crime rate (the entire country of Japan to name one example), and it doesn't change the fact that men are primarily responsible for buildings, infrastructures, technology, government, hard labor, the food industry, and so on.
"Men discriminate against women then brag about wonen not being in certain occupations."
Reporting facts isn't "bragging," and discrimination is logically justified in most cases, because in most cases, the best person for a job is a man. If a competition were devised for almost any job you can name, one which tests performance in all relevant areas of the job, and there were sufficient incentive to attract a huge number of competitors, the winner would be a man. If the job is primarily physical, a man wins (just look at professional sports). If the job is primarily mental, a man wins (just look at the world of chess, or the entirety of scientific and technological achievements throughout human history).
"Women would do fine."
Only in your delusional fantasy world.
"Boys house failed vs Girls house thrived."
This thread is about men and women, not children, and it's therefore irrelevant, like I already told you. It would also be very easy to get any results you want from such an "experiment," simply by choosing which boys and girls you include. I've been cooking for myself on a regular basis since I was about 7 years old.
"Husbands and fathers are notorious for abandoning their families and women do it all alone anyway."
Uh huh. When it comes divorces, it is the woman who initiates them about 66-75% of the time, so like pretty much everything you think you know; you have it ass backwards.
"You hate and disrespect women"
Since this laughable assertion of yours doesn't logically follow from anything I've said, consider your non sequitur dismissed out of hand.
"which only proves my point they would thrive without the negativity and discrimination holding them back."
Even if your premise had been true rather than a non sequitur, it wouldn't prove any such thing, obviously. Nothing can prove your asinine assertions, because they are sourced from your delusional fantasy world rather than the real world.
Japan is still a male-oriented country. Again, the OP topic is about a 100% female-only world.
Gender discrimination wouldn't exist since there would be no men. Again, you miss the point of the topic - No men exists!!! Women would fill the gaps like WW2.
Both the boys and girls were given cooking lessons before the experiment. The boys refused to cook!
"According to a 2016 survey from the UN, girls spend 40% more time on chores than boys do, and by age 14, that jumps up to 50%."
https://www.boredpanda.com/genders-social-experiment-kids-left-unsupervised/
Divorce doesn't end responsibility for children. It's mainly women who care for children and elderly parents. Why?
Research on the topic shows women would thrive. Men would war and rape each other.
Boys house failed. Female house succeeded. Both genders behaved the same as adults. Girls shared feelings, worked and lived equally. Boys rough-housed, created a hierarchy in which they wanted the "weaker" members to do the "women's" work, but mainly did nothing except get sick from eating junk for days.
Women would likely teach each other needed skills in order to survive.
"Japan is still a male-oriented country. Again, the OP topic is about a 100% female-only world."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and your tacit concession that Japan is an example which refutes your asinine assertion, is noted.
"Gender discrimination wouldn't exist since there would be no men."
Thank you, Captain Obvious. What of it?
"Again, you miss the point of the topic - No men exists!!!"
I haven't missed any point at all, let alone "again," and this is another non sequitur from you.
"Women would fill the gaps like WW2."
Already addressed, and therefore dismissed.
"Both the boys and girls were given cooking lessons before the experiment. The boys refused to cook!"
Your non sequitur is dismissed (children are irrelevant).
"Divorce doesn't end responsibility for children."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and your tacit concession that you were wrong when you claimed "Husbands and fathers are notorious for abandoning their families," is noted, since it's women who break up families far more often than men due to being the ones who initiate divorces about 66-75% of the time.
"It's mainly women who care for children and elderly parents. Why?"
Because that's something they're naturally well-suited for, which is why they make good nurses and elementary school teachers. It wouldn't help them get out of the stone age if men had never existed.
"Research on the topic shows women would thrive."
No, it doesn't, and history along with simply observing the reality of the world around you shows that they wouldn't.
"Men would war and rape each other."
This oft-repeated mere assertion of yours is dismissed.
"Boys house failed. Female house succeeded."
Your non sequitur is dismissed (children are irrelevant).
"Women would likely teach each other needed skills in order to survive."
Survival alone, assuming that they could even do that much, doesn't help them get out of the stone age.
We would probably console each other initially because if all men on Earth vanished it would probably mean losing some people we loved, and there would be a lot of talking and feeling sharing and crying involved. Ultimately we would get bored.
shareWars would end. Violent crime would end. Starvation and poverty would end. More humanity.
Watch the experiments in which they had a house of only boys vs only girls. The kids made the rules without adult input.
Boys tore up the place, bullied and mainly refused to work. They ate junk for a week.
Girls created a work schedule, kept the place neat and entertained each other with shows and creating art on the walls. Girls ate healthy and took turns doing housework. Initially a few girls were mean but they eventually discussed their feelings and became nicer.
Hmm I’m not sure. Bullying especially is not gender specific. Have you seen how vicious teenage girls can be towards each other? Also I have had female flatmates in the past who were rubbish at keeping up their end of the cleaning schedule. I don’t think boys are as bad and smelly as you’re making out lol
shareWomen aren't the ones causing most violent crime and wars. Men are. And men are much more competitive and alpha than women. Younger women can be catty and more dramatic, but older women get along fine and tend to leave their husbands behind and go on trips together. They're much more social.
Great experiment with a boys house vs girls house. Definitely worth a watch:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bCePbRdQmbE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0gkiUF6liYQ
There was also a leadership experiment with college students. Again, males tended to be more aggressive and authoritarian. Females tended to allow men to lead. There is a reason why women only groups formed. Men wanted to dominate and shut women out. Women complained about that all the time.