Talk:RyansWorld: Matriarchy

Yrr... -wha? Danila? Is that really you? LionKimbro
 * nope sorry, this is Chaerani, as in Wikipedia:User:Chaerani, I just discovered future and tried to make a bit of contribution to the community.. how r u guys doin? Chaerani 08:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not very active at the moment. Hopefully more people will discover future and contribute. Thanks, btw. Unlike wikipedia we do welcome opinions, we just try to have a bit of a structure (separating opinions and possibilities from facts and inevitabilities), that's why your contribution was moved to scenario space. I'm glad to see that you found the main scenario page and linked it from there. And by all means, please continue contributing. Paranoid 17:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Maternalistic view of war between countries - "The country with more beautiful scenery and neat city wins"? - Anonymous

Who wrote this rubbish? Awful guesswork - makes me cringe. - Anonymous

Why not just clone women and abolish men all together. Men are obviously the root of all evil. This chick is just jealous of my dick. - Anonymous Conservative Male

I believe the tone of this article is sexist. Look at way it was written. They refer to a world where men cannot vote or own property as wonderful. I don't care how long woman have been opressed, It isn't fair to do the same thing to men. I was born with an X and Y chromosome, so they want me to grow up into a future where I can't vote because a bunch of my ancestors thought woman where property. By that same standard, as I white person I should give myself over to black people as a slave. - Anonymous White Conservative

You are right, Anon White Cons. The article is sexist, but moreover it is unrealistic. It takes the ideas of a fringe group of radicals and assumes that they will apply to an entire population. I'm sorry, but neither men nor women are going to buy into this to any calculable extent. A whole female population (probably 7 or 8 billion women at the time the article speaks of if population growth trends are correct) is not going to condemn men simply because their male ancestors did some unfair things. This article shouldn't be on the wiki as it does not represent a viable future, and is really just hyperdiscriminatory and misandric. - Anonymous Sentinent Human

"Men only rule the world because women are to busy fighting each other" In other words until women become less emotional, men have nothing to fear -A male Human being

Margaret Thatcher
Need I say more?

Margaret Thatcher IS A BITCH

This is an exemplary article?
Sorry, but this article is terrible. You horribly generalise both genders. You think an entire gender is going to band together and refuse to become pregnant? What about love? What about married couples who want to start a family together? I'm sure the bonds between men and women and the urge to reproduce massively outweigh feminist political agendas.

The social comparison is a neat collection of stereotypes. Men are incapable of diplomacy, women are peaceloving and incapable of violence (most of the women I know are more physically aggressive then the men). Men are focused, women can "multi-task" and "experience in child-rearing" is pertinent for a career(???).

"Matriarchy is better than patriarchy because restrictions in a patriarchal society are 10 times more oppressive then for adults and twice as oppressive then they are for military soldiers and convicted felons." You succeeded in quantifying oppressiveness? :P

For some reason you seem to blame patriarchy for all the evil in the world. For some even stranger reason, you seem to think herding and killing cattle is evil. It may not be pretty but it's been an integral part of agriculture for millennia and mankind would be in a much worse state without it.

The section on liberated women is laughable. Apparently, a "liberated woman" is somebody who allows their personal hygiene to slip and, instead of associating themselves with their own gender or (as is best)freeing themselves of associating with either gender stereotype, becomes "one of the guys", i.e. becoming that which they've spent centuries hating and fighting against.

These are all your opinions so I can't tell you to change them, but if this is an exemplary article then shame on Future Wiki. And I've got nothing against visions of oppressive futures filled with inequality and descrimination, but please don't write as though they're a good thing.

And have you ever even met a woman?

-Anon

lol. Write what you like Ryan, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your article, although I think this future is as highly unlikely and undesirable as it is kinda sexy. That last comment by anon was most poignant! NZUlysses 11:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

To consider this a utopian future is frightening; to believe that it would be righteous, virtuous, and exemplary (as the article declares) is laughable. This scenario is not progress - it is a return to everything bad about an uber-patriarchical society, only the genders are reversed. I would think that after such a long, hard march towards equality people would hardly want to reverse all their progress. Just goes to show that the feminists really don't know a thing about equal rights. - Anonymous

Black White Woman Man
In the book |The Great Gatsby Tom Buchanan was afraid black people would take over the world. That white people would become their slaves.

Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream.

This article is the opposite.

User:Gjeremy

This stuff is crazy, you people have to much spare time.

Deletion
This article is ridiculous. No, it is. Women are humans, they are not supernatural beings. There have been female tyrants in history, there have been female aggressors. The supposition that women will rule a happy euphoria of peace is utterly, totally ridiculous, ultra-utopianist, while being supremely sexist at the same time. I recommend the immediate deletion of this article. This isn't futurology, it's sanctioned bigotry and misandry. --195.195.166.31 18:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I say delete it or rewrite it. It is dystopian, not utopian; it is stuffed chock-full of stereotypes about both men and women. If you don't want to delete it, at least revise it to make it less biased. A fair, balanced article about a matriarchy scenario could complement Future Wiki, but this detracts from the site's value. If this were the first article I saw on the site I would probably never come back. - Alex C.

Changing gender roles
This article is way too short.

You can already see the gradual and soft gender changes taking place. Women are becoming more like men, and men are becoming more like women. There is a weird feeling that we could meet in the middle and become sexless--not good.

A more reasonable outcome in this subject would be that men simply decide to surrender to the inevitable loss of power. In gender terms, this would mean that the women would indeed be the superior in the relationship. This would not mean that they would dress like men, or act like men, but that many would continue to adopt clothing that fit their own unique feminine beauty. In contrast, men would be expected to work at the appearance not only of their homes, but of themselves as "trophy" spouses. The expected appearance would be one of beauty and elegance, and would include expressions of subordination to their women. This would mean that men would be rapidly adopting feminine wardrobes, feminine mannerisms, and feminine lifestyles. In short, men will continue their evolutionary process toward being feminized. This will occur initially and primarily at home, but will increasingly occur in public until it is mandated by law.

Absurd
Look, I'm all for women taking on an equal role in the world, but this is absurd. Its not more liberal to move to a matriarchy, its just as bad as a truly patriarchal society. Now the role of men in the home changing doesn't seem too bad, but the idea of denying men the right to vote is insane.

Men are warmongers; they don't deserve to vote or be in politics. Get used to it.


 * Um, are you sure about that? There have been plenty of peaceful and liberal men. And some women are warmongers, too (but probably more men). I agree with the anon who wrote the first comment here. I mean I'm fine with women having jobs better than men, female prime ministers and presidents, but I agree, this is absurd. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Men are warmongers; they don't deserve to vote or be in politics. Get used to it."


 * Ghandhi, do I really need to say any more. And the only reason there have been more male warmongers is that there have always been more men in places of power. JosephK19 15:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. Forgot about him there. Also, MLKJ. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gross
I was just looking at the history and there's even more horrific, gross, sexist, etc. In the past history men are basically slaves to Women. This has never been done to women since the really sexist societies more than 1000 years ago. But some cannot ever be able to see, their testicles are removed, its just annoying. If any of you are sick of these sexist nonsense, I'm writing an article called TimesWorld: Gender Equality. Feel free to help out. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What scares me about that scenario is not that men might be opressed but that I can just feel how many women reading this will think "finally they get what they deserve - payback time!".

I'm not afraid of female supremacy (if its the real thing) but I am afraid of hatred towards men (or any other group) which is all I find in this article.

Matriarchy, Patriarchy And Again Matriarchy
Patriarchy society is not good. Matriarchy is nesessery for god balance between woman and man. Woman mast be centar of universe. Woman create new life and when woman is happy than man is happy also. My Theory Patriarch society is begin when man start to masturbate. Man's masturbation is very bad for woman-man relationship. Man mast desire to give woman pleasure in sexual and ordinary life. Woman is very complex and man mast be very patient. Woman mast control man's sexual and ordinary life strictly. Only that matriarchy society is be excellent.

Michael woolf


 * Please tell me you are mocking the article. If not then you need a serious reality check!
 * "Patriarchy society is not good"; true, but neither is Matriarchy.
 * "Matriarchy is nesessery for god balance between woman and man"; HOW!?! If one side has more power then how can that possibly be a good balance?
 * "Woman mast be centar of universe"; This doesn't even deserve commenting.
 * "Woman create new life"; Not without men.
 * "When woman is happy than man is happy also"; Whatever you say (!)
 * "Patriarch society is begin when man start to masturbate" Really :O So it's development throughout history has nothing to do with the fact that that is how it is in most of the rest of the mammalian animal kingdom... You do realise that even in strongly religious society's that prohibit masturbation full-stop Patriarchy is still dominate?
 * "Man's masturbation is very bad for woman-man relationship"; and woman's is not?
 * "Man mast desire to give woman pleasure in sexual and ordinary life"; Only to the same extent to which women should towards men!
 * "Woman is very complex" And men aren't?
 * "Man mast be very patient" You see this;

0| ///| / \|


 * This shows me smashing my face into a wall due to sexist stupidity overload.
 * "Woman mast control man's sexual and ordinary life strictly" If they want to achieve a world full of constant hatred and tension between the genders.
 * "Only that matriarchy society is be excellent"; I repeat,

0| ///| / \|


 * JosephK19 17:17, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally Incorrect Fact: You state that the first recorded instance of a man taking his wife's family name was in 2001. Some basic research would have shown that men taking their wife's name was fairly common in ancient Japan, and not entirely unknown of in medieval Europe. In the former, the couple used the family name of whichever family had more status, regardless of whose side it was from (c.f. Neon Genesis Evangelion, which uses this in its character names). In the latter, when the man had brothers and the woman had none, the man would occasionally take the woman's name so as to keep that family name alive.

Competition
Do you know what primates and humans all have in common? is that we are both naturally competitive over everything so in a sence humans no matter the gender or race have been competing eachother ever since the birth of civilization if you all know the beheavior of chimps you'll know what I'm talking about.

This is wrong? Coolmanvsgeek 18:47, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Female and Male Orgasm In Matriarchy
Male orgasm duration is 2-5 seconds. Female orgasm duration is 20-120 seconds. Male don't have multiple orgasm ( after orgasm refractory period is need for other orgasm) Woman can have multiple orgasm and for female orgasm to orgasm is not need refractory period. Female orgasm is ten times stronger than male orgasm. Female capability for orgasm is stronger than male capability. Male orgasm is not important for conception. Ejaculation is important but orgasm is not.

Male behavior is radicaly changed when his orgasm is restricted. Man with restricted orgasm have strong desire to give woman strong pleassure. Woman can control Man's behavior only if control man's orgasm. Ejaculation without orgasm is best for that. Man without orgasm can be truly concentrated for female pleassure. That is very important in matriarcy and produce happy women and happy mans.

Alternative Point of View
that section is both completely ignorant and offensive to me. forcing men to become women? do you at all understand how transsexualism and transsexuals actually work? people kill themselves because they are forced to live in the wrong gender. it's why people like me transition and change because i am not a dude. forcing all men to transition into women would cause massive rates in depression, suicidality and you would destroy the human fertility rate with hormonal medications that are needed for such transitioning. you'd kill off humanity when there is no more men or at least no more men producing sperm. this is also abusive of children. you never force this crap on a child. making a child live in the gender role they aren't supposed to will destroy their education, development, emotions, careers and lives. this whole section is absurdity.

LRN2READ:


 * Gender Identity Disorder
 * Transsexualism
 * Transgender
 * Transgender Transition Standards of Care
 * GID

kkthxbai TS KITTYKAITI :3 :4 lol 00:33, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of this and other RyansWorld Matriarchal Articles
There appears to be a great movement to delete this article as well as several related articles. Reasons to delete this:

1. Violation of Wikia Terms of Service. "Wikis which consist only of offensive material or personal attacks will be closed." Although this primarily mentions Wikis, It appears that they do not want offensive material posted on wikia. If a wiki of offensive information should be closed, then a page should too.

2. Offensive. It appears that the general consensus is that this page, specifically the Alternate View Section, are offensive to many members, including both males and females.

3. Unbelievable. As seen on this talk page, many people say this is unbelievable and unrealistic. The guidelines of this wiki states that entries should be "believable (based on judgment or facts)"

4. It contains information that is just wrong. For Example: "Alcohol would not be banned, but would contain some type of encoding that would sense when the imbiber's BAC (blood alcohol content) reached a specified danger point (possibly .10 to .12) and would automatically reformulate itself to become a non-alcoholic drink at that point." This is not how alcohol work, you cannot code molecules, ethanol is ethanol. Also, the only way for anything to detect if there is alcohol in the blood is to be in the blood. If it is in the blood, how can it possibly change the molecular structure of a drink outside the body? It is not only unrealistic, but impossible.

5. At the very least, the exemplary article symbol/category should be removed, as this wiki states that exemplary articles should follow the guidelines, which I have demonstrated that this wiki does not.

6. Contradictory of Rest of Scenario. RyansWorld:_Jocelyn_VanGoethem RyansWorld: Kyle Busch RyansWorld: United States of Earth RyansWorld: Dale Earnhardt III RyansWorld: Post-rock generation. All of these articles contain material that contradicts this page.

7. Obscene. This article contains detailed information about sex acts, which this wiki does not need.

We shall have a vote on whether or not to delete this article. Only registered users should be allowed to vote. If it is somehow determined that two registered users are alts, then both of their votes shall be deleted and not counted. Voting shall end in a week, any additional arguments/solutions/options may be added.

Votes For Deletion of this article and all other RyansWorld Matriarchal Articles:


 * 1) LurkerLordB 01:34, April 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) kkthxbai TS KITTYKAITI :3 :4 lol 02:29, April 1, 2011 (UTC) Dun forget entire sections are based on pure ignorance of proven sciences and medical diagnosis.
 * 3) JosephK19 19:09, April 1, 2011 (UTC) STRONG SUPPORT
 * 4) Bobalugee1940 22:31, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Alexanders 02:34, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Votes for Keeping this article and all other RyansWorld Matriarchal Articles: Votes for any other Ideas (please state Idea):
 * 1) Eduardo Sellan Brazilian 00:25, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Change the articles to possible ideas and actions Bobalugee1940 22:30, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Right I have picked the articles that fall under this vote, and removed the recently added content that supports the Matriarchy theme from articles not specifically related. The one's affected by the vote are: And obviously this one as-well. JosephK19 19:33, April 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * RyansWorld: Household Act‎
 * Scenario: The Female-Dominated Work Force of the Future
 * RyansWorld: Jill Tynan
 * RyansWorld: Rita Chirila
 * RyansWorld: The Future of Voting


 * In my opinion, the contents are not offensive, just statements. And I believe that articles should only be excluded if the intervention of administrators. And I also believe that the original text of the pages must be maintained. This can not be deleted or changed unless some admin take a position. - Eduardo Sellan Brazilian 00:35, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Official Results
A week has passed since the vote was put up, and I set a week as the length of the vote. Therefore, the votes will be tallied up:

For Deletion: 5 votes

Against Deletion: 1 vote

This is a 83% majority for deletion, therefore, the consensus is delete. LurkerLordB 21:00, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, it is COMPLEATLY inapropriate to go around users pages and say that you think they should support your view. There is nothing wrong with attempting to alert them to the vote however, and I urge you to remove the " I ask you to vote against the exclusion of certain RyansWorld articles." part from the message you posed on said pages. Furthermore, it is a fact that these pages are offensive, as people have taken offence! And yes they are sexist, they do not simply describe a sexist society, they actually say that Women are better to Men, multiple times an in many different ways. You can stop with the Nazi reference's, history books do not support the ideas of the Nazi state, the simply describe them. Infact alot of the time they condemn them. You can also stop obsessing with the Administer support as there is ONE active admin, and they don't tend to take any notice of the other activity on the wiki. Yes we will need an admin to remove the pages properly, but there opinions do not count more then any other user. Putting a disclaimer in as I have done is intended as a temporary measure. Just because someone wrote it that doesn't mean that it must not be removed. You do appear to be in a minority in your views. JosephK19 10:58, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, Eduardo, if you read what I posted, there are more reasons to delete this than it just being offensive. That is just one of 7 points, so even if you don't think it is offensive, then you should still pay attention to the other six reasons to delete it.
 * Also, the opinion of an admin is not worth anymore than an opinion of a regular user. Per the Wikia policies: "The wikis are owned by the communities. No one user owns any wiki on Wikia. Founders are those who requested a wiki be created, but ownership of that wiki resides with the community as a whole, not only with the founder." The Admin's are not "big bosses", just users trusted to enforce the rules. If you have ever been to wikipedia, then you will learn that this is how pages are deleted on Wikipedia: a normal user proposes deletion, normal users vote on it, and if a consensus to delete is reached, then it is deleted.
 * This article, towards the beginning, isn't too bad. It's not impossible that sometime in the future, women may be more likely to be employed/better educated than men (although much further in the future than this article suggests). However, the legal stuff is impossible, unless there is some page I'm forgetting called the Canadamerican civil war, which would erupt if such legislation was passed. And then towards the bottoom this page becomes less of a scenario, and some BDSM freak's personal fantasy. There are other wikis for such things.
 * However, I do think that the content of the articles should be kept until the deletion, so that people can see why to delete it. LurkerLordB 14:20, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech
Look, I don't deny that this scenario is utterly ludacris as are the other articles associated with this part of the scenario, but it has just as much a right to be here as any other scenario page. Just because something offends you are comes off as a profoundly stupid idea, doesn't mean it must be banned. Freedom of thought and discussion is one of the highest tenants of the free and open internet, and if we abandon that then if and when the FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality and this medium goes the way of radio and TV where only the powerful have control over content, then we deserve it for destroying ideas that we don't like.--YNot1989 16:34, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

But there are other reasons to delete/change this article as well. LurkerLordB 18:36, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

I dont know what to do
I dont know what to do personally, I dont like destroying people work, some people asked me to remove the content or other not, I dont want to harm anybody, but personally I dont like the article of Ryan since it is not scientific enough and too much "fantasy" and "fiction" but destroying his work is another problem. --Jonano 01:26, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

I will delete the articles
I will delete the article but before I will ask to the author to save them, and host them on another wiki or hosting. It will take about 4 days to complete the deletion, I mean I will let to Eduardo 4 days. and I will message him right now. --Jonano 03:01, April 13, 2011 (UTC)