How do you think a country dominated by women would look like?

Well, the country is fictional, and the story is set like 50 years in the future. There were two things that lead to the sort of revolution where women completely took over - a war which destroyed the country to the point that the economy, social and political system completely collapsed, and scientific progress thanks to which men are no longer needed for reproduction. Now the whole political scene are women, the society is misandrist, and men are treated basically like things (think the position of women in Middle Ages, but worse) - they cannot own any property or even can't have actual money, cannot own any weapons, the jobs they can do are very limited etc. The families as we know them are rare, and they basically exist only within the "poor" people. With children it's basically reverse of the Middle Age: only daughters are considered being the "valuable" offspring, only daughters can go to school, there are women who give birth to the children and then other women who take care of them, before they are sent to some sort of boarding school and brought up collectively by the pedagogists there. It's intended to create a society where people are not "attached" to each other.

I would like to get some insight on how you would imagine living in such world would be, for example:

- What do you think would be different from the current situation - do you think the government would concentrate more on social system, health care, etc.? How would the cities look like?
- If the marriage still existed, at least within the "poor", do you think that custom could still survive or that it would die off? The men, as they can't have any personal possession actually (if they're single, they're given tokens for food and necessary things, but I assume if married the wife would be supposed to support the family financially), would be fully financially dependent on the women, so do you think it could still be overcome or that it would be too much of an obstacle?
- How would such "no attaching to persons" influence the society? They do form "friendships" among the classmates, colleagues etc., they have authorities in the pegagogists, but there's no real mother figure.
- What would the young girls have to be told or how would they have to be "brainwashed" to actually hate men and think of them as of things? It would be maybe natural to some point as they would see it around them, but it's probably inevitable that they would once learn that it wasn't always like that?
- How would they keep that state? It took women hundreds of years to emancipate, but there was no precedent before. Now if there is one, how they would go about it?

Don't feel obliged to follow the points, tell me whatever you can think of :) Many thanks in advance!

Fifty years is a bit...short. I mean, it took thousands of years for misogyny to form into how it's seen today. Even then, there are certain developments in which misogyny has undergone. Also, who would organize this revolution? And if men don't make any part of reproducing, why have them in the first place? In the Middle Ages, women were a liability. If men are viewed in the same way and technology can control the populations, what stops society from preventing the birth of males?

Also, how does science progress, despite the fact that the economy collapsed?

Er, anyhow, I suppose the fastest way to make people irrationally hate other groups of people is to point out their differences and make them seem evil/dirty/defective. Use lots of pseudo-science in order to "prove" that men are somehow defective. Make fun of how they look, dress, talk, walk, etc. Make anything resembling the male form shameful but something to put on display. Attack any woman with male traits. Have men attack other men for acting like men. Attribute typically male activities to the lowest form of work. Devalue anything men have contributed towards the world (this could get messy unless there's a new world order where women reinvent everything from scratch...which wouln't make much sense in the context of your world so nevermind). Show how women are affected negatively through misandry (seriously, any type of hate hurts everybody...because it's hate).

Language would also have to change drastically. While you don't have to include this, it is important to notice how people speak, considering that you're creating a system that is set up to dehumanize half the world's population.

There are actually cultures that are based on matriarchy.
I think the Naxi in china and a group in India.
While the chinese people are apparently at ease, the family lives in the woman's house, men and all, the uncles and such are the male role models for the children.....
The Indian group seems to have some major issues with men feeling inferior. Pretty much a mirror image to Western civilization in terms of women's rights.
There was an article not too long ago, but I can't fight it. it was interesting reading...men's rights....

My immediate idea is that you shouldn't make it too extreme, especially if it's only 50 years from now. And even if you make it 500 years from now, things won't be too different. I think (and feel free to ignore this entirely of course LOL) the sequence of events would be:
1 -- somehow men are overthrown. There is quite a violent suppression of men and all imagery that even alludes to male power. Women who feel that men should have some (any!) kind of superiority are looked down upon as misogenistic (even when they point out that men are physically stronger by sheer anatomy). Boys might even get crippled to prevent them from being physically superior (I believe, but could be very wrong, that with the Greek Amazons boys had their legs broken at birth so they would be cripples).
TIME: Generations 1 and 2
2 -- an uneasy truce is formed. Men who are willing to work with women and who have good ideas will be listened to. Women will still fall in love, and even if they are now the ones doing all the conquering, there is no accounting for what love might do (the queen of the Amazons fell in love with Hercules (?) because he was so handsome, and she was quite happy to be dominated to some extent by this powerful guy -- of course the story was written by the excruciatingly mysogenistic Greek so the Amazons were never portrayed as a very sympathetic group of people anyway ...)
Also, don't forget that any organisation that has only women or only men is inherently quite unstable > the best businesses have both men and women in places of power, and they balance each other. Men will be allowed to have some voice.
TIME: generations 3-6
3 -- we have a society much like today, only the glass ceiling exists for men. So, yeah, there will be war (over shoes if we're not careful *eyeroll*), there will be religious prosecution, only it's now by women. I think that, unless you can change people, there isn't going to be such a difference in the long run.
TIME: after that.

- How would such "no attaching to persons" influence the society? They do form "friendships" among the classmates, colleagues etc., they have authorities in the pegagogists, but there's no real mother figure.

I think that would destroy society. People don't cope well without mother figures (a man can be a mother figure, by the way) especially in the early years of life. Without touch, comfort, kindness, speech in their early years, people grow up socially and psychologically stunted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_deprivation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_deprivation_experiments I'm giving you wikipedia pages because I can't find the study I want. Loneliness leads to depression, illness, etc. Emotional bonds are important. Fifty ears of political change is not going to change tens of thousands of years of social and psychological evolution.

Also, even if women no longer need men to reproduce, that doesn't change the fact that people have a biological drive for sex, and most people even (gasp!) enjoy it. Unless all women simultaneously became lesbians, most would still want men around for sex. The fact that men are not needed for reproduction would NOT lead to their becoming irrevelevant to society. Besides, by inference, there's the nasty conclusion that women only really want babies and only want men (sex) as long as men (sex) give them babies. Do you really want to give feminists that kind of bone to pick on when they read your novel?

I would find it hard to believe that it turned into an unattached society when women take over. As they are emotional beings and are strongly attached to many things, especially their children. It has been proven over and over that humans need that kind of emotional attachment.
Even if that did happen and women did rule, I would say it wouldn't be any different than how it is now. Why? Because they are in turn being power hunger, strong, looking down on men. It sounds like it is really ran by selfishness. So why would the world improve any if they are being so spiteful like that? If they don't care about men or having children (which is a normal thing to want for a woman.) why would they care anymore about how money is spent, health systems, and things like that?
Of course not everyone will believe that way. Not all men back in the dark ages hated their wives and treated them as property. Marriage has survived then, it will in the future.

I am writing a novel that takes place in a country that has been dominated by women for thousands of years. It is, with some small exceptions, exactly like the countries dominated by men, just the other way round. Why should it be any different?

50 years into the future...well, okay, men would have to be oppressed violently for an amount of time, probably more than 50 years, before they just accept the situation as status quo. There will be rebellion. And not just of the good and honourable kind, either. There are men who consider themselves oppressed in our today's, male-dominated society! Imagine the uproar if they were really oppressed!

Also, why should women do this? Just because we don't need men for reproduction (actually, to my knowledge, we don't need them now, it's just easier) doesn't mean we can't like them.

I suggest you make some scientist find out that men suffer from a serious lack of self-control (You know, that kind of lack that they always mention when they just couldn't keep themselves from cheating their wife...), and a female dictator who draws the conclusion that men are not fit for decision-making due to that fact. Men are no longer given responsibility, women slowly take over all positions of power...and men are restricted to the house, because, after all, you cannot trust them to do nothing stupid outside.

That would, of course, not keep average women from loving their husbands and sons. They would start to develop a sense of superiority, especially the girls who grow up with schoolbooks in which all important decisions are made by women, and men rarely turn up outside the kitchen. But they wouldn't suddenly start to hate men. Quite the reverse, possibly. After all, they would never have a male boss who is an asshole, never have male classmates they can't stand...they would look down on men, surely, but it would take more than 50 years to make a slight sense of superiority turn into outright contempt towards the whole gender.

And I also see no reason why the government should want to brainwash them into hating men. PItying men for their lack of self-control and inferiority would be enough to justify what's done.

Well...of course, if there were still lots of male rapists, some man-hating might develop, since women who no longer view men as superior would attribute such a crime to the inferiority to men...maybe resulting in very strict upbringing of boys and (possibly) beating of sons and husbands.

/Devil's advocate on.

I wouldn't buy the whole detached from each other angle. The problem I see is the women have a tenancy to pull groups together, socially. They tend to also prefer to approach problems as groups, etc. From what I've witnessed in my life, it seems that any random group of women can find enough common ground to pull together and work together to get things done when it really counts. It's part of the herd mentality, greater numbers equal greater safety, especially when there are children around. It's a throw back to humans being herd animals. You would basically have to throw out a core instinctive behavior and that would ruin the believability factor for me.

But... In a vanity driven society, when image is everything, beauty is priceless, toss all of that out that out the window. Let the ruthless competition to mate successfully take root and become a driving force. Children become baggage, other people tools to get them what they want. Oh yes, removed from their baser instincts women can be tyrants. Is that the general character of the women in your society? Vane, selfish and arrogant to a fault?

Also, unless she's seriously defective as a mother, she's going to want to nurture your own offspring. It's also part of the instinctual drive to reproduce. She needs to get pregnant, she needs to raise children. Your forgetting basic human psychology, you would wouldn't have to explain it in your book but you better have a good explanation in your notes about how these folks managed to overcome this basic fact of human nature. Maybe only the upper crust of society cast their offspring off to be raised by others, that's what happened in mid-evil times by royal families. It was the middle and lower classes that always defined family. If they are doing the same things at all levels of society, it would take a long time to break tradition and basic psychology to come up with mothers that are willing to go through the rigors of pregnancy without reaping any of the rewards.

I would be more likely to buy a situation where women pressed for equal treatment and fair play for everyone. I would also think there would be a heavy focus on raising the quality of living for everyone. Women tend to be more giving, they want to help everyone one around them. It's part of the maternal instinct. They are the glue in human society, men's social behavior revolves around the women in their social group. If women become isolated and disconnected they often fall prey to predators in society, rapists and abusers. Again, the human herd mentality of safety in numbers. A selfish person is a horrible parent, they often isolate themselves. Perhaps that is a key element to how your society became the way they are, selfish people molded it into the shape you are presenting to the reader.

Because you don't need men to reproduce doesn't make them useless. Who's going to do the heavy labor, you don't find a lot of women digging ditches by hand. I'm sorry, it's honestly true. If they can get a guy to grab the shovel, they'll be more than happy to stand back and direct where the dirt goes. That's probably a much more honest way to develop their social situation. Men become second class citizens, but still very much part of the day to day life. I wouldn't emasculate them either, because it's entirely possible for a woman to take the lead without taking away his masculine identity.

Men can take great pride in their work, their work being a considerable chunk of how they see themselves. Have the women in your world put on the suits and the men put on their work gloves. It's not entirely unbelievable that both groups would be perfectly happy with this arrangement. In fact, some men actually prefer if his feminine better half takes care of the details while he takes care of the heavy lifting. A lot of women assume control of their relationships this way. He may wear the crown, but she's the power behind the crown, that saying is true for lots of reasons. What if she decides to wear the crown herself?

Taking away rights creates a believable method of making a group become second class citizens. Controlling who can make decisions, who can own what, who can be educated to what degree, and in what subjects can easily shift power. There is good reason why people in power want to limit the quality of education the people they reign over have, stupid people are easier to control through herding. This is a key factor in many societies where one group is repressed. Its hard to see that someone thing is unfair if don't know that it can be done a different way. The problem with your premise is that there is clear evidence that it can be done a different way. Unarmed, uneducated masses have effectively destroyed and dismantled governments and other positions of power just by being unwilling to participate. How did your people deal with those that did not want to conform to this new way of life?

Maybe the men are treated as objects, or possessions. Still not necessary going to make them obsolete. They can fetch water, or wash feet, do all the dirty work. That does not remove their importance, because they are doing work that someone else thinks they are too good to do themselves. Slaves actually developed a sense of identity and self worth once they begin to realize how critical their role in their social group actual is, what would happen if they didn't do their job. Misguided loyalty is still loyalty.

Honestly, I realize it's fantasy, but the logic is seriously flawed. I couldn't read it because the idea of not needing men once a scientific method of impregnating women is created is hallow at best. What happens if there is another major war and they loose the ability to use their scientific means to impregnate themselves. Crap, there goes humanity? While you can argue that one man can impregnate dozens of women, you still have to odds to consider and that is a serious problem to overcome. Also, you're talking about 50% of births, human population on it's own without intervention maintains an almost 50/50 balance. How do you explain a sudden shift favoring more girls born than boys? What do they do when it turns out that a child is male? If the answer does not appear in print, you should have that answer in your notes ready to back up the argument against your hottest critics which would call you out on details like that.

What about the naturally submissive women? Some women just don't want to take the reigns, can't even force them into a situation where they have to lead because they just are not mentally or physiologically built to lead. What happens in that situation?

Another ugly truth to think about. Men have basic instincts to consider as well. He was designed to get as women pregnant as possible. Infinite variety improves survivability. Men are even programed to force women to reproduce if necessary, its such a biologic imperative that during times of great stress our bodies will respond to this basic imperative whether we want to participate or not, many victims can testify how their bodies betrayed them. In short, if men are not getting any at all, they are going to find it somewhere unless society shames them into being psychologically being unable to function even at a primitive level. Sex based crimes would sky rocket, as well as violence unless there is a mechanism put into place to train these guys to ignore their basic fundamental purpose for existence.

Men also need an outlet to vent their aggression. Sports replaces bare fisted brawling for the right to mate. How does your society deal with this issue. Even emasculated men compete for the right to mate. If not allowed to manifest through an acceptable situation that can lead to all sorts of social discord.

There is lots of research into social behavior that demonstrates why you see more societies dominated by men. You should research those mechanics because I think would help you develop a much more believable world.

*Rolls out a white board*
You may need that.

/Devil's Advocate off

I think the story could be awesome, but right now it's a hallow idea that needs some support to give it a truly three dimensional feel to the reader. One of the lessons I had to learn is that when you build a world you have to answer a lot of questions you will never put into print. Those questions help to make the world more real to you as the writer, that comes out with logical responses and actions in the story that makes that invisible support feel more solid on paper.

One thing that might help you on your quest is to map out a timeline of back history, find all the pivotal moments that steered your society in the direction it went. Social order does not develop spontaneously, its a reaction to pressures applied to the group. Focus on hardships that your people had to overcome and how they may have solved those problems.

Example: The war created a condition that impacted the Y chromosome mutate and when passed on left males sterile, impotent or otherwise unfit to reproduce. The HAD to come up with a scientific method to reproduce or face extinction.

Example: War decimated population tipped the balance in favor of women at a ratio of 3 to 1, with a numbers advantage they literally outvoted men stripping them from positions of power relegating them to manual labor.

Example: Women became rare, increasing their value to humanity and putting them in a position of power and of course to be protected. That position stayed even as population rebalanced.

Example: Selective breeding altered the fundamental herd roles, making men prefer a more submissive role.

Hopefully I've given you a few things to think about.

...and no, I honestly don't believe half the garbage I put into the devil's advocate section, otherwise I wouldn't be married with kids. :-D

Excuse me, her royal highness is demanding worship in the form of ice cream and foot massage. :-D

TC

TC, I'm glad you don't believe half that stuff, because 1) humans are not herd animals like horses or or most herbivores, and as far as our evolutionary relatives, they were probably troop animals like other living primates (such as chimps) as well as a few unrelated species.

And 2) there is a tribe in Africa, the Aka, in which women and men do about as the same share of the hunting with women possibly being more proficient. I'm not sure if the Aka are same tribe I heard about before but can't seem to find, but there is a tribe where women are considered naturally better at physical labor because women, in their view, have a higher tolerance for pain and more stamina (both of which have been confirmed by Western science, incidentally). In fact, in that tribe, Western gender roles are almost reversed completely, with men being polite, soft-spoken, subservient to their wife/wives and demur, while women are expected to take charge and be active outside the house.

So while unlikely, it is far from impossible or even implausible.

So, while I don't think this society would be likely, it is possible as something similar

If you want a good read that might spark some ideas, Sheri Teppers' "The Gate To Women's Country" is about a society where women live in cities and men have a nomdic, hunter-gatherer existence.

It's a very interesting concept to explore. Another book suggestion is HERLAND by Charlotte Perkins Stetson Gilman

Written in 1915, "the book describes an isolated society composed entirely of women who reproduce asexual. The result is an ideal social order, free of war, conflict and domination."

Download here if you're interested
http://manybooks.net/titles/gilmanchetext92hrlnd10.html

Sorry if I'm about to repeat something that's already mentioned (it's early morning and I can't sleep, so forgive me).

1. There was never matriarchy on Earth. Never. There are and were matrilinear societies, but not matriarchal in a way of female dominance the way you describe it.

2. Seeing world as male dominance / female oppression is too narrow. Instead of focusing on male rights that were denied to women, think about the rights many women enjoyed in patriarchy that might not have outside of it (namely, that they don't have to work - somebody else was required to support them all their lives). But seeing you got rid of the men completely, it's not this situation.

3. It is true that many things we take for granted when it comes to gender are just our culture's ideas that not all cultures share. For examples, Ancient Greeks believed women have a much stronger sexual urge than men (and that are, therefore, unable to control themselves the way men can). This was, btw, one of the reasons they were kept, well, more or less locked up - you can't let a horny, uncontrollable creature like that to wander around or, worse, decide about anything important. (<- I'm exaggerating. But you get the idea).

Also, the idea that women are physically weaker than men is a relatively new one, at least when it comes to who should carry a heavy weight. Traditionally, women were the ones carrying heavy bags and stuff; that was seen as shameful for a man to do.

4. Any comparison with animals is crap. Please, don't even go in there. First of all, animals are so diverse in their behavior and you just can't make many comparisons between species. For example, many people like to point that men are "naturally" incapable of being fateful, because animals like lions or cats have sex with all the females, while females are "naturally" meant to be non-promiscuous (while in fact, a female would often mate with whatever male is available, sometimes with multiple males in a day). Similarly, with animals, males are the ones who are "pretty" (nice feathers, mane, bright colors, etc.), and females are the plain ones. Males show females how pretty they are as a part of a mating ritual. With humans, females are the ones who are expected to "prettify" themselves. So just please forget about the animals.

Ok, and now about your questions:

- What do you think would be different from the current situation - do you think the government would concentrate more on social system, health care, etc.? How would the cities look like?

The main difference - there would be no urinals in public bathrooms. Seriously. Why would women focus more on social system and health care than the men? Granted, however they reproduce now would be important and if it's still a 9 month pregnancy they would have more rights here (to stay home, work from home, etc). But I honestly don't see any major change when it comes to government. Women can be as cruel as men or focused on war. It depends on their economy (are they a capitalist society?) Are they slave owners (are men their slaves?)

- If the marriage still existed, at least within the "poor", do you think that custom could still survive or that it would die off? The men, as they can't have any personal possession actually (if they're single, they're given tokens for food and necessary things, but I assume if married the wife would be supposed to support the family financially), would be fully financially dependent on the women, so do you think it could still be overcome or that it would be too much of an obstacle?

It depends on how men are seen. Are they slaves? If they are no needed for reproduction, there's no need for marriage, but somebody (their slave owner) needs to take care of them (well, as much as you care about a slave) so they can continue to work for them. If they are like women in the past... But I can't imagine this, UNLESS they are needed for reproduction. In which case women would have to support them and marriage would exist. Man's main goal would be to find a wife so he would be financially taken cared of, but his mother and other women would decided on this. However, since you say they aren't needed for reproduction... Not sure. You can use men in your culture for slave work and stuff nobody else wants to do. But then you have to assume that a mother would be more than ready to give her child into slavery if it turns out to be male. Which is totally plausible (it happened before), but it was never that ALL female children were slaves and ALL male ones were future slave owners. I think the "men not needed for reproduction" part is what's confusing here. (Is it vital for the story they aren't needed for reproduction?)

- How would such "no attaching to persons" influence the society? They do form "friendships" among the classmates, colleagues etc., they have authorities in the pegagogists, but there's no real mother figure.

I don't get where "no attaching to persons" came from. You mean for the men, who live in slavery?

- What would the young girls have to be told or how would they have to be "brainwashed" to actually hate men and think of them as of things?

Just look at them. They aren't good for anything but carrying heavy furniture and cooking our food. They have no mental capabilities to live on their own so they need us to help them. Blah, blah. The usual crap. One would think some things are "obvious" (that men aren't less capable of women), but it isn't so. Think how many people STILL believe that, say, black people are of a lower intelligence than the whites, or that they are more prone to violence, or that they never had a rich culture the way Europeans did. How come people can't see how ridiculous this sounds? Because they grew up - and still are growing up - in societies that are product of a specific time. Obviously, if you are a stronger economic force you would praise your inventions and ridicule those made by a different culture. Not to mention a slave that struggles his whole life to survive can't have the same time to think about philosophy like his master so obviously would appear as less educated/intelligent.

Trust me, making them think men are useless and that they are doing them a favor for making them into slaves is, sadly, very realistic and goes without saying.

- It would be maybe natural to some point as they would see it around them, but it's probably inevitable that they would once learn that it wasn't always like that?

It would be seen as a blah blah blah, men whine again about "their time". It's better this way anyway, so they should be happy we liberated them from their mess.

- How would they keep that state? It took women hundreds of years to emancipate, but there was no precedent before. Now if there is one, how they would go about it?

If they have the most power and hold economy into their hands it's easy. Seriously, just because they have ovaries instead of testicles doesn't make them inherently different when it comes to ruling. Now, if you want to create a different economy/political system, that's another matter, but it's not gender specific.

All in all, cool idea, but you need to polish many details. If your men are slaves, for example, read more about societies that practiced slavery (Roman empire, Transatlantic slavery) to learn more about master-slave relations. Because if men are slaves, the conflict isn't about gender but slavery. If your men aren't slaves, that's another thing.

That being said, 50 years do seem too short, but it's not THAT unreasonable. Take modern "communism" for example. It had spread pretty quickly and it lasted less than a century (well, in most cases). The thing is, it did just come out of nowhere but once it was there, you could say it changed a lot in said parts of the world for less than 50 years.