Run By Women, The World Would Be Better and More Fun

History would have been better had women been the dominant sex.

Posted Mar 17, 2010

Men define history as a relentless march of progress. I define it as a parade of debauchery and oppression perpetrated by a small group of  bloodthirsty lunatics with penises, interrupted by the very occasional humanitarian achievement.

History would have been entirely different, more fun, and lots better, if women had been the dominant sex.

Unfortunately, the die was cast from the earliest stirrings of civilization. The women were squatting in caves and yurts, conceiving babies, birthing babies, nurturing babies. They turned to the men and said, we're busy in here perpetuating the species -- go, get out of the house. Find something to do. Make history. So the men went out and got into trouble.

That's history. History is men bumbling out of the house and getting into trouble. History, as recorded by men, has traditionally been a chronology of wars. Armed agression would not occur in a matriarchal society.

There would be bitchiness. There would be crankiness. There would be sarcastic remarks.

My point is that hostilities between nations would be entirely different things.

You would hurt the feelings of your enemies.

It might even escalate, because that is the nature of the human species. In time, regrettably, societies would develop weapons of mass hurt feelings. These would be cruel, I do not deny it. You would make sweeping, public statements about the children in the other country. "Your children are ugly and have bad table manners."

Then you would feel terrible, and you'd talk about it. There'd be a lot of communication. In a matriarchal society, and the telephone would have been invented very, very early, right after the wheel.

But my key point is, no wars, in part because no one would want anyone else's land. Why would you want someone else's land? You can visit. If you own it, it's just more to clean.

I am not saying a matriarchal society would be perfect. I am saying it would be vastly more peaceful. No society run by women is sending its sons and daughters to be slaughtered by the sons and daughters of another society run by women. Control of the spice trade is not a reason for genocide. Women do not go to war over nutmeg.

Basically, women historians would not have been reduced to defining pivotal moments in history by battlefield events. Chapter 12 would not be "The Defeat of the Spanish Armada.'' That would not be the sort of thing to usher in a new era. Eras would be defined by collective realizations about the nature of harmony, goodwill, and better living through cooperation. Chapter 12 might be "When We Learned That If You Wash Your Hands You Get Sick Less." That would start an era.

"Cooking With Garlic," another era. An important pivot of history would be "The Discovery That Taking Turns Works Well In Most Situations." A major historical figure from the 1200s would be named something like "Phoebe the Nice." She would have an assistant, "Francine the Amusing." We would currently be in "The Era of Good Feeling Because of Epidural Injections."

You see? Better, more fun, and a lot less expensive, even in "The Era of Shopping as Sport."

adapted from I'm With Stupid: One Man, One Woman, and 10,000 Years of Misunderstandings between the Sexes Cleared Right Up, co-authored with Gene Weingarten, published by Simon and Schuster