Cherful, you've got the right sort of idea, in that women ARE society, but for the most part they don't want to be "empowered", they just want to be safe and secure, well-fed and well-housed and with noone bothering them while they go about the business of life.

The problem is that men want the same thing, but they are programmed to be the protectors rather than the protected. Men have been so successful that the world is now full to overflowing. In the past, if a community was overcrowded there would be somewhere to expand. That is why humans cover the planet. however, in today's world everywhere good is already taken, so problems fester.

We need to work out how to satisfy the drives of men and women in a world where there is plenty of everything except room to breed and expand.

Any ideas?

To all those who disagree with the writings of Marylin Shepard on OLO, they will be pleased to know that she now has come under fire from readers for her writing to the S.A. daily Advertiser for her beliefs, which she is entitled to, on illegal asylum seekers.

Salpetre

I totally agree Salpetre. I have thought for a long time that
the best way to handle huge immigration is through bringing in
100,000's of women. The natural follow-on to that of course
is allowing men to have more than one wife. I can't see that
being accepted too readily by Western Society. Especially the female
population.

Biologically though,in a country wishing to rapidly increase
it's population it makes sense.
After all, a harem with one million men
and only one female can still only produce one baby a year. So it
is the number of females in a society that allow huge
and quickly growing populations.

Bringing in only women would ensure that there was no threat
of ethnic cleansing and civil war in the future. No bomb attacks
either.

I know that this idea of bringing in only women would never be
accepted by Western women and as a woman I can understand why,
so it is probably no use trying to solve the problem this way.
There are economic practicalities also, that might arise from a change in marriage arrangements,
plus Christian religious objections.

It's a good idea for ensuring a peaceful, future, Australia but although it makes perfect biological sense, the idea of polygamy
would probably cause too much of a shocked reaction in developed
countries.

Antiseptic,

You are right in saying men are the protectors and
the defenders but this tends to cross over into being
controlling and thinking they own women.

By saying empower women, I don't necessarily mean that they
should replace men or be without them. And in Australia
and Western countries they do have the power over their
own fertility and access to jobs and financial assistance if
abandoned by their husbands. Plus equal treatment under the
law. A right to education also.

That's all I am saying,
that women in the countries who contribute to this huge world
over-population(7billions) world wide and rising, need
to have just the basic empowerments I mentioned above.

Then, watch the population of the world drop dramatically
over the coming century. Also watch a lot of the world problems
fade away as the population pressures ease over the coming centuries.
Watch the wildlife and threatened species spring back to life.

Read the post I wrote to Saltpetre, Antiseptic you'll enjoy my polygamy solution to the refugee problem. Unless you think
too many wives would drive you crazy and empty your wallet.
Look on the bright side, you can send them all out to
work and they can keep you.

"You are right in saying men are the protectors and
the defenders but this tends to cross over into being
controlling and thinking they own women. "

followed by

"in Australia
and Western countries they do have the power over their
own fertility and access to jobs and financial assistance if
abandoned by their husbands."

Who thinks they own who?

Cherful,

I take your "bring in the women" solution is tongue in cheek....ha, ha.

Can you tell me of any society where the ratio of the genders is so far out of kilter...(notwithstanding China and their one child policy which has led to a significant skewing of the ratio - (I believe it's between 110-120 live male births for every 100 live female births)....and there will be ramifications as this continues.

"Watch the wildlife and threatened secies spring back to life."

Considering the per capita per hectare footprint of countries like the US and Australia is something like eight times that of a developing country, you'd better start examining "all" the reasons for the threatened extinction of species - more often than not stemming from rampant industrialisation and consumerism.