i'm not sure but if a woman is elected president of our country ,you can be sure this will be one less guy to worry about in america!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Canada here i come!!
2007-11-07 10:24:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
7⤋
Well to answer your question from a woman's perspective. We'd probably do better than the men who moved over to the other countries. Why? Because women have more logic (scientifically proven) then men do. Plus, looking at our current president (a man) do you honestly think a woman would stupidly send people off to a war that they have yet to prove anything about? No, we wouldn't. Women like facts, and like to know whats going on before ever deciding things, unlike the majority of men who would quickly like to jump into things.
Plus, on the first part of your question you made very little sense. Unless all the men in the world became gay, they would need women to "start a family" with.
Do you not see that in order for there to even be another human brought into the world, you'd need both men and women? So, therefore all of society would eventually die out and the human race would cease to exist. Which includes men too, if you didn't already figure that.
2007-11-07 18:26:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Syn 2
·
3⤊
3⤋
You do realize that during the last Wold War, it was the women who stayed back, working in factories, in the fields; producing food and bullets; supporting the war effort and the national economy, while the men went off to play cowboys, don't you?
Why do you think if they could make a country work in such dire times, that it would be otherwise in peace time?
ETA: I would also like to point out that even if there were only women left on earth, they would still be able to perpetuate the human race via artificial insemination.
The same obviously cannot be said for the inversed situation.
2007-11-07 18:23:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by cixi 2
·
5⤊
2⤋
I believe that women can run their lives, their state, and their country without the help of a man.
Think of this: many women work, handle finances, raise children, all while holding down a job, without the benefit of a man.
When WWII broke out, Rosie went to work helping to make airplanes. With all the women in government today, along with holding a position of authority in many of our Fortune 500 companies, I think women would do a great job in spite of the lack of men.
No men, ha! No dirty clothes to pick up and no obnoxious beer bottles and pizza boxes left to clean up. Also, no loud shrieking when a football player fumbles (who needs football anyway). As far as sexual pleasures are concerned, women know where to buy a self-enjoyment gadget. Try Brookstone's.
2007-11-07 18:26:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Juanitaville 5
·
5⤊
2⤋
Women hold extremely important and vital roles within society.
It's not like women continue adhering to men's wishes today, as they did in the past. In today's society women are powerful, ambitious, and leaders. These aspects sometimes prove to be higher within women, then in men.
Maybe you should consider restating your question to, "How Long could women or men survive?" Instead of lowering the value of women.
I find it comical that you said the men were to run to "New lives and families," supporting that men greatly rely upon women to run their lives.
2007-11-07 18:33:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by Daniyello 2
·
2⤊
2⤋
remain as is.....or reach an new higher level that can only be obtained when the obstacle of macho power loving men are removed??
hope you got the drift of that answer but probably not since you are a man and ,given you question, you fall in the dumber then a woman group with the other 85% of american men
2007-11-07 18:24:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by ... 4
·
5⤊
2⤋
You are not necessarily a sexist. It is only a sexist's attitude that would think so. Your question is, phrased more directly, "would society remain civil if all the single people of one sex or the other were to vanish?"
The answer is that there would be strife. We are social beings and we desire company.
Added: It seems that several responders failed to note that your question requires the *married* men to remain. Please forgive their little oversight.
2007-11-07 18:23:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by ʄaçade 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
sounds like a plan. women have been multitasking since before the word existed. i say go for it and don't let the door hit you in the *** on the way out.
i know lady mechanics, carpenters, electricians so on and so forth...
there are only 2 things that come to mind when needing a man around, its nice when they hand over their paychecks and we need their help in making babies
2007-11-07 19:21:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Cymbaline 5
·
4⤊
2⤋
You all take off and we'll see how it goes. You have enough trouble getting the lives and relationships here to work. You relocating isn't going to help you. We'd actually be better off. We could worry about our own happiness instead of constantly trying to please our man and keep him happy.
2007-11-07 18:49:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by shellshell 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Feeling a little angry and frustrated with the female gender?
Try getting along with them and trying to understand them rather than banging heads with them. They are great to have around so I for one wouldn't be leaving. Just imagine all that affection for me. Oh and yes. They'd probably do really well - especially without you. ---- MM.
2007-11-07 18:23:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Christian 2
·
6⤊
1⤋
Trust me... we'd not only survive, but this country would finally get a grip on the world. Wars would end immediatly... Plus we have enough sperm banks nationwide to last us till the end of time. I dont think anyone would have to worry about men not being around. Really... women can do EVERYTHING guys can do, so I dont see how it would make all that much difference economically speaking.
2007-11-07 18:24:23
·
answer #11
·
answered by Angel Eve 6
·
5⤊
5⤋