Aren't they the dominant gender already?

Meh, I don't think there would be a big difference... Perhaps a few things on the history of the world could be different, but, besides that... No differences at all.

Is there an implication that men are the dominant gender now? Sure, men were considered dominant before, but come on. I don't see a single relationship where the guy isn't the one constantly being tricked, manipulated, and pushed around (my marriage included ) Really, they just let us think we are in charge, but they are the real boss here. 

warmaker : Haha. Naw, it was a figure of speech. I don't really feel that way . 60/40 sounds about right for me as well.

ESPN wouldn't be as popular now as it is if females were the dominant gender, I'd say.
Politics would be better off.
Economics would be better off.
Education... I don't think that would have been affected, honestly.
Scientifically? I have no idea.

I say ESPN wouldn't be as popular because sports aren't such a big deal to most females. As far as politics and economics go... women have a natural sense for order, which males seem to lack. At least, that's how it has been with every single male that I've ever met. Education? Does it matter? Scientifically? I know very little about, so.. not going to be putting my two cents in there.

Imagine hell , then double it ! That would be it ..

I guess instead of living in skyscrapers, more people would live in really deep vertical tunnels.

I honestly couldn't picture that. A girl bossing me around mann i'll feel like a lil punk.

I personally believe there would be more chaos now if women where in charge of the would.  A natural deposition have it were women aren't very stern in there ways of ruling.  Therefore I believe that many of the things that we have now would not exist.

I believe if the females were the dominant gender for the sports, there would be less football, baseball, or even hockey and soccer. I think the only big sport could be softball, or the games would have female only games instead of vice versa today.

Whoooaaa....what a loaded question!
I many be a 'girl' myself, but might I mention how very petty most girls tend to be?

I was just discussing with someone today that yes.....girls mature faster than boys, but they also worry about the most ridiculous things!  I'm sure Mr. Pace is right....there are many things in place (policies with a firm hand) that most certainly wouldn't be in place if women were the dominant gender.

Most grown women tend to have soft spots for one thing or the other.

And if women were the dominant gender?
Can you IMAGINE how catty politics would be?  YOWCH!

I actually disagree with the assessment of ESPN being significantly less popular. We're talking about females being the dominant gender for the past several centuries, not erasing the existence of males entirely. The guys would still BE HERE. And thus would still organize into the activities they enjoy and watch the programs they enjoy on TV. This means you would still have the same demand for sports broadcasts. It's not like there aren't plenty of female-geared shows on TV that are very popular with the situation being as it is. Why would reversing it magically decrease the popularity of shows that are targeted towards the male audience?

Also, you have to consider the possibility that men developed a taste for sports sooner than and more frequently than females having a close connection to what the historical dominance was. If females were the dominant ones instead, who's to say WE wouldn't be the ones developing interest in the things that are stereotypically male? If you reverse the roles, that sort of thing could happen. This is another reason for sports to be popular still. It would be the women playing them instead of the men and the more dominant personalities making these games more often played amongst the female crowd instead. If the majority of men had submissive personalities, they wouldn't be the ones engaging in rougher activities.

Think about what created the historical roles in the first place. Men took up the task of hunting and females took the task of child care (being the ones to actually bare the children). Through hunting, you build physical strength which makes it easier to physically dominate one who has not built that strength. In some animal species, the females are the hunters and thus the dominant party and do all the things typically associated with the male role.

mr.pace :

That is false. Women do not have a natural disposition to be "less stern in ruling" any more than males have a natural disposition to be gay. Just a quick example into what I am referring to: the majority of the families that I know have a male alpha. The majority of them are lazier, the kids behave worse, and the dad is either not there at all or playing with the kids and inciting issues. The families that I know around here with a female alpha are actually controlled and better behaved. The houses are cleaner, the kids behave better and do what they are told...

On the flipside, I know families where "dad" is like "mom" and vice-versa where the mom is never around, etc. There's also the issue of there seem to be more "daddy-less" families than "mommy-less" families. The daddies like to go run off, party, and leave the family to the mommy to take care of.

If your statement was true, mr.pace, then "Dad" would be around more often. Or is it that Dad likes to be hypocritical?

Bedroom talk would be very very different from how it is now...

Also, I'd have literally no chance of landing a job. As it stands I'm a man who can't get a job... in a world run by women? I think I'd have a better chance of living the life I currently live than I already do!

The world would be a much better place as women on a whole would be smart which seems to already have been said here.