Famous Men Who Want Women To Rule Our World
72
Recently in the Daily Express a national paper in Britain a TV critic wrote. “You don’t need to be Germaine Greer to see that today’s world with its terror plots and its financial failures is in a mess largely as a result of the gung-ho, macho values in the boardroom and in the highest offices of state.”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/249799/It-s-a-fairer-copIt-s-a-fairer-cop#ixzz1O5p1VJtY
In recent years a number of people have come to realise that
it would make a lot more sense for Women to rule the world again. Some are
famous men like the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Billionaire Ted
Turner, Author Martin Amis, and film director Michael Winner.
"Western women can come to the rescue of the world" said Dalai Lama
“Some people may call me a feminist....But we need more effort to promote basic
human values -- human compassion, human affection. And in that respect, females
have more sensitivity for others' pain and suffering.”
http://dalailamacenter.org/blog-post/western-women-can-come-rescue-world
“The world would be a peaceful place if it were ruled by women.”
“Women were by nature more inclined towards compassion,
whereas men tend to feel they have to be “macho”.
“You are basically life-giving, life-affirming. That is what you are naturally
when you are unspoilt… Women can actually make society civil.”
“Actually it is very straightforward: let women take over.”
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
http://www.zimeye.org/?p=37436
Billionaire Ted Turner (ex-husband of Jane Fonda), also said, "I've said for years and I'm really serious about it, I think men should be barred from holding public office for a hundred years. They have been running the world for the last thousands of years and they've mucked it up something awful.' I built my business surrounding myself with women. I find women more superior to men in business-"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner
"World ruled by women would be a better place," says author Martin Amis,"“I have a dream. I see a day when politics is feminised, where female values move into the public sphere in a way they haven't quite done yet,”
Film director Michael Winner, recently said in a newspaper article. "Men are ridiculous. Women are far better people. Much wiser (not difficult) and with a temperament to deal with life's complexities and men's abrasiveness... So I think it's about time women took over. What they have to put up with is beyond belief. Pathetic, bullying men who throw their weight about (and there's usually a lot of it) in a vain attempt to prove they're superior when, in truth, they know they're not."
To me all the above is blindingly obvious, men have ruled our world throughout recorded history and it has been a history of warfare, oppression, genocide and poverty, with a vast gap between rich and poor. So if men are so bad at ruling our world why are we allowing clowns like this continue to rule our world? The problem seems to be that if we look at the people who are advocating women should rule our world we find that it is always men who say this. It is very hard to find women who will say the same thing. So perhaps this is why we are stilling living in a world ruled by men. Some women will talk about matriarchy but their version of matriarchy is generally about men and women being equal. So why aren’t women coming forward as saying, “Men have messed up and do a terrible job in ruling our world, so it is about time we took over”?
There are probably two reasons for this. Five thousand years of patriarchal rule does seem to have totally undermined women’s confidence in themselves. But what has been told to me by women is that they do fear men’s violence. After all, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive and violent than women. So they do genuinely fear that if they were to stand up and declare that they should be ruling our world, they think men will react by beating up and murdering and torturing women. Like they done in the witch hunts of the Middle ages or like what is still going on in Muslim countries today, with their ‘honour killings’ of women. Because of this fear of men’s violence, it is going to be difficult for women to organize a mass movement to demand that women should be ruling our world.
Fortunately the demand that women should be ruling our world also comes from men. This is because an increasingly number of men today are realising that male rulers are totally incapable of solving the problems of our world. So if we want to live in a world ruled by women, then perhaps it is up to men to lead the way in this. It enough men come out and publically declare that women would be ruling our world, then perhaps it might give women the confidence to organize themselves in a mass movement. With men then giving them help, support and protection.
The Power Of Women
Why We Need Women To Rule Our World
 | Amazon Price: $12.46 List Price: $24.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $2.99 List Price: $16.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $15.50 |
Why Women Can Do A Better Job in Ruling the World than Men
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (14)
- Funny (9)
- Awesome (21)
- Beautiful (5)
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
Stigma31 said: "Social dynamics and religion would need to be tossed out as ways of life to fix the large majority of the problems."
Well Stigma... funny you should ask. Patriarchal social dynamics, and patriarchal maledom religions are NOT a part of Matriarchy.
Im thinking you really do NOT understand anything about Matriarchy. Atleast that is what your comment indicates. Surprise me!!!
Coming out in the open and doing so is a masculine way. The thing about the modern world is that there is this principle of equality. Unknowingly women are using the feminine way- 'infiltration' to gradually rise. Statistics say so.
http://www.womenspowerhub.com even claims a FEMOCRACY in future
Hi Stigma31, Men have been ruling this planet for the last five thousand years and never in that time thought about women ruling equally them. But when it is suggested that women should rule the world, many men like you say it should be all about equality. If men wanted equality with women it would have happened thousands of years ago.
Hi kri500, women have been using infiltration on men for thousands of years, and we still live in a world of warfare, oppression and poverty. Women need to give up such ideas and directly take power.
I think every legislating body needs to be at least 50% female in order for any laws it makes to be valid regarding women.
"Behind ever great man there is a phenomenal woman" is that the expression ? Men can lead, they just need to listen to their female counterparts. :0)
Hi LINC, yes, men can lead, like Hiler lead Germany and the rest of the world, into WW2 or George Bush lead the USA into the Iraq war. History has shown men to be useless leaders, so I cannot understand why people still want to support patriarchal rule.
Hi Wabond,
Neither modern civilization allows that, nor is that a women's way. You are asking women to use the way that men are comfortable using.
For others:
Of course there has always been clash of identities, and there is one between the sexes, but people simply followed the social rule that was thought to be appropriate. The only difference between the past and the present is that, before division of labor was seen as social ideal, now, at least in concept, it is seen in equality between the sexes. Now, taking advantage of this equality women have come up.
Yes in a de facto way women ruled before, but de jure was man the leader. His yes made the house and outside law. She was an adviser.
Sure, you can go ahead and rule the world.. Famous/unfamous I dont see any reason why men need to authenticate the capabilities of woman to rule this world.. capability is the only thing that matters.. not gender..
Having said that administration is not an easy matter.. you need to be ruthless enough, to go ahead and pass a judgement to execute a man, with a wife and children, who solely depend on him, if he is found to be guilty.... at the same time you should be strong enough not to be bent on emotion and pass a death sentence on someone who has supposedly killed a woman, when the evidence is inconclusive.. At these times, a woman should be able to mask her feminine qualities, and make a unbiased judgement, and not let her emotions take over her..12 Angry Men is a superb movie on how people should not let their emotions get the better of them....
Hi kri500, I agree feminists have helped the female cause by advocating equality between the sexes. But the big problem with equality for women is that they have to act and behave like men to compete with men for power. If women are to achieve equality then the whole of society has to change, where female attibutes like their maternal instinct, or their communication and social skills are respected and rewarded. But if that was to happen, then men would claim they are at a disadvantage.
As for women being the advicer, that will always ensure women will be second class citizens to men. I don't think modern women will fall for that one.
Hi KartikeyaC, who ever said you have to be ruthless to rule? Yes, male rulers make claims like this, but i am sure a matriarchal goverment will rule in a completely different way.
Hi Wabond,
Few things.
1. Interestingly feminists get both the praise and the flack for bringing equality. The fact is that, feminists simply accelerated the process, equality was brought about by the French Revolution. Even without feminists equality would have come- at a slower pace.
2. Irrespective of any identity, expertise is always respected. Please look at the statistics, society is already changing. We even predict a FEMOCRACY in the future- as said in the first email.
3. Women were advisers before, now they are inching towards being leaders.
kri500
I agree with a lot of what you say in your last posting. Yes, the feminists did a good job in helping women gain empowerment back in the 1960s and 70s, but i now think that things have moved on and feminism is hiddering women's progress. This is because trying to be equal with competitive minded men is going to be very difficult if not impossible.
I also agree women are continue to progress you can see this in the school and university results where girls are outperforming boys in education.
I do hope women will be leaders in the future, it is very difficult to become a female leader in a patriachal society, and the few brave women who can do this, are leading the way for other women. Perhaps in time with enough women in positions of power they can change the whole nature of our society to be more female friendly.
Wabond
You have hit the nail on its head when you say girls are doing better in school.
The only thing that counts in the modern world is the certificate. If they continue to get that, nobody can stop that. You cannot have a guy having a standard 10 certificate compete with a woman with a PhD.
Very, very interesting.
Not all women are sane, but a great many of them have the maternal instinct. While a man might hot-bloodedly demand for revenge, a woman will think of the inplications of such revenge and what danger it might bring to her children. There is wisdom in this. This is not a perfect idea, but it certainly has merit.
Twelve thousand years ago, the world may very well have been ruled by women, but they got greedy (too many male advisors?). This is the story of Atlantis, which may, after all, have been very, very real. In my own research, I have found evidence which proves that an Atlantis-like event occurred right when Plato said Atlantis sank into the sea.
The descendants of Atlantis may have included several Native American tribes (many of which were matriarchal or matrilineal), the Basques, Etruscans, Sumerians, Georgians, Dravidians, and Mon-Khmer. Each of these groups spoke agglutinative languages, and most, if not all, have a past of matriarchy or gender neutrality, instead of heavy-handed patriarchy.
Part of the evidence involves what is perhaps the most sentimentally favorite two words in any language -- "mother" and "father." Basque and Etruscan are opposites, but in the Etruscan pantheon (past?), names of a god and goddess are equal in gender to Basque. This indicates a possible swap in roles, where the men became the new "mothers" when females no longer ruled.
And in Georgian, the modern words for "mother" and "father" are "deda" and "mama," respectively -- swapped from our Indo-European sensibilities.
The tale of Athena's birth has many interesting parallels to the story of Atlantis's demise. Could it be that Athena's mother, Metis, was Atlantis in its latter days? For Metis was swallowed whole, as was Atlantis. And could Athena represent the refugees of Atlantis, born full grown (fully mature society) from the head (capital city?) of her father?
The Greeks and the Romans despised the Etruscans (Rasenna) for the power they gave their women. And how arrogant and male-centric that statement is. What if it were the women who gave power to their men?
William, I have voted up, labelled as awesome and shared on several sites including Facebook. Raw foodist Markus Rothkranz is another famous man whom you could have added.
I do like every thing,and i have vote up.
Thank you Steve
Personally, I think that men and women should all work together to make the world a better place. They should both use each others strengths and support each others weaknesses. I think that it is outright stupid to say that woman should rule the world or that men should rule the world. I also think that having a minimum 50% of persons in a legislative body to be female is completely out of the question. A person should work in a governing body because they are qualified and they have been considered worthy of their position. So if more women are more qualified than men, then there should be a female majority, and if not then a male majority.
Hi Me, I think it is increadibly stupid for men to rule our world. You only have to look at history to see what a terrible job men make when they have power. As for the idea that we need qualitied and worthy people in goverment. At present the qualifications you need is that you are ruthless and can do a good job in decieving the people.
Whereas the qualification we do need, is that the people in power are caring, loving and nuturing people. We are far more likely to get this, if the public vote nuturing women into power.
Very cool hub. I enjoyed reading it.
As a smart talented mother with a career & husband I have often wondered how different our history may have been if woman had ruled. Would we be living in a world with no violence or death by now?
I am a believer in true equality and the thought of only women being in control grates on my conscious. After all, I have a wonderful son and husband. But on reflection.. perhaps my ability to empathise is a testament to a woman’s suitability to rule.
I think the problem with our government at present is not entirely a woman/man issue. It is, by nature, a career choice that attracts the wrong type of people. The best leaders (women or men) would be the type of person that doesn't covet power. Just throwing women into the mix can’t fix this problem, certain women can be just as ruthless as men.
Truly solving this issue would also require a complete restructure of our form of government. As good as democracy appears on the surface it is basically a popularity contest. We all know the most popular don’t make the best leaders.
In short - we have a long, long way to go as a civilisation to reach a form of utopia.
Thank You Dense
Hi ElleyGirl, I agree with most of what you say. Surely it is up to the voting public to change the ways they see politicians. If people voted for politicians that showed themselves to be caring, loving and nuturing people, then the whole landscape of politics would change.
At the present moment it is assumed that to be in politics you have to be tough and ruthless. And if we vote for people like that, We cannot be surprised if they start wars, cut public services and care nothing for the poor. As a society we do not value the feminine qualities of love and nurture, but if we did, we would be living in a far more loving and caring society.
This is a very interesting subject. But the problem of the world is not subject to the leaders' gender, it has something to do with the personality. Good or bad comes from there. However, mind that there are much more than meet the eyes in politics.
Hi KenWu, concidering men have been ruling our planet for thousands of years, i cannot see how you would think gender has nothing to do with this.
Nepal map birthmark man,Tenzin Tsering(name),Tibetan people this life,reincarnation of king Mahendra of Nepal
Thanks Wabond for commenting - I agree with you that it is up to the voting public to change how they vote but we cannot vote for what does not exist. Few people that take up a career in politics really have the best interests of society at heart.
A good first step towards solving this problem might be personality assessments and compulsory routine lie detector tests for all politicians - male or female. We already conduct doping tests for sporting stars. It would be along the same lines.
The other issue is based around changing the views of the voting public. Tradition teaches us that men should be in control and many people (women included) have been brainwashed into believing that lie. It has only been a few short years since women have got any recognition at all – it will require more time for society’s bias to change. Your article certainly helps in this regard.
We are making progress – I have a woman prime minister in my country. That being said she is not necessarily the nurturing type – she is unmarried and has no children. That doesn’t exclude her from being nurturing but gives hints and I don’t know her in person so I couldn’t say for sure.
Another point is this: if women took total control, to the exclusion of men, then men’s violent behaviour towards us would likely increase not decrease. No person likes to be thought of as a second class citizen and men would more readily fight that status.
Personally I hope to see a future where the ratios of women/men/ethnic groups in parliament reflect the ratio in society. This would be the fairest system.
So True
Thanks for writing this.
I agree ElleyGirl that the public needs to be educated, and i think the best way to do this would be through the creation of a Matriarchal political party. At present female politians in patriarchal politial parties have to be, 'one of the boys' and many are not even allowed to talk about feminism never mind matriarchy.
The big advantage of a Matriarchal political party is that women can point out to the general public what a terrible job men are making in ruling our world. So they can spell out the issues very clearly. They can then change the whole poltical landscape by attacking patriarchal politcal parties for being too ready to go to war and for not caring for the sick, elderly and poor. If these attacks lose patriarchal parties votes, then they will have to change their ways and try to prove to the voters they are also caring people.
So by just having the presence of a Matriarchal poltical party with feminine and nurturing values will change the way people see politics.
I find it amusing when women's rights are treated as a new thing. I also chuckle a little when removing religion is suggested to promote equality. It was in ancient Israel's law that protections for women appeared. Even in the book of Genesis, the inequality of the sexes is presented a result of rejection of God. To embrace God is to embrace both aspects of his creation, both the male and the female.
Two thousand years ago the early Christians, like many today, practiced a religion of mutual submission. Men and women struggled not for power, but to serve one another. Neither party was to clamor for rights, but be willing to lay aside their rights for the other party.
Women and men served as leaders and teachers is the Church and it was only later developments that led to women being returned to their pre-Christian status as subordinate.
God is the great equalizer. Without the Church, there can be no equality. There will only be a never ending struggle between nations, races, parties, and genders for power and control. A society of mutual submission and love is the only way to go.
Great Hub Wabond! Ive been thinking alot about this topic of late, and Ive enjoyed following the comments...off to post @FB. :))
My dear Mother got Alzheimer's in 2003, and died two years later. I wish she could have been around to read this.
Good work!
I don't feel women, specifically, should rule. I DO feel this idea is important for everyone to consider.
If people think about women ruling, and understand why it can be a good thing, perhaps we will all work harder toward everyone behaving in a manner that is good for everyone. And gender will mean less when choosing.
GREAT Hub wabond!
What a fascinating and enlightening mixture of opinions that follow in the comments. I had no idea such resistance to love and compassion still existed.
I agree with you wabond!
There is a really good thought provoking book, recently published, called "Dancing in the Footsteps of Eve" by Mendel that addresses both sides of equation from each of the major traditions.
The basic premise is to question the current Bible story of Adam and Eve as it has been translated (by male scribes working under the direction of male rulers) so many times over the centuries and taken on a decidedly patriarchal influence. Going back to the original Hebrew, the story reads much differently.
What if we have the story of Eve as temptress wrong? What is God's instructions were, "Do not eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge UNTIL YOU ARE READY?" Might Eve be looked upon more as hero today than villain?
Thank you for this wonderful and eye-opening Hub!
Blessings always, Earth Angel
Earth Angel,
I would like to hear an explanation on how such a translation could come out of the Hebrew text. I find the end result highly improbable if for no other reason that it violates the narrative flow of the text.
The ancient Hebrew concept of "good" and "evil" was interchangeable with "beneficial" and "harmful." God was not keeping Adam and Eve ignorant until they reached some level of maturity, but rather he was giving them a liberating choice. They could choose God's way or their own way. In choosing their own way they faced the consequences of a world without God.
Inequality between the genders is listed as a result of rejecting YHWH. The notion that humanity could ever be "ready" to leave God and set out on their own is the root of some of the greatest evils in the world today.
I look at gender relations in the we west today and I want to cry. Women are relegated to sex objects and eye candy while they themselves oppress both men and their lovers with unrealistic images of sexuality and attractiveness. The "sexual revolution" has stripped women and their children of their right to have responsible husbands and fathers respectively.
I see greater gender relations in the early church, and maybe even in ancient Israel than there are today.
Dearest Zach Fraizer,
Thank you for your heartfelt comment above. Yes, I agree, current gender relations are enough to bring most sensitive people to tears. And certainly the violent condition of world brings everyone to tears.
As you pointed out above, the simple changing/substitution of a single word can make all the difference in the meaning of a single sentence.
"Inequality between the genders is listed as a result of rejecting YHWH." Yes, in many current belief systems it is; but whose "list?"
"God was not keeping Adam and Eve ignorant until they reached some level of maturity, but rather he was giving them a liberating choice." I agree, God does not place limits on people. We are each responsible for our own maturity. Could it be that the liberating choice from God was a "gift" and not a "punishment?"
These are just questions to ponder. No one's mind is going to be changed by reading a book, no matter how great it may be. Dancing in the Footsteps of Eve is a provocative world study that will provide delight and respect to those secure in their faiths, and resistance to those who are not.
Just some things to think about while we are opening our minds to potential solutions in the world, and in our own lives.
Blessings always, Earth Angel
Thank you Earth Angel for your comments. Yes it is strange that people have resistance to love and compassion but perhaps it is because they don't believe that a loving and caring world is possible. Patriarchy has successfully sold people the idea that there is no other alternitive to patriarchal rule.
There is also the issue of women taking career breaks to have families and raise children during their prime years. This is also a problem that is encountered in business, another big male dominated world.
Too many women today make the mistake of trying to "work their way up the ladder" by copying men's ways. It doesn't work.
As far as religion, they are all MAN made, because men were jealous of women and what they could do.
Hi Bucket Lister and Debbie P, Yes, we still live in a patriarchal society created by men for men. Perhaps in business women will have to create their own businesses taylor made for their needs. And it would be a good idea for women to create their own religion as well.
Dearest wabond,
That is a great article at the link Debbi P provided above; thank you! Although it was very long, it was well written and provides welcome encouragement to continue asking questions about the creation stories we take for granted!
I have been fortunate enough, and passionate enough, to study in-depth at least two dozen of the various spiritual traditions the last forty years. Intellectually stimulating while at the same time heart and soul expanding!
In short, there is a similar golden thread of good that runs through all major belief systems. Akin to the Golden Rule: "Due unto others as you would have them do unto you."
It is this golden thread I hold onto, and release the rest. Nowhere in the Golden Rule nor the Golden Thread are women less than, nor subservient to men.
The Mists of Avalon, written by Marion Zimmer Bradley, is a great narrative set in a very plausible fictional account how society may have evolved from matriarchal to patriarchal in a short period of time.
Dancing in the Footsteps of Eve, written by Heather Mendel, is a great Socratic inquiry into the literal translations of Genesis which make Eve out to be the villain, thereby casting women into negative light from the start. Mendel's scholarly (yet easy to read and enjoyable) feminist essay poses the provocative question, "What if the story we have been told for centuries about Eve is wrong?"
Being able to deeply and honestly question the roots and the heart of any tradition we follow is hallmark to our evolution as human beings. Accepting blindly is no longer an option ~ We see where that got us!
Thanks for the GREAT Hub wabond!
Blessings always, Earth Angel
hm why don't women rule? maybe they don't want to rule? dominance is essentially a man's feature, yes the opposite almost of empathy. dominance stands for: do what I tell you to do. Empathy stands for: I'll do whatever you guys want me to do. Empathy gives someone else the initiative.
For every hitler or george bush you name I could name a Washington or Churchhill. As fore men creating religion Mary madlyn O'hare pushed her owen religion,athiesm, also the Fox sisters created spiritualisum, which gave the world Jeane Dixon, Ruth Montgomery and Slyvia Browne.
I do notice that Englands most successsful rulers,i.e. gaining and controlling the most lands and worldly wealth, not matter the cost to other people's were the queens.
Personally I think women can be just as ruthless as men.
Time for balance is here, let both men and women heal themselves, so they can act in Union. Until we unite and bring peace on earth, can we truly come together. Until we see, feel balance only then woman can take steps to feel empowered.
Hi Earth Angel, I personally think that the Garden of Eden was orginally about the fall of the Golden Age when women once ruled our world. I think the tempation was that Eve represented women who felt it unfair that women ruled, while men were second class citizens, so they gave men equal rights. But when men got power they began to abuse it and ended up taking over, and when women tried to prevent this, men reacted against women using violence. This then brought in the patriarchal age we know today.
Hi Ruffridyer, If women were as ruthless as men, then we would have about as many female rulers throughout history as men. We would have also have as many women fighting in wars. The fact is that more than 99% of all acts of violence are committed men. Women cannot compete with men for ruthlessness and violence.
I don't think that female need to act and behave like men to compete with men. "Female" qualities would also make great leaders. However, this discussion of why we don't have as many female leaders goes beyond aspects of "female" and "male" qualities.
Dearest wabond,
I have never heard of that particular theory! I will spend some time looking that up!? Thank you so much!
I am loving this Hub you wrote and all the comments that have followed! GREAT job! Thank you!
Blessings always, Earth Angel!
I agree, puddingicecream, what we want is female polticians acting and behaving like caring and nuturing women.
Hi Earth Angel, That theory came from me, so you might find it difficult to find it on the internet, unless it comes from one of my other postings.
Wabond,
Can you provide some evidence for your claim about the Garden of Eden narrative? Unless I am missing something, such an interpretation is completely not valid in relation to the text.
I often scratch my head at the notion that Eve is the major villain in the narrative. Rarely are sacred texts significantly altered to suit cultural bias. Instead, the interpretation is distorted. For example modern ideologies and worldviews twist the Bible to support capitalism, socialism, sexism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, and other anti-Biblical ideologies. No change to the text is made. False teachers rely on people not actually reading the Bible and thinking about it to see what it actually teaches.
That being said, Adam is the biggest loser in the garden narrative. Eve questions the serpent, while Adam blindly accepts the fruit. He does not even hesitate to disobey his father. The text might suggest that Adam was present with his wife when she ate the fruit and did not say a word. He could have saved both of them, but instead he was the antithesis of ancient manhood. Then he had the audacity to shift all of the blame on his wife and God.
If anyone is portrayed worse in Genesis 3 it is man, not woman. Little attention is paid by sexist interpreters (both anti-male and anti-female) to Genesis 3:16 where man's domination over woman is a curse and not a social ideal.
On a side note, I am impressed with how civil everyone here is. Usually there is excessive name-calling by this point in the conversation over such a sensitive issue.
I don't beleive that women are any worse than men at managing, or leading a nation. There are great and horrible examples of leaders of both genders. Queen Elizabeth the first was a good and just ruler of Britain who resisted the Spanish Armada. Queen Anne, her sister, tried to reinstate Catholicism at the time of the Inquisition. Having a Y chromosome doesn't mean you are going to be any better or worse. King Charles the first brought on the English Civil War, and his own beheading. King George the sixth lead his country through World War Two in spite of having a stutter.
Hi Zach, The Garden of Eden is a made up story, though it probably came from a oral tradition that has now been lost. So all you can do with this story is speculate and this is my speculation of the origins of this story.
What I find interesting is that it is similar to Pandra's box or jar, where again a women is blamed for the ills of humankind. Now, I am sure the reason why both stories were written was because the male rulers of the time wanted to pass the blame from their own incompetent rule onto to women. But it has struck me, is that doing this wouldn't be credible, unless women did have power then, or did have power in their oral traditions. Simply because you cannot put the blame for everything on people who are powerless.
Both stories refer to a paradise and this would be the Golden age that is referred to in many ancient stories. The Golden age would be the matriarchal age which archeologists have discovered in the ancient Neolithic civilizations like Catal Huyuk or the Indus Valley Civilization.
The problem is with the last matriarchal age, is if women where in charge how did it come about that men then took over? Marija Gimbutas's theory is that patriarchal tribes spread out and conquered the peaceful matriarchal civilizations. But this doesn't explain how these patriarchal tribes also converted from matriarchy to patriarchy. Also if there was a matriarchal age in the past how did women keep men under control and prevented them from fighting each other and starting wars?
There is a old saying that, "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world". This is clearly not true in our patriarchal age but might have been true in the last matriarchal age. Mother may of taught their sons to be obediant to women and discoaraged them from being violent. But over many generations of matriarchal rule women may of forgotten how dangerious men can became. So women may of thought it unfair that men were second class citizens and encoaraged boys to be more assertive and gave them postions of power and influence and so created societies where the sexes were equal. But this might of sparked off men's competitive instincts and alpha men began to compete with women for power and took control. Then when women began to object to this, these men began to use violence against women, and women had no-answer to this as women cannot compete against men if they use violence. Though some might have tried, as there are stories of Amazons warriors in ancient times but in the end they were defeated.
So the last matriarchal age did come to an end though men's violence against women, but also because women allowed themselves to lose control over men. So you can say both sexes were to blame for patriarchy.
Hi The Pelton, A female leader of a patriarchal goverment is not a Matriarchy.
Although a Queen like Mary or Elizabeth was in charge, all her advisor and ministers will be men. She will also be locked in a patriarchal system of goverment that has been going on for thousands of years. Also other goverments she has to deal with, will also be patrairchal with male rulers.
So a Queen is still very limited in what she can do to change the whole of society. Real change could only have happened if you had generations of Queens and then they might of changed the whole patrairchal system.
This is even true today, female poltician have to join a patriarchal political party and have to act and behave like men to get any respect with these parties. A caring and nuturing woman wouldn't get anywhere in our present patriarchal system.
The only way we can have caring and nurtuing women in positons of power would be to create a Matriarchal political party. This will allow women to be themselves, within their own party. Then they will have to convince the voting public that they will be better off, if caring and maternal women ruled their country.
if women ran the world for the last 5000 years, today we will have Maleism. See, unlike what Feminists like to claim, the ultimate binary opposition isn't male versus female. It has always been between "us" and the "other". it just so happens that women winded up on the "other" side, along with blacks and homosexuals.
matriarchy will not solve the world's problem for a simple reason that it is HUMAN nature to denegrate, fear and hate anything that is considered the "other". If you don't believe me, look at every revolution in human history and notice how all revolutions winded up being what they were supposed to rebel against. Religion was a revolution against ignorance and now look at it. Civil rights was a revolution against racism etc and today a white man is being called the cancer of the world (pretty racist, last time i checked). and yes, feminism was supposed to be about equality but today men are expected to sit there quietly while "pop-feminists" use sweeping generalizations like in this article to prove that they are "better than men".
Wabond,
The Garden of Eden is not just a “made up story,” though I’m sure that you did not mean that in a derogatory way. Many of the stories in Genesis are “counter mythologies.” That is to say they make the most sense when one looks at what is different between those stories and the similar stories of surrounding cultures. Now of course it probably had no connection to Pandora’s Box or any Greek culture, but instead contrasted other Ancient Near East religions.
That being said, the one thing one cannot do is speculate as to the origins of the story. The origins lie in a henotheistic culture that rejected the absurd polytheistic notions of its neighbors. For example in the flood narrative, the Babylonians cited the cause as the gods being irritated by how loud people were, so they killed them all. The Israelites said, “That’s really dumb. God is not like that,” and retreated the story to show the character of their God as superior to that of the gods of the other nations. Blind speculation has led to many of the worst social abuses in history.
The rewriting of oral tradition is a very modern concept. In the ancient world, oral tradition was sacred. It’s called tradition for a reason. Ancient Israelites did not arbitrarily alter their sacred traditions. This is especially evident by the concepts and principals presented in the texts that would have likely been removed if editing were socially acceptable.
All that being said, the garden narrative is about a Golden Age when God ruled. Men and women in turn rejected God’s rule and were relieved of relationship with God. When one reads any sacred text, more weight should be placed on concepts that are foreign to their cultural setting. So, rights for women and the treatment of Adam as the chief failure in the garden story carry a lot of weight in a patriarchal society.
I suppose the biggest problem I have with the concept of women ruling is that there already exists a nation where men and women are equal and patriarchy is dead. Of course that nation falls short of those principals oftentimes, but it is there nonetheless. That nation is two-thousand years old.
I also find it disappointing that such blatant oppressive and sexist statements are being uttered about men. Women are not better than men. Just look at great men like Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. Look at Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus. The teachings of both of those men were the most liberating teachings for women ever. Consider Martin Luther King Jr.
Desmond Tutu said that male attributes have their place and must be balanced with the other side.
http://www.linktv.org/video/2807/archbishop-desmon
I’m pretty sure he does not actually believe women should rule over men.
And now I must be off to do the laundry so that my wife can come home from work to a clean living room. Good day everyone!
It really does not matter neither man or woman who rules. It is based on the quality the person themselves posses. Yes women do tend to have a kinder gentler touch to things which is very nessicary to have when ruling but women are less likley to do some of the rougher things that need to be done that men are. To be a good ruler you must have an ideal balance of both of these. Women should have a chance to rule yes but men are'nt that bad either.It depends on the quality of ther person not gender. Both genders are equaly good. Men have ruled because physicly they are stronger and it was easier for them to over rule women.
Hi Saad, I agree with you that when men have a revolution to make things better, like the French and Russian revoultion, they end up making things worse. But you cannot say this about women, they have yet to have a revolution where they take over. No one can say for sure how women will rule because we haven't experienced in recorded history a truly matriarchal goverment. But it would be difficult to do a worse job in ruling our world than what men do.
As for saying patriarchal goverment is not that bad. The whole world is in a financal mess at the present moment. There are oppressive goverments all over the world and anyone who protests are killed or tortured. As well as many wars being fought. We have a population explosion, rain forests are being cut down, animals are going exstinct through the actions of humans. The oceans are being polluted, there is a big gap between rich and poor. I could go on. The point is that none of these thing need to happen if we had reasonably sensible people ruling our world.
Men have ruled our world for five thousand years and have clearly demostrated, time and time again, they are totally incompetent in doing this. We urgently need women to rule instead.
Hi Zach, oral traditions and even written history are being reinterprited all the time. Every new generation likes to put their own interprition on the traditions they are taught, while poltical leaders also like to put their own spin on traditons and history to suit their own political agenda.
Even in science which is suppose to be based on hard facts, scientific theories and spectulation are being sold to the general public as scientific fact. In fact the marjority of science is theory and speculation. Historians are doing the same all the time. The history that was taught to me at school in the 1950s is very different to the history being taught to children today. This is because no historic document is reliable because politicians have always used history as a propaganda tool.
Spectulation, imagination and fantasy are part of the human condition.
This also would be true of the stories in the Bible, yes they all might of been based on real events, but in the hands of imaginative human beings, what we read today would be very different to the event they were first based on.
As for saying women are not better than men. It depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you want to put a man on the moon, then men would be far more capable of doing this than women. This is because men in general have better mechanial and engineering skills than women. But women have better social and communication skills than men. And the world of politics is all about dealing with people. So women would be far better politicians than men if they are allowed to act and behave like women.
One of the critisms of patrairchal goverments is that they treat people like numbers or things. Whereas a matriarchal goverment is far more likely to treat people like human beings because of the better communication and social skills of women.
Women DO rule the world. Men might be in power...but the women have power over the men.
Matriarchal or Patriarchal shoild never be an issue.The thing which is most important is right thinking,leadership & attitude.Women in high power have also been seen misusing their privilages and nothing less could be said about the patriarchal ones.
If women want reservation then it should be done to just at entry level and who leads must be left to a true leader whomsoever it be.
and moreover in todays world atleast its not an excise that we dont have equal rights.The ones who are determined will certainly make it to the very top irrespective of their gender.
OPPURTUNITY IS INFRONT OF U GRAB IT!!!
Hi Wabond,
What a wonderful and educative topic. The truth is that irrespective of the gender, when the instinct of human feelings, cares and love is lost, nothing will ever change for good. Going through the responses, I could see some elements of religion consideration suggested as possible solution to the current mess patriarchy has landed us into. However, in whatever religion anyone may profess, none has put women as second class in human race. Women should rise up to the challenge and take their rightful position in shaping the world. I wish to read contribution from Arab world where the voice of women are heard only in the grave.
God bless you Wabond
OMG how gay r u cus like this blog is gay so cmon how gay r u? JUST HOW GAY R U DUDE??? btw read mah blog its roblox cheats 4 u XD!!!!
Good Morning and blessings wabond,
So glad the dialog continues. What interesting perspectives! Except pandas5 and I suggest it be deleted!
Thank you for continuing to comment as well! This is a marvelous discussion!
Blessings always, Earth Angel!
To all who are intersted in this blog...Panda5 has been flagged for stupidity!....perfect example of why we are in such a mess in this world today....too many stupid people! .....thank you all for you intelligent insite to a real problem...we are all suffering from the lack of intelligence in high places...and low (panda5)!! I have thoroughly enjoyed this blog...and yes kindness and caring is the key...but I have no patience for stupidity...(sorry panda)
thank you so much for posting this, i KNOW its possible i can feel it in the air that the world is actually headed this way, but men also need to stop neglecting themselves and accept their nurturing sides (instead of being embarrassed by it) i think men can be just as sensative to people as women
very interesting off color topic. for some reason I would have never pegged ted turner to be on this list.
Hi Alyssa, A lot of people do tell me that women rule the world anyway. Yes, I agree that in the Western world, wives of powerful men probably do have a influence over them, but it is still only an influence. After all these powerful men are being also influenced by lobbying groups, bankers, wealthy businessmen, the media, the military and anyone else who has access to them. So a the wife of a powerful man would only be one, of many different influences.
Hi Debasis, I agree that in a ideal world matriarchy and patrirachy should never be an issue, but men who have excluded women from any position of power for thousands of years have invented patriarchy.
I also agree that women now have the oppertunity to grab power and need to take it.
Hi Dare, thank you for your response. If you want a contribution from the Arab world, then I would recomend Zainab Salbi and her orginization Women For Women.
http://www.womenforwomen.org/about-women-for-women
She also made a great speech in the following video.
Thank You Earth Angel and Cefari for your feeback.
Yes, you will get silly responses from people like Panda5. I should imagine he is a teenage boy and says things like that to other teenage boys at school.
Hi lorraine, yes, i agree that men can learn to be caring and nurturing people. Most women are locked into being caring by their maternal instinct to want to have and care for children. Because without this powerful instinct the human race would have gone exstinct. For this reason it is difficult for women to resist their nurturing insincts.
But with men the nurturing instinct is not so strong, as the military has shown us, men can be trained to kill people. This is why it is so important that men are encoaraged to get intouch with their nurturing feelings and not try to be the macho men.
Hi Web World Watcher, I would of never have thought of Michael Winner on this list either, he directed a film called "Death Wish" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071402/
Even though a man might be very macho, he can still see the sense of why women should rule our world.
Women are the future. Men are expendable!!!!!!!!
Sticking to the main point here about the fact the most high profile people who say women should rule the world are men, one can see how matriarchies can collapse into patriarchies.
“If enough men come out and publically declare that women should be ruling our world, then perhaps it might give women the confidence to organize themselves in a mass movement. With men then giving them help, support and protection.”
Whilst I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, giving help, support and most notably protection can lead to positions of high office, meaning men would play major roles in matriarchy. A position of protection could quite easily lead to a military one especially if there are violent men to protect against. While this might be okay if the men are moral the fact that the position exists means it may attract people of less good intentions.
I think smaller communities would ultimately be essential for world peace. Matriarchies would be more likely to build such things. One of the major problems against peace is massive heavily crammed cities. It is difficult to see a matriarchy taking over London or Mexico City and sorting out its problems. I believe they would have to create new communities to prove their point. Big grim cities seem too heavily entrenched in the ideals of the men designed them.
I think it’s a good idea to give thought to how matriarchy would work on a literal physical level.
I find it interesting that it talks so much about male violence. The reality is balance. Men and women are human we are subject to the same emotions and flawed decision making processes. I do agree that women should have a higher and more active role in government bodies. But ruling in a purely female system is a bit over the top. infact any extremist type of govt one way or another is just plain wrong.
Hi Havenite, matriarchy and patriarchy is not about men V women. Some of the strongest supporters of patriarchy are women, while it seems there is more men who support matriarchy than women. This means a matriarchal movement will consist of both men and women.
I agree with you that there is a danger that in a matriarchal movement, if women allow alpha men to gain power, they can take it back to patriarchy.
Also, the world will not turn over to matriarchy overnight, there will be a time where we will have both patriarchal and matriarchal goverments. So these matriarchal govements will have to have a strong military to defend itself against possible invasion by any patraircal goverment. But it is possible to make laws that keep the military out of politics.
Personally, I think that women will be better suited to sorting out the problem caused by mega cities than what men do. Female rulers are far more likely to communicate with the ordinary people of cities and work with them to sort out any problem. I think that women's better communication and social skills will make them far better rulers than men.
Hi Matt, I agree that both men and women are flawed, but if you think about it, war has to be the most idiotic way to settle differences between countries and patriarchal countries do it all the time. I cannot imagine two matriachal countries settling their differences through warfare. Perhaps a matriarchal country will get dragged into a war with a patriarchal country but matriarchal goverment would see clearly the stupidity of war, in a way patriarchal goverments cannot.
The same is true of poverty. In all patriarchal goverments there is a vast difference between rich and poor, but i doubt if this would be true in a matrairchal society. The reason for this, is that women have a strong maternal instinct and care a lot for children. So the women in a matriarchal goverment will not want to see any children in the country they rule, live in poverty or ignorance. So far more resourse of the country will be put into caring for children, and overcoming poverty.
Women would rule differently than men, they will have different priorities and different ways of doing things.
Women tend to have good quality management of money in public offices than men, in as much as I support women to be in government, I totally do not see any good reason that tags whatsoever as "women liberation," that common phrase among a select women is quite improper and could lead to gross disrespect amongst this few.
Even in my country Nigeria, women are now entitled to a certain percentage in public offices unlike before. Quite encouraging and not just a "women liberation" whatsoever. At least, God made them as help meet to men.
Great hub - The male driven world is obviously out of balance - so too would be a world 100% female driven... balance of the energies is needed. Love this hub! Rated Up!
why not just stop trying to rule The World just rule self to being the best human one can be towards each other then we wont need men or women to rule over all the people just the people to rule over themselves! Just maybe this is all that is needed for peace to follow and be placed upon this planet! The talk of who rules the world men or women, power talk that is all it is, he/she who rules the World has all the power.
no world leaders, no world armies, no world religions, no world wars! Just People ruling them self with love towards each other and peace in their hearts! I am so sick of politics! Any ploitics!
Hi Neil, we know from history and from our world today how men rule our world. So we all have a experience of a masculine dominated world. What none of us has experienced is a feminine dominated world. So before we talk about balance, we have to experience what it would be like for women to rule our world and then we can understand both the masculine and feminine.
Hi Sa`ge, yes, in theory it should be possible for us to live together without rulers. But to do this requires all of us to act in a responsible manner and love and care for each other.
Loving, caring and nurturing are all feminine attributes, if women were to rule the world they would be teaching children to love and care for each other. If women are successful in doing this, then the need for rulers or laws will become less and less. So by allowing women to rule our world we could end up with a world with no rulers.
Yes it is high time women should have a go.With their natural ability of managing home and children,may be they can do better.However men has to handover the charge willfully and with due respect.And please no remote controlling by men and allow at least 300 years of governance to acclimatise and produce brilliant results.
Hi wabond.
You keep mentioning how you think women are more peaceful by nature, even stating you don't think women leaders would be likely to go to war. "I cannot imagine two matriachal countries settling their differences through warfare."
You also used the U.S. entering the war as an example of bad male leaders. "..men can lead, ... or George Bush lead the USA into the Iraq war. History has shown men to be useless leaders.."
So I decided to take an easy process, and look over the vote in the Senate to see if your statements held any ground. The vote passed a total of 77-23, with a 77% margin.
Looking at only the female members of Senate at that time:
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
The women alone would have passed the bill to enact war on Iraq with a margin of 70%. Sorry to hear.
Also, you seem to be ignoring the numerous number of female leaders throughout the years, pretending that it has been strictly men going to war. Your assumptions that women would be better leaders seem to be based on fairy tale notions of paternal instinct and their assuming lack of violence, rather than facts.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with female leaders any more than men. Whether they will stand out as a good leader or not is based on the individual, not their natural characteristics, such as gender, or race.
Hi Suprasun, I am sure you are right, that if we had matriarchal goverments there will be men who try to manipulate powerful women. And while women do not have much confindence in themselves, this will be possible. But once women do have confidence in their own ablilities, they won't allow any remote controlling by men.
Hi Edisni, In practical terms female politicians have no choice in our patriarchal world but to try and act like men. A female politican who tried to be a nurturing and caring person, will be condemned as 'weak' and 'sentimental' and will stand no chance in being promoted in any patriarchal system.
Look at Palin's speech when she became the vice-Presendent canditate, the first thing she said was how tough and macho she was. If she was likely to say she was a loving and caring woman they would not have allowed her to be a canditate.
The patriarchal system was created by men for men. So any woman who wants to get ahead in any professional job, business or politics has to pay the game by the rules invented by men.
Women can only be start to be themselves when they become the marjority in goverment and hold most of the important positions of power. Then they are in a position to start to change the rules of the game that will faviour caring and nurturing people rather than testrostone driven clowns.
As for saying that the maternal instinct is a fairy tale. If women didn't have a powerful nurturing instinct to care for her children, the human race would have gone extinct millions of years ago.
Dearest William,
The GREAT dialog continues! Much to my delight and that of many enlightened sisters! (And some evolved brothers as yourself!) Thank you!
Years ago I considered a career in politics as a way to make a substantial positive impact on our broken society! But even just working on the side lines with then-Mayor Feinstein (I am dating myself!) I saw the governmental system as so flawed and broken I chose being a woman-owned business for leadership instead!
Business is flawed and broken as well ~ but at least within the confines of my little world, I set the high-standards ~ and we live and work by example!
To paraphrase Ripplemaker, we first make positive little ripples that then spread out and make a positive difference all over the pond!
For women who do not want to succumb to a male way of adversarial thinking, nor participate in compromise between two (or more) really bad ideas, owning one's own socially conscious business is a good alternative!
Plus, running our own socially conscious businesses give us the confidence to test and prove our leadership skills to ourselves first, and then others! (Where did Meg Whitman go?)
Thank you again for this delightful forum in itself and for being such a GREAT member of the HubPages Community!
Blessings always, Earth Angel!
Trying to act "macho" should have nothing to do with their decision in voting. Why don't you actually give females some credit for being able to think on their own, rather than just claim that every bad decision they make is because they were manipulated some how by men. If they are truly as easy to manipulate as you claim, they would be some pretty useless leaders.
By the way, not sure if you've noticed, but men care about their children's well being quite a bit as well. Trying to claim that women have some benefit of leadership due to their care of their children is nonsense. Unfortunately for me I actually responded expecting rational decisions, until I clicked and saw your other blogs. :/ Sadly didn't realize this was a joke before I posted.
Hi Earth Angel, yes I find it strange that man is suppose to be an intellegent creature, that can invent technology to fly people to the moon, and yet makes a total mess in ruling our world.
I agree, that women do need to be in a position to have their own businesses, where they are in charge and are free to do things their way, without the interferance of men.
It would be wonderful if women could set up their own matrirchal communities, they can have men in them but not in any postion of power. The big advantage of this, is that although I tell people that we all would be better of if women rule the world, I don't have any hard evidence for this. But if women can set up their own matriarchal communities and run them successfully for the benefit of everyone in them. Then we will have hard evidence than women can rule the world better than men.
Hi Edisni, both men and women are easy to manipulate by the ruling elite. Men are probably easier to manipulate than women. We can see this in wars. In First World World, Europeon countries had no problem in calling up ordinary men in the street, giving them training and then order them to come out of trenches to face near certain death from machine gun fire. Very few men ever had the sense to disobey.
In the Second World War, the Japanese military actually ordered their airmen to make suicide attacks on enemy shipping, and none of them disobeyed this order. Today terriorist groups use suicide bombers, men are far easier to brainwash into doing this than women. Although there are female suicide bombers, Israel jails have many failed female suicide bombers who saw the insanity of what they were pressurised into doing and never went through with it. While very few men are able to resist the brainwashing and do as they are told.
As for men caring for children yes, many are capable of doing this. But there are many men who will leave their wives when they have children, and refuse to pay any mantainance for their own children. Men are also far more likely to phyically and sexually abuse their own children than women.
I am aware that I am saying things that are very different to what you read in newspapers or on TV, but I am a person that has always questioned patrairchal propaganda.
The more I read from you wabond the more I am your BIGGEST fan! Happy Father's Day! Blessings always, Earth Angel!
Thank you Earth Angel, have you seen my new hub page, "Teaching men how to love".
Why do we have to have a world ruled by either gender? Why not a world led by both genders who have the most desireable traits for achieving a peaceful prosperous world. Why not design and educational system that develops the best human traits in both genders.
The problem as I see it would be that most of the desireable traits are listed as feminene traits. Men will resist developing these traits because they don't want to be feminized. The solution to this problem might be to get rid of the femine and masquline labels. simply list all human traits as human traits without regard to gender. Then select from these human traits the most desireable for creating a peaceful prosperous world and design an educational system around these traits so that as students go through the educational system they develop these most desireable traits.
If this were done both genders would develop the same traits and hence our leaders would all share the common desireable traits. this would lead to a world led by both genders sharing the same desireable traits. such a world would be a hybrid neither patriachal nor matriachal.
Hi David, to design a education system you suggested means having a goverment that would want to do these sort of things.
Patriarchal goverments all live in fear of each other. So because of this, they all need to have a standing army of young men who can defend the country or attack another country if they want to do this. The big problem for any army is that you have to train your soldiers to kill, if they are incapable of killing the enemy, they are uselss as soldiers.
As the result all patriarchal goverments encoarage what is called the macho culture, to encoarage boys to be 'tough' and aggressive. This is why there are films of violent heros who become the role models for so many boys. So that if we do have a major war, then the goverments will have an army of young men they can call up that will be willing to fight and kill in a war.
Before you can design a education system where boys are taught to be loving and caring people, you first have to somehow overcome the fear of war in our world.
You left out the poet and novelist Robert Graves.
Stigma31 Level 2 Commenter 11 months ago
The problems of the world will not change whether men or women are running the world. Social dynamics and religion would need to be tossed out as ways of life to fix the large majority of the problems. I would like to see representation from both sexes. I can think of a 100 reasons woman would not make good rulers and a hundred more why men wouldn't. Maybe the world should be lead by couples?