Why We Need Matriarchy
79
Women Ruling The World
The whole written history of the human race has been a story of conflict, warfare, genocide, slavery, injustice and poverty, and we don’t find much difference today in our TV news. We have had many great thinkers trying to solve these problems, through either religion or politics, but what is noticeable with all these solutions, is that they all have failed. Religions like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism all have failed to stop conflict and wars, and in many cases seem to make the situation worse, as conflict between different religions and religious sects has caused many wars. Political systems haven’t been that successful either, as countries with different political ideologies have fought each other, over this. They even have failed to create equality as well. For instance in the French revolution that promised equality for all people, only succeeded in creating a reign of terror as men like Robespierre and later Napoleon Bonaparte fought for power. Later on Communism and Socialism also attempted to create an equal society but likewise failed. The only political system that has noticeably improved the lives of the people has been democracy, even though wars and inequality are still commonplace in democratic countries.
Because of the failure of both religions and politics to create a better world for us all, many people have given up on this, while those who still try, end up using the same methods that has been tried so many times in the past. But throughout recorded history the one thing that hasn’t been tried and that is Matriarchy. In the whole of recorded history it has been men who have ruled our world, and as history has shown us so many times, men do a terrible job in doing this. So if we recognize that men on the whole make dreadful rulers, then it makes sense to see if women can do a better job.
So why would women do a far better job in ruling our world than men? The reason would be to do with our basic instincts. Men have a competitive instinct and women have a maternal instinct and these instincts make a big difference in the way men and women behave.
Most male animals tend to fight each other for power and access to females, and evolutionists tell us this is a good thing, as the strongest male gets to pass on his genes to the next generation. This may be alright for animals to behave like this but can be a disaster when human males have the same instincts. We can see this behaviour in sport. Back in medieval times they had the sport of jousting where two riders charge each other with long lancers on horseback. This is not much different to the way stags, bulls and rams with big horns, charge each other every spring. Nowadays, we also see similar behaviour in a rugby scrum, or American football scrimmage. This is also true of other sports where there is not a lot of difference in the way male kangaroos box each other and the way men fight in a boxing ring.
There is not a big problem with men competing with each other in sport, but it becomes a real problem when men compete on a battle field with spears, swords, rifles, machine guns, field guns, flame throwers, aircraft, rockets and nuclear weapons. There has never been a time, in recorded history, when men were not fighting a war somewhere on our planet. While in the cold war between the USA and USSR, from the early 1950s to the 1980s, men come close to committing global suicide through nuclear warfare.
This fierce competitive instinct also creates very unequal societies as well. Although people have demanded equality for the whole of recorded history, it has never happened, and we can understand why, by observing the behaviour of male animals. For instance, a male stag will fight other male stags to have the biggest harem of females he can possibly have. There is no sense of justice or fairness in this, it is always, “the winner takes it all”. The biggest and strongest stag gets to mate with most of the females and those who are not strong enough, never get the chance to mate. In other words, in male competition, there is no equality, and this has been the case in every society ruled by men.
In most of history we have been ruled by chiefs, warlords, kings, emperors and dictators. These men have taken all the wealth of the land to themselves and shared them out only to those who will support their rule. The majority of rulers in history have had untold wealth, while the majority of people live in poverty, and at one time slavery was commonplace. Democracy has improved on this but we still have a situation where the majority of wealth of any country, is still in the hands of only a handful of people. So it means, because of men’s powerful competitive instincts we will always have wars and very unfair societies, while men continue to rule our world.
If that is the case, why would women do a better job at ruling the world? The reason would be that women have a powerful nurturing instinct. We see this from a very early age when little boys like to play with toy guns, cars and planes, while little girls like to play with dolls and prams. In the animal world it is very rare to see female animals fight each other unless they are a carnivorous animal. The focus of most females is to bring the young into the world and to care and look after them, until they can fend for themselves.
This means that if we had matriarchal governments, where the vast majority of the members of the government were women, then this government will be dominated by women’s maternal instinct. These women will have far less interest in warfare than a male patriarchal government, and will be better at negotiating peace, in any dispute. A matriarchal government will not have the same interest in competition for wealth and power as their main focus of attention will be on the children of the countries they rule. No female dominated government will want to see children live in poverty and ignorance, so they will put far more of the resources of any country they rule, into the welfare of children. In the process of helping the children they will within a generation, also help everyone else in the country they rule.
When matriarchy is discussed, some people mention Margaret Thatcher and point out they she wasn’t a very caring leader, so it seems all women are judged by her actions, but we wish to explain that a female leader of a patriarchal political party, is not a Matriarchal government. Like most female politicians in patriarchal political parties women cannot get respect and recognition unless she becomes, ‘one of the boys’. In other words, women who try to get ahead in any patriarchal institution, has to act and behave like competitive and ruthless men, because if she was to show her caring and maternal nature, she would be condemned as being weak and sentimental.
In his book, “The Inevitability of Patriarchy”, Steven Goldberg put forward a powerful argument that men’s competitive behaviour, will always make men strive harder than most women to gain the high-status roles in any society. He claims this means that men will always outnumber women in most positions of power in our world. To be fair, this is the situation in our world today, and has always been the case throughout recorded history. So if this is true, how is it possible for women to rule the world?
Before we had democracy, it would have been impossible for women to rule any country, because men ruled through violence and intimidation, and women would find it hard to compete with men in a world of violence. It is true we have had, in the past, Queens like Elizabeth 1 of England and Catherine the Great of Russia, but they had to still rule governments, dominated by men and male values. But today, through democracy, it is now possible for a political party to gain power without the use of violence, so it would be possible for women to set up a Matriarchal political party or even take over existing political parties.
Now, many feminists say that one sex shouldn’t rule our world and men and women should share power equally. The big problem with this, is that equality is an unknown concept to competitive minded men. As pointed out previously, men have attempted to create an equal society through the French revolution as well as communism and socialism, and completely failed in this. In a government of equal numbers of men and women, there is nothing to stop men fiercely competing against the women for power. Women then have the choice of either giving away their power, or to learn to be as assertive and competitive as men. So unless women learn to be as ruthless as Margaret Thatcher they cannot compete against men for power. So this is why we need to have Matriarchal political parties of only women, so they do not have to compete within their party with very competitive men and together can create a powerful sisterhood.
So this means that while men ruled through violence and intimidation, patriarchy was the only option. But through democracy if women are willing to set up their own matriarchal political parties, then the people have a real choice in what sort of world they want to live in. The people can choose to vote for the status-quo in traditional patriarchal political parties and continue to allow competitive minded men rule our world. Or they can vote for a Matriarchal party and allow caring and nurturing women to rule instead. This then will give the people a genuine choice of voting to live in a far more caring and loving world.
CommentsLoading...
Hi Gracielake, It seems to be very difficult for men to overcome their addiction to war. I suppose the difficulty for men is that if they have a problem it is easier to use force and violence to solve the it, rather than the complication of trying to work it out in other ways. It seems that even more enlighten male leaders like President Obama will still go to war, like we see in Libya.
In the end if we want a peaceful world then we need far, far more women in positions of power, thoughout the world.
This is just another sexist rant filled with misandry. When do you people ever tire of bashing men as little more than violent primitive animals best kept in a zoo?
Don't you even feel a little bit silly that you're a man yourself when you say these things? And how are boys who grow up in this anti-male atmosphere supposed to develop? Have you thought about that?
Hi Lucy,
There are men out there murdering defenceless protestors on the streets Syria. There are other men committing mass rapes on women in the Congo. I could go on. Men are capable of committing the most horrendous crimes, rape,murder, torture and genicide. I am not man basing when i say these things, they are facts.
I was brought up in the during the cold war when the USSR and USA had enought nuclear weopons deployed on each other that would have wiped out civilization. Where the whole world lived in fear of a Third World War. I'm not making this up this is historic fact. You then have to ask yourself why are we allowing idiots like this rule and dominate our world?
Yes, i am a man, and as a man I am ashamed of my sex for the irrisponsible way we rule our world. How are boys suppose to develop in a patriarchal society where we are taught to be macho, aggressive and brutal towards others?
I was brought up to be a macho man as a boy but in truth i never really wanted to be aggressive to other people.
Hi wabond and thanks for answering,
yes, these atrocities were mostly committed by men but that does not mean that the majority of men would want to do such things. Men who are violent beasts, constitute a tiny minority of the male population. Most men are not violent.
You might also want to consider that men constitute the vast majority of the victims of violent crimes too. And most of those who are violent, are so because they were victims of violence themselves.
Also, there's absolutely no reason to believe women start any less wars than men if they have most of the political power. The real reason for women being less violent historically is because they had men to do the fighting for them.
And you forgot to mention that men are also responsible for most of what's good in the world. If you're going to judge half the human population, at least take all things into consideration.
Teaching boys to hate their own sex is a sure way to make things worse, not better. Don't dodge the question. How about teaching compassion, forgiveness and respect? How about exercising those things yourself?
If you're so ashamed of your sex, I'm very sorry but that's your problem. Please don't make it other people's problem.
Hi Lucy
I would agree that it would be a great idea to teach men to loving and caring human beings. But patriarchy teaches the opposite. All patrairchal goverments teach men to be tough, ruthless and macho. The role models given to boys in comics, books and films are violent heros who wins the day by being better at violence than the villian.
As for the idea of women being as violent as men if given the chance of getting into power. All women have a powerful maternal instinct, so the focus of any Matriarchal goverment will always be on children. No govement dominated by women will want to see children in the country they rule live in poverty and ignorance. They will not have the same interest in warfare as men, and will certainly will not have the same interest in invading other countries as what patriarchal countries do. Also I believe a matrairchal goverment will be more interested in teaching boys to be caring and loving people than any patriarchal goverment.
As for hating their own sex, men already do this. Muslems hate Jewish and Christian men, Christian and Jewish men hate Muslems. Men hate and fear other men from other countries, religions, social classes and ethic groups. We live in a world of fear and hatred which can boil over into warfare at any time. It would be far better if men stop looking for scapegoats for the world's problems and blame each other and look at themselves and men in general. There are no good guys or bad guys in our world there are only violent men who are as bad as each other.
If all men realise they do a terrible job of ruling our world, and are ashamed of how we have messed up the world. Then we all might have the humility to stand aside and allow women to rule instead.
Five thousand years of history have shown that patriarchy is totally incapable of solving basic problems like warfare and poverty. So why are we continuing with a system that clearly does not work?
What is the problem with Matriarchy? Why are you so against the idea of women ruling the world? When you see the mess the world is in, with men ruling our world.
Hi again,
"All women have a powerful maternal instinct, so the focus of any Matriarchal goverment will always be on children. "
Believe it or not, that is a PATRIARCHAL image of women you're painting.
"No govement dominated by women will want to see children in the country they rule live in poverty and ignorance. "
No government of any developed country wants to see children in poverty - male or female.
"They will not have the same interest in warfare as men, and will certainly will not have the same interest in invading other countries as what patriarchal countries do. "
This statement comes from a grave misconception of what causes wars. Wars were nearly always the result of competing cultures. We are the offspring of those who fought for their survival. If our ancestors had been pacifists, we would not be here today. And if we decide to become pacifists (as you seem to suggest), then our culture will be overwhelmed by those who aren't pacifist.
"As for hating their own sex, men already do this. Muslems hate Jewish and Christian men, Christian and Jewish men hate Muslems. Men hate and fear other men from other countries, religions, social classes and ethic groups. "
Now you're shifting goalposts. What you describe there is religious intolerance and racism. That's not what we were talking about. Besides, women are quite capable of those things too.
"Five thousand years of history have shown that patriarchy is totally incapable of solving basic problems like warfare and poverty. "
How about these:
democracy
calculus
general relativity
quantum theory
Darwin's theory of evolution
discovery of the American continent
steam engine
radio
electricity
transistor
motorized transport
aviation
space travel
central heating
periodic table of elements
penicillin
the Well-Tempered Clavier
Beethoven's 9th symphony
...
This is only a tiny fraction of the accomplishments of human kind under what you call patriarchy.
"What is the problem with Matriarchy? Why are you so against the idea of women ruling the world? "
I have no problem with a matriarchy or women ruling the world. Why would I? What I have a problem with is sexism and hate speech - which is what your article is full of.
Hi Lucy
I am not painting a patriarchal picture of women i am painting a biological one. We are mammals; it is the female in all species of mammal that care for the young. In most mammal species the males have nothing, or very little to do with this. If females didn’t have a powerful maternal instinct to do this most animals would go extinct.
In human females this instinct has to be stronger than most other mammals because the human child is far more helpless than any other mammal, and takes far longer to mature. It is true some human men do help with caring for the young but many will also leave the female when she is pregnant or has his child and will strongly resist paying maintenance for his own children.
You say that warfare comes from competing cultures and I agree with this, but who are the people competing with each other? It is nearly always men, and this is to do with the male competitive instinct. Again if we look at the animal kingdom, we find every spring animals like stags, bull and rams fighting each other for dominance and access to females. The human male is similar but human males fight with spears, swords, rifles, machine guns, field guns, rockets, air craft and nuclear weapons. (As in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WW2). In the whole history of warfare only a small handful of women have joined in this insanity. You can safely say that over 99% of all violence committed in our world has been committed by men.
I certainly agree if any matriarchal country was to become completely pacifist it would be in grave danger of invasion from a patriarchal country. So any matriarchal country will have to retain its military but the fact is, the more matriarchal countries we have, the less likely we are to have warfare in our world. As women have far less interest in war and violence than what men do.
I would agree that women can be brainwashed into intolerance by patriarchal doctrines. But the people who create these doctrines of hate and intolerance are always men. Women who are not dominated by oppressive patriarchal societies are more able to express their nurturing and loving natures.
I would certainly agree that men are generally better at science, engineering and mechanic than women, and I don’t see any problem with this. Men can continue to be scientists, engineers and mechanics in a matriarchal society. And yes, patriarchy has evolved to the degree we now have democracy in some countries of our world. Men do not like the way they rule our world and do attempt to do better. For instance many men have attempted to create equal societies with socialism and communism but totally failed because their competitive instincts got in the way of this. It is this strong competitive instinct that trips men up every time. This is why in democracy they have to have fiercely competing political parties to make it work.
I cannot understand you thinking my articles are full of hate!? Are you saying that any criticism of men is not allowed?
"I am not painting a patriarchal picture of women i am painting a biological one. "
Biological determinism - the basis for pretty much every kind of sexism. You cannot know exactly how much of us is determined through biology. You're just using this to justify an idealized image you have of women. People have used this to justify all kinds of genocide incidentally.
"It is true some human men do help with caring for the young..."
Actually human males care about a million times more about their offspring than almost all other species.
"You say that warfare comes from competing cultures and I agree with this, but who are the people competing with each other? It is nearly always men, and this is to do with the male competitive instinct."
If you think that women don't compete then you're gravely mistaken. Just because you don't see female competition because you're not affected by it, does not mean it's any less aggressive than male competition. And I said before, women haven't had to fight because they had men to do the fighting for them. Their interest in resources and prevailing their culture was just as strong.
"Again if we look at the animal kingdom, we find every spring animals like stags, bull and rams fighting each other for dominance and access to females. "
But this means that females are the cause for male competitiveness and that this is their biologically determined role. If so, then, in all likelihood, more female power would lead to more male competition, not less.
You also completely ignore what competition is: the result of people wanting or needing something of which there isn't enough for everyone. To become a political leader is a perfect example. Anyone who aspires for such a position has to be extremely competitive in order to succeed and this is every bit as true for women as it is for men. Therefore, even if women were not competitive, those women who become leaders would have to be highly competitive nonetheless. This is the nature of leadership and has nothing to do with gender.
"I would certainly agree that men are generally better at science, engineering and mechanic than women, "
More blatant sexism. The accomplishments of men are not the result of men being better. Women are just as capable. Just like with warfare (which drove many of those accomplishments by the way), women have achieved less, mostly because they didn't need to and not because they couldn't or wouldn't.
"I cannot understand you thinking my articles are full of hate!? Are you saying that any criticism of men is not allowed?"
Criticism is not the problem. Sexism is. You're criticizing all men for being men. You made broad generalizations casting all men, not some, not even most, but ALL of them in collective shame and guilt. This is exactly the same thing as racism or antisemitism or any other hate filled bigotry. And now you've also declared women naturally less intelligent than men. Blatant sexist bigotry. You're not even trying to hide it.
The real scary part is that I think you genuinely believe that you want to make things better.
I can see by your comments that you are a Feminist who believes that men and woman are the same. Now, I can understand why feminist think that. Back in the 19th century when women first began to organize protest against inequality there were men who were saying things like, “men should rule the world because they are more intelligent than women” or that, “women are too emotional to make hard and sensible decisions”.
To counter arguments like this, women stated that men and women are the same, and continued to say this in 1960 -70s with the Women’s Liberation Movement. So this argument has been a help for women’s empowerment. The big problem with this argument is that it is not true, men and women can never be the same, because women have children and men don’t.
Now, I can understand the fear Feminist have, that if we undermine the dogma that men and women are same, and say that women are driven by a powerful maternal instinct and men driven by a powerful competitive instinct. Then it can be argued that women should stay at home and look after the children and men should go out and rule the world. Which would be all right, if men done a half decent job in doing this. The problem is that men do a really terrible job in ruling our world and it should be obvious to everyone, that they are totally incapable of doing this,
To keep on repeating what I have previously said. It is men’s powerful competitive instincts that cause wars and brings about the big gap between rich and poor, creating widespread poverty. It is women maternal and nurturing instincts that would make women far better rulers of our world, as they would care far more about the people they rule, than male rulers. And we would be far less likely to have wars and female rulers would be far more active in overcoming problems like poverty and class warfare.
But if you insist that men and women are the same and any suggestion that they are not is ‘sexism’, then I don’t see how this conversation can continue. It is developing into a “yes it is”, “no it’s not” argument.
Omg, I'm so not a feminist. You completely got that one wrong.
As for the rest, I agree that this is starting to go around in circles but that is because you ignored my points and just responded by repeating your initial statements. Sure, I can't force you to respond and if you wish to continue preaching the same lines over and over again, I'm not here to stop you.
I don't "insist that men and women are the same". Where have I said that? Of course men and women are different but any two people are different. In fact men and women are far more diverse among each other than between each other - meaning we are more similar than different. Implementing policies or social change based on genitalia is the same as doing so based on skin color. It is short sighted and reactionary at best.
Sexism comes into play with phrases like "women are not as good as man at ..." or "men are all violent" and similar phrases you wrote. If you decide for yourself that's not sexism then, again, that's your choice. Has it even occurred to you that stating men are violent by nature is laying the groundwork for justifying preventive incarceration? What when you get arrested because you're deemed "potentially violent" because you're a man? Would you then still be preaching the same lines?
And as for how "bad" everything is under our political leaders, we're still alive aren't we? So things could be a lot worse. How do you know they wouldn't be under female rule? You're just guessing and speculating. At least have the intellectual integrity to call it that.
Hi Lucy
I completely agree that we are all different, but the differences between men and women are far, far greater than the differences between different men or different women.
The fact is that is it nearly always men who fight in wars or commit genicide. Yes, you might get a few women join in with this insanity, but you are comparing millions of men with a handful of women.
Nearly all crimes if violence are also commmitted by men. Again you can have a small minority of women who are violent but they are far outnumbered by men.
I agree there is no actual proof that women can rule better than men. The only way we can have this proof is for women to start ruling countries. But this shouldn't be a problem because the only way a matrairchal goverment can get into power is through demcratic means. Unlike men, women are very unlikely to get into power through a bloody revolution or by conquest. There has never been in history a case of a Amazon army of women that set out to conquer the world, but this has happened many times with men. (Like alexander the great, genghis khan, bonaparte and hitler) So if a matrairchal goverment was to perform poorly they would be quickly voted out of office.
I personally do not deem all men are violent. but men, as the military has shown, can be brutalised or trained into becoming killers. War is only possible, because men can be trained to kill. Likewise despotic dictatorship is again possible, because a dictator has a army of young men whom will murder and torture the population when ordered to do so. You can see this happening today in Syria. And please note, the people killing the defenceless population, are all men.
Men can be trained to become killers and this is what patrairchal goverments do to men. But if we had women rule the world, they would want to train men from the time they are children, to be loving and caring human beings.
I don't think saying that patriarchy is not so bad because we are still alive, is not exactly a vote confidence in male rule. We are suppose to be an intellegent animal. Men have the intellegence to be able to fly men to the moon, but is incapable of solving basic problems like warfare and poverty. Men seem to be very good at technology or solving mathmatical problems but are totally useless in dealing with people. Patrairchal rulers treat people as if they are numbers, or pawns in a chess game. Women do have better communication and social skills than men, which is another reason why they should be ruling our world.
"differences between men and women are far, far greater than the differences between different men or different women."
Differences between what men and women? It sounds like you just have an image in your head of what a woman should be like and that's what you compare your picture of men with. What about average women and average men? Who is more diverse anyway?
To say that men and women are more different than similar just couldn't be more false anyway. The fallacy lies in a blindness to the similarities. On the most basic level we can start comparing how many organs we have in common with how many organs we don't have in common. You could make an enormous list of things that are virtually or exactly the same with both men and women. Sure you could make a list of differences too but that could never be even remotely as long.
"The fact is that is it nearly always men who fight in wars or commit genicide."
I already answered this several times. I'm bored with repeating myself. You just will not see the fallacy in the conclusion: "if most of xyz are men, therefore most men are xyz". As long as you don't see what's wrong with that, then there's not point in discussing it. One thing I might not have mentioned yet is that it is also nearly always men who stop those atrocities. Something to think about maybe.
"The only way we can have this proof is for women to start ruling countries."
Well just look at those women who have ruled countries and how often they did or didn't go to war. Then compare that ratio with how often male rules started wars and there's a good start.
Here's a quote from Dr. Rob Sparrow which you might want to read:
"...war is a political relationship between states and has nothing to do with the individual psychology of the individuals involved… It’s the political systems that drive the actions of those in power rather than the other way around… in order to gain political power, women have to accommodate themselves to the needs of these systems as much as men do…"
Which is just a better wording of what I said earlier.
"I personally do not deem all men are violent. but men, as the military has shown, can be brutalised or trained into becoming killers."
So can women. Yes, I know. Your ideal image of women doesn't leave any room for such a possibility but I'm not here to discuss your picture of how women should be or how you like them.
"But if we had women rule the world, they would want to train men from the time they are children, to be loving and caring human beings."
That sounds like a perfect Orwellian nightmare. Besides, women already do the biggest part in shaping men. The saying goes "the mother makes the man".
"Men have the intellegence to be able to fly men to the moon, but is incapable of solving basic problems like warfare and poverty. "
There's nothing basic about the problems in warfare and poverty. Show me any woman who has solved such problems and it's not like there haven't been any female political leaders who had the chance.
"Patrairchal rulers treat people as if they are numbers, or pawns in a chess game. "
All political rulers do this - women included.
"Women do have better communication and social skills than men, which is another reason why they should be ruling our world."
In other words, because you're a man, your writing here isn't as qualified because you have inferior communication skills. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Hi Lucy,
I am shocked and amazed at what you say. It makes me realise just how brainwashed the population has been by patrairchal properganda. It seems that patriarchy can fight wars, commit genicide, condemn billions of people into poverty, mess up the finacial system of world, and get away with it, because people will swallow all the bullshit patrirchy gives them, without question.
You need to look at what is happening to the world without the patriarchal blindfold. For instance at present we have what is called the "Arab Spring" where people in the Middle East are getting fed up with their oppressive goverment and risking their lives to demostrate and fight their goverments. The tragedy of all this will be, that the new goverments the people have laid down their lives to bring in, will not be any better than the last goverments. And why? Simply because these new goverments will be ruled by men.
It is patrairchal rule that is holding back human progress, our world can never become a better place while men continue to rule it. I cannot understand why after five thousand years of patriarchal history why people cannot see this. Yes, patriarchy is very, very good at justifying wars and poverty. But all this is just propaganda and needs to be seen in this way.
Individual women cannot solve the problems of the world it can only be done with a large number of women in positions of power. At present female politicians have to join patriarchal political parties and prove themselves to be macho men to be taken seriously. Things can only change when we have matriarchal political parties where women are free to be themselves and not have men tell them how to behave.
Five thousand years of patriarchal history has shown men are totally incapable of solving the problems of our world. We are not going to get any change until women orginize themselves and take a active role in ruling our world.
I'm sorry but if you think I'm wrong about something, then you need to point out my mistake(s) to me in detail. Then I'm happy to change my position. But just telling me that I'm brainwashed and then repeating your initial statements is not an argument. It's just preaching.
I've found another mistake in your reasoning though: You make a correlation where there might not be one and sell it as fact. When you go on about how men ruling the world has been such a disaster, you're making the assumption that it is because they're men that it resulted in disaster. But that's just a guess. That's like saying that mustaches turn people into dictators.
"At present female politicians have to join patriarchal political parties and prove themselves to be macho men to be taken seriously. "
What exactly is a patriarchal political party? Please define the word before throwing it around.
"Things can only change when we have matriarchal political parties where women are free to be themselves and not have men tell them how to behave."
Here too, what are you talking about. As if men are free to be themselves. Come on.
Hi Lucy
I don't think we are going to get anywhere with this.
When i talk about brainwashing what i mean is that i find it really incredible that men have ruled our world for thousands of years and in that time we have wars, genicide and poverty, but you tell me that it may not have nothing to do with male rule!? It has been men who have ruled all our all our countries in that time, so if it has nothing to do with men, then whose fault is it? I know men are good at blaming it on the Devil or other men and some even have the cheek to blame women. But if men are incapable of taking responsiblities for their own actions, then that is another reason why they shouldn't be ruling our world.
You also asked what is a patriarchal political party, it is simple, a political party ruled and controlled by men. This would be every political party we know in the world. The only exception would be some Scandiavian political parties where there is enought women in some of them, to have some influence.
I think the problem is this feminist dogma that says men and women are the same. You insist this is true, whereas it is obvious to me that men and women are very different. I don't see how we can get pass this.
"but you tell me that it may not have nothing to do with male rule!? "
I'm saying it may not be because of the genitalia of the rulers.
"so if it has nothing to do with men, then whose fault is it? "
Nobody's. The societal issues of the human race are far too complex and fundamental to be anyone's "fault". Looking for somebody to blame is classic reactionary writing.
"I think the problem is this feminist dogma that says men and women are the same. You insist this is true,..."
We've been through that and I've explained my position before. Don't put different words in my mouth now.
I have one more question: Supposing what you say is true, then could you please describe to us in detail how your matriarchy should look? I mean, what would you change about the current democratic system of the Western developed countries? And how would a woman rise to power in such a system - what would she need to do in order to get voted into power (assuming you're not getting rid of elected leadership)?
Hi Lucy
If people cannot take responsiblity for their actions then we we are incapable of making our world a better place. Patrirchal politics is very complicated mostly because it is a propaganda war, where different men fight for power by trying to convince the public of a certain point of view.
I am not that interested in systems, i am more interested in people. Incompetent or corupt people can mess up any system, know matter how good it is. To me goverment should be about getting intellegent and caring people into positions of power. The present patriarchal system doesn't do that. This is because the patrirachal power is all about competitiveness and aggression. In the past the people who got into power were the most successful warlords. If you were successful on the battle field then you were more likely to be king. But being a successful military commander doesn't equip you to be a very good ruler of people. Nowadays in the Western world things have changed and we now have democracy. But the same mentality still there, men do not fight for power with swords but with words. The most successful policians are those who can play the political of a war of words and again this doesn't equip them to be very good rulers of people.
If we have a matriarchal system based on the nurturing feminine ideals then people will vote for politicans who are not great military leader or successful con men but geniuine caring and loving people. It make sense for our world to be rule by nuturing and maternal people and not the most competitive people like we have throughout our history.
The public will also have to be re-educated to want to vote for geniune caring and nuturing women. So this is a long term thing but you have to start somewhere.
Let me see if I got this right:
You are advocating a major change in the political system because you believe it will be a huge improvement. You are however not interested in political systems and won't or can't say what exactly will be changed. But then you cannot know with any degree of certainty that those changes would have any benefit whatsoever. You can't even know that they won't make things a lot worse. So you added that, well things have gotten so messed up it's time we tried something else. But there you're forgetting that this has been argued many times before and has lead to disaster pretty much every time - much greater disaster than the current system has brought upon us. So just trying something else because the old system is so bad, is not in the least persuasive. It's reactionary fanaticism. Nothing else.
Just this sentence of yours could be straight from Orwell:
"The public will also have to be re-educated to want to vote for geniune caring and nuturing women."
What do you mean by re-educated? What do you want to do exactly? Are you saying that people are intentionally voting for uncaring politicians? They're not of course. Politicians pretend to be caring, decent people so that they win voters. Again, this is the same for either gender. If anything needs to be taught to the electorate, it's more skepticism towards the media and what politicians tell them (and towards writing like yours). In other words more education period - not re-education or reprogramming or indoctrination. Just education but more of it and most importantly, available to more people.
Hi Lucy
As I have previously pointed out, matriarchy cannot get into power through a bloody revolution or through conquest. We are not going to get a Amazon army take over any goverment by force. It can only be done through democractic means. So not only does a matrairchal goverment has to convince the voters they are better than the existing goverments, they have to demostrate they are a better than the existing system when they are in power or they will be voted out of office.
At the present moment with the mishandling of the world's financial system, with rising population, global warming and more and more wars people are getting fed up with our present system. But because they do not have an alternitive to it they are forced to vote for the status-quo. If things get worse then people might look for something different but the chances are they will look to Facism or bring back communism or perhaps go to extreme religion.
What i am trying to point out is that there is an alternitive that no one has tried and that is matrairchy.
Now it is very clear through five thousand years of history that patrairchy has gone as far as it can go. They have somehow made democracy work but even this is getting undermined all the time. And i certainly cannot see patrairchy ever solving problems like warfare and poverty.
Off course i cannot say how matrairchy will operate simply because in recorded history we have very little knowledge of how matriarchy works. But as i have also pointed out the it the type of people in power that is far more important than the system they use. The point about matriarchy based on women's matneral and nurturing instincts, we have a chance of getting caring and loving people into positions of power. As you have pointed out patriarchal politicans only pretend to be caring people.
Now you may not see the advantages of matriarchy because you claim men and women are the same. Which i personally cannot understand, because to me, on the whole, the sexes are very, very different from each other.
Ok, I'm starting to get irritated by your repeated misquoting of my words.
I never said "patriarchal politicans only pretend to be caring people". I said politicians in general do this - women as well as men. It has nothing to do with "patriarchy". It's entirely the result of how a voting democracy works. People vote the most convincing actor or actress. They might be caring as well but that is coincidental. Only if they perform the act convincingly will they get voted.
I'm really tired of correcting this one:
"you claim men and women are the same"
Tell me, should I bother going over what I said yet again? Or will you 'forget' it and misquote me in a few days time anyway? I'm just asking because I have other things to do than to repeat myself and it would be nice if you told me now so I don't waste my time.
The only thing interesting you touched on was the fact that there are virtually no matriarchies in recorded history. This gives rise to the question why. Given that cultures have undergone a kind of social evolution since the beginning of civilization, the absence of any matriarchy could be taken as evidence that matriarchal societies are less prosperous.
Patriarchal politicians can be both male and female. As i previously pointed out many female politcians have to act and behave like men to gain respect within the patriarchal system.
As for the reason why there is no matriarchies in recorded history the reasons is warfare. All the matriarchal societies of the Neolithic age was destroyed by violent conquest. Women cannot compete against men when they use violence. The only reason why matriarchy is possible now, is that we now have democractic goverments.
I totally agree with you wabond! You gave great answers. They were extremely informative! I'm glad there are people like you in this world!
wabond you are a lila poodle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggWy50I9et8
you must answer to this video..Mr.Wabond..still u are saying women are not cruel?????
Hi Aswin,
Over 99% of the violence of the world is committed by men. Yes, individual women can be cruel and violent but compared with the violence committed by men every day, it is just like comparing a ant with an elephant.
Given that humans are inherently non-violent and given that violence is inversely proportional to your social status, that would suggest that men's greater tendency to violence is largely circumstantial and not inherent in being male (you're not violent either are you?).
So those 99% are, if anything, an indication that men are in a lot of trouble. Violence is what people resort to when they have no other options or no hope and no compassion or help from anyone. Hardly anyone would use violence as a calculated strategic method for achieving successful results. I think among those who do, you probably won't find more men than women.
Men are in a lot of trouble, Lucy, because they are ruling the world, a job they are completely unsuitable for. Yes, men may not want violence but they are aggressive and competitive with each other and this gets completely out of hand, where we do end up with violence. Then once we get into a violent situation we end up with psychopaths becoming leaders, because a psychopath is far more able to deal with violence than ordinary men.
As for using violence as a calculated strategic method, psychopathic leader like Hitler or Stalin or just your local gang leader do use violence to achieve results. The history of violence in men cannot be circumstantial because it has happened time and time again. War and genocide has been commonplace in patriarchal history.
Yes, I agree the ordinary man doesn't want violence but patriarchal rule tends to put the worse possible leaders in power. Because the most ruthless, aggressive and competitive people tend to get into positions of power in patriarchal countries.
Like it or not, men make terrible rulers of our world, the whole of history proves this.
Mr Wabond, excuse my bluntness but I think what Lucy is trying to get at is that you seem to think it is somehow "natural" that women behave in a hegemonically "feminine" way, just as many gender conservatives assume it is "natural" that men behave in a hegemonically "masculine" (patriarchal) gender role. It annoys me to when people suggest that feminine men/masculine women are simply "not being true to themselves", which is bullsh*t. I don't think that gender is biological, and if a man were to ask Ellen Degeneres to "not be ashamed of expressing her feminine side", I am almost certain he would have his face rearranged, or at least be given a stern lecture on diversity and transphobia. Women like Margaret Thatcher, Wu Zetian,Elizabeth I, etc were not being "forced" to adopt a masculine gender role; on the contrary they were expected to behave in a hegemonically "feminine" manner, but chose to behave in a "masculine" manner, not out of social pressure, but out of their own free will. Some women are simply not comfortable with the stereotypically "girly" role; it would be like putting on a mask, so to speak. And yes, boys and men clearly are NOT free to express themselves; if they were, they would be able to wear skirts and dresses in public without shame, and wear slightly revealing clothes and Speedoes without being tainted with the gay label. And a male feminist might say, "But I don't want to wear those things in the first place,so how is it a bad thing that we can't wear them?" But the male feminist in many cases(who is usually some hegemonically masculine man who can't understand why men would want to be "feminine") fails to see through his hegenomic myopia the suffering that his fellow men who don't benefit from patriarchy go through, living in a society where masculinity is basically a tightrope that feminine men are forced to walk on, in exchange for the illusion of "power". Truth is, most men in the West have no more freedom of expression than their grandfathers did, and it certainly isn't helping when these male feminists dismiss their issues (e.g. cross dressing, femininity, wearing dresses, etc) as being invalid and unimportant, simply due to the fact that they (the male feminists) have never had to go through them, and therefore have no idea what it's like to be born into the body of a "feminine" man, which leads them to believe that all men are somehow "overprivileged". Wrong. Patriarchy is not a system which benefits MEN. It is a system which benefits PATRIARCHS. So you got it right on one count (patriarchy - social system that benefits PATRIARCHS), but wrong on the other (failing to mention that men don't need to be liberated from their restrictive, rigid gender role).
Hi BereniceTeh90
Off course the differences between men and women are biological. The reason for this is that women give birth to children and men don't. You cannot dismiss childbirth as being totally unimportant. The very fact that women give birth effects a women, physically, mentally and emotionally.
Yes, patriarchy do use women's maternal instincts against them, suggesting that her nurturing instinct make women too 'weak' and emotional to make sensible decisions. ("Sensible" decisions like going to war and committing genocide).
I personally think that the way to counter patriarchal propaganda is not for women to deny their maternal instincts and try and pretend they are like men. But to point out that men do a really terrible job of ruling our world and that women because of their maternal and nurturing instincts would do a far, far better job.
GracieLake Level 1 Commenter 11 months ago
This is an interesting opinion, and one that has been bandied about by feminists, certainly. I agree that women are, in general, less interested in warfare. Now that the U.S. is pulling out of Afghanistan to pursue more covert options, I'd like to believe there's a shift in the way we approach war. Alternatives must be more seriously embraced!