What happened to the Matriarchal Cultures

[rainbowvein]

On 11/8/2017 at 10:30 PM, Taomeow said:

If she is a carrier of matriarchal power, no one has seen her or heard of her.

 

If Tao is a baby  

 

Then all babies come from a Mother  

 

It is difficult to see or hear Tao, never mind it's Mother.

 

Motherhood is a different type of power, methinks. That's why it is difficult for so many to recognize.

 

 

 

[rene]

40 minutes ago, Wells said:

I am asking myself why there are so many more men than women who achieve rainbow body / enlightenment.

 

Upon what do you base that idea?

 

 

40 minutes ago, Wells said:

I thought that just depends on the level or capacity of the student, at least that's what all the gurus and books claim...

 

It might be that more males use/need/follow gurus and books to bring them into balance, sure.

[Jetsun]

In most non Islamic countries the chains of Patriarchy are gone, in the sense it isn't generally dangerous for women or men to break the system, but the conditioning of Patriarchy remains. Conditioning can only really be dealt with internally, blaming the current crop of men only maintains a state of false victimhood and powerlessness and shifts the responsibility out of ourselves (not that I see that blame going on in this thread but is quite common in the world at the moment) 

 

https://journal.thriveglobal.com/the-world-needs-motherhood-e9b174acb82c

 

A matrichical society would benefit everyone, both men and women , how to bring it about is the question

[Wells]

9 minutes ago, rene said:

Upon what do you base that idea?

 

It is not an idea, it is a fact, based on facts, evaluated through thorough research.

That and not wishful thinking and bias is what some people base their worldview on.

Everybody can do his own research and will inevitably come to the exact same result.

 

9 minutes ago, rene said:

It might be that more males use/need/follow gurus and books to bring them into balance, sure.

 

Lol! Balance! That's not only baselessly inflated and misandristic prejeduce, but also profound ignorance.

I was talking Buddhahood, not some new age kumbaya "enlightenment" that could be equated with "balance".

 

Probably you should do some research before trying to discuss in a forum like thedaobums!

[rene]

2 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

In most non Islamic countries the chains of Patriarchy are gone, in the sense it isn't generally dangerous for women or men to break the system, but the conditioning of Patriarchy remains. Conditioning can only really be dealt with internally, blaming the current crop of men only maintains a state of false victimhood and powerlessness and shifts the responsibility out of ourselves (not that I see that blame going on in this thread but is quite common in the world at the moment) 

 

https://journal.thriveglobal.com/the-world-needs-motherhood-e9b174acb82c

 

A matrichical society would benefit everyone, both men and women , how to bring it about is the question

 

Good question, indeed. The blame (common in the world) that you spoke of might only project females into the patriarchal mindset that Taomeow spoke of, basically swapping this for that, without the shift in the subtle. 

[rene]

7 minutes ago, Wells said:

 

It is not an idea, it is a fact, based on facts, evaluated through thorough research.

That and not wishful thinking and bias is what some people base their worldview on.

Everybody can do his own research and will inevitably come to the exact same result.

 

 

Lol! Balance! That's not only baselessly inflated and misandristic prejeduce, but also profound ignorance.

I was talking Buddhahood, not some new age kumbaya "enlightenment" that could be equated with "balance".

 

Probably you should do some research before trying to discuss in a forum like thedaobums!

 

Probably you should re-read thedaobum's rules  you agreed to before making inflammatory posts personalized toward another member.

 

 

[ralis]

Patriarchal cultures celebrate dominance and competition as seen in the U.S. Very little cooperation. Also war. 

 

Matriarchal cultures are supportive, cooperative and no one need feel isolated. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by ralis

[Wells]

28 minutes ago, rene said:

Probably you should re-read thedaobum's rules  you agreed to before making inflammatory posts personalized toward another member.

 

I don't see you address the details of my post which were allegedly "inflammatory" nor the exact rules which were allegedly broken.

The assumption of yours that males rather need gurus and books to bring them into "balance" is misandristic and biased.

If you have the opinion that enlightenment is just "balance" then your idea of enlightenment is new age at best but surely not buddhist or taoist.

If you can't handle being confronted with that, that doesn't break automatically thedaobums rules.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Wells

[rene]

35 minutes ago, Wells said:

 

It is not an idea, it is a fact, based on facts, evaluated through thorough research.

That and not wishful thinking and bias is what some people base their worldview on.

Everybody can do his own research and will inevitably come to the exact same result.

 

 

Lol! Balance! That's not only baselessly inflated and misandristic prejeduce, but also profound ignorance.

I was talking Buddhahood, not some new age kumbaya "enlightenment" that could be equated with "balance".

 

Probably you should do some research before trying to discuss in a forum like thedaobums!

 

I've highlighted the inflammatory, contemptuous and condescending parts directed to a specific member (in this case, me).

 

3 minutes ago, Wells said:

 

I don't see you address the details of my post which were allegedly "inflammatory" nor the exact rules which were allegedly broken.

 

From the rules link:

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, spam, obscene, profane, threatens or incites violence, invasive of a person's privacy, nor of denigrating and/or erotically suggestive avatars, signatures, links and pictures, or otherwise violative of any law.
 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Wells said:

The assumption of yours that males rather need gurus and books to bring them into "balance" is misandristic and biased.

 

Your opinion is based solely on your own assumption as to what you think I meant. Your assumption was inaccurate.

 

3 minutes ago, Wells said:

If you have the opinion that enlightenment is just "balance" then your idea of enlightenment is new age at best but surely not buddhist or taoist.

 

I'm neither new age, buddhist, taoist, or any other 'ist'; nor do you know what my 'idea of enlightenment' is.

 

3 minutes ago, Wells said:

If you can't handle being confronted with that, that doesn't break automatically thedaobums rules.

 

Ideas are always welcome to be confronted, absolutely! But that doesn't mean also including disparaging personal attacks on those who wish to debate ideas, or on those who simply ask for elaboration or clarification.

 

[rene]

29 minutes ago, Wells said:

 

I don't see you address the details of my post which were allegedly "inflammatory" nor the exact rules which were allegedly broken.

The assumption of yours that males rather need gurus and books to bring them into "balance" is misandristic and biased.

If you have the opinion that enlightenment is just "balance" then your idea of enlightenment is new age at best but surely not buddhist or taoist.

If you can't handle being confronted with that, that doesn't break automatically thedaobums rules.

 

I see you've edited your post. Thank you for toning it down, most appreciated.

[Taomeow]

5 hours ago, Wells said:

 

In other words: You believe in oppression of males.

 

 

O.k. but then also enough with the misandry card.

 

No, those "other words" are in your head.  Instead of putting them into my mouth that has never uttered them, ask me what I mean.  Works better than getting angry at a fantom of an opera never written or performed.    

 

"Misandry card?"  Don't have one.  Patriarchy is no androphilia, it is humanophobia.  The card is anti-patriarchal, not anti-male.  Patriarchy is misogyny plus misandry.  You can't raise a male whole, normal and happy by first damaging beyond repair the woman who will give birth to him.  Matriarchy does not damage women -- and that's why it does not damage their sons.  Patriarchy does.  It's as simple as that.   

 

Edit: typo

Edited November 16, 2017 by Taomeow

[Anastasia]

On 9.11.2017 at 4:30 AM, Taomeow said:

~~~ SPLIT BY STAFF ~~~

 

 

Misogyny schmisogyny.  Here's the deal:

 

1. I am a believer in traditional matriarchal societies that kept us safely alive and thriving and happy (sic) for a million years.  I don't think we ever got anything right on this planet since the patriarchal takeover.  As in, never, and nothing.  As in, an ongoing disaster of a few thousand years with no end in sight.  As in, I don't think there's a political system that can grow out of a patriarchal set-up that will ever bring anything but misery to the majority.  I don't care what it's called.  I call it zombie patriarchy.  It can manifest as zombie capitalism, zombie socialism, or zombie feudalism.  They're all the same to me.  Dead on arrival.

 

2.  One of the most devastating developments of the patriarchal rule is the transmogrification of women.  A patriarchal template does not change when this or that slot happens to be occupied by a patriarchally trained woman.  The fact that she is a woman is irrelevant if the slot in the patriarchal template of power remains unchanged.  The woman who is not a patriarchal ruler can't fit in in a million years.  

 

3. Hillary is a patriarchal overlord.  Please do not ascribe misogyny to whoever dislikes her for her patriarchal overlordly ways.  I don't dislike a woman.  I dislike a patriarchal overlord exploiting its anatomical features toward a patriarchal power grab.  Patriarchal power grabs exploit whatever is handy -- in this case, being a woman is used as one such exploitable feature the patriarchal overlord Hillary has in its possession. 

 

So please.  Enough with the misogyny card. 

 

I am thinking of starting a matriarchal political party.  But first I would have to write a manifesto and sharply delineate the difference between a woman of patriarchal functions and a woman of matriarchal functions in society.  I submit there's no women in power today, period.  None.  Not one.  If she has power, she has patriarchal power in a patriarchy.  If she is a carrier of matriarchal power, no one has seen her or heard of her.  She keeps the species alive, but she's fucking tired. 

 

Tired...  She might let go and then watch it all turn into a rotten pumpkin it's always been behind the grandeur illusion.

 

Hello Taomeow

 

There is truth to be found in your words. But I also sense a loft of anger from you. Anger that you project on a somewhat abstract masculine, which is you believe to be responsible for all evil in the world. You are a feminist in the sense that you elevate the feminine over the masculine. And your acceptance or rejection of others (males and females) seems to depend on the degree to which they embody the masculine principle that you reject.

 

What is happening is that you are confronting your shadow self (C.G. Jung), which in this case is the masculine part of your personality. This part should be allowed and gradually integrated, as we should akways seek the balance of yin and yang.

 

Interestingly, the rejected part of self or "shadow self" is usually expressed plain for others to see, such as in your "diatribe".

 

Many of the imbalances that you see in the world around you are the result of imbalances in the individuals which compose it. No political changes will make things better as long as people don't choose to create peace and harmony in themselves.

 

On 9.11.2017 at 4:44 PM, Taomeow said:

It is not necessary to have lived in every society to have an idea of what it was/is like.  No one but me in this thread lived under what they call "communism" yet ideas abound.  Everybody and his brother and sister have an opinion.  So that poster who shall remain unnamed who disqualified me from having an opinion about martriarchy yet expressed a hundred opinions about things like, e.g., Russia or Ukraine or what have you should have disqualified himself first if applying this criterion.  I have a good handle on world history (though not the kind enforced by weapons of mass instruction) and a brain.  Sapienti sat. 

 

 

I grew up under a Communist regime too. And I would say, the worlds you and I live in today are not so bad, after all. Though that depends on what you make them to be for yourself (on a personal level).

 

On 9.11.2017 at 4:44 PM, Taomeow said:

Matriarchy is not a "rule" of anyone or anything over anything not already ruled upon by nature.  Everything else goes against nature, and can never succeed because of that, in any shape or form.    

Nature is demonstrating principles of holarchy, not matriarchy. Principles that we can indeed learn from nature and apply in our human way. That's why Daoism uses so many metaphors taken from nature.

 

Best wishes

Anastasia

[Taomeow]

Anastasia,

 

don't use me as a springboard to launch into your hobbyhorse subjects.

 

And don't try to control me by ascribing feelings to me I didn't proclaim.  "I sense a lot of anger from you" is a manipulative and dishonest move behooving only a gaslighting sociopath.  Don't fall for the seeming ease of dominating someone by telling them what they feel.  Some people indeed are manipulable by this method, you can shame and belittle them easily by telling them what reprehensible emotions you "sense" about them.  I am not one of them, so don't waste your energy playing this game with me.  I've known too many players, professionals some of them, demons some others.  I eat them for breakfast.  Peacefully, with no anger.  I don't ever get angry at my food.   

 

Edit: typo

Edited November 16, 2017 by Taomeow

[liminal_luke]

3 hours ago, ralis said:

Patriarchal cultures celebrate dominance and competition as seen in the U.S. Very little cooperation. Also war. 

 

Matriarchal cultures are supportive, cooperative and no one need feel isolated. 

 

Sign Me Up. 

[Chang]

An interesting thread and subject for discussion.

 

There are those who would claim that the whole of the western world is now a Matriarchal culture but perhaps the term "feminised" culture would be the better descriptive term.

 

There is certainly a lack of masculinity in the modern western male and the very term "masculine" has now become a term of abuse used by the Liberal classes.

 

My own view is that we do not live in a Patriarchal society but a feminised society still loosely controlled by beta males, hence the proliferation of petty nastiness in all aspects of our culture. The strong are neither petty nor nasty but the weak and insecure can be nothing else.

 

 My own view is that feminism is much like socialism - a form of insanity where all unpleasantness is always someone else's fault.

 

My world view may cause offence to female readers and probably males who have yet to take the red pill but hopefully I will have given you something to ponder on.

 

 

 

 

[munky]

In general (since everyone has individual factors)  male energy is associated with the mind and worldliness, hence the stronger drive to attain external success and positions of power.

 

It is a hard energy and does not have the gentleness and softness of female energy, which is more spiritual in nature.

In general, the male has more pressure to transcend his biological nature to reach the spiritual realms. This does not mean he will be successful of course, as it is such a different thing to power and external success. Conversely, women by having female energy may not experience the same spiritual drive, but that also does not mean spiritual achievement. Perhaps, a better natural ability to project ones mind higher toward the stars.

 

It is true the two balance each other and depending on ones views both are necessary for society advancement, as that is aside from spiritual achievement, but becomes problematic due to male energy always asserting dominance.

 

[Apech]

8 hours ago, ralis said:

I will make this brief.

 

The Tao is about balance in nature and the patriarchy has thrown nature off balance.

 

1. As far as I know, the rise of the patriarchy began during the Axial Age with the rise of city states in which one male god reigned supreme i.e, monotheism. That in of itself is a rather large study.

 

2. The church (papacy) with it's patriarchal male god killed thousands if not millions of women (witch hunts) who were healers, midwives etc. which were accused of consorting with the devil. There is more historical info on that which is an extensive study in and of itself.

 

3. Holy wars, crusades and the Spanish Inquisition all in the name of an overarching all seeing male god.

 

4. Leonard Shlain's books delve into this especially 'The Alphabet vs The Goddess'.

 

5. The incessant harping of Spencer's Social Darwinist propaganda circa early 1900's, by some here has no scientific basis. Spencer's work has been debunked by research scientists and one in note, E.O. Wilson. In sum species work as a complex system and not as survival of the fittest. By extension, the biosphere is a complex system in which a balance must be maintained.

 

More later.

 

The Axial Age is I think usually the time around 500 BC when we have Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and so on - and is perhaps the introduction of logic over mythos and so on.  I think most people would date the rise of patriarchy to a much earlier period either the beginning of the Iron Age around 1200 BC or actually the beginning of agricultural based societies in Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, Egypt and China - maybe 4000 BC.

 

I agree about the Inquisition it had a strong anti-female 'theme'.

 

Holy Wars - aren't these between monotheists???  Christians vs. Islam???

 

I haven't read the other literature so cannot comment.

[ralis]

16 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

The Axial Age is I think usually the time around 500 BC when we have Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and so on - and is perhaps the introduction of logic over mythos and so on.  I think most people would date the rise of patriarchy to a much earlier period either the beginning of the Iron Age around 1200 BC or actually the beginning of agricultural based societies in Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, Egypt and China - maybe 4000 BC.

 

I agree about the Inquisition it had a strong anti-female 'theme'.

 

Holy Wars - aren't these between monotheists???  Christians vs. Islam???

 

I haven't read the other literature so cannot comment.

 

I have seen dates of 800 BC to 1200 BC. I will provide a link to the lecture I viewed. 

[Apech]

3 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

I have seen dates of 800 BC to 1200 BC. I will provide a link to the lecture I viewed. 

 

 

OK

[Marblehead]

Well, elephants still have Matriarchal societies.

 

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

I have seen dates of 800 BC to 1200 BC. I will provide a link to the lecture I viewed. 

 

 

I think its 800 - 200 BC.

[ralis]

28 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

I think its 800 - 200 BC.

 

I think you are correct. Just got my dates wrong and there does seem to be a movement toward monotheism during that time. Although, I may be not well informed on that. 

 

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/religions-of-the-axial-age-an-approach-to-the-world-s-religions.html

[Apech]

I'm not sure I buy the matriarchy - patriarchy progression as a historical theory anyway - although it is oft repeated.  But say for a moment it is correct - why would we want to go matriarchy - patriarchy - matriarchy again???  Can't we have a society based on the individual no matter what gender they are??? There was one point when I thought that was what people aspired to - but now I'm not so sure.

[dawei]

8 hours ago, ralis said:

Patriarchal cultures celebrate dominance and competition as seen in the U.S. Very little cooperation. Also war. 

 

Matriarchal cultures are supportive, cooperative and no one need feel isolated. 

 

3 hours ago, munky said:

In general (since everyone has individual factors)  male energy is associated with the mind and worldliness, hence the stronger drive to attain external success and positions of power.

 

It is a hard energy and does not have the gentleness and softness of female energy, which is more spiritual in nature.

In general, the male has more pressure to transcend his biological nature to reach the spiritual realms. This does not mean he will be successful of course, as it is such a different thing to power and external success. Conversely, women by having female energy may not experience the same spiritual drive, but that also does not mean spiritual achievement. Perhaps, a better natural ability to project ones mind higher toward the stars.

 

I split this out as well as many other questionable topics 

 

But this one has long intrigued me and TM pic has always reminded me of the spirit of Xi Wang Mu... considered a time of matriarchal respect. 

 

The above quotes are along the lines of my explanation of the gender energies as male/transmission vs female/reception.  It is wholly misunderstood as terms but the simple explanations do justice to the idea.  Of course there is generalizations, but we have to have some foundation. 

[rene]

Hi Chang, your whole post is interesting. This part -

 

4 hours ago, Chang said:

My own view is that we do not live in a Patriarchal society but a feminised society still loosely controlled by beta males, hence the proliferation of petty nastiness in all aspects of our culture. The strong are neither petty nor nasty but the weak and insecure can be nothing else.

 

 My own view is that feminism is much like socialism - a form of insanity where all unpleasantness is always someone else's fault.

 

- I think pretty well describes what TM was referring to regarding females who adopt a Patriarchal mindset...albiet using different methodologies and justifications than what is traditionally male; as they would.... i.e. they'd reflect the other side of an unbalanced coin.