What happened to the Matriarchal Cultures

[Wells]

7 hours ago, Taomeow said:

No, those "other words" are in your head.

 

Here is the proof that matriarchy by it's very definition is the oppression of males (pure misandry),

let's take a look at the very first sentence of the wikipedia article of matriarchy which tells us already enough:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

Quote

Matriarchy is a social system in which females (most notably in mammals) hold the primary power positions in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property at the specific exclusion of men - at least to a large degree.

 

The sentence says: "at the specific exclusion of men"!

In other words: Males are not allowed ("at least to a large degree") to "hold the primary power positions in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property".

No university professor would disagree that this is the exact definition of what it means in detail to oppress males!

Conclusion: There is no doubt that people who support matriarchy (and know what it means, support the widely accepted definition, etc.) support the oppression of males (at least in their own society).

 

Also: I should have said right in the beginning that I am neither a fan of patriarchy or matriarchy....or democracy.

[Taomeow]

1 hour ago, dawei said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

Xi Wangmu is one of my heroines, but the picture is of Quan Yin.   Also known as Quan Shi Yin which means ‘The One Who Hears the Cries of the World.”

 

When I get around to that manifesto, I'll be sure to include the ability to hear the cries of the world as the extension of the mother's ability to hear the cries of her infant, which immediately propels her to action (if she's normal that is -- the prevalent indoctrination of ages has been, at best, "let them cry or they will learn that they can get what they want by crying" -- meaning they will learn that they can have their normal natural needs fulfilled as they arise...  totally unacceptable!  You can't raise an acceptable member of our society without trauma-induced mind control, that's the prerequisite for "it all" "working..."  but let me get back to what I was saying.)  The action she takes is the epitome of matriarchy.  She does not start a political party to "deal with" a crying baby.  She does not put it to a vote and she, not the "majority," decides what to do -- and does it, immediately, asking no one's permission.  She does not raise taxes toward investing into better earplugs for the most deserving ears.  She does not slam the door shut so as to have some peace and quiet necessary for writing a philosophical tractate or a set of religious precepts along the lines of "spare the rod, spoil the child."  In other words, she does not do anything patriarchal when she hears the cries of the infant and, in them, as a direct fractal continuation of them, the cries of the world.  She does something matriarchal instead.

 

Until patriarchy doesn't let her.  Then she is forced to choose her options out of a total of one.  She does something patriarchal instead. 

 

And we wind up with billions of patriarchal mothers who are neither fully patriarchs nor fully mothers.  And billions of their neither-here-nor-there children.  And therein lies our trouble...  

[Taomeow]

19 minutes ago, Wells said:

 

 

let's take a look at the very first sentence of the wikipedia article of matriarchy which tells us already enough:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

 

The sentence says: "at the specific exclusion of men"!

 

 

 

Ah, that.  That, my friend, was pulled by a dominant patriarchal baboon outta his ass.  

 

For a better idea, I highly recommend this book:

 

 

[Wells]

Looking at the photo on the cover of this book, I probably should contact the author(ess) and remind her that humans can't reproduce through Parthenogenesis!

[Wells]

24 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

Ah, that.  That, my friend, was pulled by a dominant patriarchal baboon outta his ass. 

 

Then please explain to me how matriarchy allegedly does not oppress males if it by its very definition means the rulership of mothers (who all are females, not males).

[Aetherous]

A few things...

1) Saying the matriarchy is good and the patriarchy is bad is clearly just sexism and misandry in a thin disguise.

2) The gender wars are on a low level of consciousness. Most people who are sexist seem to have "issues" on that level...which should be worked out on an individual basis, and not projected onto society. Not saying anything about Taomeow, who I admire...but I'm not eye to eye on the sexist stuff.

 

3) In my dealings with women, I've found them to be very intriguing. I can't imagine a world without them, and love them...but they're not a force for good, as is often unconsciously claimed. For instance, I've managed and lived at an 11 unit rental property for the past few years...95% of the problems we ever get are from the female tenants. And those problems are significant...such as hard drugs and loud music, orgies, domestic violence, etc. Or leaving with one day notice, then threatening to sue if the deposit isn't returned. Just crazy nonsense.

 

4) If the patriarchy is bad due to men abusing their position of power, sexually harassing women as we see in the news...that goes both ways! I had a female English teacher sexually harass me in middle school...she called me back to the classroom while everyone else was watching a video, and was stroking my lower abdomen while talking to me. Is that what the matriarchy is like?

 

5) Perhaps a matriarchal society would be good if women were good...perhaps a patriarchal society would be good if men were good.

 

6) I think we've had a totally genderless society overall for a while now, ever since feminism, etc. Men don't run the show, although some do. Women don't run the show, although some do. Men who run the show are often manipulated by women.

 

7) Prior to our current genderless society, we had a patriarchal society that was manipulated by the matriarchy. War etc happened in that climate...and it happens in our current climate, which is of neutral gender.

 

8) Men and masculinity have an extremely positive side that it seems many people aren't awake to. I think this is purely due to brainwashing. People speak of "the divine masculine" and "the divine feminine"...while that seems to be elevating gender issues in an absurd way, it's also helpful to consider...men aren't evil, women aren't evil, but individuals make them seem so. Men aren't good, women aren't good, but individuals make them seem so.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Aetherous

[thelerner]

I'm a bit more positive towards woman.  I see most men and woman good, not perfect, prey to selfishness, greed and violence.  Bad can do alot of damage.  Life is complex, sometimes trying to do good creates unforeseen disaster.

 

Spoiler alert>There's differences between men and woman.  Men are more aggressive.  Woman more nurturing.  That runs on a spectrum ofcourse, but men have more testosterone, woman have more of a nesting instinct.  I wouldn't mind seeing a Matriarchy for a bit.  See how it works out.   I think the human race can use a little more mothering right now. 

 

Doesn't have to be dramatic, but I'd like to see more woman in governing positions.  See how it goes. 

What countries have more woman in government.  I wonder if countries doing well have more active woman in governing positions? 

 

Hold on let see if google knows.. it does- http://www.businessinsider.com/world-economic-forum-countries-where-women-have-most-power-2016-7/#4-nicaragua--47-of-senior-government-officials-in-nicaragua-the-central-american-republic-are-female-this-combined-with-the-fact-that-41-of-all-parliamentary-members-are-women-helps-make-the-country-one-of-the-worlds-best-for-female-political-power-20

"

To measure political equality, the WEF took three separate measures; the number of women in a country's parliament, the number of female ministers, and the number of years since 1965 that a woman has been head of state.

The three measures were then collated and each country given an individual score out of one. "

 

The Top 3 give woman much credit- Iceland, Finland & Norway - progressive, countries with high livability, equality, good places to live.  Number 4 Nicaragua,  I don't know how well that's doing 41% of parliament is female.  5 Sweden- good country. 6 Ireland, great bars, good music 7.Interesting Rwanda.. no idea 8 Bangladesh.. I know its poor.  9 India.. 10 Bolivia 11 Germany.   UK is 23rd.. the list just goes to 23, US not on the list. 

 

I don't know if the above list proves my point or not.  I'd say in general the higher woman countries are more progressive, but wouldn't countries that keep women out of politics be 'old' fashioned at best, misogynist at worst?  They seem to be mostly good livable countries, one could do much much worse in this world.   The top 3 shine as far as life style and happiness of the population. 

 

Looking at this site- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/17-best-governed-countries-world-a7417096.html

The Best governed countries, you see much overlap. 

 

Neither sex is better, but there are differences.  We want good people in government.  All things being equal, I'd prefer to have more good women involved, cause we've had the other way and I see room for improvement.

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by thelerner

[liminal_luke]

Just mention the possibility of a matriarchal society and people get pretty stirred up.  They ask...isn`t that abusive towards men?  Aren`t women just as yadda yadda yadda as men?  And then fights break out.  All of which suggests that very few of us grew up with the kind of nurturing recommended in the book Taomeow references, The Continuum Concept. Which is exactly the point.  We need a society that first and foremost recognizes the needs of human beings; nevermind what that society is called.  

 

Rather than reacting with reflexive defensiveness, we might ask ourselves what living in a matriarchal society would truly mean.  The fear is that it would be a bunch of women bossing the guys around --but what if that`s not it?  What if it`s something radically different?  Don`t we owe it to each other to ask the questions?  

Edited November 17, 2017 by liminal_luke

[gendao]

Here's an interesting little social experiment from 2014:

Quote

Quite a few years ago, I had the pleasure of watching the Dutch version of Survivor (Expeditie Robinson) with my feminist roommate. That particular season would have two islands, one populated by men and one populated by women. My roommate had been promoting that particular series to me and the other students in the house for weeks because it would show us, according to her, what a society run by women – free from the evils of patriarchy – would be like.

Here is what happened: initially both groups were dropped on their respective islands, given some supplies to get started and left to fend for themselves. In both groups there was some initial squabbling as people tried to figure out a local hierarchy. The men pretty much did whatever they felt was necessary – there was no leader giving orders. Men who felt like hunting, foraging or fishing did so. Another guy decided he was fed up with sitting on sand and started making benches. Others built a hut that gradually grew and evolved. Another guy cooked every night. Within days a neat little civilization was thriving, each day being slightly more prosperous than the previous one.

The women settled into a routine as well. The hung up a clothesline to dry their towels, then proceeded to sunbathe and squabble. Because unlike men, women were unable to do anything without consensus of the whole group. And because it was a group of at least a dozen women, consensus was never reached. During the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, got drenched by tropical storms several times, were eaten alive by sand fleas and were generally miserable. The men on the other hand, were quite content. There were disagreements of course, but they were generally resolved.

Eventually, the people running the program decided something had to change. In order to help the women out, three men would be selected to go to their island. In return, three women would take their place at the men’s island. The look on my feminist roommates face during this episode was priceless.

Initially, the three men selected for the women’s island were ecstatic, for obvious reason. But then they arrived at the island and were greeted by the women.

‘Where is your hut?’, they asked.

‘We have no hut’

‘Where are your supplies?’ they asked, dismayed

‘We ate all the rice’

And so on. The three men ended up working like dogs, using all the skills developed by trial and error in their first few weeks – building a hut, fish, trying to get the women to forage. The women continued to bitch and sunbathe. The three women who were sent to the men’s island were delighted – food, shelter and plenty of male attention was freely available. They too continued to sunbathe.

And that my friends, is what patriarchy is. My former roommate, unsurprisingly, is no longer a feminist.

CBS broadcast several Survivor seasons in the US, where men and women started off in separate groups. In most cases (the Amazon and One World), the result was the same. The men quickly got their act together, getting access to food, fire and shelter while the women spent a lot of time and energy on petty little squabbles, eating their meager supplies, getting drenched in storms and generally being pathetic. The opposite situation, where men didn’t get their act together while women quickly built a functional micro society, has not yet been observed outside of feminist fiction, and it probably never will.

Quote

 

Woman 1: "Welcome on Uma (name of island)!"

Black haired woman: Stay in the water we'll give you a fishing rod immediately.

Frizzy blonde: "We already have a little list with all kinds of tasks for you"

Surfer (I guess?); "I was kinda greeted, like a guest...but you could also say I was greeted like a guest labourer"

Loes: "you would think women would have everything all neat and tidy, but our place was more like a trashcan. And here everything IS neat and tidy."

"At camp South Walter cannot fathom that the women have created such a mess"

Woman: "I read an interview with a sociologist and he said that if we had depended on women, we would still be living in the stone age. I start believing it more and more!"

Woman 2: "You shouldn't say that!"

Woman 1: "Yeah but its true. We have all lived like a bunch of pigs together"

Holleke: "Well I don't really like to be called that"

Woman 1: "Yeah but it's true though"

Holleke: "I want pancakes"

 

[windwalker]

What do the women provide in order to get the men to do all the hunting, building, protecting 

ect...what is it that they add or give that motivates the guys to do this.

 

 

[Taomeow]

4 hours ago, Wells said:

Looking at the photo on the cover of this book, I probably should contact the author(ess) and remind her that humans can't reproduce through Parthenogenesis!

 

They actually can, if they ever decide (as you seem to fear) that males are superfluous.  Parthenogenesis is quite within human reach and has already been accomplished successfully in a number of mammalian species (in addition to occasionally happening spontaneously).  The catch being, the offspring of parthenogenesis can be only female!  Nature made it possible for women to beget women, but impossible for men to beget men.  Sexist to the core, mother nature is...

 

3 hours ago, Aetherous said:

A few things...

1) Saying the matriarchy is good and the patriarchy is bad is clearly just sexism and misandry in a thin disguise.

 

"Clearly" is open to debate.  Let me try reiterating.  Patriarchy is bad and matriarchy is good not because men are bad and women are good.  See, I'm a pragmatist, a taoist pragmatist at that, I look at the doings and their consequences, I hardly give a flying through a rolling about anything else.  Patriarchy is bad because it has a shitty track record. 

 

A few thousand years and we've been not in a state of war for less than 5% of this time.  95% of the time since patriarchy replaced matriarchy we've had goodies we never had in the prior one million years: war, slavery, inequality, poverty, destruction of the environment, genocide on a scale unimaginable -- over and over and over again, and total evisceration of the human spirit in the service of what? --  war and profit, profit and war.  And now? -- on the brink of extinction and getting closer by the minute.  That doomsday clock that scientists keep pushing the handles on upon calculating, based on multiple factors -- facts of our way of life -- how long we've got left as a species currently stands at 2 1/2 minutes to midnight.  That's not a "conspiracy theorist's" fantasy (with a nod to you-know-who-you-are), that's the general consensus of the leading minds studying our situation.  What's our current situation as a species? 

 

Shitty. 

 

Never in matriarchy though.  Not in a million years, and not a figurative million years but a literal one.  No food for thought there?  None?  Just puffing up against a perceived threat to males from such -- let's be honest, marginal and inconsequential -- ideas as mine, derived from this fact and a bunch of others?..

 

Well, that sucks.  Two and a half minutes.  Not much hope you're leaving us, guys, not while you refuse to...  well, refuse to backpedal and think about it without the adrenaline-testosterone screaming, "nothing to think about, anything negative about patriarchy is filthy feminism and we'll fight it to the death!"  To the death of everybody, feminist, misogynist, sexist or saint, have you noticed that men, all men are in it too?..

 

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Taomeow

[windwalker]

46 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Don`t we owe it to each other to ask the questions?  

 

No need to ask its been shown by history, and most common experiences

 

What might be the question is why do so many want to ignore what is based on experince

for something that is based on false assumptions not supported with out a lot of artificial assumptions allowing it.  Its not about being bossed around its much deeper then that....

 

We in a way are seeing the effects of a Matriarchal Culture as this culture is being emasculated.

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by windwalker

[rene]

 

Aetherous and thelearner, hi

 

Your posts are really good and there is a lot of truth in them, imo. IF I'm understanding taomeow's gist - the women in your posts would be examples of females who have adopted, to some degree or another, a patriarchal mindset and methodology...both of which are not dependent upon having penises.

 

 

9 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Just mention the possibility of a matriarchal society and people get pretty stirred up.  They ask...isn`t that abusive towards men?  Aren`t women just as yadda yadda yadda as men?  And then fights break out.  All of which suggests that very few of us grew up with the kind of nurturing recommended in the book Taomeow references, The Continuum Concept. Which is exactly the point.  We need a society that first and foremost recognizes the needs of human beings; nevermind what that society is called.  

 

Rather than reacting with reflexive defensiveness, we might ask ourselves what living in a matriarchal society would truly mean.  The fear is that it would be a bunch of women bossing the guys around --but what if that`s not it?  What if it`s something radically different?  Don`t we owe it to each other to ask the questions?  

(my bold)

 

Luke, yes. This is something different and, if there is any weakness with TM's plan - it's in the necessity? to use the word 'matriarchal' to describe it, as the word itself sets the gender component of the words as the 'opposite' rather than the process and mechanics of how it unfolds and manifests.

 

The best example of this 'setting' caused by the words might be found in Wells' question earlier, in which he said,  "Then please explain to me how matriarchy allegedly does not oppress males if it by its very definition means the rulership of mothers (who all are females, not males)." 

 

Because there is no inherent nature or need to oppress.

 

I do not know what would be a better word than 'matriarchy' for this, but what I'm talking about does not involve oppressing anyone, males or females.

 

Hopefully taomeow can explain it better. (-:

 

 

[Wells]

47 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

They actually can, if they ever decide (as you seem to fear) that males are superfluous.  Parthenogenesis is quite within human reach and has already been accomplished successfully in a number of mammalian species (in addition to occasionally happening spontaneously).  The catch being, the offspring of parthenogenesis can be only female!  Nature made it possible for women to beget women, but impossible for men to beget men.  Sexist to the core, mother nature is...

 

Thank you, I guess there is no need to add further commentary from my side.

 

Anyways,

I apologize to the people in this thread who felt personally attacked through my comments.

It probably would have been more wise if I hadn't gotten involved at all.

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Wells

[Wells]

As the final word:

"Modern patriarchic technocracy" doesn't need female humans.

Males can reproduce, become immortal, perfect themselves etc.

through modern cloning technology, developed obviously by males in our technocratic patriarchic society.

If the aliens are indeed time travellers from our future, then this is how it all will end inevitably.

No women needed anymore.

Good bye, mother nature.

Just a matter of time.

 

P.S.: Not that I actually like this development and its most probable future end result, but all signs point into that direction.

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Wells

[Wells]

1 hour ago, gendao said:

Here is what happened: initially both groups were dropped on their respective islands, given some supplies to get started and left to fend for themselves. In both groups there was some initial squabbling as people tried to figure out a local hierarchy. The men pretty much did whatever they felt was necessary – there was no leader giving orders. Men who felt like hunting, foraging or fishing did so. Another guy decided he was fed up with sitting on sand and started making benches. Others built a hut that gradually grew and evolved. Another guy cooked every night. Within days a neat little civilization was thriving, each day being slightly more prosperous than the previous one.

The women settled into a routine as well. The hung up a clothesline to dry their towels, then proceeded to sunbathe and squabble. Because unlike men, women were unable to do anything without consensus of the whole group. And because it was a group of at least a dozen women, consensus was never reached. During the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, got drenched by tropical storms several times, were eaten alive by sand fleas and were generally miserable. The men on the other hand, were quite content. There were disagreements of course, but they were generally resolved.

 

Thank you for the "reality check"

As usual, reality and facts turn out to be exactly as I would have predicted it!

 

1 hour ago, gendao said:

Woman: "I read an interview with a sociologist and he said that if we had depended on women, we would still be living in the stone age. I start believing it more and more!"

 

Amen!

[windwalker]

Worked in what was called combat developments in the Army for land combat missile systems.

We developed future weapon systems and maintained existing ones.

 

Anyway a lot of what has been mentioned we studied in military they have to

know how weapon systems interact with the soldiers that have to use and maintain them.

 

there is a fiction that I was always against in the service and lent my thoughts to out of the service about equality between males and females in all aspects.  There are no studies that support the popular narrative or would promote what some have mentioned here...None, nadda 

 

The military being an extension of the society at large tends to keep the studies under wraps or finds a way to  in-validate them.  Not good for promotions and as in the last administration that felt sex reassignment should be an option, the leadership tends to support it...More so when those that point out the problems with it are fired.   Thank you Mr Obama...  

 

My concern was for the soldiers themselves and survivalablity when engaging with the enemy.  Some have suggested tech can make the difference ignoring the fact that it also enhances the differences for those who have it. 

 

This is not for or against anything only showing what has been shown, is shown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by windwalker

[Taomeow]

1 hour ago, Wells said:

As the final word:

"Modern patriarchic technocracy" doesn't need female humans.

Males can reproduce, become immortal, perfect themselves etc.

through modern cloning technology, developed obviously by males in our technocratic patriarchic society.

If the aliens are indeed time travellers from our future, then this is how it all will end inevitably.

No women needed anymore.

Good bye, mother nature.

Just a matter of time.

 

P.S.: Not that I actually like this development and its most probable future end result, but all signs point into that direction.

 

 

That's exactly what patriarchy has always been about and that's exactly what is wrong with it.  Conquer nature, eliminate nature, replace nature.  Know the gnostic myth?  Gaia, mother goddess earth, gave birth to live creatures, and as an experiment, also made synthetic ones, animated but artificial (and therefore devoid of the soul -- a natural developmental history from the sacred source -- the mother goddess -- that soul really is...  that's all it is, which is why there's no way to "make" one any other way.)  These animated semi-machines, which the gnostics called archons, were meant to be assigned certain mechanical tasks.  However, being devoid of souls, and therefore unencumbered by love, morality, compassion, the sheer joy and thrill of aliveness, genetic memory and all those other inconveniences that come with the soul, they managed their mechanical tasks very well -- better in fact than live creatures with souls and true feelings -- so eventually they decided they are better equipped to manage the human society than humans themselves. 

 

To install patriarchy was their central managerial idea, born out of hatred for the mother who deprived them of what she gave her natural children -- the soul.  Hatred for the mother/mother nature, and hatred for the soul, and hatred for people who have that.  That's what underlies patriarchy in the gnostic view.  (Which I find very close to what really happened.)   

 

Will they prevail?  Locally and temporarily, they already have.  But in the grand scheme of things...  I wouldn't hold my breath. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Taomeow

[Wells]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

That's exactly what patriarchy has always been about and that's exactly what is wrong with it.  Conquer nature, eliminate nature, replace nature.

 

I absolutely agree that there is something wrong with that.

 

[Apech]

This thread is so full of tired clichés that against my better judgement I am drawn back in.

 

If it is true that the defining feature of women is 'nurturing' then explain to me why it is that when in the first time in recorded history women have the rights and freedom to pursue alternatives they do so.  Middle Class - the more affluent and educated women in the US and Western Europe delay childbirth and have fewer children than ever before.  If the nurturing instinct is so powerful then why is this?  (by the way I know you are going to blame it on patriarchal oppression just so you can insult even more those women that make this choice  ).

 

If the defining characteristic of men is 'aggression' then why is it that most men abhor war?  The warmongers amongst us make up some tiny percentage of of men - to the point of being an outlier group.  Mature men at least, are kind, protective and seek a peaceable existence.  That's more or less what 'being a man' - means - bear the pain, take it on the chin, be the bigger person.

 

The idea that our future is in parthenogenesis or the creation of artificial wombs in a lab somewhere is dreadful.  We preserve the species through sexual reproduction and there are a whole spectrum of reasons why this is a good thing.  Not least is that traditionally it required men and women to co-exist and look after each other (and the children) and stay in relationship even through the hard times.  This is developmental for both men and women.  Also sexual reproduction means the children are unique individuals and not clones of their mother (can you imagine being an actual clone of your mother! - I mean honestly!!! much as we love our mothers surely we don't want to be little carbon copies do we???) - and individuals mean variety and the potential to adapt to circumstances and thus survival.

 

I refuse to accept a future based on women hate men/men hate women - it is weak minded, crass and more importantly a dead end.

 

 

[Wells]

A good post #12,000.

[windwalker]

edited:  to far off topic 

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by windwalker

[windwalker]

6 hours ago, Taomeow said:

That's exactly what patriarchy has always been about and that's exactly what is wrong with it.  Conquer nature, eliminate nature, replace nature. 

 

 

I would say it was based on group survival and started from early times.  The female as in other animal species is protected 

and carries on the line of the most successful male.   The guys with the  most money get the most  attractive woman hoping to attract the guys with the most money.  Kinda the way the world works as well as the animal kingdom ie nature.

 

You talk of nature while using a PC and the internet.

Save it for those who don't understand technology and what it takes to make and develop it.   

 

"Although patriarchy exists within the scientific atmosphere, "the period over which women would have been at a physiological disadvantage in participation in hunting through being at a late stage pregnancy or early stage of child-rearing would have been small",https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

 

totally disagree with their findings.  All studies of those that one can find on the  net these days none are positive.  They were, are, and will be always at a physiological disadvantageous against males of the species this holds true for most animals reflecting nature..

 

 

This means all things being equal woman if not needed to carry on the species being the weaker of the species would not 

last to long.  Their primary function is to act as the other part of a binary system that form humans 2 parts  with different functions  forming a unit.

 

Wells. already pointed this out  the clip I posted illustrates whats happening to societies as they try to artificially equalize things.    Its becomes self destructive.  

 

some myths and facts 

 

"

“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.

Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/#7zbMJ59tUuUKAcxo.99"

 

 

Back then, the commission concluded: "unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units

 

Long term studies for woman in high stress conditions not good 

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by windwalker

[windwalker]

edited: double post

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by windwalker

[Aetherous]

7 hours ago, Taomeow said:

Never in matriarchy though.

 

I don't see that at all. But I respect that you have an interesting belief, and it's enjoyable to read something so different from my own impression.

 

7 hours ago, rene said:

Your posts are really good and there is a lot of truth in them, imo. IF I'm understanding taomeow's gist - the women in your posts would be examples of females who have adopted, to some degree or another, a patriarchal mindset and methodology...both of which are not dependent upon having penises.

 

Hi rene, thanks.

It seems to me that would be an easy way of dodging the truth.

Matriarchy is rule by women, and Patriarchy is rule by men...and specifically, these types of rule don't have to do with being elected to a position or being the best for a position, but have to do with passing it along family lines, such as the eldest daughter or son.

I think that women could only be said to be patriarchal if their actions support the patriarchs. But it's not true that any woman who does something bad...like beats her weak willed boyfriend if he doesn't do what she asks, or has a hard drug orgy at 4 am in a house with paper thin walls and other tenants that work normal hours, or an English teacher who inappropriately touches her middle school student...it's not true that those women are patriarchal. They are just women...and they are perfect examples of how a 'rule by women' isn't any better than a 'rule by men'.

Thankfully, today we live in a society that holds its leaders somewhat accountable...those leaders are elected by the overall society...and it's not based on  lower consciousness gender issues. For instance in the US, I voted for Jill Stein the election before last (which in hindsight was pretty dumb, but I felt like she was more righteous than the others). Hillary ran this past election. Women voted! And many of them voted against her.

We are not in a patriarchy...although at times I think we should be, since I have a very positive view of masculinity...but I'm also reminded of its flaws, such as with the sex scandals of all of these powerful figures this year. Men are not perfect, either. No gender is superior in all ways.

We need each other. We need to try our best to be better toward others, and have higher virtues. We need to behave in a responsible way.
 

8 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

Just mention the possibility of a matriarchal society and people get pretty stirred up.  They ask...isn`t that abusive towards men?  Aren`t women just as yadda yadda yadda as men?  And then fights break out.  All of which suggests that very few of us grew up with the kind of nurturing recommended in the book Taomeow references, The Continuum Concept. Which is exactly the point.  We need a society that first and foremost recognizes the needs of human beings; nevermind what that society is called.  

 

Rather than reacting with reflexive defensiveness, we might ask ourselves what living in a matriarchal society would truly mean.  The fear is that it would be a bunch of women bossing the guys around --but what if that`s not it?  What if it`s something radically different?  Don`t we owe it to each other to ask the questions?  

Most of us grew up around our mothers. And speaking as a health professional who listens to a lot of life stories, most of us have deep seated mother issues. I know that women especially have these issues with their mothers. We can also look at poor populations, and see the crime rate of those who were raised with single mothers, without a fatherly influence...go to prison and find out who raised them.

Women can be extremely nurturing, but "nurturing" as a good quality should not be associated with a gender...especially a gender that can at times be the complete opposite of nurturing. Only individuals can choose to be nurturing, and non-capricious.

If we want a society that recognizes the needs of human beings and nurtures them in their growth, then we really should call it something other than "Matriarchy", which is by definition rule by one gender. Being elusive about what the term means is just a tactic of manipulation.

What would a matriarchal society truly look like? A history teacher told me that Native Americans were mostly matriarchal...although now I'm doubting the accuracy of that statement...but if that was the case, then why were they so violent? Scalping people, having wars between neighboring tribes, etc.

Isn't the Judaic culture completely matriarchal? Are they having no war in Israel?

At least in the examples I can think of, those cultures didn't live up to the hype spoken here about the matriarchy.

Also, is war actually bad? Of course we all love peace, but to have peace you need to be able to defend yourself against bullies. To be good and help others have peace, you need to protect those who can't defend themselves. The fact that we've had war, instead of showing us that our culture is backward and too aggressive, can show us that ill intentioned people exist in the world, and that society has needed to protect itself and others from them. While we don't like war, it's not a bad thing that we've had to do it. A bad thing would be letting other people be bullied (and worse) because we were too pacifist and self-centered.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Aetherous