Suppose we switched from Patriarchy to Matriarchy?

Post Reply New Topic

Sadly, in the American political spectrum, feminism has regressed back to the valuations of political issues such as contraception, abortion, employment, etc, etc. But as important as these issues are, they're really irrelevant to the core philosophy concerning feminism. In referring to the patriarchal nature of industrialized society, feminism means to attribute the delineated analytic attitude towards the world that fragments it into competitive discrimination. This is in contrast to the matriarchal which is pursuant of intuitive synthesis towards a holistic cooperative. In short, one is self-interest, the other is ecological. The common misconception is that these ends are at odds, but really they are out of balance in favor of the masculine. Even the very question of matriarchal vs. patriarchal is a very loaded question, it places each percept in opposite corners as if it were a prize-fight. Ideally what we require is a balance between the two. Historically women have always been subjugated, as though they are some wild creature who require domestication. Nature itself is looked at as a b***h to be conquered for the glory and future of mankind. From Enkidu to Adam, woman is perceived as a temptress not to be trusted, thereafter to be put in her place. For the past forty years the concern with the patriarchal lies in it's blindly self-destructive path in regard to nature and competition. The depletion of natural resources, the continual dumping of man-made waste (carbon, radiation, petrochemicals), and the lack of essential care in both physical and mental health. These are attributed to the patriarchal because they arise from the narrow frame of mind by which we compete for survival at any means necessary. In a more matriarchal frame of mind, a greater state of awareness through integration of the whole picture let's us see the dangers that will converge if we don't change from aggressive expansion to responsive contraction. All that said, I think we're primarily in a Patriarchal world, but we are moving towards the Matriarchal, though I think we may be very late at finding the required balance.

I was quoting a Gallup poll. I'm sure the numbers change from year to year given the political climate and how the question is asked obvious but there had definitely been a trend upwards in abortion opponents over the last 30-40 years. The laws are definitely more lax than the general public's feelings on the subject.

Last edited by Jacoby on 29 Oct 2012, 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Even the separatists who want nothing to do with men?

I'm not a separatist, but even someone like me is more concerned with finding my own voice than with men giving me nice things. Feminism is about finding your own truth and speaking it. If I wanted men to give me stuff, I wouldn't be a feminist - they find it antagonistic.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 29 Oct 2012, 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

I would also say that, as well. Both statements would be true.

So if both women and men are oppressed/controlled, then technically neither sex is oppressed because they both get the same thing. Wouldn't a more accurate statement then be that poor people are oppressed by rich, dominant people? Gender has nothing to do with it. I mean, it's not like this is the 50s where men can slap you around as they see fit and tell you to get back in the kitchen and all that other nonsense. You women have all the rights we do. In some cases, we've even made special rules specifically for you.

I can't speak for any other nation, but I know what goes on in America. I don't see everybody getting treated the same way all the time, but when I see a difference in how people are treated, it has nothing to do with gender, EXCEPT in the way that the guys will act nicer to the girls than they will to other guys, most likely because they are hoping for a chance to get into the girls' pants. Or maybe it has to do with how people used to say things like "watch your language, there's a lady present," as if women can't handle hearing obscenities or whatever the reason is. So maybe there's this subconscious desire to behave differently around women.

I personally try really hard not to treat either gender differently, but sometimes I have to be specifically mean to the women in the case of them hitting on me so they will hopefully understand that I want nothing to do with them in terms of romance(because I have a fiance). There's this one woman I work with who, for some reason beyond my comprehension thinks I'm attractive. She hasn't done it in a while, but she used to hit on me all the time. At first I wasn't sure if that's what it was, but then I found out she was doing it to pretty much every other guy there, and then she made sure it wasn't subtle. One day I was bending over, mixing pizza sauce, and she came up behind me and slapped my ass. When I turned around and said "wtf did you do that for!?" she just grinned and said "because I can."

It's kind of how in communism "capitalistic decadence" or "The Bourgeoisie" explains everything.

How in Objectivism the "Collectivism" explains everything.

How in Christianity God's ways are mysterious and "God's will" explains everything.

How in the Third Reich, "Die Juden" explained everything.

It's an ill-defined, highly complex structure created to which everything can be attributed, yet can itself never be quantified or made concrete. The term "patriarchy" itself is poor, because it gives the immediate idea of an Illuminati-like group that sit around in dark halls, steepling their hands and planning on how to keep women suppressed, an idea that most of us find silly.

In embryo what feminists are seeking is not an alternation or a modification to our society, it is the complete deconstruction of our society, it's values and it's history in order to reconstruct it in their image. The trouble with this idea is obvious, namely that every attempt at this, from communist revolutions, to declarations of independence and beyond, end up being not only fueled but influenced by their prior incarnations.

Indeed, as society and its values is a construct of the values of those within it, it will always be a reflection of those values. Until we are all Vulcan and can make purely objective decisions, our values and goals will always be those that offer to us and those like us the most benefit.

Feminism, like all ideologies that tend to put emphasis on "should be" rather than "is" succumbs in part to the classic pitfalls, "the end justifies the means", "group-think", it's own "language", redefining words without making it clear (Ministry of truth anyone?). I suspect that this stems from the combination of feminist values with Marxist/socialist values.

The biggest problem though, for those of us outside of the ideology is that with 40 odd variations on the main ideology, a wide variety of stances on separate issues within the ideology and finally the creation of "femspeak" (the language of feminists) it becomes nearly impossible to debate with a feminist, because we do not speak the same language.

It becomes much like speaking to various religious sects, or small bands within the same ideology, where the lack of a joint belief in anything prevents one from challenging the opponent. Not due to facts or logic, but to language being perverted away from a tool of communication to a tool of propaganda.

Well, them too.


Separatist feminism is the lunatic fringe of the feminism. Although these people are loudmouths and get a lot of publicity, particularly on the internet with their pathetic blogs, their movement is on the fast track to nowhere and has been for the last 40+ years.

If we switch to a Matriarchy, initially there may be more oppression against men if women unfairly take advantage of their additional rights and privileges. However because women have greater compassion they will eventually find oppression distasteful
and will rather choose to champion a fair and just society.

They've already shown themselves to be just as selfish and self-centered as men; so there really is no legit reason to think they'd behave differently when put in complete control of society. You must have had very little contact with women IRL because your expectations of them are so unrealistic it's barely funny.

In a matriarchy there would be no complete control over society by women. Women would ask men nicely to do things.

LOL, how many women have you actually interacted with in real life? They sure as hell will NOT "ask nicely."

Women are NOT nicer then men. They just keep up the front of being nice for a lot longer than men will. Both genders are equally capable of being complete pieces of s**t/a**holes/whatever. The difference is that men aren't as afraid to show that they're upset with something. Men are more likely to get in your face and make SURE you know. Women, on the other hand, are much more subtle, and will either drop little clues, or they'll just poison you or something. Whereas a man will come to your house, make all kinds of noise, and then beat your ass to death, assuming nobody calls the police first. Women are also a lot more likely to talk s**t about you behind your back, or they'll make their man do the talking for them, "so they don't come off as b*****s."

Equality will never occur until people get rid of this illusion that women are more caring, and men are just evil f*****s who only care about themselves.

Thanks, feminist movement. You've done so much to bring about equality...

If women do not act nicely now it is because we live under a patriarchy. Under a patriarchy I do not like women bossing me around and I like to wear the pants in the family. But under a matriarchy it would be different and it would be okay for women to ask me to do things.

Oh BS. "women aren't nice, and it's all men's fault." Yup, EVERYTHING is the fault of men...

You're a sexist ass.

I think it would be very liberating for a man to admit that it is all of his fault. The only thing preventing a man from doing this is a fear of punishment but under a matriarchal society punishment would not be used against men that were truly sorry. And what is wrong with acknowledging the superiority of women? A man should not be ashamed when he discovers the superior glory and genius of a women but rather that man should be filled with awe.

Does not every man search for the very best woman. The very best would be a woman that is better than himself.

So uh... who cut your balls off?

yeah, I'm not about to admit that something I had nothing to do with is my fault.

Imagine if you used this same logic with the Jews and Nazis. Should every jew just admit that he is at fault for all the things that were plaguing Germany in the 1930s and 40s, so that he can be "liberated?"

You are so wrong, it's atrociously not funny.