The idea of a matriarchy has always fascinated people, men as well as women. With women starting to dominate the professional world more and men falling behind in education it would seem that we’re on a sure path to becoming a matriarchal society unlike anything we’ve had before in all of recorded history. That truly is exciting.
As a follow up from my article on female supremacy I want to look into the idea of a matriarchal society and what’s behind this new buzz word. This isn’t just about female leaders since they’ve been around for a long time. Nor is it just another tribute to a small minority of powerful women that have by the way also existed throughout history. No, in a matriarchal community, it is the average woman who has significantly more influence, choice and power to control her environment than the average man.
What Exactly is a Matriarchy?
Originally, the term matriarchy was a wordplay on the term patriarchy and supposed to mean the opposite. Unfortunately now there is no universal definition of a matriarchy. Some academics think of it as any society that is not a patriarchy. Others believe it to be an egalitarian society where no gender has more power relatively to the other. And others yet think of a matriarchy as a hierarchy where women have authority over men and men take a subservient position. This last definition is the interesting one and it is that idea of a matriarchy that I want to explore.
In my article on female supremacy, I was very critical of a society that imposes it on the masses (regardless of which gender dominates). A matriarchy represents such a society and I want to look into this scenario more closely in case I was dismissing it too quickly.
Matriarchy and Female Supremacy
There is however a crucial difference between a female supremacist system and a matriarchal system. And this is that, by definition, the former takes the premise that women are inherently superior to men while the latter does not. A matriarchy says nothing about what gender is superior or even more valuable. It is only a description of the power distribution between the genders and the definitions of a matriarchy vary according to the areas of life where this power distribution is considered defining, and not why. Many women might not even want the power that's coming to them and they may not even be aware of it when it's there. Is it perhaps already there?
Matriarchy and Misandry
Misandry is the hatred of men (i.e. the opposite of misogyny). Here again, having a matriarchal society does not imply any kind of criticism of men or dislike of the male gender. Misandry as well as misogyny are pathological states that are best prevented or corrected. We need to be clear about that.
Western Society and Future Matriarchy
Given the massive and complex changes taking place in the western countries, it is hard to say exactly what will happen. One thing is certain though: Women are gaining power as a gender and men are losing it. That alone is unlikely to bring about a full blown matriarchy but it certainly will have matriarchal features. Here is a list of things that our future female dominated society might bring:
- Women will be marrying down more often than up. This is already happening today. More and more families have a female breadwinner and a male housekeeper. Likewise most couples will see the woman more educated than the man. This will be hard for both men and women to adapt to, but it seems to be an unstoppable trend.
- Advertising and media will be targeting women more. This is also already the case today but it will increase because women will have even greater buying power. This is not a new development because women have been making most spending decisions for decades. The result will be more products targeted at women such as cars, property and even traditionally men’s products such as hardware and technical gadgets. Especially luxury devices like high end home cinemas will be aimed at women.
- Employers will adapt more to women’s needs. They’ve already started making it easier for women to work and have children. One great idea is having a kindergarten on the company premises so mothers can be close to their children while at work. This will inevitably mean that men become marginalized from family life as well as from the professional world which has also already started. This trend is inevitable because companies will have no choice but to start implementing these measures since their competing for a mostly female work force.
- Politics will become more female centered. This is also not a new development but it will increase massively as the financial decisions are made more and more by women. This is not dependent on a majority of female politicians (more on that below).
- There are ever increasing numbers of women only gatherings and networking parties. There are even women only hotels, spas and lounges. This will become more common. Because women will dominate the higher paid work force, this will enable more women to help each other rise up the career ladder while at the same time ostracizing men from those networks. That will perpetuate women’s rise and men’s decline among medium to higher paid jobs. It probably won’t affect the very top elite as nothing ever seems to affect them (more on that below). There are countless institutions, organizations and websites for women and girls to help them get ahead. These won't just fold up and disappear once women are ahead but they'll be strengthened. You would expect that there would be equivalent means set up to help men succeed but for some reason society is highly reluctant to help men with anything.
- There will be more men who drop out of society altogether. More male criminals, male suicide and homelessness. Sadly this trend has also been well established for a while and, to our disgrace, society isn’t addressing it at all. As it increases, we will sooner or later have to deal with it (more on this below).
Female Leaders in a Matriarchy
The kind of matriarchy that we’re moving toward does not necessarily mean that most or all politicians will be women. In fact, I think that it could be just as much of a matriarchy even if nearly all politicians are male. The reason for this is that, in a voting democracy, the politicians have to follow public interest and corporations demands. If women control both of them, then politicians have no choice but to implement politics that serve women’s interests. We’re already seeing a lot of this today. It is not surprising that politicians never speak a word about men’s issues and men’s interests. Whenever any gender is mentioned in a situation that demands political action it is always exclusively for the benefit of women. I believe men have kind of handed that power over to women by unofficially saying “let female politicians talk about gender issues and male politicians stay out of it”.
So just as having female leaders never made a society less patriarchal, neither does having male leaders prevent it from being a matriarchy.
The Societal Elite in a Matriarchy
These are the people at the very top of the food chain. They’re a tiny minority with enormous influence and economic resources. There always has been an elite and it has always been quite isolated from issues that it often brings about. People, even today, are usually born into the elite. Only very few manage to climb into it from the bottom though it is possible. It is likely that the elite will remain mostly unchanged by the matriarchal revolution for that very reason. This means that our future matriarchy will probably still see more men than women in the very top positions of responsibility. But as soon as you look one step further down, there will be mostly or entirely women in the top managerial positions calling the shots.
Men in the Matriarchy
I mentioned in the section about the changes that will take place how men are becoming more ostracized both in family and public life as a whole. How this will be brought under control will be the question of the 21st century but solve it we must. Otherwise our pretty little matriarchy will fall apart from the inside. Remember, men are still those who maintain the infrastructure. They build our houses, harvest our food, supply us with energy, transport our goods and fight our wars. Even in a highly female dominated society, the armed forces will always remain almost entirely male. I cannot see this ever changing significantly. Women will not want to do those kind of jobs in masses but they will continue to want the comfort that they supply. This means that we have to take care of men sufficiently in order to keep them satisfied enough so they’ll keep working for society. Without that male work force, there won’t be a matriarchy – or any other society for that matter.
The longer we wait before addressing the male decline, the harder it
will be to fix. In the worst case scenario, there will be mass strikes,
riots and even civil war. I doubt it will get that bad but it is a possibility
and the public needs to know that current trends and developments are heading
in that direction. The time will come when society cannot afford to ignore
men’s suffering any longer and I’m sure it will be before things get out of
control. This is not about men losing power because the majority of men have always been quite powerless. It's about the loss of dignity, respect and hope.
How should we deal with this power shift?
This question can only really be addressed to us women because if it is women who have more power, then it is up to us to deal with it and use it responsibly. This also comprises a loss for us, because we can no longer expect men to rectify the problems in society because they no longer have the means or influence to do so. The eternal feminist battle cry “it’s a man’s world” will still be heard because men will still be at the top of society. But the realities will become too obvious to ignore, even by the most bigoted feminist.
How long until we have a matriarchy?
Well, one could make the case that we’re already living in such a matriarchy and we just don’t know it yet. If you look at all the points I made above, you could imagine it being an article about today’s society and it would only be exaggerated but not untrue. In fact, every single change I mentioned that we can expect from a future matriarchy has already begun and is well past the early stages. In some areas, power and influence is already mostly in the hands of women. Family life, for example, is almost entirely controlled by women. All the decisions about reproduction are for women to make at will. This fact alone is arguably enough to describe our society as a matriarchy (see the dictionary definition of a patriarchy). Women also raise society's children and thus have the greatest influence on the following generations.
Certainly the next few decades will bring some exciting and also concerning changes. I'm very interested in the outcome and I remain optimistic about the long term future. I'm sure that the human species will eventually find a healthy balance of power that most people can live with. If a matriarchy really brings that balance then I will look forward to it.
Related articles you might like:
Carl Feldman on June 28, 2018:
As a male, your articles are a source of mentoring to me.
I've adapted to the growing female authority in all phases of our society, and I embrace Feminism, female leadership and female role models.
I disagree that society will become centered on men's "suffering". Men will become a powerless labor force working under the direction of women. Their "suffering" will only be the loss of social esteem as Society places its values on Female intelligence and authority, and Femininity.
Women will control the education system, the State and Federal legislatures, the courts and the military and the police.
I see the assertion and demand for female control at all levels of Society. Young girls, college women, and business women are confident and authoritative. They know their value and their strength. They want control; males don't (and maybe shouldn't).
aincas from uk on March 02, 2013:
hi tuteramanda i did not know about this in china, thanks for the post
tuteramanda from beijing china on March 02, 2013:
nowadays something has reversed,most young couples prefer a girl rather than a boy although their first child is a female. Maybe women dominate men is irresistible .the world belong to the stronger gender ,in past is men,in the future is women
tuteramanda from beijing china on March 02, 2013:
Hi lucy , more men than women mainly because the one child policy ,in this policy if your first child is male ,you should not get a second child,if your first child is a female ,you can get another child ,so these patrents want a boy because they already have a girl ,but patrents who have a boy dont have chance to have a girl .birth ratio before 1980s is very health .
Lucy83 (author) on February 26, 2013:
that's interesting. Surely some of that is because of the fact that there are so many more men than women (at least that's what i've read). Perhaps it'll get better when the numbers start evening out.
tuteramanda from beijing china on February 23, 2013:
hi lucy goodhub ,i am a chinese born and raise in china ,chinese men also face same problems ,even china did not experiece feminism movement ,china is a state feminism country to some extend ,in chinese cultural based country man absolutely a second sex ,burden more and gain less. for example ,male should buy a house or apartment for women and women deserve own it just become she is a women ，most young men cant afford that so that wife can own husbands' whole familiy's property through marriage ,but young women always earn more because of the women based education system and social atmosphere. china 's law also bias against men ,such as women can rape men (usually gang rape) with out punishment because women can be the only victim in law,in some exterme case ,some women gang rape a men and but forced him marry her,if he not ,he will face false rape accusation and social stigma ,the only way he can choice is suicide . i think some your hub may awake some chinese men
Lucy83 (author) on November 27, 2012:
"I simply know too many women who are more intelligent and balanced than men. I am hardly denigrating own sex. I am simply accepting the demographic realities as they are."
You have not shown any "demographic realities". You've only given your obviously biased perceptions of your personal encounters. You'll have to do better than that. A lot better.
samowhamo on November 24, 2012:
in the end, women are more intelligent, more balanced, and more balanced than are men, so a matriarchy makes perfect sense.
@Marc James Small
Marc all I have to say to you is shame on you have you no respect for yourself and your gender I AM FED TO THE TEETH OF MEN LIKE YOU DENIGRATING YOURSELVES AND YOUR GENDER. What if matriarchy is not as good as people say it is which is a distinct possibility and feminism is not always so great either. When I first started commenting on here I use to hate feminists with every breath I took (I dont feel that way about them so much anymore but I still get annoyed with them sometimes) because of hatefull things that I have heard feminists say and do. For example there was this one feminist named Sheila Jeffreys who said that anything masculine is bad and that there is something wrong with men (she also says that penatration is not egalitarian but personally I really dont see anything unegalitarian about it) and to top it all off she is transphobic and I think biphobic. Today this women is one of the most well known feminists well I think this woman is nothing but another fraud and foney. Sometimes great things (like matriarchy) and great people (like feminists) turn out to be fakes and con-artists.
samowhamo on November 22, 2012:
I really dont know I have never thought about it well I am not a masculist. I sometimes doubt myself even though I have no reason to I doubt myself sometimes bacause although I have heard women do horrible things to men and boys I have also heard men do horrible things to women and girls. I heard that Patrick Stewarts father was abusive and that he once did an interview with a woman who's daughter was killed by her ex-husband (or maybe it was dead husband) and I do feel sympathy for these women as girls as much as I do for men and boys who have been abused.
Marc James Small on November 21, 2012:
I simply know too many women who are more intelligent and balanced than men. I am hardly denigrating own sex. I am simply accepting the demographic realities as they are.
Lucy83 (author) on November 21, 2012:
"with feminism it seems the fanatics get the most attention"
I think feminism attracts fanatics. Even the name does that. Ask yourself as a man, what state of mind would make you proudly and openly call yourself a "masculist". One has to be a little gone to make one's genitalia the defining part of an ideological movement.
Lucy83 (author) on November 21, 2012:
"in the end, women are more intelligent, more balanced, and more balanced than are men, so a matriarchy makes perfect sense."
I'll never understand why so many men denigrate their own gender like this.
samowhamo on November 21, 2012:
In one of your comments you said that sometimes people paint too bright a picture of things (which I agree with you) well what if for example that woman culture thing that I have mentioned before gets more attention as some women say and womens culture is a matriarchy that they hope to establish by overthrowing patriarchy (or mans culture). They say that women alreadt have a culture and for the most part it is beautiful well my come back to them is this (that's is that's your idea of beautiful subjugating men and boys to misandry) because that is what it sounds like from what I have read. I will grant that maybe a matriarchy would be better but what if it's not better and it escalates into female supremacy I dont want to be dominated by anyone they say that men are not fit to lead it just is not in them but I believe they can learn from us but we will have to be careful because of what they did to us. I know you have said before that fanatics exist everywhere but with feminism it seems the fanatics get the most attention and from what I have read here on hubpage it seems like it's becoming more of a reality. If this is really what matriarchy is about than I say what is beautiful about it, it's a misandric self deluded pipe dream that persecutes innocent men alongside the guilty ones that they call feminism (and please pardon me saying this but I cant keep this in anymore) I CALL IT THE MURDER OF MASCULINITY.
Marc James Small on November 16, 2012:
We already are in a matriarchy. I am living proof. I took early retirement. My upper-level management wife is the breadwinner and makes the important decisions. She does pretend to defer to me, but she is the one who calls the shots. I do enjoy being a kept man but, in the end, women are more intelligent, more balanced, and more balanced than are men, so a matriarchy makes perfect sense.
Raptor on November 13, 2012:
As far as I'm aware a fem-dominated society never existed, it's a myth told by feminists, and males with particular sexual fantasies. Only in our modern Western culture can 'feminine' values really take a dominant place. In many other cultures, today, and in the past almost universally, it was all about basic survival needs and in such an environment the males tend to do the 'tough' work more and they have more saying in matters. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's so many of this 'goddess' hype on the internet (New Age movement). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for 'feminine' values (combined with 'masculine' values) but I've never bought into the New Age stuff.
Lucy83 (author) on November 13, 2012:
That's an interesting thing. I'm afraid I don't believe we know better today. Most of the decisions about whose needs should be met, are not based on fairness or objective reasoning. We don't even seem to be able to tell whose needs are being met and whose aren't.
samowhamo on November 12, 2012:
I was doing some reaserch for my next article when I came across this on wikipedia something about a prehistoric matriarchal society.
The Civilization of the Goddess (written by Marija Gimbutas an archaeologist) articulated what Gimbutas saw as the differences between the Old European system, which she considered goddess- and woman-centered (gynocentric), and the Bronze Age Indo-European patriarchal ("androcratic") culture which supplanted it. According to her interpretations, gynocentric (or matristic) societies were peaceful, they honored homosexuals, and they espoused economic equality.
Her views have been criticised. This society if it existed may have been peaceful but not trully equal. If it was gynocentric then the needs and wants of women were more important then mens and that is not true equality that is female chauvinism. Maybe that worked back then but I dont think that would work today people did not know better then but today we do know better (well I like to think we do). I dont think that would work today because today we know that just because you are a woman or man that does not make your needs and wants more important then anyone else's everyones needs and wants are equally important.
Lucy83 (author) on October 23, 2012:
thanks for your comment. Though I'm not sure men have "suppressed females" throughout history out of fear of women's potential. Like all feminist dogma, it doesn't even make any sense. Sounds more like somebody's fantasy.
aincas from uk on October 20, 2012:
hi lucy - what a fantastic and interesting hub, have spent awhile reading through all the comments - been very interesting!
I do believe we are heading towards a matriarchy society i think its just a matter of time before females have most of the control and power in society, you only have to see what is going on in schools and universitys how in general females are out performing males.
My belief is that society should be a matriarchy run by females, i just think men throughout history have supressed females so much because the males are scared of and also cannot cope with what the females can achive.
hope this kind of makes sence
Mike on August 30, 2012:
"Even if you can't find a source of demonstrable bias, allow yourself some degree of skepticism about the results as long as there is a possibility of bias somewhere. There always is."
Darrel Huff, How to lie with Statistics
I argue this because of you citing college statistics. Even if you are correct that the statistics are true and they are not related to affirmative action, I've learned more out of college than in college and I'm also a business owner.
Finally, I have the 1995 World Almanac and it said that men have more college degrees but then the 1996 World Almanac said that women did in 1995. The 1995 Almanac source was slipped under the rug and the rest is history.
Statistics go by average but what averages? Is it mean? Is it median? Is it Mode? Is it Range? Is it Standard Deviation? Or is someone just estimating, I mean guessing? Not a real science. It is non-falsifiable, with hearsay, and widely open to interpretation.
You can have the same issue
Lucy83 (author) on August 28, 2012:
now go back and read the whole article before jumping to conclusions. I've stopped bothering with those who just read the title and start a big rant over what they imagined might be written in the text.
Alex on August 18, 2012:
I am a 17 year old boy and I think this is a bunch of bullshit. I will not be seen as some inferior "less valuable" male in a society like this. I outperformed all of my female counterparts in school and the top 3 in running for valedictorian are currently male. This female supremacy stuff is just utter bullshit. I am on my way to valedictorian and I can guarantee you I am smarter than these "superior women". I mean look at some of the guys agreeing with you? sissychuck44 - hmm sissychuck... doesn't sound like a gay guy at all who has a fetish for stuff like this....
All I hear when reading articles like this is "Men can't do this" "Men can't do that" "Men are idiots" "Men aren't as smart as females in school" "men don't go to college"
Do you realize in white middle class families college attendance is completely equal between the sex's as it should be? It is in ethnic minorities and very poor families where females are attending college at a higher rate. These minorities drag male statistics down and skews it to look like females are "outperforming us by such a huge margin".
I will not be looked down upon and if this ever happens, I will certainly not be getting into a relationship and I will spit in the face of any female who believes she is superior to me just for the fact of having two x chromosomes. Thank you for ruining my day and making me angry.
Its people like you who give me a grim hope for my future and I am merely 17. Thank you a lot I hope you are happy with yourself.
Lucy83 (author) on July 13, 2012:
when I said more men are marrying up, I should add that mostly women are still marrying up. Only that the trend of women marrying up is decreasing - probably out of necessity rather than choice.
"...there I days I feel that having been born a girl is a raw deal."
I used to feel that way too until I started seeing things from the men's point of view. I mean really from their point of view and not just judge from a distance. That cured me from any desire to have been born a man.
"Chivalry went out the window a long time ago, and sadly wasn't replaced with anything."
What would you replace it with?
"Our culture has taught boys to respect a woman's ability to take of herself, but didn't hand out any notes on how to respect the actual woman."
There are no notes for girls on how to respect men either. Quite the opposite, culture is going to great lengths to teach both boys and girls to disrespect men and especially fathers.
Lucy83 (author) on July 13, 2012:
sorry I must have missed your comment before that's why it's so late to go appear. Thanks for sharing your views. Sounds like you're grown wise from the problems you've experienced.
Renee on July 09, 2012:
In my personal experience, education and earning power do not correlate to work load sharing in male-female relationship. In every couple I'm friends with, the female does the vast majority of housework/cooking and is the primary parent. This is true even when the woman has a higher level of education and brings home a bigger paycheck.
I feel like the principal of least interest is the cause of this work load inequality. A responsible man with an average job has more avaliable to him on the dating market. As you mentioned, men are often "marrying up" (or "coupling up" as is often the case).
I love men, and am about as straight as a board, but I there I days I feel that having been born a girl is a raw deal. What's more, I am not the product of a bygone era. I'm a 26 year old white woman, married to a mechanical engineer of the same age in Portland Or.
I feel that the men of my generation were taught that women ought to be financially independent of them, and bear the burden of housework and children.
I feel that our gender roles have become convoluted to the point where the roles we assume include the the worst of several different stereotypes.
I feel that among my generation, misogyny is on the rise, and although on paper we women appear to be valued more than men, we tend to be the losing party in terms of work-load and commitment.
Chivalry went out the window a long time ago, and sadly wasn't replaced with anything. Our culture has taught boys to respect a woman's ability to take of herself, but didn't hand out any notes on how to respect the actual woman.
David Bueler on July 04, 2012:
We are definitely headed towards a matriachy. It seems women have more going for them than most guys anymore. I never finished college, but while I was there I could definitely tell it was the women that dominated the school. More women went, more graduated and more made academic honors, honor rolls etc. Most guys, like myself either drop out or don't even go. Most of my guy friends of with women that are better educated and make more than they do, and just about all the women I've dated were the same. My most recent ex made over 2X the amount I made. I moved in with her and we had a daughter together. My ex really did rule the roost as she basically owned everything and made all the money. Unfortionately we ended up breaking up and she kicked me out of the house. I was basically homeless, staying with family until I could get a place of my own. I know live in a run down trailer court with a bunch of other men who basically are going through same thing I am. All are under employed or jobless, living alone, just making enough to pay the rent, keep the light on and keep up with child support, which I'm still behind on, to avoid going to jail. I would never let daughter stay here, the mobile home I'm living in is probably fit to be codemned and the trailer park is full of registered sex offenders, the trailer park isn't close to any schools or parks. I've talked to a few of them men that live here and their stories are all the same as mine. Mostly working minimum wage if any job at all, trying to pay child support.
Despite all this I really don't blame anyone but myself for the situation I'm in. I made some bad choices that got me to where I am. I don't blame my ex, the government or anyone else. I think a lot of men like myself really need to change things up in this new economy. I know a lot of guys that still think of themselves as superior and that they're going to be king of their castle, when in reality, they don't have anything going for them education or career wise. They still expect to be top dog even when their girl friend of wife is making all the money. Men really need to wake up and adapt to the way things are now. Either that or work hard, stay in school and land a good career. I'm actually glad that women have done so well and can now achieve their own dreams and desires. So many women now are very independent, make good money and because they don't need a man how they used to, they expect more out of men. They no longer have to deal with a man using them as a doormat. But a lot of men are not changing and these are the men that are being left behind and will have a hard time in the coming years. Thi is the reason why so many young people today are single, and why so many women complain how there are no good men around. I think this also the reason why so many marriages are failing.
Mike on June 11, 2012:
Great debate ! Feminism is an introduced system the purpose of which was to drive up consumerism which it did and still does.....each divorce means a doubling up of all appliances. The other point about about matriarchy and patriarchy is that those are just arbitary terms, fine for discussion but totally meaningless .otherwise. Nature rules the waves. Nature chooses who we will partner based on weeding out weaknesses in the gene pool. That is; the one partner we
are drawn to (call it love if it makes you feel better) to have children with. Now partners chosen for any other reason are of no interest to nature and hence of little interest to the resr of us. Nature will continue to provide the fittest specimends for the continuance of the species. We can debate about lifestyles and roles being played as much as we like it has no significance on life. Oh ! and just one other thing; Who or what it is that is controlling our human lives, and has been doing for at least ten thousand years, is never going to let women rule. For what it is that rules ou lives does not allow men to rule, they make them think they rule. If we humans ruled ourselves then common sense and rational choices would be more in evidence. The crazies that run this planet will blow it to pieces before they let women have absolute rule.
dave68 on May 13, 2012:
Excellent article, many thanks Lucy.
John123 on May 10, 2012:
You got a companion
Lucy83 (author) on April 24, 2012:
if only things were so simple that feminism was at the root of these problems. Then they'd be solved pretty easily I think. I sympathize with your kind in particular (submissive men) though. I feel people like you get the worst end of the stick regardless of which gender has a harder time.
roger on April 18, 2012:
lucy I like your article,even though I am a submissive guy (i absolutely hated the idea of martichary.)
I for one believe in equality,there should be a balance,as one poster said women are outperforming men in colleges,schools etc.
Why,what is the reason??
I think "feminists" ruined boys,every school seems to favour girls over boys, they paid more attention to them and just ignore boys.
I have experienced this and I feel so neglected as if those girls are somewhat superior to us.
they are not,no gender is superior,feminists always complain about "opression",what type of "opression" ??
I don't see any,women are always favored by justice system,family courts favor them all the time,they can get away with false rape accusations,domestic violence etc
We man have it a lot harder.
I seriously think, "feminism" is the only reason for the downfall of boys and men in general,they fight for equality but despise and downgrade the whole male gender along with it,they spread such hatred towards men that now society sees us as criminals,rapist etc .
are you watching advertisment these days,what a load of crap they shows us.
Women always presented as smart,intelliegent and suprior but men are presented as fool,dumb in other words inferior .
Tell me,how much will these type of things effect a young boy?? Don't you think he will develop some self esteem issues and even may develop a feeling that he is dumb and inferior to girls .
this is also a reason, if gender roles are reversed ,then feminists will come up with "misgny" thing but they are perfectly fine when women do it.
boys are ignored in schools and colleges.
you know,boys are more capable and creative then girls, but because of the women firendly way of teaching young boys don't get any chance to show up their potential.
Just read the book "war against boys"
Men have contributed to make this a world a better place,we are using computer ,internet etc because of men and its really unfortunate to see that men are declining, this is very bad for society.
And back to you article "martichary " or whatever will never come in our society,what type of men want a women to control them (exceptions like me are there )
women are equal to men now,even have more rights, so I think society will go on this way.
Boys will continue to fall in schools and all blame goes to "feminsim",they are making it harder of us to sustain in this society,favouring one gender over other and completely ignoring the other gender is not good and I don't think feminists want equality at all.
Men will never stand for themselves because they respect women, and don't want to oppose them at any cost , I really hope MRA or MRM will come into play, they are the only one's who cn do something for us, feminists totally destoryed men and in a very bad way .
Women are prefered,favoured and its very heartbreaking for us to see how much society hate us
Even though I am submissive guy and into femdom but I will never want a female dominated society, it feels like it contradicts my nature(i know how to neglect my desires and submissive tendencies) , but I have male ego just like every man has, and most men will prefer to die rather then giving more power to women.
I know it and mean it.
It makes me sad to see some guys here posted that "women should dominate men" and all load of crap ,ok they are happy that way but why you guys are trying to implement your kinks in the whole society.
I am just like you but I don't want society to act that way at all .
Women are no good then men,we are equal ,god created us and we all will die one day, so see we all are human beings.
lucy,i am reading your other articles and as a submissive guy it kind of interesting to read them,huh
Really hope you will reply
Anonymous on March 09, 2012:
Matriarchy and patriarchy reflect different genders of the mainstream dualistic society apart from the gay lesbian queer two spirit fringe group trying to have its say by developing an opposing social tension in society. Agree that equality and equal rights between male and female gender persons is healthy and can be mutual agreement between partners sometimes verge toward male or female side of the bipolar tension developed between male and female gender expressive partnering that occurs, apart from more rare relations amongst three or more or two women and a man or two men a woman or three men or three women. In short if two or three party relationships can occur say domestically as a workable relationships that are mutually acceptable then does it matter if statistical studies show ups an downw in trends as the years roll by just as long as the relationships can be harmoniously maintained for society anywhere on earth to function properly in a way that pleases the 'supremacy of God' however you choose to define that quoted phrase of the Canada Constitution aspect of the charted of human rights and freedoms in the freedoms section that has it in the preamble clause as: whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law taking the ranking of the two aspects as higher for supremacy of God then for the rule of law.
merci Thank you for how the discussion has impinged on matters that relate to the developing Community of Canada.
Liam on March 03, 2012:
Salacious, all people and animals are motivated by love Not just the 'male plebs' as you put it.
John on February 09, 2012:
"Countless men already endure a sexless existence. Throughout history it's pretty much always been that way."
It's interesting that many such men have become giants in their fields of work, so there's maybe a point when saying that sexual energy can be channeled in other ways, or maybe suppressed so your other energies can emerge full force. Just a (silly) thought, of course.
"Women are the choosers when it comes to the mating game and men get chosen."
Depends how you take it. Women do choose, but only among those who are actually interested in her, among those who are competing for her attention; and in most cases the number of men competing for her at any point in time is one - so it's questionable who does the choosing.
It seems to me that it is a man who does the choosing, the woman can only veto(for lack of the better expression) and reject the man.
Lucy83 (author) on February 04, 2012:
"the belief that they would endure a sexless existence for a few hobbies shows a profound ignorance of men's drives and motivations. "
Countless men already endure a sexless existence. Throughout history it's pretty much always been that way.
"Men don't get to make the rules on what women find attractive in men. "
Likewise, women don't get to make the rules on what men find attractive in women. There are two sides to this - not just yours.
"Women are the choosers when it comes to the mating game and men get chosen."
That is only the case to the extent that people believe it. In other words, because most of the world believes that men want more sex than women, therefore women's "availability" automatically becomes more expensive. It has nothing to do with our actual availability. There is a good analogy in marketing a product - for good reason do you often hear "limited availability" or "last chance to get xyz". It's because that drives the price up and makes people try harder to acquire it.
Similarly it works in dating - men, for some reason, believe they are not desired by women as much as they desire women. That belief alone creates the imbalance you're referring to.
Also, this depends a great deal on individuals. An attractive man is the chooser when a less attractive woman desires him. He is the proverbial gate keeper in that situation. I think one of the problems with your reasoning is that when you refer to women, you really just mean women with supermodel looks.
"Women choose who gets to have sex and who doesn't. It's that way whether any of us like it or not. "
Regurgitating this is precisely what ends up making it true. The more you believe it, the more real it becomes. But that is also your choice to make.
SalaciousCrumb on January 28, 2012:
I'm speaking in generalizations because we're talking about mass numbers of people, not individuals. It's true that most men don't constantly think about sex once they're out of their teenage years, but you underestimate the male desire for it(and female love). While men no doubt tend to have more diverse interests than women, the belief that they would endure a sexless existence for a few hobbies shows a profound ignorance of men's drives and motivations. They won't work for a few meals and bed with the full knowledge that the possibility that those other needs are hopelessly out of reach. If women believe that they will sit around in leather chairs and wood paneled offices while waiting for their turn with Mr. Big(while most of the male population continues the maintenance of society for a chance to go fishing occasionally), then they're deluded.
Men don't get to make the rules on what women find attractive in men. Women are the choosers when it comes to the mating game and men get chosen. The most a man can do is present himself. The woman gets to be the judge. Women choose who gets to have sex and who doesn't. It's that way whether any of us like it or not. Women will always choose a man based on her perception that he is superior in some way. It might be economically, socially, physically, or any combination of these three or other characteristics. Men don't choose inferior women because men don't get to choose at all.
If forced to choose between the Scylla of patriarchal Islam and the Charybdis of matriarchal feminist supremacy, most men would end up saying.......Allah akabar! Remember that there's nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose. Nothing!
Lucy83 (author) on January 28, 2012:
I think you're reasoning in absolutes and generalizations. Firstly, men can be motivated by many things other than sex. That's one of those misandric myths that men only have sex on their brains. If anything, men are motivated by more diverse interests than women so far as we can tell. Your point that women have no desire for men they see as their inferiors is also over simplified. Inferior, in what way? What's inferior to one might not be to another. And there are plenty of women who go out with what most would call inferior men.
Do you personally prefer women you think of as "inferior"? If so, then in what way do they need to be inferior? Would that inferiority have to be selective (only in certain traits such as physical weakness) or universal?
SalaciousCrumb on January 27, 2012:
I have a few questions. Exactly how would you motivate the hordes of male plebs that keep civilization going? I assume the you understand that the main thing that motivates most men is sex and love from women. Who will be providing these two services to the untermenschen? Most thinking people know that women have no desire for men they see as inferiors. If women position themselves over the vast majority of men, that effectively makes those men undesirable mates. If no way can be found to provide these men with those two basic human desires, then they won't participate as slaves in your rigged game. At best they will do nothing and at worst they will actively try to destroy a system that treats them as less than human. Your response?
Lucy83 (author) on January 15, 2012:
sexist and hateful comments like that are not welcome here. At the very least you should back up your claim.
Michael62 on January 15, 2012:
There are three centres of power, government, big business, and religion. Until those power centres are fifty percent influenced by women there will be greed, wars, violence, and crime.
Lucy83 (author) on November 04, 2011:
you definitely have a point there. I can even remember teachers generally favoring the girls and sometimes giving them better grades even when they get the same marks. That's pretty grim for a teacher.
David on November 04, 2011:
An easy way to fix at least part of the gender issue is to change how schools are run.
Boys do worse in school. It's a pretty known fact by now. But how much of that is actually them having trouble grasping the material?
My personal problems with school go straight back to radical feminist teachers. It became so obvious one of my teachers had a personal vendetta against me my parents had to confront the management of the school to make sure it became more fair. Definitely worked better than when I tried on my own.
Of course I was targetted for a reason. I had an ego, natural aggression (not physically) and fierce sense of competition, traits that are difficult to deal with in a classroom which radical feminists generally resent. The only problem is that I'm nothing without them. If my parents sided with the teacher, I probably would have just given up and become a below average student until I graduated.
My case was an extreme example, but I wonder how many teachers do that sort of thing subtly enough to go under the radar... It only takes a year to destroy someone mentally, so I'm willing to bet it's a significant factor.
kenneth avery on October 22, 2011:
Lucy83, you are very welcome, but I said the truth in my comment and will do that in all comments. I have just noticed in the above comment that I made, several typo's...I did not realize that I was in such a hurry the night I commented on your great hub. So sorry. Peace to you and keep in touch! Kenneth
Lucy83 (author) on October 22, 2011:
thanks so much for such an awesome comment!
Kenneth Avery from Hamilton, Alabama on October 20, 2011:
Lucyh83 . . .blew my mind. Absolutely mind-blowing, amazing and wonderful read. You are not only highly-IQ'd, but an amazing talent. I envy that. Voted up, useful, awesome, beautiful and intersting and YOU are right on your points. I always thought that an ordered society had vaious weakened and strengthened levels of discipline. I was wrong. I am a fan and now an honored follower. Glad to find a mind such as yours on hubs. Sincerely, Kenneth Avery, from a rural town, Hamilton, in northwest Alabama that makes you think of that town, Mayberry, on the Andy Griffith Show. Peace~~ka
Lucy83 (author) on October 18, 2011:
I've stumbled into this phenomenon quite often since I started writing here. I wrote somewhere that I think they just get more of a kick out of the thought that it could be real and not just a fantasy.
John on October 18, 2011:
''The problem is you advocating this lifestyle for everyone ''
And this here is the core of the problem. Far too many people living in alternative type relationships seem unable to differentiate reality and society in general from the way they personally live their own lives and relationships.
They get extremely upset when vanilla couples criticize their way of life, claiming that they have every right to live their lives in whatever way they want, yet in the next breath they will throw all kinds of insults on ''normal'' couples, claim superiority of their way of life, and the worst - state that their way of life should be how all people live...that the smart ones will just accept it and the rest should be forced.
Bizarre, cultish behavior.
That's why ''normal'' people will never take them seriously.
You, miss Lucy, are definitely a part of the solution, and sadly, one of just few voices of reason in alternative relationships debate, at least online.
Lucy83 (author) on October 15, 2011:
thanks for your feedback. I like your views on this subject. It's about human dignity and equal rights.
Your English is very good.
Tony on October 11, 2011:
I am impressed with the balance and objectivity presented on this subject. I think that we have to take care both male and female will. Respect and dignity and one's will for both men and women must be the main goals for the future.
An example of balanced aim :
See Martin Luther King. He advocates for a fair society and defended AfroAmerican rights.
His aim, his dream was that both Blacks and Whites live in harmony. With the same rights and opportunities for both Blacks and Whites. No concession for injustice.
That must be the same for males and females.
We must take care of female's rights and power and dignity. (feminists do that). We also must take care for it for males.
There is no question of superiority or inferiority of female or male. Just dignity, equal rights, desires of both males and women.
I write "we" for human, that is to say for both men and women
When I mean rights, powers and opportunitues, I mean them in all the domains of life (family, workplace, or whatever...)
I add something more:
women are 100% human. men are 100% human.
It is human nature to dominate, to have power other humans. A total matriarchal society will bring as many injustice as a total patriarchy society brought.
PS : English is not my native lanquage. I hope my message is enough understandable.
Lucy83 (author) on October 10, 2011:
what you wrote is exactly the kind of stuff I'm trying to expose. The problem is not that you like female led relationships. That's great, so do I. The problem is you advocating this lifestyle for everyone with sentences like:
"I think it is the duty of all men to obediently let women to have full free time for their governing/managerial or intelligent roles and as much leisure time as they want."
Speak for yourself and let others choose their own lifestyle. Just because this lifestyle is good for you (and I'm not even convinced of that) does not mean it's good for everyone else.
Alex on October 08, 2011:
Dear Madam Lucy,
Very meaningful and interesting discourse on matriarchy. I am one of many men who is devoted to female supremacy. In fact I am in a female-led relationship, now that we are married, I would like to proudly introduce myself as a wife-led husband. My wife (to be precise, my Goddess)and I have had lengthy discussions on the subject of matriarchy, and we strongly believe that people should live in a matriarchy with natural respect for and perfect understanding of the sacred nature of feminity, and it should not be just because it is becoming a trend. As we believe, the modern interpretation of marriage should be that when a man is fortunately blessed with a Goddess before whom he should kneel down and worship daily as a ritual, and when a woman gets a life-long obedient male worshiper/ servant who is devoted to her, and who respects her as the Head of the family, his leader, guide and sacred Goddess for his life. A true love will always prevail between this Goddess and her obedient assistant (servant) with this great understanding.
Madam Lucy, as you very well know, today there is an increasing number of men who think like this about the relevance of modern matriarchy. But, with due respect to women who are the leaders we respect, I have to say that their response to men who are devoted to female-led relationships/ female superiority or matriarchy, is not that encouraging. What I mean is that in the journey to a matriarchy, I believe (rather I wish) it is better if women can provide more guidance to men who are submissive to women and who desire to live in a matriarchy. For instance, with the intention of getting into a wife-led marriage, I followed two training programs in ladies' hair dressing and beauty/ massage therapy. Also I did a certificate course in cookery and house-keeping. My Goddess was very happy about my commitment to serve her, and she really encouraged me in my studies in these areas. These days I am doing a dress making course because I like it and also because she wants me to be able make at least a blouse and a skirt for her. I really like this guidance I am getting from her. I believe that this type of training is a must for all male devotees of female supremacy. Then only women will have more time to spend for their leadership roles both in family life and in their businesses. I think it is the duty of all men to obediently let women to have full free time for their governing/managerial or intelligent roles and as much leisure time as they want.
I hope everyone would like to know your comments on this, Madam Lucy.
Kerianne on September 22, 2011:
You are amazing Miss Lucy!!!
Lucy83 (author) on June 28, 2011:
I appreciate the feedback and someone taking the time to read it all.
jaychem73 on June 27, 2011:
Again, I am impressed with the balance and objectivity presented on this subject. I don't agree with WABond's comment that the matriarchy might revert back if the majority of politicians are male (I don't see the tide being turned so easily), but I also don't worry about it because I think Females will become the majority in politics. Lucy, I think this is another really fine article.
Nolan on June 10, 2011:
The model of "matriarchy" described in the article that we may be heading towards is unsustainable. While women are gradually usurping the traditional male role of obtaining a high education and focusing on career and professional advancement, they are increasingly giving up what use to be expected of them: having kids and taking care of a family. Feminist ideology has misguided women into thinking that this role was oppressive and their path to true happiness is by taking over the male domain.
While feminists/ female supremacists celebrate the advancement of women by pointing to their gains in education and in the workplace, they are overlooking the immense damage that is being done in other parts of society. Ever since the 1960’s, when second-wave feminism became popular in the United States as well as other Western nations, women for the first time were encouraged to sacrifice having a family for a career. Since that point we have seen a dramatic drop in marriage rates as well as a rise in the divorce rate (and these stats continually get worse).
The nuclear family, a stable social norm for thousands of years, created strong individuals and was an essential pillar in the development and continuance of modern civilization. The new model of single parenting is unstable and there is overwhelming evidence (both statistically and through clinical psychologists) that supports that children growing up in single parent homes are exponentially more inclined to perpetrate crimes, drop out of school, and commit suicide among other undesirable side effects. Even if women are more qualified to run society, what good is it if our next generation is too weak, uneducated, and delinquent?
As we shift towards the “matriarchy” described, men are progressively becoming more marginalized and are not being incorporated at all. A reversal of traditional gender roles is absurd as men are not natural nurturers. Also, the notion that women are more qualified/ better fit for what was formerly the male role is completely unjustified. The perception of “female superiority” is entirely due to a bias by many (I suspect mostly men with submissive fantasies along with brainwashed radical feminists) to overlook the many flaws that females do in fact have. While there is a disturbing gender education gap at nearly all levels, this is mostly due to an education system slanted to favor the female style of learning. It appears the education system was made more feminine starting around the 1970’s to help girls who needed it at the time and we haven’t quite readjusted to help the boys. There are numerous studies on this topic and one good book for anyone interested is Christina Hoff Sommers’: The War Against Boys.
I have many other points to make but this comment is already longer than I intended. To sum up, women releasing their customary role along with the unnecessary marginalization of men in society and family life will ultimately have disastrous side effects, which we are only beginning to see in fractional amounts. The rise of women has meant the decline of men and this will in due course lead to the decline of Western Civilization and all civilizations that are embracing this new “feminist order.”
Joeymars1 on June 06, 2011:
I think that there will not be any problems of things being more towards the feminen side if only women were in politics! Women will see that we men were taken care off too. Perhaps having a gal or just one guy in office to represent the male interest politically will work just fine to keep a level of balance between the two.
Rod Martin Jr from Cebu, Philippines on June 04, 2011:
Lucy, I'm glad I found your article. Very well done!
I have studied historical and pre-historical matriarchies and matrilineal societies for a few years and I see some very strong plus points. Ego is always a problem (in fact, it may be the source of all worldly evil). In a matriarchy, decisions can be more reasoned, especially in the smaller societies, where the repercussions of decisions might more easily be felt on the children.
Male ego sometimes runs too hot and forgets such things -- prefers revenge or other aggression, but it's too late to say "oops" when the children are dead because of it.
There seems to be mounting evidence in my own research that the leading world power twelve thousand years ago was a matriarchy. I'm talking about Plato's supposedly mythical Atlantis. Could their overwhelming power and the protection of living on an island have removed the ameliorating affect of motherly concerns?
There are many skeptics of the Atlantis story, but I have found proof of an Atlantis-like event right when Plato's legendary island supposedly was swallowed by the sea. If my research conclusions are correct, then the children of Atlantis formed societies which now speak (or in the historical past spoke) agglutinative languages. We have genetic evidence straddling the Atlantic that an extended family was split as recently as 12,000 years ago (the time of Atlantis' demise).
And we have three areas of research which suggest that Atlantis was a matriarchy -- linguistic, cultural and mythological.
Culturally, all of the possible children of Atlantis had a matriarchal past or, in historic times, at least an egalitarian (gender neutral) society. These included some of the Native American tribes, the Basques, the Etruscans, the Sumerians, the Georgians, Dravidians, and Mon-Khmer. For instance, the Etruscans were despised by the Greeks and the Romans for all the power they gave their women. My research suggests that this male-centric idea is highly flawed; that it may have been the women who gave power to the men.
Linguistically, Euskara (Basque) and Rasna (Rasenna or Etruscan) are both agglutinative languages. This, by itself, means little. We don't know enough about Etruscan; there is too little remaining of their language. But take two of the most sentimentally-favorite words in any language: "mother" and "father," and we see some interesting patterns across Eurasia. Between Etruscan and Basque, the words are similar, but gender-swapped. Curious coincidence?
Probing a bit deeper, though, into the Etruscan pantheon, we find a male god and a female goddess with names gender equivalent to the words in Basque (not swapped). Possible conclusion: in the distant, pre-historic past, Etruscan women handed the scepter of power to men, and men became the new "mothers." In other words, the word stayed with the role rather than the gender.
What is also interesting is that in Georgian (who's Queen Tamara ruled during their Golden Age), mother is "deda" and father is "mama."
In myth, the story of Atlantis may have made its way to Greece in two forms: one from Egypt, with great detail, and the other from the mysterious mists of the past in the form of Athena's birth. The parallels between the story of Athena and Atlantis are striking.
Because Atlantis was the "Bad Girl" of our prehistory, many primitive cultures may have adopted an unsavory attitude toward the female half of their own society. Could this influence be found in the Bible, for instance, and also Jewish mythology? The story of Lilith comes to mind, but also Eve, and the "daughters of man" (Gen.6).
And it is interesting to note that Georgia's Princess Medea (of Jason and the Argonauts fame) may have been a trained pilot of a dragon airship. Outlandish idea? Look closely at some of the Eastern Med myths of dragons. They're golden, they fly and they may have been "shapeshifters" (sometimes men and sometimes snakes [drakon = Greek for snake]). Medea helped Jason steal the golden fleece by putting the dragon to sleep (drugging the pilot?). She followed Jason back to Greece, had two children by him, killed the children when Jason was unfaithful, married the king of Athens and was run out of town when she tried to poison the king's bastard son. She was seen flying away on a golden dragon.
If, after all her trouble with men (unsatisfactory men of her own Colchis [Georgia], unfaithful Jason, vengeful Aegeus), she decided to found a nation without men, and if Atlantis was her heritage, what better name to give her new group than Ama-Atlan (Amazon? or Mother Atlantis)?
Lucy83 (author) on April 28, 2011:
Another awesome comment Rusty.
Forgive me in case I repeat myself but you should really start writing your own articles. I feel you have a lot to share.
One-sided viewpoints is one of my great issues with feminism (and perhaps any ism). If feminists don't start opening up to criticism and public scrutiny, they risk losing credibility and eventually causing a mistrust and resentment towards women's issues.
Rusty on April 26, 2011:
In its article on “matriarchy,” Wikipedia says that a matriarchy may also be referred to as a gynocentric society.
Feminist organizations are naturally gynocentric – dominated by or emphasizing feminine interests or the feminine point of view. Thus, I would say that they tend to promote matriarchy -- consciously or not, deliberately or not. Moreover, like all organizations, they have two fundamental characteristics of organisms -- a desire to grow and survive.
The basic premise of original, i.e., egalitarian, feminism was and is that women and men should have equal social, economic, and political rights (hereafter referred to simply as "basic rights"). Feminist organizations arose and exist because of a largely true perception that women had and still have less basic rights than men. The objective of the egalitarian feminist movement was correcting this situation and establishing equal basic rights between women and men.
Logically, the feminist movement should end and feminist organizations should disappear when gender equality in basic rights is achieved. What logically should happen and what is most likely to happen are two different things.
Feminist organizations are naturally gynocentric because their leaders overwhelmingly have been and are women whose main interest was to empower women and to increase their rights. The name of the movement "feminism" and the expression "feminist organization" is evidence of this gynocentrism. All this is understandable and in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with it. However, gynocentrism means that feminist organizations are inherently in danger of betraying their original purpose of achieving equal basic rights between the sexes. There is this danger because feminist organizations tend to focus on just one side of the equation -- the women's side from the women's view. In short, feminist organizations have a predisposition to going beyond equality for women and becoming unfair to men because they do not sufficiently care about the effect of their policies on the other half of the population. Moreover, the desire to grow and survive can become objectives in their own right that can supplant the objective of gender equality. In short, feminist organizations are likely to seek to persist beyond the point of achieving gender equality and want more and more for women. These two characteristics of gynocentrism and an organic desire for growth and survival reinforce one another. Thus, there are organizations that hypocritically call themselves feminist because their activities, if not conscious objectives, lead to creating gender inequality to the advantage of women.
Here is an example from my experience. I was employed by a large company with many departments and occupations. The STATED equal opportunity goal was gender equality in the various occupations and departments. Statistics were kept and if women were under-represented in an occupation or department, then this was regarded as evidence of discrimination that needed to be corrected. One-third of a manager's rating was based on her or his equal opportunity performance, which of course provided a lot of motivation to correcting a situation of women being under-represented. However, only side of the equation was looked at. If men were under-represented in an occupation or department, there was no policy to "correct" this situation. Thus, it was not OK for women to be under-represented but it was OK for men to be under-represented. Gynocentrism led to focusing only on the under-representation of women with no attention to men being under-represented. If women in a department or an occupation went from being under-represented to over-represented, they tended to stay over-represented because there was no pressure to do anything affirmatively for men; meanwhile corporate resources were still directed to "correcting" those areas where women remained under-represented. Obviously, such gynocentric policies tended to advantage women and disadvantage men.
Surely, the most important effect of gynocentrism today in "feminist" organizations is in the area of K-12 education, which has repercussions first in colleges and professional schools, then in employment, and then in family structure. Feminist organizations are greatly concerned (and able to get a ready hearing in big media) if the girls trail the boys by a few points in average math scores or average SAT math scores but turn a blind eye to all the areas in which the girls are outperforming the boys. The idea of single-sex education gets their attention if it will improve the math scores of girls, else it is of no interest (unless it is perceived as giving some kind of sexist advantage to the boys).
Rusty on March 25, 2011:
When one looks at Western and Middle Eastern cultures one sees an association between partriachical society and patriachical religion. The three great monotheisms of the Middle East--Judism, Christianity, and Islam--are all patriachical. However, in the West, Christianity became ascendant only sometime after 1 C.E. Before that polytheism ruled in Greece and Rome and I would not characterize these religions as partriarchical although those societies were. In poytheistic religions, worshipers are generally free to select and worship their favorite goddess or god. While Zeus/Jupiter was the chief god in Greek and Rome religions, there were plenty of powerful goddesses. In the Near East in Mesopotamia, the goddess Ishtar was universally worshiped. The religion of ancient Egypt was polytheistic.
Moving eastward to India, we find another polytheism. Brahman is all-inclusive reality that is neither female not male (Brahman should not be confused with the god Brahma). The goddess Devi/Kali was widely worshipped. In China, Taoists worships The Way, which is neuter and "contains" both female and male. Confuscianism is more philosophy than religion. Buddhism is highly metaphysical and ultimate reality is neuter. Primal cultures see spirits everywhere. I would not characterize any of these religions as strongly patriarchical, yet they are the religions of patriarchical cultures.
Thus, I believe that a patriarchy does not need the support of a patriarchical religion. So, I do not see why a matriarchy should need the support of a matriarchical religion. In any case, the world is becoming more secular and that needs to be factored in.
bill humphries on March 22, 2011:
One of the issues that has been neglected in this entire discussion is the role of religion.Whether Patriarchy was supported by Patriarchal religion or the reverse, is unknown, but surely in order for a true Matriarchal society to emerge there must be Matriarchal faith to support it.Tis is a true desidaratum for those supporting a true Matriarchal society
Rusty on March 21, 2011:
Lucy (and Julie),
I enjoyed the dialogue betwee you and Julie.
I generally view the issue of the superiority of one sex over another as an objective and general one; e.g., what attributes make the average woman superior to the average man (or vice-versa)? This view goes along with my interest in a potential feminine future (matriarchy) and institutional female supremacy. However, Julie looks at a woman's superiority to a man in a very subjective and personal way, which goes along with her practice of private female supremacy.
I was struck by her comment, "If a Girl tell a boy to kneel and he do it, or tell him to lick Her sole and he do it. That boy by their own action make Her superior to him. I think My perceptions of males are influenced by that to some extend." In another place, she says, "I don't see males as my equal, they are crawling at me feet every single days!" I had not before looked at things from her viewpoint (regardless of whether or not she is speaking literally or figuratively about the way some males submit to her).
I see Julie's point that if a male kneels to a woman and submits to her pleasure and will, then he is ipso facto her inferior and she his superior, even if only for an hour, an evening, a day, or a weekend. WITHIN their implicitly contracted relationship, she would be his superior and he would be her inferior even though he might be more intelligent, better educated, have a more responsible job, make more money, etc. than she. Objective considerations of superiorty are trumped by the man's act of submission and the woman's act of acceptance. It is well known that some men with great responsibility, position, and authority (e.g., judges and executives), use the services of a dominatrix.
Now, I understand that Julie would feel superior to those men that kneel crawl at her feet, but these men are not all men (as supertype also points out). They are just some men, and I believe that few men would submit to her; in fact, many, if not most would expect deference to them. Julie admits that her general view of men might be colored by her experiences in private, female supremacy relationships. I can understand this. I wonder to what degree a woman's view of men in general and the issue of equality between the sexes is colored by her practicing private, female supremacy. I am not suggesting that a woman in a private, female supremacy relationship cannot be objective about the equality of the sexes (for I believe you are, Lucy), but that her experience of men in such relationships might prejudice her evalutaion of men in general and if so, this prejudice must be overcome.
Rusty on March 21, 2011:
Lucy (and supertype),
I think that supertype makes a point worth considering when he says (hypothesizes?) that in partiarchical societies in history, women accepted subordination to men in return for protection from men. While this hypothesis obviously oversimplifies, I believe there is some truth in what he says. In the past, a woman needed the protectrion of some man's brawn, not just for protection against wild animals but also, rather ironically, against other men. However, in the modern world in the more advanced and democratic countries, brains counts for more than brawn. Women have shown they have brains as much as men -- maybe more, as indicated by their currently leaving men in the dust educationally. They don't need men as protectors anymore. They can be economically independent (which perhaps was the chief goal of feminists of any type). They have the police and the courts for protection and as they become more influential, they will increase these protections for themselves. There seems to be no place for the special role of men as protectors and consequentially no advantage to women to be subordinate to men. However, there is the question of nature versus nurture--innate predispositions versus socialization. Everyone seems to accept the thesis that men are naturally protective of women. The ready explanation for this would be that men's natural feelings of protectiveness of women developed over the eons because these feeling proved to have species survival advantages. We might ask, if men naturally developed these protective feelings over the eons, would not women have correspondingly developed natural predispositions to accept and even desire the protection of a man? Men wanting to protect and women wanting to be protected seem to compliment one another. If women did develop a natural desire for men's protection, then I think that this desire would be accompanied by a willingness to defer to male authority. This willingness to defer tmight be termed "submission" but for me that is too strong a word. I believe that every human being is born with a desire for autonomy--to be independent, to make decisions for one's self, to go one's own way. In a society, one must compromise one's desire for autonomy with acceptance of the authority of others. This compromise is made easier by a natural desire of humans to live in a society of humans. In the case of women, comprise with men might go a extra step. Well, at any rate these are my hypotheses. Let us assume them to be true. What then? One can only speculate. I speculate that millions of individual women and men will work out their partnership arrangements in many ways but the successful ones will be those that best accommodate the innate predispositions of women and men.
JC on March 12, 2011:
Hi again. Been awhile. :)
"Actually I believe that the father's role is every bit as important as the mother's in raising children. But I was describing things how they typically are and not how they should be."
How things "typically are" based on what studies/surveys? What research has established that women have the most influence on generations? Just seems like a point of curiosity to me.
Anyway, thanks for your nice comments and acknowledgement of hard-working fathers.
Lucy83 (author) on February 24, 2011:
Thanks for the great comment Supertype,
your English is excellent too.
Supertype on February 23, 2011:
Ok, my turn to post a comment :-)
I agree to some extent the instinct of female superiority installed in the male gender. But most of what I read I find that somehow a exageration.
Yes as Julie states if a girl tells a boy to kneel, he will do it. But not all boys will behave like that, the guy who will laugh at her demands and challenge her, is usually the one who she will submit to.
I think that the superiority/inferiority (bad choice of word IMO) instinct is something that goes both way. While boys generally have the feelings that all females are superior, the girls struggle to find that special man who is able to ruin her "game" and turn her world upside down.
Usually the submission fantasy is also prevalent in females just like males, but it is a different kind. The male instinct tells you to love and protect women and all cost. To provide, please them and to submit to their will. The female version instead, is inconditional love, respect and submission to that particolar special male who emerges from the crowd. He most be god like in her eyes..before she submit to him.
Anyways, I agree on the societal perception about female superiority. IMO the so much hated and slandered patriarchy came to light for the need to protect and serve women, not to subjugate them. if you look in places with lot of war and cultural clashes, you find women usually with a low status (burkas, protectors ect) and surrounded by cultural/religious/legislative restrictions. While in places with a perpetual peace, women are usually powerfull (like in the west).
How is that possible? surely because of the need to protect women, thats why the need of restritions, protectors, burquas ect. The effort to protect and hide women from the enemy. Females are a whery easy target in a war. The Romans kidnaped and raped the Sabine women,the saracens and the turks raided often the west harvesting women to their harems or for sexslavery somewhere in nordafrica or middleeast and the list goes on. In this unstable places women rely heavely on men for protection. Since the men protect women, the women are subordinate to men.
Sure perhaps the intent behind patriarchy was noble, but with time everything degrades, and even the most noble social structure degrades to mere and unclear tradition. And sometimes (not always) in the history women had the worse, but in all period of history man was and are the cannon fodder. The expendable sex.
About matriarchy, I simply find hard to belive that in a female dominated world there wont be injustices and war, and we will all live in harmony. Sorry, but wars are a complex matter and behind it there is always resources and money. It not a caprice of the big gorilla man who rules. So wars may wery well happen also in a female dominated world. And so social injustices. if it is a matriarchy then it is an injustice per se against the male gender (just like patriarchy against the females). no matter how loving the mistresses are. And injustices happens in all social structures, no matter if Rome or mecca. So IMO the loving matriarchy is just a pipe dream it would no be better nor worse than all other similar human social organitations.
Anyways mine are just thoughs, if a matriarchy will come we will see and hope for the best.
Sorry for my bad english. English is not my native language. I hope what i wrote is understandable enough :-)
KerryMaxCook on February 13, 2011:
I sent you a "fan recommendation." I am like brand new in this "Hubspages" and I am massively confused how to get around. But I would like to talk with you openly here about this. I think it's time for me to embrace the concept of Female Superiority in a non-sexual or cheapening fetish way that is open and honest....
Lucy83 (author) on February 13, 2011:
Sure I want to hear your opinion. I sometimes get a little behind with the comment approval. Please don't let that stop you. Eventually I read every comment.
KerryMaxCook on February 12, 2011:
Miss Lucy, I am in awe of your post. I have so much to say - - and prove why I know Females to be the Superior human species - - but I need to make sure I am not writing to air first, and that you would want to hear from a lowly male.
gguy from new jersey usa on February 01, 2011:
Lucy,I fully understand your point about male vulerabilty. I have an electrician friend who rewired a Womans home for free based on a "relationship' they had. After the work was done she dumped him in about 30 seconds. If two adults want to make a special arrangement that benefits them both, it's not my place to judge, but the problem here is he was mislead into thinking this was going to be a LTR. I warned him about her before hand since I knew her rep, but I guess he did not believe me or could not resist her charms.
gguy from new jersey usa on January 31, 2011:
Lucy, one point I forgot to mention in my haste, these two Women are proponants of Matriarchy,so I imagine some people,particularly guys would wonder why I would want to be friends with the "enemy", let alone enjoy serving them.
gguy from new jersey usa on January 31, 2011:
Lucy, thank you, these are Women I know well, and have done many things for me also. But I do think the subject of Female Supremacy and how it can be applied to Female friendships is an interesting subject!
Lucy83 (author) on January 31, 2011:
"...while freedom of choice is best for the real world."
Amen to that.
"However there is probably some gray area between the real world and the fantasy world."
That is an interesting point. But I don't think your example does it much justice. If you choose to serve those women (which is very sweet by the way) they will naturally start to accept it as normal. That's not a changing society, it's you controlling your interactions with the people around you. But, before you go out offering your servitude to random women you meet, make sure nobody exploits you for it or takes you for granted. This can happen very quickly and I see it all the time - even in people who have no intention in playing the role of a servant or submissive.
gguy from new jersey usa on January 30, 2011:
Julie, once again thank you for your insight, yes the fantasy of forced Female supremacy is best left for kinky role play, while freedom of choice is best for the real world. I do feel that Female power is on the rise, and will continue on this path, but this is evolutionary not revolutionary. Women and men will, and should retain all rights they have today. However there is probably some gray area between the real world and the fantasy world. Here is an example: I freqently have informal business meetings at my friend Lindas condo. It is usually myself, Linda and another women who does some P.R. work for a small manufacturing line of mine. A while back I suggested that even though it is not my home, I serve the Ladies the wine and cheese. That has now become the norm, when one of the Women want a refill, they just kind of raise their glass and wiggle their wrist a little and I refill it without any eye contact or words being said. They seem to enjoy being served and I find serving them to be a turn on. So is this fantasy behavior or just part of the new realities of rising Female authority? I think it't kind of on the fence.
gguy on January 28, 2011:
Lucy, sorry for all the short comments,If I am near the computer, and I think of something I write it right away, probably an ADD thing.
On the male inferiority issue, I agree with you that it's not a good term to use. As stupid as it may sound, I don't see us as inferior, but I do see Women overall as the superior gender. Kind of like we are good, but you Ladies are better. Of course by comparision this would make us the inferior gender, I don't think it is a good way to look at it.
I also agree with Julie that the retail industry is rapidly turning "Pink" as even stores like Lowes and Home Depot begin to market towards Women. One interesting note, the color pink is perfect to symbolize this new Feminine power, while it is pretty it is made up of white, the color of purity and red, the strongest color. I don't think there will ever be any laws or rules banning male oriented products or advertising, it's just that the target market will be increasingly Female.
gguy on January 28, 2011:
Hi Lucy, hope your week is going well,when I think about it, my "us vs. them attitude probably is a result of some ofmy Female friend rubbing off on me. Some of them still feel that things still are not fair for them and wont be until we are fully conquered, and they are calling the shots. I think in a lot of ways we are already there, and us males are no longer a threat to their advancement. I think the biggest asset today's Women have is their confidence, it doesn't seem to matter if a Women is a CEO or an exotic dancer, they are in control of themselves and their surroundings.
Julie on January 27, 2011:
We agree on the most important, fairness. And on that subservience must be volontary. Unfortunately some peoples, strangely most of them males, are pushing for Female supremacist laws, policies, totatitarism. This kind of lunacy infuriate me. After peoples think that I'm buying in that crap because of my life-style.
I think those males have a false idea of what Female supremacy is. I mean in real life. It's not a little kinky fantassy. If they understanded that a female supremacist relationship is gynocentric, it's all about Her, Her needs, Her wiches, Her pleasure, Her dreams, Her domination. Very few males are able to handle it 24/7. May be it can be a good idea to write something explaining what it is to live (for a male) a Female supremacist life-style in real world. To wake-up some of those lunatics.
You made an interresting point about the notion of inferiority. I think that inferiority can also be induced by the inferior imself. If a Girl tell a boy to kneel and he do it, or tell him to lick Her sole and he do it. That boy by their own action make Her superior to him. I think My perceptions of males are influenced by that to some extend.
gguy on January 27, 2011:
Lucy, I was thinking of writing some sort of publication on the changing dynamics that a Female Centric Society will bring, I think it would be good to co-write it with a Women to get both sides of the changes taking place. What do you think of this idea?
gguy on January 26, 2011:
Just a few more thoughts here, Julie yes the feminine power you Women have over us is something even the most stubborn male cannot deny, then add to that the growing finacial power Women are attaining, who can really deny that chicks rule. I don't think you talk too much, I find most of what you say interseting and accurate.
gguy on January 26, 2011:
Julie, my Female friends have a name for the males that refuse to see that "Chicks Rule" they call them the slow learners.
Lucy, I always enjoy your wise insight and balanced attitude. As Women continue to gain power, probably one of the things they need to remember is to delagate and not micro-manage, which can be self consuming.
Lucy83 (author) on January 26, 2011:
Well many people are inferior in some respect. That doesn't mean they should have less value or be resented. What about inferiority that results from an illness like Alzheimer's? Or physical inferiority from an injury? It would be appalling to suggest that they be devalued because of a misfortune that could easily happen to all of us.
So I don't see a paradox in viewing men as inferior to women whilst asking for fairness between the genders (even if I don't agree that any gender is inferior - there are too many bad examples of both genders to make be believe that). There isn't even necessarily a contradiction when an individual is subservient but still treated fairly as long as that subservience is voluntary. A healthy employer/employee relationship is one example of such subservience.
Julie on January 24, 2011:
happy that you see no paradox in my point of view, because many see contradiction in the fact that I see males as inferior weak creatures and fairness.
We need males, they are the beast of burden, the backbone of this civilisation. I can't envision a day when many of Us embrace mining, construction, fisherman and lumberjack jobs... This will still males dominated jobs and our young matriarchal civilisation stand on them. May be this role will help to reabilitate masculinity and help males to find a their place in this new era of Female dominance.
About the "us vs them" attitude, I think that after 40+ years of feminist battle, Women vs patriarchal oppressors (read the males) we are all a little bit brainwashed to this antagonistic attitude.
«As Women continue to gain power in both their own lives and in their relationships I think you will find products of all kinds will increasingly be tailored towards female tastes.»
It's already what we have, most of the store in any mall, in north-america at least, are dedicated to Women. And we have all those pink things everywhere. It was a time where all computer was ugly angulous grey box. With Our growing economic power, I think that in a not so far future, the 'standard' will be the 'Feminized' product and the gender neutral/male something not always aviable.
When I graduated from highschool We were around 75% of the Girls to succeed but only about 48% of males succeeded. We are about 70% of the students in universities, and each years Our numbers are growing. No doubt that the structures, not only in business world but everywhere will have to change. Highly educated workplace will be 'Girls club' and on the other hand most jobs requiring only low qualification, will be boys club. You said that you will settle in to a support role, this seeem likely.
I don't know how all this will impact males but tomorrow will not be like yesterday or even today. In a very near future all those patriarchist and misogynists who refuse to see that We have defeated them once for all will face a very hard reality check. 'Yes, old men Chicks rules now'. A lot of adjusment and adaptation ahead...
You said that Feminine attire is associated with power. This is a seductive power, the power to use males desire to your benefit, the power to make them do what you want even against their own interest. And beleave me this is a very big power.
«We can thank Julie for her insight on that one!»
Yeah... I know, I talk too much sometime... :P
gguy on January 24, 2011:
Lucy, I also agree with yourself and Julie that the genders are not equal, but fairness is important since men are still quite necessary for society to function.
gguy on January 24, 2011:
Lucy, I agree with you that men are the backbone of industrialized society, and that will most likely stay that way,but we will increasingly need listen to the needs of Women in order to prosper. And I'll work on the us vs. them attitude
I think the main difference between men and Women when competing in the same gender, is that women are much more likely to put each other down.
Julie,although English is not your first language, your position is quite clear.
Lucy83 (author) on January 24, 2011:
nice to have you back here. I also feel that you have too much of an "us vs them" attitude. It just isn't like that. Women can be so competitive and confrontational among each other and male competition is also not exactly uncommon. From what I've seen men seem to get along better with each other even when they're competing but I could be wrong.
And remember what I said above, men are still the backbone of our industrialized civilization. I can't imagine that changing.
Lucy83 (author) on January 24, 2011:
sorry I was away for the weekend. I don't think it is a paradox. I also don't think the genders are or should be equal. But there should be balance (or in your words "fairness") between genders or both ultimately suffer.
gguy on January 24, 2011:
Good morning Lucy, hope you had a good weekend, just wanted to share somemore thoughts with you.
When you think about how much things have changed since the sixties it is amazing, while Women burning their bras was a great way to get attention, they where at the same time denouncing femininity at the same time. Today if you watch a movie such as The Devil Wears Prada, Feminine attire is associated with power.
As Women continue to gain power in both their own lives and in their relationships I think you will find products of all kinds will increasingly be tailored towards female tastes. It's the golden rule, as Women increasingly control the gold, they shall also rule. This does not mean that men will no longer be active in the business world, those of us who accept this changing dynamic should do well, we ca acomplish this two ways, by listening to what Women want ourselves and by bringing more Women into our organizations to get a Female point of view. Of course in the long run by bringing Women into our organizations more and more industries will become Feminized, but since we can not beat them, we might as well join them.
I think it't the men that can't accept these changes that have the greatest chance of dropping out of society.Perhaps at some point men can be more helpful to each other, and Women can also work with us on this issue once Women no longer look at us as a threat to their advancement.
One other point I wanted to make, with all the talk of Women rising up through the corporate world, I think one point has been missed. Women have done so well advaning in a structure designed by men, now that you have proven you can beat us at our own game, I think you will see dramatic changes in the structure of the business world to a more Female Centric stucture, in it is men that will need to fit in,but unlike Women I think we will settle in to a support role that will benefit both sexes.
gguy on January 22, 2011:
Lucy, hope you are having a great weekend, I have been real busy and have not had a chance to follow up on some things, but anyway, just read Julie's interesting thoughts and your reply.
First, if Women are going to take the lead role in our society, such Women to Women disscussions like you two just had will be crucial.As power shifts to the Female gender the last thing you need to to is get bogged down in kind of a battling bitches type scenario.It will be your level headed leadership that needs to prevail.
As far as how males should be treated, that is a much more complicated matter,those of us that have seen the light, and wish to take on a supportive role, I would think will do quite well, while those who think they can treat women how they please should be humiliated. Perhaps a glass of warm lemonade? We can thank Julie for her insight on that one!
Julie on January 21, 2011:
I don't say we dominated them in the past, I said we were more valued than them, Our dominant status is a new trend. In western world they was subordinate to Us by chivalery, etc for a long time. Our culture beleave(d) that it's a good thing to sacrifice many males lifes to protect Women from danger. Why because a woman life is many times more valuables for our culture than males lifes. Now that feminism have removed the cuturals limitations on Women's opportunities and advancement of technology openned even more field to Us. The end resut is that the old gynocentrism (Women more valued than males) morphed into a growing dominance.
I don't know if we have learned from past enough to not let's the pendulum moving to far... I hope we colectively learned something. About ignorance of gender equality, just to be clear I don't buy in gender equality but in gender fairness. I don't see males as my equal, they are crawling at me feet every single days! Some even come to me and beg to serve Me! Equality with males, what a joke! LOL. But, what I beleave in is fairness and respect. And We have as a culture no excuse for ignorance of fairness. This may look a little bit a paradoxe... Hmm.. I'm a paradoxal Girl may be. ;P
You are rigth, I agree, that many difficulty of males came from other males, in fact many males in leading position are willing to give Us more than We ask. For the same reason they will not stand up for their gender. The whiteknight syndrome... And they face other dificulties from masculine-male habbits of status quest. Where I saw Our responsibility in all this is that We don't reject abusive law that over favor Us.We are very happy to be favored by laws, etc. We are often too happy tu use those laws to crush males. This is what I mean when I talk of collective 'power trip'.
I hope that it's not to fuzy my english is not fluent...
Lucy83 (author) on January 21, 2011:
thanks for your comment. I don't quite agree with the overall angle of men vs women. It definitely isn't as simple as that. I think most of the difficulties that men have are as much because of other men as they are because of women.
Also I can't agree that women always dominated men. There were many areas in many periods throughout history where women were kept in a lower status than men.
Fortunately, in the West, we have gotten past that. Let's hope it doesn't mean the pendulum must swing the other way. Because, unlike our ancestors, we do not have the excuse of ignorance of gender equality. This means that, if it ever did come to an oppression of men by women, it would be far more sinister than women's oppression was in the past.
Julie on January 20, 2011:
Hi Lucy very interresting article.
«It's as if they can't or won't stand up for their gender.»
They can't, I mean they are build/hardwired to protect, please and serve Us. Standing up for their gender, mean standing up against Women. It's for most of them untinkable, You will have to crush and broke them in pieces to push them to more 'basic survival instinct' and even then they will choose to avoid 'Us', instead.
So it's Our reponsability as dominant gender to protect them from Our own power abuse.
I think that we are, as somebody said in a comment, heading to Female supremacy. We are in a deeply gynocentric society, where males are seen expendable, disposable and of low value as far We are concern. We was in a gynocentric culture from the begining, males was expected to die for Us, to suffer for Us from the very begining of history. This is exactly what was males' honor, nobility and chivalry was, their subordination to Us. Women and children first (women first chidren next) show how much We are valued. What we are seeing now, is the extension of the gynocentrism in Our domination over them.
I have no problem with Female Supremacy as personal way of life, It's my way of life since my first month of highschool. This is when I put my first male at my feet only by ordering him to do it, he still there. :) Many followed since. They obey me on a finger snap and live to serve, obey and please Me. With time I learned that with great power come great responsibility. I mean domination must not be oppression of inferiors (males).
But as a teen girls with boyslaves crawling at Her feet, I had a 'power trip period' where I got a lot of fun by humiliating those boys just because I was able to do it. I mean public humiliation. A 13 years old girl making (among others things) a boy drinking a bottle of 'warm limonade' every single days and making sure everybody around know what kind of limonade it's. That girl got a lot of fun beleave me. Etc. One day I realysed that all this was unproductive and destructive. I changed my way.
I say that because what we are doing to them rigth now is a 'power trip', we are oppressing them. I mean real oppression, not the one feminist fabulate about. The family laws are very hard on males, We have all rigths and they have none or nearly none. We can kick the father out and make him pay for Our needs. We can turn him into a moneyslave. We can make him pay for child that We made with another man and We can made many man doing it. If they don't pay they go in jail even if it's because they are indigent. I recently read that some states want to create special prisoner camp for those 'death beat father' and send them work in shitty job 16-18 hours a day with their salary confiscated. This is what the Nazi done to the jews during WWII!
We can send them in jail for years just by saying they deserve it (flase rape and utra-wide rape definition). Etc. In Our culture they are only showed as Bad, Bad and Bad. We see them everywhere as abuser, moron, pedophile, idiot, stupid, etc. They are not like that, they are protective and generous, if we are to rule them we must be just with them. We most not destroy and crush them.
If We marginalise, hurt and abuse men endlessly they will drop out of the society. I don't believe they can 'revolt' against Us because they are hardwired to not do that and socialy programmed to not do that. Males are weak creature. But I can imagine a male gender depression resulting in a wide spread underachievement, criminality, suicide and carelessness. Very bad for everybody, Women, males and society.
Lucy83 (author) on January 04, 2011:
Ok, one problem I have with your last comment is the idea of deserved violence. Even if someone does seem to deserve it, we still shouldn't put that into practice.
Although people often tell me I'm aggressive, the closest thing to assault that I've done was to 'accidentally' whip a sleazebag in the face with my hair while dancing at a party. Later my friend told me that he probably LIKED it. Great!
Although I will carefully hint here that I have no problem with some mutually consensual fun that couples often have. But more on that should be taken to my website.
You're certainly right about women confronting each other more than men. In fact the typical bitchy gossipy office environment is far worse than a testosterone charged male environment. Although best is still a low-testosterone male environment :).
gguy on January 03, 2011:
Lusy, as always, thank you for your insight. If you look at the media, T.V. shows even commercials, the pretty girl always represents the smart choice, while the bunbling goofy guy represents the the bad choice, AKA, the losers. Boys are told to always be nice to girls, and they should, but girls are told to kick a guy you know where if he acts up. ( sometimes it is deserved, but often not) With men in retreat the last thing we need is a power vacuum, we know where that leads from wars, so women may need to take more control to restore balance. If Women are the conquerers, then it is up to them to restore order and balance.I think it may be easier than you think as far as male cooperation goes, I would be more worried about a Women verses Women cat fight power struggle.
Lucy83 (author) on January 03, 2011:
That is a strange phenomenon - the not asking for help. Perhaps it is also because there often is no help for men. I have a friend who was discriminated against during a job application. A woman could have gone to the local woman's representative but there is no such thing for men. He has nowhere to ask for help and it might be so in other areas too.
Maybe it's down to upbringing though. If boys are supposed to be tough and not allowed to cry then they'll naturally become less inclined to ask for help and that probably just sticks with them into adulthood.
Your last sentence is quite a statement. I think to say men lost the gender war is quite dramatic and exaggerated (not that that's a bad thing). On the other hand, the second part of your sentence touches on something I've noticed a lot: It seems to be mostly women who care about their boyfriends, husbands, sons etc, who notice let alone speak out or do something about societal issues that affect men. For example, when I raise my concerns about certain injustices that affect men, it is men more often than women who disagree with me. It's as if they can't or won't stand up for their gender.
If they can't then it really will be down to women to "do the caring" so to speak. Now some women find that an imposition and until some (not that many) years ago I would have been one of them. It all comes back to the symbiotic nature of our relationship with men that I mentioned before: if one suffers, so does the other. Eventually that will bring balance I'm sure. That balance may very well involve more empowerment of women, but I don't know that - just guessing. What I do know is that balance is what the sexes need and that does not necessarily mean a 50/50 power distribution.
gguy on January 02, 2011:
Lucy, Thanks for your view points, perhaps my friend is blaming her lower pay on men and their may be other issues such as less experience etc. that will balance out with time.We do seem to be in a situation where men refuse to ask for help. There are probably several reasons for this. On could just be genetic just like we won't ask for directions,another could be fear of looking weak a third could be that although we never talk about it, that we have lost the war of the sexes,and now living in a Matriarchy to some degree and it will be to women to decide what help we do or don't need.
Lucy83 (author) on January 02, 2011:
Hi gguy and happy new year to you too,
well women rising in the corporate world means they'll be earning more and not less. Unless your friend is suggesting that women get paid less for the same work but that has been outlawed a long time ago.
As for the imbalance. I think it's an imbalance of attention and sympathy really. Women have a a lot of advocacy and lobby support. More than we need if you ask me but that is another matter.
Meanwhile men have no advocacy that's worth mentioning. Male or female politicians never discuss the needs of men as a gender. Now, feminists will tell you that the male gender has no need for help, but they cannot know that because everybody is refusing to even consider it. If you refuse to ask the question, then you definitely can't have the answer.
In this state of imbalance, men could have ten times more problems than women, but we'd still only see women as the gender in need. Even obvious pointers such as a much higher suicide rate among men and boys would be ignored.
gguy on January 01, 2011:
Lucy, hope you had a good new years, I have more thoughts to share, but it would be nice to get some input from Women first.
gguy on December 30, 2010:
I also agree that one gender is not superior to the other, but I don't think the things Women tend to be better at have been given enough attention.
gguy on December 30, 2010:
Thanks, Lucy what do you feel the current imbalance is? I have a good female friend who is an advocate of Matriarchy, and she feels that the rise of Women in the corperate world is not all good news since they are getting paid less. I told her to think outside the box, and start her own web design company, she has done great work for me.
Lucy83 (author) on December 30, 2010:
I'm not sure to be honest. I certainly don't believe in supremacy of one gender over the other. Also I think that the genders are too closely tied together that one could somehow benefit or suffer while the other does not. Either we're both doing well or we both do badly and that's how I think it has always been.
You can have one gender with more power than the other and that would inevitably bring more responsibility. That ends up balancing things out. Balance is the keyword really. And I feel that currently there is an imbalance between the genders in modern society. If a matriarchy brings more balance then it could be a good thing. If it brings more imbalance then it will be bad - again for both genders.