Why We All Would Benefit: If Women Ruled Our World
The whole written history of the human race has been a story of conflict, warfare, genocide, slavery, injustice and poverty, and we don’t find much difference today in our TV news.
We have had many great thinkers trying to solve these problems, through either religion or politics, but what is noticeable with all these solutions, is that they all have failed
Religions like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism all have not succeed in stopping conflict and wars. And in many cases seem to make the situation worse, as conflict between different religions and religious sects has caused many wars.
Political systems haven’t been that successful either, as countries with different political ideologies have fought each other, over this. They even have failed to create equality as well. For instance in the French revolution that promised equality for all people, only succeeded in creating a reign of terror as men like Robespierre and later Napoleon Bonaparte fought for power.
Later on Communism and Socialism also attempted to create an equal society but likewise failed. The only political system that has noticeably improved the lives of the people has been democracy, even though wars and inequality are still commonplace in democratic countries.
Because of the failure of both religions and politics to create a better world for us all, many people have given up on this, while those who still try, end up using the same methods that has been tried so many times in the past. But throughout recorded history the one thing that hasn’t been tried and that is Matriarchy. In the whole of recorded history it has been men who have ruled our world, and as history has shown us so many times, men do a terrible job in doing this. So if we recognize that men on the whole make dreadful rulers, then it makes sense to see if women can do a better job.
So why would women do a far better job in ruling our world than men? The reason would be to do with our basic instincts. Men have a competitive instinct and women have a maternal instinct and these instincts make a big difference in the way men and women behave.
Most male animals tend to fight each other for power and access to females, and evolutionists tell us this is a good thing, as the strongest male gets to pass on his genes to the next generation. This may be all right for animals to behave like this but can be a disaster when human males have the same instincts. We can see this behavior in sport. Back in medieval times they had the sport of jousting where two riders charge each other with long lancers on horseback
This is not much different to the way stags, bulls and rams with big horns, charge each other every spring. Nowadays, we also see similar behaviour in a rugby scrum, or American football scrimmage. This is also true of other sports where there is not a lot of difference in the way male kangaroos box each other and the way men fight in a boxing ring.
There is not a big problem with men competing with each other in sport, but it becomes a real problem when men compete on a battlefield with spears, swords, rifles, machine guns, field guns, flame throwers, aircraft, rockets and nuclear weapons. There has never been a time, in recorded history, when men were not fighting a war somewhere on our planet. While in the cold war between the USA and USSR, from the early 1950s to the 1980s, men come close to committing global suicide through nuclear warfare.
This fierce competitive instinct also creates very unequal societies as well. Although people have demanded equality for the whole of recorded history, it has never happened, and we can understand why, by observing the behaviour of male animals. For instance, a male stag will fight other male stags to have the biggest harem of females he can possibly have. There is no sense of justice or fairness in this, it is always, “the winner takes it all”. The biggest and strongest stag gets to mate with most of the females and those who are not strong enough, never get the chance to mate. In other words, in male competition, there is no equality, and this has been the case in every society ruled by men
In most of history we have been ruled by chiefs, warlords, kings, emperors and dictators. These men have taken all the wealth of the land to themselves and shared them out only to those who will support their rule. The majority of rulers in history have had untold wealth, while the majority of people live in poverty, and at one time slavery was commonplace. Democracy has improved on this but we still have a situation where the majority of wealth of any country, is still in the hands of only a handful of people. So it means, because of men’s powerful competitive instincts we will always have wars and very unfair societies, while men continue to rule our world.
Creating A Matriarchal Government
If that is the case, why would women do a better job at ruling the world? The reason would be that women have a powerful nurturing instinct. We see this from a very early age when little boys like to play with toy guns, cars and planes, while little girls like to play with dolls and prams.
In the animal world it is very rare to see female animals fight each other unless they are a carnivorous animal. The focus of most females is to bring the young into the world and to care and look after them, until they can fend for themselves.
This means that if we had matriarchal governments, where the vast majority of the members of the government were women, then this government will be dominated by women’s maternal instinct. These women will have far less interest in warfare than a male patriarchal government, and will be better at negotiating peace, in any dispute.
A matriarchal government will not have the same interest in competition for wealth and power as their main focus of attention will be on the children of the countries they rule. No female dominated government will want to see children live in poverty and ignorance, so they will put far more of the resources of any country they rule, into the welfare of children. In the process of helping the children they will within a generation, also help everyone else in the country they rule
When matriarchy is discussed, some people mention Margaret Thatcher and point out they she wasn’t a very caring leader, so it seems all women are judged by her actions, but we wish to explain that a female leader of a patriarchal political party, is not a Matriarchal government. Like most female politicians in patriarchal political parties women cannot get respect and recognition unless she becomes, ‘one of the boys’. In other words, women who try to get ahead in any patriarchal institution, has to act and behave like competitive and ruthless men, because if she was to show her caring and maternal nature, she would be condemned as being weak and sentimental
In his book, The Inevitability of Patriarchy”, Steven Goldberg put forward a powerful argument that men’s competitive behaviour, will always make men strive harder than most women to gain the high-status roles in any society. He claims this means that men will always outnumber women in most positions of power in our world. To be fair, this is the situation in our world today, and has always been the case throughout recorded history. If this is true, this means it is impossible to solve basic problems like war, crime and poverty. As we will always be ruled by aggressive, ruthless and violent men. So how is it possible for women to rule the world?
- Matriarchy FAQs
Questions and answers about matriarchy
Before we had democracy, it would have been impossible for women to rule any country, because men ruled through violence and intimidation, and women would find it hard to compete with men in a world of violence
It is true we have had, in the past, Queens like Elizabeth 1 of England and Catherine the Great of Russia, but they had to still rule governments, dominated by men with male values. But today, through democracy, it is now possible for a political party to gain power without the use of violence, so it would be possible for women to set up a Matriarchal political party or even take over existing political parties
Now, many feminists say that one sex shouldn't rule our world and men and women should share power equally. The big problem with this, is that equality is an unknown concept to competitive minded men
As pointed out previously, men have attempted to create an equal society through the French revolution as well as communism and socialism, and completely failed in this. In a government of equal numbers of men and women, there is nothing to stop men fiercely competing against the women for power. Women then have the choice of either giving away their power, or to learn to be as assertive and competitive as men. So unless women learn to be as ruthless as Margaret Thatcher they cannot compete against men for power. So this is why we need to have Matriarchal political parties of only women, so they do not have to compete within their party with very competitive men and together can create a powerful sisterhood.
So this means that while men ruled through violence and intimidation, patriarchy was the only option. But through democracy if women are willing to set up their own matriarchal political parties, then the people have a real choice in what sort of world they want to live in. The people can choose to vote for the status-quo in traditional patriarchal political parties and continue to allow competitive minded men rule our world. Or they can vote for a Matriarchal party and allow caring and nurturing women to rule instead. This then will give the people a genuine choice for voting to live in a far more caring and loving world
- Men do a terrible job in ruling our world. So it is about time we allow women to rule instead and se
Men have ruled our world for all of recorded history, which has been a story of continuous wars, genocide, injustice, oppression and poverty. History...
Feminism, Femdom and Matriarchy
© 2011 William Bond
Gadfly from Olde London Towne on February 03, 2020:
males are masters of their destiny yet slaves to there desires !
Kaden Jensen on January 31, 2020:
I think everyone is equal, men are not superior and neither are women. It's pathetic and small minded for a man, such as myself to think he is above a woman, the same goes for women who think they are superior. No patriarchy or matriarchy will fix that. both men and women can be be corrupt when given power, therefore it makes no difference who's in charge. Whoever No Name is has to get off of his high horse and realize that he is no better at being a leader than women. We are equal mentally and physically, there couldn't be just women or just men in this world, it requires both to create an equal society. The only way to think about such a thing is logically, which half of you are obviously not doing. Get over yourselves and realize that it takes both parties to make a functioning government and society.
No Name on December 15, 2017:
Women are inferior to men, the reason we have patriarchy and not matriarchy, is because society rules that way. Want to disagree with me? Society is comprised of both men and women, patriarchy is the way of nature, biology, and God's Will. Any of these 'males' with fandom fantasies are simply 'beta', weak men who are not attractive and will not pass on their genes. There is a reason why women are attracted to powerful, dominant, 'alpha' men. But men are simply attracted to women with good physical appearance and feminine attributes. Sorry to say, if you think women are superior and have these sort of fantasies, you are a disgrace to nature and are weak both physically and mentally. I will not reply to any of your comments, you do not deserve it.
Sanxuary on November 26, 2016:
Historically women are no different or better then men. They are just as ruthless and corrupt. The idea of an all female government is ridiculous. The problem of all governments is the ability to govern all people and discriminating against all men would fail. It is said if all men stood up for their rights, who would stop us?
Ian Stuart Robertson from London England on December 08, 2015:
I was in a pub in London's Stoke Newington which features a gallery of famous people who've lived there. Daniel Defoe, Edgar Alan Poe was educated there. For the ladies Mary Wolstonecroft, Ada Lovelace and Edith Girraurd. They were a century before their time.
ac on May 12, 2014:
I'm sorry for being late, and miss you Lucy..
Ian Stuart Robertson from London England on April 30, 2014:
I note that activist Germaine Greer in her weekly newspaper article said it all just in the headline 'Women are now worse off than 50 years ago!' Whilst Ms Greer is highly educated and thinks carefully before She articulates i'm still not sure if Ms Greer is advocating a Female led society but She does raise relevant topics from time to time.
Chris. on April 07, 2013:
Stop all this matriarchy, patriarchy rubbish and look at the real issue, upbringing.
The persuit of power, irrelevant of what country, is the biggest problem.
This is a personality trait issue that is encouraged by some and dispised by others. That one man can cause such attrocities dumb founds me and yet I have been the victim of a narcissist so, hell, what do I know?
I know that opinions are sometimes wrong. Yes, even the opinions of the respectible white/blue collor man, the corrupt politition, the outspoken woman on Jerry Springer who gets the audiences vote before her victim even hits the stage.
I'd say "god help us all" but what's the point?
aincas from uk on July 22, 2012:
thanks for the links - very interesting!
I just think its time that we gave women a chance of ruling to see how it goes
William Bond (author) from England on July 18, 2012:
The story of Rosalind Elsie Franklin was revealed in a science BBC TV show some years ago, here in Britain, and revealed Crick and Watson for the crooks they were. Unfortunately Rosalind Franklin died of cancer not long after her she finished her work on DNA.
The BBC also made some science shows about Jocelyn Bell and how she was denied a Nobel prize.
Atlas Lonestar on July 18, 2012:
These women are amazing, and to think I never knew of them before they are an inspiration to me. Do people do nothing once the truth comes out? Do they never receive any recognition nor a Nobel Prize? I mean, I would ferociously attack those who steal the work of others due to their lack of dignity and respect for those who were truly responsible for such accomplishments!
William Bond (author) from England on July 18, 2012:
A similar thing happened to Jocelyn Bell, it was she who first discovered Neutron stars, but it was her male boss who got the Nobel Prize, for not doing anything. Mind you to be fair, science does have a history of male scientists doing the same thing to each other.
There is a interesting web-site on female inventors. -
Atlas Lonestar on July 18, 2012:
Precisely! We cannot always believe what is reported by the officials we must trust no one, and question everything. In a world filled with deception I've known it to be the best approach. As a philosopher, I must question everything or at least whatever I find to be of interest or of importance, including myself and my own beliefs. People tend to believe too much of what their being told and its a pity because then, when the truth comes out everyone becomes blind to it and then chooses the lie over the truth. I never even knew about Rosalind Elsie Franklin until you told me! This woman should be honored for her accomplishments, and I will do more research into her life in the future. The souls of men know no shame...
William Bond (author) from England on July 18, 2012:
Hi Atlas Lonestar, thanks for your support. Yes, it is strange, whenever I talk about matriarchy, in my experience, I have found that some of strongest and most vocal supporters of patriarchy are women. I never get the same problems with men. I have been told by a women, that many women do tend to see men through rose tinted glasses. Perhaps this is what is happening.
Talking about female inventors, I suppose what female scientists are up against is shown in the story of Rosalind Elsie Franklin. It was she who done all the research into DNA, but then one of her male assistants, secretly gave her data, to Crick and Watson who published it before she did. So it was they who got the Nobel Prize, and her work was not even acknowledged by the Nobel Prize committee. This was a extreme case of blatant sexism against female scientists. There are other cases like this, where male scientists have stolen the work of female scientists. They can get away with it because science is still controlled by male chauvinists. Yes, there are a number of female inventors and scientists, but they never get the credit they deserve in our patriarchal world.
Atlas Lonestar on July 18, 2012:
You continue on by staying "And again, you seem to blame men for all the bad things that have ever happened, without once realizing that the competitive push of men is what carried us from hunter-gatherer to agrarian to industrial to post industrial. If you want to live in a society where women rule, the Mosuo are there waiting for you in China, in their villages with no electricity or running water, and where livestock roam through the houses. Enjoy your matriarchy."
I am deeply astonished by your lack of respect for tribal peoples, would you say the same thing about my Native American Indian people? Who's poor quality of life continues to go unnoticed by the white majority, or by the majority period? What about the Native peoples of the Amazon Rainforest who know a great deal more about the rainforest then you or I ever could? Your racist tones are pretty damn offensive, must be Western pride and arrogance for being in possession of technology that is currently responsible for destroying the planet and everything we depend on for survival. I not only blame men I blame all of humanity and am pretty damn ashamed to walk this earth as a human being, at least if I was an animal I could leave this earth with a natural respect and dignity in spirit from my Grandmother the Earth, but as a human being I am forced to prove myself worthy of it, which is what I will dedicate my life in doing!
You further say "I think this discussion is done. You are incapable of seeing women as human beings, who are fallible, who make mistakes, who make shitty decisions of their own free will, and who own their own lives and the decisions they make. You are no better than the most radical feminist, and no better than the most traditional neo-con. You are incapable of seeing women as agents. You seem to see them as a monolithic object/victim class. I am...well, I'd be insulted if I wasn't so used to it. I'm not interested in discussing gender issues with someone who cannot see women as human beings. Search my user name when you have a revelation that women are actual persons capable of personal agency and sovereignty, and who are fully capable of being held responsible for their own actions. Until then, have a nice life."
I think that we are all well aware of woman's fallibility, wrongful decisions, their right to own every aspect of their lives and their decisions, their violence and indirect competitivness, as well as their cunning and manipulative personalities that could either be used to hurt or harm others, their cause of emotional abuse, and all the imperfections that women are guilty of, no one here is denying that, I think we all perfectly know what exactly it is we are asking for, we also have been at the shit end of the stick by women but see within them their ultimate potential to make this world better, just as we see this within all of us, we don't need feminism or civil rights to tell us that, but there are people in this world that definately need to be firmly reminded of that. And I can't see how anyone in their right mind can expect women to surpass the advances of men in such little time when men have had centuries of accomplishment over women, I find that absolutely unrealistic, women need time to broaden their horizens and free themselves from the contraints of their traditonal gender roles and I will acknowledge the same for men as well, and this will not be accomplished over night. I think you are too absorbed in the negative aspects of women and of feminism, I already know by the tone of your literature that you will never look upon feminism in a postiive light and I can respect that, you are entitled to your own beliefs, thoughts, opinions, and critical views of the world. However, you are not making a difference by indirectly saying "fuck you" to everyone who does not nor will not ever agree with you, instead you are doing the complete opposite.
Atlas Lonestar on July 18, 2012:
You say that "In the west, we already have a partial matriarchy with respect to the base unit of society--the black community in the US, where over 70% of children are raised without fathers. How strong and cohesive is that community?" You like most MRA's like yourself seem to get the impression that simply because a woman raises her children on her own without the interests of a man that that makes a Matriarchal household and that that makes a Matriarchal society. That is complete bullshit, and it disrespects and dishonors the real daughters of mother's who were raised in Matriarchal households! A Matriarch is essentially a strong woman, a good woman who is responsible, reliable, dependable; she is the head of household and is considered the heart, soul, and leader of the family in a heterosexual family unit, regardless if the father is a stay at home dad, or the breadwinner, the mother respectively is always head of household and the blood always flows through her line, and no, its not bullshit, I'm living breathing proof of it! Also the success of a Matriarchy would depend on the strength and leadership of its people not on the rest of the world being peaceful, it will never place dependance on the world for its existence because the people of the Matriarchy damn well know that the world would rather see it be destroyed than to see it flourish; it will be up to the people to fight with all their hearts, souls, and minds against a majority that would devour it! Matriarchy is not this perfect utopia, but it is a society that is based upon the well-being of all life on earth and is a vision worth striving for even if it brings me great suffering.
I think you have deeply misunderstood where Wabond is coming from, I know for a fact and he has even admitted it himself that he is not trying to put women on a pedestal, nor see women as perfect goddless-like and infallible beings, hell no one here has ever said that, however, men have done a good job at symbolically idealizing themselves as such and still do even today, just take a look at the Vatican where the pope's word is considered God's word on earth! I would say that women most often become violent when they have been brutalized, because the extreme trauma suffered completely ruins a human being without assistance; yet there have been women who have been raped and severely brutalized that have chosen to do the right thing, but what then is the right thing? Not taking a man's life? I can't say that if I was raped and brutalized that I wouldn't hunt down those men and brutalize them in return. I acknowledge that I would and I have no regrets in saying that a woman is perfectly justified in doing so. And he is definately not saying that women are not responsible for their violence, I would whole-heartedly accept resonsiblity for such actions as I always have; those who avoid there responsibilities, the consequences eventially catch up to them and they have to end up facing them anyway so any rational woman knows that there is no use in avoiding one responsibilities! Unfortuantely, we live in a world where justice is not always served and it costs the victim a great deal more to gain justice than what it should, such is the consequence of living a socially corrupt society thats bent more on attaining power, and conquest than on striving to serve the ultimate good. Everyone is accountable for their deeds, no one is ever excused from them perhaps they are legally dismissed unfortunately, but in the end everyone will be forced to face the evil of their deeds, NDE's are proof of that fact. And for the record, I believe that when a woman kills her children, I as a daughter, feel that to be by far the ultimate betrayal of a mother towards her child, and feel strongly that she should suffer the ultimate punishment which is suffering in death! It is too bad that like pedophiles these monsters are freed to walk among us!
" You said "You seem to feel that women have existed in a bubble through all of human history. That they have had no effect on the men in their lives, and played no part in maintaining and enforcing gender roles and perpetuating them on the next generation. According to you, when the Spartan woman told her husband, "come back with your shield or on it", she bore no responsibility for the deaths he caused. And when she shared in the spoils he'd taken, it had nothing to do with her. It's not like she stripped that gold from the bodies of the slain. She just made a demand of her husband, made it a condition of her continued love and respect, and benefitted from the result. He was the one with the last name and the sword, so it was all him."
That was the identity of Spartan Masculinity, Spartan women supported their men by giving them strength and pride through saying that. War was apart of their culture as it was for Greek and Roman men at the time, they all went to war and prided themselves in it, it was their identity as men and it was supported. When there are no alternatives and when the very concept of masculinity and femininity as they are called, are not questioned what then can you expect? There was no feminism in those days to question and to criticize, and to take the blame for failing to bring about equality! What made the Spartans unique was that unlike the Greeks they treated their women with more respect, and raised their women to be strong, and own land, and have the freedom that Athenian women lacked in those times!
Atlas Lonestar on July 18, 2012:
How can you not expect women not to be violent in a violent male dominated society where violence is constantly glorified, by music, literature, and film, where everyday they turn on the news and that is all there ever is to report. Violence in women against other women, against children, or against men should not come as a surprise, just like men's violence aginst women, children, and other men is of no surprise to me. However, I see violence against women as much more common and it most likely was the case for the majority of domestic violence, centuries before we had women's shelters. As for acid attacks, the majority of assaults were carried out on women. According to Campaigner Uzma Noorami "In most cases the husbands are attacking the women because of the power structure that exists within our society; a very patriarchal system where women are treated as commodities." There has recently been a rise in acid attacks on men by women, however as they say, "what goes around comes around," and I see this as these men getting a fair taste of their own medicine. We may not like it but last I heard women are human beings as well and I don't think that they should sit back and take the abuse and not get even for the treatment that is brought upon them. Men used acid, and taught women to use the same weapons against them. As for maternal instinct it differs somewhat in every species so does infanticide in which we humans are not exempt from. The best mothers are known to be Elephants, Alligators, Orangutans, Greater Hornbills, Octopuses, Earwigs, Bears, Polar Bears, Lionesses, and Wolf Spiders. Motherhood is a damn proud thing for every living creature on this earth, not every mother protects her offspring in the same way and not every male protects and defends, or is even there for his.
You stated that "most men who seek to invent or innovate are not "given" the tools, money, education and encouragement to do this. Einstein was a poor student. Tesla lived and died a pauper. Hawking certainly was never handed one damn thing, and overcame huge handicaps, to become one of the finest and most respected minds in science. Women have had equal access to education for the last half century. They do not feel the same compulsion to innovate and invent, to distinguish themselves through rigorous and difficult accomplishments, because they do not have the same motivation and competitiveness as men. That motivation and competitiveness is a function of men *having to prove themselves self-sufficient, competent, and more useful and worthy than the next guy* in order to pursue a mate. They distinguish themselves from the group through their behavior and accomplishments. Females do not have the same pressures in that regard, because men's criteria for a sexual partner have always been different, and over human history, women evolved to express those traits, and men to express others.
I think what is most pathetic about your statement is that your reducing men to nothing more than their biology. Not that biology doesn't have influence it does however, humanity is not restricted by biology in the same way animals are, we have the gift of awareness and intellect, to make a damn choice to allow ourselves to be defined by our so called accomplishments. And there have been women inventors within the last century that have contributed to society and have made a difference. And what makes you think that to do this women had everything given to them, do you foolishly think that men just opened the doors and embraced women who wanted a position in their dominated careers with open arms? You've got to be kidding me!
Take my life for example, I am a woman who seeks to make a major difference in the world someday in a rather revolutionary way, I am a multi-racial, multi-ethnic woman of color, who is a lesbian, and a transvestite, I am the proud daughter of a strong Matriarchal women, and belong to none of the patrarchal Abrahamic religions, I freely believe in a higher power that I identify as "The Great Cosmic Mother," and for most of my life I've been treated as a social outcast; absolutely nothing has come easy for me; my very existence as something that every single society on face of this earth hates (and would if they had the power brutally kill) has been paved through hardship! I am currently 22 years old and never in my life have I ever been in a romantic relationship with a woman, I can only imagine how long it will take for me before I truly find a mate! As a matter of fact, I do feel along with many other women who seek to pursue careers in science, philosophy, engineering, or even in the gaming industry, pressured to prove myself; I feel the dire need to innovate and invent not to distinguish myself from anyone else but to actually make a difference in this world, as both a role model to humanity and a spiritual being. I can assure you that I don't have many resources and those in which I do are limited, I am without a job, and I alone am my only damn motivator and encourager, nothing has ever been given to me! I've had to suffer and bust my ass off to prove myself worthy of every little damn thing I have and it has never been enough for anyone in my life other than my damn self!
Atlas Lonestar on July 18, 2012:
There have been female inventors throughout history, there have also been a few female geniuses as well, and that to me is a lot better than there being absolutely no women that have done those things, those few women have shown the world that women have the potential to create and invent the extrodinary, to build the structures and foundations of an entirely new society, to achieve human excellence in its purest form. What can you expect of a male supremacist world culture that has a history of oppressing women and having them remain subservient not only in society but in religion as well, obviously in such a culture women are not going to unleash their full potential, and when a woman has ever dared to the consequences have often been grewsome, a female intellectual was always at risk of life threatening violence. Take the story of Hypatia for example, she was a woman of absolute genius who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. She was the first female mathematician, she was also an astronomer, and a NeoPlatonist philosopher, she was a woman of science. What became of her? She was murdered by a Christian mob after being accused of witchcraft and godlessness and of causing religious turmoil. She ultimately fell “victim to the political jealousy which at the time prevailed”, as she was blamed by the Christian community of Alexandria for Orestes’s, who was known to seek Hypatia’s counsel, unwillingness to reconcile with Cyril. Therefore, a group of Christians, led by a man named Peter, kidnapped Hypatia on her way home, took her to the “Church called Caesareum. They then completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles”. Afterward, the men proceeded to mutilate her, and finally burn her limbs. When news broke of Hypatia’s murder, it provoked not one outraged response from the Christian community. Her murder "effectively marked the downfall of Alexandrian intellectual life." A perfect examply of man's brutality towards women and there intellect in those times. Any rational woman would seek to avoid that sort of outcome yet regardless, women have always taken the brunt of brutality from men and the culturally patriarchal encouragement of their own disposability, indeed women supported it, but they damn well didn't create it, hierarchal culture as well as firmly constructed gender roles have been defended by patriarchal men for centuries, any woman who dared to question suffered extreme consequences.
And so, it has indeed been men who have been responsible for such inventions that humanity tends to boast about, however these "inventions" that we all use have only primarily benefited one species, the human species at the expense of all life on earth, the very life that we depend on to survive. And was all such invention worth it? Was it worth Global warming, Global dimming, Fossil fuels, Sea level rise, Greenhouse gas, Ocean acidification, Species extinction, Pollinator decline, Coral bleaching, Holocene extinction, Invasive species, Poaching, Endangered species, Eutrophication, Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Air quality, Asthma, Environmental impact of the coal industry, Electromagnetic fields, Electromagnetic radiation and health, Indoor air quality, Lead poisoning, Sick Building Syndrome, Genetic pollution, Genetically modified food controversies, Burial, Water crisis, Overpopulation in companion animals, Tragedy of the commons, Gender Imbalance in Developing Countries, Sub-replacement fertility levels in developed countries. Need I continue or do you get the point? As for there being collective guilt and reward you are most certainly right about that; men as a collective have been given their just reward by Mother Nature which has been the result of all the problems we now must address as a result, not to mention the praise among societies for their for their inventiveness, is that not reward enough? Man has reaped what he has sown. The technology that any intelligent life chooses to create is a reflection of the way they perceive the world, so if man believe's that he must conquor and subdue nature in order to meet his needs of self-interest, he is going to create technology that does exactly that. However, if woman believes that she does not need to conquor nature and needs only work alongside her in harmony with all life that surrounds her, then she will invent technology that reflects that. And it is that type of technology that we desperately need!
As for harnessing the potential productivity and protectiveness in men, how about harnessing that within everyone whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual, woman or man? A patriarchal society may be capable of doing this for men, but it leaves out a large majority of the population that are more than capable of that very same thing. I believe a Matriarchal-Egalitarian society could accomplish a great deal more progress than the patriarchal one in which we live. There would be a place for every good human being on the face of this earth, with no one left behind.
Atlas Lonestar on July 18, 2012:
With all do respect, I do not understand the overall purpose as to why you come to a hubpage that has existed for a couple years now, that supports the vision of a Matriarchal society, a subject that you are not only against but haven't the slightest idea save for your own theoretical assumptions as to what exactly a true Matriarchy is and what it would look like, given the fact that many rather arrogant individuals agree that there never existed in the history of written literature a Matriarchy. However that all depends how you define Matriarchy doesn't it, among us Native American Indians a Matriarchy is a society that lives in harmony with Mother Nature; with the Earth, with animals, with each other, and with the cosmos. It is not the so called Western stereoypical and most feared, female supremecist society that many bullshit about; I mean, we don't even know what a true female supremacist society in all its full potential would be like given our so called biological differences. One may continue over and over again to argue that given our male supremacist society that most all know and love so well, that it would be exactly like that, but I naturally beg to differ, because until we are living in such a society there is no certainty that is nor would be convincing enough to support that perspective, because until such a society comes into existance where we can actually measure and examine in comparison both female supremacist matriarchy and our current patriarchy there can be no certainty of it. However, I don't understand what you may be gaining here by persistantly arguing with people whom you will never agree with and who will also never agree with you in return, I mean, do you love being in needless conflict with individuals who's views of the world are different from yours? Do you do so for the sake of argument, that you may gain some satisfaction in asserting your bias as well as your social and political views where it naturally doesn't belong nor is wanted? Point is, not that your negative critcism is something we are ignoring nor aren't thinking about, its simply that this is a space for like minded people; we know perfectly well how the MRA movement views feminism and women in general, we poltiely do not agree with it and damn sure never will; however what will all this fighting and arguing bring us? We will never see eye to eye nor will we ever agree with you, we are two groups on the opposite side of the fence. So what is it that you gain as a result of your argument? Absolutely nothing, and how come you claim to not be interested in speaking with others who do not agree with you when by reading Wabond's article above this should have been obvious and you should have avoided this in advance? Are you merely here to fight and shove your views down people's throats simply because you damn well feel like it? I mean, don't you have better things to do with your life in first place or are you completely out of work? Would make sense, due to the fact that you seem too busy shoving your BS down Wabond's throat to no avail I might add.
All Matriarchal socities did indeed have men, this is commmon sense however that doesn't necessarily mean that because they are men they were naturally depended upon to do the hunting and the women stay at home and do nothing but lay there pregnant, what crap! This so called typical division of labor among Neolitic and Paleolithic peoples are the biases of early archeological men. There has been found evidence that contridict all of these firmly held beliefs, that women of those times not only brought forth children but also hunted both small and big game, and were also gatherers and inventors, that sculpted figurines and did cave paintings. Women did not just sit on their ass and do absolutely nothing while leaving all the inventions and responsibilities to men, I have never in all my early ages of life believed that and I absolutely never will. Children also participted in these workings as well. It is also theorized that some of the earliest socities like Atlantis, Lemuria, and Mu were possibly Matriarchal-Egalitarian societies, they were also said to be technologically advance beyond their time. And though these are considered mythological cities there is like Troy a possiblilty they existed once, as there is an equal possiblity that modern day humans may be far older than science claims we are, studies such as forbidden science and archeology are of high interest, due to the fact that they indicate that science has not only been transformed into an instituionalized orthodoxy of cherished theoretical beliefs, but it also indicates that it refuses to embrace alternative possiblities and the fact that their theories about the world, the universe, and humankind could indeed be very wrong. Also hunter-gatherer socities naturally tend to have non-hierarchal egalitarian social structures, there is social and economic equality and violence often tends to be very rare which in spite of their lack of technology seems to be more highly advanced society morally than the one we currently live in.
A number of characteristics that distinguish women leaders from men when it comes to qualities of leadership: Women leaders are more assertive and persuasive, have a stronger need to get things done and are more willing to take risks than male leaders....Women leaders were also found to be more empathetic and flexible, as well as stronger in interpersonal skills than their male counterparts....enabling them to read situations accurately and take information in from all sides....These women leaders are able to bring others around to their point of view....because they genuinely understand and care about where others are coming from....so that the people they are leading feel more understood, supported and valued.
The Caliper study findings are summarized into four specific statements about women's leadership qualities:
Women leaders are more persuasive than their male counterparts.
When feeling the sting of rejection, women leaders learn from adversity and carry on with an "I'll show you" attitude.
Women leaders demonstrate an inclusive, team-building leadership style of problem solving and decision making.
Women leaders are more likely to ignore rules and take risks.
William Bond (author) from England on July 17, 2012:
Girlwiteswhat, I suppose you are going to condemn the whole female sex on the actions of a few women like Margaret Thatcher or Elisabeth Bathory. How about condemning the whole male sex on the actions of Hitler, Stalin, Po-Pot, Atilla the Hun, Ivan the Terrible? I could go on, I could fill a whole book up with the names of despotic male rulers, murders, serial killers and acts of genocide. You are comparing millions male killers to a handful of women.
Look through history and even today and the acts of violence and torture by men, far outweighs the acts of violence and torture by women.
As for saying a lot of these acts of male violence is caused by women. Men of violence always, blame the victim, or try to blame someone else. In Islamic countries they have a 'honour' system where is a women disobeys a man she dishonours him, and so to restore his 'honour' he has to kill her. And they always say, 'it is the woman's fault'. They do this with rape, in places like Pakistan, if a woman was to complain she was raped, she is the one more likely to be sent to jail, and not the rapist. This even happens in the West where rapist will complain that it was the fault of the women he raped because of the way she dressed. Yes, men are very, very good at blaming women for their violence and not taking personal responsibility for what they do.
It just supports what I have been saying. Men have shown themselves to be total irresponsible rulers of our world, and wont even take responsibility for what they do. How badly does it have to get, before women like you wake up to the fact that men are doing a really terrible job in ruling our world.
girlwriteswhat on July 17, 2012:
I think I've learned about wild animals. I've also been a slightly detached and external observer of human behavior.
Women have not shown anything of the sort. What they have shown is that they are more risk-averse than men are, and that men are easily manipulated by female gender enforcement to perpetrate violence on behalf of women. Some of it is indeed attributable to men's agency. But a very great deal is instigated by women.
Anyone who thinks women are inherently dovish should read up on Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi and Elisabeth Bathory. In the case of Countess Bathory, all of the men who obeyed her orders were executed, and she was given house arrest. That is what happens when we believe women are somehow less violent than men, and are not willing to hold women accountable when they are violent.
William Bond (author) from England on July 17, 2012:
Hi girlwriteswhat, You are obviously ignoring the evidence that men have been ruling the world for the last five thousand years, through force and violence. The reason why men have been able to do this, is that they are far more competitive and aggressive than women.
If women were as violent and aggressive as men we would have in our history great Amazon armies setting out to conquer the world. Like the Armies of Alexander the Great, Atilla the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon and Hitler. Women have never done anything like this.
You can only provide anecdotal evidence for what you say, and completely ignore the overwhelming evidence of history. We live in a violent and brutal world because it is ruled by violent and brutal men. The only way we can change this, is to allow women to rule our world instead.
Throughout history women have shown, they are far less aggressive and violent than men, even, though they have been brutalised by men of violence. Yes, women are not perfect, but throughout history women have shown themselves to be far better people than men. This is why both men and women would be better of living in a matriarchal society.
aincas from uk on July 17, 2012:
you need to go and learn about wild animals then you will see the differences between males and females
girlwriteswhat on July 17, 2012:
Side issues of little importance?
You are basing your entire argument on the absurd idea that women are neither competitive nor violent, and that maternal instinct prevents them from being competitive or violent.
Pretty much all the evidence I've seen points to the fact that women are just as competitive and violent as men--they just use proxies to enact that competition and violence in some spheres of life. And further, a significant body of evidence in evolutionary theory ties the psychology of women's violence and competition TO their maternal instinct. That is, "I want lots of stuff for my own kids! Hey you, go take that group's stuff and give it to me so my kids will have a successful upbringing!"
Because women enact their competitiveness and violence in an indirect way, where they do not face the risks involved in enacting one's own violence and competition, there is a moral hazard in putting women in charge of how and when said violence is dispensed.
Because society does not hold them accountable--even when they are overtly violent and anti-social--there is a further moral hazard in that they will actually be able to get away with more violence and competitiveness than men do before being called on it.
If you can't see any of that, well, there's not a whole lot more to say.
William Bond (author) from England on July 17, 2012:
Hi girlwriteswhat, Where have I ever said that I think women are perfect!? All I am saying that women have a maternal instinct and men have a competitive instinct. So are you saying that materiality is perfection?
Yes, women are more loving and caring people than men, but only because of their maternal instincts. Men are far more brutal and violent because of their competitive and aggressive instincts. This is why they do a terrible job in ruling our world.
You are not prepared to argue on the main points and try to divert the argument onto side issues of little importance.
girlwriteswhat on July 16, 2012:
Wow. You didn't approve my last response. Did I hit a nerve?
girlwriteswhat on July 16, 2012:
"Hi girlwriteswhat, The actual reasons why women abort is because in patriarchal societies they do not have control over their own bodies."
Do you even realize what you just said? Women exercise control over their own bodies because they do not have control over their own bodies?
I also wonder how it is that you don't see yourself as ultimately patriarchal. Your paternalism is mind boggling. It actually makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Please, consider the burden you are placing on women--the burden of infallibility, the burden of perfection, the burden of being goddesses. Whatever failings you believe are yours as a man, please stop demanding that women make up for them. Stop pedestalizing us. Our feet stink as much as any man's.
I think this discussion is done. You are incapable of seeing women as human beings, who are fallible, who make mistakes, who make shitty decisions of their own free will, and who own their own lives and the decisions they make. You are no better than the most radical feminist, and no better than the most traditional neo-con. You are incapable of seeing women as agents. You seem to see them as a monolithic object/victim class. I am...well, I'd be insulted if I wasn't so used to it.
I'm not interested in discussing gender issues with someone who cannot see women as human beings. Search my user name when you have a revelation that women are actual persons capable of personal agency and sovereignty, and who are fully capable of being held responsible for their own actions. Until then, have a nice life.
William Bond (author) from England on July 16, 2012:
Hi girlwriteswhat, The actual reasons why women abort is because in patriarchal societies they do not have control over their own bodies. Or do not receive the support they need in raising a child. If women are denied or discouraged to use birth-control, or if they know that if they have a child they are given very little support in bringing it up. And if they know that a child will destroy their career prospects, then we can understand why women do have abortions. Although I am a man, I can appreciated the problems women have in having children. I am personally surprise at how strong the urge in women is to have children, with all the problems involve in this.
Yes, I am aware that women have to live in a patriarchal society and have adopted patriarchal values. Some of the strongest advocates of patriarchy are women. But I am not talking about the way women and men have been brainwashed into thinking patriarchy is wonderful. I am speaking about men and women's basic instincts.
We live in an insane and brutal world because it is ruled by men who have an instinct to fight and compete with other men.
Yes, you can always find individual women who are not very materialistic but you have to see the big picture. We live in a world where countries still settle differences between them with warfare. Don't you think that's crazy? It is men who start these wars or civil wars and it is men who fight in them. Wars and violence are directly caused by men's aggressive and competitive instincts. Few women get involved in this insanity because they have a maternal instinct.
You cannot blame women for wars, because women do not rule our world. I know patriarchal men like to blame women, but you cannot escape the fact that all governments of our world are dominated by men and masculine values.
If women are advocates of capitalism then they are not very good at it. This is because most of the wealth and important jobs are in the hands of men. The reason being, is that women are not as competitive as men and will lose out in any very competitive system.
The Feminist idea that women need to learn to be as aggressive and competitive as men is nuts. Women can only do this, if they start injecting themselves with steroids.
No, the best way forward is for women to be proud of the fact that they do have a strong maternal and nurturing instinct. And to tell people that if we want to live in a caring and loving world, then we need nurturing women to rule it.
girlwriteswhat on July 16, 2012:
"Certainly no man would do this. Many men leave their wives and girlfriends when she gets pregnant, because they don't want the responsibility of caring for their own children."
Really? How many? What percentage? Where is your peer reviewed research that tells you this? Is this anecdotal evidence, or actual evidence?
Do you think that maybe the number of men who do not want the responsibility of caring for a child and walk away might be roughly equivalent to the number of women who abort, abandon, adopt out or kill their children? In some demographics, over 40% of pregnancies end in abortion. I'm sure you can find a way to blame that lack of maternal instinct on men, though. (And no, I'm not anti-choice. But men do not have the option of aborting a child they don't want--their only option is to try to walk away.)
You go on and on about maternal instinct, but mothers are the number one demographic of child abusers--both in numbers and in rates. They're more likely than men to practice selective neglect, where they are capable of caring for all their children, but purposely neglect a disfavored child.
And I'm sorry to have to tell you that one reason the gap between the rich and poor is growing all the time is because of government interference in the free market. Government is able to interfere with the free market because it is currently 100X bigger than it was before women's suffrage. Corporations are able to purchase their way out of paying taxes and being held accountable for themselves, and government forces that burden onto small businesses and the middle and upper middle classes.
Capitalism is not a male economic system. It is, in fact, driven in large part by women, because women drive 80% of consumer spending. Women have a larger instinct for consumption *because* they have a maternal instinct--they have a need to acquire material wealth and secure an income stream exactly because they will have children they must provide for. Both men and women tend to want to marry up, but their criteria as to what constitutes "up" are different. For men, it is youth and beauty, for women it is power, status and material wealth. Donald Trump and whatever arm candy he's with at the moment is a perfect example of this.
This is not an easy problem to overcome. When a man earns less than his wife, the risk of divorce (an industry driven by women, who initiate 70%+ of divorces) increases by 40%.
Just as women would not feel motivated to feed the bloated, multi-billion dollar beauty industry if men had not evolved a preference for youth and beauty, men would not compete with other men for riches if women had not evolved a preference for a partner with the power, social status and the wealth to adequately provide for and protect her.
You also seem to think that women only become violent when they are brutalized. Because of this, they are....what? Not responsible for their violence? They are objects, merely reacting to things that are done to them, with no volition or free will to choose a better way?
This is what terrifies me about people like you. We base our judgment of a man on his behavior. When a man kills his child, we put him in prison and call him a monster. When a woman does the same, we do not hold her accountable in the same way. We say, "She was confused and troubled", or "her circumstances were very hard", or "she was a good mother, but society failed her, she just slipped through the cracks". You have no idea the number of news stories I read where a woman who murders her own children doesn't even serve a day in prison, because we externalize her bad act and blame it on anyone but her.
And crazily, the worse a woman's offense, the more eager we are to absolve her. A woman will serve almost equal time as a man for shoplifting, but for something like murder, she enjoys a huge gendered discount in criminal court.
Do you have any idea the kind of moral hazard involved in putting people in charge whom society is not prepared to hold accountable for their actions? Not to mention the moral hazard in putting people in charge of making military decisions who know they will never, as a class, be required to face the risks and costs of perpetrating their own violence?
One judge in Florida estimated that 80% of temporary restraining orders handed to women during divorce and custody cases were either completely unfounded, or maliciously false. A falsely filed TRO is instigating violence. The police come and remove the man from his home and family. If she got her brothers to come and do this, they'd be arrested for unlawful restraint, but because she goes through ex parte legal channels and has the police do this on her behalf, it's legal. Most women who do this do it to acquire de facto physical custody of the children the man will then be prevented from contacting (there's your awesome maternal instinct, depriving children of a loving father), and to gain physical custody and control of the home and assets (there's your "women are not greedy like those awful men"). And remember, these TROs are unfounded or false--meaning the man did NOT brutalize the woman into behaving in this way.
The system usually rewards women for this behavior. It goes like this:
Judge: "Ma'am, you maliciously lied to the police and had your husband forcibly removed from his home and excluded from his children's lives. This was harmful to your children. In fact, it borders on child abuse. However, in the year it took to clear your husband of any wrongdoing, he's become a stranger to the children. Therefore, you get sole custody. If I penalize you by putting you in prison for lying in court, it will further harm the children. If I fine you, it will economically disadvantage the children. If I take away the house or withhold a share of the assets, it will harm the children. If I exempt your husband from alimony and child support, it will harm the children. Therefore, you get full custody, the house, the car, half the assets, and generous maintenance."
And you want to put women in charge? You want to put the demographic of people who can and often do run roughshod over other people, using the police and the state and the court system as their weapons, and whom no one (you, especially, it seems, since you'd excuse a woman's acid attack on another woman and place the blame for it elsewhere) wants to ever hold accountable, in charge?
You seem to feel that women have existed in a bubble through all of human history. That they have had no effect on the men in their lives, and played no part in maintaining and enforcing gender roles and perpetuating them on the next generation. According to you, when the Spartan woman told her husband, "come back with your shield or on it", she bore no responsibility for the deaths he caused. And when she shared in the spoils he'd taken, it had nothing to do with her. It's not like she stripped that gold from the bodies of the slain. She just made a demand of her husband, made it a condition of her continued love and respect, and benefitted from the result. He was the one with the last name and the sword, so it was all him.
And again, you seem to blame men for all the bad things that have ever happened, without once realizing that the competitive push of men is what carried us from hunter-gatherer to agrarian to industrial to post industrial. If you want to live in a society where women rule, the Mosuo are there waiting for you in China, in their villages with no electricity or running water, and where livestock roam through the houses. Enjoy your matriarchy.
If not, here's another suggestion. Go back to school. Start with kindergarten and work your way up from there. Because you are living in a toddler's black and white universe where women are always good, men always evil, and where "should" trumps "is".
William Bond (author) from England on July 16, 2012:
Hi Girlwriteswhat, Competition certainly motivates men, this is why capitalism has been a success because businessmen are strongly motivated when competing against other businessmen.
But women are likewise motivated by their maternal instinct. I just do not understand how women can dismiss it so lightly. Why would any women want to get pregnant, carry a baby in their belly for nine mouths, go through all the difficulty and pain of childbirth, and then have to look after the child she gave birth until it is an adult? No person would want to do that, unless driven by a powerful maternal instinct. Certainly no man would do this. Many men leave their wives and girlfriends when she gets pregnant, because they don't want the responsibility of caring for their own children.
The point I am making is that if we have men rule our world, motivated by a powerful competitive instinct we off course are going to have wars and men fight each other to see who is the strongest. And we are going to have a very unfair world as the rich will compete against the poor for more wealth and power. This is why the gap between rich and poor is growing all the time.
If we want to live in a caring and loving world. We need to be ruled by women with a powerful maternal instinct who will love and nurture the people they rule.
Yes, i agree women can be brutalised into becoming violent and vindictive. But the fact remains that far, far more women are beaten up and murdered by men, than women murdering men. As I have said before over 99% of the violence in our world is done by men. Very few women get involved in wars, genocide or even violent crime, compared with men.
The fact is that men are totally useless at ruling our world. While men continue to do this, we will always have wars, genocide, poverty and a large gap between rich and poor. We can only change this for the better by allowing women to rule our world.
Yes, I agree invention can be difficult for men, but it is even far harder for women. If a man and a women go to a businessman with a new invention, which one do you think will get more respect? The man will off course. Yes, it is very hard to push forward new ideas and inventions but men have a better chance at doing this than women, in a patriarchal society.
girlwriteswhat on July 15, 2012:
"Hi Girlwriteswhat, I agree with you that patriarchy was created when patriarchal tribes conquered the peaceful matriarchal Neolithic civilizations."
Where on earth did I say that? Patriarchy was not created when patriarchal tribes conquered the peaceful matriarchal Neolithic civilizations. There is no evidence of a truly matriarchal civilization. There is some conflicting evidence of matriarchal tribes. Virtually all were outcompeted, conquered, absorbed or annexed by patriarchies.
Patriarchy does one thing exceptionally well. It harnesses the potential productivity and protectiveness of males. Studies have shown that men will invest more in their children if those children physically resemble them--that is, when they are certain of paternity. A recent study determined by mathematical model that among early hominids, women's sexual choices to reward the extra investment of subordinate males was what transitioned humanity from an inefficient tournament model to an extremely effective egalitarian monogamous one. This is because if there is any individual a male of any species is going to invest in, it will be that male's offspring.
Men did not "discover" that women can be controlled by violence. Males of all species know that individuals can be controlled by violence. Women know this too.
One thing I don't know if you realize is that women are equally violent in their personal relationships as men. In fact, women are more likely to instigate physical aggression against a partner, and up to 70% of unilateral, severe intimate partner violence is female-perpetrated. Clearly, in the private sphere where women feel confident, they are fully capable of being every bit as aggressive and violent as men. However, women are more risk-averse than men are. This not only handicaps them in their participation in the political sphere (because being a politician is a risk-prone and uncertain endeavor), but it also means that they'll be less likely to perpetrate public sphere violence. Perpetrating your own violence entails accepting enormous risks.
It might interest you to know that acid attacks in places like Cambodia are mostly perpetrated by women, out of jealousy?
Tell me, do you think that a woman who falsely tells two drunk men in a bar that another man in that bar raped her...do you believe she is an instigator of violence, when those two men beat the falsely accused man to death? Because THAT is how women perpetrate violence in the public sphere. And I see no reason to believe that a female leader with a military at her disposal would feel averse to using it.
You talked earlier about maternal instinct. Maternal instinct is a red herring. Among animal species, the only female kin of a given offspring who will actually die to protect that offspring is a post-reproductive age grandmother. Males often die to protect their offspring. Mothers are not known to do this. They engage other individuals to do the dying on their behalf.
And your entire last paragraph treats women like objects. In the 50s, veterinary medicine was virtually 100% male. Now, it is over 70% female. Women burst into that male-dominated scientific field without need for tools, money or encouragement. They did not require the system change to adapt to their preferences, because women are more likely to choose fields of study and vocation that involve organic and human systems.
Chemistry, physics, technology, math and engineering are not organic or human systems. Males dominate those, because they have a greater interest in them. This greater interests has been demonstrated by Dr. Simon Baron Cohen to begin as early as the neo-nate stage: newborn boys stare longer at mechanical objects, and newborn girls stare longer at faces. It has expressed in other primates. Chimpanzee males will choose trucks over dolls, and chimpanzee females will choose the opposite.
Moreover, most men who seek to invent or innovate are not "given" the tools, money, education and encouragement to do this. Einstein was a poor student. Tesla lived and died a pauper. Hawking certainly was never handed one damn thing, and overcame huge handicaps, to become one of the finest and most respected minds in science. Women have had equal access to education for the last half century. They do not feel the same compulsion to innovate and invent, to distinguish themselves through rigorous and difficult accomplishments, because they do not have the same motivation and competitiveness as men. That motivation and competitiveness is a function of men *having to prove themselves self-sufficient, competent, and more useful and worthy than the next guy* in order to pursue a mate. They distinguish themselves from the group through their behavior and accomplishments. Females do not have the same pressures in that regard, because men's criteria for a sexual partner have always been different, and over human history, women evolved to express those traits, and men to express others.
Women can indeed invent things. They are simply less likely to be motivated to overcome the hurdles involved, because over millennia, their reproductive success did not depend on their ability to self-differentiate from the collective in that way.
You should also consider the Mosuo--the last semi-matriarchal society in the world, in China. They are isolated, poor, lack electricity or running water. Men are not permitted to be fathers to their children, and strong pair-bonding is forbidden in the serf class. However, their history is feudal, and the ruling class engages in pair-bonding and paternal investment. It's been speculated that the elites imposed the matriarchal system on the serf class to weaken their social organization and more easily subjugate them.
In the west, we already have a partial matriarchy with respect to the base unit of society--the black community in the US, where over 70% of children are raised without fathers. How strong and cohesive is that community?
These are questions that need to be asked. Even if a political matriarchy was achievable in a democracy (which I don't think it is), it would depend on the entire rest of the world being peaceful to survive. It would also depend on somehow mitigating the social problems that arise when matriarchy extends to the base unit of society--the 2-32 times greater risk fatherless children have of a whole host of social maladies that lead them to be burdens on, rather than productive members of, society.
William Bond (author) from England on July 15, 2012:
Hi Girlwriteswhat, I agree with you that patriarchy was created when patriarchal tribes conquered the peaceful matriarchal Neolithic civilizations. Perhaps the failure of female leadership of the time is not appreciating just how dangerous men were. I would imagine women leaders trying to be fair and try to give men equality and even leadership roles. Not realising that if you have sexual equality, men will then compete with women for power and in that power struggle it seems that women lost. Once men realised that women could be dominated by violence, it opened the Pandora's box that allowed men to dominate the whole planet.
The only way women can regain power is to convince both men and women that they would be better off, if women ruled our world. So it will have to be a people revolution.
Yes, men tend to invent everything but that is because they dominate the scientific and engineering worlds. Even today the scientific establishment is still controlled by men. Women still have a hard time if they want to be a scientist or engineer. Women can invent things if given the tools, money, education and encouragement to do this.
girlwriteswhat on July 15, 2012:
"As for the reason why there is no matriarchies in recorded history the reasons is warfare. All the matriarchal societies of the Neolithic age was destroyed by violent conquest. Women cannot compete against men when they use violence. The only reason why matriarchy is possible now, is that we now have democractic goverments...."
All the matriarchal societies of the Neolithic age had men. All of those societies still had typical division of labor wrt men doing the heavy lifting and big game hunting and women tending children, simply because the alternative was impossible. Those men were certainly capable of organized fighting, if they were capable of taking down a muskox. It's not as if matriarchal societies of the past were ones where men did not exist, or spent their days knitting and doing their nails.
I am also not in agreement with Lucy that men and women are more similar than different. A recent analysis of data collected on sex differences in personality (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.137... found that when you measure in univariate rather than multivariate terms, there was only a ten percent overlap in personality between men and women. Even removing the largest single univariate difference (sensitivity), there remained only a 24 percent overlap. I believe these differences are the result of the different challenges, risks, costs and benefits men and women had to overcome in order to pass on genes. They certainly make perfect sense within an evolutionary perspective.
Therefore, the fact that matriarchal societies fell to patriarchal ones cannot be automatically attributed to matriarchal societies being unable to defend themselves against aggressors. They were filled with fit men capable of organizing into tactical units for the purpose of killing.
What IS an obvious difference is that matriarchal societies had women making the decisions. Quoting from the above study: "In univariate terms, the largest differences between the sexes were found in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension (higher in females), and Emotional stability, Dominance, Rule-consciousness, and Vigilance (higher in males)."
Now, whatever may be said about dominance, good or bad, there seem to be certain personality traits that lend themselves to leadership, and certain ones that don't. Emotional stability, rule-consciousness and vigilance are all good leadership traits, and express in men to a much greater degree than in women. Apprehension would be a serious handicap in a leadership, and sensitivity connotes a thin skin, which would at best, hinder those who are sensitive from overcoming obstacles on the path to leadership.
In other words, it may very well be that it was female leadership, not some cultural lack of male aggression, that led to the extinction of those matriarchal societies.
Bard of Ely:
"Lucy, who is it that invents and builds and uses weapons of mass destruction? Who invented the atom bomb? Weapons using depleted uranium? Was it men or women? Why is so much money spent on an incredibly destructive military machine and its very dangerous testing? Is that in the hands of men or women?"
Who was it that invented everything, from the block and tackle to the birth control pill? From penicillin to the MRI. From the hydroelectric dam to the remote control to the transistor to the internal combustion engine to the suspension bridge to the refrigerator to the TV dinner to canned food? Why don't you go to the patent office and check what percentage of patents have been registered to women since 1982 (the year women achieved parity in post-secondary education)?
Men may have invented weapons, but women *still* don't tend to invent much at all. Blaming men as a gender for warfare without also giving them credit *as a gender* for virtually every single technological, medical and architectural advancement in the history of humankind is...well, it's hypocrisy. If there is such a thing as collective guilt, then there should be collective kudos, no? If you're not prepared to thank maleness on the whole for saving your life when that catscan detected an aneurysm, then you shouldn't be vilifying maleness on the whole for the vagaries of war.
aincas from uk on July 15, 2012:
yes i do think that over the years men have surppressed any idea like this to protect themselves and there greed
William Bond (author) from England on July 14, 2012:
Hi Rock71, Far more men go to Jail because of crimes of violence than women. There are far more male killers than female killers. As for war and genocide, very few women get involved in this.
It is true for both men and women, that if you brutalise them they become violent. I certainly wouldn't call the African-American culture a matriarchy. Yes, many black women are able to speak up for themselves and fight back when physically attacked. But it is still mostly black men who are the leaders of the black community. As for saying that black women ask for violence, it sounds like you are blaming the victim. Yes, violent men always make this excuse.
Rock71 on July 14, 2012:
There is higher reported domestic violence among lesbian couples than straight or male homosexual ones. Mothers commit higher rates of physical abuse than fathers. My point?I think women are more risk averse than violence averse. When women believe there is little to no risk of getting hit back harder,they can and will be as violent as men. There is also violence by proxy. Some women will use men to do violence to another man for them. This works well because they avoid risk in a fight themselves but still have a man or group of men beaten to a pulp by the man or men she got to fight for her.
I worked within the black community for many years. The Afican-Amercan culture is a matriarchy and very violent. The men did the violence but the women encouraged,asked for, or exacerbated it.
William Bond (author) from England on July 14, 2012:
Hi Mary Wednesday, I think the reason why you have more black men in prisons, is because most of them live in poverty. Crime and poverty go together. If poverty can be elimination, then crime for both black and white men will be greatly reduced. I am sure a matriarchal government will be far more committed to reducing both poverty and crime than any patriarchal government.
William Bond (author) from England on July 14, 2012:
Hi CSR , I care a lot about humans as individuals. I do not like to see people killed, rape, tortured in wars. I do not like to see people live in poverty and starve to death. Which is what happens when men rule our world. This is why I wan't women to rule instead.
William Bond (author) from England on July 14, 2012:
Hi PsyChuan, Yes, there are peaceful men but they don't seem to have a much power or influence, in the patriarchal world we live in. The fact is that when men rule our world, we have a world of violence, war and injustice. Men seem to be incapable of changing this, even though many men have tried. So if we want change, then the obvious solution is to allow women to rule instead.
William Bond (author) from England on July 14, 2012:
I have no idea why I seem to be the only person saying this. Perhaps it is the patriarchal censorship that has suppressed ideas like this, but the internet is allowing this ideas to come to light. Yes, we need more people to know about these ideas.
Mary Wednesday on July 14, 2012:
I completely agree with this article, thank you for your insight. It is always men that are the most violent criminals, which is why prisons are full of men.
As well as this, black men in particular are the most over represented men in jails. It is likely that their higher levels of the male aggression hormone "testosterone" is the cause - the same instincts that make them excell in sports makes them excell in crime. Black men are the most violent men of all, so should be actively kept away from positions of power and authority.
An ideal world would be run by white feminist women such as myself.
CSR on July 14, 2012:
Collectivist nonsense that fails to treat human beings as individuals.
PsyChuan on July 14, 2012:
Anyone who has an understanding of statistics will know that correlation does not imply causation.
For example: There have been many wars in history. Men in power have been involved in these wars.
This does not mean that genitalia are linked to being a warmonger. By your logic, this statement would also be true;
There have been great periods of peace during history. Men in power have been involved in these periods of peace. Therefore all men are peaceful.
aincas from uk on July 13, 2012:
Yes im finding it amazing that nothing has been done about this - that more people are not wanting this change! I think it is down to people not thinking and knowing about it, I certainly had never really thought about this until i came across one of your hubs - which I am really grateful that I did as it has really opened my eyes alot!
I think what needs to be done is more infromation such as the articles you have written to be more widley avaliable and for more people to be able to read and be educated about this to get more people thinking about it.
William Bond (author) from England on July 10, 2012:
I agree Aincas, that it should be obvious that men commit far, far more violence than women. And the reason for this, is that men have a strong aggressive and competitive instinct whereas women have a powerful maternal instinct. But patriarchal propaganda doesn't like to acknowledge this.
What is a pity, is that Feminists don't want to acknowledge this either. They talk and act as if women's maternal instinct is something they need to overcome, if they want to compete against men. It can't be done. Women will never be as competitive and aggressive as men.
Instead women need to embrace their maternal instincts and point out that because of their nurturing instinct they would make far better rulers of our world, than ruthless and violent men.
aincas from uk on July 10, 2012:
Its really interesting abd informative reading all the comments about this, what i didn't realise is about the percentages of crime - yes i knew men cause more crime than females but never realised its about 99% - that is alot and really needs to be addressed!
What I find is that people dont reguard humans as animals - they think we are something completely different, coz when you look in the animal world at how male animals and female animals are so different its easy to see how the males are so aggressive and competitive - its there natural instinct, its perfectly natural for a male animal to go and fight and kill fellow animals and what people dont seem to realise is that male humans have the same natural instinct
William Bond (author) from England on July 09, 2012:
It is strange Aincas, but most of the opposition for what i say about matriarchy comes from feminists. What is a pity is that Lucy83 and me both want the same thing, and that is the empowerment of women. But where we disagree is how you achieve this.
aincas from uk on July 08, 2012:
im sorry to say it but i dont think lucy83 reads what you write wabond
Steve Andrews from Lisbon, Portugal on July 06, 2012:
I admit I haven't researched this in detail but all the inventors I have heard of of such weaponry have been men, and I am pretty certain it is men who give the orders to use these things against other nations or in dangerous tests on land and sea, destroying life and polluting the environment sometimes for millions of years, as in the case of depleted uranium. Now, if women are responsible for this as well, then I call upon all those people who claim that men and women are the same and both are just as bad, to give us some examples of female inventors of deadly weaponry and weapons of mass destruction.
William Bond (author) from England on July 05, 2012:
Thanks Bard, yes it is strange that men will spend trillions of dollars on advanced technology to create better weapons in which to kill people! It is also weird that people don't see the total insanity of this. We seem to accept violence and war as 'normal'.
Steve Andrews from Lisbon, Portugal on July 05, 2012:
Lucy, who is it that invents and builds and uses weapons of mass destruction? Who invented the atom bomb? Weapons using depleted uranium? Was it men or women? Why is so much money spent on an incredibly destructive military machine and its very dangerous testing? Is that in the hands of men or women?
William Bond (author) from England on July 03, 2012:
Hi Lucy, yes, clearly I must be dogmatic, because I don't share your beliefs.
I find it incredible that you question the statement, "war is total insanity". You made the point about Hitler and the Nazis. I wish to point out that Hitler and the Nazi party were all men. WW2 was all about patriarchal, (male dominated) governments fighting each other. And for what purpose? The fact is that if you allow men to rule countries, as history shows, they have a tendency to want to conquer, invade or start wars, with other countries. Even democratic countries do this.
Can't you see the total insanity of governments spending trillions of dollars inventing and manufacturing weapons in which to kill people? Don't you ever question this?
As for me generalizing. Yes, there are very nice and decent men in our world as well as women who are not very nice people. But if you want to be pernickety about it, yes it is people who commit violence but over 99% of the people who do this, are men. It is very difficult to blame the violence of our world onto women as well as men, when women commit less than 1% of this violence.
Yes, men have created democracy and tried to create equal societies and tried to stop wars, but what is very noticeable, is how they have failed in this. The gap between rich and poor is growing all the time, we still have wars, and even democracy is failing because our elected politicians are so easy corrupted. Yes, men do have good intentions, many men, do want to make our world a better place, but cannot overcome their aggressive and competitive instincts to do this. It is only women with their maternal instincts that can make our world a better place, if they are allowed to rule.
As for suggesting we would be still living in caves without the input of men. I have to point out that history has been written by men from a male point of view. As I have discovered, the achievements of women have been mostly written out of history. Women are as capable of invention and innovation as what men are.
Lucy83 on July 03, 2012:
Sigh. You can't even attempt to question your beliefs can you? You just declare your judgement with total certainty and that's it. No learning, no growing, no progress. Perhaps your grim view of men is self fulfilling in your case.
"people do a really terrible job in ruling our world"
This is such a bad and uneducated statement. Just take a step out of your belief system and look at the world objectively. We have come a long way from living in caves without law or democracy. While awful people have ruled the world, clearly a lot of great people have done so too.
Your infantile dogmatic generalization is a slap in the face to those whom we have so much to thank for, who have often risked or even given their lives to advance democracy and equality. You simply ignore all that because it doesn't fit your dogma. If the world is really so bad, then go and live by yourself but don't sit here enjoying the accomplishments of civilization every day while hating on them.
Here's another example of your blind faith ruining any hope for honest discussion:
"War is totally insanity."
I suppose you think the allies should not have declared war on nazi Germany.
"on the whole I have personally found women to be a lot nicer people than men."
I don't blame them. They shouldn't be nice to you given how you openly declare your distaste for them.
William Bond (author) from England on June 27, 2012:
So is your position that it is sexism to say, "men do a really terrible job in ruling our world". Are you saying that it would be political correct to say, "people do a really terrible job in ruling our world". Which lets men off the hook. Men have been ruling our world for the last five thousand years, and have successfully kept women away from all form of political and financial power. But according to you, it is as much as women's fault as it is men's fault. Even though men have used violence and intimidation to oppress women throughout history.
As for saying I don't like men. It depends a lot of the individual man you are talking about, though on the whole I have personally found women to be a lot nicer people than men.
The point I am making about this, is that the masculine, competitive instinct drives men towards, conflict, violence and warfare. We can see this in the animal world where stags, bulls, and rams fight each other every spring for dominance and access to females. The human male is very similar but fight each other with spears, swords, rifles, machine guns, bombs and rockets. It is not because men lack intelligence that they go to war. Many men are very aware that warfare is total insanity, but men cannot help themselves. It is because their basic instincts pushes them in that direction.
Women on the other hand have a powerful maternal and nurturing instinct. (It is because women give birth to children). So women are not driven to want to fight and compete with other people in the same way men are. This is why women would be far more sensible and sane rulers of our world, than what men would be. Put women in power in a matriarchal government and they will want to nurture the people they rule. Not like patriarchal governments who compete against the people for wealth and power. This is why in any dispute, a matriarchal government is far, far more likely to talk it through than any patriarchal government.
We have to be clear about this. War is totally insanity. The very large gap between rich and poor is also madness. Yet this is what patriarchal government produce all the time. Women need to stop seeing men through rose tinted glasses and see them as they really are.
Lucy83 on June 27, 2012:
“Do you honestly think that telling the men who rule our world that they are being sexist is going to change anything? “
I never said that. Strawman fallacy.
“If you are going to claim that saying that men and women are different is sexism .... “
Another strawman. I never said. What is sexism however, and what I pointed out, is to claim that men are less capable of ruling the world because they’re men. Even if it were true, it is still sexism. And the problem with sexism is, that it creates a foundation upon which you can make any gender discriminating case you want. In other words, if you accept that women are better leaders because of their genitalia, then you must also accept that women are less intelligent because it is exactly the same reasoning that you use to support those arguments.
“It is crazy to say men and women are the same...”
Repeating the same fallacy over and over again does not make it any more convincing. Once more, I did not say men and women are the same. Get over it and move on.
“Throughout history it has been men who have ruled our world. And in that time, men have ruled through violence, fear and intimation. The whole of history shows us so clearly that men do a really terrible job in ruling our world.”
Rinse and repeat. We’ve been through all this before. You didn’t have any responses to my points back then and you probably won’t have any now either, (unless you consider repeating yourself a response).
“...it should be obvious that we need to try and see if the other sex can do a better job in doing this.”
You’re shifting goalposts now. Your position is not to just “try and see if the other sex can do a better job”. Your position is that the other sex definitely will do a better job. And I already know your next attempt to respond which will be to say that women can’t possibly do any worse given how “bad” men did. Don’t bother because that is also fallacious. Firstly, yes, things could be a lot worse and secondly you only count the bad things and ignore the good things which means you’re biased.
“If we look at female politicians today, they are given a hard time if they want to get into any position of power..”
Actually women have an easier time because of quota initiatives. A minority of women in politics is not evidence that they have a harder time. You’d have to assume the sexes are identical in order to arrive at that conclusion and you just said about 6 times that they’re not equal. You don't even notice when you're contradicting yourself.
“…and end up having to act and behave like men to get anywhere.”
Again, repeating a statement doesn’t make it right. See my response above. Deal with that or let the statement go.
“But women do have brains, and are capable of outsmarting men.”
You don’t like men much do you? Like I said before, speak for yourself. Hate yourself all you want but do not project your own feelings of inadequacy onto other men.
“but I do not exclude myself in being able to think and say what is in my mind.”
By your own argument, you are less able to think than a woman. Speak your mind all you wish, but stop speaking other people’s minds. If you want women to rule the world, fine. If you believe you are less valuable than a woman, fine too. But if you try to make any such claims about other people’s worth and capability – people you have never met – that is when you're out of you're causing trouble.
William Bond (author) from England on June 27, 2012:
Do you honestly think that telling the men who rule our world that they are being sexist is going to change anything? Yes, this did work to a degree back in the 1960s and 70s but while you still have a majority of men in positions of power all the gains made by feminist can be undone at any time.
If you are going to claim that saying that men and women are different is sexism then you are going against common sense. I can tell you that women have children and men don't, is that a sexist comment? I can also explain that men on average are physically bigger and stronger than women, is that another sexist remark? And what about hormones? Men's bodies produce far more testosterone than what women's bodies do and it is this hormone that makes a man's body physically stronger. Also mentally it makes the average man far more aggressive than the average woman.
It is crazy to say men and women are the same when it is so clear that they are not the same. Men and women are different physically, mentally and emotionally. I can also point out that over 99% of all the violence committed in our world was done by men. Are you going to say that is also a sexist remark?
Throughout history it has been men who have ruled our world. And in that time, men have ruled through violence, fear and intimation. The whole of history shows us so clearly that men do a really terrible job in ruling our world. We cannot blame any of this onto women because men have excluded women from any positions of power.
It should be so, so clear that if one sex, (men) have been ruling our world and is doing a really terrible job in ruling our world. Then it should be obvious that we need to try and see if the other sex can do a better job in doing this.
I know you will advocate that men and women rule together equally. But if men have exclude women from any position of power for thousands of years, what makes you think men are suddenly going to change? If we look at female politicians today, they are given a hard time if they want to get into any position of power and end up having to act and behave like men to get anywhere.
The only way we can benefit from the nurturing instincts of women is to have exclusive female only political parties. Where women can behave like women and not have to act like competitive and ruthless men.
As for saying that if women take over they will be the puppets of powerful men. Yes, that could happen if women allowed it to happen. But women do have brains, and are capable of outsmarting men. A matriarchal government will not only have to take control of the government, but also the media, the military, the business and financial worlds. This is not a easy thing to do. But i have confidence that women can do this, once they get into a position of power.
As for saying i should exclude myself. Yes, as a man I would exclude myself from being a politician or Prime Minister, but I do not exclude myself in being able to think and say what is in my mind.
Lucy83 on June 26, 2012:
Here's the funniest part of it all: You are actually disqualifying your opinion with your sexism thereby making a case against your own argument rather than for it.
You, a man, decides that men are naturally not suited to be in decision making positions.
If that is true, then your decision to promote a matriarchy should be discarded because you're a man and men are not suited to make such powerful political decisions.
I think you should stick to speaking for yourself.
Lucy83 on June 26, 2012:
“So what is wrong in making it easier for women to get into power?”
The same thing that’s wrong with making it easier for blue-eyed people to get into power. Only sexists don’t see anything wrong with it.
“We are far more likely to have caring people rule our world, if we have women only matriarchal political parties, who get into power.”
No. You’re forgetting that women are not all one monolith speaking in unison. To rise to power within a female only political system would require being just as competitive and ruthless as in anywhere else. This is not created by men – it’s the consequence of competition where there is not enough supply ( of seats of power in this case) to meet everybody’s demand.
If you think women are less competitive then I suggest you take a look backstage of a ballet school or beauty pageant.
“This is because men are by nature aggressive and competitive.”
More cheap sexism regurgitated from mainstream media – you know, the think you call patriarchy.
“And in our competitive patriarchal world is seems that the most competitive and aggressive people get to the top.”
Nothing wrong with that. Aggression is just the willingness to take action and competitiveness is what drives the standard up.
“And this is the reason why women lose out, simply because the average women is less aggressive and competitive than the average man.”
Sexist leap of faith alert – again.
“Then the answer is simple, allow women to rule our world instead.”
You cannot “allow” someone else to rule the world without the person doing the allowing being in power. Then only on paper would women rule the world and only as long as men, the actual ones in power, allow it. That’s called a puppet government – usually set up by conquerors.
“The point is that as history shows us, we don't want ruthless, aggressive, violent and competitive people rule our world.”
If you’re not willing to use force to defend your country, then someone else will push you away and that will be someone who IS willing to use force.
“A world ruled by women, is far less likely to go to war.”
You’re still regurgitating the same fallacious reasoning I see. Your learning curve has no upward angle whatsoever. Wars have nothing to do with the sex of the people in power. Try to educate yourself before making such sweeping generalizations.
aincas from uk on June 21, 2012:
very well put wabond!
William Bond (author) from England on June 19, 2012:
I agree that in our present patriarchal world, the way to be successful is to be ruthless and extremely competitive. And that is the reason why the world is in a mess.
So what is wrong in making it easier for women to get into power? The point is that for the average person in the street they want to be rule by sensible and caring people. We are far more likely to have caring people rule our world, if we have women only matriarchal political parties, who get into power.
I cannot believe that the men ruling our world are actually going to change and see the errors of their ways and become nicer people. This is because men are by nature aggressive and competitive. And in our competitive patriarchal world is seems that the most competitive and aggressive people get to the top. And this is the reason why women lose out, simply because the average women is less aggressive and competitive than the average man.
If we want to change this, and we seriously want to live in a more caring and compassionate world. Then the answer is simple, allow women to rule our world instead. The very fact that women are far less ruthless, aggressive and competitive than men, will make them far better rulers of our world.
The point is that as history shows us, we don't want ruthless, aggressive, violent and competitive people rule our world.
A world ruled by women, is far less likely to go to war. A matriarchal government will be far more likely to want to care for the children and people in the countries they rule. Creating a far more equal and caring society. So positive discrimination towards nurturing and maternal women is a very, very small price to pay, if it leads to us living a more caring and loving world.
Lucy83 on June 19, 2012:
"the women already in politics tend to have to go about it in a very male way to fit in"
It's not a "male way". It's a successful way. There's nothing involved in it that women cannot do as well.
The only reason people ascribe it to maleness is because they want to illustrated supposed female inferiority or they want excuses not to have to adopt it themselves and want an easy backdoor in through methods like women only parties or affirmative action.
Surely you don't want people like that to run the world.
aincas from uk on June 12, 2012:
yes i agree but like you have said the women already in politics tend to have to go about it in a very male way to fit in, what we need is for a female only party to be set up were there are no male members to allow women to freely behave as women in the party. I strongly feel this a a really good way forward and really do hope this will happen as the govenments are making a terrible job at the moment.
William Bond (author) from England on June 11, 2012:
Thank you Aincas, for your positive feedback. To me it has become obvious that women would do a better job in ruling our world. It is just a matter of convincing women of this.
aincas from uk on June 10, 2012:
After reading serveral of your articles/blogs at first I was abit unsure of what you were trying to say, but after reading more about this and thinking about it I totally believe what you sergest is very good. I can understand why somepeople do not like what you have written and I think that is daown to the fact they are kind of scared of change.
after reading about this I have noticed that whenever there is a news report about any trouble or crime it is always a man who is to blame - very rarely a woman!
It is very true what you say about the differences in the sexes - how males are naturally more aggressive - im not saying all males but in general males are. like you say you only need to look at male animals how aggressive they can be and after all humans are animals, its perfectly natural!
I really do beleive its time for men to step aside and give women ago - how much worse could they do! Its certainly worth ago!
i really wish women would get behind this idea and form a women only political party because im sure they would get alot of people voting for them - as a man myself i would certainly vote for them.
I would like to take this chance to say thankyou for writing about this subject its such ashame that it is not more widely discussed.
I shall be interested in reading future blogs on the subject.
William Bond (author) from England on May 19, 2012:
Off course the differences between men and women are biological. The reason for this is that women give birth to children and men don't. You cannot dismiss childbirth as being totally unimportant. The very fact that women give birth effects a women, physically, mentally and emotionally.
Yes, patriarchy do use women's maternal instincts against them, suggesting that her nurturing instinct make women too 'weak' and emotional to make sensible decisions. ("Sensible" decisions like going to war and committing genocide).
I personally think that the way to counter patriarchal propaganda is not for women to deny their maternal instincts and try and pretend they are like men. But to point out that men do a really terrible job of ruling our world and that women because of their maternal and nurturing instincts would do a far, far better job.
BereniceTeh90 on May 19, 2012:
Mr Wabond, excuse my bluntness but I think what Lucy is trying to get at is that you seem to think it is somehow "natural" that women behave in a hegemonically "feminine" way, just as many gender conservatives assume it is "natural" that men behave in a hegemonically "masculine" (patriarchal) gender role. It annoys me to when people suggest that feminine men/masculine women are simply "not being true to themselves", which is bullsh*t. I don't think that gender is biological, and if a man were to ask Ellen Degeneres to "not be ashamed of expressing her feminine side", I am almost certain he would have his face rearranged, or at least be given a stern lecture on diversity and transphobia. Women like Margaret Thatcher, Wu Zetian,Elizabeth I, etc were not being "forced" to adopt a masculine gender role; on the contrary they were expected to behave in a hegemonically "feminine" manner, but chose to behave in a "masculine" manner, not out of social pressure, but out of their own free will. Some women are simply not comfortable with the stereotypically "girly" role; it would be like putting on a mask, so to speak. And yes, boys and men clearly are NOT free to express themselves; if they were, they would be able to wear skirts and dresses in public without shame, and wear slightly revealing clothes and Speedoes without being tainted with the gay label. And a male feminist might say, "But I don't want to wear those things in the first place,so how is it a bad thing that we can't wear them?" But the male feminist in many cases(who is usually some hegemonically masculine man who can't understand why men would want to be "feminine") fails to see through his hegenomic myopia the suffering that his fellow men who don't benefit from patriarchy go through, living in a society where masculinity is basically a tightrope that feminine men are forced to walk on, in exchange for the illusion of "power". Truth is, most men in the West have no more freedom of expression than their grandfathers did, and it certainly isn't helping when these male feminists dismiss their issues (e.g. cross dressing, femininity, wearing dresses, etc) as being invalid and unimportant, simply due to the fact that they (the male feminists) have never had to go through them, and therefore have no idea what it's like to be born into the body of a "feminine" man, which leads them to believe that all men are somehow "overprivileged". Wrong. Patriarchy is not a system which benefits MEN. It is a system which benefits PATRIARCHS. So you got it right on one count (patriarchy - social system that benefits PATRIARCHS), but wrong on the other (failing to mention that men don't need to be liberated from their restrictive, rigid gender role).
William Bond (author) from England on May 17, 2012:
Men are in a lot of trouble, Lucy, because they are ruling the world, a job they are completely unsuitable for. Yes, men may not want violence but they are aggressive and competitive with each other and this gets completely out of hand, where we do end up with violence. Then once we get into a violent situation we end up with psychopaths becoming leaders, because a psychopath is far more able to deal with violence than ordinary men.
As for using violence as a calculated strategic method, psychopathic leader like Hitler or Stalin or just your local gang leader do use violence to achieve results. The history of violence in men cannot be circumstantial because it has happened time and time again. War and genocide has been commonplace in patriarchal history.
Yes, I agree the ordinary man doesn't want violence but patriarchal rule tends to put the worse possible leaders in power. Because the most ruthless, aggressive and competitive people tend to get into positions of power in patriarchal countries.
Like it or not, men make terrible rulers of our world, the whole of history proves this.
Lucy83 on May 16, 2012:
Given that humans are inherently non-violent and given that violence is inversely proportional to your social status, that would suggest that men's greater tendency to violence is largely circumstantial and not inherent in being male (you're not violent either are you?).
So those 99% are, if anything, an indication that men are in a lot of trouble. Violence is what people resort to when they have no other options or no hope and no compassion or help from anyone. Hardly anyone would use violence as a calculated strategic method for achieving successful results. I think among those who do, you probably won't find more men than women.
William Bond (author) from England on May 15, 2012:
Over 99% of the violence of the world is committed by men. Yes, individual women can be cruel and violent but compared with the violence committed by men every day, it is just like comparing an ant with an elephant.
Aswin on May 10, 2012:
you must answer to this video..Mr.Wabond..still u are saying women are not cruel?????
eleanor on April 10, 2012:
I totally agree with you wabond! You gave great answers. They were extremely informative! I'm glad there are people like you in this world!
William Bond (author) from England on August 22, 2011:
Patriarchal politicians can be both male and female. As i previously pointed out many female politcians have to act and behave like men to gain respect within the patriarchal system.
As for the reason why there is no matriarchies in recorded history the reasons is warfare. All the matriarchal societies of the Neolithic age was destroyed by violent conquest. Women cannot compete against men when they use violence. The only reason why matriarchy is possible now, is that we now have democractic goverments.
Lucy83 on August 22, 2011:
Ok, I'm starting to get irritated by your repeated misquoting of my words.
I never said "patriarchal politicans only pretend to be caring people". I said politicians in general do this - women as well as men. It has nothing to do with "patriarchy". It's entirely the result of how a voting democracy works. People vote the most convincing actor or actress. They might be caring as well but that is coincidental. Only if they perform the act convincingly will they get voted.
I'm really tired of correcting this one:
"you claim men and women are the same"
Tell me, should I bother going over what I said yet again? Or will you 'forget' it and misquote me in a few days time anyway? I'm just asking because I have other things to do than to repeat myself and it would be nice if you told me now so I don't waste my time.
The only thing interesting you touched on was the fact that there are virtually no matriarchies in recorded history. This gives rise to the question why. Given that cultures have undergone a kind of social evolution since the beginning of civilization, the absence of any matriarchy could be taken as evidence that matriarchal societies are less prosperous.
William Bond (author) from England on August 21, 2011:
As I have previously pointed out, matriarchy cannot get into power through a bloody revolution or through conquest. We are not going to get a Amazon army take over any government by force. It can only be done through democractic means. So not only does a matrairchal government has to convince the voters they are better than the existing goverments, they have to demostrate they are a better than the existing system when they are in power or they will be voted out of office.
At the present moment with the mishandling of the world's financial system, with rising population, global warming and more and more wars people are getting fed up with our present system. But because they do not have an alternitive to it they are forced to vote for the status-quo. If things get worse then people might look for something different but the chances are they will look to Facism or bring back communism or perhaps go to extreme religion.
What i am trying to point out is that there is an alternitive that no one has tried and that is matrairchy.
Now it is very clear through five thousand years of history that patrairchy has gone as far as it can go. They have somehow made democracy work but even this is getting undermined all the time. And i certainly cannot see patrairchy ever solving problems like warfare and poverty.
Off course i cannot say how matrairchy will operate simply because in recorded history we have very little knowledge of how matriarchy works. But as i have also pointed out the it the type of people in power that is far more important than the system they use. The point about matriarchy based on women's matneral and nurturing instincts, we have a chance of getting caring and loving people into positions of power. As you have pointed out patriarchal politicans only pretend to be caring people.
Now you may not see the advantages of matriarchy because you claim men and women are the same. Which i personally cannot understand, because to me, on the whole, the sexes are very, very different from each other.
Lucy83 on August 21, 2011:
Let me see if I got this right:
You are advocating a major change in the political system because you believe it will be a huge improvement. You are however not interested in political systems and won't or can't say what exactly will be changed. But then you cannot know with any degree of certainty that those changes would have any benefit whatsoever. You can't even know that they won't make things a lot worse. So you added that, well things have gotten so messed up it's time we tried something else. But there you're forgetting that this has been argued many times before and has lead to disaster pretty much every time - much greater disaster than the current system has brought upon us. So just trying something else because the old system is so bad, is not in the least persuasive. It's reactionary fanaticism. Nothing else.
Just this sentence of yours could be straight from Orwell:
"The public will also have to be re-educated to want to vote for geniune caring and nuturing women."
What do you mean by re-educated? What do you want to do exactly? Are you saying that people are intentionally voting for uncaring politicians? They're not of course. Politicians pretend to be caring, decent people so that they win voters. Again, this is the same for either gender. If anything needs to be taught to the electorate, it's more skepticism towards the media and what politicians tell them (and towards writing like yours). In other words more education period - not re-education or reprogramming or indoctrination. Just education but more of it and most importantly, available to more people.
William Bond (author) from England on August 20, 2011:
If people cannot take responsibility for their actions then we we are incapable of making our world a better place. Patrirchal politics is very complicated mostly because it is a propaganda war, where different men fight for power by trying to convince the public of a certain point of view.
I am not that interested in systems, i am more interested in people. Incompetent or corupt people can mess up any system, know matter how good it is. To me government should be about getting intellegent and caring people into positions of power. The present patriarchal system doesn't do that. This is because the patrirachal power is all about competitiveness and aggression. In the past the people who got into power were the most successful warlords. If you were successful on the battle field then you were more likely to be king. But being a successful military commander doesn't equip you to be a very good ruler of people. Nowadays in the Western world things have changed and we now have democracy. But the same mentality still there, men do not fight for power with swords but with words. The most successful policians are those who can play the political of a war of words and again this doesn't equip them to be very good rulers of people.
If we have a matriarchal system based on the nurturing feminine ideals then people will vote for politicans who are not great military leader or successful con men but geniuine caring and loving people. It make sense for our world to be rule by nuturing and maternal people and not the most competitive people like we have throughout our history.
The public will also have to be re-educated to want to vote for geniune caring and nuturing women. So this is a long term thing but you have to start somewhere.
Lucy83 on August 19, 2011:
"but you tell me that it may not have nothing to do with male rule!? "
I'm saying it may not be because of the genitalia of the rulers.
"so if it has nothing to do with men, then whose fault is it? "
Nobody's. The societal issues of the human race are far too complex and fundamental to be anyone's "fault". Looking for somebody to blame is classic reactionary writing.
"I think the problem is this feminist dogma that says men and women are the same. You insist this is true,..."
We've been through that and I've explained my position before. Don't put different words in my mouth now.
I have one more question: Supposing what you say is true, then could you please describe to us in detail how your matriarchy should look? I mean, what would you change about the current democratic system of the Western developed countries? And how would a woman rise to power in such a system - what would she need to do in order to get voted into power (assuming you're not getting rid of elected leadership)?
William Bond (author) from England on August 18, 2011:
I don't think we are going to get anywhere with this.
When i talk about brainwashing what i mean is that i find it really incredible that men have ruled our world for thousands of years and in that time we have wars, genicide and poverty, but you tell me that it may not have nothing to do with male rule!? It has been men who have ruled all our all our countries in that time, so if it has nothing to do with men, then whose fault is it? I know men are good at blaming it on the Devil or other men and some even have the cheek to blame women. But if men are incapable of taking responsiblities for their own actions, then that is another reason why they shouldn't be ruling our world.
You also asked what is a patriarchal political party, it is simple, a political party ruled and controlled by men. This would be every political party we know in the world. The only exception would be some Scandiavian political parties where there is enough women in some of them, to have some influence.
I think the problem is this feminist dogma that says men and women are the same. You insist this is true, whereas it is obvious to me that men and women are very different. I don't see how we can get pass this.
Lucy83 on August 18, 2011:
I'm sorry but if you think I'm wrong about something, then you need to point out my mistake(s) to me in detail. Then I'm happy to change my position. But just telling me that I'm brainwashed and then repeating your initial statements is not an argument. It's just preaching.
I've found another mistake in your reasoning though: You make a correlation where there might not be one and sell it as fact. When you go on about how men ruling the world has been such a disaster, you're making the assumption that it is because they're men that it resulted in disaster. But that's just a guess. That's like saying that mustaches turn people into dictators.
"At present female politicians have to join patriarchal political parties and prove themselves to be macho men to be taken seriously. "
What exactly is a patriarchal political party? Please define the word before throwing it around.
"Things can only change when we have matriarchal political parties where women are free to be themselves and not have men tell them how to behave."
Here too, what are you talking about. As if men are free to be themselves. Come on.
William Bond (author) from England on August 17, 2011:
I am shocked and amazed at what you say. It makes me realise just how brainwashed the population has been by patrairchal properganda. It seems that patriarchy can fight wars, commit genicide, condemn billions of people into poverty, mess up the finacial system of world, and get away with it, because people will swallow all the bullshit patrirchy gives them, without question.
You need to look at what is happening to the world without the patriarchal blindfold. For instance at present we have what is called the "Arab Spring" where people in the Middle East are getting fed up with their oppressive government and risking their lives to demostrate and fight their goverments. The tragedy of all this will be, that the new goverments the people have laid down their lives to bring in, will not be any better than the last goverments. And why? Simply because these new goverments will be ruled by men.
It is patrairchal rule that is holding back human progress, our world can never become a better place while men continue to rule it. I cannot understand why after five thousand years of patriarchal history why people cannot see this. Yes, patriarchy is very, very good at justifying wars and poverty. But all this is just propaganda and needs to be seen in this way.
Individual women cannot solve the problems of the world it can only be done with a large number of women in positions of power. At present female politicians have to join patriarchal political parties and prove themselves to be macho men to be taken seriously. Things can only change when we have matriarchal political parties where women are free to be themselves and not have men tell them how to behave.
Five thousand years of patriarchal history has shown men are totally incapable of solving the problems of our world. We are not going to get any change until women orginize themselves and take an active role in ruling our world.
Lucy83 on August 17, 2011:
"differences between men and women are far, far greater than the differences between different men or different women."
Differences between what men and women? It sounds like you just have an image in your head of what a woman should be like and that's what you compare your picture of men with. What about average women and average men? Who is more diverse anyway?
To say that men and women are more different than similar just couldn't be more false anyway. The fallacy lies in a blindness to the similarities. On the most basic level we can start comparing how many organs we have in common with how many organs we don't have in common. You could make an enormous list of things that are virtually or exactly the same with both men and women. Sure you could make a list of differences too but that could never be even remotely as long.
"The fact is that is it nearly always men who fight in wars or commit genicide."
I already answered this several times. I'm bored with repeating myself. You just will not see the fallacy in the conclusion: "if most of xyz are men, therefore most men are xyz". As long as you don't see what's wrong with that, then there's not point in discussing it. One thing I might not have mentioned yet is that it is also nearly always men who stop those atrocities. Something to think about maybe.
"The only way we can have this proof is for women to start ruling countries."
Well just look at those women who have ruled countries and how often they did or didn't go to war. Then compare that ratio with how often male rules started wars and there's a good start.
Here's a quote from Dr. Rob Sparrow which you might want to read:
"...war is a political relationship between states and has nothing to do with the individual psychology of the individuals involved… It’s the political systems that drive the actions of those in power rather than the other way around… in order to gain political power, women have to accommodate themselves to the needs of these systems as much as men do…"
Which is just a better wording of what I said earlier.
"I personally do not deem all men are violent. but men, as the military has shown, can be brutalised or trained into becoming killers."
So can women. Yes, I know. Your ideal image of women doesn't leave any room for such a possibility but I'm not here to discuss your picture of how women should be or how you like them.
"But if we had women rule the world, they would want to train men from the time they are children, to be loving and caring human beings."
That sounds like a perfect Orwellian nightmare. Besides, women already do the biggest part in shaping men. The saying goes "the mother makes the man".
"Men have the intellegence to be able to fly men to the moon, but is incapable of solving basic problems like warfare and poverty. "
There's nothing basic about the problems in warfare and poverty. Show me any woman who has solved such problems and it's not like there haven't been any female political leaders who had the chance.
"Patrairchal rulers treat people as if they are numbers, or pawns in a chess game. "
All political rulers do this - women included.
"Women do have better communication and social skills than men, which is another reason why they should be ruling our world."
In other words, because you're a man, your writing here isn't as qualified because you have inferior communication skills. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
William Bond (author) from England on August 16, 2011:
I completely agree that we are all different, but the differences between men and women are far, far greater than the differences between different men or different women.
The fact is that is it nearly always men who fight in wars or commit genicide. Yes, you might get a few women join in with this insanity, but you are comparing millions of men with a handful of women.
Nearly all crimes if violence are also commmitted by men. Again you can have a small minority of women who are violent but they are far outnumbered by men.
I agree there is no actual proof that women can rule better than men. The only way we can have this proof is for women to start ruling countries. But this shouldn't be a problem because the only way a matrairchal government can get into power is through demcratic means. Unlike men, women are very unlikely to get into power through a bloody revolution or by conquest. There has never been in history a case of an Amazon army of women that set out to conquer the world, but this has happened many times with men. (Like alexander the great, genghis khan, bonaparte and hitler) So if a matrairchal government was to perform poorly they would be quickly voted out of office.
I personally do not deem all men are violent. but men, as the military has shown, can be brutalised or trained into becoming killers. War is only possible, because men can be trained to kill. Likewise despotic dictatorship is again possible, because a dictator has an army of young men whom will murder and torture the population when ordered to do so. You can see this happening today in Syria. And please note, the people killing the defenceless population, are all men.
Men can be trained to become killers and this is what patrairchal goverments do to men. But if we had women rule the world, they would want to train men from the time they are children, to be loving and caring human beings.
I don't think saying that patriarchy is not so bad because we are still alive, is not exactly a vote confidence in male rule. We are suppose to be an intellegent animal. Men have the intellegence to be able to fly men to the moon, but is incapable of solving basic problems like warfare and poverty. Men seem to be very good at technology or solving mathmatical problems but are totally useless in dealing with people. Patrairchal rulers treat people as if they are numbers, or pawns in a chess game. Women do have better communication and social skills than men, which is another reason why they should be ruling our world.
Lucy83 on August 16, 2011:
Omg, I'm so not a feminist. You completely got that one wrong.
As for the rest, I agree that this is starting to go around in circles but that is because you ignored my points and just responded by repeating your initial statements. Sure, I can't force you to respond and if you wish to continue preaching the same lines over and over again, I'm not here to stop you.
I don't "insist that men and women are the same". Where have I said that? Of course men and women are different but any two people are different. In fact men and women are far more diverse among each other than between each other - meaning we are more similar than different. Implementing policies or social change based on genitalia is the same as doing so based on skin color. It is short sighted and reactionary at best.
Sexism comes into play with phrases like "women are not as good as man at ..." or "men are all violent" and similar phrases you wrote. If you decide for yourself that's not sexism then, again, that's your choice. Has it even occurred to you that stating men are violent by nature is laying the groundwork for justifying preventive incarceration? What when you get arrested because you're deemed "potentially violent" because you're a man? Would you then still be preaching the same lines?
And as for how "bad" everything is under our political leaders, we're still alive aren't we? So things could be a lot worse. How do you know they wouldn't be under female rule? You're just guessing and speculating. At least have the intellectual integrity to call it that.
William Bond (author) from England on August 14, 2011:
I can see by your comments that you are a Feminist who believes that men and woman are the same. Now, I can understand why feminist think that. Back in the 19th century when women first began to organize protest against inequality there were men who were saying things like, “men should rule the world because they are more intelligent than women” or that, “women are too emotional to make hard and sensible decisions”.
To counter arguments like this, women stated that men and women are the same, and continued to say this in 1960 -70s with the Women’s Liberation Movement. So this argument has been a help for women’s empowerment. The big problem with this argument is that it is not true, men and women can never be the same, because women have children and men don’t.
Now, I can understand the fear Feminist have, that if we undermine the dogma that men and women are same, and say that women are driven by a powerful maternal instinct and men driven by a powerful competitive instinct. Then it can be argued that women should stay at home and look after the children and men should go out and rule the world. Which would be all right, if men done a half decent job in doing this. The problem is that men do a really terrible job in ruling our world and it should be obvious to everyone, that they are totally incapable of doing this,
To keep on repeating what I have previously said. It is men’s powerful competitive instincts that cause wars and brings about the big gap between rich and poor, creating widespread poverty. It is women maternal and nurturing instincts that would make women far better rulers of our world, as they would care far more about the people they rule, than male rulers. And we would be far less likely to have wars and female rulers would be far more active in overcoming problems like poverty and class warfare.
But if you insist that men and women are the same and any suggestion that they are not is ‘sexism’, then I don’t see how this conversation can continue. It is developing into a “yes it is”, “no it’s not” argument.
Lucy83 on August 14, 2011:
"I am not painting a patriarchal picture of women i am painting a biological one. "
Biological determinism - the basis for pretty much every kind of sexism. You cannot know exactly how much of us is determined through biology. You're just using this to justify an idealized image you have of women. People have used this to justify all kinds of genocide incidentally.
"It is true some human men do help with caring for the young..."
Actually human males care about a million times more about their offspring than almost all other species.
"You say that warfare comes from competing cultures and I agree with this, but who are the people competing with each other? It is nearly always men, and this is to do with the male competitive instinct."
If you think that women don't compete then you're gravely mistaken. Just because you don't see female competition because you're not affected by it, does not mean it's any less aggressive than male competition. And I said before, women haven't had to fight because they had men to do the fighting for them. Their interest in resources and prevailing their culture was just as strong.
"Again if we look at the animal kingdom, we find every spring animals like stags, bull and rams fighting each other for dominance and access to females. "
But this means that females are the cause for male competitiveness and that this is their biologically determined role. If so, then, in all likelihood, more female power would lead to more male competition, not less.
You also completely ignore what competition is: the result of people wanting or needing something of which there isn't enough for everyone. To become a political leader is a perfect example. Anyone who aspires for such a position has to be extremely competitive in order to succeed and this is every bit as true for women as it is for men. Therefore, even if women were not competitive, those women who become leaders would have to be highly competitive nonetheless. This is the nature of leadership and has nothing to do with gender.
"I would certainly agree that men are generally better at science, engineering and mechanic than women, "
More blatant sexism. The accomplishments of men are not the result of men being better. Women are just as capable. Just like with warfare (which drove many of those accomplishments by the way), women have achieved less, mostly because they didn't need to and not because they couldn't or wouldn't.
"I cannot understand you thinking my articles are full of hate!? Are you saying that any criticism of men is not allowed?"
Criticism is not the problem. Sexism is. You're criticizing all men for being men. You made broad generalizations casting all men, not some, not even most, but ALL of them in collective shame and guilt. This is exactly the same thing as racism or antisemitism or any other hate filled bigotry. And now you've also declared women naturally less intelligent than men. Blatant sexist bigotry. You're not even trying to hide it.
The real scary part is that I think you genuinely believe that you want to make things better.
William Bond (author) from England on August 13, 2011:
I am not painting a patriarchal picture of women i am painting a biological one. We are mammals; it is the female in all species of mammal that care for the young. In most mammal species the males have nothing, or very little to do with this. If females didn’t have a powerful maternal instinct to do this most animals would go extinct.
In human females this instinct has to be stronger than most other mammals because the human child is far more helpless than any other mammal, and takes far longer to mature. It is true some human men do help with caring for the young but many will also leave the female when she is pregnant or has his child and will strongly resist paying maintenance for his own children.
You say that warfare comes from competing cultures and I agree with this, but who are the people competing with each other? It is nearly always men, and this is to do with the male competitive instinct. Again if we look at the animal kingdom, we find every spring animals like stags, bull and rams fighting each other for dominance and access to females. The human male is similar but human males fight with spears, swords, rifles, machine guns, field guns, rockets, aircraft and nuclear weapons. (As in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WW2). In the whole history of warfare only a small handful of women have joined in this insanity. You can safely say that over 99% of all violence committed in our world has been committed by men.
I certainly agree if any matriarchal country was to become completely pacifist it would be in grave danger of invasion from a patriarchal country. So any matriarchal country will have to retain its military but the fact is, the more matriarchal countries we have, the less likely we are to have warfare in our world. As women have far less interest in war and violence than what men do.
I would agree that women can be brainwashed into intolerance by patriarchal doctrines. But the people who create these doctrines of hate and intolerance are always men. Women who are not dominated by oppressive patriarchal societies are more able to express their nurturing and loving natures.
I would certainly agree that men are generally better at science, engineering and mechanic than women, and I don’t see any problem with this. Men can continue to be scientists, engineers and mechanics in a matriarchal society. And yes, patriarchy has evolved to the degree we now have democracy in some countries of our world. Men do not like the way they rule our world and do attempt to do better. For instance many men have attempted to create equal societies with socialism and communism but totally failed because their competitive instincts got in the way of this. It is this strong competitive instinct that trips men up every time. This is why in democracy they have to have fiercely competing political parties to make it work.
I cannot understand you thinking my articles are full of hate!? Are you saying that any criticism of men is not allowed?
Lucy83 on August 13, 2011:
"All women have a powerful maternal instinct, so the focus of any Matriarchal government will always be on children. "
Believe it or not, that is a PATRIARCHAL image of women you're painting.
"No govement dominated by women will want to see children in the country they rule live in poverty and ignorance. "
No government of any developed country wants to see children in poverty - male or female.
"They will not have the same interest in warfare as men, and will certainly will not have the same interest in invading other countries as what patriarchal countries do. "
This statement comes from a grave misconception of what causes wars. Wars were nearly always the result of competing cultures. We are the offspring of those who fought for their survival. If our ancestors had been pacifists, we would not be here today. And if we decide to become pacifists (as you seem to suggest), then our culture will be overwhelmed by those who aren't pacifist.
"As for hating their own sex, men already do this. Muslems hate Jewish and Christian men, Christian and Jewish men hate Muslems. Men hate and fear other men from other countries, religions, social classes and ethic groups. "
Now you're shifting goalposts. What you describe there is religious intolerance and racism. That's not what we were talking about. Besides, women are quite capable of those things too.
"Five thousand years of history have shown that patriarchy is totally incapable of solving basic problems like warfare and poverty. "
How about these:
Darwin's theory of evolution
discovery of the American continent
periodic table of elements
the Well-Tempered Clavier
Beethoven's 9th symphony
This is only a tiny fraction of the accomplishments of human kind under what you call patriarchy.
"What is the problem with Matriarchy? Why are you so against the idea of women ruling the world? "
I have no problem with a matriarchy or women ruling the world. Why would I? What I have a problem with is sexism and hate speech - which is what your article is full of.
William Bond (author) from England on August 13, 2011:
I would agree that it would be a great idea to teach men to loving and caring human beings. But patriarchy teaches the opposite. All patrairchal goverments teach men to be tough, ruthless and macho. The role models given to boys in comics, books and films are violent heros who wins the day by being better at violence than the villian.
As for the idea of women being as violent as men if given the chance of getting into power. All women have a powerful maternal instinct, so the focus of any Matriarchal government will always be on children. No govement dominated by women will want to see children in the country they rule live in poverty and ignorance. They will not have the same interest in warfare as men, and will certainly will not have the same interest in invading other countries as what patriarchal countries do. Also I believe a matrairchal government will be more interested in teaching boys to be caring and loving people than any patriarchal government.
As for hating their own sex, men already do this. Muslems hate Jewish and Christian men, Christian and Jewish men hate Muslems. Men hate and fear other men from other countries, religions, social classes and ethic groups. We live in a world of fear and hatred which can boil over into warfare at any time. It would be far better if men stop looking for scapegoats for the world's problems and blame each other and look at themselves and men in general. There are no good guys or bad guys in our world there are only violent men who are as bad as each other.
If all men realise they do a terrible job of ruling our world, and are ashamed of how we have messed up the world. Then we all might have the humility to stand aside and allow women to rule instead.
Five thousand years of history have shown that patriarchy is totally incapable of solving basic problems like warfare and poverty. So why are we continuing with a system that clearly does not work?
What is the problem with Matriarchy? Why are you so against the idea of women ruling the world? When you see the mess the world is in, with men ruling our world.
Lucy83 on August 13, 2011:
Hi wabond and thanks for answering,
yes, these atrocities were mostly committed by men but that does not mean that the majority of men would want to do such things. Men who are violent beasts, constitute a tiny minority of the male population. Most men are not violent.
You might also want to consider that men constitute the vast majority of the victims of violent crimes too. And most of those who are violent, are so because they were victims of violence themselves.
Also, there's absolutely no reason to believe women start any less wars than men if they have most of the political power. The real reason for women being less violent historically is because they had men to do the fighting for them.
And you forgot to mention that men are also responsible for most of what's good in the world. If you're going to judge half the human population, at least take all things into consideration.
Teaching boys to hate their own sex is a sure way to make things worse, not better. Don't dodge the question. How about teaching compassion, forgiveness and respect? How about exercising those things yourself?
If you're so ashamed of your sex, I'm very sorry but that's your problem. Please don't make it other people's problem.
William Bond (author) from England on August 12, 2011:
There are men out there murdering defenceless protestors on the streets Syria. There are other men committing mass rapes on women in the Congo. I could go on. Men are capable of committing the most horrendous crimes, rape,murder, torture and genicide. I am not man basing when i say these things, they are facts.
I was brought up in the during the cold war when the USSR and USA had enough nuclear weopons deployed on each other that would have wiped out civilization. Where the whole world lived in fear of a Third World War. I'm not making this up this is historic fact. You then have to ask yourself why are we allowing idiots like this rule and dominate our world?
Yes, i am a man, and as a man I am ashamed of my sex for the irrisponsible way we rule our world. How are boys suppose to develop in a patriarchal society where we are taught to be macho, aggressive and brutal towards others?
I was brought up to be a macho man as a boy but in truth i never really wanted to be aggressive to other people.
Lucy83 on August 12, 2011:
This is just another sexist rant filled with misandry. When do you people ever tire of bashing men as little more than violent primitive animals best kept in a zoo?
Don't you even feel a little bit silly that you're a man yourself when you say these things? And how are boys who grow up in this anti-male atmosphere supposed to develop? Have you thought about that?
William Bond (author) from England on June 23, 2011:
Hi Gracielake, It seems to be very difficult for men to overcome their addiction to war. I suppose the difficulty for men is that if they have a problem it is easier to use force and violence to solve the it, rather than the complication of trying to work it out in other ways. It seems that even more enlighten male leaders like President Obama will still go to war, like we see in Libya.
In the end if we want a peaceful world then we need far, far more women in positions of power, thoughout the world.
GracieLake from Arizona on June 23, 2011:
This is an interesting opinion, and one that has been bandied about by feminists, certainly. I agree that women are, in general, less interested in warfare. Now that the U.S. is pulling out of Afghanistan to pursue more covert options, I'd like to believe there's a shift in the way we approach war. Alternatives must be more seriously embraced!