Skip to main content

Matriarchy explained by author William Bond in an exclusive interview for HubPages

Introduction to William Bond

Please introduce yourself to my readers

I am now 65 years old and retired. I was born in England, but spent my childhood in Australia. I then came back to England when I was a young man to see what it was like and ended up staying here. I am mostly self-educated, at school I spent most of my time day-dreaming, but I was also a book-worm.

As a boy I read many books about military history, aircraft and sailing, but I later got interested in ordinary history, psychology and science. I would get interested in one subject like astronomy, read every book I can find in my local library on the subject, and then when I couldn't find any more books about it, I would get interested in another subject.

As a young man in London I also got involved in the New-Age and pagan movements. I joined many different New-Age and Occult groups but never stayed in any of them for more than a year. I was looking for a something I could believe in, from these various groups, but in the end I had to find it from within myself.

Buy books on Matriarchy

William Bond

Author William Bond

Author William Bond


Please explain what matriarchy means to you

I first came across matriarchy back in the 1970s when I read a book called, “The First Sex” by Elizabeth Gould Davis. I then searched around for other books on the same subject and couldn’t find any. This only made me more curious about this subject. I did then find two other books, “The White Goddess” by Robert Graves and “Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion”, by Jane Harrison, but I have to say I didn’t find either book easy to read. I found it strange that I could only find books about matriarchy in obscure academic books. I was later to realise there was a sort of academic censorship about matriarchy. Any academic writing about matriarchy was likely to have his or her academic career ruined. We can see this is the case of Erich Fromm a famous social psychologist, psychoanalyst and humanistic philosopher. He wrote about matriarchy in his book, “Love, Sexuality, and Matriarchy: About Gender”, but he only allowed it to be published after he had died. Simply because he knew a book like this, could have ruined his career, if it was published while he was alive. He had good reason to fear this, many academic writers like J.J. Bachofen, Robert Briffault, were savagely attacked for writing about matriarchy, as were the archaeologists James Mellaart and Marija Gimbutas.

The reason why the academic world is nervous about matriarchy is because it has the potential to be a powerful world wide radical political movement. To anyone who takes an interest in political history it must be obvious that men to a terrible job in ruling our world. After all, war has to be the most insane method of setting disputes between countries, yet there has never been a time in history when there weren’t wars and it still goes on today. There has also been a big gap between rich and poor where the ruling elite live in luxury while the people live in poverty, and the gap between rich and poor remains. The financial crisis today also shows us how incompetent the patriarchal financial intuitions are in dealing with the world’s economy. The bankers now gamble with the money people put into banks, to make themselves rich, but if their gamble fails, then it doesn’t matter, as the governments and taxpayers will bail them out and they will continue to get their million dollar bonuses. The fact that this has condemned billions of people to live in poverty doesn’t seem to be a problem for these bankers and financiers.

The only reason why people put up with incompetent patriarchal governments is because ordinary people are totally unaware there is an alternative and that is matriarchy. I have written why I think matriarchy is better than patriarchy in my hub-page.

Guru Rasa

Guru Rasa von Werder photo

Guru Rasa von Werder photo

Guru Rasa von Werder

Please say a bit about Guru Rasa von Werder, whom I know is a good friend of yours?

I first came across Rasa Von Werder on the internet back in 2005, I think  we were both a bit wary of each other at first. We both had an interest in matriarchy but our visions were a bit different. She was at the time also promoting her Roman Catholic beliefs which I had no interest in, so I wasn’t sure I wanted to be involved in a Roman Catholic version of matriarchy. I think what got me interested in her, was her, “I strip for God” stuff. She was once a stripper who gave her audience a Christian sermon as part of her act. The audacity of this, appealed to my sense of humour. But also, I began to realise that if matriarchy was to be promoted, then we will need someone like her, who will say and do outrageous things and get people’s attention. The fact is, that writing a logical article or book on the merits of matriarchy is not going to get much attention. But Rasa can get a lot more attention by her outrageous behaviour and so introduce many more people to the concept of matriarchy.

She is also very positive in her attitude; she is a great believer in positive thinking and so even if she gets setbacks, which can get her down, she is still able to pick herself up and soldier on regardless, because of her positive attitude. I think if matriarchy is going to be successful, we need very positive and determined female leaders, like her, who can lead people forward.

The Last Taboo - William Bond talks about matriarchy

Mermaids and the Aquatic Ape Theory

What are your theories about the reality of mermaids?

My theories on mermaids came from the Aquatic Ape Theory. I first read about this theory back in the 1970s when I read the book, “The Decent of Women” by Elaine Morgan. I personally thought it was a very good theory and couldn’t understand why many academics at the time rejected it. To the degree that Sir Alister Hardy the man who brought this theory to the notice of the general public, backed down from Elaine Morgan’s attempt to promote it, to save his career. It was later I discovered the strong basis, there was, against women, in academic circles. Academia was promoting another theory of how we evolved from apes to humans, called the Savannah Theory. This theory gives the starring role for our evolution to men, and women are hardly mentioned at all, in this theory. The Aquatic Ape Theory doesn’t do this, and for this reason it was rejected, and even though the Savannah Theory has now been disproved, male academics still continue to cling to it.

Briefly, the Aquatic Ape Theory is about the fact that we humans have so many marine features about our bodies. We are so unlike any other ape because we have no fur, have subcutaneous fat, can walk upright, sweat, have a large brain and can speak. All this can all be explained if we at one time semi-aquatic creatures.

The theory suggests that having acquired all these aquatic features we then returned to live more inland, but I wondered if perhaps not all humans had done this and some continued to evolve in the water and became even more aquatic. So perhaps this is where the mermaid stories came from. I then got some books out of the library on mermaid myths and sightings and what I discovered, was that, in not all mermaid stories, did they have a fishtail. Some are described ordinary woman swimming in the sea or lying on rocks. I then remembered a book I read when I was a teenager called, “Hekura: The Diving Girl’s Island” by Fosco Maraini. I then began to wonder if mermaids were simply once European versions of the Ama divers that still exist in Japan. So I researched this more and everything I have discovered seems to confirm this.

Anyway I have written a blog about this at.-

Scroll to Continue

I have also written seven hub pages on this as well like. –

Books and writings by William Bond

What are your books about and where can people get hold of your work?

Though I write about Matriarchy and Mermaids, I have also written about Goddess Spirituality, -

Positive thinking. -

© 2011 Steve Andrews


Earth Angel on September 16, 2011:

BANNED? Blessings ShaktiLove, Steven, William and Rasa, BANNED?? Does that even happen anymore? I can see banning hate speech or beastiality or child porn but lovley Rasa hardly falls into those categories?? Did I miss something? Blessings to each of you always, Earth Angel!

shaktilove from nearby You - just behind 2 screens on September 16, 2011:

Sadly, Williams blog [] about Guru Rasa is banned, as well. Seemingly, She is still undesirable for powerholders - someone is tracing Her like a haunting dog all the time.


Regarding current hub I like a chapter about Williams familiarization with Rasa. I share Williams thoughts, fully. It seems, prohibitions are based on what we like in Her :))))))

William Bond from England on July 10, 2011:

Thank you for your positive comments, Earth Angel. What Emerson says is so right, life is a lot better when you can see the positives in everything you see.

William Bond from England on July 10, 2011:

Well it is nice of you Eponabrightmoon to take the trouble to show me the error of my ways, but like i said i am busy at the present moment, I might catch up with you when I have more time.

Earth Angel on July 10, 2011:

Ahhhhhhhh, lovely Sunday evening to you Steve, William and Rasa!

"His heart was as great as the world, but there was no room in it to hold the memory of a wrong." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

I raise my glass to the three of you!

Blessings always, Earth Angel!

Eponabrightmoon from uk on July 09, 2011:

I am not seeking to demean, just expose inconsistences and flaws in your arguments.

William Bond from England on July 09, 2011:

Hi Eponabrightmoon

I wish to point out that putdowns are not arguments. I honestly don't wish to trade insults with you. The more you try to demean anyone, the less likely they are wanting to engage with you in any meaniful way.

Eponabrightmoon from uk on July 09, 2011:

Wabond, I do not wish to argue. I am sure that you have faced a lot of praise and criticism. I have read you and Rasa's work and there are startling contradictions. My first post here, that was very polite, I was advised by the Bard and Earth Angel to create my own hub. I've taken that advice and I am now creating that hub. In it I argue that you and Rasa contradict yourselves, and that both your argumenst for matriarchy to run this planet are flawed and full of contradictions. For the Bard to expect only postive praise and to shun any criticism is childish and closed minded.

Eponabrightmoon from uk on July 09, 2011:

Well as I said before, I came on here arguing against Rasa and Bond and none of you could tolerate criticism. I won't be posting here again, as I mentioned before you are all too hostile. Instead you can look out for my own hub entitled Gender Ga Ga, by Eponabrightmoon, where I argue that Bond and Rasa contradict themselves. Sorry you got so touchy when I was just posting my views. Seems like here is facist territory, Rasa, Ely and Bond.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 09, 2011:

Well I find your tone unfriendly and I don't see why I have to justify what I post or what I feel! I don't know what your problem is but you clearly have one! It is hardly logical to publish hubs giving my enemies publicity now is it? This is all voluntary here and we can do what we like as long as it is within the rules of the site. As for being tolerant, if anything I am too tolerant, but over the past year have learned to delete and block hateful people and trolls on Facebook. You are talking about yourself I think when you call me intolerant and similarly when it comes to arrogance. Are you not "disrespectful and arrogant" coming on my hub with a controlling and patronising tone to your comments such as that above where you say it is"not rocket science" for people to understand what the male gaze is. I would disagree and am sure that many people surveyed at random out on the streets would not know what you meant by it. In other words it is specialised jargon. You also clearly enjoy arguing and have goaded me to do so but I will not rise to the bait again!

Eponabrightmoon from uk on July 09, 2011:

I'm not unfriendly in my tone, at all, you expressed your views on academia, you thought the male gaze was an academic concept that no one would understand, it's not rocket science it just means men looking at women who choose to show men their bodies.

You seem to be fine with your cronies writing loads that people have to wade through. It's arrogant and disrespectful to expect people to read through your copious posts of 456 hubs, but you don't have the respect or patience to tolerate anyone elses views or contributions. You hit the nail on the head, you publish to give friends publicity, only friends. If they were any good they wouldn't need your publicity and would not have to publish through that will publish any writing, well written or well researched or not, so it too can make a buck.

William Bond from England on July 09, 2011:

Hi Eponabrightmoon,

I just wish I could make a buck from all this.

I know you are wanting to have a argument about this but honestly I don't have to time for it at the present moment. As for saying were biased, do you say that about anyone who disagrees with you?

I have argued about matriarchy for nearly 15 year on the Internet. And you get all the same objections and i give all the same answers, it does get tedious after awhile. You need to catch me when i have more time for this.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 09, 2011:

Eponabrightmoon, you are very unfriendly in the tone of this post and elsewhere. All I have done is suggest you might like to publish your own hubs seeing as you have so much to say on this subject and comments are for comments not lengthy chunks of text which readers have to wade through, at least that is how I view it. The hub being the main part of the text. I have not shown disrespect for academia. I spent three years getting a BA degree at Cardiff Uni in 2003 and you can't do that if you show disrespect for it, however, I soon came to realise that those people who had suggested I was well suited to academia, as some had done, were very wrong. It appeared to be not so much about teaching people useful info for use in the real world outside but about imparting a lot of jargon so people could call themselves educated. It was designed to create an us and them situation. I have found very little of what I studied of any use. As for "making a buck" here, well yes, I have at times depended on this place to help pay my bills but since the new Google algorithm change in February, like so many here, I have seen a severe drop in earnings so making money here is no longer so much of a reason to publish hubs. Rather I do it to talk about matters I want to and to give some publicity to friends such as William.

Eponabrightmoon from uk on July 09, 2011:

I agree with William Bond that people will believe what they want to believe. The Bard has shown total disrespect for any form of academia although he maintains he has a degree in journalism. What was your alma mater and what year?

You guys here seem so opposed to anyone who does not agree with you. As none of you respect academia I guess there's no point in writing from that stance. Bond and Rasa just put forward their views, they are biased and do not desire any healthy opposition. Any decent commentator always aknowledges the other side has valid points then they usually argue against it. Otherwise it becomes diatribe. The contributor Chhimed has raised some interesting questions too, but none of you want to address them in an intelligent way. It seems that the person Chhimed is wasting their time here trying to get through to people who seem self obsessed, bitter, twisted and only out to promote their own glory and make a buck.

William Bond from England on July 08, 2011:

I have to admit that when i was younger i used to have long debates or arguments with other men, long into the early hours in the morning. But now I am older I do wonder "what's the point", people tend to believe whatever they want to believe and can always find intellectual reasons to support those beliefs.

I may have argued the point with Eponabrightmoon and the other bloke, but I am trying to write another book and don't have much time for this, at present. I personally don't mind argument but don't like it when people get brused egos and get angry and upset over it.

I do agree with you Rasa, the arguments for Matriarchy are so obvious but we don't see them because our minds get cluttered up with so much patrairchal bullshit. Patriarchy is so good at making excuses for their totally incompetent rule that people can't see through the layers upon layers of bullshit, to see patriarchy for what it is.

The biggest lie told by patriarchy is the idea that women's maternal and nurturing instincts are a 'weakness' and men are 'strong' because they are selfish and ruthless. So therefore it is 'right' that the world is ruled by totally uncaring and unloving people. Whereas it should be obvious that the people want to be ruled by loving, caring and nuturing people instead.

Yes, the patrirachal Emperor doesn't have any clothes and we have to get people to see patriarchy in it's total nudity.

Rasa Von Werder on July 08, 2011:

I will be back Sunday for further discussion. Thanks friends. Thanks Earth Angel, Steve & everyone that is so positive here. I just made a long statement & accidentally erased it, ugh. But I must leave. Please keep up the great work!

Earth Angel on July 08, 2011:

Dearest Bard, William and Rasa,

I am reminded of a Zen teaching that resonated with me from long ago:

"Practice has been described by a Tibetan teacher as the wearing out of an old pair of shoes. Wearing the soles thin. Wearing through ego and delusion. You may approach Zen thinking that you are going to become enlightened, become a great teacher and have fantastic powers that people will respect. Doing the practice, you come to realize that you don't give a damn whether people respect you or not. You really don't want to be a great teacher. What you want is to be helpful. To be of assistance, a benevolent entity." -- Kobutsu, Heron Dance

Some of us just come to that realization earlier in life than others . . . Blessings, Earth Angel

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 08, 2011:

Thank you, Rasa, for your wonderful comments, and for the benefit of those who enjoy disagreeing, I say that because I tire of arguing and am in the process of learning the hard way what Rasa is alresdy doing - ignoring those who enjoy disruption and picking holes in what someone else has said. I haven't the time or inclination for it!

Rasa Von Werder on July 08, 2011:

Again, I want to proclaim the greatness of William Bond, my close internet friend, who has done things no other man ever did, for Matriarchy & Mother God!

Also want to add that the women & most men here on Steve’s hub are admirable & have made intelligent statements & observations, & given valuable information. Thanks friends, Earth Angel the latest!

William has written wonderful books, “Gospel of the Goddess” & “Make Love, Not War” & his work on mermaids – wow – he is the first person on earth to explain this myth, so thoroughly & fascinatingly researched! People love this new stuff! I could not believe he could make something so wonderful out of what seemed kind of dull to me at first.

He also works with Pamela Suffield, who has become a meaningful contributor for Matriarchy. Pamela does editing & has overdubbed many of his great videos.

William has inspired me to no end.

Believe me, if there were no William, Rasa would not be as bright as she is. William filled my mind & heart with valuable material; he padded up the Matriarchal skeleton in my mind. I knew what I was doing in my own way. I stripped for God (gave sermons before or after I danced), showing that the woman is both spiritual & sexual, I instituted competitive female body building, to prove that women had the right to build their muscles & get admired for it, I preached female superiority on national TV, fighting furious males. But William was another perspective. His insights into things that are so obvious they are hidden – like the fact that women have a maternal drive. We all know that but did we explain it the way William did? He says & rightly so, that women “take care of people.” They take care of the young, the elderly, the sick, & animals. Do men do this? Certainly not!

And once again, so obvious, but no one ever said it before William, that,

“Men have done such a terrible job of ruling the world.”

It’s so obvious, it makes you laugh, but no one said it so clearly until William, like the child who cried,

“The Emperor is wearing no clothes!”

Hahaha, the innocent, the free, the sinless, spoke the Truth!

William has great political insight – something I never bothered with. So he & I make a great team, as I got into stuff William didn’t, & he knows stuff I don’t, & I felt the third cog in the wheel is Steve, Bard of Ely, complementing the Matriarchal viewpoint, as Steve is an expert on ecology / biology – a subject that neither William nor I know much about.

When I appeared on the internet in 2004, William had already been working here for hears. He had a tremendous audience, his yahoo groups having thousands members.

I was jealous that William had PUBLISHED BOOKS – what to me was an almost impossible feat.

Because of William, I researched his publisher & many others, for months. I discovered that his publisher was the pits. But then I went on & found out, who was good, & how to do it. I found!

Then William followed my path, & also published with Lulu!

Within five short years, I got thirteen books written & published, illustrated with much of my own photography of models, male & female, & myself, & images I bought. They are beautiful books, the average length being 400 pages.

Then William beat me in getting on Youtube.

I was jealous! Dam, he was doing so much good!

I got on Youtube & produced in little over a year, 425 or so videos, mostly preaching, speaking, some dancing. I got four million 200,000 views, one lecture on Mother God got over 400,000 views!

But alas, I have so many haters, my entire site got deleted & most of the videos are gone. William is more careful, has less racy stuff, & all his work is intact. It’s like the rabbit & the turtle. William is the turtle, but he never quits. I am the hare, I get ahead, but then, I lose the race for getting deleted.

So William & I “feed off” each other, both pushing the other like loving competitors,

“Who will do the most for Mother God?

We both want to, & when we see the other doing something, we look into it & don’t want to get left behind.

An example is I got active on face book first, I pushed William, and he jumped in & did great good, & is still there. I had five sites, all got deleted, & I am exhausted by the effort of building up again & again!

My last word about the haters is I personally will ignore them. They are a waste of time. They are naughty, delinquent kids, begging attention, while the good boy & girl sit idly by, needing their Mother or Father’s energy to push them on in school, to develop skills, to market their potential. But the delinquent keeps screaming & doing mischief, & is so exasperating, he eats up all the time from the good. These malicious people show themselves important by disrupting things & making negative remarks. I want to attend to the good, the valuable people who are saving the planet, many of whom are here. I praise them, Steve, William, this Hub.

That’s where it’s at.

One last word about Buddhism, male religions, institutions & political systems -William made yet another brilliant statement I live by. All these venues, even those started by the best men with good intentions, when run by males, eventually become corrupt, & violent. Hahaha, so obvious, so in your face, yet no one ever said it before! The genius of William! It is BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL INSTINCT OF MALES that all eventually leads to corruption & violence, they are not made to lead or rule, only the one who takes care of people, the woman has to lead & rule everyone, & then & only then will there be peace.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 08, 2011:

Having studied 'Gender' as a subject in university I am familiar with the 'male gaze' as some academic jargon term which if you want to use that is of course up to you. I am not seeking to present papers for academics here but rather I am publishing articles people can read and hopefully understand without knowing a lot of terminology. In my personal experience it was something I found very wrong with academia that it sought to teach theoretical info shrouded in jargon so that the average non-academic wouldn't have a clue what was being talked about. In other words it fostered an us and them division and elitism of us the academics and them the uneducated. I was suggesting like Earth Angel that perhaps writing your own hubs would be a good way to go seeing as you were obviously wanting to say a lot on this subject and could attract more readers potentially that way. I see it this way: that comments are for comments!

Eponabrightmoon from uk on July 08, 2011:

Sir, I am sorry that you resent me telling you what to do, but it was you and Earth Angel who told me what to do, and that was to post on another hub. Unlike yourself, I do not feel resentment towards you, though I am just dismayed at the reception I have had here.

You mention that you post information. If you do not desire any comment why post on an interactive site? Would it not in be better to communicate via a method where people cannot reply?

As I mentioned in my previous post, this is not a common brawl, it is supposed to be an intellectual communication. I am sure that you will agree, that a journalis must be responsible for the content of their posts and the reactions they will foster in readers?

As I am currently working in an academic field researching matriarchy, this post was particulary pertinent to me. As a journalist you will appreciate the importance of accuracy, Bond and Rasa have put forward their opinions which is fine, but they are not based on any social science data which seeks to explain gender inequality today, it is merely their opinions, and of course, you are entitled to agree with them.

All I am postulating is that a fairer, more balanced society could evolve through re-educating parents on gender stereotyping. That for Bond to suggest the world should be ruled by women will probably not create a better world, and I merely suggested why this is unlikely.

As a feminist, I would suggest that Rasa is not supporting women and that she is seeking to present herself to satisty the male gaze. This ultimately fuels the pornography industry that exploits women whether they chose to do it themselves, or are forced into it by pimps or by poverty, very often both.

So, if you are serious about journalism, you will of course understand that your readers will expect articles with topics covering the human condition to be accurate and balanced.

Having looked at Bond's video it struck me that it would have been very good to see someone asking him questions. Instead the man was left to ramble along jumping from one topic to another and not really offering any real insight into why he thought women should rule the world.

It strikes me that you probably agitate argumentative responses from your readers by the unprofessional manner in which you respond to them. Actually, I think I will take your advice and write my own Hubs. If you ever responded to them I can assure you that I would treat you with more respect than you have shown me.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 08, 2011:

Why is it that every time I publsh something here or post a thread at Facebook it distintegrates into some sort of argument? I have my views and you people have yours! I hate arguments! I post information. It's that simple! Eponabrightmoon, you sound as argumentative and as miserable (but he won't agree that he is) as Chhimed! I must say I do resent you telling me what to do though but whatever... Btw I have a degree in Journalism for what it's worth if that is of any importance?

Eponabrightmoon from uk on July 08, 2011:

Bard, this isn't a common brawl, it's an intellectual discussion about matriarchy. I put a valid argumnet across as to why I thought Bond and Rasa are mistaken in their hypothesis. No one had to decency to respond in an intellectual manner. All I received was, go and write your own hub. If you don't expect any comments why do you even bother to post information on the hub? I wonder what academic qualifications any of you have, at least I have a degree in feminist studies and as a result I feel qualified to ask questions.So I suggest if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen and stop posting hubs that you have no intention of debating, or are not able to debate.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 08, 2011:

Thank you for your response here, William! I refuse to get drawn into any argument because I personally hate arguing! I see it as a form of fighting - fighting with words! I do not enjoy it.

William Bond from England on July 07, 2011:

I agree with Bard there are some men on this thread who do greatly enjoy arguing which is a typical male thing to do.

Just to clarify one thing. I would agree that Buddhism is a better religion than either Christianity and Islam and i did study Buddhism for many year for that reason. I greatly like the original teachings of Buddhism but as we all religions they have become corupted by patriarchal priests. For instance I was shocked to learn that in Zen Buddhism it was commonplace for the young monks to be beaten. Buddhist like to claim that they don't go to war, and I have to admit they have a better record in this that most other religions. But Vietnam, Cambobia and Sri Lanka are all Buddist countries and they have experience some of the most brutal civil wars we have witnessed in recent times.

How much you like to argue about this subject, the fact is that men do an increadibly bad job in ruling our world. War and genicide has become so commonplace throughout patriarchal history that we now think it is 'normal'. We also take for granted the vast gap between rich and poor, so we allow weathy bankers to continue to receive vast wealth for destroying our ecomonies, while the poorest of countries have to pay for their mistakes. But we take his for granted because in most of patriarchal history we always have had a rule elite with vast wealth while the common people live in poverty.

It is very clear men cannot solve the problems of war and poverty, so if we want to overcome these problems we have to allow women to do this for us.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 07, 2011:

I am afraid you are very wrong there! I would suggest you read Rasa's words, which are very many and can be found for free on her websites and in an interview I published here, and find out about her life before coming to such judgements.

Eponabrightmoon from uk on July 07, 2011:

Yes, loves getting them excited and contributes to men not being able to control their sexual urges and hence pornography., prostitution and even rape. If she strips for a female god, then that god must be lesbian, or she is, seems like she does not know what she is.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 07, 2011:

Guru Rasa does love men!

Eponabrightmoon from uk on July 07, 2011:

Is someone suggesting I am the person Chhimed? If you are you are extremely mistaken. On the subject dearest Earth Angel what is a Hub for if not to exchange views? Sure I could copy and paste into my own hub for sure, but why should I? There is supposed to be free speech in the western world and I am entitled as the next person to air my views. It's like this hub consists of a lot of friends who act like nodding dogs, who dares to differ is shown the door, very democratic. Funny thing here dearest Earth Angel is I happen to be female and have never felt I'm at a handicap being a woman. All I can say is that I have been exploited in my life by men, but that's because my mother failed to educate me properly or help me see my magnificance as a woman. It was only after going out there "green" as a young woman did I see how vulnerable I was. Not anymore, I raised my daughter to expect respect and she gets it fro men. Women love men and vice versa, it's only the extremists who do not and I stand by my argument that it's women who nuture men and socialisation could stress equality, equal but different.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 07, 2011:

Chhimed and Eponabrightmoon, I agree with Earth Angel, that you would probably be better off writing your own hubs - you both have loads to say! Neither of you agree with me, William or Rasa, but are clearly inspired to write a lot about how you see the world. Why not make your own hubs? Personally I am able to understand William and Rasa, and also to understand that unpopular as it may be, females and males are not equal and were not made that way so it is a waste of time trying to say they are. Why do women live longer than men if they are equal? They do not have equal lifespans. Chhimed, I see Buddhism as a patriarchal religion centred as usual around a male figure. If it is not please explain why it has all male lamas? Tell me about the women who have reached Buddhahood! Explain why its priests in Tibet have been male!

Earth Angel on July 07, 2011:

Dearest Eponabrightmoon,

Changing names without changing writing style is futile. Again, please start your own Hubs.

Blessings, Earth Angel

Eponabrightmoon from uk on July 07, 2011:

It's an incrediby sad state of affairs when Bond and Rasa talk about "ruling" or "ruled", govern would be a better word rather than "rule" as the word rule has negative connotations and reminds me of how people say let's "stamp" out something perceived to be violent, in other words, let's get rid of something violent through violent methods, I think not.

Bond suggests that "men do a terrible job ruling the world". Women shape the men of the future, women could begin by nuturing boy children to use their feminine nature and not to shun it.Many women socialise their son's to be tough, not to cry and to fight. They have firm gender boundaries when raising their children, for example, boy's should not play with dolls or girls shouldn't play with tools. Many households throughout the world socialise their children for male and female roles. It is not simply that matriarchy should "rule" as Bond and Rasa suggest, it's more to do with women socialising males and females as of equal value. Therefore, it is up to the women in is the world to create more caring and compassionate males, they do have it within their power. I'd like to see men and women govern their countries equally, equal numbers of males and females in every cabinet or parliament each contributing their unique male and female energies.

These two commentators speak oppressively when they advocate any gender "ruling the world" are they arguing for a One World Government? A one world government ruled by women. If this nightmare was to occur what about the role of men, are they going to passively merge into the background and be happy with their lot? No of course they are not, they will want to fight back, so that is why, in order to make a fairer world we need to have mutual respect between the genders.

I would argue that it is not an incompetant patriarchal financial system, but it is a greed driven system where both men and women reap material gain, the elite are not just men, they have women in their lives, women that are happy to squander the money their men made off the backs of billions of ordinary people. It is interesting to note, that in times of recession the sale of luxury goods actually increases while people go hungry and lose their homes the wives and girlfriends of the rich and famous wear haute couture and Tiffany jewellery.

Until now I had never heard of Guru Rasa or her stripping for God as a way of getting her point across. It appears that she is not doing women any favours because it's mainly men who would want to see it. Rasa is promoting the pornography industry that is the biggest money making venture in the world that is perpetuated by women who are prepared to work in it.

Finally, Bond suggests that Thatcher was the strongest man in her cabinet. What a disaster that was, Mrs Thatcher was responsible for destroying working class communities, creating an underclass of dysfunctional people who have been thrown on to a scrap heap and are blamed for contemporary Britan's ills.

Bond and Rasa could be arguing for a world where men and women govern equally,they could argue that a fairer society could be created through educating women to socialise their male and female children for gender equality. Instead they appear to be advocating more human strife. The way for a better world is to manifest peace within ourselves first irrespective of our gender. From peace comes compassion and it is through the spreading of compassion that the world can be a better place rather than Bond and Rasa's extremism.

Earth Angel on July 07, 2011:

Dearest Chhimed,

Thank you for your elaborated comments above. They really are best suited for you to compose and express in a Hub of your own creation.

I too, enjoy civil discourse and lively debate. In arenas that are appropriate. At times that are suitable for all parties. On topic. With people who have expressed an interest in doing the same.

If someone has been clear with me that what I may enjoy, they do not, then for me to proceed anyway is disrespectful.

I look forward to reading more of your writing/ideas/considerations/debates on Hubs of your own design.

Blessings always, Earth Angel

Chhimed on July 07, 2011:

It appears from the comments of Rasa Von Verder (above) to what I wrote earlier: “It makes me sick to read the comments of one hateful male here criticizing William. Sickening. These are scared men, scared the props holding them up will get knocked down, & their fears are well founded, as without harsh discrimination & violence, males cannot rule” that she may have got the wrong impression from what I am saying here and thinks that I am against the idea of matriarchy and am in favour of patriarchal rulers.

Let me make it clear on this thread as I have done on others that that is not at all the case. I am actually in favour of neither and would prefer that the entire concept of rulers as it exists today ceases to exist altogether. If we have to have any leaders at all to govern our affairs I would advocate that they do so with balanced and enlightened leadership for the benefit of the entire planet and all who live on her from the largest animals to the smallest insects that each have a part to play in this world and not just to benefit a small elite group of humans in a few countries whilst destroying the environment with their greed.

I have no hatred towards William and am not criticising him as an individual but am critiquing his ideas which is an entirely different thing. My argument is against the argument not against the individual. I am merely pointing out here the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of William's current version of his ideas. Perhaps in time they may evolve further.

I am also not a person who lives in fear and have no hatred towards any beings. I certainly do not hate or wish to oppress women. On the contrary, I used to teach martial arts to women in order that they may be able to empower themselves, and cultivate self confidence, which in turn can help them to develop a better understanding of themselves and the world they interact with and better able to express more kindness and compassion for others (whatever their gender). One thing that I would constantly emphasis is that self defence is what it says: defence against oneself - as it is oneself and one's own ego that creates the problems (karma) that we encounter throughout the world.

The most powerful martial art on the planet (Wing Chun) as well as its philosophy was devised by a woman. I would suggest that Rasa Von Verder obtain DVD copies of “Ip Man” 1 & 2 for a better explanation of this than I can give here. However, I would urge her that she would need to pay far more attention to the philosophy of Wing Chun, in order to learn to tame the wild tiger within her, than she should to the physical training, otherwise she may become far more of a problem to the world than the men whom she currently (mistakenly) hates and despises. More hatred will not solve the problems of today's world. You cannot separate good from evil, yin from yang, male from female – balance is what is required if this world is to thrive.

I would like to see the personal empowerment of all of the people of this world and certainly do not advocate their oppression by an elite few.

I advocate that all beings take charge and responsibility of themselves and learn to become balanced individuals who have consideration for all others human and otherwise. This begins with taking charge of their own minds and their own thoughts. All words and actions originate from thought.

If a person is not in charge of their own thoughts then who is?

Regardless of whether we have leaders to govern us or not, if each individual person on this world (irrespective of gender) learns to come to terms with themselves and their own mind through learning and practising meditation techniques then the world will automatically change to being a better place anyway as Tibet stands as proof of. Not even every person in Tibet was an accomplished meditator or even had personal knowledge of the Buddhist teachings and yet Tibet was an entirely different place to the world we know today. Imagine what the world would be like if all learned self discipline through meditation and the application of kindness to all others.

Put simply, Buddhism is about internal awareness and external kindness and consideration. If that was applied world wide today there would be no hatred, wars, starvation, poverty etc. All would be consigned to the history books that the great, great grandchildren of those alive today would find hard to believe ever even existed.

Chhimed on July 07, 2011:

Steve, you said: “I get the impression that you enjoy arguing”.

Well, Steve – that depends upon what you actually intend that to mean. Your impression is directly dependent upon a combination of your chosen interpretation of what I have said filtered by your current point of view coupled with your chosen interpretation of the word arguing. Words can have many meanings - which is why we have dictionaries. There are several possibilities of what you could intend by your usage of that word. So what am I to understand by your usage of this word? For example, you might be using that word in the context in which John's character uses it here: - If that is the case then you are entirely incorrect.

I have no interest in taking part in a discussion which involves another person simply contradicting whatever I say. Michael's character explains it slightly better: "an argument is collective series of statements to establish a definite argument is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

However, even that can degenerate into mere querulous, antagonistic-bickering and I have no interest in that kind of immature, Pythonesque behaviour either.

I would prefer to use the word debate to describe the kind of intelligent discussion I “enjoy” taking part in. The intended context in which I use that word is as it is practised within Tibetan Buddhism. For example, in order to obtain a Geshe (pronounced Geshay) degree (which is equivalent to a professor of Buddhism) a monk has to study and debate for 22 years and sit various written exams during that time. The final exam is an aural debate with another candidate before a panel of other Geshes. Each candidate studies a text on a particular subject and then debates with another candidate who has studied a text on the same subject but from an alternative point of view. In this particular case the monks' own personal point of view is of no consequence as neither point of view being argued is incorrect. The purpose of the debate is to establish whether the candidates fully understand the subject. Therefore, the debate is an exchange of knowledge and involves no antagonism, hatred or insults, as they each need to understand both points of view.

Unfortunately, in many cases with discussions taking place on the Internet this is not at all the case. Many people who post on the Internet are not the least bit interested in understanding the other person's or an alternative point of view and will arrogantly argue their own point of view, even if that is ill thought through and perhaps entirely incorrect. This can often degenerate into disrespectful, antagonistic, ad-hominem insults and collusions of demonisation that amount to little more than cyber-bullying and have nothing whatsoever to do with the kind of discussion or debate I have described above.

You say that you do not enjoy arguing and post information and it's fine whether people like it or not, Steve, yet you post not on a website that is a read only one but on media that allows for interactive comments with which you yourself will argue if they are not to your liking.

You say that you are “well aware of the Queen's power but wish to point out that that very power structure she is a very powerful player in is a patriarchal one not a matriarchal one”.

As I've already pointed out, the definition of these words in the Oxford English Dictionary (which is the world wide accepted definition) does not agree with that idea which you seem to share with William. All other English dictionaries base themselves on the OED. For the Queen (a female) to be the head of a patriarchal structure is a contradiction in terms no more or less than that of a king being the head of a matriarchal one.

If William wishes to use entirely different definitions for these two words then it becomes little different to children sharing a secret language between them where words have different meanings to the standard accepted version and is not understood by anyone else.

If both you and William feel that the OED's definition of these words is incorrect, or wish to have an alternative definition to the accepted one inserted into the English language, as portrayed by the OED, then there is an established procedure for you to challenge this. You need to put your case together in an intelligible and coherent manner and present it to the OED's panel for consideration. There was a weekly TV program about this aired recently where some weeks the OED accepted the changes and sometimes they rejected them. However, if you want them to change the definition of the words matriarchy and patriarchy to William's idea then I don't hold out much hope of your success. You might fare better with a different approach by inventing and suggesting a new word such as “nurturarchy” to mean what William is talking about.

In his own Hub page entitled “Why We Need Matriarchy” William begins by saying: “The whole written history of the human race has been a story of conflict, warfare, genocide, slavery, injustice and poverty” demonstrating an arrogant ignorance of history. He then alleges that “Christianity, Islam and Buddhism all have failed to stop 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.” By lumping all three together in this statement, he seems blissfully unaware of the differences between the three and demonstrates an acute lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject.

It is well known and accepted, world wide as well as by other religions, that Buddhism has not done what William claims. His allegations are insulting to all Buddhists. On the contrary, in Tibet (prior to the Communist Chinese invasion in 1950 followed by their cultural revolution in 1959) other religions such as Islam and Bön lived in harmony with Buddhism. Prior to the Communist Chinese invasion, Tibet was entirely peaceful and did not seek to antagonise or make war with any of its neighbours. This situation had existed for many centuries under a succession of fourteen Dalai Lamas.

Although no longer the King of Tibet (since the Chinese invasion and his exile to India), His Holliness Tenzin Gyatso the 14th Dalai Lama is still the spiritual leader of Tibet and has until recently been the secular leader of the Tibetan Government in exile as well – yet he has always preached non-violence and has not tried to incite any reprisals against the Communists for decades of torture, persecution and murder of the Tibetan people. Throughout the male leadership, of the Dalai Lamas over several centuries, Tibet has been a happy and peaceful place with a caring and nurturing society. Under William's definition the Dalai Lamas would be patriarchs yet this contradicts his own ideas as he claims such a thing would only be possible with a matriarchal (female) ruler. Tibet's history is factual and verifiable evidence that contradicts William's claims and proves them to be incorrect.

In contrast to the above, there have been many queens, who have ruled countries throughout the world, and do so today, who do not govern in the same caring and nurturing way as was in Tibet, yet to the entire world they are regarded as matriarchs whether William chooses to accept that or not.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 07, 2011:

Thank YOU, Rasa, for your detailed feedback on this!

Rasa Von Werder on July 06, 2011:

William is a phenomenal agent of Mother God, in the work of restoring all good to our planet.

I love his determination, never giving up, working on, & on, over the years, with this project or that, always creative, always informative, great research & insights.

William & I are close friends after a querulous start. It was I who pursued him when he distanced himself, because I knew he was the most valuable ally of female empowerment. He did not fully understand me. I knew he was right for the mission & that was all that mattered. Perhaps he doesn’t realize how hard I worked to stay close.

As I said, William is right with Mother God, & therefore, right with all that is life!

Most males hate & / or fear women.

When women raise their heads, they tremble. They have spent their lifetimes plotting against us. As William says, though, once you stop holding the cork down, it pops up. They were doing everything possible to prevent us from education, success & leadership.

But now, something has happened, & Matriarchy is inevitable. It makes me sick to read the comments of one hateful male here criticizing William. Sickening. These are scared men, scared the props holding them up will get knocked down, & their fears are well founded, as without harsh discrimination & violence, males cannot rule.

There are detailed explanations of discrimination here by women. How informative! Yes, yes, yes, been there, had that done to me In fact, on the web, when I make comment half the time I am not believed, & William or Steve have to chime in to give the argument credibility, so it never ends.

The entire Patriarchy has been a template of hate against women, which includes lack of respect, exploitation, human rights violations, rape, violence, molestation & murder.

Many men, although they were not responsible for the most heinous crimes, went along with Patriarchy because it gave them an edge regarding employment, free speech, freedom to do as they pleased. All of that is falling apart. We’re moving into a world that will be led by females across the board.

Everything that William & I have been saying for years is now being reiterated in famous articles all over the world. “The End of Men” is a favorite.

Women are taking over everything, so get ready. Many males are giving into the inevitable, saying,

“OK, we messed up. Give them a chance.”

Thanks for the Hub, Steve!

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 04, 2011:

Chhimed, I get the impression that you enjoy arguing. I don't! I post hubs and threads and videos elsewhere as information. If people like them fine and if they don't then fine! I am very well aware of the Queen's power and in fact in conspiracy theory circles she is listed as one of the Illuminati and evil people behind the power structure of the world as I am sure you are aware. I wish to point out though that that very power structure she is a very powerful player in is a patriarchal one not a matriarchal one. It uses patriarchal religions, armies, wars, invasions, police states, torture, and all the rest of the male dominator way which is known as patriarchy. The Queen does not preside over a caring and nurturing social system which is what William describes. The Queen works within patriarchy as did Margaret Thatcher.

Chhimed on July 03, 2011:

Steve, Once again, you seem to have cherry picked from what I said and placed my words out of the context in which I wrote them.

You said: “I don't see why you wish to point out that you were unimpressed with William as a speaker though”.

As I have already explained in the later half of that very sentence you have cherry picked from “for one thing, he appears to be unconvinced by his own argument, which seriously undermines what he is saying and how it comes across to the listener”.

It is not so much that I am unimpressed by him personally as a speaker or the way in which he enunciates his words - as you seem to be implying (that is somewhat irrelevant to the point that I am making). For me, how articulate and eloquent (or not) the speaker is has far less significance than what they are actually saying based upon how well they have researched and understood the subject they are speaking about and how they manage to convey that knowledge to the listener.

It is more the case that he seems very unsure of what he is saying and in many cases is simply incorrect. On your other earlier thread on Facebook I specifically asked him: “Is this (William Bond's) interpretation (of matriarchy) based upon your own ideas and are they based upon any contemporaries, if so, Whom? As you seem to disagree with the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word, please explain how you would define matriarchy and why you think that the OED definition (which is the worldwide accepted interpretation) is incorrect”.

Although he responded to my post he declined to answer those specific questions.

I've now watched his video, read your hub and his and my questions remain unanswered. To me, he comes across as poorly researched and his ideas still require much thought as obviously they are not yet fully formed.

If the Hubs are intended as advertisement, to promote sales of his books, then they fail miserably in that regard. Having read both Hubs and watched the video I would not be inclined to spend a single penny to see what else he has written on this subject. I would not even waste my time accessing the free book referred to.

He says that there has never been a matriarchy and therefore fails to grasp that Britain is ruled by a matriarchy at this very moment and has been for several decades and has been at other times in the past.

Queen Elizabeth II lives in a palace built on prime real estate with armed military guards outside as well as patrolling the grounds. She has another castle a short distance away at Windsor and yet another at Balmoral Scotland. She also owns all of the land of the entire British Isles, considerable land in the United States and Canada as well as Gibraltar, land in the Falklands, New Zealand and Australia. All of the British armed forces are Her Majesty's Armed Forces and all swear an oath of allegiance to her. The British police force is governed and controlled by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS). The British mail system is the Royal mail. The British government is known as Her Majesty's government. The Prime Minister of her government lives in a terraced house – lest he/she forget his/her place and get ideas above his/her station. In contrast, a lone police officer stands outside, number 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister's residence whilst in office. Once elected, the leader of the winning party has to attend her palace to be appointed as Prime Minister of her government and be given permission to form Her Majesty's government. The Prime Minister then has to attend the Queen every single week that he/she is in office and in the country and keep her updated and informed of what is taking place. Other meetings may occur if she requests them. A final meeting takes place for the resignation of office. It makes no difference whatsoever whether the Prime Minister is male or female or how many MPs are male or female – the Queen is the head of the realm and in charge of the government and everything they do. All MPs were elected from pre-selected candidates approved by her. The same goes for the House of Lords who also have the final say on whether any bill can be passed into law. The original Common Law has been supplanted by Admiralty Law (The Queen's law) and all of the statutes are subject to this. The courts are controlled by the Crown Prosecution Service.

I neither have the time nor the inclination to continue writing pages and pages of this stuff, Steve - but I think there is more than enough here to make the point. Britain is ruled by a Matriarchy!

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 03, 2011:

I am very glad you did! Thank you, Earth Angel!

Earth Angel on July 03, 2011:

Blessings and Good Morning Again! This is such a GREAT Hub I hope you don't mind that I linked it in my Dancing in the Footsteps of Eve (book review) Hub! Blessings to you both! Earth Angel!

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 03, 2011:

Chhimed, thank you for watching the video even if you didn't like it! I don't see why you wish to point out that you were unimpressed with William as a speaker though. What does that contribute to this topic? Why does someone have to be gifted with the talent of public speaking to be impressive? Surely what is being talked about is what is important? Everything else is just dressing and show! William does not claim to be a public speaker or lecturer. He is a thinker, researcher and author. Perhaps you could be specific about what he has got wrong with regard to statistics and history?

Thanks, Fen!

fen lander from Whitstable on July 02, 2011:

Just a PS: I will be following William at hub pages from now on. I find his thinking fascinating. Definitely a man with his priorities right- he has published some of his books for free on the web. Good man!

Chhimed on July 02, 2011:

I watched William's Youtube video (embeded here) and found him unimpressive as a speaker, as, for one thing, he appears to be unconvinced by his own argument, which seriously undermines what he is saying and how it comes across to the listener. His incorrect quoting of statistics coupled with his weak knowledge of history and its causes and effects does not do his argument any favours. He also contradicts himself and just when his presentation started to get interesting right at the end of the video he immediately fizzles out with an irrational and illogical conclusion.

He touches on the subject that discussion of matriarchy amongst academics is taboo but fails to mention that this is a very recent phenomenon and that actually the discussion of matriarchy-vs-patriarchy and the benefits and pitfalls of each is a debate that has been ongoing for thousands of years. This would suggest that either he is not very knowledgeable about the subject or is selectively choosing only information that he feels supports his own point of view (in favour of his own idea of matriarchy) and pretends that all others do not exist.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 02, 2011:

I am so glad to have introduced you to Rasa! You will see an interview I published and another hub about her. Thank you for your post, Earth Angel!

Earth Angel on July 02, 2011:

What a GREAT Hub!

Voted up across the boards! Yep, William was right in what gets the attention!

This is the first I have heard of Guru Rasa! People have long thought of me as either a Nun or a Pole Dancer - which I find fascinating! Go Guru Rasa!

Thank you to you both, William (wabond) and Steve (Bard of Ely) for being so helpful and supportive of this issue! It warms my heart! And that of many women!

Blessings always, Earth Angel!

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 02, 2011:

Thank you too, Earth Angel!

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 02, 2011:

Thank you for sharing your experiences, Nellieanna! I am glad you appreciated this hub!

Earth Angel on July 02, 2011:

Ahhhhhhhh, I knew great minds would be found together! Two of my favorites! You have made my morning! Blessings, Earth Angel!

Nellieanna Hay from TEXAS on July 02, 2011:

Yes - I want to see more of this Mr. Bond, too. Thank you for the introduction, Steve.

My experience in a male-dominated business was similar to Paradise's. There was an absurdity which was almost humorous, had it not been so ludicrous.

My responsibility was to keep a very active flow of events, from the start of selling a modular building, to making sure the building plan was workable (including redoing much clumsy work by a staff of draftsmen in the Engineering Department over which I was "assistant" supervisor, while the professional engineer/head of the department trimmed his fingernails into the desk drawer and gazed out the window. When anything went amiss, the CEO/owner's fist pounded on my desk, not the titular head's!)

Then it was up to me to communicate with accounting for the costs to us and charges to customers involved , and with the buyer who might ask for countless revisions which I had to be sure were communicated to all those concerned, including the plant where the building was being built, to finally making sure delivery was scheduled as appropriate and that all the loose ends were done up. These modular buildings were complicated, ranging from hospitals to schoolrooms, to lake cottages to construction site offices. Nothing was impossible.

Often it was necessary to converse with salesmen, plant managers, accountants and customers, who evidently complained to the owner/CEO that I was too bossy. I was told I had to cool it. So I devised a more objective checklist on which to alert the inside people what needed to be corrected, and this often had to be repeated several times in order for it to happen, all of which I had to - very diplomatically - see to it that it was done.

In another instance, the CEO asked me to devise a flow chart of how these various parts should be so as to run smoothly. I did it and presented it, but it was virtually brushed off at a Department Heads meeting. So I came up with another way to present it. Instead of rectangular "boxes" for each stop along the paths, I enclosed them in football-shaped fields. Immediately it was lauded as a really GOOD flow chart, even though nothing inside the 'footballs' had changed!

In addition I was responsible for designing small "stock" buildings and being sure their plans were current and being followed at the plants. I devised ways of updating hundreds of such plans more simply (it was prior to computer usage, when everything had to be drawn and figured manually). There were five plants around the country needing updates, which posed a large challenge, and being sure they implemented the plans was also part of my job. That was how I fell in love with my George - he was able to communicate what my plans required to a plant manager who virtually disregarded my explanations in person at one of the plants.

Of course, my salary and title were mediocre, compared to those of these other members of the group who were men. I was sometimes accused of being "too detailed" and thorough. There was no other way to juggle it all than to be systemic and very observant! I began to feel those must be female traits! haha.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 02, 2011:

Thanks for posting, Fen, and why not follow William here at his hub page?

fen lander from Whitstable on July 01, 2011:

Very interesting stuff, not something I've given much thought to,but maybe now is the time. I'm gonna go check Mr Bond's Blogs out.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 01, 2011:

It is very much appreciated!

Xavier Nathan from Isle of Man on July 01, 2011:

You are more than welcome. I don't give them out that easily either.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 01, 2011:

Thank you for your compliments, Spirit Whisperer!

Xavier Nathan from Isle of Man on July 01, 2011:

I love the way you think and your sense of fair play and justice oozes from every hub you write. I love the way you could see past the stripper and recognise the wonderful message from such a brave and amazing woman as Guru Rasa. This is a reflection of your own character and integrity. I am very honoured to be associated with you as a follower.

Steve Andrews (author) from Lisbon, Portugal on July 01, 2011:

Thank you for your feedback, Paradise7, confirming how unfairly the world has been and is run!

Paradise7 from Upstate New York on July 01, 2011:

Interesting. I still remember (though I am retired now) how very difficult it was to be a woman in the business world. I was an accountant, and dealt with corporate accounting and finances. It was definitely true that anything a woman said was given much less weight than what a man said in that environment. I often found my statements ignored or dismissed, until a man repeated them as his own; then they got the attention of the CFO's and company Presidents. It was very difficult for me to accept that I was less credible simply because I was a woman. The men treated me like a sex object--so they couldn't take me and my work seriously.

I was very dedicated, very honest in my business appraisals, and this didn't help me, either. Numbers don't lie but I saw some spin-doctoring that I thought was both appallingly self-serving and blatantly dishonest.

I'm glad I left the corporate business world several years ago. I wouldn't return on a bet--unless women were running the show.

Related Articles