Suppose we switched from Patriarchy to Matriarchy?
"Patriarchy" seems to be a popular buzzword among the feminists. If there is a situation which a feminist finds annoying, particularly where gender differences are concerned, a standard tactic seems to be to frame the situation in terms of a "patriarchy" which unjustly oppresses women.
Having looked this up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy#Feminist_theory
If there were a situation where a non-feminist felt annoyed, where gender differences were concerned, would it be fair game for a non-feminist to rail against the "matriarchy?" For example, the illegality of prostitution. Is this due to a matriarchal conspiracy designed to oppress men?
And, suppose we switched from a patriarchal to a matriarchal society. How would things be different? Would the matriarchy develop social mechanisms to exert female dominance over men? Are we moving in that direction? Or, has this already happened, and we just haven't figured it out yet?
It is as dumb as blaming Allah for hurricanes. You can't blame something on something that does not exist.
_________________
.
It is as dumb as blaming Allah for hurricanes. You can't blame something on something that does not exist.
Patriarchy and Matriarchy are human-defined and human-imagined constructs. Being annoyed is also a human-defined construct. I could blame one human-defined construct on another human-defined construct.
Well, I could blame a matriarchal or gynarchal conspiracy, and, I don't know, maybe march around with my pants off, or start an internet campaign.
thomas81
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
On the whole I'd say that we are still in a patriarchal society. Women are often paid less than their male counterparts across the board for the same jobs and some countries have awfully inconsistent gender treatment in the eyes of the law (the islamic world particularly). Sure there is an increasingly misandrist objectivism of males in the media (men are seldomly referred to as a homogenous group with a positive light) but on the whole men haven't got that bad a deal - better job opportunities, better pay etc. We will continue to live in a patriarchal society as long as abortion is prohibited. You can't have a matriarchy under a system where women do not have full control over their own bodies.
It is as dumb as blaming Allah for hurricanes. You can't blame something on something that does not exist.
The Tlingit people of Alaska have always had a matriarchal society; and I've read repeatedly that the Finnish and the Sakha of Eastern Siberia have such a culture to this day. So while it's less common, it does (still) exist in isolated places.
The Goth subculture is probably the best example of a matriarchal subculture. And since it is widespread throughout the west you might even call it a *culture* of sorts although it's not officially so. So ArrantPariah, if you wonder what matriarchy might be like I suggest you hang out with Goths and go to their clubs and events.
Can you describe the Goths for us?
Can you describe the Goths for us?
g00gle i5 ur fr13nd, d00d
thomas81
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
Women would, I'm less sure that men would be.
I don't want a gender elitist society of either side. I want gender neutrality.
I also want to see the end of chauvinist attitudes towards the agendered and transgendered.
3rd wave feminists tend to be for the legalization and regulation of prostitution - not for men's sakes, but for the women involved. Illegal prostitution is incredibly dangerous for the prostitutes, and if it were legalized and regulated (think the registered companions a la Firefly), it would probably be more respected and safer.
I think that women would be better off under matriarchy, men worse off: zero sum. I don't remember who said it, but there's a feminist quote out there: 'The opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy, but fraternity.'
Last edited by LKL on 27 Oct 2012, 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
thomas81
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
3rd wave feminists tend to be for the legalization and regulation of prostitution - not for men's sakes, but for the women involved. Illegal prostitution is incredibly dangerous for the prostitutes, and if it were legalized and regulated (think the registered companions a la Firefly, it would probably be more respected and safer.
Illegalisation of prostitution does nothing but criminalise the women who are dependent on it as an income.
It doesnt protect women, on the contrary serves to drive it underground where it is the domain of abusive and violent pimps.
The prohibition of prostitution is actually a patriarchal phenomenon.
Somewhat related: an anthropologist ranked countries by how masculine or feminine they were. He says Japan is the most masculine country and Sweden is the most feminine:
Iceland is also an interesting case in feminist leadership:
While activists in Britain battle on in an attempt to regulate lapdance clubs – the number of which has been growing at an alarming rate during the last decade – Iceland has passed a law that will result in every strip club in the country being shut down. And forget hiring a topless waitress in an attempt to get around the bar: the law, which was passed with no votes against and only two abstentions, will make it illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees.
Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold." When I asked her if she thinks Iceland has become the greatest feminist country in the world, she replied: "It is certainly up there. Mainly as a result of the feminist groups putting pressure on parliamentarians. These women work 24 hours a day, seven days a week with their campaigns and it eventually filters down to all of society."
Johanna Sigurðardottir is Iceland's first female and the world's first openly lesbian head of state. Guðrún Jónsdóttir of Stígamót, an organisation based in Reykjavik that campaigns against sexual violence, says she has enjoyed the support of Sigurðardottir for their campaigns against rape and domestic violence: "Johanna is a great feminist in that she challenges the men in her party and refuses to let them oppress her."
Then there is the fact that feminists in Iceland appear to be entirely united in opposition to prostitution, unlike the UK where heated debates rage over whether prostitution and lapdancing are empowering or degrading to women. There is also public support: the ban on commercial sexual activity is not only supported by feminists but also much of the population. A 2007 poll found that 82% of women and 57% of men support the criminalisation of paying for sex – either in brothels or lapdance clubs – and fewer than 10% of Icelanders were opposed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... st-country
_________________
"Meaninglessness inhibits fullness of life and is therefore equivalent to illness. Meaning makes a great many things endurable ? perhaps everything.?
Having looked this up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy#Feminist_theory
If there were a situation where a non-feminist felt annoyed, where gender differences were concerned, would it be fair game for a non-feminist to rail against the "matriarchy?" For example, the illegality of prostitution. Is this due to a matriarchal conspiracy designed to oppress men?
And, suppose we switched from a patriarchal to a matriarchal society. How would things be different? Would the matriarchy develop social mechanisms to exert female dominance over men? Are we moving in that direction? Or, has this already happened, and we just haven't figured it out yet?
You cant rail against something that doesnt exist ( or doesnt exist yet). An anti-feminist cant complain about 'matriarchy' because it doesnt exist.