Suppose we switched from Patriarchy to Matriarchy?

Post Reply New Topic

http://thesaurus.com/browse/sorority


They are both synonyms and antonyms.

Our society is patriarchal, but not to the extent that many feminists make it out to be. I find it ridiculous that feminists try and blame all the world's issues on "the patriarchy", it's like conspiracy theorists blaming the New World Order.

So...should the ideal of brotherhood be called "fratriarchy"?

most men can't have an objective view of the matriarchy. Even if we would be better off under a matriarchy most men would be opposed to a matriarchy because it threatens their power. Is power for the sake of power worth giving up on a better way to live? For me all power does is give me anxiety attacks so its not worth the temporary drug like rush.

It's not the loss of power that would worry me about a matriarchy. It's the fact that women could take advantage of the power given to them. Male oppression would increase.

If we "switched" to matriarchy, the problem would be the same. The fact that men dominate women is not in itself the problem. The problem is when any group dominates any other group, especially when it is nigh-impossible to change from one group to the other.

I don't think I would characterize my society as "patriarcal". There is a relative equality between men and women. In some situations, women have advantages over men. Yes, there are inequalities, or rather differences, but in total, I don't think the gap is that large between men and women.

I think social realities are more complex than the word "patriarchy" wants them to be. Even though, sometimes (often) men have had a number of privileges over women, sometimes extensive privileges, it would be simplistic to say baldly that they dominated women. Women in the past were not the passive object of male domination, but had their own "power", their own power in their own way, especially within the family. Sadly, most of our sources for the past were written by men, so it's difficult to see the point of view of women, but it does not mean that women were necessarly oppressed and kept away from knowledge.

What is interesting is that feminism in general uses the traditionnal "masculine" criteria of power (which emphasize political and economic power) to assess what women lack, as opposed to traditionnally "feminine" criteria (influence over children, for example), which are downplayed to insignificance even though. I don't know what to make of this. Let me stress that I don't see this as hypocrisy, rather as a proof of how, in the past two centuries, men have pervaded and shaped society like never before -- literally, because before then, there was a relative equilibrium between men and women.

I don't think that the "men are bigger than women, so men oppress women" argument stands. It is very simplistic. In the end, society must include both willful men and willful women to function at all. It must be stressed that, in the past, a number of structural disadvantages played against women, especially in the economic, possibly political sphere. High mortality during youth meant that each woman had to give birth to about 6 children just to maintain a stable population. A lot of women died in childbirth as well. Unfair though it was, separating tasks between men and women was necessary in terms of familial economy. Nowadays, this is much less true, especially in the West.

If women took over I don't think they would dominate men but would have a different style of management. It is usually men that insist on domination.

I think it is that pervasive.

I know it looks crazy when someone is dreaming of a radical change to the way society is ordered, but I'm happy to look crazy.

Men are more than welcome to share in influence within the familial and domestic sphere, imo - if they want it. I don't often see evidence that they do, but maybe in many generations time, that will change. I would like power to be shared between the sexes in all spheres.

Here in Quebec, at the very least, they do, it seems. At the very least, domestic tasks are divided between partners. Both parents can benefit equally from parental leave to take care of newborn children. How this is split varies, but it is managed by bilateral negociation between parents.

Things are changing already, I think.

A woman who makes her man feel powerful, and feel like he's the one she'll turn to for certain things he absolutely loves to be in charge of, is often reciprocated by his obligations to keep her happy. It is a strange transfer of power in both directions, she's more powerful in his eyes for having a role or need he can fulfill for her, and feels like a king, and she, who gave up some of her power and equality, can get him to do many things for her.

The above view isn't my own, I forgot the name of the guy who said it, and he said it more brilliantly, of course this was a few years back. Allison Armstrong has also touched on this social dynamic between the sexes, and yes, I do see it played out in sitcoms, in real life relationships, etc, but I can't fully define it myself.

Many of these "radical" changes in how society is ordered that you dream about are already happening.........You just don't notice them. But many others here on WP do.

Well, I've heard of certain chemicals in water and found in plastics used in drink bottles and a plastic lining in aluminum cans that supposedly becomes estrogen or makes your body make more of it or something like that, and I've heard that since those things have started being used, they've noticed physical changes to the male body indicating that it's "feminizing" us. Now what exactly that means, I'm not sure.

But what I know is in most relationships I see, the man is at the mercy of some angry woman who makes all the rules and makes a huge fuss whenever he doesn't call or doesn't answer the phone or tries to go out drinking with his friends, etc. It's like everything must be done to please her, and it doesn't matter what he thinks.

Everything in my house growing up was pretty much run to my mom's specifications. Even my dad, when we would "misbehave," he'd threaten to go get my mom. I can think of countless examples of this sort of relationship from friends, coworkers, neighbors, etc. I know of a lot of women whose mentality is "I have the vagina, so I make the rules" and will use it as a bargaining chip to gain control of the relationship. I don't know if it matters at all, but most of the teachers and bosses I've had throughout my life were female.

When I worked in a grocery store bakery, every time I would leave the room to go to the bathroom or go get an ingredient I needed to do my job, the (female)boss would immediately start complaining about me not being there and asking where I was. I was the only male there, and i was the only one she did this to. She would also complain about ridiculous s**t on a daily basis. She'd freak out the second I left the room but would say nothing about the other employees leaving huge messes(often times safety hazards) in their wake.

Of course, I can think of a lot of examples of as*hole guys who just didn't give a s**t and would use the woman like a blow-up doll too. That is, he wouldn't care to spend time with her or show her any sort of respect, and he pretty much only acted nice if at all, to get laid.

Here's what I know for sure: There is no evidence of any such patriarchy. Things are unequal for both sexes, in different situations. For sure, women WERE oppressed in the past, and I'm not saying it NEVER happens anymore today, but men are not all part of some secret anti-woman club. We don't all benefit whenever a woman IS oppressed, and we don't all agree with it either. AND, as a result of the past oppression of women(which most currently living males have had f**k all to do with), we now have women whose mission it is to oppress men, and many others who think it's perfectly justified. The last time I checked, I can't do anything about something that happened before I existed, so I fail to see why I should be held responsible for what my ancestors may or may not have done.

Thankfully, I have a girlfriend who isn't one of those women. She does sort of run the house, but not like it's a dictatorship. I have to usually ask if it's okay to do something before I do it(within reason). But that's fine by me because it's her house anyway(she's lived here for 14 years, and her parents owned it before her), and she makes more money than I do. And I'd normally ask her before doing most of those things anyway. And thank god, she doesn't think her vagina is a bargaining chip. She's never threatened to withhold sex to get something she wants.

I second the statement in bold. A lot of socially conservative republican politicians make astoundingly stupid remarks about the abortion issue.

But I sincerely doubt that more than half American men, particularly those who aren't religious, are necessarily anti-abortion.

I think one of the reasons there is so much whining about "the patriarchy" from certain feminists is that cultivating their victim status and acting weak seems to help them(and plenty of other women) get what they want. Especially from men.

I could say the exact same thing, but insert the word "men" instead of women, and it would be a completely true statement.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQwQ8AW_WYc[/youtube]

Let us rejoice...

For those of you who watch this and think the cop is in the wrong(and I guarantee there will be many of you JUST because he's a man and he hit a woman, despite the fact that she struck first), I have a few words for you: "Don't start none, won't be none." She had it coming. End of story. No, I don't believe it's "right" to hit women. I don't believe it's right for ANYONE to hit ANYONE. That s**t goes both ways.