TED Conversations

John Moonstroller


This conversation is closed.

Would a Matriarchal Society offer a better shot at developing a world of Peace and Harmony?

Men have ruled the world since the dawn of time. Only in very limited situations have women ruled over men and called all the shots.

Would it change the world in a more meaningful way if women only were allowed to be leaders in a country? In essence, I saying what if men and women changed roles in today's world? Would it create a better opportunity to create a world of peace and harmony?

If the roles of men and women were exchanged, except for giving birth to children, would it be possible that they could create a better world for humans to live and prosper? I don't mean that the role of feminism and masculinity should be exchanged. I'm asking what if there were no Kings, just Queens.

Please no Cuss Words or inflammatory remarks made about other peoples religions.
Thank you.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Sep 8 2012: The servant does things to survive in the master's world. The slave will do anything to survive in their masters world.

      Women will do what they must to survive in a man's world. But if men willingly allow women to run the world, I don't think they will be as brutal to people as men are to their fellow humans.

      The world is what it is and we are discussing ways to make it better. A shift in the way women are treated in business and politics might be such a way to accomplish this. Women in countries where they are suppressed by Religion like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States and Europe, will have to continue to fight to obtain their freedom from the bondage of man. Why not give them a hand up?

      In the United States, the Christians believe that women should allow men to rule their homes and lives while the men are the "Fathers" of the family likened unto a God. Isn't that very convient, God said that is the way it should be.

      If we in the western world think that women are the equal of men in logic and reason, then we should practice what we preach. We should take offense, openly with those religions and countries that subjugate their women and bag them up in sacks for the sole purpose of domination, like bags of rice or wheat.

      I agree that women need to be protected (they are the only path into the future) but like a policeman protects their partner, so should it be with women and men. But, I suggest we take it one step further and allow women to rule the world and let men take a break from all the fighting and meditate on the good things in life like raising a family, tending the garden, and creating a home for their tired wives who spend the whole day at the office creating a world of peace and harmony.

      I really do think that women could do a better job. Unless it is put into effect, we will never know. Perhaps we don't really need to "allow" women anything. They just might take it for themselves. Should we institutionalize the Matriarchal system?
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2012: That is a very biased look at the United States... We are not a religious country, and we do not hold women down. The US Womens Olympic team won more medals than all but 3 nations... The men didn't even do that well.

        Women graduate from high school, and college at much higher rates than men in the United States... They are less likely to be unemployed. You can't listen to radio hosts that target small towns in the south, and then say "that's America". If you ask most Islamic fundamentalists what they hate most about America"Their women keep them like dogs on a leash."

        Women do still make less money, and hold less positions of power, but again I have to mention how many men in "power", lose half their money to wives that haven't contributed very much to society. There are 2 sides to the tale of oppression. There is "We weren't allowed to work", and there's "We did most of the work, but you got to spend half the money". Both arguments were logical, though we see one as sexist now.

        When African people were oppressed, they did more work, and got less money. When women were oppressed they did less work, and got more money... It's strange to say the least.
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2012: I guess I lost th whole post.

          David. I know you have heard of the Far Christian Right in political circles. Most of these people vote and take active interest in politics. They are composed of mainly Baptist, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal Trinity , and Pentecostal Oneness churches. I will have to group he Mormon Church in there because where women are concerned, they have similar concepts about what a woman's role is in home and society.

          They put the man in charge of the home and all social events. They do not believe that women should vote (though they think it is okay if she votes as her husband tells her to). Because of hardship the have no qualms about women working but in a good economy they believe she should stay at home. They believe that women should not put herself in the role of a man, that is preaching, being a pastor of a church, etc. The don't believe that women should wear pants. They don't believe that women should have higher education, etc. Some are even against women wearing Makeup. These Religious organizations make up the majority of the Religions in the US.

          Most Islamic fundamentalists treat women more as property than as people. I'm not sure why you even brought up that argument.

          The cold hard facts are that women are passed over for promotions and do make less money than men doing the same job.

          Are you familiar with the Rockefeller's stance on the late Feminist movement was? This video will explain it. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN05DHO9bJw

          This video by Arron Russo is very revealing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gwcQjDhZtI

          You know who the late Aaron Russo was right?
        • thumb
          Sep 18 2012: Re this; 'Women do still make less money, and hold less positions of power, but again I have to mention how many men in "power", lose half their money to wives that haven't contributed very much to society.'

          This has nothing to do with matriarchy but everything to do with a social order based on dominance and control of commodities. True equality does exist in a matriarchy because social order is based on need, collaborative functions, and inclusiveness. The nearest model we have to in todays terminologies would be anarchism. Yes, we do need to evolve toward such societies if we are to survive. And when I say evolve, I mean at warp speed.
    • Sep 10 2012: Knowing Montreal.
      And the divorce courts, I am inclined to agree with your explanation

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.