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.

  • thumb
    Sep 18 2012: Many people are confused about the nature of Matriarchy.

    Matriarchy is not a mere reversal of the current Patriarchial system, which is based on control, ownership, commodities, dominance and power hierarchies. It goes without saying that in our current Patriarchial system EITHER women OR men can be part of the power group or conversely, various stages of the under classes.

    Matriarchy is actually the antithesis of this system, therefore Matriarchy is NOT based on dominance and heirarchy but collaboration, cooperation, and inclusiveness. In fact this was our natural system for most of human development and is the natural system for other primates today.

    It is called Matriarchy because unlike the Patriarchial 'dominant warrior' model, Matriarchy is based around the family group first, in which both males and females have EQUAL power and roles. We still have Matriarchies on the planet today and they have strikingly beautiful characteristics.

    Here is some of them:

    1. They are VERY stable societies (i.e. people are happy!)
    2. There is a LOW INCIDENCE or non existence of violent crime.
    3. Rape is unheard of.
    4. Sexually liberal for both women and men.
    5. Low incidence of mental health issues.
    • thumb
      Sep 18 2012: You have educated me very well Ms. Donovan. I would love to live in such a society as you describe in your 5 points.

      Please continue.
      • thumb
        Sep 18 2012: Matriarchy in some form is evidenced among some of the peoples of Asia and Africa, such as those of the Minangkabau, E De (Rhade), Mosuo, Berbers and Tuareg and, in Europe, e.g., Sardinian people among others.

        Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin say in "The Answer is Matriarchy":"When we hear the word 'matriarchy', we are conditioned to a number of responses: that matriarchy refers to the past and that matriarchies have never existed; that matriarchy is a hopeless fantasy of female domination, of mothers dominating children, of women being cruel to men. Conditioning us negatively to matriarchy is, of course, in the interests of patriarchs. We are made to feel that patriarchy is natural; we are less likely to question it, and less likely to direct our energies to ending it."

        Actually if you think about it though, and study some anthropology, ancient iconography and a bit of history, another story begins to unfold. Within this story is quite a deal of hope for humankind. The system that we hold to has only been in place about six thousand years. It began with the first Neolithic farms, with the first fence. It began when the natural process of birth control began to be circumvented by the need to produce offspring to work the land. Thenceforth in some societies, women too became a commodity. Where competition came to dominate, the need to protect property arose and led to heirarchies and the rise of the hero or warrior cult and militarisation.

        And yet, not all societies who chose the route to farming totally reliquished the Matriarchial model and elevated the warrior to dominant status. The answer to why this is, or more importantly, why some many societies DID transition to Patriarchy is very interesting. Unless you like long long discussions....perhaps better not to get me started, lol.
        • thumb
          Sep 18 2012: The problem here... however is that matriarchy, in this sense, can only exist, by out innovating a patriarchal society in terms of weapons development... Something a matriarchal society never chooses to focus much energy on... unfortunately.

          So, in my mind, the systems are yin and yang... You need some of us brutes to build the weapons for when the patriarchal societies attack. You must remember that it is inherently natural for apex predator species males, to dominate everything they see. In order to get men to participate in society, there need to be certain concessions made... Private property being number one.

          The problem with matriarchy as a theory, is that men simlpy won't tolerate it... More than anything else... Men, often want to be left alone, an incredibly difficult thing in matriarchal society.
      • thumb
        Sep 18 2012: @David Hamiliton, you see your reply is conditioned by Patriarchy. Men are not brutes, nor do we need weapons built by them or any other member of society. You are right though, when you highlight the problem of transition. In fact this very problem is why Patriarchy exists at all, when in fact some early Matriarchies were often more advanced and sophisticated than early contemporary Patriarchies, which came to dominate them. There is a problem here for sure, but it I am sure, we can find a solution.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: Okay, I'm going to write a long response to this, and it's going to be a bit of a dark and winding voyage... but first... Like Andres, I am very happy to see you back Joanne. It's always a pleasure having these types of conversations with you specifically because we see things so similarly.. yet so differently, it's always a pleasure.

          Second... Fundamental premise check "in fact some early Matriarchies were often more advanced and sophisticated than early contemporary Patriarchies, which came to dominate them"

          No... They weren't... They didn't have any of the cool labor saving gadgets, that we now all take for granted. Despite the misuse of these gadgets, without them, people could be nowhere near, as happy, healthy, or progressive, as they are today. What made these inventions come into being?

          Well obviously, part of my answer is going to be, competition amongst males for high value sexual targets. "I bring you pretty stone, you not sleep with bigger, scarier, dumber guy?"... But I'll expand a bit more in response to one of your other comments : )
    • thumb
      Sep 18 2012: Hello Joanne... how i missed reading your comments!

      Question for you... does the definition of Matriarchy also include a less rigid sense of the relation mother-child?

      I seem to recall reading that in some pre-hispanic cultures in America (continent), women in the communities used to take care of groups of children without making a strong distinction on who was whose mother. You can still see a somewhat similar behavior in many small villages in Mexico, where aunts, cousins and grandmothers take care of generations of offspring as a group without making a clear family lineage distinction between them

      Just curious to know your thoughts on that.

      • thumb
        Sep 18 2012: Yes likewise Andres and you too David Hamilton.

        Yes Andres, you highlight another characteristic of these societies. Homogeneous groups develop. The term for 'mother' can be applied to any woman within the group of a certain age group, especially an aunt. Sometimes the word 'father' is not known, with uncles playing a more important role in the raising of offspring. Sometimes the word 'I' is not known, and only the word 'we'. Also I would apply the word 'brother' to all men about my age within the incest taboo, and the word 'sister' to all females about my age.

        Some of the customs can still be observed among Polynesian peoples today (we have a lot of these communities here in New Zealand) and are certainly well evidenced by the Europeans who first encountered these peoples in the 1800's. (then proceeded to destroy their communities with European patriarchial world view).
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: When I was a child, it was common for all the kids, which gathered together in groups, to all be watered at one kids home or disciplined by one kids parent(s). It was understood in the community, usually on a small scale, say one block of houses, that this type of communal behavior was tolerated.

        Like a small village. This was the inner city environment in which I was raised, in the U.S.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: Yes John, I know what you re talking about. Its still in all of us, isnt it.
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: "Matriarchy, is not merely a reversal of the current patriarchal system."

      Okay, as a man, born into my generation, I think it's time some of us start getting honest about this issue... You may have been born into a partriarchal society... I was born into a society so torturously matriarchal, that I actually believe it is immoral to have a son. I think it's immoral to reproduce, in general, because of overpopulation... but, if overpopulation wasn't an issue... I already think this is such a female dominated society, that I would feel sorry for any man I brought into this world who wasn't born rich.

      That is the real genuine emotion coming out of my generation of Americans, and that is why were are the most drug addled, pill popping, drunkard, and suicidal generation of men, in decades. Are these personal emotions? Yes, but I've asked other men, and it's not just me... Why don't men say anything... Well... They want to have sex of course.

      What do I mean by torturously matriarchal?

      Well.. Our school system, is based on group work rather than individual achievment, and men have been dropping out of it, in increasing numbers for 3 decades. Psychological studies proved that men would react poorly to group work, because they respond well to individual competition... but those studies were deemed sexist. So we're never going to have a functional school system for men... Ever again.

      Social security, and Medicare aren't sexist... Except for the fact that women live so much longer than men... that African American, and Hispanic men, now actually have a life expectancy below the payout date of both programs. Most men pay an enormous tax their entire life, for a program they will never benefit from.

      Finally what you call a "difficult transition"... I call women sending millions of more men, off to murder millions of patriarchs, to enforce a system, that doesn't even benefit the men who die... and might not work at all, because it hasn't been tried in millenia...
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: First response to David: well lucky I dont have to be into work early this morning! Plenty of great stuff to discuss here, which I too have missed.

        Most of your comments stem from your patriarchial world view, which is set firmly in all of us. Its going to be a bit like trying to convince someone of the ocean who has never seen it David. First let me say, yes you would do very well in a Matriarchy. Sexual frustration and competition for women is much less because there is less or no pressure on the women to remain 'owned' by one man. Relationships are more fluid and a hallmark of these societies is the often have more than one type of 'marriage', sometimes many many kinds.

        But back to our discussion, this remark you made is a clear example of a patriarchial world view; 'So what really bothers me here, is that the idea that matriarchy is peaceful, and stable... Is also paired, with the fact that millions of men, have to kill millions of other men, in order for them to not kill the women who enforce it.' This is a system NOT based on competition, they are by and large NOT militarised.

        The entire way of living in the world is different. Its competition for resources and the need to dominate and control them that eforces hierarchy and militarisation. Its hard to imagine such a place, but they do and have existed even up until today. And history has shown us they can be more sophisticated in terms of technology than their patriarchial rivals. The main problem is how does a system based on holistic collaboration survive next to one based on competition? Tibet v China for example. This is and was always the essential problem. Ask the Iroquoi and the Hopi.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: Exactly... This system, can only exist, after we kill all the violent psychopaths, religious zealots, and patriarchs... who are willing to die, and murder the innocent to maintain control of women.
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: So what really bothers me here, is that the idea that matriarchy is peaceful, and stable... Is also paired, with the fact that millions of men, have to kill millions of other men, in order for them to not kill the women who enforce it. Also, We're doing this already. The west is already at war with patriarchy... and I'm not a fan of it. Seriously though, since we're dying in this war... can't we at least get credit for being a matriarchy? Or do we have to keep saying men are in charge too?

      This is the society I grew up in... one in which a woman says that women are better at "coalition building, group work, problem solving, multi tasking"... and well basically everything... and then Jon Stewart jokes "Well, someone's still gotta screw in the lightbulbs" to which he recieves a sexist boo.
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, makes a great case for the issues poised in this debate. Great Video David.
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: Second response to David Hamilton; to further elaborate on the concept of militarisation. If you live in a non-militarised society, you would probably be among a people who see the world in a very different way. They might understand that loss of life, animal or human, and the violation of the earth and air, is a violation of the nurturing priniciple essential to all life including their own.

        If you grew up among this kind of society, how would you view jumping on a horse or in a tank to go and slaughter your neighbour? You would not do it. You and your community would take all steps to avoid it.

        And please be aware, a person born among such a community does not make a moral descison, its not a decision taken AGAINST their TRUE nature, instead, they act from their original humanity; a deep feeling of security and love for the family and environment.

        Its a feeling born in all of us. Its further fostered or rather left intact, if we are then raised in a place where we FEEL nurtured, unviolated, and deeply safe. Its hard for us to even comprehend such a thing. I can hear you say 'yes yes, I saw that movie, it's la la land. The sky is pink there'. But I can tell you , I have witnessed such things. I know they exist, even today.

        The problem arises when your neighbour grows the attitude for whatever reason, that it would be easier to steal your corn and daughters than grow and make his own. This is the age old problem and the point at the heart of your comments.

        In fact, I have no answer for you, except to say, if we dont figure it out soon....well. Its probably curtains for us.

        We who study matriarchy, or similar holistic systems, view patriarchy as a sickness that once it began to spread, could not be stopped, and perhaps cannot be stopped, due to the militarisation principle. Once that begins, communities are forced to capitulate and pick up a weapon, or die, or both.
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: Oh, and I forgot of course, what I alluded to in my short response...

      What do you mean by sexually liberal?

      Because if you mean that good men, and good women, who are productive, and generous, will have their wives and husbands, sleep with whomever they feel like sleeping with... That sounds like a hell for good men to me...
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: Third response to David; long is good. Its important to remember that matriarchial systems are a SYSTEM, as you have heard me say many times, SYSTEMS facilitate certain human behaviours. Matriarchy is just a word, (dont load too much of the feminine stereotype into it) that describes a system based more on our natural human responses to each other and environment, our natural animal contentment and love (again a loaded word but sorry, there IS no substitute).

        Our current violence based system, works against and destroys our basic human responses. Hence the plethora of mental illnesses and the basic sense of un-happiness that pervades our 'advanced' communities today.
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: Well David this deserves a fourth reply; '...gadgets, without them, people could be nowhere near, as happy, healthy, or progressive, as they are today. What made these inventions come into being?Well obviously, part of my answer is going to be, competition amongst males for high value sexual targets. "I bring you pretty stone, you not sleep with bigger, scarier, dumber guy?"

        Vintage David, and I love it, lol. BUT let me ask you, so no competition among males no useful gadgets? Lets just make it clear, first sexual competition is not the only motivation that causes humans to create stuff, and its not only the competitive males who come up with such creations, (shame on you David, :).

        Then of course, I have not suggested that there is no need for each sex to display skills in order to attract a partner . In these societies both sexes do exhibit behaviours, in order to make the opposite sex notice them. Plenty of room for hunting skills, dancing skills, and no doubt, the odd gadget or two.

        Perhaps you want to argue that only in a crucible of violent capitalist (patriarchial) competition, could the wonders of our modern 'progressive' world be wrought? Only in this fusion, could such an explosion of development come about? Perhaps you are right but I don't think so. I think we are transfixed by our recent history, so enamoured by its glamour we are blind to what might have been, or in fact what even perhaps HAS been.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: What I am saying, is that capitalism is the first non violent competition system ever invented... and from that invention, came a new invention... Nerds, who survive, and reproduce with attractive partners. Intelligent people, who have respect, in masculline society, because, they did things with their mind other men could not do, which made other peoples partners happy.

          There is absolutely no value to gaining skill, if you are not also symetric, and attractive, in the society you describe. Nerds will go back to being cuckolds, if they survive at all.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: Actually, if we make it another 20 years... maybe nerds will have sex with robots : p

          This message, brought to you by... The Space Pope!
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • +2
    Sep 7 2012: I read a book called "When God was a Woman". It used archeological evidence to show that all cultures began with goddess worship.

    BUT - this being said, I would have said yes ten years ago, but given how insane the world is today, I'm not so quick to agree. Women are now just as stupid as men. They no longer have time to ponder world affairs as they hang clothes or scrub the floors or nurse the baby. Now they spend much of their thinking time in service to businesses. This takes them away from genuine family interactions, which is a valuable learning experience. TV thinks for them, and those mega corporations who own TV news build an agenda into what they offer, so real information is largely absent. Quality is gone and money replaces all.
  • Sep 13 2012: Well I'm from Argentina, and our president is a woman. I can say because of what i see that it makes no difference if the president is female or male.
    Our president and a media group (clarin) have opposite interests, and they have divided people into followers of the president's party and followers of the media group. Any site or place with politics-related content, is flooded with insults and that kind of things.
  • Sep 10 2012: I would say no, our history has proven that when women come into power, a few turn completely crazy from power and often feel the need to impress their male colleges by being harder than them. And taking directly from our patriarchal society and crossing it over, there would be many more of the bad women getting into control than that of the good.

    Seeing how some women react around each other also suggests to me that this would be a very scary world to live in if we where matriarchal society.

    Also in regards to another poster, who said diplomacy may be simpler, I 100% disagree, I know too many girls who backstab, speak terribly of each other and stuff like that.
    • thumb
      Sep 10 2012: Scott, What history are speaking of? When were women in control of the planet? If I understand you correctly, your saying that men should not allow women into leadership roles where men could, theoretically, be pushed out of leadership positions?

      Do you suggest that men backstab, speak terribly of each other less than women?

      To summarize, you think that men should not relinquish control of traditional male roles to women. Is this correct?
      • Sep 11 2012: I figure that you where arguing for a matriarchal society being more peaceful, etc. I am merely saying that I completely disagree.

        The history I am speaking of comes primarily from WW2 Germany, where in cases where women came into a prominant position, they where often by far more cruel.
        Wu Zetian of China was believed to have killed and exiled many on her way to the top
        Isabella I of castelle helped start the Spanish inquisition (thats even money her husband helped with it too)
        Catherine the Great conspired against her husband, reinforced serfom, and brutally crushed many revolts.
        This is a 15 minute list, but I want to make it clear I am not against women being in power, I am saying that if it was ONLY women in power it would be a bad thing, because generally I view women as being more petty than men essentially, not to mention much better at backstabbing and such
        • thumb
          Sep 11 2012: Wu Zetian's violence appeared to be focused primarily on the ruling class as opposed to the peasantry. Any ruler, in the ancient Chinese dynastic framework, would pursue this path. Her personal leanings tended to be towards scholarship, and wisdom. If she formed her own dynasty and pursued these scholarly inclinations , perhaps it might haved influenced the culture of that time. We will never know. Her abilities as a woman were on par with most men in the ruling class and not in dispute.

          Wu Zetian was raised as a creature of the Chinese dynastic court. Catherine, the Great, was a product of nobility . Neither can be compared to women reared and imprinted in their formative years by modern democratic, idealist, influences.

          It is noted that you generally “...view women as being more petty than men essentially, not to mention much better at backstabbing and such …”

          I would ask, are you married?
      • Sep 11 2012: I am not married

        Wu Zetian did create her own dynasty I believe.
        • thumb
          Sep 11 2012: Why don't you check it out and edit this post if confirmed, Wikipedia was loaded with information about her and I don't want to read it all again. :)
    • Sep 10 2012: I agree, Scott. Though I have not done an objective study, I get the impression that women are more picky about the men and women they associate with, and count as being in their friend-circle.
      • thumb
        Sep 11 2012: Women have the nesting instinct that is more potent than in males.

        Men tend to keep their distance from people when they talk to them and hardly ever touch others.

        Women tend to do the opposite, standing closer to people and touching them to emphasize points and generally connect with whoever they are talking to. I would assume that some form of pre-analysis is taking place in their minds to determine how close they will get to the other person, based on their tendency to behave in this manner. In other words, women could be subconsciously prescreening people.

        Perhaps this is why husbands who appear more family oriented have a tendency to do the same thing, inheriting this behavior from their wives; it helps to protect the nest and nestlings.

        It may extend further out into their social network. I'm pretty picking about my social network, especially if kids are involved. I don't want any gigolos breathing around my wife either. :)
  • thumb
    Sep 7 2012: The state of the world today has little or nothing to do with gender.
    The choices, actions and decisions of men, either great or not, have been influenced by women, and will be influenced by them.
    And even if women are the rulers or leaders, they will be influenced by men.

    The state of the world is a humanity issue.
    • thumb
      Sep 7 2012: If that were true, Feyisayo, why do men spend so much time keeping women from obtaining positions at the top of the leadership chain? Why do they insist that women not be allowed real combat roles in times of war?

      I know many men who are stay at home dad's and do a great job of raising the kids, doing the laundry, cleaning the house while their wives work and make more money than they in the Job market. These men tell me their wives fight a constant battle at work, trying to achieve positions that are normally associated with men and are constantly passed over because they are women. Even more, they enjoy the role as home dad.

      Women are constantly having to use the court system to open doors closed to them, especially in the Military.
      • Sep 18 2012: Because the idea is that only men should be sent to die well the women live comfortably, also can you give any evidence of men actively preventing women reaching the upper echelons of business?
        • thumb
          Sep 18 2012: My Grandmother did not live such a comfortable life when her son was storming the islands in the pacific during WWII. She was tormented constantly. She told me when I was in Vietnam, she relived this all over again.

          A simply Google should provide you with ample evidence of men actively preventing women reaching the upper echelons of business Gracie, I'll leave google to answer your question, if you don't mind.
  • thumb
    Sep 20 2012: "For an article, on how statistics, and science, is now easy to deem sexist and racist... You'll get a laugh out of this one.."

    Only an expert would know for sure. :)

    I watched the video.......

    rural mindedness. Ah David. I hurt your feelings. I'm sorry. If you want to talk I have a chat room on my website. :)

    David. I have never doubted your integrity.
    I have never doubted your motives. Well, I did think you were a republican bot at one time. :)
    But those days are gone.
    David. My forum is called "Peace through Communications" It is something I very much believe in. I have sent messages to many people on TED and only one or two people have answered. The fact you on TED does not mean that this it the ultimate blog with no privacy issues, and they don't collect user data and use for "what ever".

    I'm still not sure your a republican agent. I work for such organizations during election time. My job is to engage people and get the message out.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Sep 20 2012: I'll just respond by editing my post above your head. :) This is too let you know im online.

        But you should also see my avatar in your profile page as someone who is currently logged on. There are so few aren't there? Such a waste of space.
        My son and I are going to create our own web-space with video, audio. ted content, etc, to make a playground for my grandchildren and relatives who are located all over the country.
        TED allows you use their content in a myrid of ways via thei API and CMS portals.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Sep 20 2012: You don't have to live there David. I have a son your age he is a member.

        It's a cool place or could be. Emphasis on the could be.

        It's very private and secure.

        anyway drop by, register and give it a twirl.

        I take it your getting my PM just not replying to them?

  • Sep 19 2012: "Would a Matriarchal Society offer a better shot at developing a world of Peace and Harmony?"

    No, sh*t floats to the top. The average characteristics of the gender that supplies the majority of politicians and bankers is irrelevant because both genders have enough bad apples.

    In a patriarchal society the worst men find a way to the top, in a matriarchal society the worst women find a way to the top and in our current Western society the worst men find a way to 2/3 of the top and the worst women find a way to 1/3 of the top.
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: I would actually disagree a touch... and to me, this is where things get really interesting...

      I would say the worst men find a way to half of the top positions. The best men find their way to 1/6 of the top positions. The worst women find a way on top of the 2/3 of men who have the tops positions... 1/6 of the worst women, make it to the top... and 1/6 of the best women make it to the top.
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: Interesting opinion David. It would be nice if you could supply some relevant facts associated with your numbers.
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: John Good try. But not enough. Your word association stinks. :) and your physics is incorrect.

  • Sep 18 2012: Black American Society is Matriarchal as the father does not have any role in the family or at least it is that way now. When black families were patriarchal during the time of Jim crow the crime rate of blacks was much lower and were a minority in the prison system even though the justice system was heavily biased against them. Now after they are far more equal with less bias in the justice system they now make up a majority of the criminals in the states. The reason why is that welfare came with the civil rights movement but it was targeted at single mothers, so women at the time decided to throw away their husbands to get a government check. The problem is that we now know that being raised by a single mother is the most important contributor to dysfunctional behavior and crime more than poverty or race. 85% percent of the youths in prison were raised by single mothers.
    • thumb
      Sep 18 2012: I understand you completely having lived in an apartment complex that was heavily multi-racial. I observed this behavior (in all the races) and have studied it. I see the results you speak of and use this knowledge when associating with younger racially diverse males. Most of them call me pops. :)

      Off the side, do you think doing away with the welfare program, as it was established, is helping to alleviate this social disorder and is creating a stronger, more patriarchal family system in these families today?
    • thumb
      Sep 18 2012: Connor Gracie: what you describe is neither patriarchial or matriarchial, instead you describe family dysfunctionality, or the breakdown of the family group, brought about by the contemporary urban environment and the extreme stress it places on each individual.

      The male, is often more socially mobile, therefore he may exit out of the stress. The female, if she is attached to her children, or the welfare cheque associated with them, cannot. Its the system that promotes this dysfunction.

      In fact, anthropologically speaking, the monogamous human male/female relationship first began as a collaboration between the (mostly but not totally )male bachelor hunter groups and the (mostly but not totally) female gatherer groups. The female group provided about sixty percent of the nutrition and it was a more stable source of nutrients too. She also developed, we believe, knowledge of plants and sowing, harvesting and propagation, while knowledge of animals probably developed among the men. The point is, our story between the sexes has always been one of collaboration for mutual benefit.

      What exists today, is often a story of the breakdown of the happy relationship as we descend further and further into the capitalist maw.
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: Joanne, in reply to "capitalist maw", do you suggest that capitalism has some influence in this idea?

        When I read your post, it suggests, to me, that the methods of obtaining substance was once mutual and now, because of the way we have developed "capitalism" trade, the suffering in ancient times, which produced this mutual connection has been eroded by capitalism.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: Hi John, re this 'do you suggest that capitalism has some influence in this idea?'. yes I do suggest this, but perhaps we should steer clear of this loaded term as it can cause metaphorical blindness.

          If we replace 'capitalism' with the word 'exploitation' or better still the word 'ownership', and the implications of violent control of resources therein, we might evolve a better understanding of the priniciples we are unravelling for discussion.
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: hu oh..... you never should have let David and Obey see that post. :)
        I get the message..... you can delete it now:
  • thumb
    Sep 18 2012: Goodby Noemie Dupont I'm afraid I didn't get past your second sentence. We have many children in here.
  • Sep 16 2012: John I've heard this before as have you; however, there are suppositions we make when asking this question like so manyh others that aren't true. I am just a peace time three(3) year vet. When I go to Marine alumni activities I notice that the combat vets are often missing things literally. I don't see how it would be fair to take the men out of the system and not impllement a program involving amazons. Let's get real. Okay I'll move from that to the idea that men are not so in control as people like to pretend. There have been so many women Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Queens. Does it really make any difference? No one else has noted any difference. I am against it.
    • thumb
      Sep 16 2012: George, what if, women were running the show and men were still the weapon of choice in combat. The men could never be taken out of the system, else there would be no children to continue the race.

      When you say you are against it, what do you mean? How could you prevent it if that is what women decided they wanted to do?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Sep 15 2012: So george, how do you stand on the question? For, against, got a better idea?
    • thumb
      Sep 18 2012: Geroge, I flagged your comment, hopping that TED would delete it because it insult's other peoples religion. The references you use could be stated in a more appropriate way to both get your point across and show respect for the belief's of others.

      TED may disagree with me; I don't know. But if we are to learn to live together we must learn to respect other people opinion's and those belief systems of wisdom, that assist them in creating those opinions. I hope you will reflect the kindness of heart and respect to delete or modify your post yourself.
  • thumb
    Sep 12 2012: Sorry Helen Hupe, did I say something about legislating love? I think love is innate to the human species and is unlearned as we grow older, but becomes like fine wine for others. Most of the kids I come in contact to relate very quickly to feeling of love but not all adults are quick to respond.

    Love you, see you around. :)

    PS. you won't be getting rid of men, just sort of putting them under your thumb a bit :); making them more passionate about behaving and acting respectful.

    I would never had the gumption to tell my grandmother she was not right. :(
  • thumb
    Sep 11 2012: No, no, no cannot legislate respect, care and understanding. With all due respect to your grandma (I had one similar to her) you just can't force people to love. It is an art that has to be learned. And please don't get rid of men...I like 'em. PS Gramas are not ALWAYS right.
  • thumb
    Sep 11 2012: John Frum, in the article you posted regarding the Musuo culture, it's states, "...However, unlike a true matriarchy, political power tends to be in the hands of males..."

    I can't argue with you about Indira Gandhi.

    I agree Matriarchal societies tend to be a cultural symbiosis, but that could be because women are easier to control than men, or that the men in such societies tend to be passive. That could be why their culture is allowed to continue by their more powerful neighbors. I should offer that any culture exists because they are allowed to by their neighboring cultures, or they are the most powerful culture on the block.

    One of the primary objections I'm seeing in this debate is that females are characterized as psychologically equal to their male counterparts. This implies that females are not innately imbued with some characterization that sets them aside from the males.

    I wonder at this assessment. Are women just men in a female body?
    • Sep 11 2012: I did not know that about the Mosuo! How could it be? Well, I read all I could find about the Mosuo quite a few years ago. was not available back in those days. Thanks for pointing it out. The only other matriarchal tribe I know ( seem to have a culture that's just as complicated too. There, apparently, some matrilineal communities were granted land by the king, and that is what is passed on to generations of women. This community shares some features of Mosuo.

      As for my objection, well... I don't see a clear basis for this sexism. Patriarchal chimpanzees are violent, matriarchal bonobos are peaceful, though these animals are difficult to tell apart. It is purely the Selfish Gene principle that's making them both that way. The same principle seems to be driving human tribes. I believe that the more modern societies defy this to a large extent. And I think that's because we can sit down and discuss things irrespective of our nationalities, religion, age or even sex. And I believe that this is what will help us build a more peaceful society. is an excellent way to start.

      This is why I tend to protest when people favour either masculinity or femininity. If there is a stereotypical 'female' (or whatever else) trait that I find useful or inspiring, I try to adopt it. At least to the best extent my male brain allows it ;-).
  • thumb
    Sep 11 2012: While at present the feminine human seems to have a nature that is more nurtering and loving (not in every case) I doubt that having a matrial society would drastically improve thingd. It seems to me equality of the sexes and equal responsibility would do the trick.
    • thumb
      Sep 11 2012: We are socially conditioned to perceive law enforcement agents as having command of the situation. We are to react to their commands and orders with compliance and respect. It's not perfect but it works most of the time for society as a whole.

      My idea of a Matriarchal society would need to be enforced with this social assumption, that women are to be given respect as a governing force in all areas of government. The social acclimation would have to start in the family with mom having the last world in all things. Even though this is taken for granted in "some" families, and in those families where the male is just lazy, in our general social structure, the male dominates and this affect is revealed in the way our society is arranged by our rules, laws, and government structure.

      We should obey the rules and laws, but our tendency is to bend them, warp them around our varying feelings of conformity. In truth, I doubt such a society as I propose could ever be enacted without a social event of immense proportions, like a virus killing off almost all the males, etc.

      In my family, my grandmother was the last word in all things, not just her immediate family but extending into the first and second cousin line. Her ideas were not taken lightly nor challenged frivolously. She was very smart and most of the time her suggestions were on the top of the list. As a whole, the family benefited from her wisdom and opinions. I might add her wisdom was created during the height of the Great Depression and throughout the duration of WWII. She lost one son to that war.

      If a woman such as my grandmother were to be leader of the world, the loftiest of dreams shared by humanity could become a reality under her tutoring and guidance. Perhaps all it would take to make such a society possible is to elect women leaders to the highest offices in all governments and have it become a world trend.

      Women have proved they can act like men to survive in a mans world.
  • Sep 10 2012: Matriarchal societies I have come across in literature are absolutely not like the one you described. What you described was just the society that we already have, but with women "rulers" instead of men. Women can be just as cut-throat as men. South Asia has had many women Prime Ministers, starting with India's Indira Gandhi. In each case, they were corrupt and cut-throat. These countries have women in lower positions too. Again, just as corrupt and ruthless as the men.

    Matriarchal societies are not ones where women "rule over men", but where within families, women are treated as centers of families, with family property (esp. land) transferring just to females. Men and women are both promiscuous. Among the Mosuo ( the men help take care of their sisters' children, but not their own.

    Among truly matriarchal societies, I have not come across any greater unit of "power" than family. So, no queens, no ministers, no officials, etc.
    • thumb
      Sep 18 2012: There is much truth in what you say in this reply, John Frum. It does make me think.
      Thank you. The family centered approach is a good one, perhaps an alternative to total rule by any gender.
      But that is what we have today, isn't it?
      • Sep 18 2012: I agree. That is, indeed, what we seem to have these days, among the well-educated.
        • thumb
          Sep 18 2012: John are you following along with Joanne Donovon's conversation in this debate? I'm just going to allow her to answer these questions. She does a much better job than I.
      • Sep 18 2012: I skimmed just now. A few years ago, I was quite interested in the various forms of society. So, I had explored the field. Joanne is covering some of that now. I also recommend Jared Diamond's book, "Guns, Germs and Steel". He goes into how geography contributed to the various forms of society, including the rises and falls of matriarchal and patriarchal societies.

        I'm afraid matriarchy doesn't mean much to me, besides an interesting cultural (and/or historical) artifact.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: I've read those book too. To me, I see a rise in the influence of women in society. I hope it will be for the best. Women can be just as tenacious as men and I belive because they have been kept at the bottom of the power box for so long, they will not tolerate anymore.

          Religion served to put women in their place in the past but it has lost it's power in today's modern western societies.

          As men, we will just have to sit back and enjoy the ride. :)
          I'm married to a powerfully smart woman and I love it.
      • Sep 19 2012: No sitting back for me yet :-)

        I have promises to keep,
        And miles to go before I sleep,
        And miles to go before I sleep.

        But one thing I'm still disappointed by is the lack of women in engineering.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: John your such a busy guy. :)
          Of course you know the implication of this poem is that he is very very sleepy. :)

          Yes, it was the same i Electronics. Not a lot of girls. Only one girl in my classes.
  • thumb
    Sep 10 2012: Do you have any examples of a matriarchal society in mind.

    My first thought is maybe. But unrealistic.

    Maybe better leaders of whatever sex is reasonable, in part by opening up to the talent pool in both halves of the population and mixing in both aspects into leadership, management, and government.

    Maybe other issues such as lack of transparency, corruption, greed, lack of equal rule of law etc are at least as big issues.
    • thumb
      Sep 10 2012: They are the "real" issue Obey No1kinobe. All other things are just commentary.
      The problem is how do we tear down the walls of this evil empire Mr. Reagan?
      • thumb
        Sep 11 2012: People power or a reform leader perhaps supported by international sanctions. Eg aparthied in sa.
  • thumb
    Sep 8 2012: I'm replying here john as i can't to the other.

    That Vid was cool,different,i had a thought in my head that if countries could on special holidays just spend one minute,Ohmmming the world,in my case 4.5 million of us sending calm and assurance rather than peace,anyone can ohm,it doesn't need any special training or music sheets, once one starts we sync automatically,we don't even need to think or feel for calm the intent is written in the sound,i get laughed at,so i sigh and take the ribbing.

    Those adverts just means to me that there's a machine out there that is using every thing it can think of to get your money out of your pocket,a good lot of women buy womens magazines,they are loaded with those adverts theres no need for the television ads,now look through a young modern mans mag?you will see pictures of slim muscled six packed guys advertising some new set of undies or cologne and hopefully a young women reads it to find out what a man might like at the sametime convince you that is what you should be and if you buy this product you could look like this too,what i've just said is a simple down to earth look at a very cunning machine.

    I've grown up in a country that well doesn't care if it's leader is female or male,it doesn't care if one of our ministers is a woman that is deaf as well or whether it had a transvestite as a minister,we've already had a part ethnic leader,in fact most kiwi's can claim ethnic descent,the real problem resides with us men and how we can be when we are in discreet groups and a single member will let his self control get the better of himself and start haranguing a woman nearby.look at this,i just stumbled across it out of the blue.

    It's only an example,don't take the title to heart.
    • thumb
      Sep 8 2012: Excellent reading Ken. I did notice that at the beginning of her encounter with the males in the group, they were a bit impeded due to the alcohol they were drinking. People tend to let their hair down a bit when they are drinking and the class order of the social structure can break apart leaving the group leaderless, while the individuals flow about in and out of their normal class position. That is: the undergrad talks to the Faculty member as if they were a faculty member themselves.

      In the everyday world of the University, each member knows their place in the social group or their normal social placement in the group (called the University). When we deviate from our group placement, it is observed by others that we are out of place and they act to put us back in place.

      People practiced in the art of conning others use this class structure of social groping to their advantage when dealing with people and setting them up. The advertisement industry uses it to target individuals, to con them into purchasing "Stuff" they don't really need along with "Stuff" they do need (increasing sales).

      In a way, this is where we all find ourselves in the social structure of the world group. Some are wealthy, not only because they have wealth, but because if the wealth were taken away, they can get more wealth (the truly wealthy). And, so it is with some in poverty. Give them a fish, teach them to fish, and they will still run around looking for a fish handout.

      Get a group of guys together outside of the normal social world and they immediately start to compete for leadership of the group. You, being a guy understand this situation when it comes to " what are you going to do about it....?"

      At this point, in a man's world it is put up or shut-up. I suppose it is the same with women but they appear to have more variables to work with because they give birth to babies (more complex). Men, we just have to compete for leadership of the group. We aren't very complex.
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2012: Yes you're right we aren't very complex,the bloody girls have got it all over us,i have a house full of girls,i'm in my cave 90% of the time,it's the only place that i can find where i can think lol yet when the house is empty,it's too empty.
  • thumb
    Sep 8 2012: I think it probably could do some good especially in the realm of diplomacy Where men in diplomatic roles might play a game of "conversational poker" with resources and trade, women on the other hand might have a clearer view of efficiency and cleanliness.
    • thumb
      Sep 8 2012: Yes I agree. Women tend to be a bit efficient and most of the advertisements on TV pushing cleaning agents and such, are focused towards them. I've noticed you can tell plenty about our civilization by watching Advertisements; who they are focused towards and what they are selling.

      I rarely see an ad for a mop or boom focused at a man. I'm the one who does most of the floor cleaning in my home and I get very particular about the products I use. I prefer organic soaps and oils. Most of my research on these products are found on the internet not on the TV or in a magazine. I wonder how many sales are being missed by the advertisement industry by excluding their focus on men? Do they have an affect on boys and men defining who they are and what should be their role in the world.? I wonder.

      I'm retired so my wife and I spread the all the chores between ourselves, without much preference between them. Perhaps assigning roles to one another according to gender is not the right approach to dealing with the problems facing the world today. If we did away with violent conflict what would be left is Earth Maintenance which would include feeding and taking care of the health of all the worlds population.

      As you say, women could be the leaders in using efficiency and Cleanliness to clean up the planet.

      If we men would just quit fighting with one another perhaps Women could be more productive in managing the world. Women do seem to cooperate better with one another on matters of rearing children, establishing and keeping the nest organized and the children entertained and educated. While men Fight, trade property, influence and power. We really are the problem, I think, when it comes to creating a world of peace and harmony.

      If it were we who gave birth to babies; I wonder if we would see things from a different perspective?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Sep 8 2012: That's a really hard twist to the left there Ken, but I see your point. However, I feel it has no relevance or implication in this debate. Clean it up please so I can delete my post to your comment.
      • thumb
        Sep 8 2012: That's the point John.

        It gets us men when we're confronted with it,we automatically think our girls know what/where/how because of that natural mother daughter relationship that all women have,they don't need tv advertising if it's already in a section that is a necessity in a trip to the supermarket but if a guy is asked to go pick up some said products then he's armed with images from the advertising and what his lady or girl has told him and if he's silly enough he might buy the product that the advertising imagery says is better until he gets home and finds out otherwise,the amount of money that goes into advertising can feed the world but yes sorry if it offended you,it offends every guy when you tell them,i'll delete it john.
  • Sep 8 2012: FYI

    It seems strange to me that so far in this conversation no one has used the words sexism or sexist.

    Something to think about.
    • thumb
      Sep 8 2012: It's pretty quiet.
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2012: I didn't think your post was so biased as to be deleted... Mine was a bit of devil's advocate, but was also biased. You overestimate the power of the religious right in this country. The senate, and electoral college put these crazy preachers on TV, because someone needs the votes they represent... These organizations hold almost no sway in any city in America, anyone thinks of, when they think America. No where you want to visit in America, has a large number of the zealots you describe.

        I understand the misconception though, our media treats women horribly, in more ways than one... but, really come to Los Angeles, or San Francisco, it's a very matriarchal and politically correct vibe. Most of the US population, live in cities where women have far more say in society than men, unless the guy is rich and powerful. It's easy to look at the one percent of men, and see that as men, but that's not a complete picture of reality.
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2012: David, their power is in their money. In Jacksonville, we had a radio jock called "The Ape Man".

          The first baptist church was constantly taking him to task because of his language and thoughts. He came back at them openly and put them down. Eventually they purchased the Radio station and fired him.

          Not only does the Christian right have power over the minds of their followers, they have lots of money to buy people. They invest that money and make more money. The religious right in America is a part of the Wealthy organizations that manipulate people and their minds. They don't just get their followers to vote, they invest in the campaign funds of politicians. Sometimes they get taken for, like George bush did during his term, but they never give up. In my opinion, they could care less if people believe in God as long as they tithe and donate their money to the church when they die.
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2012: I agree with that... but even among their followers... Their arguments in regards to women, are being disregarded, by every major city in the country. Jacksonville may be an exception, but it's not the rule. Money doesn't change facts.
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2012: Money can buy facts and create them out of thin air. These people elected a President in the United States, not once but for two terms -Bush. Each time they pursue a course to take away a woman's right to her own body. I'm sure once they do that they will take away more rights.

          Give these people the Presidency and both houses of Congress and we would see Abortion made illegal, Prayer put back in schools, and Christianity as the national Religion pasted firmly in the Constitution of the United States.

          David I can't say it enough: Freedom is not free. It cost blood, sweat, and tears.
      • thumb
        Sep 10 2012: Abortion is a cudgel issue, they use to beat religious zealots back onto their side... We're never overturning Roe v Wade. Both parties are sending us on an exactly identical path towards hell in a handbasket. If you think the Democrats are any better, you're delusional, they want your children to take out hundred thousand dollar loans for fine arts degrees, so that when they're in debt and unemployed we can send them off to Syria, and Iran... Just like the GOP.

        Honestly, my generation was raised to be slaves to pay off the debts of the fattest laziest generation of Americans that have ever lived, as they jump on medicare... and 20% of the degrees we got were in psychology... Abortion rights are the least of my worries.
        • thumb
          Sep 10 2012: I can't argue with much of what you said. Politically, all parties are not for the people. But I believe that they can be if the people will stand up and do something. My generation made a dent. You should have lived in the world I did when I was your age. It was tough and dangerous.

 listed three ways Roe vs. Wade could be overturned:

          1. Since Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court can effectively overturn the decision by ruling against abortion in a future case.

          2. Congress can pass legislation protecting the fetus from the moment of conception (There are usually several bills addressing this issue in committee during each Congressional term. The 111th Congress (current) includes three House Resolutions and one Senate bill.).

          3. Congress and the states can amend the Constitution to include the definition of "person" to include the unborn (this is the least likely scenario).

          There are paths to accomplish this if the people decided this was what they want.

          The last I heard, we were bringing troops home, not sending them anywhere. Everything else is just saber rattling.

          Your generation were not birthed to be slaves. In a few more years, your generation will be in tight control of the reigns of this country and we will see how you ride the horse.

          You and your generation could do away with all government debt with one stroke of the pen, when it is handed over to you.

          Good luck.
      • thumb
        Sep 10 2012: You mean we can watch you all starve to death at 65? Yeah!

        No we can't. We have 20 trillion dollars in medical bills to pay for a baby boom generation, which is twice our size... and is going to live to be older than we are.
        • thumb
          Sep 10 2012: Doing away with the debt would automatically make more money available to fund medicare and medicaid. It would create some angry Chinese but we have to live right? In fact, it could cause a world wide default on debt payback.

          Sounds to me like the only solutions, according to your scenarios, is to implement total socialized medical care, tax the rich at a higher rate and perhaps raise the taxes on the middle class also. Perhaps this would require a capping on the cost of medical care as well.

          These are all actions that could lead to a socialization of our government. Do you agree?
        • thumb
          Sep 18 2012: Change it David. Fight to change it. There is nothing more important to do with one little life.
      • thumb
        Sep 10 2012: In response to paragraph 1, who's proposing that solution, which party? Oh yeah... Ron Paul, he did great. Gary Johnson would propose a similar platform ultimately... but, again, good luck Gary.

        Total socialized medical care? No thanks. A public option would have been nice. You see, the problem is, that insurance, as a product, is fundamentally snake oil. You're not insured of anything, if a wave of retirement, or bad investments come along, the insurance company goes bankrupt, and you lose everything.

        What no one in either party wants to tell you, except strange extremists, unfortunately occasionally tied to the republicans is "You bought snake oil for 40 years... We sold it to you hook line and sinker... our snake oil business is about to go belly up."

        We need to combine getting off "insurance", and returning to private investment and savings, with printing money and paying back China... At the same time... the middle class in my generation, is the fall guy. We have to deal with it. Someone needs to explain exactly what happened to our parents, so we don't fall for the same scheme again.

        Then, end the drug war. 7% of people in our jails, are their for violent crime... let most of the rest out. Engage the military in green mining, and use it to back our currency, just to give it something to do in peace time, and again, help back our currency, for the rediculous amount we'll have to print. Sell the mohave for solar concentration investment. Boil salt water to lower sea level and irrigate deserts...

        There are very simple solutions to our problems that involve explaining to my generation "You can't be whatever you want, you need to make glass, mine, farm, and pay an insane tax rate, cus we fed up. Open a savings account, invest in local business, and opt out of the social programs".

        Also, simpler solutions, that used to be the liberal platform was, ending the wealth cap on SS and Medicare, and adjusting age for life expectancy.
      • thumb
        Sep 10 2012: So, in short, we sociallize the losses of the older middle class... and return to fundamentals of intelligent local investment. We don't leave you to die, and we don't just leave an even bigger debt for the next even smaller generation. But no... Instead... In 2012... We still have to vote for the guy who's not doing any of that, not ending the patriot act, and not closing gitmo... because if we don't religious zealots, will go backwards on abortion and gay marriage... And, I think to myself... What a wonderful, world.
        • thumb
          Sep 10 2012: Have you ever heard of Tammy Duckworth? She's part of your generation. She's running for office. She shares your ideas. Send her some money and put your money where your mind is at.

          Complaining and voicing solutions is just the start. Direct action makes things happen. You've read the Citigroup memos. You know the game plan. Now come up with a plan of your own and get moving.

          Sorry about your world. You should have seen the world I inherited. It was bombed to Kingdom come. All of Europe was a smoldering ruin. Two cities were so radioactive people couldn't live there. Over 6o million people were dead. 2% of the worlds population. We faced the possibility of Nuclear holocaust. When I was in 5th grade, we practiced Nuclear bomb drills. There was no money because the world economy had been blown up.

          We made a come back. You have your IPad, your computer, your LED, large screen TV. You will live and figure out what to do.
      • thumb
        Sep 10 2012: Ya... If only my parents generation had the same excuses, for presiding over 40 years of stagnation, mediocrity, and the death of the bill of rights, I'd have some sympathy for how hard it used to be. Things were so hard in the 80's... They were so busy giving their retirement savings to gamblers, they didn't have any time to do any competent governance.

        Money makes things happen, and my generation had nuclear bomb drills, too, and we face nuclear holocaust... As a bonus we're actually the aggressors in a violent holy war for a religion that only our parents believe in. I'll probably take a run at my local congressman Buck McKeon, after he wins again, despite being a sociopath. Knowledge and reason lose, because old people don't care about their children anymore... so no, I'm not going to chill, I'm going to continue to be very, very, angry.
        • thumb
          Sep 10 2012: Okay, The chill word is gone. Perhaps angry will serve as fertilizer for change. :)

          You go boy!
      • thumb
        Sep 10 2012: Just so you know, I'm not angry at you : )

        In many ways this is my "writing voice"... I like to write as if I'm a character screaming at the end of "1984" or "A Clockwork Orange"... because I think it can be jarring, and open peoples mnds to new perspectives. I'm probably having more fun trying to write this stuff, than people would have reading it.

        I got really off track in this debate though. So, I would like to return to the initial topic, with one last absurd sounding, almost sexist sounding response, but I assure, I don't mean it to be. Milton Friedman, got a lot of crap for saying stuff like this... but, the first wave of congressman we elected, after the womens rights movement... passed prohibition.

        The idea that people should drink less... is a good idea. The idea that the police, and military need to force people to drink less, with guns... caused enormous problems. I only bring this up, because I don't think that there is any evidence, that a matriarchal society, would have any less absurd and violent rules than a patriarchal society. I don't think this one instance suggests a matriarchal would be worse, simply that, women can impose horrible legislation, as well as men can.
        • thumb
          Sep 11 2012: "The times they are a changing" ~ author unknown.

          That is a very interesting point you bring to the table David --Prohibition was instituted as a result of women getting the vote.

          Do you think that prohibition would be received with less violence today, considering the technology we have to fight crime? I mean, it is in and of itself, an idea to make society more human and less hazardous. The war on drug is an effort to accomplish the same thing.

          It is interesting to note that laws which are intended to make the world a better place to live and learn are perceived as an invasion of privacy and person choice.

          Have you read the Citigroup memos. Their solution to poverty is simple. focus on the wealthy and let the rest of society rot. Reminds me of the move "Hunger Games."
        • thumb
          Sep 18 2012: Passion for the truth when surrounded by delusion, should never be confused with 'anger'. Quite the opposite. It usually stems from a deep seat of caring for ones fellow humans and the planet.
      • thumb
        Sep 12 2012: I actually don't believe either program was spearheded by people who actually wanted to make society more humane and less hazardous. I think with both arguments, politicians use emotions, and children to manipulate people into doing horrible things, that they know are evil. I shouldn't say I think this actually... I should say, I know this to be true.

        Alcohol was made illegal in large part due to the sponsorship of Standard Oil. Women were emotionally manipulated into the passage of prohibition. Prohibition, was specifically designed to destroy the Diesel engine, which could run on hemp, corn, and soybean oil. Standard oil feared that people would become self sufficient farmers and provide themselves with their own fuel. So, Rockefeller, donated millions of dollars to the temperance movement, despite being a bit of a drunk... and women, newly educated, and less trained in the art of politics, didn't see his true motivation.

        The war on Marijuana is actually an extension of this. There is absolutely no medical evidence to support the illegality of marijuana. The human body is actually built with cannabinnoid receptors, whose only purpose in adulthood, is to recieve the nutrients in marijuana. A British Tobacco study actually came to prove that if you smoke cigarettes, and marijuana, you are less likely to get cancer, than if you only smoke tobacco. The theory as to why is that coughing, may help keep your lungs clean...

        So what financial motivation makes marijuana illegal, pharma, and oil. Marijuana isn't what the government wants to make illegal. They want to make Hemp illegal. Hemp hearts are the most digestable non meat protein on the planet, far healthier than whey. Hemp also grows faster than any other biofuel candidate.

        If alcohol were never made illegal, and hemp were never made illegal, we would all have a happy sustainable farming economy, and biofuel. Men are no longer allowed to tell women their emotions drove them off a cliff however.
        • thumb
          Sep 12 2012: You read this stuff all the time and, just like watching a movie the second time, you see something you missed. I was unaware of the Standard oil connection to prohibition. I'll have something to study tonight. Thanks David.

          But, David, haven't' women come a long way since getting the right to vote? They are politically savvy these days. What is keeping them back from asserting their clout and pushing men aside in the high paying jobs and political organizations? Is it something inherent in being a woman or is it a genuine effort by men to keep them in their place?

          I would add that Rockefeller financed the women's liberation movement as well. His conversation with Russo is highlighted on this youtube video :

          This conversation with Russo is a jaw dropper.
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: Alright... So, first, I want to say, that I'm surprised and impressed they let this comment stand. My last comment definately almost crossed the line to being actually sexist, and I didn't mean to be.

        Here, however, I think we can take this discussion in a fascinating direction, and I will try to back up everything I say from this point on with demonstrable facts, and actual sources.

        First, we need to talk about our initial disagreement however. "Do you think that prohibition would be received with less violence today, considering the technology we have to fight crime?"

        Law, is an implementation of violence... That is all a federal law is. When legislating social behavior, you are choosing to get guns, ie police, involved in social disagreements. Thus, you are escalating, from drunkeness, to violence, by force. Not only that, in making prohibition law, you are forcing the 40% of people who disagreed with it, to actually pay for it's implementation.

        You force them to enslave themselves. Not only must you not engage in your vice, but, you must pay for other people to go to jail, for a vice you share with them, or else, the IRS will send men with guns to pick you up. The only realm in which the federal government has any right to operate, is to protect citizens from murder, rape, unaggravated assault, theft, and contract fraud. Why contract fraud? Because a million dollars, represents more than one human livelihood. The only time the federal government has any right to be involved in an individuals business, is when lives are at risk, because they bring guns. The federal government always escalates to violence, because it was designed only to deal with violent people.

        What does this have to do with matriarchy, vs patriarchy? Nothing anymore... What did it used to have to do with the subject? Men used to be stoic. We used to teach men, not to listen to their emotions... and their voting, used to reflect this training.
        • thumb
          Sep 13 2012: So much for demonstrable facts :) So your saying if I step on the grass, I might be gunned down by law enforcement agents?
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: I'm saying, that the second you make "Keep off the Grass" a matter of law, rather than courtesy... You bring a guy with a gun into the picture... and you force everyone to pay his salary, at the point of a gun... Even people who like to lie around on the grass.

        I'm also saying, I think Rockefeller wanted a democracy, rather than a republic, because democracies are easier to manipulate with money, through emotion.
        • thumb
          Sep 13 2012: The Rockefeller's were involved with the attempted coupe back in 1933. They tried to take over the us government using wwI veterans and a General who squealed on them. The whole things was reviewed in congress (closed door session) and all records were destroyed.

          Because it fell through, in the US, they contacted some people in Europe and tried it over there. It worked and began a conflict we refer to today as WWII. I bet you can guess who the person they contacted was. :)

          So yes, they helped to usher in the liberated American Female. Their idea was that more workers mean more tax revenue and the children would all be open for brainwashing.
  • 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. :

          This video by Arron Russo is very revealing.

          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
  • thumb
    Sep 7 2012: I disagree with your fundamental assumption. I think women rule the world, and they always have. We've never elected a single president. They always have wives... Have you ever met a married couple in which the man called the shots?

    How do you know women rule the world? Cus, there's all this stuff in it... Most men, aren't big fans of stuff... "If a man could sleep with a beautiful woman, in a hole in the ground... He wouldn't by a house!" Chappelle.
    • thumb
      Sep 7 2012: I know what you mean David I think Mrs. Reagan (former president Reagan's wife) did a fine job, not only running the United States but taking care of a sick husband.
  • thumb
    Sep 7 2012: Not Matriarchal but an even set but if things do develop towards it then why not,the machine is geared to a higher ratio now,gender means nothing.
    • thumb
      Sep 7 2012: This is true ken. We are all in the same mix so we should all participate evenly. I feel that. I see you Ken.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Sep 7 2012: You apparently have an interesting wife Mercuor. You might want to check your spelling on the"... hanging men by,,," theme. I believe there are ladies and girls about in this conversation and we don't want to give them any ideas about what kind of gentlemen we are. :)
  • thumb
    Sep 7 2012: As another example of how tough Female warriors can be I offer up Tammy Duckworth:

    "Tammy Duckworth is the former Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and the director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs" ~Wikipedia.

    Mrs. Duckworth is an Iraq War veteran and a former U.S. Army helicopter pilot. Her helicopter was shot down by insurgents using a RPG rocket launcher. Her severe combat wounds cost her both of her legs and damaged her right arm. She continues to serve as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Illinois Army National Guard along with her husband.
    Mrs. Duckworth is currently running for Congressional Office in the Illinois's 8th congressional district for the United States House of Representatives Her opponent, Joe Walsh, has repeatedly made snide comments about her military service, denouncing those who call her a war hero. His propensity for pointing out her inadequacies as a woman typifies the view of many men, mostly Christians, Muslims and Mormans, who think women should be in the house, barefoot and pregnant, never challenging the role of men as the leader of of the world.
    Tammy Duckworth comes from a long line of Military family members dating back to the Revolutionary War. I would hold her up as an example of how strong and courageous a woman can be in combat, not only in the battle, but afterwards, when she overcame her wounds to become a leader in what is normally considered a Man's world.
  • thumb
    Sep 7 2012: John, I live in northern Arizona the home of the Navajo and Hopi tribes. The native americans are a matriachal society. Having said that men have always been in tribal leadership positions and the Hopi and Navajo have always been at war.

    If I recall correctly when women were in the leadership they sacrificed men to the furtility Gods and warred on neighboring tribes and communities.

    So here is my answer: It makes no difference if it is a man or a woman leader. Leaders have a mandate and problems in achieving goals.

    John, John ... In your old recon outfit what were the reasons for women not being assigned. It was not the old they have periods, privacy issues, sex problems ..... It was that men tend to want to protect the girls and in doing so endanger the mission.

    Problem two we learned from the Isrealies, the muslim warriors would not surender to a women thus extending the fight.

    As the leader of a nation Goldie Mier had to meet secretly to discuss politics with male leaders because women have no voice in those nations.

    SUMMARY: Yes women can do the job. Both men and women have obsticles however women face severe problems in especially Muslum nations.

    Remember John "Hell hath no fury as that of a women scorned"
    • thumb
      Sep 7 2012: Dear Robert, my friend and Co-patriot. As a Vietnam veteran yourself, you are fully aware that the enemy we fought were tenacious, fierce warriors and a fairly good portion of them were women and girls. We lost over 55,000 good soldiers to these warriors.

      Do I think I could have fought alongside a women in combat? If my sister were along side me I know I could trust her to have my back. She would know that sometimes she would have to bear the pain and I'm sure it would not slow her down a bit.

      Why would it be harder to step over a wounded woman any less than stepping over your best friend to move the battle forward. We could only do that because we were trained to do it.
      If you would like to see the faces of the enemy you and I fought against. Check out this video

      I guess the Vietnamese men, who fought alongside their women, had a different idea about what womanhood was all about. If they can leave their wounded women soldiers behind, I'm sure our guys would do the same if that was the way the battle worked out.

      I saw a Vietcong teenage girl interrogated by the South Korean soldiers who worked with some of our units. They got nothing out of her and ended up wasting her life as she spat at them.

      I think American girls are pretty tough; just as tough as the Vietnamese female warriors who have proven the fact that women can hold their own, alongside their men in battle and the Vietnamese warrior men have shown that fighting in battle with their women is doable.
      • thumb
        Sep 7 2012: John, I do not doubt the ability of the US woman in combat. Young US men are raised with a different perspective of womanhood than some of the other nations.

        The N. Viets sent women and children into combat as disposables. They did as they were told. The cultural differences speak for themselves. The enemy knew that we had a different view on believing that women and children were combatants. If a young man looked up and said thats a woman ... or thats just a kid .... the US soldier may hesitate and that is enough of an advantage to get him killed. Cultural difference that they used to an advantage. Were they tough ... you bet.

        No one doubts the ability of the female in combat.
        • thumb
          Sep 7 2012: I'm sorry Robert but I would argue that the US has a similar history of using young boys in combat. It is only in the modern world that this practice has been put on the back burner. Still, they find their way into military service due to measures of patriotism that they are taught in their cultural environment. "Be all that you can be" how often have they heard that?

          I think the strategy in allowing women in combat is a cultural practice that inhabits the culture of the Indonesian region. I have read the writing of Ho Chi Minh and I don't see where he expresses the idea that women and children are disposable. Nor have I seen this idea in the interrogations done to enemy prisoners or anywhere in the Vietnamese culture. I do know that the South Vietnamese thought that poor young boys were disposable Old Vietnamese men too, but I hear they have been reeducated.

          I've looked them in the eye, in Combat. While the Vietnamese were my enemy during that conflict, in my role as a combat soldier I learned to respect them very highly. Everything that my culture told me about them has turned out to be lie. History has proven that they are not the die hard communists that I was told they were. I think we were lied too about Vietnam just as much as Iraq even though they are separate stories.

          Peace my brother.
  • thumb
    Sep 7 2012: I suppose it could be said that the world situation does the same to men. They no longer have time to hang the clothes , scrub the floors and, instead, spend more of their time in service to business, which of course give them less time to create a wholesome environment at home with the children, etc. do you think men would make better fathers if they stayed at home and let their wives work for a living? Would it make them into better men if they they changed roles with their wives?

    Would Ann Romney make a better president than Mitt or Michel perhaps, instead of Barak?
  • thumb
    Sep 7 2012: When I as a young technician working in a business environment where dictation was critical to getting the word out I noticed who was really running the company. I repaired dictation equipment, recorders that an executive or professional could talk into, record their thoughts or words then send it to a room filled with women who spent their whole day, listening and typing.

    In most companies there was a strange animal called the "Office Manager" In many lawyer's offices this person was a woman. I was taught very early on if I entered an office environment, this was the person I should contact first. What I discovered in time was that these ladies were the backbone behind the business or office. It was their job to make sure the young attorneys had the proper information to apply to every case. Their job was to teach the young attorneys how to conduct themselves in the court room, how to dress, etc.
    I learned very quickly that they held all the power for a salesman to pitch their product to the CEO, Sales Manager or Finance office. These women were in total control of the office environment. They could make or break a new executive or technician like me. They could create an expert in their field or make them fall flat on their face. They were the all powerful person behind the scenes who made good business possible.

    When I entered an office, I went straight to the Office manager to find all the information I needed to get the job done. In most cases, this manager was a woman.
    • thumb

      Gail .

      • 0
      Sep 7 2012: When I entered the workforce in 1969, I went to the "girl wanted" section of the classifieds. I couldn't apply for a "woman wanted" job until I had some experience under my belt.

      By 1978, I was one of a handful of women in my field, and the only one who was not part-owner of the business. I did so well at this commission job, that within 6 months, other businesses that were part of the company's 20-group hired women - but as clerks, rather than professionals. Within 5 years, the job was largely held by women, because women are cheaper and they did a better job. MEN made this happen because men owned the businesses.
      • thumb
        Sep 7 2012: Women work for less than a man. I can see their reason for using women. But why should women have to work for less? Or, is this no longer the case in that job market?
        • Sep 18 2012: Obviously you will be payed less when you are just entering work service, and the wage gap has been debunked numerous times but it hasn't prevented feminists from citing it endlessly.
      • thumb
        Sep 18 2012: I disagree Gracie, I'm seeing this bias with my daughter-in-law's job right now. My former wife, with two Master's Degrees, was pasted over for promotion and offered less than the men to do the same job. It was put to her to take it or leave it. She left it, we suffered, but our honor was intact.