Yeah, but it's mothers in Muslim society who take their daughters to have the genitals mutilated, and I don't see people saying that that will still happen if women were in change.Gaymaster Nacelle said:
If our society had been historically dominated by women...
- Thread starter Saetha
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You'd have the same thing but with the parts reversed. There is nothing in the literature to suggest that women are inherently less capable of cruelty, violence, and bigotry, and also nothing to suggest that they are inherently less capable of leadership than their male counterparts.
One has to wonder, with so many people in threads like this making such strong and oddly specific claims to the fundamental nature of women, how many women they actually have met personally. Is it so difficult for some people to get their heads around the fact that men and women are generally far more similar, including in terms of psychology and behavior, than they are different?
One has to wonder, with so many people in threads like this making such strong and oddly specific claims to the fundamental nature of women, how many women they actually have met personally. Is it so difficult for some people to get their heads around the fact that men and women are generally far more similar, including in terms of psychology and behavior, than they are different?
You misandrist SJW cuck, coming in here with your well-reasoned, effortfully constructed, and carefully presented arguments. If you took the red pill, you'd realize that men are better than women because biotruths, and that is not at all in contradiction with the claim that men are inherently violent, rapey, self-absorbed, perpetually horny pigs who are categorically responsible for all of the violence and suffering in the world and generally incapable of valuing anything other than a fellow person's fuckability.evilthecat said:
The Norwegian paradox exists, but, firstly, it's limited to Norway, and it's not clear to me, at least from the Wikipedia article, what it has to do with gender or sex.Zontar said:
Any offspring she would have had, however, would have compromised her status as monarch because the act of getting married, getting pregnant and giving birth would have exposed her as "just" a woman, and necessitated that she relinquish some measure of power which would have been inappropriate for a woman to possess. Like her sister Mary I, she would have been a queen regent, torn by conflicting loyalties between her position as head of state and loyalty which, as a woman, she was legally obligated to show to her husband.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
This was why it was so important for her to to perpetuate the idea that she was a virgin (which of course she almost certainly wasn't). The state of Virginia is literally named for her. It allowed her to remain outside of such mixed sympathies and thus to be accepted as her own person, something which was wholly incompatible with the state of being a "normal" woman of her time.
And yes, she would always have been the last Tudor, because her children would not have been Tudors. They would either have been illegitimate or they would have inherited the name of whoever their father was. This was why there was a literal rebellion (in which people died) to prevent Mary I from marrying a Hapsburg, because had she produced male children the throne of England would have passed to the Hapsburgs, which for religious and political reasons was quite a terrifying prospect for some people.
Even at the height of absolutism such a move would have been difficult. It defied a law which was quite explicitly seen as coming from God himself. In Elizabeth's state, which was not an absolutist state, such a thing would have been impossible. The Elizabethan state was, by modern standards, incredibly weak and relied on a great deal of consent to keep things ticking over. The legitimacy of the monarch, the perception that they belonged on the throne by right, was hugely important, which meant that anything concerning marriage and reproduction was incredibly important. Interfering the supposedly god-given arrangement of the family would have been very controversial, and mere controversy could doom realms. Remember that when Elizabeth died her death was deliberately concealed from anyone save those very close to her, so that James I could be wheeled in and basically have his buttcheeks ready to touch the throne before anyone else even found out the queen was dead.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Again. Don't confuse European queens with European "matriarchs".Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Patriarchy is not, at this point in history, a vague or ambiguous term. It was also is an actual philosophy of government best exemplified by Robert Filmer's Patriarcha. A patriarchal society is one in which fatherhood is the definitive model of power, a father is king of his family, a king is father to his subjects, God is father to everyone. Even when you start to have queens and queen regents, they do not rule as "mothers" because motherhood, at the time, is not an acceptable basis for power. There is no "God the mother", a mother does not rule in her family (she is, in fact, literal property at the point she marries). Thus, there is a tension between having women in power and the point at which those women start behaving or responding like typical women (when they get married and have babies) which wouldn't be resolved for a very long time.
So no. I get that Elizabeth I was a very admirable person, but she wasn't some feminist pioneer, and she could not have achieved all that she achieved had she not gone out of her way not to too closely resemble a woman.
The Greeks focused on making their art look like civilized men, since large penises were a sign of barbarism. There are notable exceptions in the case of some mythological figures..Bobular said:
Let's be honest though. Very few people, male or female, actually consider penises to be visually attractive.
Gaymaster Nacelle said:
The difference is " how" you get things done in maternal vs paternal society. Ruling by force is what I see as patriarchal. Rule by persuasion is how it was done in Hopi society instead. You can offer good reasons to do something and that be enough to rule rather than trying to force others to bend to your rule as is done in patriarchy. It is seen as weak to resort to force, it means you failed to show them a better way. Yes, it is seen as brave to stand in the face of threats without using force, and instead win a victory with reason. For example when the US military came to the Hopi Tribe, the same as they came to the many other tribes with the threat to remove Hopi from the lands and enslave them, but unlike many other tribes who ran in fear, the US soldiers were baffled on how they were met by smiling women who took them in as family and people went on about their business as if the soldiers had always been there. The soldiers were invited in and sat down and talked to about the Hopi way of life and how they were invited to come live along side as family if they wished and the soldiers then left and the US government decided not to harm or move or do anything wrong to the Hopi instead, just as the Spaniards who came before them lived alongside the Hopi peacefully in their hunt for gold until they got bored and left.
Now do not get me wrong, Hopi did fight back against the Spaniards, but not in defense of themselves, instead in defense of their neighbors who were being enslaved and slaughtered to the south. They did resort to violence to stop the active extermination of people, but they did not start the violence, they just helped drive the Spanish out of the lands of their neighbors. This was not seen as brave or heroic in any way in Hopi society however, but instead an atrocity that they hoped they never had to encounter again and it took much to overcome the horrors of such things. Violence is only ever used as a final last resort to actively save lives when all other means have failed and not something you are to be proud of or commended for, but instead to be horrified and mournful of.
It is not viewed as sending a message that you are not a pushover, it is simply used as the last resort of stopping active violence and it in no way prevents more in the future from others, instead if allowed to go unmourned, and people remain ignorant of the dangers, it increases violence. It is viewed as abhorrent and never acceptable and regretful if and when it does happen even if in your mind it would be justified.
People here do not look down on sewage workers, but they are repulsed from actions of war and violence. You see it isn't that " smart people look down on people" it is that people are grossed out by the work they do. Violence is seen as more disgusting than handling feces and vomit.Why would you be thankful people who use reason rather than violence are not making the decisions?
The very idea that one has the right to have authority over another is what is seen as wrong in the matriarchal culture I come from. You see, it is instead believed that no one has the right to rule over another by force at all. Why would anyone have the right to rule over another by force if everyone must have their own beliefs and have their own choice and say and own path in life? If you cannot convince others without force that this is the right way to do something then maybe you shouldn't be convincing them at all? That is how it was viewed in maternal society, force is never an option that is considered in the first place. " Authority" over others via force IS patriarchal whether you realize it or not. That is simply not how it is done at all in maternal society, you have people comply via reason instead. Reason has worked in Maternal society for thousands of years without the need for force there is no reason force should be considered a good thing or something to be encouraged in any way.
No a man could not throw out a woman, as he did not own the property. He could just leave and go back to his family, but the male always had to leave and the property remained with the female.Gaymaster Nacelle said:We don't consider women beneath men, but they don't get a say in anythingLil devils x said:
So could a man throw out a woman and that'd be okay? Then at least it wouldn't be matriarchal in that one respect, ai.
Okay so there's a clear difference, heck, NO CONNECTION AT ALL, between the idea of a boss telling other people what to do, and that boss being determined by patrilineal, or any kind of hereditage at all.
Also, if you're gonna generalize and talk about native tribes in general, well.... those could be quite violent and aggressive, couldn't they.
Yes, the idea of having a " boss" is paternal, not maternal. Instead, of needing a boss, people decide together as a group how things should best be done and come to an agreement. The emphasis is on collaboration rather than a dictatorship. That was why Europeans had such difficulty interacting with the Tribes, they thought that people had to have a " boss" when in reality they did not. That very idea of a "boss" was condemned in Maternal societies.
Of course some tribes were violent, and not all tribes were even maternal, but the tribes were all very different, self governing entities, and not anything that could be " lumped" together as one people. They come from different religions, backgrounds and histories, and are not even all one " race" of people. Many of tribes came to the Americas at different times and are actually quite different. The only reason the tribes are even lumped together as one people was their common persecution by the Europeans. It is like taking people from Africa and people from Norway and trying to lump them together as one group, it really doesn't make an y sense to do so.
Necessitated, yes ... but regardless of the pomp you place it's best not to split hairs. That wasn't the argument I made, and indeed for a woman as you say she did things of which were still WHOLLY outside the experience of European societies. Warts and all, I think we're circling not merely the extraordinary situation that lead to her ascension (or usurpation) of the throne. A literal figurehead of a state religion, childless, spouseless, and deemed illegitimate by probably the only power that could legitimately stand up to her after 1588.evilthecat said:
For starters, comparing a marriage to the Habsburgs and domestic courtiers is two entirely different ballgames. It would matter not whether E1 had a child seen as 'Tudor' or not, James VI was not considered a Tudor, and yet he was still a descendant of Margaret Tudor. Despite that he still took on the symbology of the Tudor household. Even in 16th century England, you didn't merely remove one half of yourself and your heritage on a whim ... particularly when you're trying to prove just how much of a blueblood you really are.
Given the type of woman E1 was, she could have simply chosen a particularly weakwilled Consort. She traded on her virginity because, yes, it was a potent form of propaganda and solidified support that possibly wasn't there, but to pretend that it would have been anarchy otherwise, is ignoring the fact that far harsher calls to denounce her were largely ignored and she died relatively without issues. She left the world clearly being seen as the most powerful monarch in Europe.
She made her virginity a public issue because she wanted to. Equally if she felt the need for a Consort so that she could bear a line, in all likelihood she could probably get away with it. She had faced far harsher calls to remove her from the throne, and she did far more brazen things as a public figure. Namely install herself as the prime figure at the centre of a state religion, traded with the Ottomans, and survived without significant hostility from denunciation by the Papecy.
The only real contender to her power was the Spanish crown, and after 1588 she didn't even pretend like she had to be modest in the way she wielded power. As made patently obvious by how she chose to be depicted in portraitures. Whereas someone like Victoria even much later had to put on some airs of regal austerity, Elizabeth was pictured hold golden globes of the world as if it were a trinket and the weight of it as if nothing. While it might have been scandalous, I very much doubt having a Consort would have been the; "Straw that broke the camel's back." There's nothing to suggest that. We can hypothesise, but when looking at what she had faced it's more than a little rich.
While it's all well and good to hypothesise about the potential weight of public opinion, but it's also not hard to see that E1 had already broken a whole lot of unspoken caveats for which had broken her male peers when crossing them not merely in England, but the rest of the world.
You're conflating two very different things. For starters, I very much doubt E1 was a weak monarch. The tribulations she managed to endure do not suggest any weakening grip on the public, nor does public propaganda pieces. After the fall of the Spanish Armada ... everybody already knew she had built England into something to be feared. Nothing was going to change that. Nobody pretended, either. Secondly, there are *reasons* why Elizabeth's death was kept secret. Monarchs preferred smooth transferrals of power. Elizabeth was not interested in perpetuating the Tudor line, James (V)I that became King of England after her departure ... he had already taken it on himself to remind the public that he had Tudor blood before anything else as per his coat of arms.
It was his Tudor blood through Margaret that allowed him to ascend the throne. So pretending that E1's child would have simply ditched that royal bloodline is wholly divorced from the reality of James' parentage and the reason why he traded on his Tudor bloodline.
The reason why didn't have kids, was because it granted her extra power not to be married. But there is nothing to suggest that her position was weakened before the fact.
I never made the argument that England wasa matriarchy. I clearly stated as such in my response to Zontar. My argument is the closest thing we have to women who dominated European society would not have changed the ideals of that society. That the female heads of government were often the most militant, trade focussed, and often lead their empires into flourishing times of gross imnperialism, conquest, artistic and cultural progress in the Early to Late Modern Era. That European women of power acted no different than European men of their era in the manner they maintained their duties, and often were a hell of a lot more brutal, cunning, and duplicitous.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
All the stuff Zontar said made a civilization great.
Moreover, of all the relevant Western empires that were still relevant and still have a meaningful relationship to us now, they got that way often by the gains these dictionary definitions of matriarchs made. But they got there similarly by the very same things Zontar had said that a female dominated government wouldn't do so. So I made the argument that if 'matriarchs' were the norm, I don't see how they'd be different. Assuming they acted exactly as Catherine the Great or Victoria, for instance ... what exact difference would the gender of the monarchs matter?
In the case of E1 ... she could have had a child ... whoop de do. She still would have done all the stuff she would have regardless, and if she didn't have a child ... her successor would have ended up being picked for the same reason. Because he had Tudor blood. Even as E1, living in a patriarchal society, she could have still had a child, likely retained power, and likely that child would have taken the throne.
Though given I would imagine E1 would have, on some personal level, reviled the idea of being a baby-maker first and foremost, like most women can openly say so now in the Western world. That they're rightfully more than simply a procreational engine.
You do not understand the comparison because you do not understand "Native Americans" are not even one race of people that did not come to the Americas at one time, they came from different regions of the earth at different times to settle in the Americas, so yes, it is more like comparing Africans to Norwegians. They didn't just start out in the Americas, they migrated here, just as the Norwegians migrated to Norway. The Hopi were long established in the Americas before many of other the tribes came as well. When the Navajo came to North America, for example, The Hopi were already here and the Hopi named them "New comers" which remains their known name to this day. The Navajo called the Hopi "ancient ones".Gaymaster Nacelle said:
We have long known what they taught int he west about the tribes as terribly false. Hopi ancestors came to the Americas from the south, by boats, not across the Bering Strait as long thought by western society. They are just now realizing and recognizing that there were many migrations from many different people and not one race or group in recent years. We have long known this as in our kept history in the tribe is that we came from reed boats from the south and built the great place of learning to hold the knowledge of the 3rd world and then abandoned it to start our new lives here on Turtle Island (North America) as it as was planned and promised. Our history teaches us of what happened prior to coming to the Americas, how we got here, the building of the Mayan cities to the south, and of when the very different tribes came across the Bering Strait and joined us here. The Tribes of the Americas here have kept a detailed oral history of all of these things and of the many other tribes that have perished and survived. They are all different people from different religions, regions and histories that did not even come to the Americas the same way from the same place or the same time.
Now I do not see that Maternal is superior, and I am in no way suggesting that people should up and try to do so, as I see a society that is both maternal and paternal taking the best of both and combine it instead would be an improvement. You may not understand the differences between how actual traditional maternal and paternal cultures viewed these things, or you may not like those differences, but yes, that is how it is understood in maternal culture. You may want violence to be considered both maternal and paternal, but in reality it was not. It was not in my culture, nor many other maternal cultures. I am not just saying that to make "paternal" look bad, but that was how we were actually taught the differences between "of the mother" and "of the father" in an actual maternal culture. It was not just the Hopi culture either, however, this is also shared among the many maternal Island tribes as well as other Maternal Native American tribes that did not interact with one another. Why would I attempt to adapt something that is not true to " make sense"?
No one is saying that Women had a monopoly on "reason", it was just that more emphasis in society was placed on that than it was on the warrior status. When comparing maternal and paternal cultures, you have to look at what is emphasized and admired in that culture to understand the social status, political structure and economic structure. Comparing paternal and maternal side by side you see Teachers and doctors as the highest social status in Maternal culture and the soldier and sports figures as the highest social status in paternal culture. This is due to that very foundation differences of importance placed on nurture and reason vs strength and power. Seeking of "power over others" is strongly condemned and repulsive in maternal culture. The importance placed on these things affect every aspect of society and how the the roles themselves in society are defined and structured.
That does not mean in any way that women cannot be violent or that men cannot reason. That is just stating that the different societies elevated different things due to the emphasis placed on those things in that society as being more important.
It is not about " deescalation" moreso than it is about the need to "take care of all things", and deescalation is just one of the results of that. The emphasis placed on nurturing is what enables the deescalation to be emphasized. Emphasis and importance placed on caring for all things, even those things that are mean or hostile to you that allows for deescalation to be emphasized in maternal culture as it is taught to treat all as family, not just your group or tribe. The emphasis placed on power and physical strength in Paternal culture is what results in the escalation of conflict and increased tensions as they try to prove themselves more powerful than the next. They are not actually two separate unrelated things, they are actually related due to the nature of what is Maternal and what is Paternal and these things are just results of that.Gaymaster Nacelle said:
Gaymaster Nacelle said:
Of course there is more than one way to get a result, however, nurturing and treating everyone as family would do so much more frequently than challenging one another with strength and power. I never stated there is only one way to get a result, I was stating that certain views and actions make those results far more probable. You do not increase the likelihood of violence by treating people as family, however, you DO increase the likelihood of violence by proving strength. You mentioning the exception, not the rule, does not change the probability of one leading to a result much more frequently than another. And yes, cause and effect are definitely related.
What makes the society more violent is how those actions are viewed and promoted within that society itself. Where proving strength and hotheadedness as being promoted or even excused or seen as normal and acceptable, you will have a much higher frequency of it happening than in a society where that is viewed as horrific and abhorrent and not at all normal or acceptable. Paternal culture cultivates the promotion of violence through the admiration and emphasis placed on strength and power. In maternal society, violence is considered disgusting and not exciting or admired in any way. Instead of " preparing to strike first" against their neighbors, you would be preparing to help their neighbors survive and help them by caring for their sick and feeding their hungry instead. The reason why even the most hostile tribes near the Hopi chose to defend and help the Hopi, not attack was due to their respect for the Hopi instead. People do not often feel " powerful" for killing people who are like family to them and that have treated them with love and kindness instead.
Hopi people instead have been preparing for a time for the earth to be overpopulated rather than attempt to take resources from one another. Instead, the " Hopi way" is to put back into the earth far more than you take from it keeping enough food stored to last for months at all times and live in apartment buildings to make as small of an impact on the earth as possible. This lifestyle has allowed there to be an abundance of food to help even support the surrounding tribes and those who came in need of help as well. It being core to Hopi beliefs to "take care of the earth and all that dwell upon it" means to actually prepare to do so by creating enough to provide for everyone, carefully making sure if one crop does not succeed you have prepared for numerous others to do so including providing enough for those that come to you in need. Tribes were grateful to the Hopi for that, not want to kill over it. Even when there were shortages, you do not fight over resources, everyone does with less equally. Since there were no " bosses" hoarding everything and all things were shared equally, no one fought over it instead everyone had reduced rations instead. Hopi prevented fighting over resources by being well prepared instead. It was taught that we had already learned from past mistakes what happens when you are not prepared.
Fighting for resources is also viewed as paternal because fighting for resources is not even something considered to be an option for survival at all in maternal culture. People would rather die than fight is how horrific that is viewed in Hopi culture. Instead of fighting, people do with less and self sacrifice for the sake of others, and that is viewed as brave and strong instead. We were taught that just as the mother gives her own life to give birth to her child, the old do so to save the lives of the young to ensure the lives of future generations. People voluntarily do without and give their own lives to save the children instead of attack neighbors. To break their promise of taking care of the earth and all that dwell upon it and to harm others instead is seen as a fate worse than death.
You are comparing two different things by talking about putting a woman raised in male designed society in a male designed role and that does not suddenly turn a society maternal. They are not even remotely related. Women would have to design the society and the roles for it to be maternal. Feminism actually has nothing to do with Matriarchy or maternal society. Feminism is about equality not matriarchy. LOL
EDIT: In addition, putting a woman in a role does not in any way mean that a woman will not be violent, greedy or powerful. Men can be nurturing and women can be warriors. The society emphasizing what is considered to be maternal or Paternal does not in any way mean that only men or women can do these things OR that these are in any way traits that are limited to one sex or gender. " Being of the mother" or " of the father" does not mean that ONLY males or females can do those things. It just means those traits are emphasized more.
From what I've read there are no existing matriarchal societies, though there are some that are Matrilineal, but that's not the same thing.Lil devils x said: