If our society had been historically dominated by women...

[Saetha]

So, the forum title's not very descriptive, but it was the shortest way I could think of summing things up. To expand a bit upon - I recently saw a post on Tumblr (Please keep your collective groaning to a dull roar.) insisting that the phrase "Life is unfair, get used to it" and the philosophy behind it is a product of patriarchal society - that it's a philosophy men espouse, which is why it's used and believed. A matriarchal society would say "Life is unfair, so we should make it fair." The implication there is pretty clear - men are concerned with power and lack sympathy, so they don't care if life is unfair, while woman are somehow inherently more empathizing and compassionate, and would make a better and more providing society overall.

Now, to be clear, I don't AGREE with that. In addition to being pretty sexist towards both genders, it's more of that awful "Women are great and perfect and men are pigs" crap. But if that post and it's 20,000-something notes are anything to go by, some people obviously do agree with it.

So that got me thinking - do you think society would be much different if it were, historically speaking, dominated by women instead of men? If the gender roles were reversed? If so, how? I'm curious to see some discussion on this.

TLDR: How do you think society would be different if were dominated by women? Would it be different at all?

 

[Glongpre]

Well, just think of how girls bully each other.

I think that answers the question.

 

[Paragon Fury]

As much as modern day feminists and other SJW-types might hate it, the societies and cultures that were successful and became what we know today because...the system works. Female-dominated and "matriarchal societies" were all inevitably crushed or dominated by their male counterparts, because the history of the world is not kind to the weak or empathetic.

Most likely scenario - history repeats and we wind up in the same situation, bit with different names in the history books. Worst case scenario, if you somehow magically swapped out every society on Earth with women-dominated ones? Humanity probably doesn't survive, or we don't get much beyond the basic building blocks of civilization and wind up getting stuck in something resembling a few isolated nation states or the current Middle East, writ large.

 

[Tiger King]

probably not.
Is it really so defining what's between a persons legs? I mean, I've met some terrible people in my time and for me that's the key word. 'people'.

you will get awful selfish people amongst both sexes, just like you will get good natured people amongst both sexes. who you are isn't dictated by what's between your legs.

anyway back to the question.
I honestly can't see how a female led society would be any different, or perhaps I lack vision.
things wouldn't be any more fair unless capitalism was done away with.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I don't like the; "Life is unfair, get used to it..." mentality depending on the source. I mean, it is self-evidently true ... life is struggle, you can lose your life, the wearies of the world do eventually end you in some way, but getting used to it shouldn't be the only option.

As for matriarchal society, I think it would be different. Would it be fair? No. Life isn't fair. That's why you have to be willing to lose it to do something great in the world. The problem is the returns for possibly losing it (if we include livelihood/etc) tend to scale way, way, way too much against those with little bargaining power to begin with.

As for a matriarchal society, matriarchal in what way?

If you're talking a modern, liberal state with limted trade protectionism, and with a services-based economy ... I don't see what difference there would be. Maybe childcare would be cheaper, I don't know. Surely the goal isn't to have a matriarchal state ... surely the goal is to end the state and thus end the excess of the ruling class, regardless of who they may be.

I've seen plenty of retarded women who will scream 'Jesus' and threaten to kill trans women, so I'm not going to go out on a limb and say it will be necessarily better. I would be willing to go out on a limb and say ending the political class would be better, regardless of what form that might take.

 

[Saetha]

Well, just think of how girls bully each other.

I think that answers the question.

Given how many people insist that men are jerks to everyone while girls were always nice and kind and pure to them, I imagine a lot of people will disagree with that.

For the record, I hate the "Men are pigs and women are perfect angels" thinking that infects places like Tumblr.

Although, interestingly, I remember reading an anthropology article on the different ways men and women communicate. Studies of groups of school-aged children found that men tended to be fight for influence and popularity and maintained a strict hierarchy - but were also very direct and honest in their communications. So a group of guys might put you on the out, but you'd KNOW you were on the out. Girls tended to maintain a more "equal" communication style and weren't very concerned with maintain a hierarchy of influence/respect, but were quite two-faced and dishonest. They'd be kind to someone to their face and then shit talk them behind their back. Being openly blunt with negative opinions or rude to someone's face was discouraged.

Not sure how true that WAS, it was a single article, and I've read enough studies with contradictory numbers to know you can't rely on a single one, but it was interesting nonetheless.

 

[Saetha]

I don't like the; "Life is unfair, get used to it..." mentality depending on the source. I mean, it is self-evidently true ... life is struggle, you can lose your life, the wearies of the world do eventually end you in some way, but getting used to it shouldn't be the only option.

As for matriarchal society, I think it would be different. Would it be fair? No. Life isn't fair. That's why you have to be willing to lose it to do something great in the world. The problem is the returns for possibly losing it (if we include livelihood/etc) tend to scale way, way, way too much against those with little bargaining power to begin with.

As for a matriarchal society, matriarchal in what way?

If you're talking a modern liberal state with limted trade protectionism, and with aservices-based economy ... I don't see what difference there wouldbe. Maybe childcare would be cheaper, I don't know. Surely the goal isn't to have a matriarchal state ... surely the goal is to end the state and thus end the excess of the ruling class, regardless of who they may be.

Well it's not like the post went into the specifics of this theoretical matriarchal society or how exactly it would be better, so I can't exactly what way it's matriarchal in.

That being said, I disagree with the "Life is unfair, get used to it" thing as well, but I hardly think it comes solely from men.

 

[axlryder]

I dunno, but it likely wouldn't be much worse than the current path we're headed down.

 

[Tiger King]

Well, just think of how girls bully each other.

I think that answers the question.

Given how many people insist that men are jerks to everyone while girls were always nice and kind and pure to them, I imagine a lot of people will disagree with that.

For the record, I hate the "Men are pigs and women are perfect angels" thinking that infects places like Tumblr.

Although, interestingly, I remember reading an anthropology article on the different ways men and women communicate. Studies of groups of school-aged children found that men tended to be fight for influence and popularity and maintained a strict hierarchy - but were also very direct and honest in their communications. So a group of guys might put you on the out, but you'd KNOW you were on the out. Girls tended to maintain a more "equal" communication style and weren't very concerned with maintain a hierarchy of influence/respect, but were quite two-faced and dishonest. They'd be kind to someone to their face and then shit talk them behind their back. Being openly blunt with negative opinions or rude to someone's face was discouraged.

Not sure how true that WAS, it was a single article, and I've read enough studies with contradictory numbers to know you can't rely on a single one, but it was interesting nonetheless.

I've seen it happen and not with girls, grown women in the workplace.

I was doing some computer stuff in the office for a job I held many years back. These three ladies would all be smiles and compliments to each other face to face but when one of the women left the room they would start whispering like crazy and call the girl who left every name under the sun for reasons that were very unclear.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well it's not like the post went into the specifics of this theoretical matriarchal society or how exactly it would be better, so I can't exactly what way it's matriarchal in.

That being said, I disagree with the "Life is unfair, get used to it" thing as well, but I hardly think it comes solely from men.

Well, assuming we're saying 'Life is unfair. Get used to it...." in the same way that Sartre says; "Humanity is doomed to be free..." then I agree totally. Life is a struggle against its antithesis and people should realize that taking control of one's existence comes with reminding oneself that living to simply draw breath for as long as possible is a pretty pathetic reason to live.

Surely it's better to go out on your own terms than wasting away on a hospital bed? Punch a grizzly bear at 75, ride a motorcycle out into a hurricane and scream; "Bring it!" ... do something other than just die. Die magnificently.

But if we're saying; "Life is unfair. Get used to it..." as if to cover up why certain people have privilege and status for no point other than being born right. Surely the answer to that is 100% death taxation ... that way you can clean the slate every 50-60 years or so, and people more or less live off their own fortunes made because intergenerational wealth beyond 2 or 3 generations isn't there to prop them up to be useless fuckers being useless.

Of course then it becomes a question of whether life would be better. For most, probably not ... but at least the saying would be no longer; "Life isn't fair..." and more; "Life is equally hard ... get used to it."

I can see the argument that; "Life isn't fair, get used to it..." as a conservative angle, said by those that wish to protect a privilege they received simply to being born to the right family or defending why they have gratuitous amounts of money. So in a patriarchal system, I can see the patriarchy saying it. But I can also see in a matriarchal society, the matriarchy also saying it.

In the same way I can totally see women saying it now, even as they live in a patriarchal society.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Hmm, well, even if women were to make up the majority of political leadership, I don't think that, culturally, society would have shifted away from the patriarchal family structure. The way human reproduction and gestation occurs, being fairly debilitating for women compared to a lot of other animals, and the fact that reproduction was extremely important back during the days when medicine was mostly junk and child death rates were high, I just can't really picture women in general emerging as the dominant gender in society in ye olden times.

Of course that has no bearing on a select few women eschewing the role of mother and rising to political power. You could argue that societies evolved from families so they naturally became patriarchal as well, but that doesn't have any bearing on the ABILITY of women to have dominated politics throughout history. But in that case, would it have been very different? The idea that women are above the cruelty and savagery of men is obviously a big fat load of bullshit. They might have had less of a focus on glorious combat and more of a penchant for subterfuge, I guess, but lust for power and control doesn't select by gender in the slightest.

It probably would have been different, but I doubt it would have been better. Humans governing humans is always a messy business.

 

[Zontar]

It depends on when the domination began. If it was always the case, we'd be tribal societies that are at best straw hut dwelling farmers, as is the case in the actual matriarchal societies in Africa and Latin America that haven't assimilated into the current wider culture within their respective nations.

If it's after we great civilization as we know it, then likely an increase in war and conflict coupled with a general slowdown in technological progression. Sad as it is to say, in the middle ages female leaders where more likely to start wars then men (so much for "if women ruled the world there would be peace"), and matriarchal values simply aren't conductive to economic or technological development.

As others have pointed out, the reason patriarchal values are the near universal rule for civilizations throughout history is the simple fact that it worked, and the very young notion of egalitarianism (that most of the world does not have, and that which does many are still alive to predate it) has not yet been tested to see if it actually works (and many could make a strong case given what is happening in the US and Europe right now that we are seeing that it is flawed or outright does not work).

Personally I have no idea where my own views land on the board when it comes to what system we should have, as I do believe everyone should have the equal opportunity to follow whichever field they believe they can enter (provided they have the skills to do so), but I also recognise the Norwegian Paradox exists for the simple reason that men and women are different both physically and mentally and our life choices on the societal level reflects that.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

If it's after we great civilization as we know it, then likely an increase in war and conflict coupled with a general slowdown in technological progression. Sad as it is to say, in the middle ages female leaders where more likely to start wars then men (so much for "if women ruled the world there would be peace"), and matriarchal values simply aren't conductive to economic or technological development.

Which is retarded, given that the two most powerful people in history were women, and operated massive trade networks, and their empires easily surpassed the rest of the world in terms of technology and the capacity to inflict war. You wouldn't have had the British Empire if it wasn't for Queen Elizabeth (for better or worse). She singlehandedly established the church of England, which would reshape the religious tone of the British Isles forever, beat the Spanish Armada, funded what would be in her wake an unparalleled age of exploration and conquest...

As all other monarchs were struggling with internal conflicts, Elizabeth's portrait in 1588 was painted as if her hands upon a globe of the world. Signifying what other monarchs would soon come to fear. The rise of the most powerful political entity that the world had ever seen. Did I mention under her rule a flourishing of art, culture, exploration, trade and scientific advancements as such to make England the envy of the world?

And she did that despite being childless, unmarried, in a system that sought to overthrow her on that basis alone on numerous occasions. Even the Roman Catholic Church declared her illegitimate, and tried to proclaim her subjects owed her no fealty. But then again, she was also ruthless, short-tempered, and incredibly cunning. Not a very pleasant person. Then again what 16th century monarch was? Despite how 'bloodthirsty' she was considered by foreigners, that's more spin than anything else. She was considered far more 'benign' compared to other Tudors before her.

I would also like someone to explain to me what these 'matriarchal' values are. If Elizabeth I is considered a 'matriarch' her values seemed to be art, technology, warfare and trade. Which seems indistinguishable from the 'values' of other monarchs. More over, if she had a child, they would have been monarch.

Ditto Victoria's relationship with Prince Albert, who got shafted with the title; "Prince Consort" ... even though he was probably more deserving than any of her heirs, and at least early into their relationship likely more deserving than Victoria herself.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you mean matriarchal as in ruled by women, then no.

If you mean matriarchal as in ruled by the sort of virtues that our current society has decided are fitting for women, then perhaps.

These are two very different things.

Mind you, there is an interesting debate over what society run by women would be like...for one, abortions wouldn't likely be stigmatised.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

So, the forum title's not very descriptive, but it was the shortest way I could think of summing things up. To expand a bit upon - I recently saw a post on Tumblr (Please keep your collective groaning to a dull roar.) insisting that the phrase "Life is unfair, get used to it" and the philosophy behind it is a product of patriarchal society - that it's a philosophy men espouse, which is why it's used and believed. A matriarchal society would say "Life is unfair, so we should make it fair." The implication there is pretty clear - men are concerned with power and lack sympathy, so they don't care if life is unfair, while woman are somehow inherently more empathizing and compassionate, and would make a better and more providing society overall.

Now, to be clear, I don't AGREE with that. In addition to being pretty sexist towards both genders, it's more of that awful "Women are great and perfect and men are pigs" crap. But if that post and it's 20,000-something notes are anything to go by, some people obviously do agree with it.

So that got me thinking - do you think society would be much different if it were, historically speaking, dominated by women instead of men? If the gender roles were reversed? If so, how? I'm curious to see some discussion on this.

TLDR: How do you think society would be different if were dominated by women? Would it be different at all?

I actually come from a maternal society where women traditionally are the ones who conduct business, run the economy and own property. Men take the woman's clan name upon marriage and become a part of the woman's family. Women are the primary ones to make the decisions.

The entire structure of society changes in maternal culture, so what is valued and what is not drastically changed. It shifts to " of the mother" in every aspect. The warrior is not elevated and is thought of to be less than a sewage worker, a gross job no one wants to do and not admired. The highest social classes are teachers, doctors and caregivers. Two spirits (LGBT) are highly respected in the community. Differences are celebrated and exalted instead of shunned and ridiculed. Sex is considered something beautiful, spiritual and open and not something people hide in shame. Violence is not considered fun in any way and is seen as repulsive. There is a great emphasis placed on the importance of choice and not trying to influence or pressure people into doing things. "Force" is not seen as acceptable at all and there is much importance placed on respecting all things. We were taught it is our role as human beings in nature to be the caretakers of the earth and all that dwell up on it. That we are meant to take care of all things and we have to put great care and thought into all our actions as to not cause harm to the earth, the air, the waters or any thing within. In Maternal culture, we are taught everyone has a gift and that we should not waste those gifts. We do not " waste" people.

Everything is voluntarily shared, since we were raised to take care of each other. Every night groups of women would go door to door to make sure everyone in every village had food for the night and was well and safe. We are taught that everyone is family, that all races all people are related and one family. When other tribes and people came in need of help, they were asked to stay and come live alongside and share all we have as a family. We were taught that we should always put more into the earth than we take out of it so that we will have plenty for generations to come. That we can create a paradise or a hell here on this earth with our actions and choices and it is up to us to decide whether or not we want to enjoy the paradise or suffer through the hell we create. We were taught that each person has their own path in life, and although elders can offer advise, everyone must make their own choices, their own decisions since they will be forced to live with the consequences of doing so.

This pretty much describes how things work politically, though there is more to it than that, and yes some things can be certain in our meetings:

http://voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/unconquered.html#.V9d2IvkrLcs

More on Hopi:
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-hopi.html

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If you mean matriarchal as in ruled by women, then no.

If you mean matriarchal as in ruled by the sort of virtues that our current society has decided are fitting for women, then perhaps.

These are two very different things.

Mind you, there is an interesting debate over what society run by women would be like...for one, abortions wouldn't likely be stigmatised.

In maternal culture, abortions are not stigmatized, but not many would ever consider even having one since pregnancy and child rearing are not stigmatized as well. Everything surrounding childbirth, women, child rearing, and families is changed, not just one aspect. It is fine for women to not raise their own children, and not uncommon. No one thinks less of a woman for doing so. No one stigmatizes not being in a relationship and giving birth and with nurturing and caretaking of children being of the highest social status and importance in society, there is ample support for the pregnant mother, and the children in the community and it has no negative impact in the women for having children. Women with children are more desirable, not less in Hopi culture by single men. Children are expected to accompany mothers to work and it does not negatively impact their work environment in any way. All of these things impact how this is viewed all together. Abortions would be very rare, and only considered for health issues since women have the support they need to not feel negatively about pregnancy or being an unwed or young mother. It does not " ruin their life" or " hold them back" in any way from what they wish to do makes a difference.

 

[Calyx_v1legacy]

I don't think there any strictly matriarchal societies so it's impossible to compare.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

As much as modern day feminists and other SJW-types might hate it, the societies and cultures that were successful and became what we know today because...the system works. Female-dominated and "matriarchal societies" were all inevitably crushed or dominated by their male counterparts, because the history of the world is not kind to the weak or empathetic.

Most likely scenario - history repeats and we wind up in the same situation, bit with different names in the history books. Worst case scenario, if you somehow magically swapped out every society on Earth with women-dominated ones? Humanity probably doesn't survive, or we don't get much beyond the basic building blocks of civilization and wind up getting stuck in something resembling a few isolated nation states or the current Middle East, writ large.

Maternal societies still exist, and have existed for thousands of years some still living in apartment buildings before apartment buildings were cool. The society I come from in the US is pretty much still focused on putting back more into the earth than we take from it, taking care the earth and all that dwell upon it and celebrating our differences instead of condemning them.